[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 23, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64693-64694]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25664]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0829; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-024-AD;
Amendment 39-17221; AD 2012-21-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model G58 airplanes. This AD was prompted
by notification from Hawker Beechcraft Corporation that certain
affected aircraft were produced with the incorrect gauge wiring
installed. This AD requires replacement of the incorrect gauge wiring
with the correct wiring required by type design and the aircraft's
circuit protection. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 27, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of November 27,
2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, B091-A04, 10511 E. Central Ave.,
Wichita, Kansas 67206; telephone: 1<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Internet:
http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/customer_support/technical_and_field_support/. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Rejniak, Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,
Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2012 (77 FR
47568). That NPRM proposed to require replacement of the incorrect
gauge wiring with the correct wiring required by type design and the
aircraft's circuit protection.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 47568, August 9, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 40 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                 Action                          Labor cost           Parts cost      product       operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace supply wire of the three light   16 work-hours x $85 per             $50        $1,410          $56,400
 strobe system.                           hour = $1,360.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in

air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and
procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2012-21-05 Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Airplanes: Amendment 39-
17221; Docket No. FAA-2012-0829; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-024-
AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 27, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model G58
airplanes, serial numbers (S/N) TH-2218 through TH-2285, that are
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical power.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by notification from Hawker Beechcraft
Corporation that certain aircraft were produced with the incorrect
gauge wiring installed. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless
already done.

(g) Replace Supply Wire of the Three-Light Strobe System

    Within the next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after November 27,
2012 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 6 calendar
months after November 27, 2012 (the effective date of this AD),
whichever occurs first, replace the supply wire of the three-light
strobe system. Do the replacement following Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory
Service Bulletin No. SB 33-4053, dated February 2011.

(h) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits are permitted with the following limitation:
visual flight rules (VFR) day conditions only.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send
your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards
District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified
in the Related Information section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of
the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Richard Rejniak,
Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita,
Kansas 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation
by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph
under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Hawker Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin No. SB 33-4053,
dated February 2011.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Hawker Beechcraft Corporation service information
identified in this AD, contact Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, B091-A04,
10511 E. Central Ave., Wichita, Kansas 67206; telephone: 1 (800) 429-
5372 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Internet: http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/customer_support/technical_and_field_support/.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by
reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 11, 2012.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-25664 Filed 10-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 171)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50900-50906]
[DOCID:fr05se07-8]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2007-29131]
RIN 2127-AI93

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Our safety standard on occupant protection in interior impact
requires, in part, that light vehicles provide head protection when an
occupant's head strikes upper interior components, such as pillars,
side rails, headers, and the roof during a crash. While these
requirements already apply to most vehicles, the compliance date for
altered vehicles and vehicles built in two or more stages is September
1, 2007. In April 2006, we responded to two petitions for rulemaking by
proposing certain amendments to the head protection requirements as
they apply to these vehicles. We also proposed to delay the compliance
date of the requirements for these vehicles. In this document, after
carefully considering both the safety benefits of the upper interior
protection requirements and practicability concerns relating to
vehicles built in two or more stages and certain altered vehicles, we
are amending the standard to limit these requirements to only the front
seating positions of those vehicles. In addition, we are excluding from
the requirements a narrow group of multi-stage vehicles delivered to
the final stage manufacturer without an occupant compartment. Finally,
we have decided to delay the compliance date of the head impact
protection requirements as they apply to final stage manufacturers and
alterers until September 1, 2009.

DATES: The amendments made by this final rule are effective September
1, 2007. The compliance date for the head impact protection
requirements for altered vehicles and vehicles built in two or more
stages is September 1, 2009.
    Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received not later than October 22, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number above and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20590.
    See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this document (Section
V; Rulemaking Analyses and Notices) for DOT's Privacy Act Statement
regarding documents submitted to the agency's dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE.,
Washington, DC 20590:
    For technical and policy issues: David Sutula, Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile: (202)
366-7002, E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal issues: Ari Scott, Office of the Chief Counsel,
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    a. Previous History of Head Protection Requirements of FMVSS No.
201
    b. Petitions for Rulemaking and Agency Response
II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    a. Proposal To Limit the Area Subject to the FMH Impacts in
Certain Vehicles
    b. Proposal To Exclude Vehicles Without a Finished Occupant
Compartment From the FMH Impact Requirements
    c. Question Regarding Multistage Vehicles With Raised Roofs
    d. Change of Effective Date
III. Public Comments
IV. The Final Rule and Response to Public Comments
    a. Limitation of the Areas Subject to FMVSS No. 201
    b. Areas Behind the Partition
    c. Conversion Vans and Recreational Vehicles
    d. Multi-Stage Vehicles Completed From a Cutaway Chassis
    e. Delay of Compliance Date
    f. Miscellaneous Issues
    g. Effective Date
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
VI. Regulatory Text

I. Background

a. Previous History of Head Protection Requirements of FMVSS No. 201

    On August 18, 1995, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule (August 1995) amending
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, ``Occupant
Protection in Interior Impact,'' to provide enhanced head impact
protection.\1\ The August 1995 final rule required passenger cars, and
trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or
less, to provide protection when an occupant's head strikes upper
interior components, including pillars, side rails, headers, and the
roof, during a crash. The final rule set minimum performance
requirements for upper interior components by establishing target areas
that must be padded or otherwise have energy absorbing properties to
minimize head injury in the event of a crash. The final rule added
procedures for a new in-vehicle component test in which a free-motion
head form (FMH) is fired at certain target locations on the upper
interior of a vehicle at an impact speed of 24 km/h (15 mph). Targets
that are

located on or within 50 mm (2 inches) of dynamically deployable upper
interior head protection systems (air bags systems) can, at the option
of the manufacturer, be impacted at the reduced speed of 19 km/h (12
mph). Data collected from a FMH impact are translated into a Head
Injury Criterion (HIC(d)) score. The resultant HIC(d) must not exceed
1000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 60 FR 43031, Aug. 18, 1995; Docket No. NHTSA-1996-1762-
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1995 final rule provided manufacturers with three alternate
phase-in schedules for complying with the FMH impact requirements. At
this time, all vehicles except altered vehicles and vehicles
manufactured in two or more stages are required to comply with the FMH
impact requirements. The compliance date for altered vehicles and
vehicles manufactured in two or more stages to comply with these
requirements has been delayed several times, and is presently September
1, 2007.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 71 FR 51121, August 29, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Petitions for Rulemaking and Agency Response

    This rulemaking was initiated in response to petitions for
rulemaking submitted by the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association
(RVIA) and the National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA). The member
companies of RVIA and NTEA are generally considered final stage
manufacturers and alterers. That is, they purchase incomplete vehicles
from major manufacturers to serve as the basis for specialty vehicles
(manufactured in two or more stages) for certain uses and markets, or
alter completed vehicles prior to first retail sale. As such, the
petitioners' members face a variety of challenges in certifying that
their vehicles meet applicable safety standards. We note that with
respect to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, some multi-
stage vehicles are built from chassis-cabs with a completed occupant
compartment. Others are built from less complete vehicles, sometimes
necessitating the addition by the final stage manufacturer of its own
occupant compartment. The final stage manufacturer is responsible for
certification of the completed vehicle, although certification can
often ``pass-through'' from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.
    RVIA and NTEA petitioned the agency to permanently exclude certain
types of altered vehicles and vehicles manufactured in two or more
stages from these requirements. On April 24, 2006, the agency published
in the Federal Register (71 FR 20932) a response to petitions for
rulemaking; notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) \3\ in response to
those petitions. NHTSA granted the petitions in part and denied them in
part, and proposed certain amendments to the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Docket No. NHTSA-2006-24497.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    As indicated above, the agency published its April 2006 NPRM in
response to the RVIA and NTEA petitions. The NPRM proposed to limit the
occupant compartment area subject to the FMH impact requirements in
ambulances, motor homes, and other vehicles manufactured in two or more
stages, as well as altered vehicles. Furthermore, the NPRM proposed to
exclude from the requirements a narrow group of multi-stage vehicles
delivered to the final stage manufacturer without an occupant
compartment. Finally, the NPRM proposed to delay the effective date of
the requirements to September 1, 2008.

a. Proposal To Limit the Area Subject to the FMH Impacts in Certain
Vehicles

    In ambulances and motor homes, the current standard excludes the
occupant compartment area located more than 600 mm (24 inches) behind
the seating reference point of the driver's seating position from the
FMH impact requirements. For all other vehicles, the occupant
compartment area located more than 600 mm (24 inches) behind the
seating reference point of the rearmost designated seating position is
similarly excluded from the FMH impact requirements.
    For altered vehicles and vehicles manufactured in two or more
stages, including motor homes and ambulances, we proposed to limit the
area subject to the FMH impact requirements to not more than 300 mm (12
inches) behind the seating reference point of the driver's seating
position. We stated that this would have the effect of limiting the FMH
impact requirements to the front seating positions for these vehicles.
We stated our belief that the distance reduction to 300 mm (12 inches)
is more representative of the distance between the seating reference
point and the upper seat back/head restraint location where the
occupant's head is located. We also stated that because of the front
head restraint height requirements, we believe it is unlikely that the
head of a seated occupant would come in contact with bulkheads,
partitions, or overhead cabinets and storage shelves located further
than 300 mm (12 inches) behind the seating reference point (SgRP) of
the driver's seating position.
    We stated that in developing this proposal, we had carefully
considered both the safety benefits of the FMH requirements and
practicability concerns relating to multistage vehicles. Based on
previous estimates of the benefits of the FMVSS No. 201 final rule, and
estimates from the National Automotive Sampling System, Crashworthiness
Data System of the percent of injuries occurring to light truck
occupants in multi-stage vehicles, the agency derived the following
estimate of safety benefits. Requiring all multi-stage manufactured
vehicles to meet FMVSS No. 201 would have annual benefits in the front
seat of 16-22 fewer fatalities and 19-22 fewer AIS 2-5 injuries.
However, in the rear seats, the benefits were estimated to be less than
1 fatality (which would round down to 0) and 1 AIS 2-5 injury. Thus,
based on this analysis, excluding multi-stage vehicles from targets
that could not be struck by the front row occupants would have a very
small impact on safety.
    Given the small safety benefits associated with the FMH impact
requirements for rear seating positions and practicability concerns, we
tentatively concluded that the FMH impact requirements should be
limited to the front seating positions for these vehicles.
    We noted that, as indicated in its petition, many commercial
vehicles manufactured by NTEA members feature bulkheads or partitions
located less than 600 mm (24 inches) behind the rearmost designated
seating position. Bulkheads or partitions are used in a variety of work
vehicles that haul odd-shaped objects that cannot be readily secured in
the cargo area. These structures protect the driver and passenger from
loose or shifting cargo or work equipment. NTEA had argued that the
installation of bulkheads or partitions would likely require relocation
of target areas originally certified by the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer, thus significantly adding to the compliance burden.
    We also noted that RVIA had argued that most conversion vans (CVs)
and motor homes feature unique interior designs. Specifically, these
vehicles include overhead cabinets, side valances, raised roof
structures, and other unusual interior components. Among other things,
RVIA stated that cooperative testing, suggested by NHTSA as a way to
lessen compliance costs associated with FMH requirements, is not
practicable because each RVIA member manufactures

unique vehicles, each substantially different from its competitors.
RVIA argued that cooperative testing would eliminate interior
customization, which would in turn result in a loss of market for CVs
and motor homes.
    We stated that we believed our proposal to effectively limit the
FMH impact requirements to the front seating positions for these
vehicles would provide appropriate relief to the industries represented
by NTEA and RVIA, while continuing to meet the need for safety.
    We noted that NTEA and RVIA members can ordinarily purchase
incomplete vehicles that are already designed to meet the FMH impact
requirements for the front seating positions. Under our proposal, final
stage manufacturers would ordinarily be able to take advantage of pass-
through certification by not changing the upper interior portions of
the front of the vehicle.
    We also stated that we believe the requirements are justified by
safety. As indicated above, we estimate that requiring all multi-stage
manufactured vehicles to meet FMVSS No. 201 would have annual benefits
in the front seat of 16-22 fewer fatalities and 19-22 fewer AIS 2-5
injuries. We stated that given the safety significance of these
requirements, we believed, in situations where final stage
manufacturers use incomplete vehicles that have occupant compartments
that either are designed to meet the FMH impact requirements for the
front seating positions or can be purchased in a configuration that is
designed to meet those requirements, it would be inconsistent with the
need for safety to generally exclude the vehicles from these head
impact protection requirements. We also noted that while final stage
manufacturers will be able to submit petitions under subpart B of part
555, it is unlikely in this type of situation that the agency would
find it in the public interest to exclude final stage manufacturers
from the front seat head impact protection requirements of FMVSS No.
201 to facilitate customization of the upper interior portions of the
front of the vehicle.
    We noted that the proposal would, however, facilitate customization
of the rear of vehicles, including conversion vans, where there would
be no significant impact on safety. We also stated that we continue to
believe that final stage manufacturers can use cooperative testing to
determine the types of changes that can be made while enabling vehicles
to continue to comply with the FMH requirements, including ones related
to use of overhead cabinets, raised roof structures, and so forth. We
stated that while customization of the front portion of occupant
compartments will be more difficult and may be more limited, it will by
no means be eliminated.

b. Proposal To Exclude Vehicles Without a Finished Occupant Compartment
From the FMH Impact Requirements

    We tentatively concluded that a narrow group of multi-stage
vehicles contains physical attributes that make compliance with the FMH
impact requirements impracticable. These are vehicles built on a
``stripped'' chassis; i.e., an incomplete vehicle without an occupant
compartment. The manufacturers of these vehicles would not be able to
rely on pass-through certification. This is because these vehicles are
highly customized and produced in quantities that would make compliance
prohibitively expensive. Further, these vehicles are often equipped
with partitions and bulkheads that present a further impediment to the
compliance efforts. We noted that for vehicles manufactured from
stripped chassis, the cost of meeting the FMH impact requirements could
be substantial because alternative means of compliance such as pass-
through certification are not available.
    We stated that in the context of serving niche markets demanding
specialized work vehicles that are not delivered to the final stage
manufacturers with an intact occupant compartment (unlike for example,
chassis cabs and cutaway vans), we believed that the physical
limitations of these vehicles can adversely affect the ability of
multi-stage manufacturers to design safety performance into their
completed vehicles. Accordingly, we believed it appropriate to exclude
this narrow group of vehicles from FMH impact testing.

c. Question Regarding Multi-Stage Vehicles With Raised Roofs

    The NPRM also raised the issue of offering a manufacturer
alternative for vehicles with raised roofs. This would allow the final
stage manufacturer to certify that the vehicle meets the FMH impact
requirements in either the original or altered configuration. The
reasoning behind this was that while some test points have been altered
due to the raised roof, those points are very unlikely to be impacted
by a seated occupant.

d. Change of Effective Date

    The NPRM proposed to delay the effective date of the FMH impact
requirements as they apply to final stage manufacturers and alterers
until September 1, 2008.

III. Public Comments

    Both NTEA and RVIA submitted comments generally supportive of the
NPRM. Both entities supported the proposal to delay the effective date
for compliance with the requirements to September 1, 2008. In addition,
NTEA suggested that the date be extended further if the delay is not
published by January 2007. The proposal to limit the area that is
subject to the FMH impact requirements was also supported by both
commenters. Finally, both parties were generally supportive of the
proposal to exclude vehicles delivered to a final stage manufacturer
without an occupant compartment from the FMH requirements.
    While generally supportive of the NPRM, both entities suggested
expanding the scope of vehicles excluded from the FMH impact
requirements beyond that which was proposed by NHTSA. Citing the small
size and economic difficulties of the recreational vehicle industry,
RVIA stated that NHTSA should consider excluding CVs and motor homes
from the FMH impact requirements. It argued that given the numerous
interior layouts for these vehicles, a large number of tests would need
to be performed, burdening the industry disproportionately. RVIA also
reiterated its original cost estimates presented in its petition,
stating that interior designs and layouts can change every year, thus
making the industry unable to amortize testing costs over a number of
years.
    NTEA also supported expanding the scope of the FMH impact
requirement exclusion to additional vehicles. In addition to vehicles
delivered without an occupant compartment, NTEA suggested that multi-
stage vehicles built from ``chassis cutaways,'' i.e., incomplete
vehicles delivered with an occupant compartment but without the rear
part of the chassis, should be excluded as well. NTEA stated that the
occupant compartment in these vehicles is not delivered ``intact,''
because there is no rear wall. NTEA also requested clarification
regarding which vehicles would be excluded.
    Finally, NTEA provided comments concerning the testing of vehicles
with bulkheads and partitions in relation to the FMH impact
requirements. Specifically, it expressed concern that partition,
bulkheads, and B-pillars on the majority of vehicles used commercially
with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less would fall within the proposed
testing area. This, NTEA stated, would lead to high testing and

compliance costs for small manufacturers. In addition, NTEA asked for
clarification on whether secondary headform hits would count towards
the overall HIC(d) value, suggesting that they should not. NTEA also
suggested that areas located less than 300 mm (12 inches) from the
forward seating position, but behind bulkheads or partitions, should
not be tested under the impact requirements.

IV. The Final Rule and Response to Public Comments

a. Limitation of the Areas Subject to FMVSS No. 201

    The agency is adopting its proposal to limit, for multi-stage
vehicles, the FMH impact requirements to the front of vehicles, i.e.,
we are excluding targets more than 300 mm (12 inches) behind the
driver's SgRP. This change will maintain the vast majority of the
safety benefits for multi-stage vehicles, while facilitating
customization of the rear of vehicles.
    As the cited safety data indicate, the vast majority of the safety
benefits of the FMH impact accrue mainly in the front portions of the
vehicle. Because of the front head restraint height requirements, we
believe it is unlikely that the head of a seated occupant would come in
contact with bulkheads, partitions, or overhead cabinets and storage
shelves located further than 300 mm (12 inches) behind the seating
reference point of the driver's seating position. Therefore, we believe
that this final rule preserves the vast majority of the safety benefits
provided by the FMH impact requirements for multistage vehicles.
    We note that NTEA and RVIA members can ordinarily purchase
incomplete vehicles that are already designed to meet the FMH impact
requirements for the front seating positions. Thus, under our proposal,
final stage manufacturers would ordinarily be able to take advantage of
pass-through certification by not changing the upper interior portions
of the front of the vehicle.
    NTEA expressed concern about the installation of partitions and
bulkheads behind the occupant seating compartment. It was concerned
that the 300 mm (12 inches) distance from the driver's SgRP could
include the B-pillar of the majority vehicles used commercially with a
GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less. It indicated that partitions and bulkheads
could fall within the detailed area, and themselves become subject to
testing.
    NHTSA notes, as a general matter, that while partitions are not
necessarily targeted by the FMH requirements, secondary impacts \4\ on
partitions are permitted as well as relocation of a targeted area in
accordance with S10(b). In these cases, any secondary impacts would be
incorporated into the total HIC(d) value, and any target areas that are
relocated may fall upon a bulkhead or partition provided that the
contact area is not specifically excluded from the test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Secondary impacts occur when part of the FMH (usually the
chin) strikes in the vicinity of the intended target at or near the
time that the forehead impact zone contacts that target, more
specifically, within the HIC(d) calculation time period specified in
S7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated above, the purpose of excluding targets more than 300
mm (12 inches) behind the driver's SgRP is to address the special
circumstances of final stage manufacturers, while maintaining the vast
majority of the benefits from the FMH requirements. To the extent that
bulkheads, partitions or other items located more than 300 mm (12
inches) behind the driver's SgRP could contribute to the HIC(d) value,
final stage manufacturers could potentially need to add countermeasures
to comply with FMVSS No. 201, as well as engage in testing, engineering
analysis, or other means to have a basis for certifying compliance.
    To ensure that the change we are making provides the intended
accommodation for final stage manufacturers, we are providing that
tests for altered vehicles and vehicles built in two or more stages do
not include, within the time period for measuring HIC(d), any FMH
contact with components rearward of the plane 300 mm (12 inches) behind
the driver's SgRP. Of course, if it is possible to strike an intended
target within the range of permissible approach angles without FMH
contact with components rearward of that plane, the agency will test
the target in that fashion. We note that the position we are taking on
this specific issue should not be viewed as an indication of how we
might address the issue of secondary impacts for other portions of
FMVSS No. 201.
    In order to take full advantage of this accommodation, a final
stage manufacturer or alterer adding a partition or bulkhead needs to
ensure that it is rearward of the plane 300 mm (12 inches) behind the
driver's SgRP. NHTSA notes that it has surveyed several vehicles with
partitions,\5\ and the closest partition was approximately 380 mm
behind the driver's SgRP. We believe that partitions are ordinarily
located more than 300 mm (12 inches) behind the driver's SgRP in order
to permit the seat to recline. Therefore, we believe the change we are
adopting provides appropriate accommodation for final stage
manufacturers and alterers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We are placing in the docket a memorandum that discusses
that survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note, however, that if a final stage manufacturer or alterer
wishes to add a partition or bulkhead closer than 300 mm (12 inches)
behind the driver's SgRP, it can add any needed countermeasures (e.g.,
padding) to comply with FMVSS No. 201, and conduct testing, engineering
analysis, or other means to have a basis for certifying compliance. It
could do this on its own, in conjunction with the partition
manufacturer, or as part of cooperative testing.

b. Areas Behind the Partition

    In its comments, NTEA asserted that it is not practical to include
targets that are behind the forward surface of a partition or bulkhead.
NTEA argued that these targets could not possibly be contacted by the
head of an occupant seated forward of the partition. The agency
believes, for reasons discussed earlier, that partitions are ordinarily
located more than 300 mm (12 inches) behind the driver's SgRP.
Therefore, this issue would affect few vehicles. In any event, barring
a particularly rare series of events (which would be unlikely to be
alleviated by the installation of additional interior padding), the
agency concurs that these areas are unlikely to be impacted by a person
in the front occupant compartment, and it is therefore not appropriate
to test areas behind such partitions or bulkheads. NHTSA is adjusting
the rule to exclude these areas from the FMH impact requirements as
well.

c. Conversion Vans and Recreational Vehicles

    RVIA expressed concern that, given the small size of the
manufacturers of these products, as well as the declining size of the
market, meeting the FMH impact requirements is impractical. It
requested that CVs and motor homes be completely excluded from the FMH
impact requirements. While NHTSA recognizes that most manufacturers
represented by RVIA meet the Small Business Administration (SBA)
definition for small businesses, we do not believe that this should
preclude these manufacturers from being required to meet the FMH impact
requirements for the front seats.
    We believe that the safety benefits of FMVSS No. 201 can be
maintained without substantial burdens being imposed on multi-stage
manufacturers. Much like other vehicles, CVs and

motor homes in this category are typically manufactured from an
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) chassis product that has a
completed front passenger compartment. Most of these have Incomplete
Vehicle Documents (IVDs), so that the final stage manufacturer has the
option of purchasing an OEM incomplete vehicle that is pre-certified to
meet the FMH impact requirements.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ We also note that the agency has created a temporary
exemption process for multi-stage vehicles by which intermediate and
final stage manufacturers and alterers can obtain temporary
exemptions from dynamic performance requirements based on financial
hardship. The agency also allows associations or multiple
manufacturers to ``bundle'' temporary exemption petitions for
specific vehicle designs. See 70 FR 7414.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the RVIA states that small motor home and CV manufacturers
expect to have to conduct substantial compliance testing at high costs,
we do not believe that this is necessarily the case. Under our rule, as
long as the final stage manufacturers preserve the OEM specifications
in the forward area subject to the FMH impact requirements, they can
customize the rear portion of the interior. By not changing the upper
interior portions of the vehicle, they will be able to take advantage
of pass-through certification. We continue to believe that these
requirements are justified by the safety benefits cited above and
discussed in the NPRM.
    Moreover, as discussed in the NPRM, final stage manufacturers can
use cooperative testing to determine the types of changes that can be
made while enabling vehicles to continue to comply with the FMH
requirements, including ones related to use of overhead cabinets,
raised roof structures, and so forth. Thus, while customization of the
front portion of occupant compartments will be more difficult and may
be more limited, it is by no means eliminated.

d. Multi-Stage Vehicles Completed From a Cutaway Chassis

    As part of the final rule, we have decided to adopt our proposal to
exclude from the FMH requirements a narrow group of multi-stage
vehicles delivered to the final stage manufacturer without an occupant
compartment. However, we are not extending that exclusion to vehicles
completed from a ``chassis cutaway.'' A chassis cutaway consists of
part of a chassis, which is delivered to a final stage manufacturer
without a back wall. In its comments, NTEA suggested that a chassis
cutaway is not ``intact,'' and therefore should be excluded from the
FMH impact requirements. NTEA stated that it would not be able to
certify a vehicle built from a chassis cutaway using pass-through
certification because the OEM provides no guidelines for maintaining
``vital spatial clearance.'' This lack of guidelines, NTEA claims,
prohibit the use of reasonable engineering analysis for pass-through
compliance with FMVSS No. 201.
    NHTSA does not accept NTEA's argument in this area for several
reasons. First, provided no changes have been made to the portion of
the occupant compartment forward of the rearmost part of the B-pillar
(and if located 300 mm rearward of the driver's SgRP), it is reasonable
for a manufacturer to assume that all ``vital spatial clearances'' will
have been maintained. Therefore, in these situations, the final stage
manufacturer can take advantage of the available pass-through
certification.
    Second, we are aware of the availability of some cutaway chassis
vehicles that can be used in this manner by final stage manufacturers.
NHTSA is aware of cutaway vehicles manufactured by Ford and Daimler-
Chrysler that are provided with IVDs certifying that the vehicle will
meet the FMH impact requirements of FMVSS No. 201 forward of the cut
point in the forward occupant compartment.\7\ This includes compliance
with all applicable spatial clearance requirements. Because these
vehicles are available to second stage manufacturers, we do not believe
that compliance will be overly burdensome, and cutaway vehicles do not
merit additional compliance relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ We are placing in the docket a memorandum that discusses
some of these vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Delay of Compliance Date

    Both commenters supported NHTSA's proposal to delay the
implementation date of the FMH impact requirements. NTEA further
requested that NHTSA delay the implementation date until September 1,
2009 if the final rule is not published prior to January 2007. NHTSA
agrees with the commenters that the extension is necessary to provide
manufacturers of altered vehicles sufficient time to comply with the
FMH impact requirements. Considering the timing of this final rule, we
are delaying the implementation until September 1, 2009.

f. Miscellaneous Issues

    NHTSA makes note of two additional issues that were addressed in
the NPRM. First, in the NPRM, we requested comments on an issue related
to multistage vehicles with raised roofs. We stated that we were
considering permitting manufacturers to meet requirements for either
the target locations as calculated for the original configuration or
changed configuration. We did not receive comments on this issue, and
have decided not to adopt such a provision.
    Second, we proposed to extend the scope of the agency's new more
streamlined temporary exemption procedures such that multistage
manufacturers would be able to petition NHTSA for an exemption from the
FMH impact requirements. See 71 FR at 20936. The new procedures
streamline the temporary exemption process by allowing an association
or another party representing the interests of multiple manufacturers
to bundle exemption petitions for a specific vehicle design, thus
permitting a single explanation of the potential safety impact and good
faith attempts to comply with the standards. We noted, however, that
the same issue was also before the agency in another proceeding. In a
final rule published in the Federal Register (71 FR 28179) on May 15,
2006, this procedure was extended to final stage manufacturers in
relation to the FMH requirements of FMVSS No. 201. Therefore, this
final rule does not specifically address that issue. We also note that
the May 2006 final rule addressed a number of other relevant issues
relating to final stage manufacturers and alterers.

g. Effective Date

    We find good cause for making this rule effective in less than 30
days, i.e., September 1, 2007. As discussed above, we have concluded
that certain amendments should be made that will provide relief to
final stage manufacturers and alterers, and also that the compliance
date of the relevant requirements should be delayed to September 1,
2009. If the September 1, 2007 compliance date were not changed, it is
likely that some final stage manufacturers and alterers would need to
immediately stop producing or altering some of the specialty vehicles
they provide.

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

a. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant

regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    This final rule was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It is
not significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures. It does not impose any new burdens on manufacturers of
vehicles built in two or more stages or vehicle alterers. Further, this
rule limits certain existing requirements as they apply to multi-stage
vehicles, and excludes a narrow group of multi-stage vehicles
manufactured from chassis without occupant compartments from the same
requirements. The agency believes that this impact is so minimal as to
not warrant the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.

b. 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 either 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)
\8\ or certify that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In order to make such
a certification, the agency must conduct a threshold analysis. The
results of that analysis must be included in a statement that
accompanies the certification and provides the factual basis for making
it. I hereby certify that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. While it is true that the vast majority of
intermediate and final stage manufacturers of vehicles built in two or
more stages and alterers have 1,000 or fewer employees, we believe the
impact of this final rule will not be detrimental. This final rule
permits these companies to comply with the FMH impact requirements of
FMVSS No. 201 for the front occupant compartment only, as opposed to
the requirements that must be met by original manufacturers. Final
stage manufacturers and alterers can either rely on the original
equipment manufacturer's certification (using pass-through
certification) or install interior padding and undertake available
compliance testing. Also, final stage manufacturers and alterers using
a ``stripped chassis'' vehicle are exempt from the FMH impact
requirements. Finally, this rule delays the effective date of the
requirements until September 1, 2009. Accordingly, there will be no
significant economic impact on small businesses, small organizations,
or small governmental units by these amendments. For these reasons the
agency has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis.

c. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposal 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. Accordingly, no environmental assessment is
required.

d. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule 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 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 preemptive effect
of today's rulemaking. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at
least two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety
Act contains an express preemptive 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 preempts State law, not today's rulemaking,
so consultation would be inappropriate.
    In addition to the express preemption noted above, the Supreme
Court has also recognized that 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 their State requirements
unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S.C. 861
(2000). NHTSA has not outlined such potential State requirements in
today's rulemaking, however, in part because such conflicts can arise
in varied contexts, but it is conceivable that such a conflict may
become clear through subsequent experience with today's standard and
test regime. NHTSA may opine on such conflicts in the future, if
warranted. See id. at 883-86.

e. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This final rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.

f. Unfunded Mandates 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).
The assessment may be combined with other assessments, as it is here.
    This final rule is not likely to result in expenditures by State,
local or tribal governments or automobile manufacturers and/or their
suppliers of more than $100 million annually. If adopted, it would not
impose any new burdens on manufacturers of vehicles built in two or
more stages or vehicle alterers. Further, this final rule limits
certain existing requirements as they apply to multistage vehicles, and
exclude a narrow group of multistage vehicles manufactured from chassis
without occupant compartments from the same requirements.

g. 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. This final
rule contains no reporting requirements or requests for information.

h. 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.

i. 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://dms.dot.gov.

VI. Regulatory Text

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Tires.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends chapter V of title 49
of the Code of Federal Regulations by amending 49 CFR Sec.  571.201 to
read as follows:

PART 571--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation of Part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 2011, 30115, 30116 and 30117;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. Section 571.201 is amended by revising S6.1.4 through S<IP_ADDRESS>,
S6.3(b) and S6.3(c) to read as set forth below:

Sec.  571.201  Standard No. 201; Occupant protection in interior
impact.

* * * * *
    S6.1.4 Phase-in Schedule #4 A final stage manufacturer or alterer
may, at its option, comply with the requirements set forth in S<IP_ADDRESS>
and S<IP_ADDRESS>.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 and
before September 1, 2009 are not required to comply with the
requirements specified in S7.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 shall
comply with the requirements specified in S7.
* * * * *
    S6.3 * * *
    (b) Any target located rearward of a vertical plane 600 mm behind
the seating reference point of the rearmost designated seating
position. For altered vehicles and vehicles built in two or more
stages, including ambulances and motor homes, any target located
rearward of a vertical plane 300 mm behind the seating reference point
of the driver's designated seating position (tests for altered vehicles
and vehicles built in two or more stages do not include, within the
time period for measuring HIC(d), any free motion headform contact with
components rearward of this plane). If an altered vehicle or vehicle
built in two or more stages is equipped with a transverse vertical
partition positioned between the seating reference point of the
driver's designated seating position and a vertical plane 300 mm behind
the seating reference point of the driver's designated seating
position, any target located rearward of the vertical partition is
excluded.
    (c) Any target in a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages that
is delivered to a final stage manufacturer without an occupant
compartment. Note: Motor homes, ambulances, and other vehicles
manufactured using a chassis cab, a cut-away van, or any other
incomplete vehicle delivered to a final stage manufacturer with a
furnished front compartment are not excluded under this S6.3(c).
* * * * *

    Issued: August 30, 2007.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 07-4324 Filed 8-30-07; 4:52 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 108 (Monday, June 6, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34125-34128]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12242]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0596; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00150-T;
Amendment 39-22073; AD 2022-12-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This AD was prompted by
a report of multiple in-service events where, following a STAB TRIM
FAULT advisory message and auto-pilot disconnect, flightcrew commands
for a nose-up trim resulted in nose-down trim movement of the
horizontal stabilizer instead. This AD requires revising the existing
airplane flight manual (AFM) to provide the flightcrew with
instructions for an expanded pre-flight check of the pitch trim, trim
malfunction procedures, and revised ``AP STAB TRIM FAIL'' caution and
``STAB TRIM FAULT'' advisory procedures. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 21, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 21,
2022.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by July 21, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Bombardier

Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road
West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected]; internet https://www.bombardier.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2022-0596.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-
0596; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations office is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Dowling, Aerospace Engineer,
Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0596; Project Identifier MCAI-
2022-00150-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Elizabeth Dowling, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and
Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2022-03, dated February 1,
2022 (TCCA AD CF-2022-03) (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes.
You may examine the MCAI on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0596.
    This AD was prompted by a report of multiple in-service events
where, following a STAB TRIM FAULT advisory message and auto-pilot
disconnect, flightcrew commands for a nose-up trim resulted in nose-
down trim movement of the horizontal stabilizer instead. In some
events, the horizontal stabilizer reached the full airplane nose-down
trim position before the crew recognized the nature of the problem. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address uncommanded horizontal stabilizer
motion, which could result in increased crew workload and reduced
safety margins; and if the flightcrew is unable to regain control of
the horizontal stabilizer, would result in loss of control of the
airplane and excessive high control forces. See the MCAI for additional
background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued the following service information which
includes the ``Before Starting Engines'' checklist in Chapter 04--
Normal Procedures, of the AFM:
     Bombardier Challenger 300 AFM (Imperial Version), CSP 100-
1, Revision 67, dated March 29, 2022;
     Bombardier Challenger 300 AFM (Metric Version), CSP 100-1
(METRIC), Revision 67, dated March 29, 2022;
     Bombardier Challenger 350 AFM, CH 350, Revision 33, dated
March 29, 2022.
    This service information describes instructions for an expanded
pre-flight check of the pitch trim. These documents are distinct since
they apply to different airplane configurations.
    Bombardier has also issued the following service information:
     Challenger 300 Temporary Revision TR-92, dated December
20, 2021, to the Bombardier Challenger 300 AFM (Imperial Version), CSP
100-1;
     Challenger 300 Temporary Revision TR-92, dated December
20, 2021, to the Bombardier Challenger 300 AFM (Metric Version), CSP
100-1 (METRIC); and
     Challenger 350 Temporary Revision TR-23, dated December
20, 2021, to the Bombardier Challenger 350 AFM, CH 350.
    This service information describes instructions for trim
malfunction procedures, and revised ``AP STAB TRIM FAIL'' caution and
``STAB TRIM FAULT'' advisory procedures. These documents are distinct
since they apply to different airplane configurations.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
and service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD
because the FAA evaluated all pertinent information and determined the
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Requirements of This AD

    This AD requires revising the existing airplane flight manual to
add an expanded pre-flight check of the pitch trim, trim malfunction
procedures, and revised ``AP STAB TRIM FAIL'' caution and ``STAB TRIM
FAULT'' advisory procedures.
    TCCA AD CF-2022-03 requires operators to ``brief all flight crews''
of the AFM procedures and thereafter to ``operate the aeroplane
accordingly.'' However, this AD does not specifically require those
actions as those actions are already required by FAA regulations. FAA
regulations require operators furnish to pilots any changes to the AFM
(for example, 14 CFR 121.137), and to ensure the pilots are familiar
with the AFM (for example, 14 CFR 91.505). As with any other flightcrew
training requirement, training on the updated AFM content is tracked by
the operators and recorded in each pilot's training record, which is
available for the FAA to review. FAA regulations also require pilots to
follow the procedures in the existing AFM including all updates. 14 CFR
91.9 requires that any person operating a civil aircraft must comply
with the operating limitations specified in the AFM. Therefore,
including a requirement in this AD to operate the airplane according to
the revised AFM would be redundant and unnecessary.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because in some of the reported events, the horizontal stabilizer
reached full airplane nose-down trim position before the flightcrew
recognized the nature of the problem, resulting in increased flightcrew
workload and reduced safety margins. If not addressed, an uncommanded
horizontal stabilizer motion could result in the stabilizer reaching
its full travel position, and consequently, the flightcrew may not be
able to regain control of the horizontal stabilizer, which would result
in loss of control of the airplane and excessive high control forces.
Therefore, the FAA finds good cause that notice and opportunity for
prior public comment are impracticable. In addition, for the reasons
stated above, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. TCCA AD CF-2022-
03 states an investigation is ongoing and the revision of the existing
AFM is a mitigating action.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good
cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and
comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt
this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 678 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                           Labor cost                               Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85................................              $0             $85         $57,630
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2022-12-02 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-22073; Docket No. FAA-
2022-0596; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00150-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 21,
2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of multiple in-service events
where, following a STAB TRIM FAULT advisory message and auto-pilot
disconnect, flightcrew commands for a nose-up trim resulted in nose-
down trim movement of the horizontal stabilizer instead. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address uncommanded horizontal stabilizer motion,
which could result in increased crew workload and reduced safety
margins; and if the flightcrew is unable to regain control of the
horizontal stabilizer, would result in loss of control of the
airplane and excessive high control forces.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Revision of the Existing Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)--Non-Normal
Procedures

    Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
Non-Normal Procedures chapter of the existing Airplane Flight Manual
to include the information in the applicable temporary revision
identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Challenger 300 Temporary Revision TR-92, dated
December 20, 2021, to the Bombardier Challenger 300 AFM (Imperial
Version).
    (2) Bombardier Challenger 300 Temporary Revision TR-92, dated
December 20, 2021, to the Bombardier Challenger 300 AFM (Metric
Version).
    (3) Bombardier Challenger 350 Temporary Revision TR-23, dated
December 20, 2021, to the Bombardier Challenger 350 AFM.

(h) Revision of the Existing AFM--Normal Procedures

    Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
Normal Procedures chapter of the existing AFM to include the
information for the ``Before Starting Engines'' checklist in Chapter
04--Normal Procedures, of the applicable AFM identified in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Challenger 300 AFM (Imperial Version), CSP 100-1,
Revision 67, dated March 29, 2022.
    Note 1 to paragraph (h)(1): For obtaining the Before Starting
Engines checklist for Bombardier Challenger 300 AFM (Imperial
Version), CSP 100-1, use Document Identification number CH 300 AFM-
I.
    (2) Bombardier Challenger 300 AFM (Metric Version), CSP 100-1
(METRIC), Revision 67, dated March 29, 2022.
    Note 2 to paragraph (h)(2): For obtaining the Before Starting
Engines checklist for Bombardier Challenger 300 AFM (Metric
Version), CSP 100-1 (METRIC), use Document Identification number CH
300 AFM-M.
    (3) Bombardier Challenger 350 AFM, CH 350, Revision 33, dated
March 29, 2022.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your responsible
Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to
ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved
AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a
principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards
Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2022-03, dated February 1, 2022, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2022-0596.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Elizabeth
Dowling, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative
Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) ``Before Starting Engines'' checklist in Chapter 04--Normal
Procedures of Bombardier Challenger 300 Airplan Flight Manual (AFM)
(Imperial Version), CSP 100-1, Revision 67, dated March 29, 2022.
    (ii) ``Before Starting Engines'' checklist in Chapter 04--Normal
Procedures of Bombardier Challenger 300 AFM (Metric Version), CSP
100-1 (METRIC), Revision 67, dated March 29, 2022.
    (iii) ``Before Starting Engines'' checklist in Chapter 04--
Normal Procedures of Bombardier Challenger 350 AFM CH 350, Revision
33, dated March 29, 2022.
    (iv) Bombardier Challenger 300 Temporary Revision TR-92, dated
December 20, 2021, to the Bombardier Challenger 300 AFM (Imperial
Version), CSP 100-1.
    (v) Bombardier Challenger 300 Temporary Revision TR-92, dated
December 20, 2021, to the Bombardier Challenger 300 AFM (Metric
Version), CSP 100-1 (METRIC).
    (vi) Bombardier Challenger 350 Temporary Revision TR-23, dated
December 20, 2021, to the Bombardier Challenger 350 AFM, CH 350.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400
C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]; internet
https://www.bombardier.com.
    Note 3 to paragraph (k)(3): For obtaining the Before Starting
Engines checklist for Bombardier Challenger 300 AFM (Imperial
Version), CSP 100-1, use Document Identification number CH 300 AFM-
I.
    Note 4 to paragraph (k)(3): For obtaining the Before Starting
Engines checklist for Bombardier Challenger 300 AFM (Metric
Version), CSP 100-1 (METRIC), use Document Identification number CH
300 AFM-M.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on May 26, 2022.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-12242 Filed 6-2-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 53 (Monday, March 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 15236]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05798]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4582-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Navajo Nation; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Navajo Nation (FEMA-4582-DR), dated February 2, 2021,
and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued February 2, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated February 2, 2021, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions associated with
the Navajo Nation resulting from the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic beginning on January 20, 2020, and continuing,
are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists for
the Navajo Nation.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide emergency protective measures
(Category B), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program for the Navajo Nation. Consistent with the
requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal
funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Tammy Littrell, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the Navajo Nation have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Emergency protective measures (Category B) not authorized under
other Federal statutes, including direct Federal assistance, under
the Public Assistance program at 75 percent federal funding for the
Navajo Nation.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-05798 Filed 3-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: April 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 15496-15497]
[DOCID:fr06ap09-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0652]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Notice of
Participation

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 6,
2009.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0191.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information
Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug

Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Notice of Participation--(OMB Control Number 0910-0191)--Extension

    Section 12.45 (21 CFR 12.45), issued under section 701 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 371), sets forth the
format and procedures for any interested person to file a petition to
participate in a formal evidentiary hearing, either personally or
through a representative. Section 12.45 requires that any person filing
a notice of participation, state their specific interest in the
proceedings, including the specific issues of fact about which the
person desires to be heard. This section also requires that the notice
include a statement that the person will present testimony at the
hearing and will comply with specific requirements in 21 CFR 12.85, or,
in the case of a hearing before a Public Board of Inquiry, concerning
disclosure of data and information by participants (21 CFR 13.25). In
accordance with Sec.  12.45(e), the presiding officer may omit a
participant's appearance.
    The presiding officer and other participants will use the collected
information in a hearing to identify specific interests to be
presented. This preliminary information serves to expedite the pre-
hearing conference and commits participation.
    The respondents are individuals or households, State or local
governments, not-for-profit institutions and businesses, or other for-
profit groups and institutions.
    In the Federal Register of December 29, 2008 (73 FR 79495), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information
collection provisions. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Section 502 of
  the FFD&C Act/         No. of        Annual Frequency     Total Annual        Hours per
  Section 351 of      Respondents        per Response        Responses           Response         Total Hours
   the PHS Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.45                              8                  1                  8                  3                 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    The burden estimates for this collection of information are based
on agency records and experience over the past 3 years.

    Dated: March 30, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-7671 Filed 4-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S