        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Parts 52
        [EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0192; FRL-9125-8]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to Chapter 116 Which Relate to the Permit Renewal Application and Permit Renewal Submittal

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Texas which relate to the Permit Renewal Application and Permit Renewal Submittal regulations. These portions of the SIP revisions approved today would address requirements related to the timeline for the submittal of an application for permit renewal. EPA finds that these changes to the Texas SIP comply with the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA) and EPA regulations, are consistent with EPA policies, and will improve air quality. This action is being proposed under section 110 and parts C and D of the Act.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before April 12, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments may be mailed to Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions concerning today's proposal, please contact Ms. Melanie Magee (6PD-R), Air Permits Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue (6PD-R), Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. The telephone number is (214) 665-7161. Ms. Magee can also be reached via electronic mail at magee.melanie@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no relevant adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of the rule, and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

        For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: March 2, 2010.
          Al Armendariz,
          Regional Administrator, Region 6.

      [FR Doc. 2010-5239 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Part 53
        [FAR Case 2011-018; Docket 2011-0018; Sequence 1]
        RIN 9000-AM30
        Federal Acquisition Regulation; Positive Law Codification of Title 41
        Correction
        In proposed rule document 2012-21874, appearing on pages 57950-57979 in the issue of Monday, September 18, 2012, make the following correction:
        1. PART 53-FORMS will be printed in its entirety, beginning at § “53.301.25 Performance Board”, on page 57979.

          PART 53—FORMS [CORRECTED]

            53.301-25
            Performance Bond.
            BILLING CODE 6820-14-P

              EP03OC12.041

              EP03OC12.042

            379. Revise section 53.301-25A to read as follows:

            53.301-25A
            Payment Bond.

              EP03OC12.043

              EP03OC12.044

            380. Revise section 53.301-26 to read as follows:

            53.301-26
            Award/Contract.

              EP03OC12.045

            381. Revise section 53.301-273 to read as follows:

            53.301-273
            Reinsurance Agreement For A Bonds Statute Peformance Bond.

              EP03OC12.046

              EP03OC12.047

            382. Revise section 53.301-274 to read as follows:

            53.301-274
            Reinsurance Agreement For A Bonds Statute Payment Bond.

              EP03OC12.048

              EP03OC12.049

            383. Revise section 53.301-308 to read as follows:

            53.301-308
            Request For Wage Determination And Response To Request.

              EP03OC12.050

            384. Revise section 53.301-330 to read as follows:

            53.301-330
            Architect-Engineer Qualifications.

              EP03OC12.051

              EP03OC12.052

              EP03OC12.053

              EP03OC12.054

              EP03OC12.055

              EP03OC12.056

              EP03OC12.057

              EP03OC12.058

              EP03OC12.059

              EP03OC12.060

              EP03OC12.061

              EP03OC12.062

              EP03OC12.063

              EP03OC12.064

            385. Revise section 53.301-1093 to read as follows:

            53.301-1093
            Schedule Of Withholdings Under The Construction Wage Rate Requirements Statute (40 U.S.C. Chapter 31, Subchapter IV, § 3144) and/or The Contract Work Hours And Safety Standards Statute (40 U.S.C. Chapter 37, § 3703).

              EP03OC12.065

            386. Revise section 53.301-1413 to read as follows:

            53.301-1413
            Statement and Acknowledgement.

              EP03OC12.066

            387. Revise section 53.301-1444 to read as follows:

            53.301-1444
            Request For Authorization Of Additional Classification and Rate.

              EP03OC12.067

            388. Revise section 53.301-1446 to read as follows:

            53.301-1446
            Labor Standards Investigation Summary Sheet.

              EP03OC12.068

              EP03OC12.069

      [FR Doc. C1-2012-21874 Filed 10-2-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-14-C


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AT66
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for the Buena Vista Lake Shrew

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of availability of draft economic analysis and reopening of public comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft economic analysis for the proposed designation of critical habitat for Buena Vista Lake shrew in California under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are also reopening the public comment period for the proposal to designate critical habitat for this species to allow all interested parties to comment on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously submitted on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they have been incorporated into the public record as part of this reopening of the comment period, and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

          DATES:
          We will accept all comments and information received on or before December 15, 2004. Any comments that we receive after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this proposal.

          ADDRESSES:
          If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by any one of several methods:
          (1) You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825, or by facsimile 916/414-6710.
          (2) You may hand-deliver written comments to our office, at the address given above.

          (3) You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: BVLS_pCH@fws.gov. Please see the “Public Comments Solicited” section below for file format and other information about electronic filing. In the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please submit your comments by the alternate methods mentioned above.

          Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposed critical habitat rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address. You may obtain copies of the draft economic analysis for the proposed designation of critical habitat for Buena Vista Lake shrew by contacting the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at the above address. The draft economic analysis and the proposed rule for critical habitat designation are also available on the Internet at http://sacramento.fws.gov/. In the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please obtain copies of documents directly from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Arnold Roessler, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, at the address above (telephone 916/414-6600; facsimile 916/414-6710).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comment Solicited
        We solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning our draft economic analysis and the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Buena Vista Lake shrew. We particularly seek comments concerning:
        (1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat;
        (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of shrew habitat, and what habitat is essential to the conservation of this species and why;
        (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on proposed habitat, specifically impacts of the designation on the operation and maintenance of irrigation canals, and on existing and any planned future oil and gas activities within or near the proposed designation;
        (4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat; in particular, any impacts on small entities or families;
        (5) Whether the economic analysis identifies all State and local costs attributable to the proposed critical habitat designation. If not, what costs are overlooked;
        (6) Whether the economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a result of the designation of critical habitat;
        (7) Whether the economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with land use controls that derive from the designation;
        (8) Assumptions reflected in the economic analysis regarding land use practices and current, planned, or reasonably foreseeable activities in the subject areas, including comments or information relating to the potential effects that the designation could have on private landowners as a result of actual or foreseeable State and local government responses due to the California Environmental Quality Act;
        (9) Whether the designation will result in disproportionate economic impacts to specific areas that should be evaluated for possible exclusion from the final designation;
        (10) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all costs that could result from the designation; and
        (11) Whether our approach to critical habitat designation could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concern and comments.

        All comments and information submitted during the initial comment period on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning the draft economic analysis and proposed rule by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES section).
        Please submit Internet comments to BVLS_pCH@fws.gov in an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and encryption. Please also include “Attn: Buena Vista Lake shrew Critical Habitat” in your e-mail subject header, and your name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly by calling our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see
          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
        Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will be available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, in our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at the above address.

        In our August 19, 2004, proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Buena Vista Lake shrew (69 FR 51417) we indicated that we would reopen the public comment period for an additional 60 days upon publication of this notice of availability of the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation. However, due to delays in completing the draft economic analysis and a court-ordered deadline for the completion of the final rule, we are unable to reopen the public comment period for that length of time. In order to ensure compliance with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California's order (Kern County Farm Bureau et al. v. Anne Badgley, Regional Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1 et al., CV F 02-5376 AWIDLB) requiring us to publish a final determination no later than January 12, 2005, we are only able to reopen the public comment period for 15 days.
        Background
        On August 19, 2004, we published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) for the Buena Vista Lake shrew (69 FR 51417). We proposed a total of 4,649 acres in 5 units of critical habitat within the Central Valley of California. The Buena Vista Lake shrew formerly occurred in wetlands around Buena Vista Lake, and presumably throughout the Tulare Basin. The animals were likely distributed throughout the swampy margins of Kern, Buena Vista, Goose, and Tulare Lakes. By the time the first shrews were collected and described, these lakes had already been drained and mostly cultivated with only sparse remnants of the original flora and fauna remaining. Essential habitat features of the shrew include riparian or wetland communities supporting a complex vegetative structure with a thick cover of leaf litter or dense mats of low-lying vegetation; suitable moisture supplied by a shallow water table, irrigation, or proximity to permanent or semipermanent water; and a consistent and diverse supply of prey. The shrew is now known from five isolated riparian or wetland remnants within the Tulare Basin of the Central Valley of California. Critical habitat receives protection from destruction or adverse modification through required consultation under section 7 of the Act with regards to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that the Secretary of the Interior shall designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The public comment period for the August 19, 2004, proposal originally closed on October 18, 2004.
        We have prepared a draft economic analysis of the effects of the proposed critical habitat designation, and are now announcing its availability for review. The economic analysis addresses the impacts of the Buena Vista Lake shrew conservation efforts on activities occurring on lands proposed for designation. The analysis includes cost effects on agricultural producers adjacent or proximate to three Critical Habitat Units (CHU), biological monitoring, Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) development, and supplemental water purchases, as well as potential uncertainty to landowners and project delay.
        The economic analysis includes both retrospective, or pre-designation, and prospective, or post-designation, economic costs to various entities as a result of Buena Vista Lake shrew conservation activities. Retrospective costs are those costs estimated to have occurred from the time the species was listed in April 2002 until the proposal of critical habitat in August 2004. The estimated retrospective cost is $122,237. These costs are primarily certain administrative costs associated with the ongoing preparation of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan at the Kern National Wildlife Refuge CHU and the ongoing section 7 consultation related to the preparation of a biological opinion regarding the Goose Lake proposed CHU.
        Present values shown are calculated at three and seven percent discount rates. Total prospective costs range from $6.7 to $14.2 million under a three percent discount rate, and $4.8 to $10.1 million under a seven percent rate. Thus, prospective average annual costs range from $452,266 to $955,833. These costs include effects on agricultural producers adjacent or proximate to three CHUs, biological monitoring, HCP development, and supplemental water purchases. The ranges reflect totals with and without supplemental water for Kern Lake, Coles Levee, and Kern Fan Water Recharge CHUs. Both the Kern National Wildlife Refuge and Goose Lake CHUs are assumed to require supplemental water, and thus do not contribute to a range of costs.
        Required Determinations
        Regulatory Planning and Review

        In accordance with Executive Order 12866, the proposed designation of critical habitat is a significant rule only in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues. However, the Economic Analysis indicates that the proposed designation will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the tight timeline for publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed this rule.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
        Under 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 rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, the SBREFA does not explicitly define “substantial number” or “significant economic impact.” Consequently, to assess whether a “substantial number” of small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area. The SBREFA also amended the RFA to require a certification statement. Based on the information that is available to us at this time from the economic analysis, we are certifying that this proposed designation of critical habitat will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.
        According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule as well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.

        The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not explicitly define either “substantial number” or “significant economic impact.” Consequently, to assess whether a “substantial number” of small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in the area. Similarly, this analysis considers the relative cost of compliance on the revenues/profit margins of small entities in determining whether or not entities incur a “significant economic impact.” Only small entities that are expected to be directly affected by the designation are considered in this portion of the analysis. This approach is consistent with several judicial opinions related to the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. (Mid-Tex Electric Co-Op, Inc. v. F.E.R.C. and American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. EPA).
        Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, or permitted by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the designation if they lack a Federal nexus. In areas where the species is present, Federal agencies funding, permitting, or implementing activities are already required to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the Buena Vista Lake shrew through consultation with us under section 7 of the Act. If this critical habitat designation is finalized, Federal agencies must also consult with us to ensure that their activities do not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat through consultation with us.
        Should a federally funded, permitted, or implemented project be proposed that may affect designated critical habitat, we will work with the Federal action agency and any applicant, through section 7 consultation, to identify ways to implement the proposed project while minimizing or avoiding any adverse effect to the species or critical habitat. In our experience, the vast majority of such projects can be successfully implemented with at most minor changes that avoid significant economic impacts to project proponents.
        Based on our experience with section 7 consultations for all listed species, virtually all projects-including those that, in their initial proposed form, would result in jeopardy or adverse modification determinations in section 7 consultations—can be implemented successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and prudent alternatives. These measures, by definition, must be economically feasible and within the scope of authority of the Federal agency involved in the consultation. The kinds of actions that may be included in future reasonable and prudent alternatives include avoidance, conservation set-asides, management of competing non-native species, restoration of degraded habitat, construction of protective fencing, and regular monitoring. These measures are not likely to result in a significant economic impact to project proponents.
        In the case of the Buena Vista Lake shrew, we anticipate that that the proposed designation of critical habitat is not likely to have a significant impact on any small entities or classes of small entities. However, no section 7 consultations have been completed since the listing in 2002; in addition, no identifiable changes in economic activities resulting from shrew conservation efforts have taken place since the listing. The costs presented in the economic analysis reflect, where data permit, ranges representing the reasonably foreseeable future. These costs are likely to be incurred because of shrew conservation activities related to agriculture, operation and maintenance of groundwater recharge projects and resultant effects on water supplies, and water requirements for habitat.
        We considered the potential relative cost of compliance to these small entities and evaluated only small entities that are expected to be directly affected by the proposed designation of critical habitat. Based on the economic analysis, we do not anticipate that the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Buena Vista Lake shrew will result in increased compliance costs for small entities. The proposed designation of critical habitat does not, therefore, create a new cost for the small entities to comply with the proposed designation. Instead, proposed designation only impacts Federal agencies that conduct, fund, or permit activities that may affect critical habitat for the shrew. Thus, we conclude that the proposed designation of critical habitat is not likely to result in a significant impact to this group of small entities. Therefore, we are certifying that the proposed designation of critical habitat for the shrew will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
        In summary, we have considered whether this proposed designation would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and we have concluded that it would not. Future consultations are not likely to affect a substantial number of small entities. We anticipate that the types of activities we review under section 7 of the Act will not change significantly in the future.
        Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.)

        Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), this rule is not a major rule. The Economic Analysis indicates that the proposed designation will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Therefore, we believe that this critical habitat designation will not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, and will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
        Takings
        In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights”), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for the Buena Vista Lake shrew. Our assessment concludes that this proposed rule does not pose significant takings implications.
        Author

        The primary author of this notice is Shannon Holbrook, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Services Office (see
          ADDRESSES section).
        Authority

        The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: November 23, 2004.
          Craig Manson,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 04-26472 Filed 11-29-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0738; FRL-9975-35-Region 3]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Emissions Statement Rule Certification for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision formally submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia). Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), states' SIPs must require stationary sources in ozone nonattainment areas classified as marginal or above to report annual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). This emissions statement requirement also applies to stationary sources located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) that emit or have the potential to emit at least 50 tons per year (tpy) of VOC or 100 tpy of NOX. The SIP revision provides Virginia's certification that its existing emissions statement program satisfies the emissions statement requirements of the CAA for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is proposing to approve Virginia's emissions statement program certification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as a SIP revision in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before April 11, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0738 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sara Calcinore, (215) 814-2043, or by email at calcinore.sara@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background

        Under the CAA, EPA establishes NAAQS for criteria pollutants in order to protect human health and the environment. In response to scientific evidence linking ozone exposure to adverse health effects, EPA promulgated the first ozone NAAQS, the 0.12 part per million (ppm) 1-hour ozone NAAQS, in 1979. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). The CAA requires EPA to review and reevaluate the NAAQS every 5 years in order to consider updated information regarding the effects of the criteria pollutants on human health and the environment. On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised ozone NAAQS, referred to as the 1997 ozone NAAQS, of 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours. 62 FR 38855. This 8-hour ozone NAAQS was determined to be more protective of public health than the previous 19791-hour ozone NAAQS. In 2008, EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 to 0.075 ppm. The 0.075 ppm standard is referred to as the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).

        On May 21, 2012 and June 11, 2012, EPA designated nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 77 FR 30088 and 77 FR 34221. Effective July 20, 2012, the Washington, DC-MD-VA area was designated as marginal nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area is comprised of Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City. See 40 CFR 81.347.

        Section 182 of the CAA identifies additional plan submissions and requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Specifically, section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires that states develop and submit, as a revision to their SIP, rules which establish annual reporting requirements for certain stationary sources. Sources that are within marginal or above ozone nonattainment areas must annually report the actual emissions of NOX and VOC to the state. However, states may waive sources that emit under 25 tpy of NOX and VOC if the state provides an inventory of emissions from such class or category of sources as required by CAA sections 172 and 182. See CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii).
        Additionally, portions of Virginia are included in the ozone transport region (OTR) established by Congress in section 184 of the CAA. The OTR is comprised of the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area that includes the District of Columbia and portions of Virginia. The areas designated as in the Virginia portion of the OTR are as follows: Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Stafford County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City.1

            1 See, e.g. “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; NSR in the Ozone Transport Region”, 71 FR 39570 (July 13, 2006) and 71 FR 890 (January 6, 2006).

        Pursuant to section 184(b)(2), any stationary source located in the OTR that emits or has the potential to emit at least 50 tpy of VOC shall be considered a major stationary source and subject to the requirements which would be applicable to major stationary sources if the area was classified as a moderate nonattainment area. See CAA section 184. Thus, states within the OTR are subject to plan (or SIP) requirements in CAA section 182(b) applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. Also, section 182(f)(1) of the CAA requires that the plan provisions required for major stationary sources of VOC also apply to major stationary sources of NOX for states with ozone nonattainment areas. A major stationary source of NOX is defined as a stationary facility or source of air pollutants which directly emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tpy or more of NOX. See CAA section 302(j).

        In summary, sources located within the portions of Virginia included in the OTR, including areas designated as attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, that emit more than 50 tpy of VOC or 100 tpy of NOX are considered major sources and are subject to the same requirements as major stationary sources located in moderate or above nonattainment areas. These requirements include the emissions statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). See CAA section 182(f) and 184(b)(2). Sources located in designated marginal or above nonattainment areas must also submit an emissions statement as required by CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). As stated previously, states may waive sources that emit less than the 25 tpy of NOX and 25 tpy of VOC threshold if the state provides an inventory of emissions from such class or category of sources as required by CAA sections 172 and 182. See CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii). States are required by section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA to submit, for approval into the state's SIP, rules requiring the sources described above to provide annual statements showing their actual emissions of NOX and VOC to the state.
        The EPA published guidance on source emissions statements in a July 1992 memorandum titled, “Guidance on the Implementation of an Emission Statement Program” and in a March 14, 2006 memorandum titled, “Emission Statement Requirements Under 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation” (2006 memorandum). In addition, on March 6, 2015, EPA issued a final rule addressing a range of nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including the emissions statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) (2015 final rule). 80 FR 12264. The 2006 memorandum clarified that the source emissions statement requirement of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) was applicable to all areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and classified as marginal or above under subpart 2, part D, title I of the CAA. Per EPA's 2015 final rule, the source emissions statement requirement also applies to all areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
        According to EPA's 2015 final rule, most areas that are required to have an emissions statement program for the 2008 ozone NAAQS already have one in place due to a nonattainment designation for an earlier ozone NAAQS. EPA's 2015 final rule states that, “If an area has a previously approved emissions statement rule in force for the 1997 ozone NAAQS or the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that covers all portions of the nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, such rule should be sufficient for purposes of the emissions statement requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.” In cases where an existing emissions statement rule is still adequate to meet the emissions statement requirement under the 2008 ozone NAAQS, states may provide the rationale for that determination to EPA in a written statement for approval in the SIP to meet the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). In this statement, states should identify how the emissions statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) are met by their existing emissions statement rule.
        In summary, the Commonwealth of Virginia is required to submit, as a formal revision to its SIP, a statement certifying that Virginia's existing emissions statement program satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and covers the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.2

            2 EPA did not require Virginia or other states to certify that its existing SIP approved emissions statement program continued to satisfy CAA requirements for areas in the OTR to have an emissions statement program.

        II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

        On August 1, 2017, the Commonwealth of Virginia, through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), submitted, as a formal revision to its SIP, a statement certifying that Virginia's existing SIP-approved emissions statement program covers the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and is at least as stringent as the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). In its submittal, Virginia states that the emissions statement requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) are contained under 9VAC5-20-160 (Registration) of the Virginia Administrative Code and are SIP-approved under 40 CFR 52.2420(c). According to Virginia, these provisions mandate that facilities emitting more than 25 tpy of NOX or VOC must submit emission statements to Virginia while those emitting less than 25 tpy must comply with inventory requirements.
        The provisions under 9VAC5-20-160 that implement Virginia's emissions statement program were approved into the Virginia SIP on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21451).3

           These provisions require the owner of any stationary source that emits 25 tpy or more of VOC or NOX and is located in an emissions control area designated under 9VAC5-20-206 (Volatile Organic Compound and Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Control Areas) to submit an emissions statement to the Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board by April 15 of each year for the emissions discharged during the previous calendar year.4
           Emissions statements are required to be prepared and submitted in accordance with 9VAC5-20-121 (Air Quality Program Policies and Procedures), which references Virginia's January 1, 1993 document AQP-8 titled, “Procedures for Preparing and Submitting Emission Statements for Stationary Sources.” The provisions under 9VAC5-20-121 were also approved into the Virginia SIP on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21451).

            3 The provisions under 9VAC5-20-160 were derived from VR120-02-31. EPA's May 2, 1995 direct final rulemaking (DFR) approved a SIP revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia requesting the addition of provisions under VR120-02-31 paragraph B, which established Virginia's emissions statement program, and Appendix S (Air Quality Program Policies and Procedures), which described the procedure for preparing and submitting emissions statements for stationary sources, to the Virginia SIP. See 60 FR 21451. On March 6, 1992, the Virginia State Assembly enacted Chapter 216—an act to amend Section 9-77.7, Code of Virginia, which authorized reorganization of the Virginia Administrative Code, including reorganization of the air pollution control regulations, effective July 1, 1992. Beginning April 17, 1995, Virginia began publication of its air quality control regulations in the new format. On April 21, 2000, EPA approved a SIP revision from Virginia requesting the reorganization and renumbering of the Virginia SIP to match the recodification of Virginia's air pollution control regulations under the Virginia Administrative Code. See 65 FR 21315. As a result, the SIP approved provisions under VR120-02-31 and Appendix S are now under 9VAC5-20-160 and 9VAC5-20-121, respectively.

            4 The emissions control areas defined under 9VAC5-20-206 include the Northern Virginia Emissions Control Area, the Fredericksburg Emissions Control Area, the Richmond Emissions Control Area, the Hampton Roads Emissions Control Area, and the Western Virginia Emissions Control Area. The Northern Virginia Emissions Control Area consists of the localities of Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Stafford County, Alexandra City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City.

        EPA's review of the Commonwealth of Virginia's submittal finds that Virginia's existing, SIP-approved emissions statement program under 9VAC5-20-160 satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for emission statements for sources located in marginal or above nonattainment areas including such sources in the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA notes 9VAC5-20-160 also requires sources located in portions of Virginia included in the OTR to submit required emission statements in accordance with CAA section 184 (OTR requirements) and 182 (plan submissions and requirements for ozone nonattainment areas). Pursuant to CAA sections 182 and 184, Virginia is required to have an emissions statement program for sources located in marginal or above nonattainment areas and the portions of Virginia included in the OTR. EPA finds the provisions under 9VAC5-20-160 satisfy these requirements of CAA sections 182 and 184 because they apply to the Northern Virginia Emissions Control Area, which includes the Virginia localities within the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e., Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City), and the portions of Virginia included in the OTR (i.e., Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William County, Stafford County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City, Manassas City, and Manassas Park City). EPA also finds Virginia's emissions thresholds for sources that are required to submit an emissions statement meet the requirements of CAA sections 182 and 184. As stated above, 9VAC5-20-160 requires the owner of any stationary source located in an emissions control area that emits 25 tpy or more of VOC or NOX to annually submit an emissions statement. This 25 tpy threshold is equivalent to the threshold required by CAA section 182. As previously mentioned, per CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii), states may waive sources that emit less than 25 tpy of NOX or VOC if the state provides an inventory of emissions from such class or category of sources as required by CAA sections 172 and 182. Virginia does provide emissions inventories for nonattainment areas as required by CAA section 172(c)(3).5
           Therefore, EPA has determined that 9VAC5-20-160, which is currently in the Virginia SIP, is appropriate to address the emissions statement requirements in section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve, as a SIP revision, the Commonwealth of Virginia's August 1, 2017 emissions statement program certification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as approvable under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

            5 See, e.g., “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventories for the Washington, DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” 80 FR 27255 (May 13, 2015).

        III. Proposed Action
        EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Virginia's SIP revision submitted on August 1, 2017, which certifies that Virginia's existing SIP-approved emissions statement program under 9VAC5-20-160 satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
        IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia

        In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.
        On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”
        Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”
        Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
        V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
        • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
        • is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

        • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
        • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        This SIP revision consisting of Virginia's certification that its existing SIP-approved emissions statement program under 9VAC5-20-160 satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

          Dated: February 26, 2018.
          Cosmo Servidio,
          Regional Administrator, Region III.

      [FR Doc. 2018-04812 Filed 3-9-18; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AF45
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of Comment Period and Notice of Public Hearing on the Clarification of Take Prohibitions for Coastal Cutthroat Trout Related to the Proposed Rule To List the Southwestern Washington/Columbia River Coastal Cutthroat Trout in Washington and Oregon as Threatened

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of public hearing.

          SUMMARY:
          The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) gives notice of a public hearing on the clarification of take prohibitions for the coastal cutthroat trout related to the proposed rule to list the southwestern Washington/Columbia River coastal cutthroat trout in Washington and Oregon. In addition, the comment period which originally closed on August 14, 2000 (65 FR 43730), will be reopened. The new comment period and hearing will allow all interested parties to submit oral or written comments on the proposal.

          DATES:
          The comment period for this proposal now closes on September 29, 2000. Any comments received by the closing date will be considered in the final decision on this proposal. The public hearing will be held from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m. and from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. on September 21, 2000, in Aberdeen, Washington.

          ADDRESSES:
          The public hearing will be held in Building 800 at Grays Harbor College, 1620 Edward P. Smith Drive, Aberdeen, Washington.
          Written comments and materials can be sent to Kemper McMaster, State Supervisor, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, Oregon 97266.
          You may also send comments by e-mail to: coastal_cutthroat@fws.gov. Please submit e-mail comments as an ASCII file and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: [RIN number]” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our Oregon Office at phone number 503-231-6179.
          All comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above Service address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kemper McMaster, at the above Portland, Oregon address, phone 503-231-6179, facsimile 503-231-6195.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On April 5, 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Service published a notice in the Federal Register (64 FR 16397) proposing to list the coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) population in southwestern Washington and the Columbia River, excluding the Willamette River above Willamette Falls, as threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The Service published a notice in the Federal Register (65 FR 20123) on April 14, 2000, to extend the deadline from April 5, 2000, to October 5, 2000 for the final action on the proposed rule to list this population in Washington and Oregon, and to provide a 30-day comment period. The 6-month extension was necessary to obtain and review new information needed to resolve substantial scientific disagreement about the status of this population. On July 14, 2000, the Service published a notice in the Federal Register (65 FR 43730) to clarify the take prohibitions for coastal cutthroat trout and provided for a 30-day public comment period. This notice was necessary to answer questions we had received regarding the application of the take prohibitions of section 9 of the Act to the potential listing of the coastal cutthroat trout as threatened.

        In response to a request for a public hearing during the public comment period for the clarification of the take prohibitions for coastal cutthroat trout, we will hold a public hearing on the date and at the address described in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections above.
        Anyone wishing to make an oral statement for the record is encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement and present it to the Service at the hearing. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. There are no limits to the length of written comments presented at the hearing or mailed to the Service. Legal notices announcing the date, time, and location of the hearing will be published in newspapers concurrently with the Federal Register notice.
        Comments from the public are sought regarding the list of activities in the clarification of the take prohibitions for coastal cutthroat trout (65 FR 43730). We are also interested in comments regarding the accuracy of the listing proposal, especially regarding: (1) Biological or other relevant data concerning any threat to cutthroat trout; (2) The range, distribution, and population size of coastal cutthroat trout in southwestern Washington and the Columbia River; (3) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on the species; (4) Cutthroat trout escapement, particularly escapement data partitioned into natural and hatchery components; (5) The proportion of naturally reproducing fish that were reared as juveniles in a hatchery; (6) Homing and straying of natural and hatchery fish; (7) The reproductive success of naturally reproducing hatchery fish and their relationship to southwestern Washington and the Columbia River coastal cutthroat trout populations; and (8) Efforts being made to protect native, naturally reproducing populations of coastal cutthroat trout. Reopening of the comment period will enable us to respond to the request for a public hearing on the proposed action.

        The comment period on this proposal closes on September 29, 2000. Written comments should be submitted to the Service office listed in the ADDRESSES section.
        Author: The primary author of this notice is Scott Craig, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office, 510 Desmond Dr. SE, Lacey, Washington, 98503.

          Authority:
          The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544).

          Dated: August 30, 2000.
          Don Weathers,
          Acting Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-22887 Filed 9-5-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-09-0117]
        RIN 2127-AK42
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; New Pneumatic and Certain Specialty Tires

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:

          This NPRM proposes to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New pneumatic and certain specialty tires, to change the test pressure for the physical dimensions test for T-type tires (temporary use spare tires) from 52 pounds per square inch (psi) to 60 psi. A 60-psi test pressure for the physical dimensions test would marginally increase the stringency of the test while harmonizing FMVSS No. 109 with international and voluntary consensus standards. This NPRM responds to a petition for rulemaking from the Tire & Rim Association.

          DATES:
          You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the Docket receives them no later than December 29, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments (identified by the DOT Docket ID Number above) by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: 202-493-2251

            Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.

            Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Santiago Navarro or George Soodoo, NHTSA Office of Rulemaking, telephone 202-366-2720, fax 202-493-2739. For legal issues, you may call Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, telephone 202-366-2992, fax 202-366-3820. You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC, 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        a. T-Type Spare Tires
        NHTSA regulates “T-type” spare tires under FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic and certain specialty tires. A “T-type” spare tire refers to a type of spare tire that is manufactured to be used as a temporary substitute by the consumer for a conventional tire that failed. For T-type spare tires, FMVSS No. 109 specifies tire dimensions and laboratory test requirements for bead unseating resistance, strength, endurance, and high speed performance. The standard also defines tire load ratings and specifies labeling requirements for the tires.
        NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 109 to permit the manufacture of T-type (then known as “60-psi”) spare tires in 1977, describing them as “differ[ing] substantially in specification and construction from conventional tires * * * [with] a higher inflation pressure (60 psi), different dimensions, and a shorter treadwear life than conventional tires.” 1
           The agency adopted endurance and high-speed performance tests, strength requirements, a resistance to bead unseating test, and a physical dimensions test, which were appropriate for the temporary use tires. Today's NPRM proposes an amendment to the physical dimensions test.

            1 42 FR 12869, 12870 (March 7, 1977).

        b. Physical Dimensions Test
        The purpose of the physical dimensions test is to measure the tire's growth under inflated conditions and to determine if it is within allowable growth limits. If a tire exceeds allowable growth limits in the physical dimensions test, that indicates that there could be a safety risk from that tire not matching well with its rim, or not fitting well with the vehicle to which it is attached. Either of these mis-matches could present safety risks.
        All T-type tires must comply with growth limits as specified by S4.2.2.2 of FMVSS No. 109, which states that the tire's actual section width and overall width may not exceed the specified section width 2

           by more than 7 percent or 10 millimeters (0.4 inches), whichever is greater. The “section width” of a tire is defined in S3 of FMVSS No. 109 as “the linear distance between the exteriors of the sidewalls of an inflated tire, excluding elevations due to labeling, decoration, or protective bands.”

            2 S4.2.2.2 states that the measured section width “shall not exceed the section width specified in a submission made by an individual manufacturer, pursuant to S4.4.1(a) or in one of the publications described in S4.4.1(b) for its size designation and type * * *.” (Emphasis added.) The “publications described in S4.4.1(b)” refer to the year books published by various tire manufacturer associations, such as T&RA. As a practical matter, individual tire manufacturers generally submit section width information to associations like T&RA for inclusion in the year books, rather than submitting such information directly to NHTSA, although FMVSS No. 109 allows the latter option.

        The test procedure for the physical dimensions test is specified in S5.1 of FMVSS No. 109. That section states that the tire is mounted on the appropriate test rim and inflated to the pressure listed in Table II of the standard, which for 60-psi tires is 52 psi. The tire is then conditioned at ambient temperature for 24 hours, at which point the inflation is checked and adjusted back to 52 psi if necessary, and then the tire is measured again. The later measurement is then compared with the initial measurement to determine the tire's growth.
        c. Test Pressure
        NHTSA requires tire manufacturers to specify both a “recommended” pressure and a “maximum permissible inflation pressure.” The recommended inflation pressure is the operational inflation pressure needed to support the weight of the vehicle when loaded to its gross vehicle weight rating. The maximum permissible inflation pressure, which is required to be molded on the tire's sidewall, is the maximum pressure beyond which the tire should not be inflated. Usually a manufacturer's recommended inflation pressure is lower than the tire's maximum pressure labeled on the tire sidewall.
        Since most tires have a recommended inflation pressure that is lower than the specified maximum pressure for the tire, the test pressure that NHTSA uses to test tires dynamically on a test wheel is generally lower than the maximum pressure labeled on the sidewall. Further, most tires are operated at some level of under-inflation during normal service. To reflect this real-world use, FMVSS No. 109's dynamic test procedures generally specify under-inflating a tire when testing the tire on the road-wheel. Moreover, dynamic tests are more stringent when the tire is tested at an inflation pressure lower than the pressure required to support the given test load. Under-inflating a tire eventually results in greater heat build-up due to over-deflection of a tire's sidewall, which increases the likelihood of tire failure.
        Consistent with this approach, in the 1977 final rule NHTSA determined that T-type (60 psi) tires should be tested to all of the FMVSS No. 109 tests at a test pressure lower than the tire's maximum permissible inflation pressure of 60 psi. For the physical dimensions test, the agency determined that a 52-psi value reflects an operational inflation pressure appropriate for use in the test. The 52-psi maximum permissible inflation pressure adopted in 1977 has not been changed since that final rule.
        II. Tire & Rim Association Petition
        In a July 13, 2007 petition, the Tire & Rim Association (T&RA) requested that the agency make a technical correction 3
           to Table II of FMVSS No. 109 regarding T-type tires. Specifically, T&RA requested that “the inflation pressure for the measurement of physical dimensions in Table II be changed from 52 psi to 60 psi.” T&RA stated that “There is only one application inflation pressure for T-type tires, 60 psi,” and that therefore “this is the appropriate pressure for the subject measurement.” The petitioner also stated that the inflation pressure for the bead unseating, tire strength, and tire endurance test should remain at 52 psi.

            3 The agency believes that the petition should be addressed by this notice and comment rulemaking rather than by way of a technical correction.

        III. Agency Proposal
        We concur with the petitioner that rulemaking is warranted to change the inflation pressure for the physical dimensions test, specified in Table II of the standard, from 52 psi to 60 psi. We are not persuaded, however, by the petitioner's reasoning that the pressure should be changed because “there is only one application inflation pressure for T-type tires, 60 psi, and consequently we believe that this is the appropriate pressure for the subject measurement.” The agency rejected in 1977 the similar view that because these tires do not have a “design” load level but only a single load level at its maximum inflation pressure of 60 psi, the single load level (60 psi) constituted the design load level. The petitioner did not provide reasons as to why we should change the conclusion we came to in 1977 to conclude now that a pressure of 60 psi would better reflect those tires' normal service inflation pressure.4

            4 Indeed, for the dynamic tests which T-type tires must pass under FMVSS No. 109, such as the endurance and high-speed tests, we would not concur that raising the 52 psi inflation pressure to 60 psi would be justified on the basis that “there is only one application inflation pressure [of 60 psi].”

        Instead, we are proposing to raise the inflation pressure specification for the physical dimensions for two other reasons. First, raising the inflation pressure makes engineering sense because doing so would increase the stringency of the test under conditions that are within the realm of real world use. The physical dimensions test is a static test where the stringency of the test is not greater at lower inflation pressure but at higher inflation pressures. This is because the tire expands at higher inflation pressures, which means that it would be closer to the growth limit of its section width at a higher inflation pressure. If the physical dimensions test pressure for T-type tires were increased to 60 psi, then the test would become incrementally more stringent than at 52 psi, because the additional growth due to the higher inflation pressure would have to be within the current limit established in FMVSS No. 109. The physical dimensions test contrasts, in this respect, with the dynamic tests performed on the road-wheel. It is also conceivable that the tires would be operated at a 60 psi (or lower) inflation pressure since that is the inflation pressure assigned the tire by the manufacturer.
        Second, raising the test pressure for the physical dimensions test for T-type tires from 52 psi to 60 psi is consistent with international harmonization. The European regulation which covers T-type tires, ECE Regulation 30, specifies that those tires be tested for physical dimensions at “4.2 bar,” which is 420 kPa or the metric equivalent of 60 psi.5
           The Japanese regulation, Automobile Type Approval Handbook for Japanese Certification,6
           also specifies that the inflation pressure of the T-type spare tires be 420 kPa when measuring the tire physical dimensions. Tire manufacturers, and ultimately, consumers, can expect to achieve cost savings through the harmonization of differing sets of standards. T-type tires are prepared for the world market. It would be more economically efficient for manufacturers to use the same test procedures and meet the same performance requirements worldwide. This proposal helps to achieve these benefits.

            5 ECE Regulation No. 30, Annex 6, para. 1.2.5. Available at http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/r030r3e.doc.

            6 Automobile Type Approval Handbook for Japanese Certification, Safety Regulations for Road Vehicles, Technical Standards For Pneumatic Tyres For Passenger-Use Motor Vehicles, Annex 3, 1-2-5.

        We believe that existing 60-psi T-type spare tires will be able to pass the amended physical dimensions test. Tires are designed to hold a very stable shape within their possible range of pressure, but especially at their operating pressure, which for T-type tires is 60 psi. Further, as mentioned above, existing European and Japanese regulations already specify that T-type tires be tested for physical dimensions at the metric equivalent of 60 psi, and as we believe that tire manufacturers develop similarly designed T-type tires for the U.S., European, and Japanese markets, T-type tires would be able to comply with the 60-psi requirement. Additionally, we note that the request to raise the physical dimensions test pressure came from a tire manufacturer trade association, which indicates that meeting the amended test is practicable. Thus, we anticipate that the costs of this proposed change to FMVSS No. 109, if any, would be minimal.
        IV. Other Issues
        This NPRM proposes other changes to FMVSS No. 109. These changes are minor and are as follows:
        • The petitioner T&RA suggested that Table II's references to CT tires should be deleted. NHTSA tentatively agrees to this change since CT tires are no longer manufactured for sale in the U.S. Text in FMVSS No. 109 relating to CT tires (in S3, S4.2.1(b), S4.3.4 (inflation pressures related to CT tires), and in Table I-C) would also be removed.
        • S4.4.1(b) would be revised to update the list of tire industry organizations, to make the list consistent with that established in the upgrade of FMVSS No. 139, “New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles.” 7

            7 68 FR 38116; June 26, 2003, Docket NHTSA-03-15400; response to petitions for reconsideration, 71 FR 877, January 6, 2006, Docket 2005-23439; technical amendments, 72 FR 49207, August 28, 2007, Docket 2007-29083.

        • Appendix A would be redesignated “Appendix” and moved to the end of the standard, following the current Table II of the standard. The first three sentences of the appendix would be corrected to remove references to any “tables,” which are no longer set forth in the appendix, and to update the address of NHTSA.
        V. Proposed Effective Date

        NHTSA proposes that a final rule on this rulemaking, assuming one is issued, would be effective 180 days after publication of the rule in the Federal Register. Optional early compliance would be permitted.
        VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
        Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979). This NPRM proposes to increase slightly the stringency of an existing test applicable to T-type spare tires for passenger vehicles. The rulemaking would not affect current costs of testing T-type tires to FMVSS No. 109's performance requirements. The minimal impacts of today's amendment do not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act

        In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. I hereby certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The NPRM would affect tire manufacturers who manufacture T-type tires, none of which, according to the agency's knowledge, are small businesses. Even if there were a substantial number of small businesses manufacturing T-type tires, these entities would not be significantly affected by a final rule since to the agency's knowledge all currently manufactured T-type tires would meet the proposed amendment. The rulemaking would not affect current costs of testing T-type tires to FMVSS No. 109's performance requirements.
        Executive Order 13132 (Preemption)
        NHTSA has examined today's NPRM pursuant to E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rulemaking would not have federalism implications because a final rule, if issued, would 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.”
        Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the issue of preemption in connection with today's proposed rule. The issue of preemption can arise in connection with NHTSA rules in at least two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: “When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command that unavoidably preempts State legislative and administrative law, not today's rulemaking, so consultation would be unnecessary.

        Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of implied preemption: in some instances, State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the State requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). However, NHTSA has considered the nature and purpose of today's proposed rule and does not currently foresee any potential State requirements that might conflict with it. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption.
        National Environmental Policy Act
        NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The agency has determined that implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This NPRM would not establish any new information collection requirements.
        National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
        Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA, Pub. L. 104-113), “all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.” This proposal would harmonize FMVSS No. 109 with several voluntary consensus standards, including the T&RA 2008 Year Book standard,8
           the ETRTO standard,9
           and the JATMA standard,10

          all of which specify 60 psi or 420 kPa (or 4.2 bar) as the inflation pressure for measuring T-type tire dimensions. This proposal would also harmonize FMVSS No. 109 with ECE Regulation 30 and Japanese Safety Regulations, which currently require the physical dimensions test for T-type tires to be conducted at the tire's maximum permissible inflation pressure, 4.2 bar (420 kPa or 60 psi).

            8 The Tire & Rim Association, Inc. (T&RA), Year Book, 2008. Measuring Procedure for New Tires, at XIII.

            9 European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO), Standards Manual, 2005. Table 11.2, Temporary Use Spare Tyres—T Type, at P.22.

            10 The Japan Automobile Tyre Manufacturers Association, Inc. (JATMA), Year Book (Tyre Standards), 2008. Section G-5, “Measuring Procedure for Tyres,” Note 1, at 0-4.

        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 that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
        Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This NPRM would not result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, in excess of $100 million annually.
        Executive Order 13045
        E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885; Apr. 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. This rulemaking is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866.
        Executive Order 13211
        E.O. 13211 (66 FR 28355; May 18, 2001) applies to any rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy, or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is not subject to E.O. 13211.
        Plain Language
        E.O. 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
        • Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
        • Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
        • Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear?
        • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
        • Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
        • Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
        • What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
        If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this proposal.
        Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
        The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
        Privacy Act

        Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).
        VII. Public Participation
        How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
        Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long.11

           We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Please submit your comments by a method set forth in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.

            11 See 49 CFR 553.21.

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

        How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

        If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation. See 49 CFR part 512.
        In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of the methods set forth above.
        Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

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

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

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
          Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, and Tires.

        In consideration of the foregoing, we propose to amend 49 CFR part 571 to read as follows:

          PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
          1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
             49 U.S.C. 322, 20111, 30115, 30166 and 30177; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          2. § 571.109 is amended by—
          A. Removing the definition of CT in S3;
          B. Revising S4.2.1(b), the introductory text of S4.3.4, and S4.4.1(b);
          C. Redesignating Appendix A as “Appendix to § 571.109,” moving the appendix to the end of § 571.109 (following the tables to § 571.109), and revising the appendix; and
          D. Revising Table I-C and Table II.
          The revised and redesignated text, tables, and appendix read as follows:

            § 571.109
            Standard No. 109; New pneumatic and certain specialty tires.

            S4.2.1

            (b) Its maximum permissible inflation pressure shall be either 32, 36, 40, or 60 psi, or 240, 280, 300, 340, or 350 kPa.

            S4.3.4 If the maximum inflation pressure of a tire is 240, 280, 300, 340, or 350 kPa, then:

            S4.4.1

            (b) Contained in publications, current at the date of manufacture of the tire or any later date, of at least one of the following organizations:

            Tire and Rim Association
            The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization
            Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, Inc.
            Tyre and Rim Association of Australia
            Associacao Latino Americana de Pneus e Aros (Brazil)
            South African Bureau of Standards

              Table 1-C—For Radial Ply Tires

                Size designation
                Maximum permissible inflation
                PSI
                32
                36
                40
                kPa
                240
                280
                300
                340
                350

                 Below 160 mm:

                (in-lbs)
                1,950
                2,925
                3,900
                1,950
                3,900
                1,950
                3,900
                1,950

                (joules)
                220
                330
                441
                220
                441
                220
                441
                220

                 160 mm or above:

                (in-lbs)
                2,600
                3,900
                5,200
                2,600
                5,200
                2,600
                5,200
                2,600

                (joules)
                294
                441
                588
                294
                588
                294
                588
                294

              Table II—Test Inflation Pressures
              [Maximum permissible inflation pressure to be used for the following test]

                Test type
                psi
                32
                36
                40
                60
                kPa
                240
                280
                300
                340
                350

                Physical dimensions
                24
                28
                32
                60
                180
                220
                180
                220
                180

                Bead unseating, tire strength, and tire endurance
                24
                28
                32
                52
                180
                220
                180
                220
                180

                High speed performance
                30
                34
                38
                58
                220
                260
                220
                260
                220

              Appendix to § 571.109
              Persons requesting the addition of new tire sizes not included in S4.4.1 (b) organizations may, upon approval, submit five (5) copies of information and data supporting the request to the Vehicle Dynamics Division, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave SE., Washington, DC 20590.
              The information should contain the following:
              1. The tire size designation, and a statement either that the tire is an adition to a category of tires listed in the tables or that it is in a new category for which a table has not been developed.
              2. The tire dimensions, including aspect ratio, size factor, section width, overall width, and test rim size.
              3. The load-inflation schedule of the tire.

              4. A statement as to whether the tire size designation and load inflation schedule has been coordinated with the Tire and Rim Association, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization, the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, Inc., the Tyre and Rim Association of Australia, the Associacao Latino Americana de Pneus e Aros (Brazil), or the South African Bureau of Standards.

              5. Copies of test data sheets showing test conditions, results and conclusions obtained for individual tests specified in § 571.109.
              6. Justification for the additional tire sizes.

                Issued: October 22, 2009.
                Stephen R. Kratzke,
                Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. E9-26135 Filed 10-29-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P