139's high speed test procedure with the support of the tire industry
(68 FR 38151). Since the high speed test proposed today would be a new
test for heavy vehicle tires, we are proposing to adopt a break-in
procedure similar to that of light vehicle tires. As noted above, Phase
II high speed testing included the break-in step to evaluate high speed
performance, testing that involved testing most tires above their
maximum speed rating.
    Phase II testing used test speeds of 100, 110, and 120 km/h (62,
68, and 75 mph). The truck tires tested (load range G and H) performed
well, and most were able to complete the 2.5-hour target duration
without failure. All except one of the tires tested to the high-speed
test in Phase II completed the first 1.5 hours without failure.
    The agency solicits comments on the performance of tires to a high
speed test, and is particularly interested in the performance of load
range J and L tires. We are aware that while some load range J and L
tires have maximum rated speeds at 120 km/h (75 mph), some are rated
below that speed. Further, according to Tire and Rim Association
Yearbook, manufacturers may recommend that tires may be used at speeds
higher than the tire manufacturer's rated speed if the load and
pressure are adjusted. As a result, the agency seeks comment on the
appropriateness of the test speeds for load range F, G, H, J, and L
tires in the high speed test. The agency tentatively concludes that a
high speed test at the proposed test speeds represents an important and
practicable improvement to FMVSS No. 119 in the safety requirements of
load range F, G, H, J, and L tires that are not for speed-restricted
service.
    In addition, the agency is considering requiring load range M tires
speed rated 75 mph to comply with the high speed test because some of
these wide base tires may be used in similar applications load range L
tires are used. Given that the maximum speed rating of these tires
allows them to be used in high speed operations, possibly instead of
two lower load range tires, the agency believes that they should be
considered for inclusion in the upgrade since they could be used in
different vehicle applications than the typical load range M and N
tires. Accordingly, the agency seeks comment on the appropriateness of
requiring load range M tires speed rated 75 mph to comply with the high
speed test.

b. Load

    NHTSA proposes to set the test load for the high speed test at 85
percent of the maximum load rating for the tire. NHTSA's testing
specified test loads at 85 and 90 percent. Most tires tested were able
to complete the 90 percent load rating application without any
failure,\25\ and additional tire types tested to 85 percent load were
also able to complete 1.5 hours without failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ However, the Goodyear brand drive axle tire appeared
sensitive to load, as it failed more at 90 percent load. The failure
of these tires to reach the test target of 2.5 hours duration raised
some concerns that other drive axle tires with lug-type treads may
not pass at 90 percent load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We chose to select a different load for the high speed test so as
not to duplicate the load conditions used in the endurance test. The
recent update of the high speed test in the FMVSS No. 139 specifies a
test load of 85 percent of the tire's maximum load rating. NHTSA
tentatively concludes that a test load of 85 percent of the maximum
load rating of the tire will provide a necessary improvement, while
setting a realistic level of performance for load range F, G, H, J, and
L tires that are not for speed-restricted service.

c. Inflation Pressure

    NHTSA proposes that the high speed test inflation pressure be set
at 90 percent of the sidewall-labeled inflation pressure that
corresponds to the tire's maximum load rating. For Phase II testing,
NHTSA researchers selected inflation pressures of 90 and 95 percent to
assess the tire's high-speed performance at slight levels of under
inflation. The high speed test in the light vehicle tire standards,
FMVSS Nos. 109 and 139, is conducted with the tire under inflated to
about 8 percent below its maximum inflation pressure. Therefore, for
this Phase II testing, inflation pressures of 5 and 10 percent below
maximum were considered reasonable levels. Inflation test pressures in
this range, with a test load of 85 percent, do not result in the tire
being overloaded for the given inflation pressure. Based on the test
results where only 10 out of 102 tires were unable to finish the 150
minute test, NHTSA proposes that the high speed inflation pressure be
set at 90 percent of the sidewall-labeled inflation pressure that
corresponds to the tire's maximum load rating per sidewall labeling.

d. Duration

    NHTSA proposes a 90-minute duration for FMVSS No. 119's high speed
test, to be applied to load range F, G, H, J and L tires, that are not
for speed-restricted service. The current duration for the high speed
test in FMVSS Nos. 119 and 139 is 90 minutes, consisting of three 30-
minute speed steps. High speed tests are typically of relatively short
duration, given that the purpose of the test is to assess the tire's
performance close to its upper design limit of speed. Overall, 90
percent of the test tires performed well at the 100, 110, and 120 km/h
(62, 68, and 75 mph) speeds, and were able to complete 90 minutes of
the test without any failures.\26\ Therefore, NHTSA proposes to extend
FMVSS No. 119's high speed test to apply to load range F, G, H, J and L
tires, that are not for speed-restricted service, with a total 90-
minute duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ NHTSA's Phase II testing extended the high-speed test to
2.5 hours to assess the limits of performance based on current truck
tire technology, but not specifically with the aim of developing a
proposal for a longer high-speed test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Ambient Temperature

    NHTSA proposes an ambient temperature range of 35 [deg]C 3 [deg]C (95 [deg]F 5 [deg]F) for the FMVSS No. 119
high speed test upgrade. The ambient temperature specified for FMVSS
No. 119's high-speed test is currently 35 [deg]C (95 [deg]F) without
any temperature tolerance. Because an ambient temperature tolerance
provides test laboratories with needed flexibility, we propose
specifying a 6 [deg]C tolerance for the ambient temperature instead of
a single temperature. The agency tentatively concludes that this
proposal for FMVSS No. 119's high speed test is reasonable and
appropriate.

VI. Tire Maximum Speed Marking

    FMVSS No. 119 currently requires certain information to be marked
on the tire sidewall. S6.5(d) of the standard requires that each tire's
maximum load rating for single and dual applications and the
corresponding inflation pressure be labeled on the sidewall, which
provides information to the vehicle operator to ensure proper selection
and use of tires. These load and inflation pressure values are also
used by NHTSA to determine test values for compliance testing purposes.
    The tire's maximum speed rating is currently not required to be
labeled on the sidewall,\27\ except for tires that are speed-restricted
to 90 km/h (55 mph) or below. For speed-restricted tires, S6.5(e) of
the standard requires that the label on the sidewall be as follows:
``Max Speed ---- km/h (---- mph).'' \28\ For tires that are not speed-
restricted, the end user does not know from the tire sidewall labeling
the design maximum speed capability of the tire for the specified
maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure. We believe
that having the maximum speed rating labeled on the sidewall would
benefit the end user, especially as the speed capability in any one
load range can vary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Currently the maximum speed ratings for most tires are
listed only in tire manufacturers' catalogs. Some tire manufacturers
identify their tires by maximum speed, maximum speed limit, or
allowable speed range, while others may not publish the speed
capability of their tires. Common maximum speed ratings for tires
found in catalogs are 50, 56, 60, 62, 65, 68, 70, 75, and 81 mph.
    \28\ Tire manufacturers currently may include the speed rating,
voluntarily, for tires that are not speed restricted to 90 km/h or
less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As such, the agency is proposing a requirement for a maximum speed
rating label for radial truck tires with load ranges F and above. The
agency is proposing the same speed labeling format as the one described
in S6.5(e)--which requires each tire to be labeled, ``Max Speed ----
km/h (---- mph)''--subject to aspects discussed below. The agency
believes that a maximum speed label that includes a numerical value
would be less subject to misunderstanding by consumers.

Numerical Value Versus a Symbol

    We are aware that some tire manufacturers now voluntarily label the
non-speed restricted heavy vehicle tires they sell in the U.S. with
speed restrictions that use a different format, i.e., speed symbols, to
indicate the tire's speed.\29\ For heavy vehicle tires, the speed
symbols and the corresponding speed category used internationally are:
F--80 km/h (50 mph); G--90 km/h (55 mph); J--100 km/h (62 mph); K--110
km/h (68 mph); and L--120 km/h (75 mph). We have tentatively determined
that the speed symbol format is less desirable than labeling the tire
with a numerical value, because the consumer is more likely to
understand the meaning of the latter than that of a letter symbol.
Further, the letter format could be lead to confusion given that the
current load range label required on heavy vehicle tires uses a similar
lettering scheme (load ranges F, G, H, J, L, M and N) that includes
letters that are identical in some instances to the speed symbols used
on heavy vehicles (speed symbols F, G, J, K, and L). The corresponding
speed for these speed symbols are typically listed in the industry
publications such as the annual Year Book of the Tire and Rim
Association or the Japan Automobile Tyre Manufacturers Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ As discussed later in this preamble, the Rubber
Manufacturers Association has suggested to NHTSA that the agency
require all radial tires with a load range of F and higher (that are
not speed restricted) be labeled with a service description
identified by an international labeling system.

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

    We recognize that many large trucking fleets work closely with tire
dealers, who have ready access to the industry publications and who
recommend the best tires for the fleets based on vehicle use and in-
service conditions. However, since many of the small fleets and owner-
operated fleets make their own tire purchasing decisions without such
help, labeling that is clear and easy to understand (the numerical
value) should help users purchase the appropriate tires for their
vehicles, know the speed restrictions of the tire, and use the tires in
accordance with those speed restrictions.

Multiples of 10 km/h

    We propose to require that manufacturers must label their tires
with maximum rated speeds in multiples of 10 km/h (e.g., 100, 110, or
120 km/h). The proposed new high speed test specifies test speeds that
are multiples of 10 km/h: the test speed for the high-speed test would
be the tire's maximum speed less 20 km/h (12 mph) for step 1, the
tire's maximum speed less 10 km/h (6 mph) for step 2, and at maximum
speed for the final step. NHTSA believes that compliance testing for
High Speed performance would be conducted more efficiently and be less
subject to test-speed problems, if the markings are in multiples of 10
km/h.

Terminology

    We note that some manufacturers use the term ``Maximum Speed'' in
their tire catalogs, while others use ``Speed Rating.'' We seek comment
on whether ``Speed Rating'' should be used on the label, instead of or
in addition to ``Max Speed.''

VII. Other Issues

a. Alternatives Considered

1. International Standards
    The ECE regulation that is applicable to truck tires is ECE
Regulation 54, Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Pneumatic
Tyres for Commercial Vehicles and Their Trailers. It applies to both
heavy truck tires and light truck tires, as was the case for FMVSS No.
119 prior to the establishment of FMVSS No. 139. It includes a load/
speed endurance test that is similar to the existing FMVSS No. 119
endurance test for medium/heavy truck tires. The test parameters for
load, inflation pressure, and duration are identical to those specified
in FMVSS No. 119, except for the ambient temperature, which is
specified at 25 [deg]C  5 [deg]C, compared with the
specification of 35 [deg]C  3 [deg]C as proposed for the
revision to FMVSS No. 119. The other difference between the two
standards is that ECE Regulation 54 uses the tire's speed category to
determine its test speed, whereas FMVSS No. 119 uses the tire's load
range to determine its test speed. The test speeds in ECE Regulation 54
are approximately 48-56 km/h (30-35 mph) lower than the maximum speed
rating of the tire, which results in test speeds that are in a speed
range not very much different from the test speed required in FMVSS No.
119 for non-speed-restricted tires. Test speeds in ECE Regulation 54
range from 32-72 km/h (20-45 mph) whereas the Endurance test speeds in
FMVSS No. 119 range from 48-64 km/h (30-40 mph). Hence, the severity of
the ECE regulation for heavy vehicle tires is about the same as for
tires under the current FMVSS No. 119. Additionally, the ECE has no
high speed test for truck tires. In short, ECE Regulation 54 contains
test parameters and performance requirements that are, in some cases,
similar to the current FMVSS No. 119, but that we believe are in other
cases less stringent.
    The agency is not aware of other truck tire standards that are
different from ECE Regulation 54 or FMVSS No. 119, since many national
regulations typically adopt some version of the ECE regulation or the
FMVSS.
2. ASTM Truck/Bus Tire Test Development Task Group
    The ASTM Truck/Bus Tire Test Development Task Group recommended
that the agency consider the artificial stresses and temperature
impacts that are introduced into tire testing when tires (particularly
medium truck tires and larger) are tested on a 67-inch diameter test
road-wheel, as compared to a flat surface. The task group has been
working to develop a tire temperature prediction model for two critical
crown area temperatures, tread centerline and belt edge, based on
comparisons of tire temperatures obtained from tests of five load range
G tires \30\ on a 67-inch diameter curved road wheel, on a flat track
test surface, and on an outdoor test track. (``Phase 1-Final Report,''
ASTM Truck/Bus Tire Test Development Task Group, 9/5/06, Docket No.
NHTSA-2002-13707-10. ``Phase I & II Review,'' ASTM Truck/Bus Tire Test
Development Task Group, 5/15/08, Docket No. NHTSA-2002-13707-14.) As a
result of this work, the task group found that, for the five load range
G tires it tested: (a) The average predicted temperature increases an
average of 39 [deg]C (70 [deg]F) at the tread centerline and 22 [deg]C
(40 [deg]F) at the tire's belt edge when tested on a 67-inch diameter
curved road-wheel as compared to temperatures obtained from tires
tested on a flat surface; (b) equivalent tread centerline temperatures
were obtained between tires tested on a curved road-wheel at 67 km/h
(42 mph) and tires tested on a flat roadway surface at 120 km/h (75
mph); and (c) equivalent tread belt edge temperatures were obtained
between tires tested on a curved road-wheel at 79 km/h (49 mph) and
tires tested on a flat roadway speed at 120 km/h (75 mph). The task
group recommended that NHTSA develop a standard based on maintaining
equivalent tire crown area temperatures (i.e., centerline, shoulder,
and belt edge) between flat and curve test surfaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The test tires, from Bridgestone, Goodyear, and Michelin,
included three drive axle tires with a tread depth of 30/32 inch;
one steer axle tire with a tread depth of 18/32 inch; and one
trailer axle tire with a tread depth of 12/32 inch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that in 2008, the Task Group also completed a
Phase II, which included load range J and L tires to validate the
applicability of the truck tire test conditions to additional tire
sizes and service applications such as inter-city buses and refuse
trucks and ready mix cement trucks. ASTM concluded from the results of
Phase II that for tires with a maximum speed rating below 120 km/h (75
mph) the Endurance test speed should be reduced from 80 km/h (50 mph)
to 72 km/h (45 mph).
    NHTSA is aware that a tire operated on a curved road-wheel,
compared to a tire operated on a flat road surface, experiences higher
centerline and belt edge temperatures due to several factors, e.g.,
severe reverse curvature at the tire contact patch; distortion of the
tire contact patch shape; and over-deflection of the tire sidewall.
NHTSA's tests are conducted on a curved road-wheel. There appears to be
several anomalies in the results from the ASTM model, such as the
centerline temperatures being higher for the 18/32-inch tread depth
tire compared with the centerline temperatures for the 30/32-inch tread
depth tire. (A tire with a greater tread depth generally runs hotter
than one with a lower tread depth.) There are also test conditions
where the model predicted lower tire temperatures when tested on the
road-wheel than the tire temperatures when tested on the flat track
machine and the test track. In addition, the test duration for the
tires the task group tested was limited to 60 minutes to achieve a
steady-state temperature, which does not reflect the level of
stringency a tire experiences during a 47-hour test as performed under
the current FMVSS No. 119 endurance test.

    Nevertheless, we note that our rulemaking proposal to upgrade the
endurance test includes parameters that are on the same order of
magnitude as those provided in the task group's recommendations. Our
proposal includes an endurance test speed of 80 km/h (50 mph) on a
curved road-wheel, up to 100 percent maximum load rating, 80 percent of
the maximum inflation pressure, and 35 [deg]C (95 [deg]F) ambient
temperature. From the results in our Phase II endurance and high-speed
tests, we tentatively believe that these parameters are reasonable and
practicable and consistent with the task group's recommendation.
3. Rubber Manufacturers Association
    On May 14, 2009, RMA submitted information to the agency regarding
an upgrade of FMVSS No. 119 (see Docket No. NHTSA 2002-13707-0016.1
(RMA Perspective on the FMVSS 119 Revisions and Updates Mandated by the
TREAD Act)). RMA's information included suggestions for a number of
matters regulated by FMVSS No. 119, including the endurance and high
speed tests, and had data from tests it had conducted (although from
only one manufacturer). The suggestions are briefly described below.
    RMA suggested that NHTSA mandate that all radial tires with a load
range of F and higher (that are not for speed-restricted service) be
labeled with a service description identified by an international
labeling system, in support of global harmonization and that it be used
as the basis for testing.\31\ RMA suggested that the endurance test
speed in the upgraded FMVSS No. 119 be based on that speed symbol. RMA
suggested that tires with speed symbols of J, K, L, and M be tested at
a speed equal to the difference between the speed symbol and 40 km/h
(25 mph). If the tire has a speed symbol L, which deciphered is a speed
rating of 120 km/h (75 mph), the endurance test speed would be 80 km/h
(50 mph), or if a tire has a speed symbol J, which deciphered is a
speed rating of 100 km/h (62 mph), the endurance test speed would be 60
km/h (37 mph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The corresponding values for the maximum load and speed
symbols of that labeling system may be found in literature published
by entities such as: Tire & Rim Association, European Tyre and Rim
Technical Organization, Japan Automobile Tyre Manufacturers
Association, and others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RMA suggested that if a high speed test is adopted in FMVSS No.
119, the test should be a stepped-up speed test with three 30-minute
steps. The test speeds RMA suggested would be indexed to the
corresponding speed symbol of the tire (i.e., step 1 test speed is 20
km/h below the speed symbol, step 2 test speed is 10 km/h below the
speed symbol, and step 3 test speed is run at corresponding speed for
that symbol). Further, RMA believed that the high speed test should be
conducted without the initial break-in step. According to RMA, there
are data supporting that the tire growth during the break-in step was
negligible, and that the step was thus unnecessary.
    Test conditions such as inflation pressure, load, duration, and
ambient temperature in RMA's suggested tests (endurance and high speed)
would be the same as NHTSA's proposed test conditions. Other issues
discussed by RMA may be found in the docket submission.
    Some of RMA's suggestions have been incorporated into this NPRM. As
discussed above, NHTSA has proposed requiring tires to have a maximum
speed rating label on their sidewalls so that users will know a tire's
maximum speed capability. Thus, a labeling proposal in included in this
NPRM. However, as explained above, the agency believes that using an
international labeling system to identify the tire's maximum load and
speed ratings would not benefit end users in the U.S. because the
literature used to reference these values may not be readily available
for all users, and because the lettering system may be confusing.
Accordingly, the NPRM proposes that a numerical value be labeled rather
than a symbol.
    This NPRM incorporates RMA's suggestion that a high speed test
should comprise a stepped-up speed test with three 30-minute steps
using test speeds indexed to the corresponding speed rating of the
tire. However, as explained earlier in this document, this NPRM does
not propose RMA's suggestion to remove the break-in step from the high
speed test but we are soliciting comments on whether it is appropriate
to do so.
    With regard to RMA's suggestion about the endurance test, at this
time the agency does not believe that all tires should be tested to 40
km/h (25 mph) less than the tire's maximum speed rating in the
endurance test. RMA used research findings from the ASTM as a basis for
the suggestion to establish the test speeds. ASTM found that there was
an equivalence in belt edge temperatures for tires tested on a flat
road surface at 120 km/h (75 mph) and on a curved road wheel at 80 km/h
(50 mph). Hence, this 40-km/h (25-mph) differential was used by RMA in
its recommendations for the test speeds NHTSA should propose for the
endurance test.
    The RMA test data used to support its recommendations was limited,
generated from only one of its members, Bridgestone Firestone. Also,
the mix of tires in the RMA data did not reflect the real-world mix of
heavy vehicle tires sold in the U.S. Although the ASTM findings appear
to support the finding that a 40-km/h (25-mph) differential exists in
test speeds in the 120-km/h (75-mph) range, NHTSA does not have enough
information to conclude that these findings can be extrapolated to
include speeds much lower than 120 km/h (75 mph). The agency is
currently reviewing data from lower speed rated tires 100 km/h (62
mph). We request data from tire manufacturers on the performance of
lower speed rated tires, particularly for the proposed endurance test,
and comments from the public on RMA's submission to the docket.
    We believe that the NPRM's proposed test conditions for the
endurance test are practicable and reasonable and reflect our
recognition of the severity of the endurance test on the curved road
wheel.\32\ Our data show that some tires that are speed rated 65 mph
were able to meet the proposed endurance test when tested to 80 km/h
(50 mph). The vast majority of the tires we tested completed the
proposed 47-hour endurance test at 80 km/h (50 mph) without failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The endurance test is a more stringent test than the high
speed test, primarily because of the lower inflation pressure and
longer duration specified for the test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Deep Tread Truck Tires

    The agency tested tires with tread depths that are typical of on-
road service, and included drive axle tires with tread depths of about
30/32 inch, steel axle tires with tread depths of about 18/32 inch, and
trailer tires with tread depths around 12/32 inch. We are aware that
there are deep tread truck tires with a load range of H, J, or L that
have tread depths greater than 32/32 inch, but none of these tires was
included in our testing because they appear to represent a very small
percentage of heavy truck tires. We are soliciting public comments on
the applicability of the proposed endurance and high speed requirements
to deep tread truck tires and welcome test data submissions for the
docket.

c. Correction of Table III

    In Table III, ``Endurance Test Schedule,'' of FMVSS No. 119, there
are several minor items of information that have been inadvertently
omitted from the table over the course of years of amendments to the
standard, most recently when the standard was

amended on June 26, 2003. The Table III proposed in today's NPRM
corrects those omissions, by including for tires described as ``All
other,'' a row for load range A, B, C, and D tires, and a row for load
range E tires, which include bias-ply tires and others not covered
under FMVSS No. 139. Footnote text has also been added to correspond to
the footnote superscripts 1 and 2. In addition, the current Table III
does not include load range C and D for speed-restricted service and
load range M on the list of tires for non-speed-restricted service but
it does include load range N, which is a higher load range tire. Load
range C and D were inadvertently excluded from Table III. Also, load
range M has been inadvertently excluded from Table III since both load
range M and N tires are included in the list of speed-restricted tires
required to comply with FMVSS No. 119. The agency seeks comments on
including load range M on the list of non-speed-restricted tires
covered under the standard. In addition, we are proposing to change the
superscript format from numerical values 1 and 2 to alphabet letters A
and B to enhance clarity. We are also seeking comments on this issue.

d. Separate Standard

    We note for the reader that, assuming we issue a final rule on this
subject, the final rule might separate the non-speed-restricted, radial
tires of load ranges F, G, H, J, and L, from the requirements currently
in FMVSS No. 119 that this NPRM does not propose to upgrade. We might
set forth the upgraded requirements for the non-speed-restricted,
radial tires of load ranges F, G, H, J, and L, in a new standard to
make clear the regulatory language between those tires whose
requirements were not upgraded. The agency took the same approach when
it upgraded tires for vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or
less, establishing FMVSS No. 139. RMA has also endorsed this approach
in its letter to the agency; see Docket No. NHTSA 2002-13707-0016.1, p.
13.

VIII. Proposed Effective Date

    NHTSA proposes that the proposed requirements for load range F, G,
and H tires be effective two years after publication of a final rule.
The results of the tire research indicate that most load range G and H
tires are able to meet the proposed requirements with little if any
modification. Load range J tires might need some design changes to
comply with the upgraded requirements. Given the need for modification
and the small market share of the tires, the agency proposes an
effective date of three years after publication of a final rule for
load range J and L tires. In addition, the agency's proposal to
establish new labeling requirements for the maximum speed rating of the
tire would require changes in some tire molds. We propose that the new
maximum speed rating labeling requirements for load range F, G, H, J,
and L tires be effective 5 years after the publication of the final
rule. NHTSA requests comment on the proposed lead time for meeting the
performance requirements and the labeling requirements.

IX. Costs and Benefits

    According to Modern Tire Dealer, the 2008 sales for medium and
heavy truck original equipment and replacement tires were 4.3 million
and 15.5 million, respectively. Comments are requested on the number of
tire sales by all (F, G, H, J, and L) load ranges and speed ratings.
All of the G load range tires tested passed the proposed criteria.
Also, all of the H load range tires tested, except for one brand speed
rated at 62 mph, passed the proposed criteria. For the endurance test,
of the six J load range brand/models tested, all three tires from three
brand/models passed, two of three from a fourth brand/model passed,
none of a fifth brand/model passed, and three tires from a sixth brand
passed. Costs to bring the H and J load range tires into compliance
with the proposal are not anticipated to be greater than $15 per tire.
    Out of the fifteen load range L tires tested (three tires for each
of five brand/models), only seven tires passed the proposed test and
two did so with a small margin based on the proposed 47 hours duration
for the endurance test. Comments are requested on the technology needed
and cost to make other load range L tires pass the proposed endurance
test. At one end of the cost spectrum, improved rubber compounds could
be a countermeasure that could reduce heat retention with costs at
about an additional $0.25 per pound. Since these tires have about 100
pounds of rubber this would add $25 in costs to each L load range tire.
At the other end of the cost range, one could assume these tires need
to be made significantly lighter to pass the test with better
materials. This would entail using ultra high tensile strength steel
costing an additional $2 per pound. Those tires now have 35 pounds of
steel in them, totaling $70. Combining these two methods could add up
to $95 per tire (these tires typically cost about $525 each). Comments
are also requested on the costs associated with the new speed labeling
requirement.
    As discussed above, the costs to bring load range H, J and L tires
to compliance with the proposed requirements are estimated to range
from $15 to $95 per tire. The combined H, J, and L load range tire
sales comprised about 29 percent of the total medium and heavy truck
tire sales (19.8 million tires). Of the 29 percent, about 23 percent or
4,554,000 are believed to be H load range tires, about 3 percent or
594,000 are believed to be J load range tires, and about 3 percent or
594,000 to be L load range tires. There are an estimated 227,700 sales
for H load range tires, 118,800 sales for J load range tires and
118,800 sales for L load range tires, all with a speed rating of 62, 65
or 68 mph. Applying the failure rate and cost per tire to the estimated
sales of H, J and L load range tires with a speed rating of 62, 65 or
68 mph would result in a total cost of $13,314,362.
    NHTSA believes that this NPRM has a beneficial effect on safety in
that it would ensure greater tire durability as tires are held to more
stringent standards than currently required. However, the agency has
limited data on the crashes in the crash databases related to tires in
these load ranges. Comments are requested on the different applications
of various speed rating and load range tires (e.g., over the road bus
operations, etc.).

X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be
significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). This document proposes
upgrades to FMVSS No. 119 that we believe most tire manufacturers will
be able to meet without substantial difficulty. NHTSA has prepared a
regulatory evaluation that discusses the costs and other impacts of
this proposed rule.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The evaluation may be obtained by contacting Docket
Management at the address or telephone number provided at the
beginning of this document. You may also read the document via the
Internet, by following the instructions in the section below
entitled, ``Public Participation.'' The evaluation will be listed in
the docket summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA believes that this NPRM has a beneficial effect on safety in
that it would ensure greater tire durability as tires are held to more
stringent standards than currently required. However, there might be
some cost impacts for manufacturers of lower speed rated load range J
and L tires. Some of these tires may not meet the

proposed requirements in NHTSA's test program. Of the heavy-duty load
range J and L tires that did not uniformly pass the upgrade testing, we
anticipate that the costs to bring them into compliance would be no
greater than $15 per load range J tire and $95 per load range L tire.
Comments are requested on the costs of meeting the proposed changes to
571.119.

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).
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 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this proposed rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed rule, which would apply to new pneumatic tires,
would affect tire manufacturers and/or suppliers. The agency does not
believe that any of the tire manufacturers affected by this proposed
rule are small businesses. However, small tire retail outlets across
the country could in some small way be impacted by the proposal, in
that the cost of some tires might increase.
    The agency requests comments concerning the economic impact of the
proposed rule on any small tire manufacturers, tire retail outlets, or
any other entities which the agency has not mentioned.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's proposed 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 that the proposal does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or
the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposed
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:

    When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this
chapter, 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 the standard prescribed under this
chapter.

    49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command that preempts
any non-identical State legislative and administrative law \34\
addressing the same aspect of performance, not today's rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The issue of potential preemption of State tort law is
addressed in the immediately following paragraph discussing implied
preemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,\35\ not on the basis of an
intent to preempt asserted by the agency itself.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 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.
    \36\ Indeed, in the rulemaking that established the rule at
issue in Geier, the agency did not assert preemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has considered the nature (e.g., the language and structure
of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's proposed rule and
does not discern any existing State requirements that conflict with the
proposed rule or the potential for any future State requirements that
might conflict with it. Without any conflict, there could not be any
implied preemption of State law, including State tort law.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
    NHTSA was unable to find any voluntary consensus standards relevant
to this rulemaking. Additionally, please see section VI.A.1 above for
discussion of international standards considered by the agency in this
rulemaking.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million
annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This proposed
rule will not result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of
$100 million annually.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 12988

    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,

February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that 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) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) 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 in connection with E.O.
13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that
individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other
administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.

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. This
proposed rule contains no reporting requirements or requests for
information.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language.
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

Privacy Act

    Please note that 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.

XI. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be
more than 15 pages long.\37\ We established this limit to encourage you
to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may
attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no
limit on the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please submit your comments by a method set forth in the ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this document.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

How do I submit 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
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 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.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See 49 CFR 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted
the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of
the methods set forth above.

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments received after that date.
Therefore, if interested persons believe that any new information the
agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit
comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should
consider that information for the final rule.
    If a comment is received too late for us to consider in developing
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted By Other People?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the DOT Docket .

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, and Tires.
    In consideration of the foregoing, we propose to amend 49 CFR part
571 to read as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30166 and 30177;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 571.119 is amended by revising S3(a), S6.1.2(b), S6.3,
S6.5(e), S7.1.2, S7.2(a), S7.2(e), S7.4, S7.4.1, S7.4.2, and Table III,
by removing and reserving S3(b), and by adding definitions to S4, in
alphabetical order.

    The revised and added paragraphs read as follows:

Sec.  571.119  Standard No. 119; New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles
with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and
motorcycles.

* * * * *
    S3. * * *
    (a) New pneumatic light truck tires, for use on motor vehicles with
a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less manufactured after
1948, of the following type: With a tread depth of 18/32 inch or
greater, bias-ply with tread depth of 18/32 inch or less, and speed-
restricted service.
    (b) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    S4. * * *
    Bias ply tire means a pneumatic tire in which the ply cords that
extend to the beads are laid at alternate angles substantially less
than 90 degrees to the centerline of the tread.
* * * * *
    Maximum speed rating means the maximum speed, as specified by the
tire manufacturer, at which the tire can carry a load corresponding to
the maximum load rating for single usage at the corresponding inflation
pressure.
* * * * *
    Non-speed-restricted service tire means a tire with a maximum speed
rating above 90 km/h (55 mph).
    Radial ply tire means a pneumatic tire in which the ply cords that
extend to the beads are laid at substantially 90 degrees to the
centerline of the tread.
    Speed-restricted service tire means a tire with a maximum speed
rating of 90 km/h (55 mph) or less.
* * * * *
    S6.1.2 * * *
    (b) The tire pressure, when measured at any time between 15 minutes
and 25 minutes after the end of the test, shall not be less than 95
percent of the initial pressure specified in S7.2(a), for the endurance
test, and in S7.4.2(a) for the high speed test.
* * * * *
    S6.3 High-speed performance. When tested in accordance with the
procedures of S7.4, a tire shall meet the requirements set forth in
S6.1.1 and S6.1.2(a) and (b). However, this requirement applies only to
motorcycle tires, to non-speed restricted tires of nominal rim diameter
code 14.5 or less marked load range A, B, C, or D, and to non-speed
restricted radial tires marked load range F, G, H, J, or L.
* * * * *
    S6.5 * * *
    (e)(1) Subject to S6.5(e)(2), the speed that corresponds to the
maximum speed rating for each speed-restricted service tire and each
non-speed-restricted service radial tire of load range F, G, H, J, and
L shall be shown as follows:

Max speed ------ km/h (------ mph)

    (2) For each non-speed-restricted service radial tire of load range
F, G, H, J, and L, the speed shown shall be in a multiple of 10 km/h.
* * * * *
    S7.1.2 The tire must be capable of meeting the requirements of S7.2
and S7.4 when conditioned to a temperature of 35 [deg]C  3
[deg]C (95 [deg]F  5 [deg]F) for 3 hours before the test is
conducted, and with an ambient temperature maintained at 35 [deg]C
 3 [deg]C (95 [deg]F  5 [deg]F) during all
phases of testing. The tire must be capable of meeting the requirements
of S7.3 when conditioned at a temperature of 21 [deg]C  3
[deg]C (70 [deg]F  5 [deg]F) for 3 hours before the test is
conducted.
    S7.2 Endurance. (a) Mount the tire on a model rim assembly and
inflate it as follows: For a non-speed restricted radial tire of load
range F, G, H, J, or L, inflate it to 80 percent of the inflation
pressure corresponding to the maximum load rating marked on the tire.
For all other tires, inflate it to 100 percent of the inflation
pressure corresponding to the maximum load rating marked on the tire.
Use the single maximum load value when the tire is marked with both
single and dual maximum loads.
* * * * *
    (e) Allow the tire to cool for between 15 and 25 minutes after
running the tire for the required time. Measure the tire inflation
pressure. Remove the tire from the model rim assembly, and inspect the
tire for conditions specified in S6.1.2(a) and (b).
* * * * *
    S7.4 High-speed performance.
    S7.4.1 Motorcycle tires, and non-speed restricted tires of nominal
rim diameter code 14.5 or less marked load range A, B, C, or D.
    (a) Mount the tire on a test rim and inflate it to the pressure
corresponding to the maximum load rating marked on the tire. Use the
single maximum load value when the tire is marked with both single and
dual maximum load.
    (b) Condition the tire and rim assembly in accordance with S7.1.2.
    (c) Before or after mounting the assembly on a test axle, adjust
the tire pressure to that specified in S7.4.1(a).
    (d) Mount the tire-rim assembly on an axle and press it against a
flat-faced steel test wheel that is 1708 mm (67.23 inches) in diameter
and at least as wide as the tread of the tire
    (e) Apply a force of 88 percent of the maximum load rating marked
on the tire (use the single maximum load value when the tire is marked
with both single and dual maximum loads), and conduct the break-in
procedure at 80 km/h (50 mph) for 2 hours.
    (f) Remove the load, allow the tire to cool to 35 [deg]C 3 [deg]C (95 [deg]F 5 [deg]F), and then adjust the
pressure to that specified in S7.4.1(a).
    (g) Reapply the same load, and without interruption or readjustment
of inflation pressure, conduct the test at 120 km/h (75 mph) for 30
minutes, then at 129 km/h (80 mph) for 30 minutes, and then at 137 km/h
(85 mph) for 30 minutes.
    (h) Allow the tire to cool between 15 minutes and 25 minutes.
Measure its inflation pressure. Then, deflate the tire, remove the tire
from the test rim, and inspect the tire for conditions specified in
S6.1.2 (a) and (b).
    S7.4.2 Non-speed restricted radial tires marked load range F, G, H,
J, or L.
    (a) Mount the tire on a test rim and inflate it to the pressure
corresponding to 90 percent of the maximum load rating marked on the
tire. Use a single maximum value when the tire is marked with both
single and dual maximum load.
    (b) Condition the tire in accordance with S7.1.2.
    (c) Before or after mounting the assembly on a test axle, adjust
the tire pressure to that specified in S7.4.2(a).
    (d) Mount the tire-rim assembly on an axle and press it against a
flat-faced steel test wheel that is 1708 mm (67.23 inches) in diameter
and at least as wide as the tread of the tire.
    (e) Apply a force of 85 percent of the maximum load rating marked
on the tire (use the single maximum load value when the tire is marked
with both single and dual maximum loads), and conduct the break-in
procedure at 80 km/h (50 mph) for 2 hours.
    (f) Remove the load, allow the tire to cool to 35 [deg]C  3 [deg]C (95 [deg]F  5 [deg]F), and then adjust the
pressure to S7.4.2(a).
    (g) Reapply the same load, and without interruption or readjustment
of inflation pressure, conduct the test at maximum speed rating less 20
km/h for 30 minutes, then at maximum speed rating less 10 km/h for 30
minutes, and then at maximum speed rating for 30 minutes.
    (h) Allow the tire to cool for between 15 minutes and 25 minutes.
Measure its inflation pressure. Then, deflate the tire, remove the tire
from the test rim, and inspect the tire for conditions specified in
S6.1.2(a) and (b).
* * * * *

                                       Table III--Endurance Test Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Test wheel    Test load: Percent of maximum load
                                                                 speed                     rating
          Description                     Load range         ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                                II--16      III--24
                                                                  km/h      I--7 hours     hours        hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed-restricted service:
    90 km/h (55 mph)...........  All........................           40           66           84          101
    80 km/h (50 mph)...........  C, D.......................           48           75           97          114
                                 E, F, G, H, J, L, M, N.....           32           66           84          101
    56 km/h (35 mph)...........  All........................           24           66           84          101
Motorcycle.....................  All........................           80      \1\ 100      \2\ 108          117
Radial.........................  F, G, H, J, L..............           80           85           90          100
All other......................  A, B, C, D.................           80       \1\ 75       \2\ 97          114
                                 E..........................           64           70           88          106
                                 F..........................           64           66           84          101
                                 G..........................           56           66           84          101
                                 H, J, L, M, N..............           48           66           84         101
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 4 hours for tire sizes subject to high speed requirements S6.3 .
\2\ 6 hours for tire sizes subject to high speed requirements S6.3.

    Issued: September 23, 2010.
Joseph Carra,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-24347 Filed 9-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 37 (Monday, February 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12749-12750]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04273]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 9202-178]

Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Types of Application: Request to amend the project boundary,
relocate portions of a recreational trail, and relocate a flowage area.
    b. Project No.: 9202-178.
    c. Date Filed: January 22, 2013, and supplemented February 7, 2013.
    d. Applicant: Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District.
    e. Name of Project: Stagecoach Hydropower Project.
    f. Location: Yampa River, in Routt County, Colorado.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Kevin McBride, District Manager, Upper
Yampa Water Conservancy District, 3310 Clear Water Trail, P.O. Box
775529, Steamboat Springs, CO 80477,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Jeremy Jessup,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the
Commission. All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To
paper-file, an original and seven copies should be mailed to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments.
    Please include the project number (P-9202-178) on any comments,
motions, or recommendations filed.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to relocate a
recreation trail, modify the flowage area by adding approximately 3,500
cubic yards of fill in the project boundary, and amend the project
boundary to exclude portions of the filled-in area and include the
relocated recreation trail. The applicant is requesting to remove
approximately 3.4 acres from within the project boundary, relocate
approximately 1,550 linear feet of the recreation trail, and impact
approximately 0.04 acres of the reservoir's 100-year flood plain area.
The lands that the applicant proposes to remove from inside the project
boundary will no longer be necessary for project purposes after the
relocation of the recreation trail and modification of the flowage
area. The applicant intends to convey the lands to a local developer
for commercial site development once they are removed from the project
boundary.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All motions to intervene, protests, or comments should relate
to project works which are the subject of the application. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of
any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each
representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in

accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: February 19, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-04273 Filed 2-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Responses to Comments Not Addressed in the Preamble to the Final Rule:

Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments to Implement Provisions
Contained in the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act:  A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)

December 20, 2007

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2006-0612

Comment:  Two commenters stated that they are concerned with the high
number of actions that trigger the need for a conformity determination,
including minor changes to a transportation plan.  The commenters urged
EPA to consider reassessing when conformity is required.

Response:  The transportation conformity rule requires conformity to be
determined according to the requirements in the Clean Air Act.  Because
these requirements are found in the statute, it is not within EPA’s
authority to reassess when conformity is required.

Comment:  Two commenters supported EPA’s proposed revision to the
regulations to implement a conformity lapse grace period, but disagreed
with certain aspects of EPA’s rationale.  In the preamble of the
proposed rule, EPA indicated there could be ambiguity in applying the
lapse grace period if the transportation plan and TIP have expired for
planning reasons.  However, these commenters thought that there was no
ambiguity in this case and that the lapse grace period would apply.

Response:	EPA is finalizing the provisions implementing the conformity
lapse grace period as proposed, and as supported by these commenters.
EPA agrees that Congress intended to allow conformity requirements to be
satisfied for projects during the lapse grace period even if there is
not currently conforming transportation plan and TIP.  See EPA’s
rationale in the final rule preamble for further information.

Comment:	One commenter opined that any restrictions on the use of the
conformity lapse grace period would contradict SAFETEA-LU, but did not
elaborate on whether or not they believed EPA’s proposal created
restrictions.

Response:	EPA is finalizing the lapse grace period as proposed,
consistent with the statute.  The final rule relies on the preamble to
the proposed rule, which provides EPA’s rationale and interpretation
of the statutory language in Clean Air Act 176(c)(9) and (10).

Comment:	Two commenters supported the provisions that allow the
conformity timeframe to be shortened, but opined that because a
transportation plan covers a period of at least 20 years or longer, it
is difficult to forecast future emissions in later years.  These
commenters also stated that MPOs are not allowed to account for emission
reduction strategies that will be developed during the 20-year timeframe
covered by the transportation plan.

Response:	EPA is finalizing the provisions for shortening the conformity
timeframe as proposed, for the reasons described in the final rule.
However, EPA disagrees with the statement that it is difficult for MPOs
to forecast emissions 20 years into the future.  MPOs already have the
data and models needed to estimate future transportation activity and
emissions.

	Second, MPOs are allowed to account for any emission reduction
strategies that will be phased in during the 20-year period if the
strategies meet the requirements of 40 CFR 93.122(a).  For example, MPOs
can include the future emission reductions of an EPA regulation if that
regulation has been promulgated by EPA.  Given that conformity
determinations are required periodically, MPOs have the opportunity to
include new information into the conformity process as it arises.

Comment:  One commenter did not support the concept of hot-spot analyses
for projects in general, but did not oppose the particular flexibility
offered by the proposal for categorical hot-spot findings for projects
in CO areas.

	This commenter believed that passing the SIP budget test should be
sufficient to show conformity and project-level analyses are
unnecessary.  This commenter also asserted that hot-spot analyses should
never be required in counties without urbanized areas because they lack
the population size and density needed to make alternatives to road
building, such as public transit, possible.

Response:  Meeting SIP budgets is one aspect of transportation
conformity, but does not satisfy all of the Clean Air Act’s
transportation conformity requirements.  The Clean Air Act’s
requirement to not cause or contribute to violations of the national
ambient air quality standards applies to projects as well as
transportation plans and programs.  These requirements apply in
nonattainment and maintenance areas, regardless of whether areas are
urban or rural, or whether alternate travel modes are available.

Comment:  One commenter indicated that EPA’s rulemaking should have
been limited to addressing only those conformity provisions affected by
SAFETEA-LU, rather than addressing CO hot-spots as well.

Response:  EPA disagrees, and believes it is appropriate to address
other conformity issues as necessary to implement the conformity
program.  Consolidating issues into one rulemaking whenever possible
expedites the implementation of other conformity provisions, creates
efficiency for the regulated community, and creates rulemaking
efficiencies that save taxpayer dollars.

Comment:  One commenter requested that EPA and FHWA take action to
reduce the impact from transportation on global climate change.  The
commenter provided several statistics to support this request.  The
commenter stated that many major urban areas have demonstrated
leadership by setting goals that reduce their contribution to climate
change.  The commenter suggested steps that the federal government can
take to help state and local governments, including requiring state
transportation plans to include greenhouse gas inventories and goals.
The commenter also believed that funding decisions for federal highway
projects should consider reductions in greenhouse gases.  The commenter
stated that EPA and FHWA should create a national plan that positively
impacts the role of transportation on global climate change.  Finally,
the commenter opined that these actions will not only reduce greenhouse
gas emissions but also reduce criteria pollutant emissions and help meet
national security goals to import less foreign fuels.

Response:  EPA is adopting transportation conformity regulations to
implement SAFETEA-LU’s amendments to the Clean Air Act, and therefore,
this comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking.  For more
information about EPA’s climate change programs, see our website at:
 HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/"
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/  .

Comment:  One commenter expressed concern that modeling and assumptions
used in conformity may not be accurate.  This commenter also noted that
transportation plans cover long timeframes and are updated frequently,
while SIPs cover shorter periods of time and are updated infrequently.
The commenter was concerned that data and models used for conformity
could differ from those used to develop SIP budgets.  The commenter
opined that more flexibility in passing conformity may be a better
solution than reducing the timeframe covered by conformity
determinations.  The commenter believed that most conformity lapses
occur because an area cannot meet a deadline rather than because of an
air quality issue.

Response:  EPA is adopting the final rule to implement SAFETEA-LU’s
conformity amendments to the Clean Air Act, including the provision to
allow MPOs to shorten the timeframe covered by a conformity
determination.  This provision is in the statute, and EPA is unable to
replace it with a different flexibility that is not included in the
statute.

		Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2006-0612

 PAGE

 PAGE   - 4 -


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27316-27317]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10945]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-E-0160]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; TRADJENTA

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for TRADJENTA and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents
and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent
which claims that human drug product.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written petitions (two copies are required) and written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FDA-2013-S-0610.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of
Management, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6257, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color

additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was
marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms
the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may
receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and
Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be
subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent
was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review
period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase
and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product TRADJENTA
(linagliptin). TRADJENTA is indicated as an adjunct to diet and
exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes
mellitus. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office
received a patent term restoration application for TRADJENTA (U.S.
Patent No. 7,407,955) from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KGA,
and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in
determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a
letter dated July 10, 2012, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office
that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period
and that the approval of TRADJENTA represented the first permitted
commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and
Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory
review period.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
TRADJENTA is 2,051 days. Of this time, 1,746 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 305 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became
effective: September 21, 2005. FDA has verified the applicant's claim
that the date the investigational new drug application became effective
was on September 21, 2005.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: July 2,
2010. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug
application (NDA) for TRADJENTA (NDA 201-280) was submitted on July 2,
2010.
    3. The date the application was approved: May 2, 2011. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that NDA 201-280 was approved on May 2,
2011.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the Patent and
Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its
calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its
application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 629 days of
patent term extension.
    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a
redetermination by July 14, 2014. Furthermore, any interested person
may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant
for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review
period by November 10, 2014. To meet its burden, the petition must
contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept.
857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should
be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written or
electronic petitions. It is only necessary to send one set of comments.
Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. If you submit a written petition, two copies
are required. A petition submitted electronically must be submitted to
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Comments and
petitions that have not been made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: May 8, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-10945 Filed 5-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P