        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        RIN 0648-BD48
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Chinook Salmon Bycatch Management in the Gulf of Alaska Non-Pollock Trawl Fishery; Amendment 97

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has submitted Amendment 97 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP). If approved, Amendment 97 would limit Chinook salmon prohibited species catch (PSC) in the Western and Central Gulf of Alaska (GOA) non-pollock trawl fisheries. This action would establish separate Chinook salmon PSC annual limits for the non-pollock trawl catcher vessel (CV) and catcher/processor (C/P) sectors and a seasonal limit for the C/P sector. The CV sector PSC limit would be further divided between vessels participating in the Central GOA Rockfish Program and vessels not participating in the Central GOA Rockfish Program. If a sector reached its seasonal or annual Chinook salmon PSC limit, NMFS would prohibit further directed fishing for non-pollock groundfish by vessels in that sector for the remainder of the season or fishing year. This proposed action would also establish salmon retention and discard requirements for vessels, shoreside processors and stationary floating processors participating in the non-pollock groundfish fisheries. The combination of these retention requirements will enable accurate reporting of salmon in eLandings at the processor. Salmon accounting at a processor may assist the industry in tracking and cooperatively managing its Chinook salmon PSC. This action is necessary to minimize the catch of Chinook salmon to the extent practicable in the Western and Central GOA non-pollock trawl fisheries. Amendment 97 is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

          DATES:
          Comments on the amendment must be received on or before August 4, 2014.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2013-0077 by either of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0077, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Electronic copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (collectively, Analysis) prepared for this action are available from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jeff Hartman, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The MSA also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. This notice announces that proposed Amendment 97 to the FMP is available for public review and comment.
        The groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the GOA are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the MSA. Amendment 97 would apply Chinook salmon PSC limits to Federally-permitted vessels fishing for groundfish other than pollock with trawl gear (non-pollock trawl fisheries) in the Western and Central Reporting Areas of the Gulf of Alaska (Western and Central GOA). The Western and Central Reporting Areas, defined at § 679.2 and shown in Figure 3 to 50 CFR part 679, consist of the Western and Central Regulatory Areas in the exclusive economic zone (Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630) and the adjacent waters of the State of Alaska (0 to 3 nm).

        If approved, Amendment 97 would: (1) Establish annual Chinook salmon PSC limits for the Trawl C/P, Rockfish Program CV, and Non-Rockfish Program CV Sectors; (2) establish an “incentive buffer” for the Trawl C/P and Non-Rockfish Program CV Sectors that would allow each sector to increase its annual Chinook salmon PSC limit if the amount of Chinook salmon PSC taken in the sector in the previous year was less than a specified amount of the sector's limit; (3) establish a seasonal limit on the amount of Chinook salmon PSC that could be taken in the Trawl C/P Sector prior to June 1 of each year; (4) allow the reallocation of unused Chinook salmon PSC from the Rockfish Program CV Sector to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector on October 1 and November 15 of each year; and (5) establish salmon retention requirements to ensure adequate accounting of Chinook salmon PSC, and to improve the collection of biological samples that could aid in the determination of stock of origin of Chinook salmon PSC in the non-pollock trawl fisheries.
        From 1997 through 2013, the non-pollock trawl fisheries accounted for approximately 27 percent of the total trawl fishery Chinook salmon PSC in the Western and Central GOA groundfish fisheries. Chinook salmon PSC taken in the pollock trawl fisheries accounts for the remaining Chinook salmon incidental catch in this area. A previous action, Amendment 93 to the FMP, was approved by the Council in June 2011 to limit Chinook salmon PSC in the Western and Central GOA pollock trawl fisheries. NMFS approved Amendment 93 and issued a final rule to implement it on July 20, 2012 (77 FR 42629). Because the Western and Central GOA non-pollock trawl fisheries contribute to Chinook salmon PSC and are currently the only trawl fisheries without a Chinook salmon PSC limit, the Council recommended that Chinook salmon PSC limits should be extended to these fisheries. Amendment 97 would establish GOA Chinook salmon PSC limits for these non-pollock trawl fisheries to prevent high levels of bycatch of this culturally and economically important species in the fishery, and to minimize the catch of Chinook salmon to the extent practicable in the GOA non-pollock trawl fisheries.
        The Council proposed to minimize Chinook salmon bycatch to the extent practicable by recommending that Chinook salmon PSC not exceed a long-term annual average of 7,500 Chinook salmon and establishing Chinook salmon PSC limits for the three non-pollock trawl fishery sectors in the Western and Central GOA as follows:
        • Rockfish Program CV Sector: 1,200 Chinook salmon.
        • Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector: 2,700 Chinook salmon.
        • Trawl C/P Sector: 3,600 Chinook salmon.

        The Council recommended the Chinook salmon PSC limits primarily because the Analysis showed that they would result in substantial PSC savings, while allowing for catch of the available non-pollock groundfish TACs in most years (see ADDRESSES).
        Amendment 97 would establish an incentive buffer for the Trawl C/P and Non-Rockfish Program CV Sectors. The incentive buffer would allow each sector to increase its annual Chinook salmon PSC limit if the amount of Chinook salmon PSC taken by the sector in the previous year was less than a specified amount of the sector's limit. This provision is termed an “incentive buffer” because it provides an incentive for participants in the Trawl C/P and Non-Rockfish Program CV Sectors to minimize PSC below their allocations, 3,600 and 2,700 Chinook salmon respectively, during a year to provide additional Chinook salmon PSC in the following year. This mechanism is intended to provide an incentive to reduce Chinook salmon bycatch in most years in order to receive a slightly higher PSC limit for the following year, which would be useful in an unusual year of salmon migration patterns or unanticipated higher abundance that makes it difficult to avoid Chinook salmon PSC by trawl vessels.
        Amendment 97 would allow the reallocation of unused Chinook salmon PSC from the Rockfish Program CV Sector to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector on October 1 and November 15 of each year. An annual reallocation of all but 150 Chinook salmon from the Rockfish Program CV Sector to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector would occur on October 1 of each year; any remaining Chinook salmon PSC in the Rockfish Program CV Sector's apportionment would be reallocated to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector by November 15 of each year. This reallocation of unused PSC would provide some additional harvest opportunity to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector, depending on the amount reallocated. The Council selected this alternative to provide additional Chinook salmon PSC to address unanticipated events of high PSC encounters, for which the Non-Rockfish Program CVs would generally be unable to mitigate before reaching their PSC limit. The Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector does not operate under authority of the Rockfish Program and is not as likely to be able to voluntarily control or organize fleet behavior to adjust fishing patterns for avoiding Chinook salmon PSC. This reallocation would accommodate the demonstrated ability of the Rockfish Program CV Sector to catch small amounts of Chinook salmon PSC in the fall and manage small PSC balances during a season. In some years, reallocation provisions from the Rockfish Program CV Sector to the Non-Rockfish Program CV Sector may provide additional harvest opportunities and reduce the possibility of idling seafood processing capacity, which could have negative implications for fishery dependent communities.
        Amendment 97 would establish a limit on the maximum amount of Chinook salmon PSC that could be used by the Trawl C/P Sector prior to June 1 of each year (seasonal allocation). During each year, the Trawl C/P Sector would be limited to no more than 66 percent of its annual Chinook salmon PSC limit prior to June 1. If, during the fishing year, NMFS determines that the Trawl C/P Sector would catch its seasonal allocation prior to June 1, NMFS would prohibit directed fishing for non-pollock fisheries for the Trawl C/P Sector until June 1. The seasonal allocation would ensure that sufficient Chinook salmon PSC would be left for the Trawl C/P Sector to participate in the Central GOA Rockfish Program, as well as to support other non-pollock trawl fisheries occurring later in the year.
        Amendment 97 would require the operators of all trawl CVs and tender vessels to retain all salmon, including Chinook salmon caught in the non-pollock trawl fisheries in the Western and Central GOA until those salmon are delivered to a processing plant. This proposed action would also require shoreside processors and SFPs receiving non-pollock deliveries to retain all salmon until the number of salmon by species has been accurately recorded in the eLandings groundfish landing report. This proposed action would require the operators of vessels in the Trawl C/P Sector to retain all salmon until an observer has had the opportunity to collect scientific data or biological samples, and the number of salmon by species has been accurately recorded in the eLandings At-sea production report. The full retention requirement would not modify the observer duties or the method by which NMFS calculates fleet-wide Chinook salmon PSC estimates. There may be an increase in biological sampling at the plants with full retention. NMFS would continue to calculate Chinook salmon PSC numbers, and would manage PSC limits for Chinook salmon, using the existing system of extrapolating catch rates from observed vessels to the unobserved portion of the non-pollock trawl fleet.

        The proposed action addresses the MSA National Standards and would balance a number of competing objectives for fishery conservation and management and the needs of different user groups. Specifically, the Council determined and NMFS agrees that this action would achieve balance and consistency with both National Standard 9 and National Standard 1. National Standard 9 requires that conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch. National Standard 1 requires that conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry. Amendment 97 is intended to allow the full prosecution of the non-pollock trawl fisheries in the Western and Central GOA in most years, while limiting the fisheries in some years if necessary to prevent events of unusually high Chinook salmon PSC in these areas.

        NMFS is soliciting public comments on proposed Amendment 97 through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 97 following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the MSA. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 97 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 97. NMFS will consider all comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 97, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, in the FMP amendment approval/disapproval decision. NMFS will not consider comments received after that date in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. To be considered, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the close of business on the last day of the comment period.

          Authority:
           16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: June 2, 2014.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2014-13066 Filed 6-4-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0049; 2127-AK38]
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          NHTSA is proposing to place a requirement in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that certain motor vehicles with an automatic transmission that includes a “park” position manufactured for sale after September 1, 2010 be equipped with a brake transmission shift interlock. This interlock will require that the service brake pedal be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of “park,” and will function in any starting system key position.
          NHTSA is issuing this document in response to a statutory mandate in the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007. The proposed rule would not differ from the Congressional requirement. This rule inserts the mandated requirement into the text of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114.

          DATES:
          You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the Docket receives them not later than September 24, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document 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: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 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 you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.

            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:

          For technical questions you may contact Gayle Dalrymple, NVS-123, Office of Rulemaking, (202) 366-5559, or gayle.dalrymple@dot.gov. For legal issues you may contact Ari Scott, NCC-112, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-2992, or ari.scott@dot.gov. You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Table of Contents

          I. Background
          II. The Legislative Mandate and Changes to FMVSS No. 114
          III. Public Participation
          IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

        I. Background
        On February 28, 2008, President G.W. Bush signed into law the “Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007” (the K.T. Safety Act of 2007). Public Law 110-189, February 28, 2008, 122 Stat 639. This Act related to several aspects of motor vehicle safety involving incidents where a person, frequently a child, could be hurt in non-traffic situations. Specifically, the K.T. Safety Act of 2007 addressed safety concerns relating to power windows, rearward visibility, and vehicles rolling away. With regard to vehicles rolling away, the specific language of the Act included:

          (d) Preventing Motor Vehicles From Rolling Away.—
          (1) Requirement.—Each motor vehicle with an automatic transmission that includes a “park” position manufactured for sale after September 1, 2010, shall be equipped with a system that requires the service brake to be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of “park”. This system shall function in any starting system key position in which the transmission can be shifted out of “park”.
          (2) Treatment As Motor Vehicle Safety Standard—A violation of paragraph (1) shall be treated as a violation of a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under section 30111 of title 49, United States Code, and shall be subject to enforcement by the Secretary under chapter 301 of such title.

          (e) Definition of Motor Vehicle—As used in this Act and for purposes of the motor vehicle safety standards described in subsections (a) and (b), the term `motor vehicle' has the meaning given such term in section 30102(a)(6) of title 49, United States Code, except that such term shall not include—
          (1) a motorcycle or trailer (as such terms are defined in section 571.3 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations); or
          (2) any motor vehicle that is rated at more than 10,000 pounds gross vehicular weight.

        NHTSA is proposing this rule in response to section (d) of the K.T. Safety Act of 2007's mandate to require a brake shift transmission interlock on light vehicles. We further note that the term “motor vehicle” is defined differently in the K.T. Safety Act of 2007 than in 49 U.S.C. 30102. As defined in part (e) of the Act, the term “motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle equal or less than 10,000 pounds “gross vehicular weight” that is not a motorcycle or a trailer. As to how this definition of motor vehicle as stated by the K.T. Safety Act would relate to “motor vehicles” under 49 U.S.C. 30102, the K.T. Safety Act definition is limited to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, light trucks, and low-speed vehicles.

        According to the legislative history of the K.T. Safety Act of 2007 (S. Rep. 110-275, March 13, 2008)) when a vehicle is inadvertently put into gear or neutral, it may roll away causing harm to bystanders or individuals in the vehicle. As stated in the Congressional record (Sen. Rep. 110-275), Congress believes that children are especially at risk because, should they move a transmission out of the park position, they may not know what they did or how to stop the vehicle once they realize what is happening, and a Brake Transmission Shift Interlock (BTSI) could help prevent these incidents. BTSI, as mandated by Congress, requires depression of the brake pedal to move the gear shift out of the “park” position. Since small children typically cannot reach the brake pedal, if a BTSI is in place, Congress decided there is little chance small children can shift the vehicle into gear by themselves.1
           We note that, in general, key removal by the operator is still the most effective way to prevent children from shifting the vehicle's transmission out of the “park” position. The K.T. Safety Act mandates that a BTSI should function in any starting key position.

            1 While this was the rationale provided by Congress, we note that NHTSA has no data on actions and behavior of unattended children in vehicles, although we agree that it is likely accurate.

        Prior to the passage of the K.T. Safety Act of 2007, in August of 2006, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers developed a voluntary agreement which requires full implementation of BTSI not later than September 1, 2010.2
           The agreement states that “any vehicle under 10,000 pounds produced for the U.S. market, with an automatic transmission that includes a ‘park' position shall have a system that requires that the service brake be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of “park.” Additionally, the agreement required that manufacturers provide NHTSA with information about which vehicles were equipped with BTSI systems, which will be placed in the docket. Automakers participating in the voluntary agreement include: Aston Martin, BMW Group, Ford Motor Company, Hyundai Motor, Maserati, Nissan, Suzuki, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, General Motors, Isuzu Motors, Mazda, Porsche, Toyota, Ferrari, Honda, Kia Motors, Mitsubishi Motors, Subaru, and Volkswagen Group.

            2 The announcement and text of this agreement are available on the NHTSA Web site, http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov.

        For its part, since model year (MY) 2007, the agency has made available to the public on http://www.safercar.gov the list of vehicles equipped and not equipped with BTSI. Approximately 98 percent of MY 2008 motor vehicles are forecasted to be equipped with a BTSI system designed in accordance with the agreement. One of the functions of the K.T. Safety Act of 2007 is that it codifies and makes mandatory the terms of the agreement for all manufacturers and vehicles as described above.
        II. The Legislative Mandate and Changes to FMVSS No. 114

        Because Congress mandated all vehicles be equipped with BTSI, no action is required by NHTSA for this portion of the legislation to become effective. However, there are several reasons why we are proposing to integrate this requirement into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 114, Theft protection and rollaway prevention. So that manufacturers and others may conveniently find all requirements for rollaway prevention systems in the FMVSSs, we are proposing to locate the requirement for the BTSI together with requirements for other rollaway systems (in paragraph S5 of FMVSS No. 114). We also note that Congress mandated that a violation of the BTSI requirement shall be treated as a violation of a motor vehicle safety standard. To facilitate compliance with the safety requirement and make clear that NHTSA will enforce violations of the BTSI requirement by way of the recall and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), we are proposing to integrate the BTSI requirement into FMVSS No. 114.

        Comments are requested on our interpretation of various provisions of section 2(d) of the Act. The last sentence of section (d) states: “This system shall function in any starting system key position in which the transmission can be shifted out of `park'. This means that no matter the starting system position the key is in (e.g., “lock,” “accessory,” or “start”) the transmission must only shift out of “park” when the service brake is depressed. Further, while the second sentence of section (d)(1) refers to the term “key,” we believe that the BTSI requirement applies to vehicles that operate with all keys, i.e., a physical device or an electronic code, such as those requiring the operator to enter the code or push a button to start the vehicle. In all vehicles, the brake pedal must be depressed in order to shift the transmission out of the “park” position. Other findings we have made are that the reference to “gross vehicular weight” in section (e)(2) of the Act is referring to “gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR),” a vehicle metric commonly used in the FMVSSs in determining the applicability of the standards, and that the reference to “manufactured for sale after September 1, 2010” in section (d)(1) means “manufactured on or after September 1, 2010.” Finally, we have not included in FMVSS No. 114 any language relating to a test procedure. Given the relatively simple nature of the requirement, we do not believe a test procedure is needed in the regulatory text. However, in a compliance test, NHTSA will attempt to shift the transmission out of “park” without depressing the vehicle's service brake for each ignition position. If the transmission is able to be shifted out of park without the brake pedal depressed, an apparent noncompliance will be deemed to have been found.

        We note that because of the difference in the applicability of the BTSI requirement and the general applicability requirements of FMVSS No. 114, we will need to modify paragraph S3, Application, to insert the BTSI requirement as it was mandated by Congress. According to section (e) the K.T. Safety Act of 2007:

          The term `motor vehicle' has the meaning given such term in section 30102(a)(6) of title 49, United States Code, except that such term shall not include—
          (1) a motorcycle or trailer (as such terms are defined in section 571.3 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations); or
          (2) any motor vehicle that is rated at more than 10,000 pounds gross vehicular weight.

        The vehicles subject to the K.T. Safety Act of 2007 largely overlap with the vehicles currently subject to FMVSS No. 114, but there are some differences. Using the term “motor vehicle” as described in 49 U.S.C. 30102, the Congressional definition would apply to passenger cars, trucks, buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and low-speed vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. This contrasts with the vehicle types listed in paragraph S3 of FMVSS No. 114, which includes “all passenger cars, and to trucks and multipurpose vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. However, it does not apply to walk-in van-type vehicles.” Thus, as a result of the Congressional definition, in addition to all of the vehicles currently subject to FMVSS No. 114, the BTSI requirement would apply to buses (under 10,000 pounds), walk-in van-type vehicles, and low-speed vehicles. We are proposing to add language to paragraph S3 of the standard, to make it clear that the BTSI requirement applies to this somewhat larger class of vehicles, while not changing the applicability of current FMVSS No. 114 requirements.
        III. 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. (49 CFR 553.21). 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 two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES.

        Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

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

        How can I be sure that my comments were received?
        If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
        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. In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. 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. (49 CFR part 512.)
        Will the agency consider late comments?

        We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket Management receives a comment 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 comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.
        Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
        IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
        Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This action was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. The agency has considered the impact of this action under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979), and has determined that it is not “significant” under them. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866.
        Today's notice proposes to insert the Congressional mandate into the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for the convenience of users. It does not impose any additional regulatory requirements. We also note that most vehicles are already equipped with a BTSI system. The agency concludes that the impacts of the proposed changes are so minimal that preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not required.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        NHTSA has considered the effects of this NPRM under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this NPRM will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposal merely includes in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards a requirement passed by Congress in the K.T. Safety Act of 2007. No substantive changes to the Act are being proposed in this notice. Small organizations and small government units would not be significantly affected since this proposed action would not affect the price of new motor vehicles. For the vast majority of motor vehicle manufacturers, the BTSI requirement merely codifies a voluntary pledge made by manufacturers to install BTSI systems on all vehicles by September 1, 2010.
        Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
        NHTSA has examined today's proposal pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the proposal does not have federalism implications because it does not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

        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 proposal and does not currently foresee any potential State requirements that might conflict with it. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption.
        Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
        With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
        Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of preemption is discussed above. 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.
        Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
        Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
        Although this notice is part of a rulemaking expected to have a positive safety impact on children, it is not an economically significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Consequently, no further analysis is required under Executive Order 13045.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There is not any information collection requirement associated with this NPRM.
        National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the agency to evaluate and use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or is otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress (through OMB) with explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. There are no voluntary consensus standards developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies pertaining to the BTSI requirement. However, we note that currently, most automobile manufacturers incorporate a brake shift transmission interlock in their vehicles. In 2006, most large vehicle manufacturers agreed to a voluntary commitment to include a BTSI system in their vehicles by September 1, 2010. Finally, due to the BTSI provision in the K.T. Safety Act of 2007, all manufacturers will be required by statute to include it in their vehicles by September 1, 2010. This NPRM proposes to incorporate the already-existing requirement into FMVSS No. 114 and does not include any additional requirements on manufacturers.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the agency to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted.
        This NPRM will not result in any expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this NPRM is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
        National Environmental Policy Act
        NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
        Regulatory 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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
          Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

        In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 571 as follows:

          PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
          1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 would continue to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          2. Section 571.114 would be amended by revising paragraphs S3 and S5 and adding paragraph S5.3 to read as follows:

            § 571.114
            Standard No. 114; Theft protection and rollaway prevention.

            S3 Application. This standard applies to all passenger cars, and to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. However, it does not apply to walk-in van-type vehicles. Additionally, paragraph S5.3 of this standard applies to all motor vehicles, except trailers and motorcycles, with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less.

            S5 Requirements. Each vehicle subject to this standard must meet the requirements of S5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. Open-body type vehicles are not required to comply with S5.1.3.

            S5.3 Brake Transmission Shift Interlock. Each motor vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 2010 with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less with an automatic transmission that includes a “park” position shall be equipped with a system that requires the service brake to be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of “park.” This system shall function in any starting system key position in which the transmission can be shifted out of “park.” This section does not apply to trailers or motorcycles.

            Issued on August 19, 2009.
            Julie Abraham,
            Director, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs.

      [FR Doc. E9-20384 Filed 8-24-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        46 CFR Part 10
        [Docket No. USCG-2018-0041]
        Draft Merchant Mariner Medical Manual

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability, extension of public comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard is extending, for 30 days, the period for submitting public comments on the notice of availability of the Draft Merchant Mariner Medical Manual. The extension responds to requests made by the public.

          DATES:

          The comment period for the Notice of availability published on November 13, 2018 (83 FR 56272) is extended. Comments must be submitted to the online docket via http://www.regulations.gov, or reach the Docket Management Facility, on or before February 13, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2018-0041 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For information about this document call or email Adrienne Buggs, M.D., United States Coast Guard, Office of Merchant Mariner Credentialing; telephone: 202-372-2357, email: MMCPolicy@uscg.mil.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Public Participation and Comments

        We encourage you to submit comments (or related material) on the draft Merchant Mariner Medical Manual. We will consider all submissions and may adjust our final action based on your comments. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of the document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

        We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, will be posted in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or the Coast Guard publishes any additional documents related to this notice of availability.

        We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).
        Background and Discussion of Draft Manual
        We issued a Notice of Availability of the Draft Merchant Mariner Medical Manual on November 13, 2018 (83 FR 56272). We received requests from commenters asking for additional time for the comment period. We have decided to grant the extension to provide a greater opportunity for the public to review and provide their comments. With this extension, the total length of the public comment period will now be 90 days.
        This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 46 U.S.C. 7101, and 46 U.S.C. 7302.

          Dated: December 12, 2018.
          J.G. Lantz,
          Director, Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.

      [FR Doc. 2018-27330 Filed 12-17-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 87
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0294; FRL-8495-4]
        Petition Requesting Rulemaking To Limit Lead Emissions from General Aviation Aircraft; Request for Comments

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notice of petition for rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          Friends of the Earth has filed a petition with EPA, requesting that EPA find pursuant to section 231 of the Clean Air Act that lead emissions from general aviation aircraft cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare and that EPA propose emissions standards for lead from general aviation aircraft. Alternatively, Friends of the Earth requests that EPA commence a study and investigation of the health and environmental impacts of lead emissions from general aviation aircraft, if EPA believes that insufficient information exists to make such a finding. The petition submitted by Friends of the Earth explains their view that lead emissions from general aviation aircraft endanger the public health and welfare, creating a duty for the EPA to propose emission standards. EPA invites information and comments from all interested parties on the issues raised by this petition.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before March 17, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0294, by one of the following methods:
          • www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2007-0294.
          • Fax: (202) 566-9744
          • Mail. Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Docket ID No. OAR-2007-0294.
          • Hand Delivery. Deliver your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention: Docket ID No. OAR-2007-0294. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0294. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Docket ID No. OAR-2007-0294. This docket is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Bryan Manning, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4832; fax number: 734-214-4816; e-mail address:
            manning.bryan@epa.gov, Assessment and Standards Division Hotline; telephone number: (734) 214-4636; e-mail address: asdinfo@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. General Information
        A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
        1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
        2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

        • Identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments.
        • Explain your views as clearly as possible.
        • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
        • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
        • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
        • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
        II. The Friends of the Earth Petition

        This notice is seeking comment on and information related to a petition for an EPA finding and rulemaking and collateral relief from the Friends of the Earth. This petition is seeking the regulation of lead emissions from piston-powered general aviation aircraft under section 231 of the Clean Air Act. The complete petition of Friends of the Earth is available from their Web site, the docket, from the EPA Web site at: www.epa.gov/otaq/aviation.htm, or from the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above.
        Friends of the Earth is an environmental advocacy organization headquartered in Washington, DC. The petition they submitted concerns the use of leaded aviation gasoline in piston-powered general aviation aircraft in the U.S. Friends of the Earth believes that “EPA action regarding lead in general aviation aircraft is long overdue. Studies increasingly show that lead in any quantity threatens the public welfare. Lead emissions from general aviation aircraft constitute a substantial proportion of all current lead air emissions. As a result of the use of leaded aviation gasoline, humans and ecological receptors at or near general aviation airports may be exposed to elevated levels of lead.”
        Friends of the Earth contends that “safe unleaded alternatives to aviation gasoline do exist. Since 1999, the research and development process has produced unleaded fuels that have received approval from the FAA for current use. Tens of thousands of low-performance aircraft have received supplemental type certificates allowing them to run on unleaded automobile gasoline (commonly referred to as mogas in the aviation community). Additionally, a mogas alternative, 82UL, has been developed for use by some low-performance planes. The combination of these two fuels can be utilized by nearly seventy percent of all piston-driven aircraft. Additionally, the FAA allows a select number of planes to run on an ethanol based aviation fuel (AGE85); the remaining thirty percent of general aviation planes can potentially use this unleaded gasoline.”
        The Friends of the Earth petition was addressed to EPA. Both EPA and the FAA have specific statutorily defined roles regarding aviation. EPA through section 231 of the Clean Air Act can make findings regarding air pollution emissions from aircraft and set standards regulating such emissions and FAA has the statutory authority to regulate the fuel used in aircraft (49 U.S.C. 44714). By this Notice, EPA is soliciting comment on the petition, specifically on the points discussed in the section “Request for Comments” presented below. EPA will use this information in its statutory assessment of whether lead emissions from piston-powered general aviation cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
        III. Background Regarding Lead in Aviation Fuel

        In a variety of chemical forms and exposure pathways, lead has long been recognized as causing serious adverse health effects. In 1978 EPA established a National Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter, as a maximum quarterly average. Research completed since that time, discussed in EPA's Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead (2006) indicates that health effects of lead occur at blood lead levels lower than those previously reported and include concerns not previously studied (available at www.epa.gov/ncea). The adverse effects of lead include neurotoxic effects (e.g., IQ loss in children), effects on the immune system, red blood cell production, cardiovascular system, kidney, bones, teeth and reproductive and developmental systems. EPA is currently conducting a review of the NAAQS which has included the assessment of health and welfare effects of lead documented in the Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead (2006). Integral to the NAAQS review are decisions regarding the adequacy of the current standard for lead and whether the Agency should retain or revise it. Consistent with the court order regarding this review, the review and regulatory development process will be completed by September 1, 2008. Additional information about the review is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_index.html.

        Thirty-five years ago, cars and trucks were the major contributors of lead emissions to the air. In the 1970s, EPA set national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. In 1974, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic converters. EPA banned the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles after December 1995. As a result of EPA's regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from the transportation sector have dramatically declined (96 percent between 1980 and 2005). The large reductions in lead emissions from motor vehicles have changed the nature of the air quality lead problem in the United States. Industrial processes, particularly primary and secondary lead smelters, utility boilers, and battery manufacturers taken together, are now responsible for most lead emissions into the atmosphere.

        Currently, tetraethyl lead (TEL) is added to gasoline used in most piston-engine powered aircraft. The 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) estimates that lead emissions from the use of leaded aviation gasoline (commonly referred to as avgas) are 491 tons; this accounts for 29 percent of the air pollution emissions inventory for lead, and is overall, the largest source category. This estimate is based on the Department of Energy estimate of about 281 million gallons of avgas supplied in the U.S. in 2002 (data available at http://www.tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mgaupus1A.htm). In 2006 the volume of avgas supplied in the U.S. was about 280 million gallons. The majority of avgas contains up to 0.56 grams of lead per liter (2.12 grams of lead/gallon). This is referred to as 100 Low Lead (100LL). There is another grade of 100 octane avgas that contains 1.12 grams of lead per liter, but this product is not widely available.
        According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) General Aviation and Air Taxi Activity and Avionics (GAATAA) survey (2005), there were over 190,000 piston-engine powered aircraft engaged in flight operations in the U.S. in 2005; these aircraft comprised approximately 90 percent of the aircraft in the general aviation fleet. In 2005, approximately 29 million landing and take-off events (58 million total operations) were conducted by piston-engine powered aircraft. Among the total hours flown by general aviation aircraft, about 68 percent occurred in a piston-engine powered aircraft. According to the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), there were approximately 2,750 new piston-engine powered aircraft manufactured in 2006. This is the largest production volume over the past ten years and reflects an average annual increase in sales that ranged from eight to 43 percent during the preceding 10-year period except for 2001 and 2002. GAMA estimates that the average piston-engine powered aircraft is 35-40 years old.
        Avgas and automotive unleaded gasoline are both derived and blended from the refining of petroleum. However, due to the different nature of engine designs and operating environments these two types of gasoline are different in their chemical composition. Avgas is refined and blended to meet ASTM specification D910 while automotive unleaded gasoline (commonly referred to as mogas) meets ASTM specification D4814. Generally, avgas is transported independent of other fuel to avoid cross-contamination and to maintain the tight specifications of avgas required for proper engine operation in general aviation applications. TEL is added to avgas to increase octane, prevent knock,1
           and prevent valve seat recession and subsequent loss of compression for engines without hardened valves. Lead and other additives are added downstream of the refinery; most avgas is distributed by truck directly from the refinery to the bulk gasoline terminals or bulk plants or to the storage tanks and refueling equipment at airports.

            1 Knocking is the sound produced when some of the unburned fuel in the cylinder ignites spontaneously resulting in rapid burning and a precipitous rise in cylinder pressure that creates the characteristic knocking or pinging sound (Chevron 2005 available at: http://www.chevronglobalaviation.com/docs/aviation_tech_review.pdf).

        Most piston engines used in general aviation are type certified by FAA for the use of leaded avgas (mostly 100LL). The FAA has issued supplemental type certificates (STCs) qualifying piston engines used in general aviation to use unleaded avgas. There are two types of unleaded gasoline reflected in these STCs. The first type of unleaded gasoline which can be used under STCs is ethanol-free unleaded automotive gasoline (mogas). Most aircraft using this mogas have low-compression engines which were originally certified to run on leaded 80/87 avgas and require only 87 antiknock index gasoline. The second type is known as 82UL avgas, which is unleaded fuel similar to automobile gasoline but without additives. It may be used in aircraft that have an STC for the use of automobile gasoline with an aviation lean octane rating of 82 or less or an antiknock index of 87 or less. ASTM specification D6227 has been established for 82UL but this fuel has not yet been produced for general distribution.2
           About 97 percent of gasoline used in piston-engine powered aircraft is leaded avgas, mostly 100LL. The remaining three percent is ethanol-free unleaded automotive gasoline (mogas).

            2 82UL has not yet been produced for general distribution due to limited demand.  It would be a fraction of the 100LL market.  It is an aviation grade product, and thus, refiners can not simply alter mogas to make 82UL.

        The Experimental Aircraft Association and Petersen Aviation estimate that ethanol-free unleaded gasoline can be used in approximately 40 percent of the piston-engine powered aircraft fleet (e.g., those aircraft with low-compression engines).3
           In contrast, in order to prevent knock or detonation during the combustion process, high-compression piston engines require higher octane than typical unleaded gasoline provides. These aircraft also typically have higher utilization rates and fuel consumption rates than their low-compression counterparts. The AOPA estimates that high-compression piston-engine powered aircraft currently consume approximately 70 percent of the leaded avgas supplied nationally, and that the remaining 30 percent of the leaded avgas is used in aircraft that could also use ethanol-free unleaded automotive gasoline.

            3 The Experimental Aircraft Association and Petersen Aviation data are available at www.aviationfuel.org and www.autofuelstc.com/autofuelstc/pa/PetersenAviation.html.

        Efforts to explore reduced lead emissions from piston-engine powered aircraft have primarily focused on fuels to replace 100LL avgas, with less attention given to potential engine modifications. The FAA conducts research exploring replacement fuels for use in piston-engine powered aircraft at its William J. Hughes Technical Center. Publications from this research can be found at http://www.actlibrary.tc.faa.gov/ by searching for `unleaded avgas'. The Coordinating Research Council has organized the Unleaded Aviation Gasoline Development Group which brings together FAA, AOPA, GAMA, the Experimental Aircraft Association, airframe manufacturers, engine manufacturers, fuel producers and other interested parties. The objective of the group is to facilitate development of a high-octane unleaded aviation gasoline as an environmentally compatible, cost-effective replacement for the current 100LL avgas. Documents regarding the CRC Unleaded Aviation Gasoline Development Group can be found in the docket for this notice.

        At the 23rd World Assembly of the International AOPA, Lennart Persson of Hjelmco Oil in Sweden suggested that a 91/96 octane unleaded avgas could be a transparent switchover for 70 percent of the U.S. general aviation fleet. He indicated that this fuel would provide similar performance to 100LL avgas and has done so successfully in Sweden for 15 years. It is now offered for sale at 70 locations in Sweden. For more information see http://www.iaopa.org/info/assembly23/ppts/persson.pdf

        IV. Request for Comments
        EPA is soliciting public comment on any and all aspects of the petition from Friends of the Earth regarding issues related to the use of lead in general aviation gasoline. To assist us in developing our response to the petition EPA specifically requests information and comment on the following.
        1. EPA requests information related to human and environmental lead exposures and effects around airports. Specifically, we request information on concentrations of lead in the air, soil, surface water or other environmental media at or near airports where leaded avgas is used. Information regarding sources of lead in addition to leaded avgas in these areas is also requested.
        2. We request information on levels of lead in indoor dust in homes in the vicinity of airports where leaded avgas is used and information regarding the presence of leaded paint in those homes.

        3. We request information on blood lead levels in children and adults residing or attending school in the vicinity of an airport where leaded avgas is used.

        4. We request information on the characteristics of the populations residing in the vicinity of an airport where leaded avgas is used, specifically, information regarding the number of children six years and younger, the number of schools, daycare facilities, retirement homes, and the socioeconomic status of the population.
        5. EPA request information on the volume of leaded avgas and unleaded aviation gasoline (mogas) supplied at individual airports nationwide.
        6. EPA requests comment on locations where unleaded aviation gasoline is available and the reason for its apparent lack of widespread availability. We request the submission of information related to supplying unleaded aviation gasoline at airports and how potential fuel distribution issues could be addressed.
        7. EPA requests information on the characteristics of piston engine general aviation operation, including annual LTOs by airport, LTO characteristics per airport and aircraft/engine type including mode, time-in-mode, and fuel flow rate in mode. Related to this, EPA requests information on the frequency and duration of local area flights (including touch/go operations) and flight durations within the mixing layer.
        8. EPA requests information on the disposal of leaded avgas after a pilot checks the fuel before starting the aircraft. Specifically, we request information on how this fuel is discarded (i.e., is it deposited on the tarmac) or otherwise handled?
        9. Leaded avgas contains ethylene dibromide which acts as a scavenger for lead by converting lead oxide to lead bromide compounds which are volatile and easily exhausted from the engine. This prevents lead oxide depositing on the valves and spark plugs where it could damage the engine. EPA requests information on the variation in lead emission rates at various operating modes and power settings and the quantity of lead retained in the engine and engine oil as a fraction of the lead in the fuel combusted.
        10. EPA is requesting comments on the potential use of replacement fuels for use in piston-engine powered aircraft. Approximately 40 percent of the piston-engine powered aircraft fleet is certified with an STC allowing the use of ethanol-free unleaded gasoline (82UL or “mogas”), but these fuels are not widely available at airports. Information available to EPA suggests that 30 percent of the 100LL avgas consumed could be replaced by unleaded gasoline. These aircraft are equipped with low-compression engines that may also run on leaded aviation fuel when mogas or 82UL is not available.
        11. We request analysis of the prospects for developing an unleaded fuel for the general aviation fleet that will meet the needs of high-compression engines, including additional research needed.
        12. EPA is requesting comment on the viability of a high-octane unleaded aviation gasoline in a high-compression engine to provide equivalent performance and safety to 100LL avgas.
        13. In this context, EPA requests comment on the viability of the use of ethyl tertiary-butyl ether (ETBE) or other octane enhancing compounds for unleaded fuel.
        14. We also request information on what modifications would need to be made to the existing fleet of high-compression engines as well as new engines, with appropriate lead time, for them to operate on high-octane unleaded fuel with an equivalent margin of safety. In particular, we solicit comment on electronic ignition systems (full authority digital engine control) and knock (detonation) sensors, including comments on further research on these technologies. One example for consideration is the Teledyne Continental Motors/Aerosance Powerlink FADEC system.
        15. EPA also requests information on the ability of current engines to operate on avgas with a decreased lead content relative to 100LL, and identification of the minimum lead content needed to maintain safe engine operation.
        16. EPA requests comment on the storage of avgas, specifically, issues related to above ground storage capacity compared to below-ground storage capacity.
        17. EPA requests comment on the availability of additives less toxic than lead to enhance aviation gasoline octane.
        18. We request comment on the long-term availability of TEL as an avgas additive.
        19. We request information related to the feasibility and costs of any potential options for limiting lead emissions from existing aircraft.
        20. We request comment on the STCs which have been approved to allow for the use of unleaded gasoline in general aviation, the percent and characteristics of the current fleet covered by STCs, and obstacles to wider acceptance and application of the STCs.
        21. EPA is requesting comment on additional research on alcohol-based fuels of which we should be aware. The FAA has approved a very limited number of STCs for use of ethanol-based AGE-85 fuel (85% ethanol in 15% unleaded gasoline) under a preliminary fuel specification. Subsequent approvals allowing more widespread use of AGE-85 are pending the development of a final, aviation-grade fuel specification to ensure potential safety concerns with the fuel are fully vetted by the FAA and the aviation industry.
        22. EPA is requesting comment on additional research or information regarding the use of diesel engines in general aviation, particularly regarding equipment changes and the related costs. The FAA has approved Type Certificates and STCs for diesel-cycle engines that use widely-available, unleaded jet fuel.

        Before the end of the comment period, please send all comments and related information to the address indicated in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.

          Dated: November 9, 2007.
          Stephen L. Johnson,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. E7-22456 Filed 11-15-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P