[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7956-7964]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0004]
RIN 2127-AL88

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Compressed Natural Gas
Fuel Container Integrity

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the visual inspection labeling
requirement in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 304,
``Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity,'' by modifying the
periodic inspection interval for compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel
containers installed on vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). The inspection
interval for these vehicles is modified from the currently-specified
interval, ``at least every 36 months or 36,000 miles, whichever comes
first,'' to ``at least every 12 months.'' For commercial operators of
CNG heavy vehicles that often travel 100,000 miles per year or more,
this change will eliminate the need to

perform unnecessary multiple visual inspections of their vehicles' CNG
fuel containers per year. NHTSA believes this final rule is equally
protective of safety as the cadence of inspection required by the
current rule. This rulemaking commenced in response to petitions for
rulemaking from the American Trucking Associations and Natural Gas
Vehicles for America.

DATES:
    Effective date: This final rule is effective March 14, 2022.
    Compliance date: The compliance date for the amendments in this
final rule is March 14, 2023. Optional early compliance is permitted.
    Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received not later than March 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Note that all petitions
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided. All submissions will be
placed in the docket for this rulemaking. For more information, please
see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ian MacIntire, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile: 202-493-
2990, or Mr. Daniel Koblenz, Office of Chief Counsel; telephone: 202-
366-2992; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The mailing address for these
officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPRM
III. Summary of and Response to Comments
IV. Final Rule
V. Analysis of Costs and Benefits
VI. Compliance Date
VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

I. Introduction

    NHTSA is issuing this final rule to amend the periodic inspection
interval (i.e., inspections that occur on a schedule, rather than after
an incident) stated on the visual inspection label that is required
under paragraph S7.4 of FMVSS No. 304, ``Compressed natural gas fuel
container integrity.'' Under the current standard, CNG fuel containers
must be permanently affixed with a label that states, among other
things, that the container should be visually inspected after a motor
vehicle accident or fire and at least every 36 months or 36,000 miles,
whichever comes first, for damage and deterioration (S7.4(g)). The
statement is required regardless of the vehicle's GVWR. NHTSA has
determined that, although the label's recommended inspection intervals
are appropriate for CNG light vehicles (i.e., vehicles with a GVWR less
than or equal to 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds (lb)), they are
inappropriate for CNG heavy vehicles (i.e., vehicles with a GVWR
greater than 4,536 kg), which are generally driven many more miles per
year than light vehicles.
    NHTSA has reached this conclusion because the driving patterns and
conditions under which CNG heavy vehicles travel are very different
from those of CNG light vehicles, making the current time and mileage
intervals inappropriate for CNG heavy vehicles. CNG light vehicles are
typically used in commercial and non-commercial applications for which
their annual Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) is between 10,000 miles and
12,000 miles. By contrast, CNG heavy vehicles are used almost
exclusively in commercial operations in which their annual VMT is much
higher, with the annual VMT of the heaviest CNG vehicles often
exceeding 100,000 miles. Per accepted industry practice and State-
imposed inspection requirements,\1\ commercial operators of high-
mileage CNG vehicles typically inspect their vehicles in accordance
with the inspection interval printed on the container's label. As the
current label indicates that operators should perform visual
inspections every 36,000 miles, this amounts to multiple inspections
per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As we noted in the NPRM, at least 20 States have adopted
into law National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Code 52,
``Vehicular Natural Gas Fuel Systems,'' which specifies that
operators of commercial vehicle visually inspect CNG fuel containers
in accordance with the visual inspection label permanently affixed
to the container per FMVSS No. 304.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CNG fuel container failures are extremely rare occurrences, and
NHTSA is not aware of any data or analyses suggesting that performing
multiple visual inspections of CNG fuel containers per year has made
failures less likely to occur. The agency requested information on this
subject, but the proposal only received six comments, five of which
were from industry stakeholders that supported the revision and one was
from an individual commenter who also supported the rule, and none of
these commenters provided any information on this question. In view of
this information, NHTSA has concluded that there is not a safety need
for commercial operators of high-mileage CNG heavy vehicles to conduct
multiple visual inspections of their vehicles' CNG fuel containers per
year. This final rule amends the visual inspection label by eliminating
the mileage interval for CNG heavy vehicles, and amending the time
interval for these vehicles to once every 12 months. NHTSA believes 12
months is an appropriate interval because the Agency is not aware of
any evidence that a more frequent inspection interval would have a
safety benefit. Furthermore, a 12-month interval aligns the FMVSS No.
304 visual inspection label with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration's (FMCSA) inspection regulations, which require that
commercial vehicles, including fuel systems, be inspected annually.

II. NPRM

    NHTSA initiated this rulemaking in response to two petitions for
rulemaking the Agency received in 2016 from the American Trucking
Associations (ATA) \2\ and Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGV
America),\3\ both of which requested that NHTSA address the issue of
potentially too-frequent visual inspections by eliminating the mileage
interval on the visual inspection label required under S7.4 (g) of
FMVSS No. 304.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ According to its website, ATA is the largest national trade
association for the trucking industry and covers every type of motor
carrier in the U.S.
    \3\ According to its website, NGV America is a trade association
that represents companies, environmental groups, and organizations
interested in the promotion and use of natural gas as motor fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMVSS No. 304 requires each CNG fuel container to be permanently
labeled with the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (h) of
S7.4. Currently, paragraph S7.4(g) specifically requires this label to
include the following statement:

    This container should be visually inspected after a motor
vehicle accident or fire and at least every 36 months or 36,000
miles, whichever comes first, for damage and deterioration.

    After receiving the petitions from ATA and NGV America, NHTSA
conducted an analysis of whether the current 3-year/36,000-mile visual
inspection interval would be appropriate for CNG heavy vehicles, and if
not, what an appropriate interval would be. The current inspection
interval was chosen based on an analysis of CNG light vehicles, which

are driven around 10,000 to 12,000 miles annually in both commercial
and non-commercial contexts, which works out to approximately one
inspection every three years for these vehicles. Because CNG heavy
vehicles are expected to be used in exclusively commercial applications
and typically have higher annual VMTs than their light vehicle
counterparts, a 3-year/36,000-mile visual inspection interval could
equate to up to 2-3 visual inspections per year. Further, as it is
accepted industry practice (and, in many States, a requirement) for
commercial CNG vehicle operators to follow the visual inspection label
required under FMVSS No. 304, these commercial operators are generally
conduct these multiple inspections.
    The visual inspection is a detailed inspection of the fuel
container and its components.\4\ According to the NGV America guidance
on the detailed visual inspection, shielding, enclosures, and
coverings, as well as any system access panels are removed. The CNG
fuel container and components are inspected for any damage including
dents, gouges, scrapes, cuts, abrasions, discoloration, heat damage,
and any form of corrosion. The valves and valve covers are inspected
for signs of wear, damage, or leakage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Compressed Natural Gas Fuel System Inspection Guidance, NGV
America Technology and Development Committee, https://ngvam.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/CNG-Vehicle-Fuel-System-Inspection-Guidance-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of its analysis into the net safety benefits of multiple
annual inspections, NHTSA reviewed a 2013 report sponsored by FMCSA on
CNG fuel container safety.\5\ The report summarized the findings of a
study investigating how to improve CNG-related regulations. In this
report, the authors (who were contractors for FMCSA) recommended the
removal of the mileage interval from the required visual inspection
label since it was not intended for high-mileage commercial vehicles
and because the study participants stated that multiple visual
inspections per year to be ``burdensome and unnecessary.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FMCSA-RRT-13-044, ``Natural Gas Systems: Suggested Changes
to Truck and Motorcoach Regulations and Inspection Procedures,''
March 2013, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA also analyzed data on all CNG fuel container failures from
1984 to 2015 (the most recent data available).\6\ NHTSA's analysis of
the CNG fuel container failures found that, over this period, there
have been a total of only 16 CNG fuel container failures in the United
States in the 32-year period, most of which were caused by problems
other than those detectable through a visual inspection, such as
crashes, design flaws, or over-pressurization.\7\ In fact, based on
available information, it is not clear that any of these failures could
have been prevented by the periodic visual inspections. Although
periodic visual inspections could potentially detect problems such as
gouging on the container surface from the mounting brackets, general
damage from roadside debris, external corrosion, and damage to valves,
such factors were not related to these 16 container failures. Periodic
visual inspections would not protect against the possibility of failure
due to over-pressurization or internal corrosion, and do not prevent
container failures in a vehicle collision or fire. As this dataset did
not state how recently or frequently the CNG fuel containers had been
visually inspected prior to failure, NHTSA could not draw any
conclusions from it relating to the appropriate frequency of visual
inspections for fuel containers on heavy CNG vehicles. However, the
extreme infrequency of CNG container failures over the 32-year
period,\8\ and the absence of failures that might have been prevented
by way of a more frequent than annual visual inspection, suggest there
is not a safety need to conduct multiple visual inspections of CNG
containers per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The source of this data was the Clean Vehicle Education
Foundation (CVEF) Master Incident List, which provides information
about all reported CNG incidents in the world through 2015. The CVEF
Master Incident List is maintained by NGV America. A copy of the
CVEF Master Incident List is available in the docket indicated in
the heading of this notice.
    \7\ Among the 16 CNG fuel container failures, eight were caused
by stress corrosion cracking from exposure to chemicals and acid
that resulted in degradation of the glass fibers used in some
container designs. In 2001, the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) revised the NGV 2 standard to address this issue,
and there have been no reported failures of this type since. Of the
remaining eight failures, two were caused by failure of pressure
relief devices (PRD) to operate in a fire, one was caused by over-
pressurization by faulty fueling systems, three were caused by a
combination of stress corrosion cracking, physical damage, and over-
pressurization, and two container failures were caused by physical
damage due to impact in vehicle crashes.
    \8\ There are too few container failures to evaluate annual
trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 21, 2019, NHTSA published the NPRM preceding this final
rule, proposing to amend the statement required under S7.4(g) so that
it includes separate, discrete periodic inspection intervals for light
and heavy CNG vehicles.\9\ NHTSA proposed that the inspection interval
for CNG fuel containers installed on light vehicles would be unchanged
from the current standard, whereas the inspection interval for CNG fuel
containers installed on heavy vehicles would be changed to at least
once every 12 months, with no mileage interval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 84 FR 29145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the absence of evidence of any increased safety risk
associated with performing just one (rather than multiple) inspection
per year, NHTSA tentatively concluded in the NPRM that the 3-year/
36,000-mile visual inspection interval on the label is not justified by
a safety benefit. Accordingly, NHTSA tentatively concluded that
changing the label to recommend a 12-month inspection interval, without
a mileage interval, eliminated the need to conduct unnecessary visual
inspections. An annual inspection interval would also have the
advantage of synchronizing the label's inspection interval with FMCSA
regulations that state that commercial vehicles must be inspected
annually, thus limiting the cost of compliance with the label's
recommendations.\10\

III. Summary of and Response to Comments

    NHTSA received six comments in response to the NPRM. The comments
were submitted by the two petitioners (NGV America and ATA), the
National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA),\11\ Hexagon Mobile
Pipeline LLC (Hexagon),\12\ Agility Fuel Solutions LLC (Agility),\13\
and one individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As self-described on its website, NWRA is a trade
association representing nearly 70 percent of the private sector
waste and recycling industry. Its nearly 700 members operate in all
50 States and the District of Columbia and are a mix of publicly-
traded and privately-owned local, regional, and Fortune 500 national
and international companies.
    \12\ As self-described on its website, Hexagon produces high-
pressure composite storage cylinders and transportation modules for
CNG and biogas.
    \13\ As self-described on its website, Agility is a global
provider of clean fuel ``solutions'' for medium and heavy duty
commercial vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenters uniformly supported the adoption of the proposed
rule, and voiced agreement with NHTSA's analysis and conclusions
regarding the costs and safety impacts on operators of CNG heavy
vehicles of changing the visual inspection label. NWRA requested that
NHTSA impose an inspection documentation requirement. NHTSA has not
adopted such a requirement in the final rule, as doing so would be both
beyond the scope of this rulemaking, and beyond NHTSA's authority.
Adding an inspection documentation requirement would not be in the
scope of this rulemaking because we did not propose, or seek comment
on, the establishment of an inspection documentation requirement. Such
a requirement would be beyond

NHTSA's authority because NHTSA is not authorized to enforce inspection
requirements for commercial operators of CNG vehicles. NHTSA does not
regulate how motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment are used and
maintained by commercial operators.
    Agility suggested several changes to the proposed regulatory text
that it believed would improve the readability of the visual inspection
label without making substantive changes. We have decided not to adopt
these changes. First, we do not have evidence indicating that replacing
``motor vehicle accident'' with ``accident'' would be meaningful. We
have treated those terms as interchangeable in previous FMVSS No. 304
rulemakings relating to the inspection label.\14\ Second, we believe
that placing the phrase ``at least'' before the list of periodic
inspection intervals could cause confusion because the label would read
as though both ``(a)'' and ``(b)'' of the regulatory text could apply
to the same vehicle, which is not correct because the two different
inspection intervals apply to different weight classes. Finally, we
believe that the change to the description of the weight class in (b),
while shorter than the proposed regulatory text, would reduce clarity
of the label by eliminating the parallel sentence structures of (a) and
(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., 60 FR 57943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Rule

    After considering the information submitted by the petitioners and
the comments received, we are adopting the changes to the visual
inspection label proposed in the NPRM. Under this final rule, the
portion of the label describing the recommended periodic inspection
interval is bifurcated into separate instructions for light and heavy
vehicles.
    For light vehicles, the time and mileage inspection intervals are
unchanged from the current S7.4(g) (every 3 years or 36,000 miles),
since NHTSA believes the intervals described in the current S7.4(g) are
still appropriate for light vehicles.\15\ However, for heavy CNG
vehicles, the label would describe a periodic inspection interval of
once per year, with no mileage interval. As noted earlier, this
interval for heavy CNG vehicles is consistent with FMCSA's annual
inspection interval for commercial vehicles. NHTSA has concluded that
this rule is not anticipated to have an impact on vehicle safety. As we
explained earlier and in the NPRM, NHTSA is not aware of any evidence
that multiple visual inspections of CNG fuel containers per year
provides a safety benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As explained in the NPRM, the time and mileage intervals on
the current visual inspection label were based on the best field
data available on CNG vehicles at the time FMVSS No. 304 was
established in 1995. 61 FR 47086, September 6, 1996. Because, at
that time the CNG fleet primarily consisted of light vehicles, this
field data reflected the driving patterns of light vehicles, which
typically have an annual VMT of approximately 10,000 to 12,000
miles. More recent data on VMT collected by the U.S. Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) shows that the annual VMT for light vehicles
has not changed, with annual light vehicle VMT holding steady at
about 11,000 miles for both 2014 and 2015. Data obtained from the
FHWA Office of Highway Policy Information--Annual Vehicle Distance
Traveled in Miles and Related Data--2015 by Highway Category and
Vehicle Type. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2015/vm1.cfm. As there has not been a major change to the driving
patterns of CNG light vehicles since NHTSA established FMVSS No.
304, and NHTSA is not otherwise aware of evidence suggesting that
the 3-year/36,000-mile inspection interval is no longer appropriate
for CNG light vehicles, NHTSA did not change the inspection interval
for light vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA recognizes that, for low-mileage heavy CNG heavy vehicles,
the amended label could result in more frequent inspections than now
specified under the current label. This is because under the existing
label, the vehicles do not have to have a yearly inspection if they are
used less than the 12,000 miles a year (on average), while under the
revised label, a yearly inspection is specified, regardless of mileage.
Two of the commenters, Hexagon and NGV America, addressed this issue
and supported the proposed inspection interval for low-mileage vehicles
as well. Hexagon stated that an inspection interval of one year was
beneficial for low-mileage commercial CNG heavy vehicles because low-
mileage commercial operations that use CNG heavy vehicles, such as
refuse collection,\16\ have more incidents than other sectors. NGV
America stated that low-mileage commercial operations often operate in
rigorous environmental conditions warranting a yearly inspection, and,
moreover, are already subject to the FMCSA's requirement that
commercial vehicles undergo an annual inspection.\17\ Thus, as these
commenters concurred that a one-year inspection interval is appropriate
even for low-mileage CNG heavy vehicles, NHTSA concludes the proposed
labeling requirement is appropriate for these vehicles as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ We note that the comment from the National Waste and
Recycling Association, which represents the commercial operators of
waste collection trucks, indicated its support of the proposed
amendments to the visual inspection label.
    \17\ Agility also commented in support of a 12-month inspection
interval for low-mileage CNG commercial vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the infrequency with which CNG failures currently occur, the
Agency believes that conducting multiple visual inspections of CNG
containers per year on heavy vehicles is unnecessary. That said, the
contrary is not supported--NHTSA has not made a determination that
fewer than one visual inspection per year is supported. In addition,
the Agency lacks field data to support recommending a longer visual
inspection interval, such as every 3 years or 5 years, and received no
feedback or data from commenters that would advocate for such a change.
Because heavy vehicles in commercial fleets tend to travel
significantly more miles than light vehicles, the CNG fuel containers
on heavy vehicles may be exposed to more wear and tear in a given
period of time than CNG fuel containers on light vehicles. Accordingly,
NHTSA concludes that an annual visual inspection interval is more
appropriate than a less frequent interval as inspectors are more likely
in an annual inspection cycle to identify and remedy damage to the CNG
fuel container and fuel system than compared to, say, a 3-year or 5-
year inspection interval.
    The CNG industry (including container manufacturers, vehicle
integrators, CNG vehicle fleet operators) agree that an annual visual
inspection of CNG containers on heavy vehicles would reduce inspection
costs without a reduction in safety.

V. Analysis of Costs and Benefits

    Because NHTSA does not expect this rule to affect vehicle safety,
the net benefit of this rule is a reduction in costs to operators of
CNG heavy vehicles who will no longer perform multiple visual
inspections per year. The magnitude of this reduction in costs depends
on the size of the CNG heavy vehicle fleet, the number of excess visual
inspections that are performed based on the suggestion on the current
label's mileage interval, and the cost of conducting those additional
visual inspections. Note that, for purposes of estimating costs and
benefits, CNG heavy vehicles were broken down into two categories: CNG
medium duty vehicles (with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) and
less than or equal to 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)) and CNG heavy duty
vehicles (with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg).
    NHTSA estimated the size of the CNG heavy vehicle fleet, which
consists of CNG medium duty vehicles and CNG heavy duty vehicles, using
data from

NGV America.\18\ According to NGV America, there are approximately
25,800 CNG medium duty vehicles and 39,500 CNG heavy duty vehicles
currently in operation in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As we explained in the NPRM, although both NGV America and
the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) tracks the size of the CNG
vehicle fleet, NHTSA believes that NGV America's estimate is more
accurate than EIA's because NGV America bases its estimates on data
obtained from its members, whereas EIA bases its estimates on
vehicle registration data obtained from States. NHTSA believes that
using vehicle registrations to estimate the size of the CNG vehicle
fleet would systematically undercount the number of CNG vehicles
because many States do not require fuel type to be noted on the
vehicle registration, and because many CNG heavy vehicles operating
today were converted from diesel-fueled vehicles after the first
vehicle purchase. The NGV America fleet and sales data from December
2014 is available at https://www.ngvamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/2014-NGV-Production-and-Sales-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA estimated the annual average VMT for CNG heavy vehicles by
using a published business model that estimates the minimum annual
average VMT that a CNG heavy vehicle operator would be required to
maintain to achieve a 20 percent return on investment for converting a
diesel heavy vehicle to use CNG.\19\ According to this model, if the
per-gallon price of diesel is $1.25 more than the per-diesel gallon
equivalent (DGE) for CNG, the required average annual VMT required to
maintain a 20 percent return on investment is 75,000 miles for CNG
medium duty vehicles, and 125,000 miles for CNG heavy duty
vehicles.\20\ As discussed above, commenters supported NHTSA's
assumption in the NPRM that inspections would generally be performed as
suggested on the label. Using the more conservative estimate of 108,000
VMT for CNG heavy duty vehicles and 72,000 VMT for CNG medium duty
vehicles, we estimate that, under the current 36,000-mile mileage
interval, a CNG heavy duty vehicle would be inspected 3 times per year
(108,000 / 36,000 = 3), and a CNG medium duty vehicle would be
inspected two times per year (72,000 / 36,000 = 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Dee, Anna Lea, ``What Set of Conditions Would Make the
Business Case to Convert Heavy Trucks to Natural Gas?--a Case
Study,'' National Energy Policy Institute, 2012. This model accounts
for several factors that affect return on investment, including the
capital investment required to convert a diesel vehicle to run on
CNG; the relative costs of fueling infrastructure and vehicle
maintenance between CNG and diesel vehicles; and the relative fuel
economy of CNG and diesel vehicles.
    \20\ According to the Department of Energy, the price of diesel
fuel at the time of this analysis was $3.08 per gallon, whereas the
price of CNG was $2.49 per diesel gallon equivalent (DGE)--a
differential of $0.59. See https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/alternative_fuel_price_report_oct_2019.pdf. Because fuel
prices tend to fluctuate over time, our analysis here assumes a
price differential of $1.25, which is the same as the analysis in
the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA estimated the per-inspection cost of visual inspections using
information provided by ATA in its petition for rulemaking. According
to ATA, visual inspections cost between $200 and $500 per vehicle, and
require a CNG vehicle to have a 2-day downtime for the inspection at a
cost of about $150 per day.\21\ Based on these estimates, NHTSA
calculated the cost of a single inspection to be $500 ($200 + $150 x 2)
to $800 ($500 + $150 x 2), with an average of $650 ($350 + $150 x 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ This cost includes inspection by a trained and qualified
inspector and removal and replacement of shields or covers of the
CNG fuel containers before and after the inspection. The downtime
cost is also assumed that the inspection will occur when the vehicle
would otherwise be in-use, not, for example, if it is out of service
for some other reason (e.g., if the inspection occurs on the weekend
or when a particular fleet vehicle is not required to be in use).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously mentioned, NGV America's production and sales report
estimated the inventory of medium duty and heavy duty CNG vehicles was
25,800 and 39,500, respectively, in 2014. NHTSA believes these
estimates are the most accurate available for the CNG industry, and
therefore assumes these figures as the average annual inventory for CNG
heavy vehicles. As we noted in the NPRM, our analysis may be a low
estimate of the total cost saving because projections indicate the
annual sale of CNG heavy vehicles used in commercial fleets will
increase to 68,000 in 2040, which would lead to a significant increase
in the number of these vehicles in the overall heavy vehicle
fleet.22 23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Baker, et al., ``Alternative Fuel Vehicle Forecasts (April
2016),'' Texas A&M Transportation Institute, https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/PRC-14-28F.pdf.
    \23\ While NHTSA did not use the AEO2017 data in its cost/
benefit analysis due to underreporting of the current size of the
CNG fueled heavy vehicle fleet, we note that the AEO2017 data
estimates an increase in the CNG medium and heavy duty vehicle fleet
by 2040. According to AEO2017 projected estimates, there would be
16,335 CNG medium duty vehicles and 74,469 CNG heavy duty vehicles
in 2040. By contrast, the AEO2017 estimates that in 2015, there were
2,150 CNG medium duty vehicles and 22,350 CNG heavy duty vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the above estimates, NHTSA calculated the total annual cost
savings from reduced number of visual inspections of CNG containers in
the CNG heavy vehicle fleet, regardless of whether the container has
the current visual inspection label or the new modified label. Again,
this analysis assumes that the heavy vehicle fleet size remains
unchanged in the future. With these assumptions along with inspection
cost estimates, the potential total annual cost savings due to reduced
number of CNG fuel container inspections range between $52.40 million
to $83.84 million with an average cost savings of $68.12 million, as
shown in Table 1. Because these estimated annual cost savings are
constant across all years into the future, annualized values are
similar for all discount rates, as shown in Table 2. As noted above,
since the CNG heavy vehicle fleet size is expected to increase in the
future, the annual cost savings presented in Table 1 are conservative.

  Table 1--Annual Cost Savings From Conducting Yearly Inspection of All CNG Containers on the CNG Heavy Vehicle
                                                      Fleet
                                                     [2020$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost of inspection
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                        Low           Average          High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Single Inspection (a)...................................            $500            $650            $800
Number of CNG Heavy Duty Vehicles (b)...........................          39,500          39,500          39,500
Number of CNG Medium Duty Vehicles (c)..........................          25,800          25,800          25,800
Number of Inspections Reduced Per Year for Heavy Duty Vehicles                 2               2               2
 (d)............................................................
Number of Inspections Reduced Per Year for Medium Duty Vehicles                1               1               1
 (e)............................................................
Cost Reduction for Heavy Duty Vehicles (f) = (a) x (b) x (d) in           $39.50          $51.35          $63.20
 Millions.......................................................
Cost Reduction for Medium Duty Vehicles (g) = (a) x (c) x (e) in          $12.90          $16.77          $20.64
 Millions.......................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Cost Saving (f) + (g) in Millions..............          $52.40          $68.12          $83.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Compliance Date

    Because this final rule will eliminate the current requirement that
results in multiple visual inspections per year for heavy vehicles in
favor of a requirement for an equally safety protective annual
inspection, we believe a mandatory compliance date of one year after
the date of publication of this document in the Federal Register is
appropriate, with optional early compliance permitted. We believe one
year is sufficient time to make needed changes to the visual inspection
label for CNG fuel containers with no additional cost, and that
permitting early compliance will provide manufacturers with
flexibility.
    We note that, while this rule does not apply retroactively to
containers manufactured before the mandatory compliance date, there may
be instances in which an operator may want to replace a previously-
existing visual inspection label with a new label with the amended time
interval. As to whether such a replacement would be a violation of the
``make inoperative'' provision of the Safety Act, our answer is no,
assuming the container will be permanently labeled with the new label
as specified in S7.4 and contains all the information required by S7.4.
49 U.S.C. 30122 states, in relevant part: ``A manufacturer,
distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business
may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of
design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in
compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.''
Replacing the previously-existing label with the new label by an entity
listed in Sec.  30122 would not be a violation of the make inoperative
provision because the new label serves the same function and safety
need as the previous label, only more efficiently. Both labels inform
the operator of how frequently CNG fuel containers should be inspected,
with the new label reflecting the need for motor vehicle safety more
accurately. Thus, replacing the label does not make inoperative a
device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in
compliance with FMVSS No. 304.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 49 U.S.C. 30122. Note that the ``make inoperative''
prohibition applies only to manufacturers, distributors, dealers,
rental companies, and motor vehicle repair businesses; it would not
apply to a commercial operator of a CNG vehicle modifying his or her
own vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 13563, and DOT Rulemaking Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this final rule under Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563, and the Department of Transportation's
administrative rulemaking procedures. This final rule was deemed to be
non-significant under Executive Order 12866 by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, and is not considered a rulemaking
of special note to the Department under DOT Order 1200.6A.
    NHTSA is modifying the required label for visual inspection of CNG
fuel containers to specify that the container should be visually
inspected for damage and deterioration after a motor vehicle accident
or fire, and either (a) at least every 12 months when installed on a
vehicle with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg or (b) at least every 36
months or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first, when installed on a
vehicle with a GVWR less than or equal to 4,536 kg. NHTSA has not found
any evidence that this change will impact motor vehicle safety. NHTSA
believes that the only substantive effect of this final rule will be to
eliminate unnecessary visual inspections of CNG fuel containers by
operators of high-mileage CNG heavy vehicles and align the CNG
container inspections for low-mileage CNG heavy vehicles with FMCSA's
annual inspection interval.
    NHTSA estimates the change will reduce the number of visual
inspections per year by approximately 2 inspections for heavy duty CNG
vehicles and by approximately 1 inspection for medium duty CNG
vehicles. The agency further estimates that the elimination of these
visual inspections will result in an average annual cost savings of
$68.12 million, assuming the current CNG heavy vehicle fleet size
remains unchanged.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions)
unless the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR part 121.105(a)). SBREFA
amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a proposed
or final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    I certify that this final rule will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities. There are two types of
businesses that will potentially be impacted by this rule:
Manufacturers of CNG fuel containers and commercial operators of CNG
heavy vehicles. Small manufacturers of CNG fuel containers are directly
impacted by this rule because they are required to modify the language
on the visual inspection label. However, as the label itself is already
required (only the wording is changing), NHTSA expects this to be a
negligible, one-time expense for these businesses. As explained in
earlier in this Notice, commercial operators of CNG heavy vehicles are
indirectly impacted by this rule because the amended visual inspection
label will indirectly cause the elimination of multiple unnecessary
visual inspections these businesses must perform per year. Small
operators of CNG heavy vehicles will likely see a reduction in
maintenance costs because

of a reduced number of CNG fuel container inspections.
    However, NHTSA does not believe those cost impacts will be
significant, because the cost savings from reduced inspections would be
a small percentage of the overall operational cost of the vehicle. To
illustrate, according to AEO, a medium duty CNG vehicle fuel efficiency
is 6.9 mpg, and that for heavy vehicle is 5.7 mpg (gasoline gallon
equivalent). The cost of CNG fuel is $2.27/gasoline gallon equivalent.
A heavy duty truck traveling 108,000 miles per year spends $43,010 (=
108,000/5.7 * $2.27) on fuel alone. The cost savings of doing annual
inspections for a heavy duty vehicle is estimated at $1,300 per year.
This annual savings is only 3 percent of fuel costs. A medium duty
truck traveling 72,000 miles per year spends $23,686 (= 72,000/6.9 *
2.27) on fuel alone. The cost savings of doing annual inspections for a
medium duty vehicle is estimated at $650. This annual savings would be
only 2.7 percent of fuel costs.
    The above comparison is limited to fuel costs. There are other
operational costs that have not been accounted for which would make the
savings from reduced inspections to be even less than 3 percent
compared to the cost of operating the vehicles.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as amended.
The Agency has determined that implementation of this action will not
have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. The
rule merely reduces the number of visual inspections that commercial
operators of high-mileage CNG heavy vehicles will have to conduct.
    Reducing the number of inspections would reduce the downtime and
cost of operation of these vehicles. On the days that a CNG heavy
vehicle is out-of-service for visual inspection, the operations are
either stopped or continued using a conventional-fuel vehicle. As
stated above, according to NGV America, there are approximately 25,800
CNG medium duty vehicles and 39,500 CNG heavy duty vehicles currently
in operation in the United States. These vehicles therefore make up a
very small proportion of the on-road medium and heavy duty vehicle
fleet, and the change in their downtime is a very small proportion of
their overall use, so any resulting change in medium or heavy duty
vehicle operation (including by the regulated vehicles) also would be
very small.
    NHTSA estimates that this rule would, at most, reduce the number of
visual inspections a CNG operator conducts each year by two for heavy
duty vehicles and by one for medium duty vehicles. Since an inspection
takes one to two days to conduct, there could be at most four extra
days of operation per year (2 inspections x 2 days per inspection = 4
days of additional operation) for heavy duty vehicles and two extra
days of operation per year (1 inspection x 2 days per inspection) for
medium duty vehicles.
    Assuming trips that would otherwise be made using a CNG-fueled
vehicle are instead made using a diesel-fueled vehicle when the CNG-
fueled vehicle is undergoing a visual inspection, then making CNG heavy
duty vehicles available for an additional four days annually and CNG
medium duty vehicles available for an additional two days annually
would reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, since heavy CNG vehicles
have 13-17 percent fewer GHG emissions compared to diesel on a well-to-
wheel basis.\25\ However, on an annual basis, this reduction in GHG
emissions from increased operation of CNG vehicles would be
insignificant (i.e., much less than 1 percent) compared to the GHG
emissions from the total U.S. heavy vehicle fleet. Similarly,
anticipated changes to other air pollutant emissions would also be very
small. Thus, any environmental impacts would be appropriately
considered de minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Well-to-wheel refers to an analysis that accounts for all
the energy and emissions necessary to produce the fuel used in the
vehicle (well-to-pump) and the operation energy and emissions
associated with the vehicle technology (tail pipe emissions, other
emissions and energy efficiency of the vehicle).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives
is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The Agency has concluded the
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement. The rule does not have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express
preemption provision, codified at 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), stating that,
when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State or a
political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a
standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to
NHTSA's standard prescribed under this chapter. It is this statutory
command by Congress (and not today's final rule) that preempts any non-
identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the same
aspect of performance, so consultation would be inappropriate.
    It is this statutory command by Congress (and not today's final
rule) that preempts any non-identical State legislative and
administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance, so
consultation would be inappropriate.
    Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some
instances, of implied preemption of State requirements imposed on motor
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law.
That possibility is dependent upon there being an actual conflict
between a FMVSS and the State requirement. If and when such a conflict
exists, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the State
requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529
U.S. 861 (2000), finding implied preemption of State tort law on the
basis of a conflict discerned by the court,\26\ not on the basis of an
intent to preempt asserted by the agency itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The conflict was discerned based upon the nature (e.g., the
language and structure of the regulatory text) and the safety-
related objectives of FMVSS requirements in question and the impact
of the State requirements on those objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has considered, pursuant to Executive Orders 13132 and 12988,
whether this final rule could or should preempt State common law causes
of action. To this end, the Agency has examined the nature (e.g., the
language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this
final rule and finds that this final rule is not intended to preempt
State tort law that effectively imposes a higher standard on regulated
entities than that would be established by today's final rule. The
change in this final rule amends a labeling requirement that applies to
newly manufactured CNG fuel containers; it does not conflict with the
establishment of a higher standard of safety by means of State tort law
that applies to the same subject

matter (i.e., adequate labeling of CNG fuel containers). This rule
would not preempt state inspection requirements, including those that
rely on the language on the visual inspection label, because this rule
does not mandate that the label be followed; states remain free to
establish inspection requirements as they deem appropriate. Without any
conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of State law,
including State tort law.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729; Feb. 7, 1996), requires Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive
effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or
regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct,
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly
specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies whether
administrative proceedings are to be required before parties file suit
in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses other
important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent
with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of
preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further there is no
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or
pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in
court.

Privacy Act

    All submissions, including public comments on this final rule, will
be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search the electronic form
of all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There are no
information collection requirements associated with this final rule.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, as amended by Public Law 107-
107 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the agency to evaluate and use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or is otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, such as the SAE International. The NTTAA
directs us to provide Congress (through OMB) with explanations when the
agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
    This final rule accords with the NTTAA. FMVSS No. 304 has
historically drawn largely from ANSI NGV 2. The changes in this final
rule to the visual inspection label were made in accordance with data
provided by NGV America and ATA and the recommendations developed by
industry technical working groups.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The NGV America Technology & Development Committee's
Guidance on Fuel System Inspection published in November 2017
specifies annual visual inspection for CNG fuel containers on heavy
vehicles as a practical approach to inspection and maintenance of
the fuel container and fuel system which would match intervals and
procedures with other vehicle maintenance tasks, such as engine oil
and filter changes, that are conducted on an annual basis per FMCSR
396.17. The CSA group, which maintains NGV 2, is considering
modifying the inspection interval in NGV 2 to an annual inspection
following the NGV America Technology & Development Committee's
Guidance document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation, with base year
of 1995). UMRA also requires an agency issuing an NPRM or final rule
subject to the Act to select the ``least costly, most cost-effective or
least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule.'' This final rule would not result in a Federal mandate that will
likely result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million
annually (adjusted annually for inflation, with base year of 1995).

Executive Order 13609 (Promoting Regulatory Cooperation)

    The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609
provides, in part: The regulatory approaches taken by foreign
governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to
address similar issues. In some cases, differences between the
regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign
counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of
American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation
can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that
are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation.
International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or
prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
    The European regulation for CNG vehicles, ECE R.110, ``I. Specific
components of motor vehicles using compressed natural gas (CNG) and/or
liquefied natural gas (LNG) in their propulsion system,'' \28\ requires
a detailed visual inspection of CNG fuel containers on vehicles at
least every 48 months and after an accident or fire. However, the
working pressure of CNG fuel containers in Europe is 20 Megapascals
(MPa) (3,000 pounds per square inch (psi)), while that in the U.S. is
typically 26 MPa (3,600 psi). The higher container pressure in the U.S.
necessitates more frequent visual inspections than that conducted in
Europe. Therefore, NHTSA did not consider harmonizing with ECE R.110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2015/R110r3e.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulation Identifier Number

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. In Sec.  571.304, revise S7.4(g) to read as follows:

Sec.  571.304  Standard No. 304; Compressed natural gas fuel container
integrity.

* * * * *
    S7.4 * * *
    (g) The statement: ``This container should be visually inspected
for damage and deterioration after a motor vehicle accident or fire,
and either (a) at least every 12 months when installed on a vehicle
with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg, or (b) at least every 36 months or
36,000 miles, whichever comes first, when installed on a vehicle with a
GVWR less than or equal to 4,536 kg.''
* * * * *

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.4.
Steven S. Cliff,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-02588 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 96 (Friday, May 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23023-23024]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10163]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2017-0021; OMB No. 1660-0105]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Community Preparedness and Participation Survey

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a revision of a currently approved information
collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
this notice seeks comments concerning the FEMA Community Preparedness
and Participation Survey used to identify progress and gaps in citizen
and community preparedness.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2017-0021. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-
3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Snelling, Senior Advisor,
FEMA, National Preparedness Directorate, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may
contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed
collection of information at email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Stafford Act, Title VI, Emergency
Preparedness (42 U.S.C. 5195-5195(a)) identifies the purpose of
emergency preparedness ``for the protection of life and property in the
United States from hazards.'' It directs that the Federal Government
``provide necessary direction, coordination, and guidance'' as
authorized for a comprehensive emergency preparedness system for all
hazards. Emergency preparedness is defined as all ``activities and
measures designed or undertaken to prepare or minimize the effects of a
hazard upon the civilian population . . .'' The ``conduct of research''
is among the measures to be undertaken in preparation for hazards.
    The DHS Strategic Plan 2014-2018 includes a Goal 5.1 including the
goal for ``improving strategies for the mission of empowering
individuals and communities to strengthen and sustain their own
preparedness''
    The FEMA Strategic Plan 2014-2018 references FEMA priorities for
preparing individuals in Priority #1--to achieve a survivor-centric
mission where ``Individuals and communities know the steps to take,
have the tools required, and take appropriate actions, before, during,
and after disasters'', and in Priority #3, to better prepare survivors
and bystanders.
    Presidential Policy Directive-8 (PPD-8) directs the Secretary of
Homeland Security to ``coordinate a comprehensive campaign to build and
sustain national preparedness, including public outreach and community-
based and private sector programs to enhance national resilience, the
provision of Federal financial assistance, preparedness efforts by the
Federal Government, and national research and development efforts.''
    In response to the charge to FEMA and to the DHS and FEMA strategic
priorities, FEMA conducts programs to improve the public's knowledge
and actions for preparedness and resilience including the READY.gov
program, the Prepareathon program, and related programs such as the
Youth Preparedness program that focus on specific populations and
hazards. Information from this collection will be used to track changes
in knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to preparedness in the
general public, and to track the outcomes of the national campaigns and
programs in motivating behavior change for preparedness in the general
public.

Collection of Information

    Title: Community Preparedness and Participation Survey.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0105.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 008-0-15, Community Preparedness and
Participation Survey.
    Abstract: The Individual and Community Preparedness Division uses
this information to more effectively improve the state of preparedness
and participation from the general public by customizing preparedness
education and training programs, messaging and public information
efforts, and strategic planning initiatives.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Number of Respondents: 5,040.
    Number of Responses: 5,040.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,260 hours.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $32,760. There are no annual costs to respondents
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$627,432.28.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: May 15, 2017.
Richard W. Mattison,
Records Management Program Chief, Mission Support, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2017-10163 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-46-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1503-1505]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00391]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 1

[Docket No. FDA-2017-D-5225]

Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Importers of Food for
Humans and Animals: Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
availability of a final guidance entitled ``Foreign Supplier
Verification Programs for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals:
Guidance for Industry.'' This guidance document provides our thinking
on how importers of food for humans and animals can comply with the
regulation on foreign supplier verification programs (FSVPs) issued on
November 27, 2015. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the
draft guidance of the same title dated January 24, 2018.

DATES: The announcement of guidance is published in the Federal
Register on January 11, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that

identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be
posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2017-D-5225 for ``Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for
Importers of Food for Humans and Animals: Guidance for Industry.''
Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug
Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-
addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your
request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Compliance Policy Staff, Office of
Compliance, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug
Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of November 27, 2015 (80 FR 74226), we
issued a final rule adopting a regulation on FSVPs for importers of
food for humans and animals (FSVP final rule) (see, 21 CFR part 1,
subpart L). The FSVP final rule implements section 301 of the FDA Food
Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (Pub. L. 111-353), which enables the
Agency to better protect public health by helping to ensure the safety
and security of the food supply.
    Section 301 of FSMA added section 805 to the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 384a) to require persons who
import food into the United States to perform risk-based foreign
supplier verification activities. In addition to directing FDA to issue
regulations on the content of FSVPs, section 805 of the FD&C Act
directs FDA to issue guidance to assist importers in developing FSVPs.
    In accordance with section 805 of the FD&C Act, we are announcing
the availability of a final guidance entitled, ``Foreign Supplier
Verification Programs for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals:
Guidance for Industry.'' This guidance provides our thinking on how to
comply with the FSVP regulation, including, but not limited to,
requirements to analyze the hazards in food, evaluate a potential
foreign supplier's performance and the risk posed by a food, and
determine and conduct appropriate foreign supplier verification
activities. The guidance also addresses how importers can meet the
modified FSVP requirements for importers of dietary supplements, very
small importers, importers of food from certain small foreign
suppliers, and importers of food from countries whose food safety
systems we have officially recognized as comparable or determined to be
equivalent to that of the United States.
    In the Federal Register of January 24, 2018 (83 FR 3443) we made
available a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Foreign Supplier
Verification Programs for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals''
and gave interested parties an opportunity to submit comments by May
25, 2018, for us to consider before beginning work on the final version
of the guidance. We received several comments on the draft guidance and
those comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. A summary
of changes includes additional clarification regarding to what foods
the FSVP regulation applies, what information must be included in the
FSVP, who may develop and perform FSVP activities, what hazard analysis
must be conducted, what foreign supplier approval and verification
activities must be conducted, what requirements apply for importing a
food for which the hazards will be controlled after importation, how
FSVP records must be maintained, what FSVP requirements apply for
imported dietary supplement components, and what FSVP requirements
apply to very small importers or when importing food for certain small
foreign suppliers. In addition, editorial changes were made to improve
clarity. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft
guidance dated January 24, 2018.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for
Importers of Food for Humans and Animals: Guidance for Industry.'' It
does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA
or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does
refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not
required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of
information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections
of information in 21 CFR part 1, subpart L have been approved under OMB
control number 0910-0752.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
either https://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances, https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents, or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA website listed in the previous
sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

    Dated: January 5, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-00391 Filed 1-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P