[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 1431]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00298]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0741]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number 1625-0036

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0036,
Plan Approval and Records for U.S. and Foreign Tank Vessels Carrying
Oil in Bulk; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek
to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only
impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
February 10, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Search for
docket number [USCG-2021-0741]. Written comments and recommendations to
OIRA for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30
days of publication of this notice to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    Find this particular information collection by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: COMMANDANT (CG-6P), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S.
COAST GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVE. SE, STOP 7710,
WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an
application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a
Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains
information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's
likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity
of the Collection, and other important information describing the
Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments
will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this
Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2021-0741], and must be received by February 10,
2022.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments to the Coast Guard will
be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you have provided. For more about
privacy and submissions to the Coast Guard in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020). For more about privacy and submissions to OIRA in
response to this document, see the https://www.reginfo.gov, comment-
submission web page. OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each
ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a
hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0036.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (86 FR 54993, October 5, 2021)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Plan Approval and Records for U.S. and Foreign Tank Vessels
Carrying Oil in Bulk.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0036.
    Summary: This information collection aids the Coast Guard in
determining if a vessel complies with certain safety and environmental
protection standards. Plans, to include records, for construction or
modification of U.S. or foreign vessels submitted and maintained on
board are required for compliance with these standards.
    Need: Title 46 U.S. Code 3703 provides the Coast Guard with the
authority to regulate design, construction, alteration, repair,
maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning
of vessels carrying oil in bulk. See e.g., 33 CFR part 157, Rules for
the Protection of the Marine Environment Relating to Tank Vessels
Carrying Oil in Bulk, and 46 CFR Subchapter D, Tank Vessels.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 2,109
hours to 2,497 hours a year, due to an increase in the estimated number
of respondents.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. et seq.,
chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: December 9, 2021.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2022-00298 Filed 1-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57505-57506]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19670]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 740

[160519443-6443-01]
RIN 0694-AG97

Temporary Exports to Mexico Under License Exception TMP

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would align the time limit of License
Exception Temporary Imports, Exports, Reexports, and Transfers (in-
country) (TMP), which authorizes, among other things, certain temporary
exports to Mexico, with the time limit of Mexico's Decree for the
Promotion of Manufacturing, Maquiladora and Export Services (IMMEX)
program. Currently, TMP allows for the temporary export and reexport of
various items subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR),
as long as the items are returned no later than one year after export,
reexport, or transfer if not consumed or destroyed during the period of
authorized use. Other than a four-year period for certain personal
protective equipment, the one-year limit extends to all items shipped
under license exception TMP. However, the one-year period does not
align with the time constraints of Mexico's IMMEX program, which allows
imports of items for manufacturing operations on a time limit that may
exceed 18 months. This rule proposes to amend TMP to complement the
timeline of the IMMEX program. Under this proposed amendment, items
temporarily exported or reexported under license exception TMP and
imported under the provisions of the IMMEX program would be authorized
to remain in Mexico for up to four years from the date of export or
reexport.

DATES: Comments must be received by October 24, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
The identification number for this rulemaking is BIS-2016-0023.
     By email directly to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include
RIN 0694-AG97 in the subject line.
     By mail or delivery to Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau
of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2099B, 14th
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Refer to RIN
0694-AG97.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regulatory Policy Division, Office of
Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, by telephone (202)
482-2440 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Overview

    Mexico's Decree for the Promotion of Manufacturing, Maquiladora and
Export Services, known as IMMEX, is a platform used by U.S. and foreign
manufacturers to lower production costs by temporarily importing
production materials into Mexico. Created in 2006, IMMEX is the product
of the merger of two previous Mexican economic policies: The
Maquiladora program, which was designed to attract foreign investment
by exempting temporary imports from taxes, and the Temporary Import
Program to Promote Exports (PITEX), which incentivized Mexican
companies to grow and compete in foreign markets by providing temporary
import benefits. Under IMMEX, companies located in Mexico are not
subject to quotas and do not have to pay taxes on items temporarily
imported and manufactured, transformed, or repaired before reexport.
    Under IMMEX, the length of time that imports may remain in Mexico
is commodity dependent, with some items allowed to remain in-country
for 18 months or more. These time allotments are greater than the time
limits for License Exception Temporary Imports, Exports, Reexports, and
Transfers (in-country) (TMP) allowed under Sec.  740.9(a)(14) of the
EAR. With few exceptions, items exported under TMP, if not consumed or
destroyed during the authorized use abroad, must be returned to the
United States one year after the date of export. The discrepancy
between the time periods of IMMEX and TMP reduces the efficacy of both
policies, thereby hindering the shipment of items subject to the EAR to
and from Mexico.
    U.S. companies that produce items subject to the EAR and ship those
items to Mexico under IMMEX have notified the Bureau of Industry and
Security of this discrepancy and have requested that BIS amend the EAR
to increase compatibility with IMMEX. Considering the strength of
Mexico's export control regimen, as exemplified by its accession as a
member to the Wassenaar Arrangement, the Australia Group, and the
Nuclear Suppliers Group, BIS proposes to amend Sec.  740.9(a) to
account for IMMEX's time limit. For the purpose of simplicity, BIS does
not propose to match the various time periods instituted by IMMEX.
Instead, this rule proposes to revise Sec.  740.9(a)(8) to allow
temporary exports and reexports to remain in Mexico for up to four
years, which accommodates the maximum available time that temporarily
imported items may remain in Mexico under IMMEX and is in parallel with
the validity period of BIS's licenses. Additionally, this rule proposes
to revise introductory paragraph Sec.  740.9(a)(14) to include a
reference to Sec.  740.9(a)(8) as an exception to the one-year time
limit of TMP.

Export Administration Act

    Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act of 1979, as
amended, has been in lapse. However, the President, through Executive
Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as
amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March
13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233
(August 11, 2015) has continued the EAR in effect under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration
Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to
Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order 13637.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and

benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to, nor is subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with, a collection of information, subject to the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA),
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This rule does not
contain any collections of information.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    4. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to the notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553) or any other statute. Under section 605(b) of the RFA,
however, if the head of an agency certifies that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the statute does not require the agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis. Pursuant to section 605(b), the Chief Counsel for
Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy, Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

Number of Small Entities

    The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) does not collect data on
the size of entities that apply for and are issued export licenses.
Although BIS is unable to estimate the exact number of small entities
that would be affected by this rule, it acknowledges that this rule
would affect some unknown number.

Economic Impact

    BIS believes that this proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact because exporters are already using other provisions of
the EAR to participate in IMMEX. Currently, exporters participating in
IMMEX are using TMP for exports of a one-year duration. If the item is
to remain in Mexico longer than one year, exporters are required to
either use another license exception or apply for a license that will
address a specific time limit. This proposed rule merely extends the
eligibility period for TMP to four years to complement the lengthy
IMMEX time limit which could be 18 months or more, depending on
circumstances. Extending the time limit of TMP to four years provides
exporters flexibility in complying with the EAR and allows them to take
fuller advantage of the privileges granted by IMMEX. While such a
provision should reduce the paperwork burden to exporters, BIS does not
believe increasing the time limit will lead to a significant increase
in exports to Mexico. Rather, this proposed rule is consistent with the
principle of the EAR in easing the unnecessary regulatory burden to
exporters.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Parts 740

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

    Accordingly, 15 CFR part 740 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774) is
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 740--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996
Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783;
Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015).

0
2. Section 740.9 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(8) and
introductory paragraph (a)(14) to read as follows:

Sec.  740.9  Temporary imports, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-
country) (TMP).

    (a) * * *
    (8) Assembly in Mexico. Commodities may be exported to Mexico under
Customs entries that require return to the United States after
processing, assembly, or incorporation into end products by companies,
factories, or facilities participating in Mexico's in-bond
industrialization program (IMMEX) under this paragraph (a)(8), provided
that all resulting end-products (or the commodities themselves) are
returned to the United States as soon as practicable but no later than
four years after the date of export or reexport.
* * * * *
    (14) Return or disposal of items. With the exception of items
described in paragraphs (a)(8) and (11) of this section, all items
exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) under this section
must, if not consumed or destroyed in the normal course of authorized
temporary use abroad, be returned to the United States or other country
from which the items were so transferred as soon as practicable but no
later than one year after the date of export, reexport, or transfer
(in-country). Items not returned shall be disposed of or retained in
one of the following ways:
* * * * *

Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-19670 Filed 8-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47639-47641]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19914]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0110]

Tesla Motors, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for Temporary Exemption
From the Electronic Stability Control Requirements of FMVSS No. 126

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

ACTION: Notice of receipt of a petition for temporary exemption from
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 126, Electronic
Stability Control Systems.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures in 49 CFR part 555, Tesla
Motors, Inc., has petitioned the agency for a temporary exemption from
the electronic stability control requirements of FMVSS No. 126. The
bases for the application are that the petitioner avers that the
exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a low-
emission vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the safety
level of that vehicle and that compliance would cause it substantial
economic hardship and that it has tried in good faith to comply with
the standard.\1\ This notice of receipt of an application for a
temporary exemption is published in accordance with statutory and
administrative provisions. NHTSA has made no judgment on the merits of
the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the application, go to http://www.regulations.gov
and enter the docket number set forth in the heading of this
document.

DATES: You should submit your comments not later than September 6,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Jasinski, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 4th Floor, Room W41-213,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on the application
described above. You may submit comments identified by docket number at
the heading of this notice by any of the following methods:
     Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by
clicking on ``Help and Information'' or ``Help/Info.''
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Privacy Act: Anyone
is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory Basis for Temporary Exemptions

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
codified as 49 U.S.C. chapter 301, authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to exempt, on a temporary basis and under specified
circumstances, motor vehicles from a motor vehicle safety standard or
bumper standard. This authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The
Secretary has delegated the authority in this section to NHTSA.
    NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory
provisions concerning temporary exemptions. A vehicle manufacturer
wishing to obtain an exemption from a standard must demonstrate in its
application (A) that an exemption would be in the public interest and
consistent with the Safety Act and (B) that the manufacturer satisfies
one of the following four bases for an exemption: (i) Compliance with
the standard would cause substantial economic hardship to a
manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith;
(ii) the exemption would make easier the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety
level at least equal to the safety level of the standard; (iii) the
exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a low-
emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the
safety level of that vehicle; or (iv) compliance with the standard
would prevent the manufacturer from selling a motor vehicle with an
overall safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of
nonexempt vehicles.
    Only small manufacturers can obtain an economic hardship exemption.
A manufacturer is eligible to apply for a hardship exemption if its
total motor vehicle production in its most recent year of production
did not exceed 10,000 vehicles, as determined by the NHTSA
Administrator (49 U.S.C.

30113). In determining whether a manufacturer of a vehicle meets that
criterion, NHTSA considers whether another entity also might be deemed
a manufacturer of that vehicle and whether the production volumes of
each of the two manufacturers should be combined in assessing whether
the criterion is met. A second entity might be deemed a manufacturer of
a vehicle in a variety of circumstances. For example, there are two
manufacturers if one entity produces an incomplete vehicle \2\ and
another entity then modifies the incomplete vehicle so as to produce a
completed vehicle.\3\ NHTSA has stated that a manufacturer may be
deemed to be a sponsor and thus a manufacturer of a vehicle assembled
by a second manufacturer if the first manufacturer had a substantial
role in the development and manufacturing process of that vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 49 CFR 567.3.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For an exemption petition to be granted on the basis that the
exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a low-
emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the
safety level of the vehicle, the petition must include specified
information set forth at 49 CFR 555.6(c). The main requirements of that
section include: (1) Substantiation that the vehicle is a low-emission
vehicle; (2) documentation establishing that a temporary exemption
would not unreasonably degrade the safety of a vehicle; (3)
substantiation that a temporary exemption would facilitate the
development or field evaluation of the vehicle; (4) a statement of
whether the petitioner intends to conform to the standard at the end of
the exemption period; and (5) a statement that not more than 2,500
exempted vehicles will be sold in the United States in any 12-month
period for which an exemption may be granted.

II. Electronic Stability Control Systems Requirement

    In April 2007, NHTSA published a final rule requiring that vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000
pounds) or less be equipped with electronic stability control (ESC)
systems. ESC systems use automatic computer-controlled braking of
individual wheels to assist the driver in maintaining control in
critical driving situations in which the vehicle is beginning to lose
directional stability at the rear wheels (spin out) or directional
control at the front wheels (plow out). An anti-lock brake system (ABS)
is a prerequisite for an ESC system because ESC uses many of the same
components as ABS. Thus, the cost of complying with FMVSS No. 126 is
less for vehicle models already equipped with ABS.
    Preventing single-vehicle loss-of-control crashes is the most
effective way to reduce deaths resulting from rollover crashes. This is
because most loss-of-control crashes culminate in the vehicle leaving
the roadway, which dramatically increases the probability of a
rollover. NHTSA's crash data study of existing vehicles equipped with
ESC demonstrated that these systems reduce fatal single-vehicle crashes
of passenger cars by 36 percent and fatal single-vehicle crashes of
sport utility vehicles (SUVs) by 63 percent.\4\ NHTSA estimates that
ESC has the potential to prevent 70 percent of the fatal passenger car
rollovers and 88 percent of the fatal SUV rollovers that would
otherwise occur in single-vehicle crashes.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Dang, J., Statistical Analysis of the Effectiveness of
Electronic Stability Control (ESC) Systems--Final Report, DOT HS 810
794, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC (July 2007).
Available at Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28629, item 2.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ESC requirement becomes effective for substantially all
vehicles on September 1, 2011.

III. Overview of Petition

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
part 555, Tesla Motors, Inc. (Tesla) submitted a petition dated June 7,
2001 asking the agency for a temporary exemption from the electronic
stability control requirements of FMVSS No. 126. The bases for the
application are, first, that the exemption would make the development
or field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle easier and would not
unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle and, second, that
compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a petitioner
that has tried in good faith to comply with the standard. Tesla has
requested an exemption for the Roadster model for a period from
September 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011.
    Tesla is a Delaware corporation headquartered in California with
sales offices throughout the United States and overseas. Tesla
currently manufactures and sells only one vehicle, the Roadster. Tesla
began production of the all-electric Roadster in 2008 plans to conclude
production for the United States market by December 31, 2011.
    The Roadster has a single-speed electrically actuated automatic
transmission and three phase, four pole AC induction motor. The
Roadster has a combined range of 245 miles on a single charge. Under an
agreement with Group Lotus plc (Lotus), Tesla purchases the Roadster
``glider,'' which uses the chassis and several other systems of the
Lotus Elise. The gliders are manufactured under Tesla's supervision and
direction at a Lotus factory in the United Kingdom and then shipped to
Menlo Park, California, where installation of the power train and other
final steps are taken prior to sale of the vehicle in the United
States.
    Tesla sold or leased 276 Roadsters in the United States during 2010
and 62 Roadsters during the first quarter of 2011. Tesla's worldwide
production for 2011 is planned to be fewer than 1,000 vehicles. Tesla
contends that its relationship with Lotus does not involve any time of
ownership, sponsorship, or any other type of control. However, Tesla
also observes that the combined production of Lotus and Tesla was less
than 10,000 vehicles for 2009 and 2010.
    Tesla believes that granting the petition will support development
and evaluation of a highway-capable electric vehicle. Tesla states that
the development and sale of the Roadster model has allowed them to
develop their next all-electric vehicle, the Model S. Tesla states
that, with the permission of vehicle owners, it has used data from
computers installed in on-road Roadsters related to charging condition
and vehicle performance to determine how best to optimize its battery
design and vehicle software for future vehicle offerings such as the
Model S. Tesla believes that allowing the sale of additional Roadsters
will continue to add to its database of information for its future
vehicle offerings. Tesla states that it cannot replicate this data in
laboratory or other environmental conditions.
    Tesla believes that safety will not be unduly compromised if the
exemption is granted. In support of this assertion, Tesla cites its
inclusion of a traction control system (TCS) on its vehicles. Tesla's
TCS is comprised of software, wheel speed sensors, and the drive system
electronic control unit (ECU). Tesla states that its TCS has many
elements of an ESC system required by FMVSS No. 126. Tesla claims that
the TCS system is able to detect slip in the drive wheels through the
vehicle's ECU and that the vehicle will limit drive power until wheel
spin is controlled. However, Tesla notes that the TCS system does not
have the capability to independently monitor or adjust steering inputs
to prevent oversteer or understeer, nor is it capable of applying
brakes independent of driver input, both of which are required by FMVSS
No. 126.

    Further, Tesla believes that the lack of ESC systems on the
Roadster will not unduly compromise safety based on the intended use of
the Roadster. The Roadster is a low, two-seat sport coupe. Tesla
believes that, while the Roadster is capable of handling slippery roads
due to ice and snow, most owners either do not use their Roadsters
during winter months or sharply limit their use.
    Tesla also contends that the failure to obtain the exemption would
result in substantial economic hardship. Tesla states that it has
incurred cumulative net losses of $464 million since inception and
nearly $50 million in the first three months of 2011. Tesla states that
the loss of the ability to sell the Roadster in the United States could
adversely impact its compliance with financial covenants with the U.S.
Department of Energy, potentially depriving it of a source of capital.
Further, because the Roadster is the only vehicle Tesla offers for sale
in the United States, Tesla contends that the cancellation of the
program would result in a significant loss of market for Tesla.
    Tesla states that it spent between $2 million and $3 million
developing an ESC system for the Model S. Tesla does not have a precise
cost to equip the Roadster with an ESC system, but applying the per
vehicle cost of its Model S to the Roadster, it would cost as much as
$30,000 per vehicle to equip ESC systems onto Roadsters planned to be
sold under the exemption.
    Tesla notes that its chassis is based upon the Lotus Elise, which
is equipped with ABS, but not an ESC system. Because Lotus is ending
production of the Elise for the United States market by August 2011,
Lotus will not invest in redesigns or additions to existing vehicle
systems, including changes to comply with the ESC system requirements.
Tesla states that, given the small number of Roadsters planned for
production during the exemption period and the short time frame
available to Tesla, it is technologically and economically infeasible
to develop an ESC system for the Roadster.
    Tesla contends that it has exerted good faith efforts to achieve
compliance with FMVSS No. 126. Tesla has developed an ESC system for
the upcoming Model S, which is scheduled to be introduced in the United
States in 2012. Tesla also states that it has included a number of
features not mandated by the FMVSSs, including the TCS system discussed
earlier. Tesla notes that it had intended on ending Roadster production
prior to September 1, 2011 and, thus, would not have been required to
equip its vehicles with ESC systems. Thus, Tesla did not focus
development activities on meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 126.
However, due to a shift in production priorities at Lotus, Tesla was
informed that an additional quantity of Roadster gliders could be
produced in 2011.
    Tesla also believes that the exemption is in the public interest.
Tesla states that, without the exemption, it may be required to lay off
a significant number of employees. Further, Tesla notes that denying
this petition would result in fewer electric vehicles for sale in the
United States. Finally, Tesla believes that continuing to sell a long
range, highway-capable, battery-powered electric vehicle in the United
States will lead to more electric vehicles entering the fleet.

IV. Completeness and Comment Period

    Upon receiving a petition, NHTSA conducts an initial review of the
petition with respect to whether the petition is complete and whether
the petitioner appears to be eligible to apply for the requested
petition. The agency has tentatively concluded that the petition from
Tesla is complete and that Tesla is eligible for a temporary exemption.
The agency has not made any judgment on the merits of the application,
and is placing a non-confidential copy of the petition in the docket.
    We are providing a 30-day comment period. After considering public
comments and other available information, we will publish a notice of
final action on the application in the Federal Register.

    Issued on: August 2, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-19914 Filed 8-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44467-44468]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17203]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0124]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application
for an Exemption From ZF Group's Commercial Vehicle Control Systems
(CVCS) Division

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

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
requests public comment on an application for exemption from ZF Group's
Commercial Vehicle Control Systems Division (ZF CVCS) to allow its
advanced driver-assistance systems to be mounted lower in the
windshield on commercial motor vehicles than is currently permitted.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 13, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2021-0124 using any of the
following methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the Federal electronic docket
site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground Floor, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.T., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number for this notice. For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information on the exemption process, see the
``Public Participation'' heading below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the ``Privacy Act''
heading for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to Room W12-140,
DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey

Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help
you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
Docket Operations.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Public participation: The http://www.regulations.gov website is
generally available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You may find
electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the
``help'' section of the http://www.regulations.gov website as well as
the DOT's http://docketsinfo.dot.gov website. If you would like
notification that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgment
page that appears after submitting comments online.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jose R. Cestero, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle
Safety, MC-PSV,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2021-0124), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comments online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2021-0124'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period and may grant or not grant this application
based on your comments.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) to grant exemptions
from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period (up to 5
years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. ZF CVCS's Application for Exemption

    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations require devices
meeting the definition of ``vehicle safety technology,'' including ZF
CVCS's advanced driver-assistance systems, such as Collision Mitigation
Systems, Adaptive Cruise Control, Lane Departure Warning, Lane Keeping
Assist, Collision Mitigation, High Beam Assist, and Traffic Sign
Recognition, to be mounted (1) not more than 4 inches below the upper
edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, or (2) not more than 7
inches above the lower edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers,
and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and
signals. ZF CVCS has applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1)
to allow its advanced driver-assistance systems to be mounted lower in
the windshield than is currently permitted. A copy of the application
is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), FMCSA requests public
comment from all interested persons on ZF CVCS's application for an
exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1). All comments received before the
close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the
beginning of this notice will be considered and will be available for
examination in the docket at the location listed under the Addresses
section of this notice. Comments received after the comment closing
date will be filed in the public docket and will be considered to the
extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also
continue to file, in the public docket, relevant information that
becomes available after the comment closing date. Interested persons
should continue to examine the public docket for new material.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-17203 Filed 8-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Additional Questions from SACC Members on OPPT Presentation on June 8:

Several of the questions asked by Committee Members relate to what they refer to as the "regulatory nexus". There is a need for EPA to present the" bigger picture," describing ( or depicting) the boundaries EPA has placed around the TSCA risk evaluations and where these boundaries intersect with other EPA, Federal and other regulatory programs listed in Section 1.3. In addition, Table 1-2 lists the assessment history of asbestos. How does this evaluation relate to these previous assessments in terms of subject and scope?

 Can EPA request, (or mandate) the collection of exposure data (e.g. require monitoring) when risk scoping and problem formulation indicate risk for potential exposures under a specific COU? A related question: can OPPT require manufacturers/importers/processors collect/provide monitoring data through NPDES (or any other means) for COUs scoped to have potential hazard?  If so, how long would it take to get these data?

 Does TSCA require the conclusions of a risk assessment be reported as binary, that is the risk conclusion is stated as either yes or no?  Can the risk evaluation end in a conclusion that there is not enough information (eg.  There is no exposure data, hazard is unknown) to characterize risk (e.g. "lacks sufficient information to make a reasoned evaluation" for other than new chemicals)?

 Slide 30 indicates "low to medium uncertainty" regarding minimal to low surface water discharge.  However, on page (bottom) 52 (and other locations), the DRE states "Asbestos releases from chlor-alkali facility treatment systems to surface water and POTWs are not known. While the treatment technologies employed would be expected to capture asbestos solids, the precise treatment efficiency is not known. Chlor-alkali facilities are not required to monitor effluents for asbestos releases, and EPA's broader research into this COU did not find asbestos water release data."  These statements indicate significant uncertainty (generated by the total lack of measured data).  Is there a unique definition of "uncertainty" by the Agency that ignores lack of data for a conclusion?

 EPA should consider the Gig economy when developing the consumer examples of brake examples where EPA assumed only one brake job every 3 years. And one job in a lifetime? Did EPA consider the Gig economy? Suggest they add at least one example to cover that use  -  or EPA could indicate the minimum number of jobs in a lifetime or 5-year period that would result in reaching the "unreasonable risk" level.

 When there are multiple companies that provide monitoring data EPA appears to combine all the data and then calculate "central tendency" and "high end" summary statistics. Does EPA first look to see if the individual company data have similar central tendencies and if dissimilar consider weighting the data from each facility so that one company does not dominate and skew the summary statistic for the industry?

 Does EPA request the monitoring plan strategies from the data submitters?

 Slide 49 of the presentation suggests that EPA's interest in including non-malignant lung disease mortality of the risk evaluation may have evolved. Please share how the EPA thinking on this may be changing?

 Table 1-1 (slide 12) describes chrysotile p-chem properties. Can the stated fiber lengths in Table 1-1 (<1000 to ≈ 10,000 um) be easily reconciled with the long fiber/short fiber arguments in the human health literature that emphasize lengths of less than versus greater than 5 um?  EPA answered that the lengths in Table 1-1 pertain to agglomerates in commercial products. This produced a follow-up question as to whether the distribution of particle sizes in commercial chrysotile is known?

 Following up a comment by Dr Davies:  The exposure to asbestos as a contaminant of talc raises the question of whether it is the association of asbestos with talc, the size of the asbestos, or the area exposed (vaginal) that allows the asbestos to enter the body. With some consumer uses (brake grinding, taconite mining, living close to or living with taconite mining), whole body exposures to dust containing asbestos might represent a scenario similar to dusting the body with talc in which case this would impact how dermal exposures are addressed.

 Where will contaminated products as talc be considered if they are not in this DRE. Asbestos has been found in products like crayons, so it's not just cosmetics regulated by FDA. Linda Reinstein from ADAO mentioned crayons, toys, and paints.

 The question on the timeline was answered.

 Why is EPA not considering legacy exposures and risks in THIS DRE? Consideration of legacy uses/exposures/risks seems to be required given the recent lawsuit.  Saying that legacy uses will be considered in a later supplement is not the reason for putting off these issues.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 94 (Thursday, May 14, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28883-28887]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08646]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0681; FRL-10007-39-Region 2]

Approval and Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey;
Infrastructure SIP for Interstate Transport Requirements for the
Requirements for the 2006 PM10, 2008 Lead, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, and
the 2011 Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
portions of New Jersey's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submittal regarding infrastructure requirements for interstate
transport of pollution with respect to the 2006 particulate matter of
10 microns ([mu]m) or less (PM10), 2008 lead, 2010 nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), and 2011 carbon monoxide (CO) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

DATES: This final rule is effective June 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0681. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Fradkin, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What comments were received in response to the EPA's proposed
action?
III. What action is the EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), each
state is required to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that
provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a
revised primary or secondary NAAQS or standard. CAA sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) require each state to make a new SIP submission within three
years after the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS for approval
into the existing federally approved SIP to assure that the SIP meets
the applicable requirements for such new and revised NAAQS. This
particular type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure SIP.''
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a state's SIP to
include adequate provisions prohibiting any emissions activity in one
state that contributes significantly to nonattainment, or interferes
with maintenance, of the NAAQS in any downwind state. The EPA sometimes
refers to these requirements as prong 1 (significant contribution to
nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance), or jointly
as the ``good neighbor'' provision of the CAA.
    On December 13, 2019 (84 FR 68097), the EPA published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) in the Federal Register for the State of New
Jersey. The NPR proposed to approve elements of the State of New
Jersey's Infrastructure SIP submission, dated October 17, 2014, which
were submitted to address CAA section 110(a) infrastructure
requirements for the following NAAQS: 2006 PM10, 2008 lead,
2010 NO2, and 2011 CO. Specifically, the EPA proposed in the
December 13, 2019 action to approve the portion of the submission
addressing the good neighbor provision with respect to the 2006
PM10, 2008 lead, 2010 NO2, and 2011 CO NAAQS
under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    Other detailed information relevant to this action on New Jersey's
infrastructure SIP submission, including infrastructure requirements
concerning the good neighbor provision, and the rationale for EPA's
proposed action are explained in the NPR and the associated Technical
Support Document (TSD) in the docket and are not restated here.

II. What comments were received in response to the EPA's proposed
action?

    The EPA received three comments from two commenters in response to
the December 13, 2019 NPR. The EPA has evaluated the comments, as
discussed below, and has determined that New Jersey's SIP revision
addressing the 2006 PM10, 2008 lead, 2010 NO2,
and 2011 CO NAAQS is consistent with the CAA and, therefore, the EPA is
approving New Jersey's SIP revision. Following is a summary of the
comments and the EPA's response. The full text of the comments may also
be viewed under Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0681 on the http://www.regulations.gov website.
    Comment: The commenter states that the EPA should consider
mandating the use of renewable energy as NO2, CO,
CO2, and other gases are byproducts of fossil fuel
combustion, and New Jersey uses mostly natural gas to generate
electricity. The commenter asserts that a federal mandate similar to
California's for renewable energy would better serve the EPA's long-
term goals for better air quality.
    Response: This comment is outside the scope of our proposed action
and is not relevant to the approval of New Jersey's interstate
transport provisions for the 2006 PM10, 2008 lead, 2010
NO2, and 2011 CO NAAQS under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
The EPA's review of New Jersey's SIP revision under CAA section
110(k)(3) is limited to evaluating whether the submission meets the
applicable requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as detailed
further in the NPR and associated TSD. The EPA is not authorized to
issue any sort of federal mandate regarding renewable energy in
reviewing a state's SIP revision under these provisions.\1\ As the
commenter has not raised any issues regarding whether New Jersey's SIP
revision meets the applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the comment is outside the scope of the EPA's
proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although EPA cannot impose renewable energy requirements in
New Jersey in the context of reviewing a SIP revision under CAA
section 110(k)(3), the EPA notes that the Governor of New Jersey
approved, on May 23, 2018, a State Renewable Energy bill (A-3723),
requiring 21 percent of the energy sold in the state to be from
renewable energy sources by 2020; 35 percent by 2025, and 50 percent
by 2030 (see https://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/562018/approved/20180523a_cleanEnergy.shtml). On January 27, 2020 New Jersey
released its Energy Master Plan. https://nj.gov/emp/docs/pdf/2020_NJBPU_EMP.pdf; https://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/562020/approved/20200127a.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The commenter questioned how the EPA can rely on data for
the PM10 NAAQS which uses monitors with incomplete or no air
monitoring data for PM10 for almost 5 years. The commenter
further stated that the data in Table 3 in the TSD is at best
inconclusive, and the EPA should use only monitors that have complete
quality assured data to show whether monitors are violating the NAAQS.
The commenter indicates that the monitors with the incomplete data are
closest to the state borders, Camden, New Jersey (NJ)--1 kilometer
(km); New York, New York (NY)--3 km; Bronx, NY--6 km; and Queens, NY--
17 km. The commenter also states that with four out of the seven
monitors closest to the New Jersey border showing incomplete data over
the past five years (and a fifth monitor considering 2013-2015 data),
the EPA must gather more data or show that this data is not needed
before proceeding with approval.
    Response: In our evaluation of New Jersey's SIP revision, the EPA
considered both recent PM10 design values (Table 3 of the
TSD), as well as maximum annual 24-hour PM10 concentrations
(Table 4 of the TSD) for active monitoring sites within 50 kilometers
of New Jersey borders, as well as the absence of nearby nonattainment
and maintenance areas for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and
downward emission trends. The EPA finds this weight-of-evidence
analysis is sufficient to conclude that New Jersey has met its
interstate transport obligations pursuant to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and that no additional air monitoring data is
necessary as suggested by the commenter.
    The EPA agrees with the commenter that there are limited complete,
quality assured PM10 design values shown in Table 3 of the
TSD, PM10 Design Values Within 50 kilometers of New Jersey
Borders. There are seven air monitoring sites located within 50
kilometers of the State's borders. Four of the seven air monitoring
locations (i.e., Camden, NJ; New York, NY; Bronx, NY and Queens, NY had
incomplete design values as shown in Table 3 for the two most recent
three-year periods available \2\ (2016-2018, and 2015-2017).
Additionally, the New York, Bronx and Queens air monitoring sites began
operation in January 2017 and, therefore, ``No data'' is shown in Table
3 for the three-year monitoring periods in 2014-2016, and 2013-2015.
The EPA, however, disagrees with the commenter that the design values
listed are at best inconclusive. The design values shown in Table 3
show the average number of exceedances at each air monitoring site,

deemed valid based on the completeness criteria found in 40 CFR part
50, appendix K. PM10 design values, which are used by the
EPA to determine attainment of the PM10 NAAQS, require three
years of representative monitoring data that meets 75 percent data
capture,\3\ if available.\4\ The design values in Table 3 are shown as
incomplete if they do not meet minimum completeness criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Design values are computed and published annually by the
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and reviewed in
conjunction with the EPA Regional Offices. At the time of the
proposed rulemaking, the latest design values available from the EPA
based on air quality data reported and certified by New Jersey was
from 2016-2018. Design values are available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
    \3\ For PM10 a complete set of data includes a
minimum of 75 percent of the scheduled PM10 samples per
quarter. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 2.3(a).
    \4\ Data not meeting the criteria in 40 CFR part 50 may also
suffice to show attainment; however such exceptions must be approved
by the appropriate Regional Administrator in accordance with EPA
guidance. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 2.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At air monitoring locations in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania (PA);
Hudson County, NJ; and Essex County, NJ, there were zero exceedances
for the three most recent three-year periods 2016-2018, 2015-2017, and
2014-2016. These monitor locations are within 50 km of New Jersey's
borders with other states: Hudson, NJ--2 km; Essex County, NJ--8 km and
Lehigh, PA--20 km. When considered with other data included in the
EPA's weight-of-evidence analysis, the absence of violating design
values at those locations is an indication that New Jersey is not
contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance in those areas since no violations or exceedances have
occurred.
    The commenter indicated that the Agency should consider only
quality assured air monitoring data to show violations of the 24-Hour
PM10 NAAQS. The commenter further notes the significance of
incomplete data from the Camden, NJ, New York, NY, Bronx, NY, and
Queens, NY sites since they are closest (i.e., 1 to 17 km away) to
State borders. The EPA agrees that the four locations would yield
useful information regarding New Jersey's interstate transport
contribution provisions based on their close proximity to New Jersey
borders. However, the EPA does not conclude that only design values
that meet completeness requirements may be considered as part of the
weight of evidence analysis used to support approving New Jersey's SIP
revision. When determining whether an area has met the NAAQS, the EPA
relies only on complete quality assured monitoring data; however, in
this rulemaking, the EPA is not making a determination of attainment.
There is no regulation, statute, or other requirement that an
interstate transport analysis rely only on complete data for
determining whether a state has met its interstate transport
obligations under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Rather, the EPA finds it is
reasonable to consider any available and relevant data that assists
with its consideration regarding whether there may be an air quality
problem in downwind states that is impacted by emissions from an upwind
state.
    Due to the limited number of ``valid'' design values available at
active monitoring sites with incomplete data located within 50
kilometers of New Jersey borders, the EPA also considered maximum
annual 24-Hour PM10 concentrations (Table 4 of the TSD) at
the same active monitoring locations for 2013 through 2018. Most of the
data considered was well above 75 percent data capture, which means the
data was above the level for completeness when considered on an annual
basis.\5\ The air monitoring data considered was quality-assured and
certified using the Federal Reference Method or equivalent data, and
was reported by states, tribes or local agencies into EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EPA has added to the docket of this rulemaking annual
data completeness data for each of the air monitoring sites
considered in our analysis. See AQS data completeness reports
(AMP430), and AQS Quick Look Reports (AMP450). Data completeness for
all sites in 2017 and 2018 were well above 75 percent data capture,
except for the Camden site, which had 74 percent data capture in
2018. The previous year (2017) at the Camden site had 92% data
capture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maximum 24-Hour PM10 concentrations at all seven
monitoring sites located within 50 kilometers of the State's borders
continue to be well below the level of the 150 micrograms per cubic
meter ([mu]g/m\3\) NAAQS. As shown in Table 4 of the TSD, the most
recent data available (2017 through 2018) shows that maximum
PM10 concentrations were 30 percent or less of the level of
the 24-Hour PM10 NAAQS. In 2017, the highest maximum 24-Hour
PM10 concentrations was 45 [mu]g/m\3\ (Camden County, NJ).
In 2018, the highest maximum 24-Hour PM10 concentration was
44 [mu]g/m\3\ (Hudson County, NJ).
    The EPA continues to determine, based on the information in the NPR
and TSD, that there is sufficient PM10 air monitoring data,
when considered with the other information evaluated as part of the
EPA's weight-of evidence interstate transport analysis, to conclude
that New Jersey has met its interstate transport obligations under
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). For the 24-Hour PM10 NAAQS, there are no
current or recent violating design values within 50 kilometers of New
Jersey's borders. Further, our review of air monitoring data for New
Jersey, and the neighboring states of Pennsylvania, New York, and
Delaware, shows no violating design values in any of the air monitors
located throughout all areas of those states for the most recently
available period (2016-2018). Additionally, maximum 24-Hour
PM10 concentrations are currently all well below the level
of the 150 [mu]g/m\3\ NAAQS. The lack of exceedances or violations in
any of the air quality monitoring data indicates that there are no
areas located within 50 km of New Jersey's border that are likely to be
in nonattainment of the PM10 NAAQS or to struggle to
maintain the standards.
    Comment: The commenter asked what specific measures were adopted by
the State that control NO2 and CO on a 1-hour and 8-hour
basis. The commenter states that none of the measures listed in the
EPA's NPR or TSD or New Jersey's submission discuss control measures
which control NO2 or CO emissions on a short-term basis. The
commenter indicates that the EPA should only approve transport elements
for NO2 and CO if control measures control emissions on a
short-term basis. The commenter claims that just because annual
emissions have decreased as the EPA has shown in Table 7 and 9 (of the
TSD) doesn't mean these measures are able to control NO2 at
the 1-hour interval or CO at the 8-hour interval. The commenter further
asks the EPA to explain how these control measures control 1-hour
NO2 emissions or 8-hour CO emissions.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the EPA should
only approve transport elements for NO2 and CO if New Jersey
control measures control emissions on a short-term basis, such as on a
1-hour or 8-hour basis. Additionally, because the EPA did not rely on
New Jersey control methods to support approval of New Jersey's
interstate transport SIP, these comments regarding whether or how New
Jersey measures control NO2 or CO emissions on a short-term
basis (or 1-hour and 8-hour basis or interval) are not relevant to this
action.
    Although New Jersey included a list of relevant control measures in
its October 2014 SIP submittal, the EPA did not rely on specific
control measures to support the EPA's conclusion that New Jersey's SIP
adequately addresses the good neighbor provision for the CO and
NO2 NAAQS. In our evaluation of the New Jersey's interstate
transport SIP, the EPA considered ambient air quality data, the lack of
nearby nonattainment and maintenance areas, and downward emission
trends to determine that New Jersey did not contribute significantly to

potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance in another state and,
therefore, New Jersey has met its obligations pursuant to
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2010 NO2 and 2011 CO
NAAQS.
    Because there are no indications that there are current or
potential air quality problems in other states to which emissions from
New Jersey would contribute, the EPA has concluded that New Jersey is
not required to ``prohibit'' any particular amount of emissions.
Rather, the EPA interprets the statute to only require a SIP to include
enforceable control measures prohibiting emissions where the EPA has
first concluded that emissions from the upwind state will significant
contribute to downwind nonattainment or interfere with downwind
maintenance of the NAAQS. See, e.g., 83 FR 65866-888; 84 FR 56077-078.
Accordingly, the EPA does not agree with the commenter that New
Jersey's SIP must include measures specifically designed to control any
particular level of NO2 or CO emissions in order to satisfy
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    The commenter has not raised any concerns with the adequacy of the
EPA's analysis of potential downwind air quality problems in other
states, nor has the commenter offered any data or evidence suggesting
that New Jersey is contributing significantly to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance in another state, or that control of
short-term emissions of NO2 or CO is necessary to address
any alleged nonattainment or maintenance concerns in neighboring
states.
    The EPA finds that the ambient air quality data, the lack of nearby
nonattainment and maintenance areas, and emission trends are sufficient
to conclude that there are no current or potential air quality problems
in other states and, therefore, New Jersey's SIP is adequate to
prohibit emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 NO2 and 2011 CO
NAAQS.

III. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is approving the portions of New Jersey's SIP revision
submittal dated October 17, 2014, addressing interstate transport for
the 2006 PM10, 2008 lead, 2010 NO2, and 2011 CO
NAAQS as these portions meet the infrastructure SIP requirements in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rulemaking action, pertaining to New Jersey's
section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2006
PM10, 2008 lead, 2010 NO2, and 2011 CO NAAQS is
not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other
area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 13, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: April 19, 2020.
Peter Lopez,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart FF--New Jersey

0
2. In Sec.  52.1570, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry ``NJ Infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM10, 2008
Lead, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, and the 2011 Carbon Monoxide NAAQS;
Interstate Transport Provisions'' at the end of the table to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                      EPA-Approved New Jersey Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable
           SIP element               geographic or        New Jersey       EPA approval date      Explanation
                                  nonattainment area    submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
NJ Infrastructure SIP for the     State-wide........  October 17, 2014..  May 14, 2020,       This action
 2006 PM10, 2008 Lead, 2010                                                [insert Federal     addresses the
 Nitrogen Dioxide, and the 2011                                            Register            following CAA
 Carbon Monoxide NAAQS;                                                    citation].          elements:
 Interstate Transport Provisions.                                                              110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I
                                                                                ) prongs 1 and 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  52.1586, paragraph (b)(1) is amended by adding a sentence
at the end of the paragraph to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1586  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * * Submittal from New Jersey dated October 17, 2014 to
address the CAA infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2) for
the 2006 PM10, 2008 Lead, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, and the
2011 Carbon Monoxide NAAQS is approved for (D)(i)(I).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-08646 Filed 5-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 169 (Monday, August 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 53833]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19131]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4553-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

North Dakota; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of North Dakota (FEMA-4553-DR), dated July 9, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on August 11, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James R.
Stephenson, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Nancy M. Casper as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-19131 Filed 8-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P