[Federal Register: December 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 242)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67156-67162]
[DOCID:fr18de09-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 595

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0065]
RIN 2127-AK22

Make Inoperative Exemptions; Head Restraints

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

ACTION: Response to petition; Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This notice of proposed rulemaking is being issued in response
to a petition from Bruno Independent Living Aids to expand and update
existing exemptions to the ``make inoperative'' prohibition with
respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on head
restraints. These exemptions are included in a regulation that provides
exemptions for the ``make inoperative'' provision for, among other
things, vehicle modifications to accommodate people with disabilities.
NHTSA is proposing two substantive changes to the regulation. The first
is to expand the exemption from the minimum height requirements listed
in the head restraint standard to include the right front passenger
position in addition to the driver position. The second is to update
the exemption to include relevant provisions of a new version of the
head restraint standard. Additionally, this document proposes to update
an existing reference in the exemption to reflect the current numbering
in the Code of Federal Regulations. Finally, we are denying other
requests to expand the exemption to certain other requirements of the
head restraint standard.

DATES: You should submit our comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them not later than February 16, 2010.

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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 issues, you may contact
Ms. Gayle Dalrymple, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NVS-123 (E-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax: 202-493-
2739).
    For legal issues, you may contact Mr. Ari Scott, Office of Chief
Counsel, NCC-112 (E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>)
(Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    You may send mail to these officials at National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    a. History of the Make Inoperative Exemptions
    b. Current Exemptions in Part 595 Regarding Head Restraints
    c. Petition for Rulemaking
II. Response to Petition
    a. Agency Analysis of the Safety Benefits of the TAS and Similar
Systems
    b. Response to Requested for Changes to Part 595
    i. Proposal To Expand the Current Head Restraint Exemption to
Right Front Passengers
    ii. Proposal To Update the Exemptions to Reflect Standard No.
202a
    1. Proposal To Update Paragraph (c)(8)
    2. Proposal To Update the Paragraph (c)(9) Exemption to Include
Head Restraint Height and Width Requirements for Drivers and Minimum
Height Requirements for Right Front Passengers
    3. Reasons for Denying Bruno's Petition to Expand the Exemption
for Vehicle Passenger Positions To Include Paragraphs S4.2.1(a) and
S4.2.2 through S4.2.7
    iii. Correcting Reference to Paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 202
III. Proposed Effective Date
IV. Rulemaking Analysis
V. Proposed Regulatory Text

I. Background

a. History of the Make Inoperative Exemptions

    Federal law requires vehicle manufacturers to certify that their
vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards (FMVSSs) (see 49 U.S.C. 30112). A vehicle manufacturer,
distributor, dealer, or repair business generally may not knowingly
make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in
or on a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard (see 49
U.S.C. 30122). However, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue regulations that
exempt regulated entities from the make inoperative provision (see 49
U.S.C. 30122(c)).
    On February 27, 2001, the agency issued a final rule (66 FR 12638)
establishing exemptions from the make inoperative provisions for
certain sections of several FMVSSs under certain limited circumstances
when vehicles are modified to be used by persons with disabilities.
This rulemaking was undertaken to facilitate the modification of motor
vehicles so that persons with disabilities can drive or ride in them.
Since the publication of the 2001 rule, NHTSA has made updates to the
exemptions to keep pace with changes in the standards for which those
exemptions were written. An example of such a change includes a final
rule issued on August 31, 2005 (70 FR 51673) adding exemptions for the
updated sections of FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior
Impact, and FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as well as
establishing an exemption for FMVSS No. 225, Child Restraint Anchorage
Systems.

b. Current Exemptions in Part 595 Regarding Head Restraints

    Currently, there are two portions of part 595 that deal with the
head restraint requirements in Standard No. 202, Head Restraints. These
exemptions from the make inoperative provision to accommodate people
with disabilities include 49 CFR 595.7(c)(8), which provides an
exemption from all requirements of Standard No. 202 for vehicles
modified to accommodate a driver or right front passenger seated in a
wheelchair and no other seat is provided, as well as 49 CFR
595.7(c)(9), which provides an exemption from the driver side head
restraint height/width requirements for vehicles modified to
accommodate drivers with a disability. There are currently no
exemptions in Part 595 that pertain to the requirements in the upgraded
FMVSS No. 202a.

c. Petition for Rulemaking

    On January 2, 2007 NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking from
Bruno Independent Living Aids (Bruno) requesting that we amend part 595
to add an exemption for passengers' side head restraint systems. In
submitting its petition, Bruno wished to facilitate use of its product,
called Turning Automotive Seating (TAS), which provides access to motor
vehicles to people with disabilities. This device consists of a
rotating, motorized seat, which replaces the OEM seat in a motor
vehicle. The TAS pivots from the forward-facing driving position to the
side-facing entry position and extends outward and lowers to a suitable
transfer height, providing the driver and/or passenger easy entry into
the vehicle. The transfer into the seat takes place while outside the
vehicle, and the occupant remains in the seat during the entry process,
using OEM seat belts while traveling in the vehicle. Exiting the
vehicle is accomplished by reversing the process. Another TAS option is
a mobility base, which converts the automotive seat into a wheelchair,
eliminating the need for transferring from the seat altogether. Bruno
states that TAS systems provide mobility-impaired persons with safer
and easier ways to enter and exit a vehicle.
    In its petition, Bruno states that the TAS provides substantial
safety benefits. As a basis for this claim, Bruno cites a NHTSA
Research published in 1997.\1\ In this note, the agency stated that
between 1991 and 1995, 7,121 people were killed or injured due to the

following reasons: improper or no securement, lift malfunction,
transferring to or from a motor vehicle, falling on or off the ramp,
and a collision between the wheelchair and a motor vehicle.\2\
According to Bruno's petition, the TAS will help prevent 74% of those
injuries--which includes all injuries except those occurring when a
wheelchair is struck by a motor vehicle. This is because the TAS will
provide wheelchair users an easy and safe way to enter and exit these
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Wheelchair Users Injuries and Deaths Associated with Motor
Vehicle related Incidents, September 1997, available at http://
www.nhtsa.dot.gov.
    \2\ Id., Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bruno indicated that the TAS currently complies with FMVSS No. 202.
However, the clearance between the top of the head restraint and the
door opening can restrict the number of viable vehicle applications.
Bruno also stated that the increased head restraint height required by
the new FMVSS No. 202a will significantly reduce the number of
available vehicle applications.
    To facilitate the installation of the TAS on vehicles, Bruno
requested that the make inoperative exemptions of 49 CFR part 595 be
expanded and updated to cover both driver and passenger side head
restraints, for persons not in a wheelchair, to reflect the new FMVSS
No. 202a. Bruno suggested that the expanded exemptions it requires be
added to either or both of the current Part 595 exemptions addressing
head restraints.
    In requesting that the exemptions be updated to reflect the new
FMVSS No. 202a, Bruno requested that the make inoperative provisions
that provide exemptions to portions of FMVSS No. 202 be extended to
cover the equivalent portions of FMVSS No. 202a. Additionally, that
company requested that the exemptions in part 595 be expanded to cover
several aspects of FMVSS No. 202a that are not currently provided for
FMVSS No. 202. Specifically, Bruno requested more broadly that Part 595
be updated to include an exemption for 49 CFR 571.202a S4.2.1 through
S4.2.7. These paragraphs encompass requirements on minimum height,
width, backsets, gaps, energy absorption, height retention, backset
retention, displacement, and strength.
    Finally, Bruno noted an error where Sec.  595.7(c)(9) mistakenly
points to S4.3 of Standard No. 202, instead of S4.2. In the current
version of FMVSS No. 202, paragraph S4.3 contains documents
incorporated by reference, while paragraph S4.2 contains the
requirements for head restraints at issue.

II. Response to Petition

    NHTSA has decided to partially grant Bruno's petition.
Specifically, and as discussed below, we are proposing to extend the
height exemption in paragraph (c)(9) to cover the head restraints for
the right front passenger as well as the driver. Additionally, we are
proposing to update the exemption to cover the relevant portions of
FMVSS No. 202a addressing height and width, and to correct the
reference to paragraph S4.3 noted by Bruno. We are denying Bruno's
request to provide exemptions for portions of FMVSS No. 202a other than
ones addressing the height/width of head restraints. We are also
proposing to update the exemption in paragraph (c)(8) to cite FMVSS No.
202a.

a. Agency Analysis of the Benefits of the TAS and Similar Systems

    As stated above, Bruno made several arguments as to why the TAS
provides safety and other benefits for people with disabilities.
Therefore, it argues, it is in the public interest to expand the make
inoperative provision of part 595 to facilitate the installation of the
TAS in vehicles. The agency believes that these potential benefits
apply not only to the TAS, but to similar systems that allow people
with disabilities to enter and exit a vehicle in a similar fashion. In
particular, the agency generally agrees that the TAS, and similar
systems, provide benefits for people with disabilities, who may have
difficulty entering or exiting a motor vehicle. Among other things,
these systems permit people to enter and exit vehicles in a sitting
position, without the need to climb or descend the height differential
between the floor of the vehicle and the ground. In this fashion, they
provide benefits in allowing people with disabilities to retain their
mobility.
    While there may be some degradation in whiplash protection if the
minimum size requirements of Standard No. 202 and 202a are not adhered
to, it is our tentative conclusion that the benefits for people with
disabilities outweigh those potential drawbacks. Therefore, we are
proposing several amendments to part 595 to facilitate the installation
of these kinds of systems.

b. Response to Request for Changes to Part 595

i. Proposal To Expand the Current Head Restraint Exemption to Right
Front Passengers
    Section 595.7(c)(9) provides an exemption with regard to the height
and width of the head restraint, as stated in paragraphs S4.2(b)(1) and
(2) of FMVSS No. 202. This provision was established at the time of the
first make inoperative final rule because NHTSA was aware of drivers
who had a limited range of motion in turning their heads, and a head
restraint of the size required by FMVSS No. 202 could interfere with
the driver's ability to look behind for a lane change or backing.\3\ We
did not provide the exemption for passenger seating positions because
we wished to keep the exemptions as narrow as possible, and we were not
aware of any needs for changes to passengers' head restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the advent of new technology such as the TAS, head restraint
height becomes a problem for passenger seating positions as well, due
to the problem of clearance between the head restraint and door
opening. We believe the requested exemption is a reasonable trade-off
of some possible degradation in whiplash protection in exchange for
facilitating vehicle entry and exit, and the value of mobility for
people with disabilities. Therefore, we are proposing to expand the
exemption in Sec.  595.7(c)(9) regarding height to include right front
passengers.
    We note that, in its petition, Bruno stated that the ``remedy we
seek is an amended 49 CFR part 595 Exemption in Sec.  595.7(c)(8)(i),
(c)(8)(ii), and/or (c)(9) to accommodate both drivers and passengers,
not in a wheelchair, in a vehicle modified for persons with a
disability to drive or be transported'' [emphasis in original]. It
appears that Bruno was requesting that the agency modify part 595 to
accommodate the TAS either by amending the exemption in paragraph
(c)(8), or that in paragraph (c)(9). In order to achieve the maximum
safety benefit of the regulations, it is our desire to provide the
narrowest exemption possible in order to accommodate the needs of
disabled persons, without expanding its use to situations where the
benefits of the exemption may be outweighed by the drawbacks of
noncompliance with the safety standard.
    Currently, Sec.  595.7(c)(8) provides an exemption from the
entirety of FMVSS No. 202 for vehicles modified to accommodate either a
driver ((c)(8)(i)) or right front passenger ((c)(8)(ii)) in a vehicle
in which no respective seat is supplied with the vehicle. This
provision was written to allow for the situation in which the vehicle
was modified to use a wheelchair as a vehicle seat and no other seat
was provided. If there is no seat, there is no head restraint, and
therefore FMVSS No. 202 would have been made inoperative. By contrast,
Sec.  595.7(c)(9) provides, for driver head restraints, an exemption

from the minimum dimension requirements set forth in paragraph S4.3(b).
    Given the two alternatives of providing an exemption from the whole
standard, or just giving an exemption from the requirements relating to
the dimensions of the head restraint, we are not proposing modification
of Sec.  595.7(c)(8) in order to accommodate systems such as the TAS.
    Section 595.7(c)(9) grants a more narrow exemption with regard to
the size of the head restraint, as stated in paragraphs S4.2(b)(1) and
(2) of FMVSS No. 202. Since expansion of this more narrow exemption
would accommodate systems such as the TAS, we believe it is the more
appropriate approach to take.
ii. Proposal To Update the Exemptions To Reflect Standard No. 202a
1. Proposal To Update Paragraph (c)(8)
    Currently, Sec.  595.7(c)(8) contains an exemption for vehicles
where either the entire driver's seat or right front passenger's seat
is removed so that the position may be occupied by a person seated in a
wheelchair and no other seat is delivered with the vehicle. This
exemption currently provides an exemption from Standard No. 202 in its
entirety for those vehicles. For the reasons stated above, NHTSA is not
proposing that paragraph (c)(8) be expanded to include passengers other
than those whose only vehicle seat is a wheelchair. However, NHTSA is
proposing to update the exemption in paragraph (c)(8) to include an
exemption from Standard No. 202a as well. This will continue to allow
vehicles to be modified such that wheelchairs can be used in lieu of
other vehicle seats.
2. Proposal To Update the Paragraph (c)(9) Exemption To Include Head
Restraint Height and Width Requirements for Drivers and Minimum Height
Requirements for Right Front Passengers
    Section 595.7(c)(9) already contains a provision permitting an
exemption for the driver's head restraint from Standard No. 202
S4.2(b)(1) and (2), which set the minimum requirements for the height
and width of a head restraint, as stated above. The portions of
Standard No. 202a that correspond to S4.2(b)(1) and (2) of Standard No.
202 are paragraph S4.2.1(b) and S4.2.2, respectively. For reasons of
clarity, in the proposed changes to part 595, we are placing the
exemptions from the height requirements of FMVSS No. 202a in paragraph
(c)(9)(iii), and the exemption from the width requirement in FMVSS No.
202a in paragraph (c)(9)(iv). Therefore, for the regulatory text to
reflect the continuity of this exemption, we are proposing several
changes. The first, reflected in Sec.  595.7(c)(9)(iii), is to include
a reference to paragraph S4.2.1(b) of Standard No. 202a in Sec.
595.7(c)(9). Similarly, we are including a reference to S4.2.2 of
Standard No. 202a in Sec.  595.7(c)(9)(iv), to update the current
exemption for the driver's head restraint to include the updated FMVSS.
This will enable the current exemption to apply to Standard No. 202a in
addition to Standard No. 202.
    With regard to the passenger seating position, and in accordance
with the petition for rulemaking, NHTSA is proposing to expand the
exemption in Sec.  595(c)(9) to include an exemption from the minimum
height requirements of 49 CFR 571.202a, S4.2.1(b), for the right front
passenger position. As stated above with regard to the proposed
expansion of Part 595 to the right front passenger head restraint
requirements of FMVSS No. 202, we believe that this will facilitate the
use of motor vehicles by persons with disabilities. As this relates to
the minimum height requirement, this exemption will also be included in
Sec.  595.7(c)(9)(iii). Therefore, we are proposing to add regulatory
text to Sec.  595.7(c)(9), which reads:
     For vehicles manufactured on and after March 14, 2005 and
certified to FMVSS No. 202a, S4.2.1(b) of 49 CFR 571.202a, in any case
in which the head restraint must be modified to accommodate a driver or
a front outboard passenger with a disability.
     For vehicles manufactured on and after March 14, 2005 and
certified to FMVSS No. 202a, S4.2.2 of 49 CFR 571.202a, in any case in
which the head restraint must be modified to accommodate a driver with
a disability.
3. Reasons for Denying Bruno's Petition To Expand the Exemption for
Vehicle Passenger Positions To Include Paragraphs S4.2.1(a) and S4.2.2
Through S4.2.7
    In its petition, Bruno requested that the exemption in 59 CFR 595.7
be expanded to include an exemption for paragraphs S4.2.1 through
S4.2.7 of FMVSS No. 202a for all vehicle passenger positions. NHTSA,
however, is proposing to limit the scope of the exemption to paragraph
S4.2.1(b) (minimum height requirement). The other requirements listed
in the paragraphs referenced by Bruno include:
     A requirement that the front head restraints be able to
attain a height of at least 800 mm in at least one position of
adjustment (see paragraph S4.2.1(a)).
     Width requirements similar to those listed in the current
version of FMVSS No. 202 (see paragraph S4.2.2).
     New requirements limiting the distance between the back of
the occupant's head and the head restraint on front head restraints
(see paragraph S4.2.3).
     Limits on the size of gaps and openings in front
restraints (see paragraph S4.2.4).
     New energy absorption criteria (see paragraph S4.2.5).
     New height retention criteria (see paragraph S4.2.6).
     Certain height, strength, position retention, and energy
absorption levels for voluntarily installed rear head restraints (see
paragraph S4.2.7).
    Bruno's petition described the potential problems if the TAS must
adhere to all provisions of Standard No. 202a. Essentially, the problem
was that the head restraint, attached to the TAS, would be too large,
when installed in some vehicles, to clear the door frame on its path to
provide an easy-to-access seat for a mobility-impaired driver or
passenger.
    Our reason for denying the petition for an exemption for the
requirements in Standard No. 202a, other than S4.2.1(b), is that Bruno
has not provided a rationale for expanding the exemption to cover those
areas of Standard No. 202a. Furthermore, most of these requirements are
not dimensional in nature, and should not affect the ability of systems
such as the TAS to enter and exit the vehicle. While the requirement in
paragraph S4.2.1(a) is dimensional, it is a requirement that the head
restraint be able to reach a certain height in only one position of
adjustment. Therefore, because the head restraint can be lowered from
that height, it should not interfere with the ability of the TAS to
enter or exit the vehicle. We also note that the requirement in S4.2.2
is dimensional, and is discussed below.
    As Bruno stated in its petition:

    [S]ince the entire seat rotates and exits the vehicle while
assisting the occupant's access, clearance between the top of the
head restraint and the door opening can restrict the number of
viable vehicle applications. In first row applications, the
rearward-slanted A-pillar is often the controlling feature for seat
head restraint clearance with a large radius joining the top of the
door opening. The increased head restraint height of FMVSS 202a will
significantly reduce the number of vehicle applications where people
with disabilities will have safe vehicle access with a Bruno TAS
seat. [emphasis added]

    Based on this statement, NHTSA understands the need for an
exemption

for the head restraint height requirement in FMVSS No. 202a, S4.2.1(b).
However, Bruno did not provide reasons that the other requirements of
FMVSS No. 202a (i.e., those listed in paragraphs S4.2.1(a) and S4.2.2
through S4.2.7) would impede installation of the TAS. Therefore, in
keeping with our desire to keep the exemptions as narrow as possible,
we are not proposing to provide exemptions for these other
requirements.
    NHTSA notes that Bruno did not provide a rationale for why an
exemption for the width requirement is needed for the passenger seat.
However, because the A-pillar slopes forward as it heads toward the
roof of the vehicle, it is possible that the width of the head
restraint (as required by paragraph S4.2.2) may also cause the A-pillar
to interfere with the TAS as it attempts to exit and enter the vehicle.
Therefore, we request comment on whether an exemption from S4.2.2 of
FMVSS No. 202a for the front outboard passenger seat should also be
included in the final rule. Additionally, we request comments on
whether any of the additional exemptions requested by Bruno may be
relevant to facilitate mobility for persons with disabilities.
iii. Correcting Reference to Paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 202
    As discussed above, paragraph (c)(9) of 49 CFR part 595 contains a
make inoperative exemption for FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints. The
current exemption was added as part of the original rulemaking creating
part 595 on February 27, 2001.\4\ This exemption currently reads:
``S4.3(b)(1) and (2) of 49 CFR 571.202, in any case in which the
driver's head restraint must be modified to accommodate a driver with a
disability.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ It should be noted that in the original rulemaking
establishing Part 595, the exemption erroneously referred to
paragraphs S3(b)(1) and S3(b)(2) of FMVSS No. 202, which do not
exist. This was changed to S4.3(b)(1) and S4.3(b)(2) in a correction
notice issued April 20, 2004 (69 FR 21069).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The sections of FMVSS No. 202 (the version in place in 2001 when
the make inoperative exemptions were put into place) to which the above
section refers read: ``S4.3(b) It shall, when adjusted to its fully
extended design position, conform to each of the following: (1) When
measured parallel to torso line, the top of the head restraint shall
not be less than 700 mm above the seating reference point; (2) When
measured either 64 mm below the top of the head restraint or 635 mm
above the seating reference point, the lateral width of the head
restraint shall not be less than i. 254 mm for use with bench-type
seats; and ii. 171 mm for use with individual seats;''
    Since the make inoperative exemption for FMVSS No. 202 was first
put in place, NHTSA has changed and upgraded FMVSS No. 202. There are
two parts to this change. First, on December 14, 2004, NHTSA published
FMVSS No. 202a (69 FR 74883), which is an updated version of FMVSS No.
202 and subject to a phase-in, becomes mandatory beginning on September
1, 2009. Manufacturers also have the option to comply with FMVSS No.
202 or FMVSS No. 202a during an interim period. Second, the current
version of FMVSS No. 202 (which, at the manufacturer's option, is
applicable to vehicles manufactured during this interim period) has
been updated to allow manufacturers to comply with either the existing
version of FMVSS No. 202, ECE 17, or FMVSS No. 202a. The December 14,
2004 final rule also changed the paragraph numbering of FMVSS No. 202.
The requirements that were formerly given in S4.3 are now located in
S4.2. Because of these changes, it is necessary to update the make
inoperative exemption to be consistent with the numbering in the
current FMVSS No. 202. Therefore, NHTSA is proposing to correct Sec.
595.7(c)(9) to account for this change.
    As Sec.  595 may be applied to vehicles certified under different
versions of Standard No. 202 (depending on the vehicle's date of
manufacture), NHTSA is proposing an amendment to split this part of the
exemption into two parts. The proposed regulatory text for the portion
of 49 CFR 595.7(c)(9) at issue is:
     For vehicles manufactured before March 14, 2005,
S4.3(b)(1) and (2) of 49 CFR 571.202, in any case in which the driver's
head restraint must be modified to accommodate a driver with a
disability.
     For vehicles manufactured on or after March 14, 2005 and
certified to FMVSS No. 202, S4.2(b)(1) and (2) of 49 CFR 571.202, in
any case in which the head restraint must be modified to accommodate a
driver with a disability.
    This text will have the same effect as the text in 595.7(c)(9) does
currently. However, it will help to alleviate the confusion currently
caused by the fact that the text references only paragraph S4.3, which
now lists items incorporated by reference in the current version of the
CFR. For vehicles manufactured before March 14, 2005, the reference
will continue to point to S4.3, the proper paragraph of the CFR as it
existed at the time the vehicle was certified. For vehicles
manufactured after that date, the reference will point to paragraph
S4.2, which is the correct citation of the CFR as it existed when those
vehicles were certified.

III. Proposed Effective Date

    Because this proposal would remove a restriction on the
modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities, NHTSA
anticipates making this amendment effective 30 days after the
publication of a final rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
U.S.C. 553(d).

IV. Rulemaking Analysis

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies
and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review.'' NHTSA has analyzed this proposal and determined that it is
not considered to be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
NHTSA has also determined that the effects are so minor that a separate
regulatory evaluation is not needed to support the subject rulemaking.
For this particular proposal, no costs will be imposed by the agency's
actions. The cost of doing business for the vehicle modification
industry will not be changed by the subject proposal, and if anything,
there could be a cost savings due to the proposed exemptions.
    Modifying a vehicle in a way that degrades the performance of head
restraints could produce some negative safety effects for the occupants
of the vehicle. However, the number of vehicles potentially modified
would be very few in number, and the agency believes any disbenefits
would be minimal. This is essentially the trade-off that NHTSA is faced
with when increasing mobility for persons with disabilities--when
necessary vehicle modifications are made, some safety may unavoidably
be lost to gain personal mobility.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small

entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions). 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 proposed rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Most dealerships and repair businesses are
considered small entities, and a substantial number of these businesses
modify vehicles to accommodate individuals with disabilities. I certify
that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. While most dealers and repair
businesses would be considered small entities, the proposed exemption
would not impose any new requirements, but would instead provide
additional flexibility. Therefore, a Preliminary Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is not required.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's NPRM 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 rule does not have federalism implications because the rule does
not have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.''
    As this proposal is only to provide an exemption from a Federal
requirement, we do not foresee that it will have any preemptive effect
on State laws. We are unaware of any State law that would prohibit the
actions permitted by this rule under Federal law.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    When promulgating a regulation, Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that the agency must make every reasonable effort to ensure
that the regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language
the preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed,
circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard,
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in
clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether
administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file
suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7)
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship of regulations.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this rule 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.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' 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 (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. No voluntary standards exist regarding
this proposed exemption for modification of vehicles to accommodate
persons with disabilities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This proposed
exemption would not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of
$100 million annually.

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 would not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.

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
proposal does not contain any new reporting requirements or requests
for information.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

V. Proposed Regulatory Text

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 595

    Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

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

PART 595--MAKE INOPERATIVE EXEMPTIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 595 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30122 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Amend Sec.  595.7 by revising paragraphs (c)(8) and (c)(9) to
read as follows:

Sec.  595.7  Requirements for vehicle modifications to accommodate
people with disabilities.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (8) 49 CFR 571.202 and 571.202a, in any case in which:
    (i) A motor vehicle is modified to be operated by a driver seated
in a wheelchair and no other seat is supplied with the vehicle for the
driver;
    (ii) A motor vehicle is modified to transport a right front
passenger seated in a wheelchair and no other right front passenger
seat is supplied with the vehicle; or (9) (i) For vehicles manufactured
before March 14, 2005, S4.3(b)(1) and (2) of 49 CFR 571.202, in any
case in which the driver's head restraint must be modified to
accommodate a driver with a disability.
    (ii) For vehicles manufactured on or after March 14, 2005 and
certified to FMVSS No. 202, S4.2(b)(1) and (2) of 49 CFR 571.202, in
any case in which the head restraint must be modified to accommodate a
driver with a disability.
    (iii) For vehicles manufactured on and after March 14, 2005 and
certified to FMVSS No. 202a, S4.2.1(b) of 49 CFR 571.202a, in any case
in which the head restraint must be modified to accommodate a driver or
a front outboard passenger with a disability.
    (iv) For vehicles manufactured on and after March 14, 2005 and
certified to FMVSS No. 202a, S4.2.2 of 49 CFR 571.202a, in any case in
which the head restraint must be modified to accommodate a driver with
a disability.
* * * * *

    Issued: December 10, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-29889 Filed 12-17-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register: March 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 57)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13086-13089]
[DOCID:fr26mr09-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0521; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-040-AD;
Amendment 39-15854; AD 2009-06-17]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Following in-flight test deployments, several Air-Driven
generators (ADGs) failed to come on-line. Investigation revealed
that, as a result of a wiring anomaly that had not been detected
during ADG manufacture, a short circuit was possible between certain
internal wires and their metallic over-braided shields, which could
result in the ADG not providing power when deployed. * * *

The unsafe condition is that failure of the ADG could lead to loss of
several functions essential for safe flight. We are issuing this AD to
require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 30, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 30,
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe & Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 was published in the Federal Register on May 7, 2008 (73 FR
25612). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Following in-flight test deployments, several Air-Driven
generators (ADGs) failed to come on-line. Investigation revealed
that, as a result of a wiring anomaly that had not been detected
during ADG manufacture, a short circuit was possible between certain
internal wires and their metallic over-braided shields, which could
result in the ADG not providing power when deployed. This

directive mandates checking of the ADG and modification of the ADG
internal wiring, if required. It also prohibits future installation
of unmodified ADGs.

The unsafe condition is that failure of the ADG could lead to loss of
several functions essential for safe flight. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Extend Compliance Time for Inspecting the Identification
Plate

    Comair requests that we change the compliance time specified in
paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of the NPRM to remove the ``before further
flight'' phrase. Comair states that it has already reviewed its
maintenance records and found that affected ADGs are installed on its
fleet. Since the review was performed before the effective date of the
AD, it is not clear when Comair would be required to inspect the ADG
identification plate. Comair suggests a compliance time of 12 months
after the effective date of the AD.
    We agree to change the compliance time. The intent of the AD is to
inspect and modify the ADG wiring within 12 months after the effective
date of the AD. We have revised the compliance time of paragraph
(f)(1)(ii) of this AD accordingly.

Request To Shorten Compliance Time and Restrict Dispatch Conditions

    Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), requests that
the compliance time be shortened from 12 months to 3 months. ALPA
states that although its review did not reveal any incidents of full
electrical failures in Bombardier airplanes, the ADG is the only
remaining source of electrical power sustaining the batteries and
flight critical electrical systems if all other generators fail or are
unavailable. In addition, ALPA states there are procedures for
deferring an engine-driven or APU generator under certain
circumstances, but the ADG is a non-deferrable item. ALPA recommends
that, given the potential consequences of a full electrical system
failure, particularly in low visibility weather conditions in which
these airplanes routinely operate, we shorten the compliance time to 3
months. ALPA also recommends that no flights be allowed with a non-
operating engine-driven or APU generator unless this AD has been
complied with.
    We do not agree to shorten the compliance time. We have considered
the risks (probability of dual engine shutdown due to a common cause
and total loss of electrical power, including the emergency battery
power) and have determined that a 12-month compliance time is
appropriate. The issue of not allowing flights to be dispatched without
an operational engine-driven or APU generator would be better addressed
in the applicable Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL). We are
considering a revision to the MMEL for that issue. No change to the AD
was made in this regard.

Request To Revise Applicability

    Air Wisconsin Airlines requests that the applicability section of
the AD be revised to apply to the part and serial numbers of the ADG
instead of the serial numbers of the airplanes. Air Wisconsin points
out that the ADG is a rotable, serialized component which can be
installed on any applicable airplane.
    We do not agree to revise the applicability. The serial number
range for the airplane addresses airplanes on which the ADG was
delivered and airplanes on which the ADG could be installed. Paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD addresses airplanes that were delivered with ADGs
installed, while paragraph (f)(2) of this AD addresses airplanes that
ADGs could be installed on. We have not revised the AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Installation Criteria for Identification Plate

    Air Wisconsin requests that we revise a phrase in paragraph (f)(2)
of this AD from ``* * * no ADG * * * may be installed * * * unless the
identification plate of the ADG is identified with the symbol `24-2' ''
to ``* * * no ADG * * * may be installed * * * unless the ADG has been
modified in accordance with [Bombardier] SB 601R-24-113.'' Air
Wisconsin considers that what is important is not that the data plate
has been marked ``24-2'', but that the modification in the service
bulletin is done. Part 121 operators have approved methods for showing
compliance with ADs.
    We do not agree to revise the phrase in paragraph (f)(2) of this
AD. Not all affected ADGs are installed on airplanes operated by Part
121 operators. Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-113, Revision A,
dated August 11, 2005, refers to Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin
ERPS10AG-24-2, dated February 19, 2004, as a source of information for
accomplishing the Bombardier service bulletin. The Hamilton Sundstrand
service bulletin specifies that ADGs modified in accordance with that
service bulletin should have ``24-2'' marked on the identification
plates. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Clarification

    We have revised paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii)(A) of this AD
from ``* * * by this AD.'' to ``* * * by this paragraph.'' to clarify
that if the criteria in those paragraphs are met, no further actions
are required by those paragraphs. The requirements of paragraph (f)(2)
of this AD would still be in effect.
    We have removed reference to Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin
ERPS10AG-24-2, dated February 19, 2004, from paragraph (f)(2) of this
AD. Instead, we have added Note 1 of this AD to include this
information.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a Note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 686 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 5 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product.
Where the service information lists required parts costs that are
covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge
for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators
to be $274,400 or $400 per product.

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

    We 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 this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; 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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 AD:

2009-06-17 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Amendment 39-15854.
Docket No. FAA-2008-0521; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-040-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April
30, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes; certificated in any category;
having serial numbers (SNs) 7305 through 7990, and 8000 and
subsequent.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24:
Electrical Power.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    Following in-flight test deployments, several Air-Driven
generators (ADGs) failed to come on-line. Investigation revealed
that, as a result of a wiring anomaly that had not been detected
during ADG manufacture, a short circuit was possible between certain
internal wires and their metallic over-braided shields, which could
result in the ADG not providing power when deployed. This directive
mandates checking of the ADG and modification of the ADG internal
wiring, if required. It also prohibits future installation of
unmodified ADGs.

The unsafe condition is that failure of the ADG could lead to loss
of several functions essential for safe flight.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) For airplanes having serial number (SN) 7305 through 7990
and 8000 through 8083: Within 12 months after the effective date of
this AD, inspect the SN of the installed ADG. A review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the
serial number of the ADG can be conclusively determined from that
review.
    (i) If the serial number is not listed in paragraph 1.A of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-113, Revision A, dated August
11, 2005, no further action is required by this paragraph.
    (ii) If the serial number is listed in paragraph 1.A of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-113, Revision A, dated August
11, 2005, within 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
inspect the ADG identification plate and, as applicable, do the
actions of paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(A) or (f)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD.
    (A) If the identification plate is marked with the symbol ``24-
2,'' no further action is required by this paragraph.
    (B) If the identification plate is not marked with the symbol
``24-2,'' modify the ADG wiring in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-
113, Revision A, dated August 11, 2005.
    (2) For airplanes having SN 7305 through 7990, and 8000 and
subsequent: As of the effective date of this AD, no ADG as described
in Table 1 of this AD may be installed on any airplane, unless the
identification plate of the ADG is identified with the symbol ``24-
2.''

    Note 1: Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-113, Revision A,
dated August 11, 2005, refers to Hamilton Sundstrand Service
Bulletin ERPS10AG-24-2, dated February 19, 2004, for further
information on identifying the symbol ``24-2.''

                       Table 1--ADG Identification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      ADG part number--                Having ADG serial number--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-90800-1 (761339C), 604-    0101 through 0132, 0134 through 0167,
 90800-17 (761339D), or 604-    0169 through 0358, 0360 through 0438,
 90800-19 (761339E).            0440 through 0456, 0458 through 0467,
                                0469, 0471 through 0590, 0592 through
                                0597, 0599 through 0745, 0747 through
                                1005, or 1400 through 1439.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Actions done before the effective date of this AD according
to Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-113, dated April 22, 2004,
are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
actions specified in this AD, provided the ADG has not been replaced
since those actions were done.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe & Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York
Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (516) 794-
5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the
AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in
the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI,
your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-09,
dated February 5, 2008; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-113,
Revision A, dated August 11, 2005; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-24-113,
Revision A, dated August 11, 2005, to do the actions required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qubec H4S
1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 6, 2009.
Linda Navarro,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-6221 Filed 3-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33847-33848]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13246]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0172]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Foreign Clinical
Studies Not Conducted Under an Investigational New Drug Application

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 July 5,
2013.

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 emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0622.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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.

Foreign Clinical Studies Not Conducted Under an Investigational New
Drug Application--(OMB Control Number 0910-0622)--Reinstatement

    Under Sec.  312.120 (21 CFR 312.120), FDA accepts foreign clinical
studies not conducted under an investigational new drug application
(IND) as support for an IND or application for marketing approval for a
drug or biological product if the studies are conducted in accordance
with good clinical practices (GCP), including review and approval by an
independent ethics committee (IEC).
    Under Sec.  312.120(a), FDA accepts as support for an IND or
application for marketing approval a well-designed and well-conducted
foreign clinical study not conducted under an IND if the study is
conducted in accordance with GCP, and we are able to validate the data
from the study through an onsite inspection if necessary. GCP includes
review and

approval by an IEC before initiating a study, continuing review of an
ongoing study by an IEC, and obtaining and documenting the freely given
informed consent of the subject before initiating a study. Under Sec.
312.120(b), a sponsor of a non-IND foreign study who wants to rely on
that study as support for an IND or application for marketing approval
must provide the following information to FDA: (1) The investigator's
qualifications; (2) a description of the research facilities; (3) a
detailed summary of the protocol and results of the study and, should
FDA request, case records maintained by the investigator or additional
background data such as hospital or other institutional records; (4) a
description of the drug substance and drug product used in the study,
including a description of the components, formulation, specifications,
and, if available, bioavailability of the specific drug product used in
the clinical study; (5) if the study is intended to support the
effectiveness of a drug product, information showing that the study is
adequate and well controlled under Sec.  314.126; (6) the name and
address of the IEC that reviewed the study and a statement that the IEC
meets the definition in Sec.  312.3; (7) a summary of the IEC's
decision to approve or modify and approve the study, or to provide a
favorable opinion; (8) a description of how informed consent was
obtained; (9) a description of what incentives, if any, were provided
to subjects to participate in the study; (10) a description of how the
sponsor(s) monitored the study and ensured that the study was carried
out consistently with the study protocol; and (11) a description of how
investigators were trained to comply with GCP and to conduct the study
in accordance with the study protocol, and a statement on whether
written commitments by investigators to comply with GCP and the
protocol were obtained.
    Section 312.120(c) specifies how sponsors or applicants can request
a waiver for any of the requirements under Sec.  312.120(a)(1) and (b).
Under Sec.  312.120(c)(1), a waiver request must contain at least one
of the following: (1) An explanation why the sponsor's or applicant's
compliance with the requirement is unnecessary or cannot be achieved,
(2) a description of an alternative submission or course of action that
satisfies the purpose of the requirement, or (3) other information
justifying a waiver. A waiver request may be submitted in an IND or in
an information amendment to an IND, or in an application or in an
amendment or supplement to an application submitted under 21 CFR part
314 or 601. Section 312.10 sets forth requirements for sponsors who
request waivers from FDA for compliance with any of the provisions in
part 312, and Sec.  314.90 sets forth requirements for applicants who
request waivers from FDA for compliance with Sec. Sec.  314.50 through
314.81.
    FDA has approval for the submission of these waiver requests under
OMB control numbers 0910-0014 for part 312 and 0910-0001 for part 314.
In addition to the reporting requirements set forth in table 1 of this
document, there is also a recordkeeping provision in Sec.  312.120(d)
stating how long sponsors and applicants must retain records required
by Sec.  312.120. In addition, Sec.  312.120(b) states that any signed
written commitments by investigators must be maintained by the sponsor
or applicant and made available for Agency review upon request, and
also specifies sponsor recordkeeping of IEC-related information. Under
Sec.  312.120(d), if a study is submitted in support of an application
for marketing approval, records must be retained for 2 years after an
Agency decision on that application; if a study is submitted in support
of an IND but not an application for marketing approval, records must
be retained for 2 years after the submission of the IND. The retention
requirements in Sec.  312.57(c) for records and reports required under
part 312 apply to these provisions, and are approved under OMB control
number 0910-0014.
    We estimate that 237 companies will submit a total of approximately
1,185 non-IND foreign clinical studies in support of an IND or
application for marketing approval for a drug or biological product.
Hour burden estimates vary due to differences in size, complexity, and
duration across studies, and we estimate that complying with Sec.
312.120 would take sponsors between 18 and 32 hours annually for each
non-IND foreign clinical trial, totaling 37,920 hours (32 x 1,185).
    In the Federal Register of February 26, 2013 (78 FR 13067), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received that pertained to
the collection of information.
    FDA estimates the burden for this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                           21 CFR Section                               Number of      responses per     Total annual    Average burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses       per response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
312.120............................................................             237                5            1,185               32           37,920
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: May 30, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-13246 Filed 6-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


PC Code: 009001 DP Code: D283648 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 17, 2002 SUBJECT: Qualitative Assessment of Long range Transport and Atmospheric Deposition of Lindane to Great Lakes TO: Betty Shackleford, Branch Chief M. Howard, Team Leader Reregistration Branch III Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C)

FROM: Faruque A. Khan, Ph. D., Environmental Scientist Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

THROUGH: Mah T. Shamim, Ph. D., Chief Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

This memo presents the qualitative assessment of long range transport and atmospheric deposition of lindane to the Great Lakes. The following qualitative assessment is based on current literature available at the present time.

ASSESSMENT: LINDANE IN THE GREAT LAKES The ubiquitous presence of lindane in atmosphere, natural water bodies, soils, and sediments of the Great Lakes regions implies redeposition of lindane from secondary emissions and long range transport of lindane from agricultural and industrial sites. There is very limited information available to link lindane loading from global, regional, or local sources to Great Lakes. Strachan (1985) estimated 290 kg/ yr of lindane and 860 kg/ yr of   HCH loading from precipitation to Lake Superior. Since 1983, Environment Canada is measuring the deposit of toxic contaminants from the atmosphere to the Canadian side of the Great Lakes basin. Williams et al. (1998) reported that the deposition of lindane from precipitation has not changed since 1990. They also observed a seasonal pattern of increased lindane concentrations during spring and summer, which suggests that agricultural activities during that time may have been causing 2 temporal increases of lindane concentration. Reported concentrations of water samples from the channels of Great Lakes are very similar throughout the Great Lakes suggest that the atmosphere is the predominant source of lindane. Elevated concentrations in Lake Erie suggest that regional source may have been contributing as well.

There are increasing national and international efforts to assess the atmospheric transport and deposition of toxic substances to the Great Lakes. The Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN) was established in 1990 by the United States and Canada for conducting air and precipitation monitoring in the Great Lakes Basin to determine the magnitude and trends of atmospheric loadings of toxic contaminants. IADN maintains monitoring stations on each of the Great Lakes to monitor atmospheric deposition of selected pollutants. IADN incorporates wet deposition, dry deposition, and net gas exchange atmospheric deposition processes into its loading estimates. The temporal regional flows for both   HCH and lindane (    HCH) are presented in Figure 1, which shows that   HCH significantly decreased across the Great Lakes basin and has a net volatilization for the first time in 1998. In contrast, the flows for lindane remain relatively stable since their decrease in 1995 due to restricted use of lindane and the ban of   HCH, which also contain 10  18% of   HCH isomer (USEPA, 1998).

Figure 1. Total flows of   HCH and   HCH over all Great Lakes (Sources: www. epa. gov/ glnpo/ iadn/ resources 1998)

Considerable progress has been made in monitoring and assessing the loading of lindane and many other toxic contaminants for the Great Lakes regions. The importance of long range transport and atmospheric deposition of toxic contaminants into the Great Lakes and their effects on the chronic exposer of human, terrestrial, and aquatic organisms are only the beginning to be understood. Therefore, continuing long term monitoring programs and the evaluation of pertinent 3 data will help the scientists and regulatory authorities to develop preventive measures in reducing or eliminating the toxic contaminants to Great Lakes.

References:

Strachan, W. M. J. 1985. Organic substances in the rainfall of Lake Superior: 1983. J. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 4: 677 683.

U. S. EPA, 1998. Atmospheric deposion of toxic substances to the Great Lakes: IADN Results through 1998. Environment Canada and the United States Environmental Protection Agency www. epa. gov/ glnpo/ iadn/).

Williams, D. J., K. W. Kuntz, S. L'ltalien, and V. Recardson. 1998. Lake Ontario surveillance program: spatial and temporal trends of selected parameters with emphasis on 1992 93 results. Environment Canada, Ecosystem Health Division Report 98 01/ I.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19469-19471]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0127; Airspace Docket No. 18-AAL-7]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Gustavus, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Gustavus Airport, Gustavus,
AK. Airspace redesign is necessary as the FAA transitions from ground-
based to satellite-based navigation for the safety and management of
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 18, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1
(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2018-0127; Airspace Docket No. 18-AAL-7, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200
S 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class E airspace at Gustavus Airport, Gustavus, AK,
to accommodate airspace redesign in support of IFR operations at the
airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2018-0127; Airspace Docket No. 18-AAL-7) and be submitted in triplicate
to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone
number).
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2018-0127; Airspace Docket No. 18-AAL-7.'' The postcard will be
date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed
in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, at the
Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation
Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center,
Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective
September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Gustavus Airport, Gustavus,
AK. The airspace would be redesigned to a polygon approximately 12
miles wide extending to approximately 7 miles northwest and 31 miles
southeast of the airport (from 4 miles each side of the 229[deg]
bearing of the airport extending from the 6.8-mile radius to 16.7 miles
southwest of the airport, and within 3 miles northeast and 7 miles
southwest of the airport 135[deg] bearing extending from the 6.8-mile
radius to 24 miles southeast of the airport). This airspace redesign is
necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the
airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B,

Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Gustavus, AK [Amended]

Gustavus Airport, AK
    (Lat. 58[deg]25'31'' N, long. 135[deg]42'27'' W)

    That airspace upward from 700 feet above the surface within the
area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 58[deg]32'19'' N, long.
135[deg]44'54'' W, to lat. 58[deg]11'58'' N, long. 135[deg]02'11''
W, to lat. 58[deg]10'08'' N, long. 135[deg]05'18'' W, to lat.
58[deg]03'38'' N, long. 134[deg]57'10'' W, to lat. 57[deg]59'34'' N,
long. 135[deg]10'49'' W, to lat. 57[deg]59'40'' N, long.
135[deg]25'05'' W, to lat. 58[deg]08'36'' N, long. 135[deg]26'55''
W, to lat. 58[deg]25'37'' N, long. 136[deg]00'20'' W, thence to the
point of beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 23, 2018.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-09103 Filed 5-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 79)]
[Notices]
[Page 20544]
[DOCID:fr25ap07-78]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0255; FRL-8122-9]

Issuance of an Experimental Use Permit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has granted an experimental use permit (EUP) to the
following pesticide applicant. An EUP permits use of a pesticide for
experimental or research purposes only in accordance with the
limitations in the permit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Greenway, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or
sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
If you have any questions regarding the information in this action,
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0255. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard

copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S.
Crystal Drive Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket
Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. EUP

    EPA has issued the following EUP:
    73049-EUP-3. Issuance. Valent BioSciences Corporation, 870
Technology Way, Libertyville, IL 60048. This EUP allows the use of a
total of 15,873 pounds of the plant regulator S-Abscisic acid over a
three-year period on 240 acres of ornamental plants to evaluate the
experimental product's effectiveness to delay wilting by reducing
transpiration in the treated ornamental plants. The program is
authorized only in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas,
Washington, and Wisconsin. The EUP is effective from February 28, 2007
to March 1, 2010.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136c.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.

    Dated: April 16, 2007.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-7888 Filed 4-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S