Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 57191 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste 

transportation, Indian lands, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as 

amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b). 

Dated: September 9, 2010. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23401 Filed 9–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 325 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2006–24065] 

RIN–2126–AB31 

Compliance With Interstate Motor 

Carrier Noise Emission Standards: 

Exhaust Systems 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: In response to a petition for 

rulemaking from the Truck 

Manufacturers Association (TMA), the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA) amends its 

regulations to eliminate turbochargers 

from the list of equipment considered to 

be noise dissipative devices. As written, 

the regulation may allow vehicle 

operators to remove mufflers and still 

meet the Federal inspection 

requirements if commercial motor 

vehicle (CMV) engines are equipped 

with turbochargers. This was not the 

intent of that rule. Therefore, the 

Agency amends the rule to restore its 

original intent. 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

19, 2010, unless an adverse comment, or 

notice of intent to submit an adverse 

comment, is either submitted to our 

online docket via http:// 

www.regulations.gov on or before 

October 20, 2010 or reaches the Docket 

Management Facility by that date. If an 

adverse comment, or notice of intent to 

submit an adverse comment, is received 

by October 20, 2010, we will withdraw 

this direct final rule and publish a 

timely notice of withdrawal in the 

Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number FCMSA– 

2006–24065 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand Delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The telephone 

number is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Comments’’ 

portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section below for 

instructions on submitting comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, e-mail 

or call Mr. Brian Routhier, Vehicle and 

Roadside Operations Division (MC– 

PSV), Office of Bus and Truck Standards 

and Operations, brian.routhier@dot.gov 

or (202) 366–1225. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation and Comments 

If you would like to participate in this 

rulemaking, you may submit comments 

and related materials. All comments 

received will be posted, without change, 

to http://www.regulations.gov and will 

include any personal information you 

have provided. 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (FMCSA–2006–24065), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online, or by fax, mail or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. We recommend that you 

include your name and a mailing 

address, an e-mail address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that we can contact you if we have 

questions regarding your submission. As 

a reminder, FMCSA will only consider 

adverse comments as defined in 49 CFR 

389.39(b) and explained below. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Rule’’ and insert ‘‘FMCSA–2006– 

24065’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box. Click 

‘‘Search,’’ then click on the balloon 

shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. If you 

submit your comments by mail or hand 

delivery, submit them in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying and electronic 

filing. If you submit them by mail and 

would like to know that they reached 

the facility, please enclose a stamped, 

self-addressed postcard or envelope. 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘FMCSA–2006– 

24065’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. If you do not have access to the 

Internet, you may also view the docket 

online by visiting the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

e.t., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

C. Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

II. Regulatory Information 

FMCSA publishes this direct final 

rule under 49 CFR 389.11 and 389.39 

because the Agency determined that the 

rule is a routine and non-controversial 

amendment to 49 CFR part 325. The 

rule will restore the original intent of 49 

CFR 325.91(b). FMCSA does not expect 

any adverse comments. If no adverse 

comments or notices of intent to submit 

an adverse comment are received by 

October 20, 2010, this rule will become 

effective as stated in the DATES section. 

In that case, approximately 30 days 

before the effective date, we will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register stating that no adverse 

comments were received and 

confirming that this rule will become 

effective as scheduled. However, if we 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
57192 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

receive any adverse comments or 

notices of intent to submit an adverse 

comment, we will publish a document 

in the Federal Register announcing the 

withdrawal of all or part of this direct 

final rule. If we decide to proceed with 

a rulemaking following receipt of any 

adverse comments, we will publish a 

separate notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) and provide a new opportunity 

for comment. 

A comment is considered ‘‘adverse’’ if 

the comment explains why this rule or 

a part of this rule would be 

inappropriate, including a challenge to 

its underlying premise or approach, or 

would be ineffective or unacceptable 

without a change. 

III. Background 

On October 29, 1974, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

issued regulations establishing 

standards (40 CFR 202.21) for maximum 

external noise emissions of CMVs 

having a gross vehicle weight rating 

(GVWR) or a gross combination weight 

rating (GCWR) of more than 10,000 

pounds that are operated by commercial 

motor carriers engaged in interstate 

commerce (39 FR 38208). Those 

regulations were issued under the 

authority of the Noise Control Act of 

1972 (Pub. L. 92–574, 86 Stat. 1234, 42 

U.S.C. 4901–4918, October 27, 1972), 

which also directed the Secretary of 

Transportation to promulgate 

regulations to ensure compliance with 

the EPA standards. 

On February 28, 1975, the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA)’s 

Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety 

published in the Federal Register (40 

FR 8658) proposed regulations 

establishing measurement 

methodologies for determining whether 

CMVs conform to the Interstate Motor 

Carrier Noise Emission Standards 

published by the EPA. FHWA published 

final regulations on September 12, 1975 

(40 FR 42437), which have remained 

unchanged since that date. These 

requirements became effective on 

October 15, 1975, and are codified at 49 

CFR part 325. 

While the corresponding section of 

the EPA regulation requires CMVs with 

a GVWR or GCWR of more than 10,000 

pounds that are operated by interstate 

motor carriers to be ‘‘* * * equipped 

with a muffler or other noise dissipative 

device * * *,’’ the language adopted by 

FHWA in § 325.91 requires the same 

vehicles to be ‘‘* * * equipped with 

either a muffler or other noise 

dissipative device, such as a 

turbocharger (supercharger driven by 

exhaust gases) * * *.’’ 

The language adopted by FHWA is 

essentially identical to that established 

by EPA, except that § 325.91(b) 

specifically treats a turbocharger as a 

noise dissipative device. There is no 

discussion of turbochargers in the 

preambles of FHWA’s NPRM or final 

rule. 

On June 17, 2005, TMA submitted a 

petition for rulemaking requesting that 

the phrase, ‘‘ such as a turbocharger 

(supercharger driven by exhaust gases)’’ 

be removed from 49 CFR 325.91(b). 

In its petition, TMA noted: 

At the time these regulations were written, 

many diesel engines were naturally 

aspirated, and coincidently much louder 

than then-comparable turbocharged equipped 

engines/trucks. In that context, it made sense 

to include turbochargers with mufflers as 

acceptable noise dissipative devices, since 

both devices quieted trucks appreciably 

compared to trucks with naturally aspirated 

engines and totally unmuffled exhaust 

systems. 

TMA noted that ‘‘removing the 

muffler can cause the truck to be 10–20 

dB(A) louder; a 10 to 100 fold increase 

in the emitted sound power level of the 

vehicle.’’ TMA concluded that it was 

‘‘not aware of any other credible, 

satisfactorily performing, and 

commercially available exhaust noise 

dissipative device other than mufflers.’’ 

The Agency granted TMA’s petition 

and published a notice in the Federal 

Register on September 25, 2006 (71 FR 

55822), requesting public comments on 

(1) whether the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Regulations should be amended 

as requested by TMA, (2) whether there 

are any data or other relevant 

information to suggest the need for such 

a change, and (3) the impact of the 

requested change on motor carriers’ 

ability to achieve compliance with the 

requirements of § 325.91. 

FMCSA received comments from (1) 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, 

(2) TMA, (3) the Motor & Equipment 

Manufacturers Association, and (4) the 

American Trucking Associations. Each 

commenter fully supported the 

requested change and no one opposed 

the amendment. 

IV. Discussion of the Rule 

FMCSA amends 49 CFR 325.91(b) by 

eliminating turbochargers from the list 

of equipment considered to be noise 

dissipative devices. This provision no 

longer serves its original purpose. 

Section 325.91(b), concerning visual 

inspection requirements for exhaust 

systems, was adopted when heavy-duty 

engines equipped with sound-reducing 

devices had either a muffler or a 

turbocharger, but not both. FMCSA 

notes that all newly manufactured 

trucks are currently required to be 

equipped and certified to meet EPA’s 

Transportation Equipment Noise 

Emission Controls requirement of 80 

dB(A) (40 CFR part 202) before they are 

placed into initial service. This 

amendment is a non-safety related 

change to the CFR, and FMCSA further 

believes that the vast majority of CMV 

operators currently comply with 

§ 325.91, as intended. 

In view of the steady increase in the 

number of heavy trucks and buses on 

the road, noise control remains an 

important issue for many communities. 

Yet § 325.91(b) allows the operators of 

vehicles with turbocharged engines to 

remove the muffler. This might improve 

fuel economy by a very small amount; 

and it would obviously eliminate the 

cost of buying new mufflers; but it 

would also increase the noise otherwise 

produced by the vehicle, which is 

contrary to the purpose of the original 

rule. While turbochargers were not 

originally installed as noise dissipative 

devices, a byproduct of their basic 

function was a reduction in noise 

generated by the vehicle. However, 

given the widespread installation of 

mufflers or alternative devices that 

similarly dissipate engine noise (such as 

diesel particulate filters), there is no 

further justification for considering 

turbochargers as noise dissipative 

devices. Therefore, through this direct 

final rule, FMCSA removes 

turbochargers from the list of noise 

dissipative devices in 49 CFR 325.91(b). 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

When developing this direct final 

rule, FMCSA considered numerous 

statutes and executive orders related to 

rulemaking. Below the Agency 

summarizes its analyses. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. The Agency does not believe that 

this rule will have a significant 

economic impact. 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 57193 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

FMCSA certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Comments submitted in response to this 

finding will be evaluated under the 

criteria in the ‘‘Regulatory Information’’ 

section of this preamble. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). 

D. Federalism 

A rule has federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if the rule has a substantial 

direct effect on State or local 

governments and would either preempt 

State law or impose a substantial direct 

cost of compliance on the States. We 

have analyzed this rule under that Order 

and have determined that it does not 

have federalism implications. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$140.8 million (which is the value of 

$100,000,000 in 2009 after adjusting for 

inflation) or more in any 1 year. This 

rule would not result in such an 

expenditure. 

F. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

G. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

H. Protection of Children 

FMCSA has analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

economically significant and does not 

create an environmental risk to health or 

risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

I. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

J. Energy Effects 

FMCSA has analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. The Agency has 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

K. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to 

use voluntary consensus standards in 

their regulatory activities unless the 

agencies provide Congress, through the 

Office of Management and Budget, with 

an explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

L. Environment 

The Agency analyzed this direct final 

rule for the purpose of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

determined under our environmental 

procedures Order 5610.1, published 

March 1, 2004 in the Federal Register 

(69 FR 9680), that this action is 

categorically excluded (CE) under 

Appendix 2, paragraph 6 (b) of the 

Order from further environmental 

documentation. This CE relates to 

establishing regulations and actions 

taken pursuant to these regulations that 

are editorial in nature. In addition, the 

Agency believes that the action includes 

no extraordinary circumstances that 

would have any effect on the quality of 

the environment. Thus, the action does 

not require an environmental 

assessment or an environmental impact 

statement. 

In addition to the NEPA requirements 

to examine impacts on air quality, we 

have also analyzed this proposed rule 

under the Clean Air Act, as amended 

(CAA), section 176(c), (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 

seq.) and implementing regulations 

promulgated by EPA. Approval of this 

action is exempt from the CAA’s general 

conformity requirement since it would 

not result in any potential increase in 

emissions that are above the general 

conformity rule’s de minimis emission 

threshold levels (40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)). 

This action merely eliminates 

turbochargers from the list of equipment 

considered to be noise dissipative 

devices. 

A Categorical Exclusion 

Determination is available for 

inspection or copying in the 

regulations.gov Web site listed under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 325 

Motor carriers, Noise control. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration amends 49 CFR 

part 325 as follows: 

PART 325–COMPLIANCE WITH 

INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER NOISE 

EMISSION STANDARDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 325 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4917; 49 U.S.C. 301; 

49 CFR 1.73. 

■ 2. Amend § 325.91 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 325.91 Exhaust systems. 

* * * * * 

(b) Is not equipped with either a 

muffler or other noise dissipative 

device; or 

* * * * * 

Issued on: September 15, 2010. 

Anne S. Ferro, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23419 Filed 9–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES