[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70241-70246]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28968]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651; FRL-9227-8]

Compatibility of Underground Storage Tank Systems With Biofuel
Blends

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed guidance and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks intends to issue
guidance that would clarify EPA's underground storage tank (UST)
compatibility requirement as it applies to UST systems storing gasoline
containing greater than 10 percent ethanol and diesel containing an
amount of biodiesel yet to be determined. Today's Federal Register
notice solicits comment on the proposed guidance, which provides owners
and operators of underground storage tank systems greater clarity in
demonstrating compatibility of their tank systems with these fuels.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 17, 2010, 30
days after publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
UST-2010-0651, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency,

Underground Storage Tank (UST) Docket, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-
2010-0651. EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 http://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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    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 UST Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
UST Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Barbery, Office of Underground
Storage Tanks, Mail Code 5402P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703)
603-7137; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to owners and operators of underground storage
tank systems regulated by 40 CFR Part 280, who intend to store gasoline
blended with greater than 10 percent ethanol. It may also apply to
owners and operators storing a to-be-determined percentage of biodiesel
blended with diesel fuel.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. Statutory Authority

    This proposed guidance discusses EPA's underground storage tank
(UST) compatibility requirement that was promulgated under the
authority of Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), as
amended. 42 U.S.C. 6991b et seq. This requirement, which is referenced
and discussed in the guidance, is found in 40 CFR 280.32.

B. Underground Storage Tank Compatibility Requirement

    To protect groundwater, a source of drinking water for nearly half
of all Americans, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regulates UST systems storing petroleum or hazardous substances under
authority of Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended.
Ethanol and biodiesel are not regulated substances under EPA's UST
program; however, tanks storing gasoline or diesel mixed with ethanol
or biodiesel are regulated by EPA. For the purposes of this guidance,
EPA considers an ``ethanol blend'' to be any amount of ethanol mixed
with petroleum gasoline, and a ``biodiesel blend'' to be any amount of
biodiesel mixed with petroleum diesel.
    EPA regulations address the prevention and detection of releases
from UST systems; one particular provision in the federal UST
regulations that aims to prevent releases specifically requires
compatibility of stored substances with UST system components. As the
U.S. moves toward an increased use of biofuels, such as ethanol and
biodiesel, compliance with the UST compatibility requirement becomes
even more important, since ethanol and biodiesel blends can compromise
the integrity of some UST system materials. Today's Federal Register
notice solicits comment on proposed guidance and associated issues that
will clarify how owners/operators of UST systems storing fuels
containing greater than 10 percent ethanol or a to be determined
percent of biodiesel can demonstrate compliance with the UST
compatibility requirement.
    As of March 2010, there are approximately 607,000 regulated USTs

at 221,000 facilities nationwide. States and territories (hereafter
referred to as states) are the primary implementers of the UST program
because they are in the best position to implement UST program
requirements, based on the size and diversity of the regulated
community. In order for EPA to approve a State's program, that state's
regulations must be at least as stringent as the Federal UST
regulations.
    An UST system includes the underground storage tank, connected
underground piping, underground ancillary equipment, and any
containment systems. Fuel dispensers are not part of the UST system,
and therefore this guidance does not apply to dispensers.

C. Discussion

    The federal UST regulations require that ``[o]wners and operators
must use an UST system made of or lined with materials that are
compatible with the substance stored in the UST system'' (40 CFR Sec.
280.32). Because the chemical and physical properties of ethanol and
biodiesel can make these fuel blends containing them more degrading to
certain UST system materials than petroleum, it is important to ensure
that all UST system components in contact with the biofuel blend are
materially compatible with that fuel. Industry practice has been for
owners and operators to demonstrate compatibility by using equipment
certified by an independent testing laboratory, such as Underwriters
Laboratories (UL). However, many UST system components in use today,
with the exception of most tanks and piping, have not been tested by UL
for compatibility. Without certification from a third party that these
equipment are compatible with anything beyond conventional fuels, the
suitability of these particular components for use with ethanol and
biodiesel blends comes into question.
Compatibility of Ethanol-Blended Fuel
    Gasoline containing low percentages (10 percent or less) of ethanol
has been used in parts of the country for many years. Many tanks and
piping have been tested and are listed by UL for compatibility with
higher-level ethanol blends. Many other components of the UST system,
including leak detection devices, seals, and containment sumps (for
example) may not be listed by UL for compatibility with ethanol blends.
EPA expects recent federal and state laws encouraging increased use of
biofuels to translate into a greater number of UST systems storing
biofuels, as well as a greater number of UST systems storing higher
percentages of biofuel blends. EPA is aware of material compatibility
concerns associated with some UST system equipment storing higher
ethanol blends, such as E85 (gasoline containing up to 85 percent
ethanol), which is an alternative fuel used in flexible fuel vehicles.
EPA understands that in order to avoid compatibility issues with E85,
many tank owners who currently store E85 either installed all new
equipment designed to store high level ethanol blends or upgraded
certain components to handle the higher ethanol content. Because the
typical lifespan of an underground storage tank is about 30 years, most
UST systems currently in use are likely to contain components that were
not designed to store ethanol blends beyond 10 percent. These older
systems may not be certified by UL or another independent testing
laboratory for use with these blends.
    Although very little data exists pertaining to the compatibility of
UST equipment with ethanol blends, literature suggests that mid-level
ethanol blends may have the most degrading effect on some UST system
materials. For example, ``Underwriters Laboratories Research Program on
Material Compatibility and Test Protocols for E85 Dispensing
Equipment,'' which evaluated the effect of 85 percent ethanol and 25
percent ethanol blends, indicates that some materials used in the
manufacture of seals were degraded more when exposed to the 25 percent
ethanol test fluid than when exposed to the 85 percent ethanol test
fluid (Underwriters Laboratories, 2007). Further, ``Compatibility and
Permeability of Oxygenated Fuels to Materials in Underground Storage
and Dispensing Equipment'' (State Water Resources Control Board's
Advisory Panel, 1999) confirms that alcohol fuel blends are ``more
aggressive toward polymers than any of the neat constituents in the
fuel,'' and points specifically to 15 percent ethanol in gasoline as
being the blend at which the maximum swelling occurs in polymeric
materials. Both of these documents are available in the UST Docket
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.
    In March 2009, EPA received a Clean Air Act (CAA) waiver
application to increase the allowable ethanol content of a gasoline-
ethanol blended fuel from 10 volume percent ethanol to 15 volume
percent ethanol.\1\ Please note that this action under the CAA has no
bearing on an UST owner or operator's requirement to comply with all
applicable EPA UST regulations, including the UST compatibility
requirement in 40 CFR 280.32. Specifically, in order to ensure the safe
storage of higher ethanol and biodiesel blends under EPA's UST program,
owners and operators must meet the compatibility requirement for UST
systems. Recently, EPA conditionally granted a partial waiver that
allows gasoline-ethanol blends that contain greater than 10 volume
percent ethanol up to 15 volume percent ethanol (E15) to be introduced
into commerce for use in 2007 and newer model year light-duty motor
vehicles, which includes passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-
duty passenger vehicles such as some sport utility vehicles (SUVs).\2\
If other State, Federal, and industry practices also support such
introduction, E15 may become available in the marketplace. Thus, EPA
anticipates that some UST system owners and operators may choose to
store higher percentages of ethanol in their UST systems. For those who
intend to store E15 or other amounts of ethanol greater than 10 volume
percent, EPA is proposing this guidance to clarify the compatibility
requirement with regard to these blends and provide greater flexibility
for owners and operators who intend to store E15, including those whose
equipment may not be certified as compatible by an independent testing
laboratory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 74 FR 18228 (April 21, 2009).
    \2\ See 75 FR 68043 (November 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compatibility of Biodiesel-Blended Fuel
    In addition to ethanol, biodiesel is becoming increasingly
available across the U.S., though its total use is significantly less
compared to that of ethanol-blended gasoline. EPA understands that
owners and operators are storing biodiesel/petroleum diesel blends in
UST systems, ranging from two percent biodiesel (B2) to 99 percent
biodiesel (B99). In this guidance, EPA proposes to include biodiesel
blends, based on the fact that many states that already have
compatibility policies in place address both ethanol blends and
biodiesel blends. At least one state developed a compatibility policy
to apply to biodiesel blends greater than B5, meaning owners and
operators of UST systems containing biodiesel/petroleum diesel blends
greater than 5 percent biodiesel must meet the requirements in the
state's guidance. Other states have selected to use B20 as the
threshold, since B20 is commonly used in government and military
fleets.
    EPA is aware that there may be material compatibility issues with
some UST system equipment in biodiesel service, but the Agency lacks
sufficient

data on the compatibility of various biodiesel blends with UST system
equipment currently in use across the country. EPA also acknowledges
that no UST equipment has a UL-listing for use with biodiesel blends.
UL has issued a statement indicating that biodiesel blends up to B5
will not require special investigation by UL, meaning that these fuels
may be considered the same as conventional petroleum fuels. According
to UL, biodiesel blends greater than 5 percent may have a significant
effect on materials. For these reasons, EPA is seeking comment on what
percentage of biodiesel in biodiesel blends should be used for
including these fuels in the scope of today's proposed guidance.
Testing on Ethanol and Biodiesel Blends
    The U.S. Department of Energy is currently performing testing on
the compatibility of some UST system materials with mid-level ethanol
blends. Depending on results of DOE's research, EPA may change its
guidance. EPA is not aware of a testing program to evaluate the
compatibility of UST system equipment with biodiesel blends.
Applicability of Proposed Guidance
    This guidance clarifies how owners and operators of underground
storage tanks (USTs) can comply with EPA's compatibility requirement
(40 CFR 280.32) when storing certain biofuels (ethanol-blended fuels
greater than 10 percent and biodiesel-blended fuels greater than [TBD]
percent). UST owners and operators, as well as other affected
stakeholders should be aware that, when final, EPA's proposed guidance
will apply in Indian country and in States that do not have State
program approval (SPA). States that have SPA must, in 40 CFR 281.32,
have a compatibility requirement that is similar to the Federal
requirement. Therefore, SPA states could also find this guidance to be
relevant and useful to them as well.
Owner and Operator Demonstration of Compatibility
    EPA considers the following three methods as effective options for
demonstrating compatibility:
     Certification or listing by an independent test
laboratory;
     Equipment manufacturer approval; or
     Another method determined by the implementing agency to
sufficiently protect human health and the environment.
    Implementing agencies may determine there are other acceptable
methods for demonstrating compliance with the compatibility
requirement, as long as they sufficiently protect human health and the
environment. EPA will work with states as they evaluate other
acceptable methods.
    Some states have developed policies similar to EPA's proposal
published today. Some examples of state policies regarding
compatibility of UST equipment with biofuels include:

Iowa: http://www.iowadnr.gov/land/ust/technicalresources/ethanol.html.
Wisconsin: http://test.commerce.wi.gov/ER/pdf/bst/Forms_FM/ER-BST-FM-9-AlternativeFuels.pdf.
South Carolina:http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/lwm/forms/d-3885.pdf.
Colorado: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251616370465&ssbinary=true.

    These documents are also available in the UST Docket under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.
    Currently, a note in the Federal UST regulations allows owners and
operators to use the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended
Practice 1626, an industry code of practice, to meet the compatibility
requirement for ethanol-blended fuels. The original version of API 1626
(1st ed. 1985, reaffirmed in 2000) applies to up to 10 percent ethanol
blended with gasoline and is not applicable to meet the compatibility
requirement for ethanol blends greater than 10 percent. In August,
2010, API published a second edition of API 1626. The second edition
does address ethanol blends greater than 10 percent, and may also be
used as a method for demonstrating compatibility.

D. Request for Comments

    EPA requests public comment on the following issues as well as the
proposed guidance that immediately follows:
    1--UST Components That May Be Affected by Biofuel Blends--A UST
system comprises many components that can be affected by the fuel
stored. Some of these components may or may not come into contact with
fuel or lead directly to a release. However, the failure of these
components could either directly or indirectly lead to a release if
they are not compatible. To help owners ensure compatibility, EPA
proposes listing the following equipment, at a minimum, to be included
in today's proposed guidance to clarify what UST system components may
be affected by biofuel blends:
     Tank or internal tank lining;
     Piping;
     Pipe adhesives and glues;
     Line leak detectors;
     Flexible connectors;
     Fill pipe;
     Spill and overfill prevention equipment;
     Submersible turbine pump and components;
     Fittings, gaskets, bushings, couplings, and boots;
     Containment sumps (including submersible turbine sumps and
under dispenser containment);
     Release detection floats, sensors, and probes.

This list of components is consistent with lists used by states with
compatibility policies, though it is somewhat less inclusive, since the
federal UST program does not have authority to regulate dispensers or
fuel quality.
    Although release detection equipment and overfill prevention
equipment do not contain product and failure of these components will
not directly lead to a release, EPA proposes including these categories
because failure of these equipment may lead indirectly to releases. For
example, a failed leak detection device may not detect a release that
has occurred; similarly, a malfunctioning overfill prevention device
may lead to overfilling of a tank.
    Questions for commenters:
     Are there components that should be added to or removed
from the list?
     Is it possible to demonstrate compatibility for these
components?
    2--Methods To Demonstrate Compatibility--Many tanks and piping have
been tested and are listed by UL for compatibility with ethanol blends.
EPA considers this to be an effective method for demonstrating
compatibility. However, many other components of the UST system may not
have been tested with ethanol and are not listed by UL for
compatibility with ethanol blends. In addition, no UST equipment is UL-
listed for use with biodiesel blends. Some existing UST system
components might be compatible with ethanol or biodiesel blends,
although the equipment may not have a certification or listing from an
independent testing laboratory specific to the fuel blend. As a result,
EPA is proposing manufacturer approval as another acceptable method for
demonstrating compatibility. Also, states may believe that there are
other reasonable ways to demonstrate compatibility. With that in mind,
EPA is considering providing flexibility for states who wish to take a
different approach for demonstrating compatibility, as long as that
approach sufficiently protects human health and

the environment. EPA proposes to recommend the following methods for
demonstrating compatibility:
     Certification or listing by an independent test
laboratory;
     Equipment manufacturer approval; or
     Another method determined by the implementing agency to
sufficiently protect human health and the environment. EPA will work
with states as they evaluate other acceptable methods.
    Although some states allow a professional engineer (P.E.) to make a
compatibility determination, EPA does not believe a blanket acceptance
of P.E. certification is a good approach. There are numerous types of
P.E.s, any one of which is not likely to cover all aspects of materials
science and UST equipment compatibility. Further, states that allow
this option indicated that it is not being used. If additional states
consider allowing a P.E. to make a compatibility determination for UST
equipment, EPA will discuss that option with those states.
    Questions for commenters:
     Are the methods for demonstrating compatibility, as
described above, appropriate?
     Are these options feasible for UST owners?
     Are there other reasonable methods EPA should include?
    3--Criteria for Equipment Manufacturer Approval as a Compatibility
Method--EPA understands that an independent testing laboratory
certification may be the most standardized, consistent, and
recognizable way to demonstrate compatibility. However, EPA wants to
provide flexibility and is also considering relying on a statement of
compatibility by the manufacturer as a secondary method for owners and
operators, and to demonstrate compatibility of their UST equipment. EPA
is considering numerous forms for manufacturer approvals. For example,
EPA is considering items such as product warranties, brochures, or
letters from manufacturers as acceptable equipment manufacturer
approvals. EPA believes manufacturer approvals should include these
three criteria in order to adequately demonstrate compatibility:
     Be in writing;
     Indicate affirmative statements of compatibility; and
     Be from the equipment manufacturer, not another entity
(such as the installer or distributor).
    Questions for commenters:
     Are these three criteria appropriate?
     Are manufacturers willing and able to produce this
approval?
     Are there other tools which might assist UST owners to
obtain this information?
    4--Applicability to Biodiesel Blends--EPA proposes to include
biodiesel blends in its guidance because of the increased use of
biodiesel across the U.S., as well as the fact that many states already
address biodiesel blends in their compatibility policies. EPA
understands compatibility issues with biodiesel-blended fuels may be
different than those experienced with ethanol-blended fuels and
acknowledges that determining a percentage threshold in the absence of
compatibility data may be either unnecessarily stringent or not
sufficiently protective. However, lack of compatibility information for
biodiesel and biodiesel blends makes it difficult to determine whether
UST system materials and equipment are compromised by storing biodiesel
blends and at what approximate blend percentage compatibility problems
occur. EPA seeks input about the percentage of biodiesel where
compatibility becomes a potential concern.
    Questions for commenters:
     Should EPA include biodiesel blends in the guidance?
     What biodiesel blend percentage should EPA use in the
guidance? Please provide data to support the percentage.
    5--Ability To Demonstrate Compatibility Using the Proposed
Guidance--Due to the long expected lifetime of USTs and the high
turnover rate of owners and operators, EPA understands it will be
difficult for many owners and operators to locate documentation for
much of their equipment. Without knowing what equipment is installed at
the site, demonstrating compatibility may be difficult for those who
wish to store and sell biofuel blends. In addition, some equipment may
simply not be compatible with some biofuel blends.
    Based on the list of UST components and methods described above in
issues 1 and 2, respectively, EPA requests comment on the following:
     How difficult will it be for owners and operators to
demonstrate compatibility for each of these components?
     How many UST facilities will not be able to demonstrate
compatibility based on these criteria?
     What would be necessary for these facilities to come into
compliance (for example, replace seals, replace release detection
probes, replace the entire UST system, etc.)?
    6--Other Options That Sufficiently Protect Human Health and the
Environment--In light of the discussion under issue 5 above, EPA
recognizes that some owners and operators of UST system components may
not be able to demonstrate compatibility or may find it difficult to do
so. Because of this, EPA is seeking input on alternatives that would
sufficiently protect human health and the environment, even though they
are outside the scope of the proposed guidance. For example, there
might be additional activities owners and operators could perform in
the absence of being able to demonstrate compatibility that would
result in sufficient protection of human health and the environment.
    Question for commenters:
     Without documentation, are there alternative methods UST
owners and operators could rely on or activities they could perform
that would sufficiently protect human health and the environment?
Please be specific and provide data to support your alternative.

Proposed Guidance

Guidance on the Compatibility of Underground Storage Tank Systems With
Ethanol Blends Greater Than Ten Percent and Biodiesel Blends Greater
Than [To Be Determined (TBD)] Percent [Insert Date]

    This guidance clarifies how owners and operators of underground
storage tanks (USTs) can comply with EPA's compatibility requirement
(40 CFR 280.32) when storing certain biofuels (ethanol-blended fuels
greater than 10 percent and biodiesel-blended fuels greater than [TBD]
percent). EPA promulgated this requirement (and all other UST
requirements) under the authority of Subtitle I of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended.
    In March 2009, EPA received a Clean Air Act (CAA) waiver
application to increase the allowable ethanol content of a gasoline-
ethanol blended fuel from 10 volume percent ethanol to 15 volume
percent ethanol.\3\ EPA recently conditionally granted a partial waiver
that allows gasoline-ethanol blends that contain greater than 10 volume
percent ethanol up to 15 volume percent ethanol (E15) to be introduced
into commerce for use in 2007 and newer model year light-duty motor
vehicles, which includes passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-
duty passenger vehicles such as some sport utility vehicles (SUVs).\4\
If other state, federal, and industry practices also support such

introduction, E15 may become available in the marketplace. Thus, EPA
anticipates that some UST system owners and operators may choose to
store higher percentages of ethanol in their UST systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 74FR18228 (April 21, 2009).
    \4\ See 75FR68043 (November 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that this action under the CAA has no bearing on an UST
owner or operator's requirement to comply with all applicable EPA UST
regulations, including the UST compatibility requirement in 40 CFR
280.32. Specifically, in order to ensure the safe storage of higher
ethanol and biodiesel blends under EPA's UST program, owners and
operators must meet the compatibility requirement for UST systems.
    40 CFR 280.32 states that ``[o]wners and operators must use an UST
system made of or lined with materials that are compatible with the
substance stored in the UST system.'' Because the chemical and physical
properties of ethanol and biodiesel blends may make them more
aggressive to certain UST system materials than petroleum, it is
important to ensure that all UST system components in contact with
biofuels are materially compatible with that fuel.
UST System Components That May Be Affected by Biofuel Blends
    To meet Sec.  280.32, owners and operators of UST systems storing
ethanol-blended fuels greater than 10 percent ethanol or greater than
[TBD] percent biodiesel must use compatible equipment. At a minimum,
the following UST system equipment must be compatible:
     Tank or internal tank lining;
     Piping;
     Pipe adhesives and glues;
     Line leak detectors;
     Flexible connectors;
     Fill pipe;
     Spill and overfill prevention equipment;
     Submersible turbine pump and components;
     Fittings, gaskets, bushings, couplings, and boots;
     Containment sumps (including submersible turbine sumps and
under dispenser containment);
     Release detection floats, sensors, and probes.
Options for Meeting the Compatibility Requirement
    Currently, EPA believes that the most effective options for owners
and operators of UST systems storing ethanol-blended fuels greater than
10 percent ethanol and biodiesel-blended fuels greater than [TBD]
percent biodiesel to ensure compatibility under this requirement are:
     Use components that are certified or listed by an
independent test laboratory for use with the fuel stored (for example,
Underwriters Laboratories);
     Use components approved by the manufacturer to be
compatible with the fuel stored. EPA considers acceptable forms of
manufacturer approvals to be:
    [cir] Be in writing;
    [cir] Indicate an affirmative statement of compatibility; and
    [cir] Be from the equipment manufacturer, not another entity (such
as the installer or distributor); or
     Use another method determined by the implementing agency
to sufficiently protect human health and the environment. EPA will work
with states as they evaluate other acceptable methods.

Note About Using API 1626 To Meet the Compatibility Requirement

    Currently, a note in the federal UST regulations allows owners and
operators to use the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended
Practice 1626, an industry code of practice, to meet the compatibility
requirement for ethanol blended fuels. The original version of API 1626
(1st ed. 1985, reaffirmed in 2000) applies to up to 10 percent ethanol
blended with gasoline and is not applicable to meet the compatibility
requirement for ethanol blends greater than 10 percent. In August 2010,
API published a second edition of API 1626. The second edition does
address ethanol blends greater than 10 percent, and may also be used as
a method for demonstrating compatibility.
    Please note that state underground storage tank program regulations
may be more stringent than the federal UST regulations, so owners and
operators should always check with their states about state program
requirements. Also, this guidance will apply in Indian country and in
states that do not have state program approval (SPA). Because states
with SPA must have a compatibility requirement that is similar to the
federal compatibility requirement, SPA states could find this guidance
relevant and useful to them as well.
    If you have questions about this guidance, please contact Andrea
Barbery at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 8, 2010.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2010-28968 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


From: Fleck, Diane
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 10:08 AM
To: 'John Kenny'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Proposed EPA Withdrawal of Certain Federal Criteria for California

Hello Mr. Kenny,
Thank you for your continuing interest.  Since MCLs and ambient human health water quality criteria are derived using different equations and assumptions, one would need to look at the different factors that go into the derivation of each to determine whether they may have a different risk to human health under similar conditions.  Here is the link to explain how EPA derives recommended human health ambient water quality criteria for Clean Water Act purposes:  https://www.epa.gov/wqc/fact-sheet-methodology-deriving-ambient-water-quality-criteria-protection-human-health-revised.  Please see EPA's webpage regarding the Safe Drinking Water Act and MCLs at:  https://www.epa.gov/dwregdev/how-epa-regulates-drinking-water-contaminants.

In answer to your question concerning whether EPA takes cost and feasibility into consideration, the Clean Water Act requires that ambient water quality criteria be based on values that protect designated waterbody uses concerning human health and aquatic life, and does not allow economics (cost) to factor into the calculation.  This means that only scientific considerations can be taken into account when determining what water quality conditions are consistent with meeting a given designated use. Economic and social impacts are not allowed to be considered when developing criteria.  For further information and explanation, please EPA's introduction to the Clean Water Act module (Watershed Academy Web) at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/watertrain/pdf/modules/IntrotoCWA.pdf. Page 12 discusses this specific issue concerning economics.

Since we are currently taking public comment on our proposed action, if you have additional comments or questions, please submit them to us through the public Docket for this action at the Regulations.gov website: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0303 .  The deadline to submit comment is February 9, 2018.

For more detailed information on this action, please see EPA's website:  https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/withdrawal-certain-federal-criteria-california .

Thank you again for your interest.
Diane Fleck

Diane E. Fleck, P.E., Esq.
U.S. EPA Region 9 WTR-2-1
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
P:<PHONE_NUMBER> Tuesday/Thursday
P:<PHONE_NUMBER> Monday/Wednesday
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: John Kenny<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 12:52 PM
To: Fleck, Diane<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Re: Proposed EPA Withdrawal of Certain Federal Criteria for California

Hello Diane,
Thank you for the helpful response.
Since the Safe Drinking Water Act TTHM MCL takes costs and feasibility into consideration, does that mean that the TTHM MCL lead to a risk greater than 10^-6 lifetime risk?
Good point that the Clean Water Act CTR DBCM and DCBM level also take into account exposure through fish consumption; however, since the DBCM and DCBM "organism only" limits are in the 30's and 40's ug/L, where as the "water & organism" limits are in the 0.4's and 0.5's ug/L, it's clear that the organism consumption contribution to "water and organisms" is negligible (about 1/100th). Do you know if different assumptions were made in the risk calculations (e.g., different endpoint data, different water intakes, etc.)?
Lastly, why don't the Clean Water Act CTRs take cost and feasibility into consideration? It leads to an odd situation in California, where the wastewater of some communities is safer to drink, from a TTHM point of view (and expensive to treat), than their drinking water.
Best,
John

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Fleck, Diane<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote:
Hello Mr. Kenny,
Thank you for your interest.  The method of determining MCLs under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the method used to calculate human health ambient water quality criteria under the Clean Water Act consider different factors.  These differences can sometimes result in quite different values.  Below are some bullets to consider:

 EPA's human health Clean Water Act section 304(a) criteria recommendations are designed to minimize the risk of adverse effects occurring to humans from chronic (i.e., lifetime) exposure to pollutants through the ingestion of drinking water and consumption of fish and shellfish obtained from ambient surface water, while also protecting against adverse effects that may reasonably be expected to occur as a result of elevated acute or short-term exposures. In contrast, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) controls the presence of contaminants in finished drinking water ("at-the-tap").
 Because exposure through the ingestion of drinking water and consumption of fish and shellfish are considered, the criteria are typically expressed as "water + organism" criteria.
 MCLs, on the other hand, are developed with consideration given to the costs and technological feasibility of reducing contaminant levels in water to meet those standards.  In addition, MCLs do not consider exposure pathways beyond drinking water, e.g., exposures via fish consumption.

In answer to your second question:  we are proposing to remove criteria for lead and the two trihalomethanes only for the waters (and associated uses) for which the State adopted site-specific objectives.

I hope this information answers your questions.  If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Diane Fleck

Diane E. Fleck, P.E., Esq.
U.S. EPA Region 9 WTR-2-1
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
P:<PHONE_NUMBER> Tuesday/Thursday
P:<PHONE_NUMBER> Monday/Wednesday
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: John Kenny<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 5:39 PM
To: Fleck, Diane<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Proposed EPA Withdrawal of Certain Federal Criteria for California

Hi Diane,

I don't understand why the CTR water & organisms DCBM and DCBM goals are so low (0.4 ug/L and 0.56 ug/L), compared to the drinking water TTHM MCLs (80 ug/L). Is it because the TTHM MCL is an MCL, which takes economics, etc. into account, whereas the CTR is more like a goal? They both are trying to achieve 10^-6 risk, I believe; do they make different assumptions?

Also, why does this change only apply to certain water bodies and not others?

Best,

John


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46867-46870]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21536]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81792; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-113]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Reflect a Change
to the Administrator for the London Bullion Market Association Silver
Price to ICE Benchmark Administration

October 2, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on September 21, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to reflect a change to the administrator for
the London Bullion Market Association (``LBMA'') Silver Price from CME
Group, Inc. and Thomson Reuters to ICE Benchmark Administration,
effective as of October 2, 2017. The proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to reflect a change to the administrator for
the LBMA Silver Price from CME Group, Inc. (``CME'') and Thomson
Reuters to ICE Benchmark Administration (``IBA''), effective as of
October 2, 2017, as described further below.\3\ The LBMA Silver Price
is the price used with respect to calculation of the net asset value
for the iShares Silver Trust,\4\ ETFS

Silver Trust,\5\ and ETFS Precious Metals Basket Trust \6\ (together,
the ``Silver Trusts''), each of which is currently listed on the
Exchange under NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E (Commodity-Based Trust Shares),
and is the underlying benchmark for ProShares Ultra Silver and
ProShares UltraShort Silver (together, the ``Silver Funds''),\7\ each
of which is currently listed on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Rule
8.200-E (Trust Issued Receipts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See press release dated July 14, 2017 from Intercontinental
Exchange (``ICE'') and the LBMA announced [sic] that IBA has been
chosen as the new administrator for the LBMA Silver Price, which is
available here: http://www.lbma.org.uk/_blog/lbma_media_centre/post/ice-benchmark-administration-to-take-over-administration-of-the-lbma-silver-price/. See also, ICE press release dated September 21,
2017, ``ICE Benchmark Administration to Launch LBMA Silver Price on
2 October 2017'', which is available here: http://ir.theice.com/press/press-releases/all-categories/2017/09-21-2017-110006932?=news_promo.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58956 (November 14,
2008), 73 FR 71074 (November 24, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca 2008-124)
(approving listing on the Exchange of the iShares Silver Trust);
53520 (March 20, 2006), 71 FR 14977 (March 24, 2006) (SR-PCX-2005-
117) (order approving listing and trading of shares of the iShares
Silver Trust pursuant to unlisted trading privileges); 53521 (March
20, 2006), 71 FR 14967 (March 24, 2006) (SR-Amex-2005-72) (order
approving listing and trading on the American Stock Exchange LLC of
shares of the iShares Silver Trust).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59781 (April 17,
2009), 78 FR 18771 (April 24, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-28) (notice of
filing and order granting accelerated approval relating to listing
and trading of shares of the ETFS Silver Trust).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62402 (June 29,
2010), 75 FR 39292 (July 8, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-56) (notice of
filing of proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the ETFS
Precious Metals Basket Trust); 62692 (August 11, 2010), 75 FR 50789
(August 17, 2010) (order approving proposed rule change to list and
trade shares of the ETFS Precious Metals Basket Trust).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58457 (September 3,
2008), (73 FR 52711 (September 10, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-91)
(notice of filing and order granting accelerated approval of
proposed rule change regarding listing and trading of shares of 14
funds of the Commodities and Currency Trust, now the ProShares Trust
II); 58162 (July 15, 2008), 73 FR 42391 (July 21, 2008) (SR-
NYSEArca-2008-73) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of
proposed rule change relating to trading of shares of 14 funds of
the Commodities and Currency Trust pursuant to unlisted trading
privileges). See also Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58161
(July 15, 2008), 73 FR 42380 (July 21, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-39)
(order approving listing and trading on the American Stock Exchange
LLC of shares of 14 funds of the Commodities and Currency Trust);
57932 (June 5, 2008), 73 FR 33467 (June 12, 2008) (notice of
proposed rule change regarding listing and trading of shares of 14
funds of the Commodities and Currency Trust).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Revised Procedures for the LBMA Silver Price \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In connection with implementation of the LBMA Silver Price
as a replacement for the London Silver Fix, the Exchange filed a
proposed rule change regarding procedures to be implemented by CME
as of August 14, 2014 in connection with administration of the LBMA
Silver Price, as well as the change to the benchmark price for the
Silver Trusts and the change to the underlying benchmark for the
Silver Funds from the London Silver Fix to the LBMA Silver Price.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72847 (August 14, 2014), 79
FR 49350 (August 20, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-88) (notice of filing
and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change in connection
with implementation of the LBMA Silver Price). See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 77830 (May 13, 2016), 81 FR 31671 (May 19,
2016) (SR-NYSEArca-2016-72) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of proposed rule change relating to changes to
procedures regarding establishing the LBMA Silver Price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 14, 2017, the LBMA announced that IBA \9\ has been selected
to be the third-party administrator for the ``LBMA Silver Price.'' IBA,
an independent specialist benchmark administrator, will provide the
auction platform and methodology as well as the overall administration
and governance for the LBMA Silver Price benchmark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ IBA is a London-based company that was created specifically
to administer systemically important benchmarks. Formed in 2013, IBA
is part of ICE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the administrator for the LBMA Silver Price benchmark and the
operator of the ``IBA Silver Auction,'' IBA will implement procedures
that provide a physically settled, electronic and tradeable auction,
with the ability to settle trades in U.S. Dollars (``USD''), euros or
British Pounds.\10\ Each London business day, at 12 p.m. (noon) IBA
runs an auction to determine the final price to use as the benchmark.
The benchmark is published when the auction finishes, typically a few
minutes after 12 p.m. IBA will use ICE's front-end system--WebICE--as
the technology platform that will allow direct participants, as well as
sponsored clients of direct participants, to manage their orders in the
auction in real time via their desktops.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The procedures to be utilized by IBA will be similar to
those that IBA utilizes in connection with its administration of the
LBMA Gold Price. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74544
(March 19, 2015), 80 FR 15840 (March 25, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-19)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule
change relating to the LBMA Gold Price as a replacement for the
London Gold Fix for certain gold related exchange traded products).
    \11\ The WebICE platform provides real-time order management as
well as separation of direct participant and sponsored client
orders, live credit limit controls, audit history, advanced Excel
integration and automated deal notifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Participants in the auction will include direct participants and
sponsored clients of direct participants. Direct participants may enter
orders on their own behalf or on behalf of clients. Sponsored clients
also may manage their own positions utilizing their own trading
screens; however, a sponsored client's orders would be backed by the
sponsoring direct participant. WebICE allows sponsored clients to
participate in the auction process with the same information and order
management capabilities as direct participants.
    At the opening of each auction, the auction chairman (``Chairman'')
will announce an opening price (in USD) based on the current market
conditions and begin auction rounds, with an expected duration of at
least every 30 seconds each. During each auction round, participants
may enter the volume they wish to buy or sell at that price, and such
orders will be part of the price formation. Aggregate bid and offer
volume will be shown live on WebICE, providing a level playing field
for all participants. At the end of each auction round, the total net
volume will be calculated. If this `imbalance' is larger than the
imbalance tolerance (currently set at 500,000 oz) then the Chairman
will choose a new price \12\ (based on the current market conditions,
and the direction and magnitude of the imbalance in the round) and
begin a new auction round. If the imbalance is less than the tolerance,
then the auction is complete with all volume tradeable at that price.
The price will then be set in USD and also converted into in euros and
British Pounds. The auction will continue to be run at 12:00 p.m.
(London time).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Chairman will have significant experience in the silver
markets and will be employed by IBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the auction, the price at the start of each round, and the
volumes at the end of each round will be available through major market
data vendors. As soon as the auction finishes, the final prices and
volumes will be available through major market data vendors. IBA will
also publish transparency reports, detailing the prices, volumes and
times for each round of the auction. These transparency reports will be
available through major market data vendors and IBA when the auction
finishes. The process can also be observed real-time through a WebICE
screen. The auction mechanism will provide a complete audit trail.
    As of August 1, 2017, there were seven direct participants in the
LBMA Silver Price administered by CME and Thomson Reuters. The number
of direct participants upon IBA's assumption of the role of LBMA Silver
Price administrator is expected to equal or exceed the number of market
participants currently participating in the auction process that
determines the LBMA Silver Price.
Regulation of the LBMA Silver Price
    As of April 1, 2015, the LBMA Silver Price has been regulated by
the Financial Conduct Authority (``FCA'') in the United Kingdom
(``UK'').\13\ IBA is already authorized as a regulated benchmark
administrator by the FCA. Under the UK benchmark regulation,\14\

the governance structure for a regulated benchmark must include an
Oversight Committee, made up of market participants, industry bodies,
direct participant representatives, infrastructure providers and the
administrator (i.e., IBA).\15\ Through the Oversight Committee, the
LBMA will continue to have significant involvement in the oversight of
the auction process, including, among other matters, changes to the
methodology and accreditation of direct participants.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The conduct of financial institutions is overseen by the
FCA, which was formed from the former Financial Services Authority
and is separate from the Bank of England. The LBMA Silver Price is
regulated under the FCA's Market Conduct (MAR) Sourcebook (MAR 8.3).
    \14\ On June 12, 2014, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer
announced steps to raise standards of conduct in the financial
system with a joint review by the UK Treasury, the Bank of England
and the FCA into the way wholesale financial markets operate.
According to this announcement, the ``Fair and Effective Markets
Review'', led by Bank of England Deputy Governor for Markets and
Banking, has been tasked with investigating those wholesale markets,
both regulated and unregulated, where most of the recent concerns
about misconduct have arisen: Fixed-income, currency and commodity
markets, including associated derivatives and benchmarks. It will
make recommendations on: Principles to govern the operation of fair
and effective markets, focusing on fixed income, currency and
commodities; reforms to ensure standards of behavior are in
accordance with those principles; tools to strengthen the oversight
of market conduct; whether the regulatory perimeter for wholesale
financial markets should be extended, and to what extent
international action is required; and additional reforms in relation
to benchmarks, in order to strengthen market infrastructure. See
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/markets/Documents/femraug2014.pdf. On
September 25, 2014, the Fair and Effective Markets Review announced
its proposal that the silver fixing process may become regulated
under UK benchmark regulation, effective from April 2015.
    \15\ The Oversight Committee is a key decision making forum,
with market representation that includes participants, users and
infrastructure providers. The Oversight Committee's responsibilities
include review of methodology and process relating to the LBMA
Silver Price; implementation of a Code of Conduct applicable to
participants; expansion of membership; and surveillance oversight,
among other functions. The Oversight Committee's structure and
responsibilities is described in the Oversight Committee Terms of
Reference, available on the IBA Web site.
    \16\ The LBMA will continue to provide guidance with respect to
the LBMA Silver Price through the Oversight Committee, which will
facilitate communication among representatives of all market
participants to ensure the process continues to fulfill the needs of
the market. The Oversight Committee is responsible for decisions
that affect the evolution of the process based on changes in the
market and regulatory environments.
     The term ``LBMA Silver Price'' means the price for an ounce of
silver set by LBMA-authorized participating bullion banks and market
makers in the electronic, over-the-counter auction operated by IBA
at approximately 12:00 noon London time, on each working day and
disseminated also by IBA. IBA provides the electronic auction
platform on which the price is calculated, while the LBMA accredits
market participants. IBA is also responsible for governance and
oversight of the LBMA Silver Price, and is regulated by the FCA for
its role as the benchmark administrator.
    The LBMA Silver Price is regulated under the FCA's Market
Conduct (MAR) Sourcebook (MAR 8.3). As the administrator for the
LBMA Silver Price, IBA will adopt and issue a Code of Conduct
relating to administration of the LBMA Silver Price and undertake to
perform the LBMA Silver Price administrator's responsibilities in
accordance with MAR 8.3. Among such responsibilities are that the
administrator:
    (1) Have in place effective arrangements and procedures that
allow the regular monitoring and surveillance of the auction
process;
    (2) monitor the benchmark submissions in order to identify
breaches of its practice standards and conduct that may involve
manipulation, or attempted manipulation, of the specified benchmark
it administers and provide to the oversight committee of the
specified benchmark timely updates of suspected breaches of practice
standards and attempted manipulation;
    (3) notify the FCA and provide all relevant information where it
suspects that, in relation to the specified benchmark it
administers, there has been (i) a material breach of the benchmark
administrator's practice standards; (ii) conduct that may involve
manipulation or attempted manipulation of the specified benchmark it
administers; or (iii) collusion to manipulate or to attempt to
manipulate the specified benchmark it administers;
    (4) ensure that the specified benchmark it administers is
determined using adequate benchmark submissions; and
    (5) establish an oversight committee.
    The LBMA Silver Price Oversight Committee reviews and maintains
the definition, setting, scope and methodology of the benchmark. The
Code of Conduct can be found on the IBA Web site https://www.theice.com/iba.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The price discovery process for the LBMA Silver Price will be
subject to surveillance by IBA. IBA is compliant with the UK benchmark
regulation (MAR 8.3), regulated by the FCA, and has been formally
assessed against the IOSCO Principles for Financial Benchmarks (the
``IOSCO Principles'').\17\ In order to meet the IOSCO Principles, the
price discovery used for the LBMA Silver Price benchmark will be
auditable and transparent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The IOSCO Principles are designed to enhance the integrity,
the reliability and the oversight of benchmarks by establishing
guidelines for benchmark administrators and other relevant bodies in
the following areas: Governance: To protect the integrity of the
benchmark determination process and to address conflicts of
interest; Benchmark quality: To promote the quality and integrity of
benchmark determinations through the application of design factors;
Quality of the methodology: To promote the quality and integrity of
methodologies by setting out minimum information that should be
addressed within a methodology. These principles also call for
credible transition policies in case a benchmark may cease to exist
due to market structure change. Accountability mechanisms: To
establish complaints processes, documentation requirements and audit
reviews. The IOSCO Principles provide a framework of standards that
might be met in different ways, depending on the specificities of
each benchmark. In addition to a set of high level principles, the
framework offers a subset of more detailed principles for benchmarks
having specific risks arising from their reliance on submissions
and/or their ownership structure. For further information concerning
the IOSCO Principles, see http://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD415.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The LBMA Silver Price benchmark is viewed as a full and fair
representation of all market interest at the conclusion of the auction.
IBA's auction process will be fully transparent in real time to direct
participants and sponsored clients and, at the close of each auction,
to the general public. The auction process also will be fully auditable
since an audit trail exists for every change made in the process.
Moreover, the audit trail and active surveillance of the auction
process by IBA, as well as FCA's oversight of IBA, will deter
manipulative and abusive conduct in establishing each day's LBMA Silver
Price.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \18\ that an exchange have rules that
are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the LBMA
Silver Price benchmark, as administered by IBA, will be based on an
auction that is electronic and auditable and is produced from tradeable
volumes. The LBMA Silver Price and the transparency reports showing the
prices, timings and total volumes for each round will be available
electronically instantly after the conclusion of the auction, as
described above. The LBMA Silver Price benchmark is viewed as a full
and fair representation of all market interest at the conclusion of the
auction. IBA's auction process will be fully transparent in real time
to direct participants and sponsored clients and, at the close of each
auction, to the general public. The auction process also will be fully
auditable since an audit trail exists for every change made in the
process. Moreover, the audit trail and active surveillance of the
auction process by IBA, as well as FCA's oversight of IBA, will deter
manipulative and abusive conduct in establishing each day's LBMA Silver
Price.
    The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market price discovery process and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest in that the silver auction
will be transparent, auditable, and operated by a regulated benchmark
administrator (IBA). The LBMA Silver price is widely disseminated by
major market data vendors. The audit trail records every change made in
the process and IBA has regulatory obligations to run surveillance on
the activity in the process to deter and identify manipulative and
abusive conduct in establishing each day's LBMA Silver Price. The LBMA
Silver Price, as administered by IBA, is designed to be a benchmark
that meets

the needs of the market and regulators (including the IOSCO Principles
\19\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See note 18, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change
will facilitate the continued administration of the LBMA Silver Price
utilizing a fully auditable auction process and will promote market
competition by permitting the continued listing and trading of shares
of the Silver Trusts and the Silver Funds utilizing the LBMA Silver
Price.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \20\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\21\
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition, and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. As noted above, the
administrator for the LBMA Silver Price will change from CME and
Thomson Reuters to IBA, effective October 2, 2017. The Commission
believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest as it will prevent the
disruption in the trading of the Silver Trust and the Silver Fund
shares. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change
to be operative upon filing.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-113 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-113. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2017-113 and should
be submitted on or before October 27, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21536 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 56692]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22320]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12741-003]

Albany Engineering Corporation; Notice of Successive Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On August 20, 2013, Albany Engineering Corporation (Albany
Engineering) filed an application for a successive preliminary permit,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to
study the feasibility of hydropower adjacent to the New York State
Canal Corporation's Lock C5 located on the Hudson River in Saratoga and
Washington Counties, New York. The sole purpose of a preliminary
permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a
license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does
not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing
activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others
without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Thomson Project would consist of: (1) A new arc-shaped
dam consisting of six 111-foot-long 12-foot-high spillway sections
integrated with five 50-foot-diameter circular-shell piers, located
1,600 feet downstream of the existing Northumberland Dam; (2) a new
324-acre impoundment between the new dam and the existing
Northumberland Dam, that would extend an existing impoundment having a
surface area of 2,750 acres at a normal water surface elevation of
101.1 feet mean sea level by lowering the crest of the existing dam;
(3) a 4,000-foot-long by 12-foot-deep segment of the existing Champlain
Canal; (4) the existing Lock No. 5 facilities; (5) five identical
turbine-generating units each housed in one of five circular-shell
piers, with a total capacity of 23.7 megawatts; (6) a new 8,000-foot-
long, 34.5-kilovolt transmission line; and (7) appurtenant facilities.
The proposed project would have an estimated average annual generation
of 68.9 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Wendy Jo Carey, Albany Engineering Corporation,
5 Washington Square, Albany, NY 12205; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Monir Chowdhury; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-12741-003.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-12741) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: September 9, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-22320 Filed 9-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 7, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19384]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07182]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0687; Airspace Docket No. 19-ASO-17]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Area Navigation Routes, Florida Metroplex Project;
Southeastern United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published by the FAA in the
Federal Register on March 24, 2020, that amends area navigation (RNAV)
routes in the southeastern United States in support of the Florida
Metroplex Project. This action makes an editorial correction to the
order of points listed in the description of RNAV route Q-110.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, May 21, 2020. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA, Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming
amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule for Docket No. FAA-2019-0687 in the
Federal Register (85 FR 16533; March 24, 2020), amending 11 RNAV Q-
routes in the southeastern United States. Subsequent to publication, it
was determined that the order of points listed in the description of
RNAV route Q-110 was incorrectly changed from a ``west to east'' format
to a ``south to north'' format. This rule corrects the Q-110 route
description by changing the order of points to a ``west to east''
format in accordance with FAA Order 7400.2 criteria. This is an
editorial change only that does not alter the alignment of the route as
shown on aeronautical charts, and does not affect use of the route by
aircraft.

Correction to Final Rule

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the description
of RNAV route Q-110 as published in the Federal Register on March 24,
2020 (85 FR 16533; FR Doc. 2020-05987) is corrected as follows:

Paragraph 2006 United States Area Navigation Routes

* * * * *

Q-110 BLANS, IL to OCTAL, FL [Corrected]

BLANS, IL                     WP                  (Lat. 37[deg]28'09.27''N, long. 088[deg]44'00.68''W)
BETIE, TN                     WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]07'29.88''N, long. 087[deg]54'01.48''W)
SKIDO, AL                     WP                  (Lat. 34[deg]31'49.10''N, long. 086[deg]53'11.16''W)
BFOLO, AL                     WP                  (Lat. 34[deg]03'33.98''N, long. 086[deg]31'30.49''W)
JYROD, AL                     WP                  (Lat. 33[deg]10'53.29''N, long. 085[deg]51'54.85''W)
DAWWN, GA                     WP                  (Lat. 31[deg]28'49.96''N, long. 084[deg]36'46.69''W)
JOKKY, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 30[deg]11'31.47''N, long. 083[deg]38'41.86''W)
AMORY, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]13'17.02''N, long. 082[deg]55'42.90''W)
SMELZ, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]04'59.00''N, long. 082[deg]06'34.00''W)
SHEEK, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]35'15.40''N, long. 081[deg]46'27.82''W)
JAYMC, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]58'51.00''N, long. 081[deg]22'08.00''W)
OCTAL, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]09'01.92''N, long. 080[deg]12'11.60''W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 1, 2020.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-07182 Filed 4-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 45982]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17635]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-2638-000]

SR Perry, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate
Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
SR Perry, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 31, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 11, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17635 Filed 8-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 130 (Monday, July 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36594-36595]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14743]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0114; Notice 1]

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Volkswagen), has determined
that certain model year (MY) 2020-2021 Volkswagen motor vehicles do not
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems. Volkswagen filed a noncompliance
report dated October 23, 2020, and later amended it on November 11,
2020. Volkswagen also petitioned NHTSA on November 16, 2020, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces receipt of
Volkswagen's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before August 11, 2021.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerrin Bressant, Compliance Engineer,
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Volkswagen has determined that certain MY 2020-2021
Volkswagen motor vehicles do not fully comply with the requirements of
Paragraph S4.5(a) of FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems
(49 CFR 571.138). Volkswagen filed a noncompliance report dated October
23, 2020, and later amended it on November 11, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
Volkswagen subsequently petitioned NHTSA on November 16, 2020, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of Volkswagen's petition is published under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 115,855 of the following MY
2020-2021 motor vehicles, manufactured between December 16, 2019, and
August 28, 2020, are potentially involved:
     MY 2020 Volkswagen Arteon;
     MY 2020 Volkswagen Passat;
     MY 2021 Volkswagen Atlas;
     MY 2020 Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport;
     MY 2020 Volkswagen Tiguan;
     MY 2020 Volkswagen Jetta; and
     MY 2020 Volkswagen Jetta GLI.
    III. Noncompliance: Volkswagen explains that the noncompliance is
due to an error in the owner's manual editing process and that the
subject motor vehicles may have received an owner's manual that did not
have the exact statement in English as required by paragraph S4.5(a) of
FMVSS No. 138. Specifically, the written instructions to vehicle
operators about the functionality of the tire pressure monitoring
system was not included in the exact wording per paragraph S4.5(a).
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S4.5(a) of FMVSS No. 138 includes
the requirements relevant to this petition. Beginning on September 1,
2006, the owner's manual in each vehicle certified as complying with
paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 138 must provide an image of the Low Tire
Pressure Telltale symbol (and an image of the TPMS Malfunction Telltale
warning (TPMS), if a dedicated telltale is utilized for this function)
with the following statement in English:
    Each tire, including the spare (if provided), should be checked
monthly when cold and inflated to the inflation pressure recommended by
the vehicle manufacturer on the vehicle placard or tire inflation
pressure label. (If your vehicle has tires of a different size than the
size indicated on the vehicle placard or tire inflation pressure label,
you should determine the proper tire inflation pressure for those
tires.)
    As an added safety feature, your vehicle has been equipped with a
tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) that illuminates a low tire
pressure telltale when one or more of your tires is significantly
under-inflated. Accordingly, when the low tire pressure telltale
illuminates, you should stop and check your tires as soon as possible,
and inflate them to the proper pressure. Driving on a significantly
under-inflated tire causes the tire to overheat and can lead to tire
failure. Under-inflation also reduces fuel efficiency and tire tread

life, and may affect the vehicle's handling and stopping ability.
    Please note that the TPMS is not a substitute for proper tire
maintenance, and it is the driver's responsibility to maintain correct
tire pressure, even if under-inflation has not reached the level to
trigger illumination of the TPMS low tire pressure telltale.
    [The following paragraph is required for all vehicles certified to
the standard starting on September 1, 2007, and for vehicles
voluntarily equipped with a compliant TPMS MIL before that time.] Your
vehicle has also been equipped with a TPMS malfunction indicator to
indicate when the system is not operating properly. [For vehicles with
a dedicated MIL telltale, add the following statement: The TPMS
malfunction indicator is provided by a separate telltale, which
displays the symbol ``TPMS'' when illuminated.] [For vehicles with a
combined low tire pressure/MIL telltale, add the following statement:
The TPMS malfunction indicator is combined with the low tire pressure
telltale. When the system detects a malfunction, the telltale will
flash for approximately one minute and then remain continuously
illuminated. This sequence will continue upon subsequent vehicle start-
ups as long as the malfunction exists.] When the malfunction indicator
is illuminated, the system may not be able to detect or signal low tire
pressure as intended. TPMS malfunctions may occur for a variety of
reasons, including the installation of replacement or alternate tires
or wheels on the vehicle that prevent the TPMS from functioning
properly. Always check the TPMS malfunction telltale after replacing
one or more tires or wheels on your vehicle to ensure that the
replacement or alternate tires and wheels allow the TPMS to continue to
function properly.
    V. Summary of Volkswagen's Petition: The following views and
arguments presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Volkswagen's
Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by Volkswagen. They
have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the views of
the Agency. Volkswagen describes the subject noncompliance and contends
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Volkswagen submitted the following
reasoning:
    1. Volkswagen states that the affected manuals all have sections
devoted to describing appropriate tire pressures and the functionality
of the tire pressure monitoring system and that the affected manuals
contain equivalent instructions to those set forth in S4.5(a), just in
different words. Volkswagen compared the required language and the
actual language and believes that the comparable text present in the
owner's manuals is consistent with the rationale and intent of the
FMVSS No. 138 requirements, even though the exact words required by the
standard are not used.
    2. Volkswagen asserts that NHTSA has granted similar petitions in
the past in which required owner's manual text was not present in
verbatim form, but an equivalent version of the text was present. See
65 FR 14009 (label and owner's manual missing FMVSS No. 303 required
text but include substantive equivalent) and 80 FR 68602 (owner's
manual missing description required by FMVSS No. 226).
    3. Volkswagen states that as of the last dates of production for
the subject vehicles, the condition has been corrected and that any
affected vehicles held at the factory have been corrected, and unsold
units in dealer inventory will be corrected prior to sale.
    4. Additionally, Volkswagen says it is not aware of any field or
customer complaints related to this condition, nor has it been made
aware of any accidents or injuries that have occurred as a result of
this issue.
    Volkswagen concludes that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Volkswagen no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer
for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant motor vehicles under their control after
Volkswagen notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-14743 Filed 7-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P