7956 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

revised and § 64.6120 be added to 

reflect OMB’s approval once that 

approval was received. We therefore 

revise §§ 64.6110 and 64.6120, 

previously published at 86 FR 40682, 

and delayed indefinitely, to remove 

§§ 64.6110(d) and 64.6120(d), both of 

which state that providers would be 

required to comply with the information 

requirements immediately upon 

publication by the Commission of a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing OMB approval. 

If you have any comments on the 

burden estimates listed below, or how 

the Commission can improve the 

collections and reduce any burdens 

caused thereby, please contact Nicole 

Ongele, Federal Communications 

Commission, 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20002. Please include 

the OMB Control Number, 3060–1222, 

in your correspondence. The 

Commission will also accept your 

comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov. 

To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to fcc504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Synopsis 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), 

the FCC is notifying the public that it 

received OMB approval on January 24, 

2022 for the information collection 

requirements contained in the 

Commission’s modifications to the 

Commission’s rules in 47 CFR part 64. 

Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may 

not conduct or sponsor a collection of 

information unless it displays a current, 

valid OMB Control Number. No person 

shall be subject to any penalty for failing 

to comply with a collection of 

information subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act that does not display a 

current, valid OMB Control Number. 

The OMB Control Number is 3060– 

1222. 

The foregoing notification is required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13, October 1, 

1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

The total annual reporting burdens 

and costs for the respondents are as 

follows: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–1222. 

OMB Approval Date: January 24, 

2022. 

Expiration Date: January 31, 2025. 

Title: Inmate Calling Services (ICS) 

Provider Annual Reporting, 

Certification, Consumer Disclosure, and 

Waiver Request Requirements, WC 

Docket No. 12–375, FCC 21–60. 

Form Numbers: FCC Form 2301(a) 

and FCC Form 2301(b). 

Respondents: Business or other for 

profit. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 20 respondents; 23 

responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 5 

hours–80 hours. 

Frequency of Response: Annual 

reporting; on occasion; and third party 

disclosure requirements. 

Total Annual Burden: 2,940 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: No Cost. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. Statutory 

authority for this information collection 

is contained in sections 1, 4(i)–(j), 

201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, 403, and 

617 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)–(j), 

201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, 403, and 

617. 

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No 

Impact(s). 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

The Commission anticipates treating as 

presumptively confidential any 

particular information identified as 

proprietary by calling services 

providers. 

Needs and Uses: Section 201 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (Act), 47 U.S.C. 201, requires 

that calling services providers’ interstate 

and international rates and practices be 

just and reasonable. Section 276 of the 

Act, 47 U.S.C. 276, requires that 

payphone service providers (including 

calling services providers) be fairly 

compensated for completed calls. 

On May 24, 2021, the Commission 

released the Third Report and Order (86 

FR 40682, July 28, 2021), Order on 

Reconsideration (86 FR 40340, July 28, 

2021), and Fifth Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (86 FR 40416, 

July 28, 2021), WC Docket No. 12–375, 

FCC 21–60 (2021 ICS Order), in which 

it continued its reform of the calling 

services marketplace. In that Order, the 

Commission, among other actions, 

expanded its consumer disclosure 

requirements and added new 

requirements for calling services 

providers seeking waiver of the 

Commission’s interstate and 

international rate caps. The Commission 

also required, in connection with 

international calling services rates, that 

providers must separately disclose the 

rate component for terminating calls to 

each country where that provider 

terminates international calls. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends part 64 of title 47 

of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 64 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 

202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 

228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 276, 

403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401–1473, 

unless otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115–141, Div. 

P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091. 

§ 64.6110 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 64.6110, remove paragraph (d). 

§ 64.6120 [Amended] 

■ 3. In § 64.6120, remove paragraph (d). 

[FR Doc. 2022–02897 Filed 2–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2021–0004] 

RIN 2127–AL88 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Compressed Natural Gas 

Fuel Container Integrity 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

visual inspection labeling requirement 

in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 304, 

‘‘Compressed natural gas fuel container 

integrity,’’ by modifying the periodic 

inspection interval for compressed 

natural gas (CNG) fuel containers 

installed on vehicles with a gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater 

than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). 

The inspection interval for these 

vehicles is modified from the currentlyspecified interval, ‘‘at least every 36 

months or 36,000 miles, whichever 

comes first,’’ to ‘‘at least every 12 

months.’’ For commercial operators of 

CNG heavy vehicles that often travel 

100,000 miles per year or more, this 

change will eliminate the need to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 7957 

1As we noted in the NPRM, at least 20 States 

have adopted into law National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) Code 52, ‘‘Vehicular Natural 

Gas Fuel Systems,’’ which specifies that operators 

of commercial vehicle visually inspect CNG fuel 

containers in accordance with the visual inspection 

label permanently affixed to the container per 

FMVSS No. 304. 

2According to its website, ATA is the largest 

national trade association for the trucking industry 

and covers every type of motor carrier in the U.S. 

3According to its website, NGV America is a 

trade association that represents companies, 

environmental groups, and organizations interested 

in the promotion and use of natural gas as motor 

fuel. 

perform unnecessary multiple visual 

inspections of their vehicles’ CNG fuel 

containers per year. NHTSA believes 

this final rule is equally protective of 

safety as the cadence of inspection 

required by the current rule. This 

rulemaking commenced in response to 

petitions for rulemaking from the 

American Trucking Associations and 

Natural Gas Vehicles for America. 

DATES: 

Effective date: This final rule is 

effective March 14, 2022. 

Compliance date: The compliance 

date for the amendments in this final 

rule is March 14, 2023. Optional early 

compliance is permitted. 

Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions 

for reconsideration of this final rule 

must be received not later than March 

28, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

of this final rule must refer to the docket 

and notice number set forth above and 

be submitted to the Administrator, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

Note that all petitions received will be 

posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. All 

submissions will be placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking. For more 

information, please see the Privacy Act 

heading under Rulemaking Analyses 

and Notices. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ian MacIntire, Office of Crashworthiness 

Standards; telephone: 202–493–0248; 

facsimile: 202–493–2990, or Mr. Daniel 

Koblenz, Office of Chief Counsel; 

telephone: 202–366–2992; facsimile: 

202–366–3820. The mailing address for 

these officials is: National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPRM 

III. Summary of and Response to Comments 

IV. Final Rule 

V. Analysis of Costs and Benefits 

VI. Compliance Date 

VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

I. Introduction 

NHTSA is issuing this final rule to 

amend the periodic inspection interval 

(i.e., inspections that occur on a 

schedule, rather than after an incident) 

stated on the visual inspection label that 

is required under paragraph S7.4 of 

FMVSS No. 304, ‘‘Compressed natural 

gas fuel container integrity.’’ Under the 

current standard, CNG fuel containers 

must be permanently affixed with a 

label that states, among other things, 

that the container should be visually 

inspected after a motor vehicle accident 

or fire and at least every 36 months or 

36,000 miles, whichever comes first, for 

damage and deterioration (S7.4(g)). The 

statement is required regardless of the 

vehicle’s GVWR. NHTSA has 

determined that, although the label’s 

recommended inspection intervals are 

appropriate for CNG light vehicles (i.e., 

vehicles with a GVWR less than or equal 

to 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds 

(lb)), they are inappropriate for CNG 

heavy vehicles (i.e., vehicles with a 

GVWR greater than 4,536 kg), which are 

generally driven many more miles per 

year than light vehicles. 

NHTSA has reached this conclusion 

because the driving patterns and 

conditions under which CNG heavy 

vehicles travel are very different from 

those of CNG light vehicles, making the 

current time and mileage intervals 

inappropriate for CNG heavy vehicles. 

CNG light vehicles are typically used in 

commercial and non-commercial 

applications for which their annual 

Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) is 

between 10,000 miles and 12,000 miles. 

By contrast, CNG heavy vehicles are 

used almost exclusively in commercial 

operations in which their annual VMT 

is much higher, with the annual VMT of 

the heaviest CNG vehicles often 

exceeding 100,000 miles. Per accepted 

industry practice and State-imposed 

inspection requirements,1 commercial 

operators of high-mileage CNG vehicles 

typically inspect their vehicles in 

accordance with the inspection interval 

printed on the container’s label. As the 

current label indicates that operators 

should perform visual inspections every 

36,000 miles, this amounts to multiple 

inspections per year. 

CNG fuel container failures are 

extremely rare occurrences, and NHTSA 

is not aware of any data or analyses 

suggesting that performing multiple 

visual inspections of CNG fuel 

containers per year has made failures 

less likely to occur. The agency 

requested information on this subject, 

but the proposal only received six 

comments, five of which were from 

industry stakeholders that supported the 

revision and one was from an individual 

commenter who also supported the rule, 

and none of these commenters provided 

any information on this question. In 

view of this information, NHTSA has 

concluded that there is not a safety need 

for commercial operators of highmileage CNG heavy vehicles to conduct 

multiple visual inspections of their 

vehicles’ CNG fuel containers per year. 

This final rule amends the visual 

inspection label by eliminating the 

mileage interval for CNG heavy 

vehicles, and amending the time 

interval for these vehicles to once every 

12 months. NHTSA believes 12 months 

is an appropriate interval because the 

Agency is not aware of any evidence 

that a more frequent inspection interval 

would have a safety benefit. 

Furthermore, a 12-month interval aligns 

the FMVSS No. 304 visual inspection 

label with the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) 

inspection regulations, which require 

that commercial vehicles, including fuel 

systems, be inspected annually. 

II. NPRM 

NHTSA initiated this rulemaking in 

response to two petitions for rulemaking 

the Agency received in 2016 from the 

American Trucking Associations 

(ATA) 2 and Natural Gas Vehicles for 

America (NGV America),3 both of which 

requested that NHTSA address the issue 

of potentially too-frequent visual 

inspections by eliminating the mileage 

interval on the visual inspection label 

required under S7.4 (g) of FMVSS No. 

304. 

FMVSS No. 304 requires each CNG 

fuel container to be permanently labeled 

with the information specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (h) of S7.4. 

Currently, paragraph S7.4(g) specifically 

requires this label to include the 

following statement: 

This container should be visually 

inspected after a motor vehicle accident or 

fire and at least every 36 months or 36,000 

miles, whichever comes first, for damage and 

deterioration. 

After receiving the petitions from 

ATA and NGV America, NHTSA 

conducted an analysis of whether the 

current 3-year/36,000-mile visual 

inspection interval would be 

appropriate for CNG heavy vehicles, and 

if not, what an appropriate interval 

would be. The current inspection 

interval was chosen based on an 

analysis of CNG light vehicles, which 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
7958 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

4Compressed Natural Gas Fuel System Inspection 

Guidance, NGV America Technology and 

Development Committee, https://

ngvam.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/ 

11/CNG-Vehicle-Fuel-System-Inspection-Guidance1.pdf. 

5FMCSA–RRT–13–044, ‘‘Natural Gas Systems: 

Suggested Changes to Truck and Motorcoach 

Regulations and Inspection Procedures,’’ March 

2013, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/83. 

6The source of this data was the Clean Vehicle 

Education Foundation (CVEF) Master Incident List, 

which provides information about all reported CNG 

incidents in the world through 2015. The CVEF 

Master Incident List is maintained by NGV 

America. A copy of the CVEF Master Incident List 

is available in the docket indicated in the heading 

of this notice. 

7Among the 16 CNG fuel container failures, eight 

were caused by stress corrosion cracking from 

exposure to chemicals and acid that resulted in 

degradation of the glass fibers used in some 

container designs. In 2001, the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) revised the NGV 2 

standard to address this issue, and there have been 

no reported failures of this type since. Of the 

remaining eight failures, two were caused by failure 

of pressure relief devices (PRD) to operate in a fire, 

one was caused by over-pressurization by faulty 

fueling systems, three were caused by a 

combination of stress corrosion cracking, physical 

damage, and over-pressurization, and two container 

failures were caused by physical damage due to 

impact in vehicle crashes. 

8There are too few container failures to evaluate 

annual trends. 

9 84 FR 29145. 

11As self-described on its website, NWRA is a 

trade association representing nearly 70 percent of 

the private sector waste and recycling industry. Its 

nearly 700 members operate in all 50 States and the 

District of Columbia and are a mix of publiclytraded and privately-owned local, regional, and 

Fortune 500 national and international companies. 

12As self-described on its website, Hexagon 

produces high-pressure composite storage cylinders 

and transportation modules for CNG and biogas. 

13As self-described on its website, Agility is a 

global provider of clean fuel ‘‘solutions’’ for 

medium and heavy duty commercial vehicles. 

are driven around 10,000 to 12,000 

miles annually in both commercial and 

non-commercial contexts, which works 

out to approximately one inspection 

every three years for these vehicles. 

Because CNG heavy vehicles are 

expected to be used in exclusively 

commercial applications and typically 

have higher annual VMTs than their 

light vehicle counterparts, a 3-year/ 

36,000-mile visual inspection interval 

could equate to up to 2–3 visual 

inspections per year. Further, as it is 

accepted industry practice (and, in 

many States, a requirement) for 

commercial CNG vehicle operators to 

follow the visual inspection label 

required under FMVSS No. 304, these 

commercial operators are generally 

conduct these multiple inspections. 

The visual inspection is a detailed 

inspection of the fuel container and its 

components.4 According to the NGV 

America guidance on the detailed visual 

inspection, shielding, enclosures, and 

coverings, as well as any system access 

panels are removed. The CNG fuel 

container and components are inspected 

for any damage including dents, gouges, 

scrapes, cuts, abrasions, discoloration, 

heat damage, and any form of corrosion. 

The valves and valve covers are 

inspected for signs of wear, damage, or 

leakage. 

As part of its analysis into the net 

safety benefits of multiple annual 

inspections, NHTSA reviewed a 2013 

report sponsored by FMCSA on CNG 

fuel container safety.5 The report 

summarized the findings of a study 

investigating how to improve CNGrelated regulations. In this report, the 

authors (who were contractors for 

FMCSA) recommended the removal of 

the mileage interval from the required 

visual inspection label since it was not 

intended for high-mileage commercial 

vehicles and because the study 

participants stated that multiple visual 

inspections per year to be ‘‘burdensome 

and unnecessary.’’ 

NHTSA also analyzed data on all CNG 

fuel container failures from 1984 to 

2015 (the most recent data available).6

NHTSA’s analysis of the CNG fuel 

container failures found that, over this 

period, there have been a total of only 

16 CNG fuel container failures in the 

United States in the 32-year period, 

most of which were caused by problems 

other than those detectable through a 

visual inspection, such as crashes, 

design flaws, or over-pressurization.7 In 

fact, based on available information, it 

is not clear that any of these failures 

could have been prevented by the 

periodic visual inspections. Although 

periodic visual inspections could 

potentially detect problems such as 

gouging on the container surface from 

the mounting brackets, general damage 

from roadside debris, external corrosion, 

and damage to valves, such factors were 

not related to these 16 container 

failures. Periodic visual inspections 

would not protect against the possibility 

of failure due to over-pressurization or 

internal corrosion, and do not prevent 

container failures in a vehicle collision 

or fire. As this dataset did not state how 

recently or frequently the CNG fuel 

containers had been visually inspected 

prior to failure, NHTSA could not draw 

any conclusions from it relating to the 

appropriate frequency of visual 

inspections for fuel containers on heavy 

CNG vehicles. However, the extreme 

infrequency of CNG container failures 

over the 32-year period,8 and the 

absence of failures that might have been 

prevented by way of a more frequent 

than annual visual inspection, suggest 

there is not a safety need to conduct 

multiple visual inspections of CNG 

containers per year. 

On June 21, 2019, NHTSA published 

the NPRM preceding this final rule, 

proposing to amend the statement 

required under S7.4(g) so that it 

includes separate, discrete periodic 

inspection intervals for light and heavy 

CNG vehicles.9 NHTSA proposed that 

the inspection interval for CNG fuel 

containers installed on light vehicles 

would be unchanged from the current 

standard, whereas the inspection 

interval for CNG fuel containers 

installed on heavy vehicles would be 

changed to at least once every 12 

months, with no mileage interval. 

Given the absence of evidence of any 

increased safety risk associated with 

performing just one (rather than 

multiple) inspection per year, NHTSA 

tentatively concluded in the NPRM that 

the 3-year/36,000-mile visual inspection 

interval on the label is not justified by 

a safety benefit. Accordingly, NHTSA 

tentatively concluded that changing the 

label to recommend a 12-month 

inspection interval, without a mileage 

interval, eliminated the need to conduct 

unnecessary visual inspections. An 

annual inspection interval would also 

have the advantage of synchronizing the 

label’s inspection interval with FMCSA 

regulations that state that commercial 

vehicles must be inspected annually, 

thus limiting the cost of compliance 

with the label’s recommendations.10

III. Summary of and Response to 

Comments 

NHTSA received six comments in 

response to the NPRM. The comments 

were submitted by the two petitioners 

(NGV America and ATA), the National 

Waste & Recycling Association 

(NWRA),11 Hexagon Mobile Pipeline 

LLC (Hexagon),12 Agility Fuel Solutions 

LLC (Agility),13 and one individual. 

The commenters uniformly supported 

the adoption of the proposed rule, and 

voiced agreement with NHTSA’s 

analysis and conclusions regarding the 

costs and safety impacts on operators of 

CNG heavy vehicles of changing the 

visual inspection label. NWRA 

requested that NHTSA impose an 

inspection documentation requirement. 

NHTSA has not adopted such a 

requirement in the final rule, as doing 

so would be both beyond the scope of 

this rulemaking, and beyond NHTSA’s 

authority. Adding an inspection 

documentation requirement would not 

be in the scope of this rulemaking 

because we did not propose, or seek 

comment on, the establishment of an 

inspection documentation requirement. 

Such a requirement would be beyond 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 7959 

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

15As explained in the NPRM, the time and 

mileage intervals on the current visual inspection 

label were based on the best field data available on 

CNG vehicles at the time FMVSS No. 304 was 

established in 1995. 61 FR 47086, September 6, 

1996. Because, at that time the CNG fleet primarily 

consisted of light vehicles, this field data reflected 

the driving patterns of light vehicles, which 

typically have an annual VMT of approximately 

10,000 to 12,000 miles. More recent data on VMT 

collected by the U.S. Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) shows that the annual 

VMT for light vehicles has not changed, with 

annual light vehicle VMT holding steady at about 

11,000 miles for both 2014 and 2015. Data obtained 

from the FHWA Office of Highway Policy 

Information—Annual Vehicle Distance Traveled in 

Miles and Related Data—2015 by Highway Category 

and Vehicle Type. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

policyinformation/statistics/2015/vm1.cfm. As 

there has not been a major change to the driving 

patterns of CNG light vehicles since NHTSA 

established FMVSS No. 304, and NHTSA is not 

otherwise aware of evidence suggesting that the 

3-year/36,000-mile inspection interval is no longer 

appropriate for CNG light vehicles, NHTSA did not 

change the inspection interval for light vehicles. 

16We note that the comment from the National 

Waste and Recycling Association, which represents 

the commercial operators of waste collection trucks, 

indicated its support of the proposed amendments 

to the visual inspection label. 

17Agility also commented in support of a 12- 

month inspection interval for low-mileage CNG 

commercial vehicles. 

NHTSA’s authority because NHTSA is 

not authorized to enforce inspection 

requirements for commercial operators 

of CNG vehicles. NHTSA does not 

regulate how motor vehicles or motor 

vehicle equipment are used and 

maintained by commercial operators. 

Agility suggested several changes to 

the proposed regulatory text that it 

believed would improve the readability 

of the visual inspection label without 

making substantive changes. We have 

decided not to adopt these changes. 

First, we do not have evidence 

indicating that replacing ‘‘motor vehicle 

accident’’ with ‘‘accident’’ would be 

meaningful. We have treated those 

terms as interchangeable in previous 

FMVSS No. 304 rulemakings relating to 

the inspection label.14 Second, we 

believe that placing the phrase ‘‘at least’’ 

before the list of periodic inspection 

intervals could cause confusion because 

the label would read as though both 

‘‘(a)’’ and ‘‘(b)’’ of the regulatory text 

could apply to the same vehicle, which 

is not correct because the two different 

inspection intervals apply to different 

weight classes. Finally, we believe that 

the change to the description of the 

weight class in (b), while shorter than 

the proposed regulatory text, would 

reduce clarity of the label by eliminating 

the parallel sentence structures of (a) 

and (b). 

IV. Final Rule 

After considering the information 

submitted by the petitioners and the 

comments received, we are adopting the 

changes to the visual inspection label 

proposed in the NPRM. Under this final 

rule, the portion of the label describing 

the recommended periodic inspection 

interval is bifurcated into separate 

instructions for light and heavy 

vehicles. 

For light vehicles, the time and 

mileage inspection intervals are 

unchanged from the current S7.4(g) 

(every 3 years or 36,000 miles), since 

NHTSA believes the intervals described 

in the current S7.4(g) are still 

appropriate for light vehicles.15

However, for heavy CNG vehicles, the 

label would describe a periodic 

inspection interval of once per year, 

with no mileage interval. As noted 

earlier, this interval for heavy CNG 

vehicles is consistent with FMCSA’s 

annual inspection interval for 

commercial vehicles. NHTSA has 

concluded that this rule is not 

anticipated to have an impact on vehicle 

safety. As we explained earlier and in 

the NPRM, NHTSA is not aware of any 

evidence that multiple visual 

inspections of CNG fuel containers per 

year provides a safety benefit. 

NHTSA recognizes that, for lowmileage heavy CNG heavy vehicles, the 

amended label could result in more 

frequent inspections than now specified 

under the current label. This is because 

under the existing label, the vehicles do 

not have to have a yearly inspection if 

they are used less than the 12,000 miles 

a year (on average), while under the 

revised label, a yearly inspection is 

specified, regardless of mileage. Two of 

the commenters, Hexagon and NGV 

America, addressed this issue and 

supported the proposed inspection 

interval for low-mileage vehicles as 

well. Hexagon stated that an inspection 

interval of one year was beneficial for 

low-mileage commercial CNG heavy 

vehicles because low-mileage 

commercial operations that use CNG 

heavy vehicles, such as refuse 

collection,16 have more incidents than 

other sectors. NGV America stated that 

low-mileage commercial operations 

often operate in rigorous environmental 

conditions warranting a yearly 

inspection, and, moreover, are already 

subject to the FMCSA’s requirement that 

commercial vehicles undergo an annual 

inspection.17 Thus, as these commenters 

concurred that a one-year inspection 

interval is appropriate even for lowmileage CNG heavy vehicles, NHTSA 

concludes the proposed labeling 

requirement is appropriate for these 

vehicles as well. 

Given the infrequency with which 

CNG failures currently occur, the 

Agency believes that conducting 

multiple visual inspections of CNG 

containers per year on heavy vehicles is 

unnecessary. That said, the contrary is 

not supported—NHTSA has not made a 

determination that fewer than one 

visual inspection per year is supported. 

In addition, the Agency lacks field data 

to support recommending a longer 

visual inspection interval, such as every 

3 years or 5 years, and received no 

feedback or data from commenters that 

would advocate for such a change. 

Because heavy vehicles in commercial 

fleets tend to travel significantly more 

miles than light vehicles, the CNG fuel 

containers on heavy vehicles may be 

exposed to more wear and tear in a 

given period of time than CNG fuel 

containers on light vehicles. 

Accordingly, NHTSA concludes that an 

annual visual inspection interval is 

more appropriate than a less frequent 

interval as inspectors are more likely in 

an annual inspection cycle to identify 

and remedy damage to the CNG fuel 

container and fuel system than 

compared to, say, a 3-year or 5-year 

inspection interval. 

The CNG industry (including 

container manufacturers, vehicle 

integrators, CNG vehicle fleet operators) 

agree that an annual visual inspection of 

CNG containers on heavy vehicles 

would reduce inspection costs without 

a reduction in safety. 

V. Analysis of Costs and Benefits 

Because NHTSA does not expect this 

rule to affect vehicle safety, the net 

benefit of this rule is a reduction in 

costs to operators of CNG heavy vehicles 

who will no longer perform multiple 

visual inspections per year. The 

magnitude of this reduction in costs 

depends on the size of the CNG heavy 

vehicle fleet, the number of excess 

visual inspections that are performed 

based on the suggestion on the current 

label’s mileage interval, and the cost of 

conducting those additional visual 

inspections. Note that, for purposes of 

estimating costs and benefits, CNG 

heavy vehicles were broken down into 

two categories: CNG medium duty 

vehicles (with a GVWR greater than 

4,536 kg (10,000 lb) and less than or 

equal to 11,793 kg (26,000 lb)) and CNG 

heavy duty vehicles (with a GVWR 

greater than 11,793 kg). 

NHTSA estimated the size of the CNG 

heavy vehicle fleet, which consists of 

CNG medium duty vehicles and CNG 

heavy duty vehicles, using data from 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
7960 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

18As we explained in the NPRM, although both 

NGV America and the U.S. Energy Information 

Agency (EIA) tracks the size of the CNG vehicle 

fleet, NHTSA believes that NGV America’s estimate 

is more accurate than EIA’s because NGV America 

bases its estimates on data obtained from its 

members, whereas EIA bases its estimates on 

vehicle registration data obtained from States. 

NHTSA believes that using vehicle registrations to 

estimate the size of the CNG vehicle fleet would 

systematically undercount the number of CNG 

vehicles because many States do not require fuel 

type to be noted on the vehicle registration, and 

because many CNG heavy vehicles operating today 

were converted from diesel-fueled vehicles after the 

first vehicle purchase. The NGV America fleet and 

sales data from December 2014 is available at 

https://www.ngvamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/ 

2018/09/2014-NGV-Production-and-SalesReport.pdf. 

19 Dee, Anna Lea, ‘‘What Set of Conditions Would 

Make the Business Case to Convert Heavy Trucks 

to Natural Gas?—a Case Study,’’ National Energy 

Policy Institute, 2012. This model accounts for 

several factors that affect return on investment, 

including the capital investment required to convert 

a diesel vehicle to run on CNG; the relative costs 

of fueling infrastructure and vehicle maintenance 

between CNG and diesel vehicles; and the relative 

fuel economy of CNG and diesel vehicles. 

20According to the Department of Energy, the 

price of diesel fuel at the time of this analysis was 

$3.08 per gallon, whereas the price of CNG was 

$2.49 per diesel gallon equivalent (DGE)—a 

differential of $0.59. See https://afdc.energy.gov/ 

files/u/publication/alternative_fuel_price_report_

oct_2019.pdf. Because fuel prices tend to fluctuate 

over time, our analysis here assumes a price 

differential of $1.25, which is the same as the 

analysis in the NPRM. 

21This cost includes inspection by a trained and 

qualified inspector and removal and replacement of 

shields or covers of the CNG fuel containers before 

and after the inspection. The downtime cost is also 

assumed that the inspection will occur when the 

vehicle would otherwise be in-use, not, for 

example, if it is out of service for some other reason 

(e.g., if the inspection occurs on the weekend or 

when a particular fleet vehicle is not required to be 

in use). 

22Baker, et al., ‘‘Alternative Fuel Vehicle 

Forecasts (April 2016),’’ Texas A&M Transportation 

Institute, https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/ 

documents/PRC-14-28F.pdf. 

23While NHTSA did not use the AEO2017 data 

in its cost/benefit analysis due to underreporting of 

the current size of the CNG fueled heavy vehicle 

fleet, we note that the AEO2017 data estimates an 

increase in the CNG medium and heavy duty 

vehicle fleet by 2040. According to AEO2017 

projected estimates, there would be 16,335 CNG 

medium duty vehicles and 74,469 CNG heavy duty 

vehicles in 2040. By contrast, the AEO2017 

estimates that in 2015, there were 2,150 CNG 

medium duty vehicles and 22,350 CNG heavy duty 

vehicles. 

NGV America.18 According to NGV 

America, there are approximately 

25,800 CNG medium duty vehicles and 

39,500 CNG heavy duty vehicles 

currently in operation in the United 

States. 

NHTSA estimated the annual average 

VMT for CNG heavy vehicles by using 

a published business model that 

estimates the minimum annual average 

VMT that a CNG heavy vehicle operator 

would be required to maintain to 

achieve a 20 percent return on 

investment for converting a diesel heavy 

vehicle to use CNG.19 According to this 

model, if the per-gallon price of diesel 

is $1.25 more than the per-diesel gallon 

equivalent (DGE) for CNG, the required 

average annual VMT required to 

maintain a 20 percent return on 

investment is 75,000 miles for CNG 

medium duty vehicles, and 125,000 

miles for CNG heavy duty vehicles.20 As 

discussed above, commenters supported 

NHTSA’s assumption in the NPRM that 

inspections would generally be 

performed as suggested on the label. 

Using the more conservative estimate of 

108,000 VMT for CNG heavy duty 

vehicles and 72,000 VMT for CNG 

medium duty vehicles, we estimate that, 

under the current 36,000-mile mileage 

interval, a CNG heavy duty vehicle 

would be inspected 3 times per year 

(108,000 ÷ 36,000 = 3), and a CNG 

medium duty vehicle would be 

inspected two times per year (72,000 ÷ 

36,000 = 2). 

NHTSA estimated the per-inspection 

cost of visual inspections using 

information provided by ATA in its 

petition for rulemaking. According to 

ATA, visual inspections cost between 

$200 and $500 per vehicle, and require 

a CNG vehicle to have a 2-day 

downtime for the inspection at a cost of 

about $150 per day.21 Based on these 

estimates, NHTSA calculated the cost of 

a single inspection to be $500 ($200 + 

$150 × 2) to $800 ($500 + $150 × 2), 

with an average of $650 ($350 + $150 × 

2). 

As previously mentioned, NGV 

America’s production and sales report 

estimated the inventory of medium duty 

and heavy duty CNG vehicles was 

25,800 and 39,500, respectively, in 

2014. NHTSA believes these estimates 

are the most accurate available for the 

CNG industry, and therefore assumes 

these figures as the average annual 

inventory for CNG heavy vehicles. As 

we noted in the NPRM, our analysis 

may be a low estimate of the total cost 

saving because projections indicate the 

annual sale of CNG heavy vehicles used 

in commercial fleets will increase to 

68,000 in 2040, which would lead to a 

significant increase in the number of 

these vehicles in the overall heavy 

vehicle fleet.22 23

Using the above estimates, NHTSA 

calculated the total annual cost savings 

from reduced number of visual 

inspections of CNG containers in the 

CNG heavy vehicle fleet, regardless of 

whether the container has the current 

visual inspection label or the new 

modified label. Again, this analysis 

assumes that the heavy vehicle fleet size 

remains unchanged in the future. With 

these assumptions along with 

inspection cost estimates, the potential 

total annual cost savings due to reduced 

number of CNG fuel container 

inspections range between $52.40 

million to $83.84 million with an 

average cost savings of $68.12 million, 

as shown in Table 1. Because these 

estimated annual cost savings are 

constant across all years into the future, 

annualized values are similar for all 

discount rates, as shown in Table 2. As 

noted above, since the CNG heavy 

vehicle fleet size is expected to increase 

in the future, the annual cost savings 

presented in Table 1 are conservative. 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL COST SAVINGS FROM CONDUCTING YEARLY INSPECTION OF ALL CNG CONTAINERS ON THE CNG 

HEAVY VEHICLE FLEET

[2020$] 

Cost of inspection 

Low Average High 

Cost of Single Inspection (a) ....................................................................................................... $500 $650 $800 

Number of CNG Heavy Duty Vehicles (b) .................................................................................. 39,500 39,500 39,500 

Number of CNG Medium Duty Vehicles (c) ................................................................................ 25,800 25,800 25,800 

Number of Inspections Reduced Per Year for Heavy Duty Vehicles (d) .................................... 2 2 2 

Number of Inspections Reduced Per Year for Medium Duty Vehicles (e) ................................. 1 1 1 

Cost Reduction for Heavy Duty Vehicles (f) = (a) × (b) × (d) in Millions .................................... $39.50 $51.35 $63.20 

Cost Reduction for Medium Duty Vehicles (g) = (a) × (c) × (e) in Millions ................................ $12.90 $16.77 $20.64 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 7961 

24 49 U.S.C. 30122. Note that the ‘‘make 

inoperative’’ prohibition applies only to 

manufacturers, distributors, dealers, rental 

companies, and motor vehicle repair businesses; it 

would not apply to a commercial operator of a CNG 

vehicle modifying his or her own vehicle. 

TABLE 1—ANNUAL COST SAVINGS FROM CONDUCTING YEARLY INSPECTION OF ALL CNG CONTAINERS ON THE CNG 

HEAVY VEHICLE FLEET—Continued 

[2020$] 

Cost of inspection 

Low Average High 

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

VI. Compliance Date 

Because this final rule will eliminate 

the current requirement that results in 

multiple visual inspections per year for 

heavy vehicles in favor of a requirement 

for an equally safety protective annual 

inspection, we believe a mandatory 

compliance date of one year after the 

date of publication of this document in 

the Federal Register is appropriate, with 

optional early compliance permitted. 

We believe one year is sufficient time to 

make needed changes to the visual 

inspection label for CNG fuel containers 

with no additional cost, and that 

permitting early compliance will 

provide manufacturers with flexibility. 

We note that, while this rule does not 

apply retroactively to containers 

manufactured before the mandatory 

compliance date, there may be instances 

in which an operator may want to 

replace a previously-existing visual 

inspection label with a new label with 

the amended time interval. As to 

whether such a replacement would be a 

violation of the ‘‘make inoperative’’ 

provision of the Safety Act, our answer 

is no, assuming the container will be 

permanently labeled with the new label 

as specified in S7.4 and contains all the 

information required by S7.4. 49 U.S.C. 

30122 states, in relevant part: ‘‘A 

manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental 

company, or motor vehicle repair 

business may not knowingly make 

inoperative any part of a device or 

element of design installed on or in a 

motor vehicle or motor vehicle 

equipment in compliance with an 

applicable motor vehicle safety 

standard.’’ Replacing the previouslyexisting label with the new label by an 

entity listed in § 30122 would not be a 

violation of the make inoperative 

provision because the new label serves 

the same function and safety need as the 

previous label, only more efficiently. 

Both labels inform the operator of how 

frequently CNG fuel containers should 

be inspected, with the new label 

reflecting the need for motor vehicle 

safety more accurately. Thus, replacing 

the label does not make inoperative a 

device or element of design installed on 

or in the vehicle in compliance with 

FMVSS No. 304.24

VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 

13563, and DOT Rulemaking 

Procedures 

NHTSA has considered the impact of 

this final rule under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563, and the Department of 

Transportation’s administrative 

rulemaking procedures. This final rule 

was deemed to be non-significant under 

Executive Order 12866 by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, and 

is not considered a rulemaking of 

special note to the Department under 

DOT Order 1200.6A. 

NHTSA is modifying the required 

label for visual inspection of CNG fuel 

containers to specify that the container 

should be visually inspected for damage 

and deterioration after a motor vehicle 

accident or fire, and either (a) at least 

every 12 months when installed on a 

vehicle with a GVWR greater than 4,536 

kg or (b) at least every 36 months or 

36,000 miles, whichever comes first, 

when installed on a vehicle with a 

GVWR less than or equal to 4,536 kg. 

NHTSA has not found any evidence that 

this change will impact motor vehicle 

safety. NHTSA believes that the only 

substantive effect of this final rule will 

be to eliminate unnecessary visual 

inspections of CNG fuel containers by 

operators of high-mileage CNG heavy 

vehicles and align the CNG container 

inspections for low-mileage CNG heavy 

vehicles with FMCSA’s annual 

inspection interval. 

NHTSA estimates the change will 

reduce the number of visual inspections 

per year by approximately 2 inspections 

for heavy duty CNG vehicles and by 

approximately 1 inspection for medium 

duty CNG vehicles. The agency further 

estimates that the elimination of these 

visual inspections will result in an 

average annual cost savings of $68.12 

million, assuming the current CNG 

heavy vehicle fleet size remains 

unchanged. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of proposed 

rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions) unless the head of an 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a 

small business, in part, as a business 

entity ‘‘which operates primarily within 

the United States.’’ (13 CFR part 

121.105(a)). SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 

Federal agencies to provide a statement 

of the factual basis for certifying that a 

proposed or final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

I certify that this final rule will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

There are two types of businesses that 

will potentially be impacted by this 

rule: Manufacturers of CNG fuel 

containers and commercial operators of 

CNG heavy vehicles. Small 

manufacturers of CNG fuel containers 

are directly impacted by this rule 

because they are required to modify the 

language on the visual inspection label. 

However, as the label itself is already 

required (only the wording is changing), 

NHTSA expects this to be a negligible, 

one-time expense for these businesses. 

As explained in earlier in this Notice, 

commercial operators of CNG heavy 

vehicles are indirectly impacted by this 

rule because the amended visual 

inspection label will indirectly cause 

the elimination of multiple unnecessary 

visual inspections these businesses 

must perform per year. Small operators 

of CNG heavy vehicles will likely see a 

reduction in maintenance costs because 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
7962 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

25Well-to-wheel refers to an analysis that 

accounts for all the energy and emissions necessary 

to produce the fuel used in the vehicle (well-topump) and the operation energy and emissions 

associated with the vehicle technology (tail pipe 

emissions, other emissions and energy efficiency of 

the vehicle). 

26The conflict was discerned based upon the 

nature (e.g., the language and structure of the 

regulatory text) and the safety-related objectives of 

FMVSS requirements in question and the impact of 

the State requirements on those objectives. 

of a reduced number of CNG fuel 

container inspections. 

However, NHTSA does not believe 

those cost impacts will be significant, 

because the cost savings from reduced 

inspections would be a small percentage 

of the overall operational cost of the 

vehicle. To illustrate, according to AEO, 

a medium duty CNG vehicle fuel 

efficiency is 6.9 mpg, and that for heavy 

vehicle is 5.7 mpg (gasoline gallon 

equivalent). The cost of CNG fuel is 

$2.27/gasoline gallon equivalent. A 

heavy duty truck traveling 108,000 

miles per year spends $43,010 

(= 108,000/5.7 * $2.27) on fuel alone. 

The cost savings of doing annual 

inspections for a heavy duty vehicle is 

estimated at $1,300 per year. This 

annual savings is only 3 percent of fuel 

costs. A medium duty truck traveling 

72,000 miles per year spends $23,686 

(= 72,000/6.9 * 2.27) on fuel alone. The 

cost savings of doing annual inspections 

for a medium duty vehicle is estimated 

at $650. This annual savings would be 

only 2.7 percent of fuel costs. 

The above comparison is limited to 

fuel costs. There are other operational 

costs that have not been accounted for 

which would make the savings from 

reduced inspections to be even less than 

3 percent compared to the cost of 

operating the vehicles. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking 

action for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), as amended. The Agency 

has determined that implementation of 

this action will not have a significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment. The rule merely reduces 

the number of visual inspections that 

commercial operators of high-mileage 

CNG heavy vehicles will have to 

conduct. 

Reducing the number of inspections 

would reduce the downtime and cost of 

operation of these vehicles. On the days 

that a CNG heavy vehicle is out-ofservice for visual inspection, the 

operations are either stopped or 

continued using a conventional-fuel 

vehicle. As stated above, according to 

NGV America, there are approximately 

25,800 CNG medium duty vehicles and 

39,500 CNG heavy duty vehicles 

currently in operation in the United 

States. These vehicles therefore make up 

a very small proportion of the on-road 

medium and heavy duty vehicle fleet, 

and the change in their downtime is a 

very small proportion of their overall 

use, so any resulting change in medium 

or heavy duty vehicle operation 

(including by the regulated vehicles) 

also would be very small. 

NHTSA estimates that this rule 

would, at most, reduce the number of 

visual inspections a CNG operator 

conducts each year by two for heavy 

duty vehicles and by one for medium 

duty vehicles. Since an inspection takes 

one to two days to conduct, there could 

be at most four extra days of operation 

per year (2 inspections × 2 days per 

inspection = 4 days of additional 

operation) for heavy duty vehicles and 

two extra days of operation per year (1 

inspection × 2 days per inspection) for 

medium duty vehicles. 

Assuming trips that would otherwise 

be made using a CNG-fueled vehicle are 

instead made using a diesel-fueled 

vehicle when the CNG-fueled vehicle is 

undergoing a visual inspection, then 

making CNG heavy duty vehicles 

available for an additional four days 

annually and CNG medium duty 

vehicles available for an additional two 

days annually would reduce greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions, since heavy CNG 

vehicles have 13–17 percent fewer GHG 

emissions compared to diesel on a wellto-wheel basis.25 However, on an annual 

basis, this reduction in GHG emissions 

from increased operation of CNG 

vehicles would be insignificant (i.e., 

much less than 1 percent) compared to 

the GHG emissions from the total U.S. 

heavy vehicle fleet. Similarly, 

anticipated changes to other air 

pollutant emissions would also be very 

small. Thus, any environmental impacts 

would be appropriately considered de 

minimis. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

NHTSA has examined today’s final 

rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 

(64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and 

concluded that no additional 

consultation with States, local 

governments, or their representatives is 

mandated beyond the rulemaking 

process. The Agency has concluded the 

rule does not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant consultation 

with State and local officials or the 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement. The rule does not 

have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ 

NHTSA rules can have preemptive 

effect in two ways. First, the National 

Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

contains an express preemption 

provision, codified at 49 U.S.C. 

30103(b)(1), stating that, when a motor 

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a 

State or a political subdivision of a State 

may prescribe or continue in effect a 

standard applicable to the same aspect 

of performance of a motor vehicle or 

motor vehicle equipment only if the 

standard is identical to NHTSA’s 

standard prescribed under this chapter. 

It is this statutory command by Congress 

(and not today’s final rule) that 

preempts any non-identical State 

legislative and administrative law 

addressing the same aspect of 

performance, so consultation would be 

inappropriate. 

It is this statutory command by 

Congress (and not today’s final rule) that 

preempts any non-identical State 

legislative and administrative law 

addressing the same aspect of 

performance, so consultation would be 

inappropriate. 

Second, the Supreme Court has 

recognized the possibility, in some 

instances, of implied preemption of 

State requirements imposed on motor 

vehicle manufacturers, including 

sanctions imposed by State tort law. 

That possibility is dependent upon 

there being an actual conflict between a 

FMVSS and the State requirement. If 

and when such a conflict exists, the 

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution 

makes the State requirements 

unenforceable. See Geier v. American 

Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000), 

finding implied preemption of State tort 

law on the basis of a conflict discerned 

by the court,26 not on the basis of an 

intent to preempt asserted by the agency 

itself. 

NHTSA has considered, pursuant to 

Executive Orders 13132 and 12988, 

whether this final rule could or should 

preempt State common law causes of 

action. To this end, the Agency has 

examined the nature (e.g., the language 

and structure of the regulatory text) and 

objectives of this final rule and finds 

that this final rule is not intended to 

preempt State tort law that effectively 

imposes a higher standard on regulated 

entities than that would be established 

by today’s final rule. The change in this 

final rule amends a labeling requirement 

that applies to newly manufactured 

CNG fuel containers; it does not conflict 

with the establishment of a higher 

standard of safety by means of State tort 

law that applies to the same subject 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 7963 

27The NGV America Technology & Development 

Committee’s Guidance on Fuel System Inspection 

published in November 2017 specifies annual 

visual inspection for CNG fuel containers on heavy 

vehicles as a practical approach to inspection and 

maintenance of the fuel container and fuel system 

which would match intervals and procedures with 

other vehicle maintenance tasks, such as engine oil 

and filter changes, that are conducted on an annual 

basis per FMCSR 396.17. The CSA group, which 

maintains NGV 2, is considering modifying the 

inspection interval in NGV 2 to an annual 

inspection following the NGV America Technology 

& Development Committee’s Guidance document. 

28http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/ 

main/wp29/wp29regs/2015/R110r3e.pdf. 

matter (i.e., adequate labeling of CNG 

fuel containers). This rule would not 

preempt state inspection requirements, 

including those that rely on the 

language on the visual inspection label, 

because this rule does not mandate that 

the label be followed; states remain free 

to establish inspection requirements as 

they deem appropriate. Without any 

conflict, there could not be any implied 

preemption of State law, including State 

tort law. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

With respect to the review of the 

promulgation of a new regulation, 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ (61 FR 4729; Feb. 

7, 1996), requires Executive agencies 

make every reasonable effort to ensure 

the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies 

the effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) provides a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct, while 

promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) clearly specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies 

whether administrative proceedings are 

to be required before parties file suit in 

court; (6) adequately defines key terms; 

and (7) addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. This 

document is consistent with that 

requirement. 

Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes 

as follows. The issue of preemption is 

discussed above. NHTSA notes further 

there is no requirement that individuals 

submit a petition for reconsideration or 

pursue other administrative proceedings 

before they may file suit in court. 

Privacy Act 

All submissions, including public 

comments on this final rule, will be 

placed in the docket. Anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

documents received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the document (or signing the 

document, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477– 

78). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required 

to respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid OMB control 

number. There are no information 

collection requirements associated with 

this final rule. 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, as amended by Public Law 107–107 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the agency 

to evaluate and use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or is otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies, such as the SAE International. 

The NTTAA directs us to provide 

Congress (through OMB) with 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This final rule accords with the 

NTTAA. FMVSS No. 304 has 

historically drawn largely from ANSI 

NGV 2. The changes in this final rule to 

the visual inspection label were made in 

accordance with data provided by NGV 

America and ATA and the 

recommendations developed by 

industry technical working groups.27

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits and other effects of 

proposed or final rules that include a 

Federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of more than $100 

million annually (adjusted annually for 

inflation, with base year of 1995). 

UMRA also requires an agency issuing 

an NPRM or final rule subject to the Act 

to select the ‘‘least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule.’’ 

This final rule would not result in a 

Federal mandate that will likely result 

in the expenditure by State, local or 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of more than $100 

million annually (adjusted annually for 

inflation, with base year of 1995). 

Executive Order 13609 (Promoting 

Regulatory Cooperation) 

The policy statement in section 1 of 

Executive Order 13609 provides, in part: 

The regulatory approaches taken by 

foreign governments may differ from 

those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies 

to address similar issues. In some cases, 

differences between the regulatory 

approaches of U.S. agencies and those of 

their foreign counterparts might not be 

necessary and might impair the ability 

of American businesses to export and 

compete internationally. In meeting 

shared challenges involving health, 

safety, labor, security, environmental, 

and other issues, international 

regulatory cooperation can identify 

approaches that are at least as protective 

as those that are or would be adopted in 

the absence of such cooperation. 

International regulatory cooperation can 

also reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. 

The European regulation for CNG 

vehicles, ECE R.110, ‘‘I. Specific 

components of motor vehicles using 

compressed natural gas (CNG) and/or 

liquefied natural gas (LNG) in their 

propulsion system,’’ 28 requires a 

detailed visual inspection of CNG fuel 

containers on vehicles at least every 48 

months and after an accident or fire. 

However, the working pressure of CNG 

fuel containers in Europe is 20 

Megapascals (MPa) (3,000 pounds per 

square inch (psi)), while that in the U.S. 

is typically 26 MPa (3,600 psi). The 

higher container pressure in the U.S. 

necessitates more frequent visual 

inspections than that conducted in 

Europe. Therefore, NHTSA did not 

consider harmonizing with ECE R.110. 

Regulation Identifier Number 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Motor vehicles, Motor 

vehicle safety. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
7964 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as 

follows: 

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 571 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.95. 

■ 2. In § 571.304, revise S7.4(g) to read 

as follows: 

§ 571.304 Standard No. 304; Compressed 

natural gas fuel container integrity. 

* * * * * 

S7.4 * * * 

(g) The statement: ‘‘This container 

should be visually inspected for damage 

and deterioration after a motor vehicle 

accident or fire, and either (a) at least 

every 12 months when installed on a 

vehicle with a GVWR greater than 4,536 

kg, or (b) at least every 36 months or 

36,000 miles, whichever comes first, 

when installed on a vehicle with a 

GVWR less than or equal to 4,536 kg.’’ 

* * * * * 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.95 and 501.4. 

Steven S. Cliff, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–02588 Filed 2–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards 

CFR Correction 

This rule is being published by the 

Office of the Federal Register to correct 

an editorial or technical error that 

appeared in the most recent annual 

revision of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

■ In Title 49 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 400 to 571, revised as 

of October 1, 2021, in § 571.108, remove 

S5.1 and S5.2. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03043 Filed 2–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 0099–10–D 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

International Fisheries Regulations 

CFR Correction 

This rule is being published by the 

Office of the Federal Register to correct 

an editorial or technical error that 

appeared in the most recent annual 

revision of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

■ In Title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Parts 228 to 599, revised as 

of October 1, 2021, in § 300.21, the 

definition of ‘‘Vessel monitoring system 

(VMS)’’ is reinstated to read as follows: 

§ 300.21 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Vessel monitoring system (VMS) 

means an automated, remote system that 

provides information about a vessel’s 

identity, location and activity, for the 

purposes of routine monitoring, control, 

surveillance and enforcement of area 

and time restrictions and other fishery 

management measures. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–03042 Filed 2–10–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 0099–10–D 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1