[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 172 (Friday, September 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 53050]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21156]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1864-186]

Upper Peninsula Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and 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. Application Type: Recreation Plan Amendment.
    b. Project No: 1864-186.
    c. Date Filed: June 20, 2014.
    d. Applicant: Upper Peninsula Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Bond Falls.
    f. Location: Ontonagon River in Ontonagon and Gogebic Counties,
Michigan, and Vilas County, Wisconsin. The project occupies federal
lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service within the Ottawa
National Forest.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Shawn Puzen, Upper Peninsula Power Company,
700 North Adams Street, P.O. Box 19001, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54307-
9001; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Patricia A. Grant at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: September 26, 2014.
    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. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Please include the project number (P-1864-186) on any comments,
motions, or recommendations filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor 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.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee proposes to relocate the
canoe portage trail and the boat landing parking area at the Victoria
development (02) of the Bond Falls project. The parking area and the
associated recreation facilities will be transferred to the site which
will be vacated by the existing maintenance building. The parking area
will then be closer to the boat landing. The canoe portage route and
its signage will be slightly modified.
    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 using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (P-9951) 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 (202) 502-
8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the
address in item (h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant.
    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, respectively. 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 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 commenting, 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. Any filing made by an intervenor 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
385.2010.

    Dated: August 26, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-21156 Filed 9-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NSPS for Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC)

1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NSPS for Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC)

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for the regulations published at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC were proposed on June 15, 1979, promulgated on October 7, 1980, and amended on October 19, 1984. These regulations apply to each glass melting furnace located at a glass manufacturing plant. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC.

In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to NSPS.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated State or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) Regional Office.

Approximately 45 sources are currently subject to the regulation, and it is estimated that no additional sources will become subject to the regulation in the next three years. These numbers are based on a data query of the EPA's On line Targeting and Information System ( OTIS). 2 The Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) requested that EPA address the following " Terms of Clearance" in the re submission of this ICR for extension:

This ICR is approved for three years. This ICR assumes that no new sources will report to EPA during the next three years. Before re submission of this ICR for extension, the agency should revisit the estimate for the number of new glass manufacturing plants and demonstrate to OMB that the estimates are consistent with agency experience. Further, the agency should revise wage estimates to reflect guidance provided by EPA and/ or OMB.

OTIS was used to update the number of existing glass manufacturing plants. In addition, consultation with State environmental staff and EPA staff suggest that, due to the reduced demand for glass over the past two years as a result of a slowdown in the economy, the glass industry will not be adding new facilities.

This ICR used a revised technical labor rate from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2001. The wage rate has been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry. See Section 6( b)( i), Estimating Labor Costs, for additional information. In addition, this ICR used labor rates from the Office of Planning and Management ( OPM) " 2002 General Schedule" for calculating burden on the Agency. See Section 6( c), Estimating Agency Burden and Cost, for additional information.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA), as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous emissions reduction which ( taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, or any non air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. Section 111( a)( l).

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology ( BDT). Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years. In addition, Section 114( a) states that the Administrator may require any owner 3 or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

( A) Establish and maintain such records; ( B) make such reports; ( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; ( D) sample such emissions ( in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); ( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; ( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114( a)( 3); and ( G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, particulate matter emissions from glass melting furnaces cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, the NSPS were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The control of emissions of particulate matter from glass melting furnaces requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of particulate matter from glass melting furnaces are the result of operation of the affected facilities. The subject standards are typically achieved by the capture of particulate matter emissions using a fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator. The notifications required in the applicable regulations are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and the regulations are being met. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standards, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. EPA reduced the reporting frequency for this information from quarterly to semiannually in a December 1990 Federal Register Notice. The reduction in reporting frequency was in response to OMB's previous questions regarding the need for quarterly versus semiannual reporting. The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the NSPS continue to operate the control equipment and achieve compliance with the regulation. Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting is necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act. The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting 4 inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC.

3( a) Nonduplication If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated State or local agency. If a State or local agency has adopted their own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards. Therefore, no duplication exists.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register on October 29, 2001. No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( c) Consultations This section is intended to reflect additional consultations beyond those associated with the First Federal Register Notice ( FFRN). Consultations were conducted to determine the industry growth rate, the current number of facilities, and the number of new affected facilities over the next three years. Consultation included discussion with State environmental staff and EPA staff to estimate capital costs and operations and maintenance ( O& M) costs. In addition, consultation with EPA data experts was conducted to estimate the number of existing facilities using EPA databases.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease. 5 3( e) General Guidelines None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR 1320.5.

3( f) Confidentiality The required information has been determined not to be confidential. However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are glass manufacturing plants. The SIC codes and corresponding NAICS ( The North American Industry Classification System) codes for the respondents affected by the standards can be found in the following table.

Regulation SIC Codes NAICS Codes 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC 3211 327211 3221 327213 3229 327212 3296 327993 4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items 6 All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by NSPS for Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC).

A source must make the following reports:

Reports for 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC Notification of construction/ reconstruction 60.7( a)( 1)

Notification of actual startup 60.7( a)( 3)

Notification of initial performance test 60.8( d)

Initial performance test results 60.8( a)

Demonstration of continuous monitoring system ( CMS) 60.7( a)( 5)

Physical or operational change 60.7( a)( 4)

Routine maintenance report 60.292( e)( 3)

Request for alternative CMS 60.293( d)

Excess emissions report 60.7( c), 60.293( c)( 5)

A source must maintain the following records:

Recordkeeping for 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC Startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, periods where the CMS is inoperative 60.7( b)

Records are required to be retained for two years 60.7( f)

( ii) Respondent Activities 7 Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CMS for opacity.

Conduct initial performance test, Reference Method 5 for particulate matter concentration and Method 9 for opacity, and repeat performance tests, if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

5. The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary. 8 Agency Activities Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the AIRS ( Aerometric Information Retrieval System) Facility Subsystem ( AFS) database.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) Facility Subsystem ( AFS) which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. AFS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for over 100,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and State regulatory agencies, EPA Regional Offices and EPA Headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or operator for two years.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility A majority of the affected facilities are large entities ( e. g., large businesses). However, the impact on small entities ( i. e., small businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation. Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the types of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities. The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced. 9 5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 2: Annual Burden of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, NSPS for Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC).

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 2 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the Subpart included in this ICR. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 590 hours [ Total Labor Hours from Table 2: Annual Burden of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, NSPS for Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC)]. These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses a Technical Labor Rate of $ 57.12 per hour. This rate is from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2001, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The wage rate has been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry. ( ii) Estimating Capital/ Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs The type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the regulations are for labor and continuous opacity monitoring. The capital/ startup costs are one time costs when a facility becomes subject to the regulation. The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor and other costs such as 10 photocopying and postage.

( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs ( A) Continuous Monitoring Device ( B) Startup Cost ($) for One Affected Facility ( C) Number of New Affected Facilities to Startup ( D) Total Startup ( B X C) ( E) Annual O& M Costs ($) for One Affected Facility ( F) Number of Affected Facilities with O& M ( G) Total O& M ( E X F)

Continuous Opacity Monitors $ 15,000 0 0 $ 5,800 45 $ 261,000 The estimated cost to install and calibrate a continuous opacity monitor ( COM) is estimated to be approximately $ 15,000. This startup cost is based on estimates provided by EPA and State environmental staff and information obtained from the Internet. Since no new facilities are expected to startup over the next three years, there are no capital/ startup costs for this ICR. This is the total of column D in the above table. These costs are shown in block 14( a), Total annualized capital/ startup costs, on the OMB 83 I form. It should be noted that the numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

The total operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs for this ICR are $ 261,000. This is based on an estimated O& M cost of $ 5,800 for each affected unit, which includes the cost to conduct a calibration error ( CE) analysis. The O& M costs for each affected unit remains unchanged from the previous ICR. The total estimated O& M cost is found in column G. These costs are shown in block 14( b), Total annual costs ( O& M), on the OMB 83 I form.

The total respondent non labor costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the capital/ startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 261,000. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars. 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information. Publication and distribution of the information are part of the AFS program. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur as part of the periodic inspection of sources, which is part of EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program. 11 The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 12,179. This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate at a GS 12, Step 1, times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses for a total of $ 38.30. These rates are from the Office of Planning and Management ( OPM) " 2002 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 1: Average Annual EPA Resource Requirement, NSPS for Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC), attached.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Respondent Universe and Number of Responses Per Year Regulation Citation ( A) Average Number of New Respondents per Year ( B) Number of Reports for New Sources ( C) Number of Existing Respondents ( D) Total Annual Responses 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC 0 5 45 87 The number of total respondents is 45. This number is the sum of column A and column C of the Respondent Universe and Number of Responses Per Year table. This represents the number of existing sources plus the number of new sources averaged over the three year period ( i. e., number of new respondents per year multiplied by three years divided by two). It is shown in block 13( a), Number of respondents, on the OMB 83 I form.

The number of Total Annual Responses is 87. This is the number in column D of the Respondent Universe and Number of Responses Per Year table. It is shown in block 13( b), Total annual responses, on the OMB 83 I form.

The total annual labor costs are $ 33,701. This number is not shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c), Total hours requested. Only the burden hours are reflected in block 13( c). Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2. Annual Burden of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, NSPS for Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC). The total annual capital and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 261,000. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14 ( c), Total annualized cost requested. These costs are detailed in section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours And Cost Tables The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the respondents are attached. 12 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The increase in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to an adjustment. The adjustment is due to an increase in the number of existing sources due to the availability of more accurate data available through EPA's On line Targeting Information System ( OTIS).

6( g) Burden Statement Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's standards are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to Ms. Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division ( Mail Code 2822T), Office of Environmental Information, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20460 0001; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR Number and OMB Control Number in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.


  Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (7101)
                                                               EPA 712-C-16-013
                                                                  October 2016

Ecological Effects
Test Guidelines

OCSPP 850.1010:

Aquatic Invertebrate Acute Toxicity Test, Freshwater Daphnids

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  NOTICE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  This guideline is one of a series of test guidelines established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) for use in testing pesticides and chemical substances to develop data for submission to the Agency under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601, et seq.), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136, et seq.), and section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 346a). Prior to April 22, 2010, OCSPP was known as the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS). To distinguish these guidelines from guidelines issued by other organizations, the numbering convention adopted in 1994 specifically included OPPTS as part of the guideline's number. Any test guidelines developed after April 22, 2010 will use the new acronym (OCSPP) in their title.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  	The OCSPP harmonized test guidelines serve as a compendium of accepted scientific methodologies and protocols that are intended to provide data to inform regulatory decisions under TSCA, FIFRA, and/or FFDCA. This document provides guidance for conducting the test, and is also used by EPA, the public, and the companies that are subject to data submission requirements under TSCA, FIFRA, and/or the FFDCA. As a guidance document, these guidelines are not binding on either EPA or any outside parties, and the EPA may depart from the guidelines where circumstances warrant and without prior notice. At places in this guidance, the Agency uses the word "should." In this guidance, the use of "should" with regard to an action means that the action is recommended rather than mandatory. The procedures contained in this guideline are strongly recommended for generating the data that are the subject of the guideline, but EPA recognizes that departures may be appropriate in specific situations. You may propose alternatives to the recommendations described in these guidelines, and the Agency will assess them for appropriateness on a case-by-case basis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  	For additional information about these test guidelines and to access these guidelines electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select "Test Methods & Guidelines" on the navigation menu. You may also access the guidelines in http://www.regulations.gov grouped by Series under Docket ID #s: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0150 through EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0159, and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0576.

OCSPP 850.1010: Aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test, freshwater daphnids
(a) Scope.
      (1) Applicability. This guideline is intended for use in meeting testing requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136, et seq.) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601, et seq.). It describes procedures that, if followed, would result in data that would generally be of scientific merit for the purposes described in paragraph (b) of this guideline.
      (2) Background. The source materials used in developing this harmonized OCSPP test guideline are 40 CFR 797.1300 Daphnid Acute Toxicity Test; OPP 72-2 Acute Toxicity Test for Freshwater Aquatic Invertebrates (Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision E -- Hazard Evaluation: Wildlife and Aquatic Organisms, see paragraph (j)(6) of this guideline); Standard Evaluation Procedure: Acute Toxicity Test for Freshwater Invertebrates (see paragraph (j)(7) of this guideline); EPA Pesticide Reregistration Rejection Rate Analysis: Ecological Effects (see paragraph (j)(8) of this guideline); OECD 202 Daphnia sp. Acute Immobilisation Test, 2004 (see paragraph (j)(4) of this guideline); and ASTM E729-96 (07), Standard Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on Test Materials with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates and Amphibians (see paragraph (j)(1) of this guideline).
(b) Purpose. This guideline is intended for use in developing data on the acute toxicity of chemical substances and mixtures ("test chemicals" or "test substances") subject to environmental effects test regulations. This guideline describes an acute toxicity test in which daphnids (Daphnia magna or Daphnia pulex) are exposed to a test substance in static, static-renewal, or flow-through systems. The Environmental Protection Agency will use data from this test to assess the hazards and risks a test substance may present in the aquatic environment.
(c) Definitions. The definitions in OCSPP 850.1000 apply to this test guideline. In addition, the following more specific definitions also apply to this guideline:
      Effect concentration, median (EC50) is the experimentally derived concentration of test substance in dilution water that would be expected to cause a defined adverse effect in 50 percent (%) of a group of test organisms under specified exposure conditions. In this guideline, the effect measured is immobilization as a surrogate for death.
      Ephippium is a resting egg that develops in daphnids under the carapace in response to stress conditions.
      Immobilization refers to a lack of movement except for minor spontaneous, random activity of appendages; those animals that are not able to swim within 15 seconds after gentle agitation of the test vessel are considered to be immobilized even if they can still move their antennae. Immobilization, as defined for this guideline, is used as a surrogate for death. Dead animals are counted as immobilized.
(d) General considerations.
      (1) Summary of the test. Young daphnids less than (<) 24 hours old at test initiation are exposed to the test substance and to appropriate controls (i.e., dilution water control and vehicle (solvent) control, if a vehicle is used) for 48 hours, during which observations are made on immobilization (death) and other toxic effects. The test is designed to determine the relationship between aqueous concentrations of the test substance and immobilization of daphnids over the full concentration-response curve. The results of the test are expressed as the 48-hour median effect concentration (48-h EC50) for immobilization and the slope of the concentration-response relationship. Although the 48-h EC50 for immobility is the primary toxicity endpoint, information on other signs of toxicity such as abnormal appearance and behavior and concentration-response curves is useful in understanding the toxic response.
      (2) General test guidance. The general guidance in OCSPP 850.1000 applies to this guideline except as specifically noted herein.
      (3) Range-finding test. A range-finding test is usually conducted to establish the appropriate test solution concentrations to be used in the definitive test. In the range-finding test, the test organisms are generally exposed to a series of widely-spaced concentrations of the test substance (e.g., 1, 10, 100 milligrams per liter (mg/L)). The details of the range-finding test do not have to be the same as for definitive testing in that the number of replicates, the number of test organisms, and duration of exposure may be less than that used in definitive testing. In addition, the types of observations made on test organisms may not be as detailed or as frequently observed as that of a definitive test.
      (4) Definitive test. The primary goal of the definitive test is to determine the 48-hour concentration-response curve for immobilization; the 48-h EC50, its standard error and 95% confidence interval; and the slope of the concentration-response curve, its standard error and 95% confidence interval. Where sufficient data are available, these values are also calculated for the 24-hour concentration-response curve. A minimum of 5 concentrations of the test substance, plus appropriate controls, should be tested. The selected test concentrations should bracket the 48-h EC50. Clinical signs of toxicity such as abnormal appearance and behavior, if any, should be reported. Analytical confirmation of dissolved test concentrations should be performed as described in OCSPP 850.1000. Summaries of the test conditions are presented in Table 1 of this guideline. Test validity elements are listed in Table 2.
      (5) Limit test. In some situations, it is only necessary to ascertain that the 48-h EC50 is above a certain limit concentration (i.e., 48-h EC50 greater than (>) limit concentration). In a limit test, at least 20 daphnids, divided equally into a minimum of 2 replicates, are exposed to a single "limit concentration," with the same number of organisms in appropriate controls. For most industrial chemicals, the lower of 100 mg/L or the limit of water solubility or dispersion is considered appropriate as the limit concentration. For pesticides, the lower of 100 milligrams active ingredient per liter (mg a.i./L), when estimated environmental concentrations are not expected to exceed 100 mg/L, or the limit of water solubility may be used as the limit concentration. Except for the number of test concentrations, limit tests should follow the same test procedures, have the same duration as the multiple-concentration definitive test (see Table 1 of this guideline), and have both a dilution water control and a vehicle (solvent) control, if a vehicle is used. Limit tests, like definitive tests, should include analytical confirmation of the dissolved concentration of the test substance. Clinical signs of toxicity such as abnormal appearance and behavior, if any, should be reported. For pesticides, if any daphnid is immobilized in the limit test concentration, a multiple-concentration 48-hour test should be conducted.
(e) Test standards.
      (1) Test substance. The substance to be tested should be technical or reagent grade unless the test is designed to evaluate a specific formulation, mixture, or end-use product. For pesticides, if more than one active ingredient constitutes a technical product, the technical grade of each active ingredient should be tested separately, in addition to the combination, if applicable. OCSPP 850.1000 lists the type of information that should be known about the test substance before testing and discusses methods for preparation of test solutions.
	(2) Test duration. The test duration is a minimum of 48 hours.
	(3) Test organism.
            (i) Species. The test species are Daphnia magna or Daphnia pulex. First instar daphnids, <24 hours old, should be used to start the test.
            Daphnids to be used in acute toxicity tests should be cultured at the test facility. Records should be kept regarding the source of the initial stock and culturing techniques. All organisms used for a particular test should have originated from cultures established from the same stock of daphnids.
            (ii) Holding and Acclimation. During culturing and acclimation to the dilution water, stock animals should be maintained in culture conditions (e.g., temperature, light intensity) similar to those to be used in the test. Any changes in the temperature and chemistry of the dilution water used for culturing the test organisms to those of the test should be gradual, and a group of brood daphnids should be maintained in dilution water at the test temperature for at least 48 hours prior to the start of the test. Within a 24-hour period, changes in water temperature should not exceed 1 degree Celsius (°C).
            (iii) Health status and condition. To reduce variability, it is strongly recommended that daphnids used in the test not be first brood progeny.
            Daphnids should not be used for a test:
                  (A) If the culture contains ephippia;
                  (B) If more than 5% of the culture stock dies or shows signs of stress (e.g., exhibits abnormal behavior) during the 48 hours preceding the test;
                  (C) If adults in the cultures do not produce young before day 12;
                  (D) If adults in the culture do not produce an average of at least 3 young per adult per day over the 7-day period prior to the test;
                  (E) If they have been used in a previous test, either in a treatment or in a control group.
            (iv) Care and handling. Organisms should be handled as little as possible, but when necessary, it should be done as carefully and quickly as possible. During culturing, holding, and acclimation, daphnids should be observed carefully for ephippia and other signs of stress, physical damage, and mortality. Dead and abnormal individuals should be discarded. Organisms that touch dry surfaces or are dropped or injured during handling should also be discarded. Smooth glass tubes (inner diameter >5 millimeters (mm)) equipped with rubber bulbs have been used in transferring daphnids with minimal culture media carry-over. Care should be exercised to introduce the daphnids below the surface of any solution to avoid trapping air under the carapace.
            (v) Diet and feeding. Daphnids should not be fed during testing. Various combinations of trout chow, yeast, alfalfa, and algae have been successfully used for culturing daphnids; however, research has demonstrated that it is best to incorporate algae into the diet to maintain consistently healthy daphnids (see paragraphs (j)(2) and (j)(9) of this guideline).
	(4) Administration of test substance.
            (i) Preparation of test solutions. Preparation of test solutions depends on the solubility and stability of the test substance. Guidance for preparation of test solutions, especially for difficult or low solubility test substances, is provided in OCSPP 850.1000. Dilution water source and quality used in the test are described in OCSPP 850.1000 and paragraph (e)(7)(vi) of this guideline.
            The concentration of vehicle solvent should not exceed 0.1 milliliters per liter (mL/L). A previous review recommends that solvent concentrations as low as 0.02 mL/L of dilution water be used (see paragraph (j)(3) of this guideline).
            The pH of stock solutions may be adjusted to match the pH of dilution water or to a neutral pH if pH change does not affect the stability of the test substance in water. The pH of test solutions may be adjusted after the addition of the test substance or stock solution into the dilution water. However, all pH adjustments need to be made prior to the addition of test organisms. Hydrochloric acid (HCl) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) may be used for this adjustment if warranted.
            See additional information about pH during testing in (e)(8)(ii).
            (ii) Exposure technique. The test may be conducted using one of three basic exposure techniques: static, static-renewal, or flow-through. Guidance on the selection of the appropriate exposure technique is provided in OCSPP 850.1000.
            (iii) Treatment concentrations. At least 5 test solution concentrations should be used for definitive testing, plus the appropriate control(s). A range-finding test can be used to establish the appropriate test solution concentrations for the definitive test (see paragraph (d)(3) of this guideline). For scientifically sound estimates of a given point estimate (e.g., EC50), test substance concentrations should immediately bracket the point estimate(s) of concern. OCSPP 850.1000 provides guidance on selection of test concentrations. For a limit test, there is a single treatment concentration, plus the appropriate control(s). Guidance on the limit concentration is provided in paragraph (d)(5) of this guideline.
      (5) Controls. Every test includes a dilution water control and a vehicle (solvent) control, if a vehicle is used. Controls consist of the same dilution water, conditions, procedures, and test population as the test solutions, except that no test substance is added.
      A test is not acceptable if more than 10% of the organisms in any control shows signs of disease, stress (e.g., discoloration, unusual behavior, immobilization), and/or death.
      (6) Number of test organisms and replicates. For definitive and limit tests, the minimum number of daphnids per test concentration is 20 divided into a minimum of 2 replicates, each with 10 daphnia. Each test vessel should contain an equal volume of test solution and an equal number of daphnids. Replicate test vessels should be physically separated, since the test vessel is the experimental unit.
            (i) Loading. The number of daphnids placed in a test vessel should not be so large as to cause the dissolved oxygen concentration to fall below the recommended levels or affect the results of the test. In static or static-renewal tests, loading should not exceed 1 daphnid per 20 mL of test solution (50 daphnids per liter). In flow-through tests, loading requirements will vary depending upon the flow rate of dilution water, but should not exceed 0.5 grams wet weight of organism per liter (g/L) of solution passing through the test vessel in 24 hours or 5 g/L at any time.
            (ii) Introduction of test organisms. The test should be started by introducing <24-hour old daphnids, from acclimated parents, into the test vessels after the test substance has been added. Test vessels for treatment levels should be randomly or indiscriminately located within the test area, and test organisms should be randomly or indiscriminately distributed among test vessels. Further guidance is provided in OCSPP 850.1000.
       (7) Facilities, apparatuses, and supplies. Normal laboratory equipment should be used, especially the following:
            (i) Facilities. Facilities for culturing, holding, acclimating, and testing daphnids that are well ventilated and free of fumes and disturbances which may affect the test organisms. Equipment for culturing and/or handling food sources for daphnids.
            (ii) Environmental control equipment. Mechanisms for controlling and maintaining the water temperature and lighting during the culturing, holding, acclimation, and test periods. Apparatus for aerating dilution water and removing gas bubbles as necessary. For flow-through tests, apparatus for aerating the dilution water in the head box before mixing with the test substance or delivery to test vessels. An apparatus providing a 30-minute lighting transition period may be needed.
            (iii) Water quality testing instruments. Equipment for determination of water quality characteristics (pH, hardness, temperature, etc.).
            (iv) Cleaning of test system. Test substance delivery systems and test vessels should be cleaned before each test. See OCSPP 850.1000 for further information.
            (v) Test containers and delivery system. Construction materials and equipment that may contact the stock solution, test solution, or dilution water should not contain substances that can be leached or dissolved into aqueous solutions in quantities that can affect the test results. Construction materials and equipment that contact stock or test solutions should be chosen to minimize sorption of test substances. Refer to OCSPP 850.1000 for additional information on appropriate construction materials. Test vessels, which should be constructed of chemically inert material, should be of a capacity to maintain the loading rate and environmental conditions. Test vessels should be loosely covered to reduce the loss of test solution or dilution water due to evaporation and to minimize the entry of dust or other particulates into the solutions. A flow-through system, if used, should contain an appropriate test substance delivery system.
            For flow-through tests, daphnids can be retained in glass or stainless steel containers (i.e., test compartments) with stainless steel or nylon screen bottoms within the test vessel. The containers should be suspended in the test vessel in such a manner as to ensure that the test solution flows regularly into and out of the container and that the daphnids are submerged in generally at least 5 centimeters (cm) of test solution.
            (vi) Dilution water. Clean surface water, ground water, or reconstituted water are acceptable as dilution water if daphnids will survive in it for the duration of the culturing, holding, acclimation, and testing periods without showing signs of stress. Dechlorinated tap water is not recommended because some forms of chlorination are difficult to remove adequately. If dechlorinated tap water is used, recommended maximum chlorine levels as well as other ways to demonstrate suitability as a dilution water source can be found in OCSPP 850.1000. The addition of selenium and vitamin B12 may also be desirable in reconstituted water (see paragraph (j)(2) of this guideline). Daphnids may also be cultured and tested in a defined medium (see paragraph (j)(5) of this guideline).
            Dissolved oxygen in the dilution water (prior to use in a test) should be between 90 and 100% saturation. If necessary, the dilution water can be aerated before the addition of the test substance.
            Hardness, alkalinity, and conductivity should be measured in the dilution water at the beginning of the test. When using soft water (40-50 mg/L hardness), the test species should be D. pulex, as D. magna is intolerant of soft water.
            Measurement of total organic carbon (TOC) or chemical oxygen demand (COD) in the dilution water at the beginning of the test is recommended, but at a minimum, TOC and COD should be analyzed periodically in the dilution water source to document and characterize their magnitude and variability. For tests with cationic substances, TOC or COD should be measured at the beginning of the test.
            Specifications for dilution water quality and constancy are described in OCSPP 850.1000.
      (8) Environmental conditions. Environmental parameters during the test should be maintained as specified below. The number and frequency of measurements recommended for documenting and confirming the magnitude and variability of water quality parameters (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH) in test solutions during the test are described in detail in OCSPP 850.1000.
            (i) Temperature. The water temperature selected should be within the range of 18 to 22 °C, preferably 20 °C. During a given test, the selected temperature should be constant within plus or minus (+-) 1 °C.
            (ii) pH. The pH should be between 6.0 and 8.5 and vary less than 1 pH unit during the test within a test vessel and between test concentrations (including control(s)).
            (iii) Lighting and photoperiod. A photoperiod should be selected from regimes of 12 hours light:12 hours dark to 16 hours light:8 hours dark. For any given test, the light regime should be constant. Light intensity should range from 540 to 1080 lux (approximately 50-100 foot-candles (ft-c)). A 15- to 30-minute transition period between light and dark is suggested.
            (iv) Dissolved oxygen. The dissolved oxygen concentration should be between 60 and 100% saturation during the test. If aeration is needed to achieve an appropriate dissolved oxygen level, it should be done before the addition of the test substance. For flow-through exposures, the dilution water may be aerated vigorously prior to delivery to the test vessels (e.g., in the diluter head box) such that the dissolved oxygen concentration is at or near 90 to 100% saturation. If the water is heated, precautions should be taken to ensure that supersaturation of dissolved gases is avoided. Aeration of test solutions during the test is strongly discouraged because a single air bubble can become caught under the carapace of a daphnid and kill it or float the daphnid to the surface where it will become trapped. Therefore, gentle aeration of test vessels during the exposure period may only be used in cases where the dissolved oxygen levels are in danger of dropping below 60% saturation. In such cases, assurances should be made that the use of aeration does not stress the test organisms; test substance concentrations should be measured during the test to ensure that they are not affected by the use of aeration; and all treatment and control vessels should be given the same aeration treatment.
            (v) Flow in a flow-through system. During a test, the flow rates should not vary more than 10% between any one replicate and another. The minimum number of test vessel volume replacements should be five per 24-hour period. It is recommended that diluter systems be monitored for proper adjustment and operation at least twice daily throughout the test period to better ensure that the target test concentrations are achieved and maintained. The flow rate to each test vessel should be measured at the beginning and end of the test.
	(9) Observations.
            (i) Measurement of test substance. OCSPP 850.1000 describes the recommended sampling methods, frequency of sampling, and sample processing (especially of low solubility test substances) for analytical confirmation of dissolved test concentrations and characterization of test substance stability throughout the test. The analytical methods used to measure the amount of dissolved test substance in a sample should be validated before beginning the test, as described in OCSPP 850.1000, and the relevant method detection limit(s) and limit(s) of quantification should be reported.
            (ii) Test solution appearance. Observations on test solution appearance and test substance solubility should be made daily and at the beginning and end of the test. The appearance of surface slicks, precipitates, or material adhering to the sides of the test vessels or in any part of the mixing and delivery system should be recorded at a minimum at the beginning and end of the test and during the test when the test solution appearance changes.
		(iii) Measures of effect.
                  (A) Immobilized daphnids. The number of immobilized daphnids in each test vessel should be counted and recorded at 24 and 48 hours. An observation period at <12 hours is desirable. Immobilized daphnids should be removed from test vessels at the time of observation.
                  (B) Appearance and behavior. In addition to immobilization, any abnormal behavior or appearance, and the number of individuals exhibiting these characteristics, should be recorded at the same time as observations of immobilization.
(f) Treatment of results.
	(1) Summary statistics.
            (i) Immobilization. The number of daphnids exposed at test initiation in each treatment and replicate and the cumulative number of immobilized daphnids should be summarized in tabular form by time of observation, treatment, and replicate.
            (ii) Appearance and behavior. The number of daphnids exhibiting abnormal appearance or behavioral symptoms should be summarized in tabular form by time of observation, treatment, and replicate.
      (2) Percent immobilization. The percent of daphnids immobilized at each treatment level and in the controls at 24 hours and at test termination (48 hours) should be calculated.
      (3) Evaluation of limit test results. For pesticides, if any daphnid is immobilized in the limit test concentration, a multiple-concentration 48-hour test should be conducted.
	(4) Evaluation of multiple-concentration definitive test.
            (i) Concentration-response curve, slope, and EC50. Statistical procedures should be employed to calculate the 48-h EC50 (standard error and 95% confidence interval) based upon immobilization. If a concentration-response curve model (e.g., probit) was fit to the data to determine the EC50, the model parameters (e.g., slope) and uncertainty estimates (e.g., standard error) should be recorded. The 24-h EC50 values should also be calculated if the magnitude of immobilization response allows.
            (ii) No observed effect concentration (NOEC). While calculation of the NOEC and lowest observed effect concentration (LOEC) is usually not part of the experimental design for the regression-based definitive test, reporting these values when possible is useful for understanding the toxic response.
            (iii) Statistical methods. Statistical procedures for modeling quantal data should be used. Additional discussion about endpoints and statistical procedures can be found in OCSPP 850.1000.
(g) Tabular summary of test conditions. Table 1 lists the important conditions that should prevail during the multiple-concentration definitive test. The same conditions are recommended for a limit test, except for differences in the number of test concentrations. Meeting these test conditions will help ensure the satisfactory performance of the test.
Table 1.--Summary of Test Conditions for Freshwater Daphnid Acute Toxicity Test
Test type
Static, static-renewal, or flow-through
Test species
Daphnia magna or Daphnia pulex
Test duration
48 hours
Temperature
Selected from a range of 18 to 22 °C (preferably 20 °C) (constant during test within +-1 °C of selected test temperature)
Light quality
Ambient laboratory illumination
Light intensity
540-1080 lux (approximately 50-100 ft-c)
Photoperiod
Selected from among 12 hours light:12 hours dark to 16 hours light:8 hours dark schemes
pH
Between 6.0 and 8.5 (constant during test within +1 pH unit)
Water hardness (as CaCO3)
<250 mg/L (preferably <180 mg/L); for testing with metals, 40-50 mg/L
TOC
<=2 mg/L
Age of test organisms
<24 hours old
Number of test organisms per concentration
20 (minimum)
Number of replicate test vessels per concentration
2 (minimum)
Loading
Static or static-renewal tests: >=20 mL per daphnid;
Flow-through test: <=0.5 g/L per 24 hours and <5 g/L at any time
Feeding regime
No feeding during test
Test vessel aeration
Strongly discouraged because a single air bubble can become caught under the carapace of a daphnid and kill it or float the daphnid to the surface where it will become trapped. Gentle aeration of test vessels may only be used in cases where the dissolved oxygen levels are in danger of dropping below 60% saturation. In such cases, assurances should be made that the use of aeration does not stress the test organisms; test substance concentrations should be measured during the test; and all treatment and control vessels should be given the same aeration treatment.
Test concentrations
Definitive test: minimum of 5 test concentrations chosen in a geometric series plus a dilution water control and a vehicle (solvent) control, if a vehicle is used
Vehicle concentration, if used
<=0.1 mL/L for recommended solvents (see OCSPP 850.1000)
Measure of effect or measurement endpoint
48-h EC50 based on immobilization

(h) Test validity elements. This test would be considered to be unacceptable or invalid if one or more of the conditions in Table 2 occurred. These parameters are not the only elements considered when evaluating the acceptability of a test, and it is possible that a test could be found unacceptable or invalid based on other considerations. However, except for the conditions listed in Table 2 and in OCSPP 850.1000, it is unlikely that a test will be rejected when there are only slight variations from guideline environmental conditions and test design unless the control organisms are significantly affected and/or significant biases are introduced in defining the magnitude of effect on measurement endpoints as compared to guideline conditions. Before departing significantly from this guideline (such as deviating from the organism age), the investigator should contact the Agency to discuss the reason for the departure and the effect the change(s) may have on test acceptability. In the test report, all departures from the guideline should be identified, reasons for the changes given, and any resulting effects on test endpoints noted and discussed.
Table 2.--Test Validity Elements for the Acute Toxicity Test, Freshwater Daphnids
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All test vessels were not identical.
2. Treatments were not randomly or indiscriminately assigned to individual test vessel locations, or individual test organisms were not randomly or indiscriminately assigned to test vessels.
3. A dilution water control (and vehicle (solvent) control, if a vehicle was used) was not included in the test.
4. More than 10% of the organisms in either the dilution water or vehicle (solvent) controls showed signs of disease, stress (e.g., discoloration, unusual behavior, immobilization), and/or death.
5. Daphnids were fed during the test.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. A surfactant or dispersant was used in the preparation of a stock or test solution. (However, adjuvants may be used when testing pesticide typical end-use products.)
(i) Reporting.
      (1) Background information. Paragraph (k)(1) of OCSPP 850.1000 describes the minimum background information to be supplied in the report.
      (2) Guideline deviations. Provide a statement of the guideline or protocol followed. Include a description of any deviations from the test guideline or any occurrences which may have influenced the results of the test, the reasons for these changes, and any resulting effects on test endpoints noted and discussed.
      (3) Test substance.
            (i) Identification of the test substance: common name, IUPAC and CAS names, CAS number, structural formula, source, lot or batch number, chemical state or form of the test substance, purity (i.e., for pesticides, the identity and concentration of active ingredient(s)), and radiolabeling, if any, including the location of label(s) and radiopurity.
            (ii) Storage conditions of the test chemical or test substance and stability of the test chemical or test substance under storage conditions if stored prior to use.
            (iii) Methods of preparation of the test substance and the treatment concentrations used in the range-finding and definitive tests, or limit test. Identify whether the nominal concentrations are corrected or uncorrected for purity of the test substance.
            (iv) Physicochemical properties of the test substance such as water solubility, vapor pressure, UV absorption, pKa, and Kow.
            (v) If a vehicle (solvent) is used to prepare stock or test substance, provide the name and source of the vehicle, the nominal concentration(s) of the test substance in the vehicle in stock solutions or mixtures, and the vehicle concentration(s) used in the treatments and vehicle control. If different vehicle concentrations are used at different treatment levels, the report should, at a minimum, identify the maximum vehicle concentration used. It is helpful to support the vehicle choice by including a description of any measures that were taken to identify an appropriate vehicle for use in the test, such as the types and concentrations of vehicles used and their corresponding effects on solubility during any preliminary work.
            (vi) If a positive control is used, provide the name and source of positive control and the nominal concentration(s) of the positive control material in stock solutions or mixtures.
	(4) Test organisms.
		(i) Scientific name and common name.
		(ii) Method for verifying the species.
            (iii) Information about the daphnids used as brood stock for the test: source, culture practices, and holding and acclimation procedures and conditions, including acclimation period, water used, feeding history, and health status (mortality of brood stock before test initiation and any preventative or disease treatments). Feed should be analyzed periodically to identify background contaminants such as heavy metals (e.g., arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and selenium) and persistent pesticides, especially chlorinated insecticides.
            (iv) Age of test organisms at test initiation.
      (5) Test system and conditions. Provide a description of the test system and conditions used in the definitive or limit test and any preliminary range-finding tests.
		(i) Description of the test vessels: size, type, material, and fill volume.
            (ii) Description of the exposure technique: static, static-renewal, flow-through, open or closed system. If static-renewal, the frequency of test solution renewal, and if flow-through, a description of the flow-through system, including flow rates and test vessel turnover rate. For closed systems, a description of the closed system design. For all systems, a description of the calibration and validation methods.
            (iii) Description of the dilution water and any water pretreatment: source/type; temperature; pH; hardness and alkalinity; dissolved oxygen; total organic carbon or chemical oxygen demand; particulate matter; conductivity; metals, pesticides, and residual chlorine concentrations (mean, standard deviation, range). Describe the frequency and sample date(s) for documenting dilution water quality and consistency.
            (iv) Use of aeration, if any, and location of aeration within exposure system (e.g., test solution or dilution water prior to test substance addition).
		(v) Number of test organisms added to each test vessel at test initiation.
		(vi) Number of test vessels (replicates) per treatment level and control(s).
            (vii) Methods used for treatment randomization and assignment of test organisms to test vessels.
		(viii) Date of introduction of test organisms to test solutions and test duration.
		(ix) Loading rate.
		(x) Photoperiod and light source.
            (xi) Methods and frequency of environmental monitoring performed during the definitive or limit test for test solution temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and light intensity.
            (xii) Methods and frequency of measuring dissolved test substance to confirm exposure concentrations.
            (xiii) Methods and frequency of counting number of immobilized daphnids and measuring any other toxic symptoms.
            (xiv) For definitive and limit tests, description of all analytical procedures, accuracy of the method, method detection limit, and limit of quantification.
	(6) Results.
            (i) Nominal exposure concentrations and a tabulation of test substance analytical results by treatment group and test vessel (provide raw data) and descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, coefficient of variation).
            (ii) Environmental monitoring data results (test solution temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and light intensity) in tabular form (provide raw data for measurements not made on a continuous basis) and descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum).
            (iii) For preliminary range-finding test, if conducted, a tabulation of the number and percentage of immobilized daphnids in each test vessel, for all treatment levels and control(s), at each observation period. A description and count of any other appearance or behavioral effects, if recorded, at each treatment level and in the control(s).
            (iv) For limit test, a tabulation of the number and percentage of immobilized daphnids in each test vessel, for the limit concentration and control(s), at each observation time (provide the raw data) and descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum).
            (v) For definitive test, a tabulation of the number and percentage of immobilized daphnids in each test vessel, for all treatment levels and control(s), at each observation period (provide the raw data) and descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum).
            (vi) For limit and definitive tests, a description and tabulation of abnormal appearance and behavioral signs of toxicity by test vessel, treatment, and observation time (provide raw data).
		(vii) Graphs of the concentration-response data for percent immobilization.
            (viii) For limit test, conclusion about the 48-h EC50 for immobilization being above the limit concentration.
            (ix) For definitive test, where sufficient data exist to fit a model (e.g., probit), a tabulation of the 48-hour slope of the concentration-response curve, its standard error and 95% confidence interval, and any goodness-of-fit results.
            (x) For definitive test, the 48-h EC50 value for immobilization, its standard error and 95% confidence interval.
            (xi) For definitive test, results for the 24-h EC50 value if the magnitude of immobilization response allows.
		(xii) For definitive test, the 48-hour NOEC for immobilization, if determined.
            (xiii) Description of statistical method(s) used for point estimates, including the software package for determining EC50 values and fitting the concentration-response model, and the basis for the choice of method. Provide results of any goodness-of-fit tests.
            (xiv) Description of statistical method(s) used for NOEC and LOEC determination, including the software package, and the basis for the choice of method.
(j) References. The following references should be consulted for additional background material on this test guideline.
      (1) American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM E729-96, Standard Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on Test Materials with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.06, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA. Current edition approved October 1, 2014.
      (2) American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM E1193-97, Standard Guide for Conducting Daphnia magna Life-Cycle Toxicity Tests. In Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.06, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA. Current edition approved April 1, 2004.
      (3) Hutchinson, T.H., N. Shillabeer, M.J. Winter and D.B. Pickford, 2006. Acute and chronic effects of carrier solvents in aquatic organisms: A critical review. Aquatic Toxicology, 76, 69-92.
      (4) Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2004. Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals, Guideline 202, Daphnia sp., Acute Immobilisation Test.
      (5) Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2012. OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals, Guideline 211, Daphnia magna Reproduction Test.
      (6) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982. Pesticide Assessment Guidelines Subdivision E, Hazard Evaluation: Wildlife and Aquatic Organisms, Office of Pesticide and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC, EPA 540/9-82-024.
      (7) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Hazard Evaluation Division Standard Evaluation Procedure: Acute Toxicity Test for Freshwater Invertebrates, Office of Pesticides Programs, Washington, DC, EPA-540/9-85-005.
      (8) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994. Pesticides Reregistration Rejection Rate Analysis: Ecological Effects, Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC, EPA 738-R-94-035.
      (9) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater and marine organisms, Fifth edition, October 2002. EPA-821-R-02-012.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4602-4605]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02378]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0090]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application
for an Exemption From the Automobile Carriers Conference of the
American Trucking Associations

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces its decision to grant the Automobile Carriers Conference
(ACC) of the American Truck Associations (ATA) for a limited 5-year
exemption to relieve motor carriers operating stinger steered
automobile transporter equipment from the requirement to place warning
flags on projecting loads of new motor vehicles. The Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) require any commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) transporting a load which extends more than 4 feet beyond the
rear of the vehicle be marked with a single red or orange fluorescent
warning flag at the extreme rear if the projecting load is 2 feet wide
or less, and two warning flags if the projecting load is wider than 2
feet, located to indicate the maximum width of loads which extend
beyond the sides and/or rear of the vehicle. The Agency has determined
that the lack of warning flags on stinger steered automobile
transporter equipment when transporting motor vehicles would not have
an adverse impact on safety and that adherence to the terms and
conditions of the exemption would achieve a level of safety equivalent
to or greater than the level of safety provided by the regulation.

DATES: This exemption is effective February 15, 2019 and ending
February 15, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke Loy, 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.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments submitted to notice requesting public comments on the
exemption application, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit
Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document
management system is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
The docket number is listed at the beginning of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. 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 and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption.
The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

ACC's Application for Exemption

    The ACC applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.87 requesting that
motor carriers operating ``stinger steered'' automobile transporter
equipment be relieved from the requirement to place warning flags on
projecting loads of new motor vehicles. Stinger steered vehicles are
those with the fifth wheel hitch located on a drop frame behind and
belowthe rear-most axle of the power unit. A copy of the application is
included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
    Section 393.87 of the FMCSRs requires any CMV transporting a load
which extends beyond the sides by more than 4 inches, or more than 4
feet beyond the rear, to have the extremities of the load marked with
red or orange fluorescent warning flags. Each warning flag must be at
least 18 inches square. There must be a single flag at the extreme rear
if the projecting load is 2 feet wide or less, and two warning flags
are required if the projecting load is wider than 2 feet. The flags
must be located to indicate the maximum width of loads which extend
beyond the sides and/or rear of the vehicle.
    In its application, the ACC states ``With the enactment of the FAST
[Fixing America's Surface Transportation] Act in December 2015, stinger
steered automobile transporter equipment are permitted a rear vehicular
overhang allowance of not less than six feet. [49 U.S.C.
31111(b)(1)(G)] Prior to the enactment of the FAST Act, the minimum
rear overhang allowance for all automobile transporters was a minimum
of four feet. [23 CFR Sec. 658.13(e)(ii)]
    The ACC states:

    The transportation of new motor vehicles poses a dilemma in
adhering to the flag requirements. Affixing flags or anything else
to the surfaces of the vehicles is not allowed by vehicle
manufacturers as it can lead to scratches and other damage to the
vehicle. Auto transporters have attempted to adhere to the intent of
the regulations by affixing flags at the end of the trailers (see
attachments). This in itself can still lead to vehicle damage by
virtue of the flag rubbing on the vehicle surface. However, this
attempt to comply with the regulatory intent does not adhere to the
letter of the regulations and has resulted in carriers receiving
numerous citations for being in violation of the flag requirements.

    The ACC states that motor vehicles are the only commodity to be
transported that must adhere to the requirements of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, ``Lamps, reflective devices
and associated equipment,'' and that FMCSS No. 108 has required motor
vehicles to be equipped with side-facing reflex reflectors in addition
to amber reflectors in the front of the vehicle and red reflectors in
the rear of the vehicle since 1968. The ACC contends that the
reflective devices that are required to be on the vehicles being
transported, along with the required lighting and conspicuity
treatments on the trailer ``more than adequately adhere to the intent
of Sec. 383.87 in notifying the motoring public that a load extends
more than four feet beyond the rear of the trailer.'' In addition, ACC
states that FMVSS No. 108 imposes specific performance criteria for the
required reflectors, whereas there are no such performance requirements
for the flags required by the FMCSRs.
    The ACC states that the automobile transporter vehicle population
is a fraction of the overall CMV population, consisting of
approximately 16,000 units, and that the stinger steered vehicle
population is a subset of that. Further, ACC notes that since the
enactment of the FAST Act, the industry has not experienced an increase
in collisions into the rear end of trucks with the additional 2 feet of
allowable overhang. The ACC states that ``Statistics show that the
accident frequency of collisions into the rear end of auto transporters
is miniscule with a rate of less than 0.05%.''
    The exemption would apply to all motor carriers operating stinger
steered automobile transporter equipment. The ACC believes that the
reflex reflectors that are required to be installed on the new motor
vehicles being transported, in conjunction with the various marking and
conspicuity requirements required on the trailer transporting the new
vehicles, provide a level of safety that is greater than that achieved
by the warning flags required by the FMCSRs.

Comments

    FMCSA published a notice of the application in the Federal Register
on February 27, 2018, and asked for public comment (83 FR 8569). The
Agency received four comments: Rick Earl from United Road; Brian Suhre
from Cassens Transport Company; Kirk Welch from Toyota Logistics
Services, Inc.; and Shaun Kildare and Peter Kurdock from Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates).
    Mr. Earl, Mr. Suhre, and Mr. Welch each provided comments
supporting the ACC application. Mr. Earl stated that the reflex
reflectors on the passenger vehicles being transported provide
significantly higher visibility than the flags required by section
393.87 of the FMCSRs, and that the ``flags can damage the valuable
passenger vehicles we carry, causing significant waste and discord with
our customers and their customers.'' In addition, Mr. Earl stated:

    The rule itself is sound and makes sense, but in the specific
case of auto hauling it becomes burdensome and does not add to the
safety of the motoring public. It further adds confusion from an
enforcement perspective. Our car haulers often find themselves cited
by local law enforcement, have been forced to turn on lights on the
cars we carry before being allowed to leave the scale or other such
measures employed by the states in an effort to comply with this
unnecessary rule.

Mr. Suhre stated that ``the vehicles we transport, by their very
nature, meet Federal conspicuity requirements in both daytime and
nighttime,'' and also noted that ``vehicle manufacturers prohibit us
from attaching any items to the vehicles during transport.'' Like Mr.
Earl, Mr. Suhre noted that drivers ``have even been required to climb
up on the trailer to turn on the headlights and/or taillights of a
cargo unit before being allowed to leave an inspection site.'' Mr.
Welch stated:

    The flag requirements on loads extending beyond four feet from
the rear of a trailer makes perfect sense when that load consists of
a telephone pole, a ladder, or some other object, in order to alert
the motoring public to its existence. . . . As ACC stated in its
petition request, the current flag placing requirement is
impractical when dealing with motor vehicles. Attaching flags on the
vehicle at the rear of the transporter and to the side of the
vehicle being transported will ultimately result in unacceptable
damage to the finish of the new vehicle.

Mr. Welch, like Mr. Earl, noted that attaching flags on the vehicle at
the rear of the transporter and to the side of the vehicle being
transported will result in vehicle damage. In addition, Mr. Welch
stated:

    The fact that our vehicles must meet NHTSA lighting standards,
including those for reflex reflectors, in addition to the lighting
and conspicuity of the trailers is more than enough to alert the
motoring public that a load extension exists. As the petition
request states, NHTSA requirements are quantifiable standards
whereby no such reflective standards exist for flags, as required by
the FMCSA. This ultimately results in providing for a safer highway
environment for the traveling public.

    Advocates opposed the ACC application because it believes (1) that
the requirement for warning flags in the FMCSRs and the requirement for
reflex reflectors in the FMVSSs are intended to address two distinct
areas of public safety, (2) increasing the overhang length for stinger
steered automobile transporters significantly heightens the need for
proper warnings to the public of these new longer loads, and (3) there
has not been enough time to determine the real world on-road effects of
the new overhang standard. Specifically with respect to its concerns
about the adequacy of reflex reflectors to provide warning of an
overhanging load, Advocates stated:

    The reflectors required by FMVSS 108 are intended to ensure that
passenger motor vehicles operated by the public can be identified by
other road users. They are not designed not would the public be
expected to understand that the reflectors (required since 1968 for
this sole purpose) are also intended to indicate that a CMV is
carrying an unusually wide or overhanging load off and well above
the surface of the roadway. Compliance with a FMVSS by an automobile
manufacturer is in no way a substitute for a motor carrier complying
with an FMCSR. These two sets of separate regulations are intended
to address two distinct areas of public safety. In addition, there
is no data presented in the Application that shows that reflectors
installed on a passenger motor vehicle provide the intended effect
of warning flags placed on a CMV carrying overhanging freight.

While acknowledging that the FAST Act extended the rear overhang length
for stinger steered automobile transporters, Advocates notes that
``Section 5520 of the FAST Act did not include, and Congress did not
intend, to permit an exemption from the warning flag requirement of the
FMCSRs.'' Further, Advocates expressed concern that carriers
transporting automobiles have not developed any practical alternatives
to comply with the regulation, such as flags that do not damage the
surface of an automobile, instead of seeking an exemption from a
critical safety regulation.

FMCSA Decision

    The FMCSA has evaluated the ACC exemption application, and the
comments received. The Agency believes that granting the temporary
exemption to relieve motor carriers operating stinger steered
automobile transporters from the requirement to place warning flags on
projecting loads of new motor vehicles will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved
without the exemption. Section 393.87(b) of the FMCSRs requires loads
that extend more than 4 feet beyond the rear of a vehicle be marked
with warning flags ``to indicate the maximum width of loads which
extend beyond the sides and/or rear of the vehicle.'' [Emphasis added.]
The FMCSRs require a single flag if the projecting load is 2 feet wide
or less, and two flags if the projecting load is wider than 2 feet. The
flags are critical when the extending load may not be easily
identifiable to the motoring public (i.e., logs, building materials),
and/or when the load may not extend across the entire width of the
vehicle being used to transport the item(s).
    However, the Agency believes that the transport of automobiles that
are permitted, by statute, to extend up to 6 feet beyond the rearmost
portion of a stinger steered auto transporter is a unique situation as
compared to the transportation of other items because automobiles
extend across virtually the entire width of the stinger steered auto
transporter, and are easily identifiable as automobiles to the motoring
public. This is especially true if the rearmost automobile being
transported faces the front of the auto transporter, as the rear of the
automobile is required to be equipped with two reflex reflectors,\1\
located as far apart as practicable, that meet the photometric
requirements specified in FMVSS No. 108. To the contrary, section 387
of the FMCSRs requires extending loads to be marked with ``red or
orange fluorescent warning flags,'' but does not impose any specific
photometric requirements for these flags, i.e., required level of
visibility from a certain distance, etc. While FMVSS No. 108 does not
require the front of automobiles to be equipped with reflex reflectors,
FMCSA believes that even if the rearmost automobile being transported
is facing the rear of the auto transporter, oncoming motorists will
easily identify the extending load as an automobile that extends across
the full width of the auto transporter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Reflex reflector is defined in section 393.5 of the FMCSRs
as ``A device which is used on a vehicle to give an indication to an
approaching driver by reflected light from the lamps on the
approaching vehicle.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA acknowledges Advocates' comment that the longer, 6-foot
overhang has only been permitted for a relatively short period of time,
and as such, it is difficult to determine what--if any--impact the new
standard has had on safety. Nonetheless, the FAST Act expressly permits
stinger steered automobile transporters to carry loads that overhang
the rear by 6 feet. Regarding Advocates' concern that there has not
been enough time to determine the ``additional threat to public safety
that would result from removing warning flags from these longer
loads,'' the Agency is required to make a determination that it is
likely that an equivalent or greater level of safety will be maintained
prior to granting any temporary exemption. As discussed above, FMCSA
believes that the transport of automobiles via stinger steered auto
transporters is a unique situation as compared to the transportation of
other items because automobiles extend across virtually the entire
width of the stinger steered auto transporter, and are easily
identifiable as automobiles to the motoring public. Further, the
automobile transporter vehicle population is a very small fraction of
the overall commercial vehicle population, consisting of approximately
16,000 units, with the stinger steered vehicle population a subset of
those 16,000 vehicles. The very limited exposure of these stinger
steered auto transporters, coupled with the fact that the automobiles
they are hauling are easily identifiable by oncoming motorists leads
FMCSA to believe that granting the temporary exemption is likely to
provide a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level of safety achieved without the exemption.

Terms and Conditions for the Exemption

    The Agency hereby grants the exemption for a 5-year period,
beginning February 15, 2019 and ending February 15, 2024. During the
temporary exemption period, motor carriers operating stinger steered
automobile transporter equipment will not have to place warning flags
on projecting loads of motor vehicles that extend up to 6 feet from the
rear of the automobile transporter.
    The exemption will be valid for 5 years unless rescinded earlier by
FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) Motor carriers and/or
commercial motor vehicles fail to comply with the terms and conditions
of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of
safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation
of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives
of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
    Interested parties possessing information that would demonstrate
that motor carriers operating stinger steered automobile transporter
equipment with projecting loads of motor vehicles up to 6 feet from the
rear of the automobile transporter are not achieving the requisite
statutory level of

safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any
such information and, if safety is being compromised or if the
continuation of the exemption is not consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR
381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that
conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a
firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not
required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in
intrastate commerce.

    Issued on: December 13, 2019.
Raymond P. Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-02378 Filed 2-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P