Comment Info: =================

General Comment:We share FDA?s concern about the public health impact caused by drug shortages and strive to meet our corporate mission of serving every patient, every time.  We fully support efforts to develop effective means to address the causes of these shortages and to minimize their impact and duration when they do occur.  For example, we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the past several years to minimize the risk of shortages of our drug products.  These actions include: 1) continued emphasis on GMP compliance; 2) Investments in new technology to optimize our control over processes and to minimize the possibility of contamination and cross-contamination; 3) maintenance  of inventory levels commensurate with the risk of market demand fluctuation and potential natural disasters,  and 4) ensuring redundant manufacturing capability for our products.

Having patients and their families worry about the availability of appropriate drugs to treat life threatening conditions is an unnecessary and avoidable burden in addition to the anxiety caused by the medical condition itself.

Amgen supports FDA?s efforts to require advance notification of situations and events that may result in drug shortages, of innovative and generic drugs alike.  Advance notification has clearly allowed FDA to work with all stakeholders and exercise regulatory flexibility to prevent and minimize the impact of drug shortages.  We also support FDA?s proposal to review NDA/BLA supplements, and conduct pre-approval inspections where necessary, on an expedited basis.  We applaud FDA?s efforts to strongly encourage advance notification for biological products, including recombinant therapeutic drugs and monoclonal antibodies, because these innovator and biosimilar products include many life-saving and life- sustaining products.

(To read more, please see attached letter)


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10619-10621]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04015]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0291]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
21 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective March 2, 2014. Comments must be
received on or before March 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2009-
0291], using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the

name of the individual submitting the comment (or of the person signing
the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal
Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 21 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 21 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Cris D. Bush (TN)
Billy C. Chenault (NM)
Eugene Contreras (NM)
Jim L. Davis (NM)
David E. Evans (NC)
Randy M. Garcia (NM)
Jason L. Hoovan (UT)
Amos W. Hulsey (AL)
Curtis M. Lawless (VA)
James M. McCormick (ID)
Millard F. Neace II (WV)
William E. Norris (NC)
Frank L. Ortolani (OH)
Paul D. Prillaman (VA)
Scott A. Randol (MO)
Miguel A. Sanchez (NM)
James E. Vickery (KY)
Norman J. Watson (NC)
Lewis H. West, Jr. (MA)
Billy R. Wilkey (TX)
Reginald J. Wuethrich (IL)

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 21 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (74 FR 65842; 75 FR 9482; 77 FR 10604). Each of these 21
applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted
evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet
the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
requirements.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by March 27, 2014.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 21 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket numbers FMCSA-2009-0291 and click
the search button. When the new screen appears,

click on the blue ``Comment Now!'' button on the right hand side of the
page. On the new page, enter information required including the
specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and
provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. If you submit
your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound
format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to
know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of
the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number
FMCSA-2009-0291 and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket
Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments related to the
proposed rulemaking.

    Issued on: February 12, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-04015 Filed 2-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: October 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 194)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57449-57458]
[DOCID:fr09oc07-17]

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

Part IV

Department of Transportation

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

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

49 CFR Part 571

 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Brake Hoses; Final Rule and
Proposed Rule

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2007-29349]
RIN 2127-AK01

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Brake Hoses

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

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendments; response to petitions.

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

SUMMARY: This document, together with a companion notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) published in today's edition of the Federal Register,
responds to petitions for reconsideration of a December 2004 final rule
that updated the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on brake hoses,
and to a related petition for rulemaking. In that rule, we incorporated
updated versions of substantive specifications of several Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practices relating to hydraulic
brake hoses, vacuum brake hoses, air brake hoses, plastic air brake
tubing, and end fittings.
    In this document, we deny several of the petitions and explain why.
We also correct typographical errors in, and inadvertent omissions
from, the December 20, 2004 final rule.
    In the companion NPRM, we respond to additional issues raised in
the petitions, and propose a number of amendments to the brake hose
rule in response to the petitions.

DATES: Effective date: This final rule becomes effective December 21,
2007.
    Compliance date: Optional early compliance is permitted as of
October 9, 2007.
    Comments: Any petitions for reconsideration of today's final rule
must be received by NHTSA not later than November 23, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number for this action and be submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, with a copy to DOT Docket Operations, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Please see the Privacy Act heading under
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, Mr. Jeff Woods,
Vehicle Dynamics Division, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards
(Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    For legal issues, Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief Counsel
(Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    You may send mail to both of these officials at: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Final Rule of December 20, 2004
III. Petitions
IV. Issues Raised by Petitioners and NHTSA's Responses
    A. Hydraulic Brake Hoses
    1. Expansion and Burst Strength (Volumetric Expansion) Test
    B. Plastic Air Brake Tubing
    1. General
    2. Specifying Plastic v. Nylon
    3. Resistance to Battery Acid
    4. High Temperature Burst Strength Test
    5. High Temperature Conditioning, Low Temperature Impact
Resistance Test
    6. Adhesion Test
    7. Long Term High Temperature Conditioning and Moisture
Absorption Test
V. Listing and Description of Corrections
VI. Statutory Bases for the Final Rule
VII. Effective Date
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Final Rule Regulatory Text

I. Background

    On October 30, 1998, a joint petition for rulemaking was filed by
Elf Atochem North America, Inc., Mark IV Industrial/Dayco Eastman, and
Parker Hannifin Corporation, three brake hose manufacturers. The
petitioners petitioned for certain requirements relating to brake
hoses, brake hose tubing, and brake hose end fittings administered by
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to be
incorporated into the brake hose standard that is currently
administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(``NHTSA'' or the ``agency''). Specifically, the petitioners sought
incorporation of the requirements in section 393.45 (Brake tubing and
hose, adequacy) and section 393.46 (Brake tubing and hose connections)
of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) into section
571.106 (Brake hoses) of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards
(``FMVSS''). The petition requested that the application of these SAE
specifications be limited to hose, tubing, and fittings used on trucks,
truck-trailer combinations, and buses with either a GVWR greater than
10,000 lbs. or which are designed to transport 16 or more people,
including the driver. In addition, the petitioners requested that the
current versions of the SAE specifications be adopted instead of the
older versions cited in the FMCSRs.
    NHTSA granted the joint petition for rulemaking, and published a
notice of proposed rulemaking on May 15, 2003 (68 FR 26384, DOT Docket
No. 03-14483). The agency agreed with the petitioners that there was a
safety need to transfer the brake hose, tubing, and fitting
requirements currently contained in sections 393.45 and 393.46 of the
FMCSRs to FMVSS No. 106, before the FMCSA removes those requirements.
NHTSA tentatively concluded that to ensure the continued safety of
commercial motor vehicle braking systems, the substantive
specifications of the SAE Recommended Practices should be incorporated
into FMVSS No. 106, with a few exceptions as noted. This would involve,
among other changes, establishing a new category in the standard for
plastic air brake tubing, end fittings, and tubing assemblies.
    NHTSA's decision to grant the joint petition was also based on the
fact that FMVSS No. 106 had not been substantially updated in many
years. Revisions over the past 20 years primarily addressed labeling
issues, inclusion of metric-sized brake hoses, updating test fluids to
match advances in industry, and minor regulatory revisions to
individual test conditions such as the whip test and the adhesion test.
We noted that most of the substantive requirements in Standard 106,
other than the labeling requirements, were originally based on SAE
standards and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
standards referenced therein. While the SAE and ASTM standards have
been modified over time to keep pace with technological developments in
the industry, the substantive requirements of FMVSS No. 106 have
remained relatively unchanged. NHTSA's proposed changes to Standard No.
106 intended to take into account the substantial technological
developments that have occurred. Incorporating many of the SAE
standards' performance requirements is consistent with Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, which directs federal
agencies to use and/or develop voluntary consensus industry standards,
in accordance with Pub. L. 104-113, the ``National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995.''

II. Final Rule of December 20, 2004

    On December 20, 2004 (69 FR 76298, DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2003-
14483), NHTSA published a final rule amending the brake hose standard.
The agency's

rule differed in the following respects from that petitioned for by the
petitioners--
    First, instead of simply incorporating complete SAE standards by
reference as the FMCSRs currently do, NHTSA incorporated only the
specific requirements/specifications of the SAE standards that are
either more rigorous than those in Standard No. 106 or are not present
at all in FMVSS No. 106.
    Second, the agency did not limit the application of those SAE
requirements/specifications to brake hose, tubing, and fittings used on
commercial motor vehicles, but made them applicable to all motor
vehicles. NHTSA determined that all brake hose, tubing, and fittings
can and should meet the requirements/specifications, regardless of
their end use.
    Third, although NHTSA agreed with the petitioners that changes to
FMVSS No. 106 should be based on the most recent versions of the SAE
standards, instead of the older versions cited in the FMCSRs, the
agency noted that a number of SAE's standards have been updated since
the joint petition was filed (in 1998). Accordingly, NHTSA relied on
what it believed to be the most recent versions of the SAE standards.
    Fourth, the agency did not incorporate SAE standards relating to
copper tubing, galvanized steel pipe, or end fittings used with
metallic or non-metallic tubing, materials that are occasionally used
in chassis plumbing. Since these products are not considered to be
brake hoses, NHTSA determined them not to be appropriate to include in
FMVSS No. 106, a brake hose standard.
    Fifth, NHTSA did not incorporate the material and construction
specifications for Type A and Type B tubing contained in SAE J844,
Nonmetallic Air Brake System Tubing, and SAE J1394, Metric Nonmetallic
Air Brake System Tubing because the agency tentatively concluded that
incorporating those material specifications would be design-
restrictive.
    Sixth, NHTSA did not incorporate the manufacturer identification
requirements in SAE J1401, Hydraulic Brake Hose Assemblies for Use with
Nonpetroleum-Base Hydraulic Fluids, because it concluded that the
manufacturer identification requirements already present in FMVSS No.
106 are sufficient.

III. Petitions

    In early 2005, NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of the
December 20, 2004 final rule from Cooper Standard Automotive (Fluid
Division), Degussa Corporation, George Apgar Consulting, MPC, Inc., and
Parker Hannifin Corporation (with separate submissions from its Brass
Division and from its Hose Products Division). In July 2005, Arkema,
Inc., submitted a document styled as a petition for reconsideration.
NHTSA is treating the document as a petition for rulemaking instead
since its regulations (49 CFR 553.35(a)) provide that a document styled
as a petition for reconsideration of a final rule and received by the
agency more than 45 days after the issuance of that final rule will be
treated as a petition for rulemaking. The petitions addressed a wide
range of FMVSS No. 106 subjects.
    In this document, we deny several of the petitions and explain why.
We also correct typographical errors in, and inadvertent omissions
from, the December 20, 2004 final rule. In a companion NPRM published
in today's edition of the Federal Register, we respond to additional
issues raised in the petitions, and propose a number of amendments to
the brake hose rule in response to the petitions.

IV. Issues Raised by Petitioners and NHTSA's Responses

A. Hydraulic Brake Hoses

    1. Expansion and Burst Strength (Volumetric Expansion) Test--Before
the final rule was issued, expansion tests were conducted at 1,000 and
1,500 psi. In the final rule, NHTSA added a 2,900 psi expansion test in
order to align FMVSS No. 106 with the latest revision of SAE J1401,
Road Vehicle-Hydraulic Brake Hose Assemblies for Use with Nonpetroleum-
Base Hydraulic Fluids, and incorporated the revised hydraulic expansion
requirements in Table I--Maximum Expansion of Free Length Brake Hose
(69 FR 76322). The inside diameter of the hoses listed in the first
column of Table I are: \1/8\ inch, or 3mm or less; \3/16\ inch or 4-5
mm and \1/4\ inch or 6 mm or more.
    In a request for an interpretation, Eaton Corporation asked for
clarification of the set of measurements to use from Table I if the
inside diameter of a hydraulic brake hose is greater than \1/8\ inch
but less than \3/16\ inch. In a letter dated January 26, 2005, NHTSA
explained that the expansion requirements for the \3/16\ inch brake
hose apply to a brake hose that is larger than \1/8\ inch but smaller
than \3/16\ inch: ``In other words, the set covers brake hose with
inside diameter greater than `\1/8\ inch or 3mm' and less than `\1/4\
inch or 6 mm.' Thus, the inside diameter of your hydraulic brake hose
falls into the category described in Table 1 as `\3/16\ inch or 4 to 5
mm.' ''
    In this final rule, NHTSA will make explicit the principle
explained in the January 26, 2005 final rule by amending the
identifying row titles in the first column of Table 1. The inside
diameters will now be identified as: ``\1/8\ inch, or 3 mm, or less'';
``> [greater than] \1/8\ inch or 3 mm, to \3/16\ inch, or 5 mm''; and
``> \3/16\ inch or 5 mm.'' Thus, after the changes, it will be evident
that hydraulic brake hoses with inside diameters greater than \1/8\
inch but less than \3/16\ inch fall into the category described in
Table I as ``> 1/8 inch or 3 mm, to \3/16\ inch, or 5 mm.''

B. Plastic Air Brake Tubing

    1. General--In response to plastic air brake tubing requirements in
the final rule, we received requests from four companies. Each of them
(Degussa, Parker Brass Division, Apgar, and Arkema) stated that because
the agency did not include a requirement that plastic air brake tubing
be constructed of nylon (polyamide), there are risks that alternate
materials will not provide adequate long-term service in air brake
systems. In addition, Arkema petitioned for inclusion of other tests; a
battery acid resistance test requirement for copolyester tubing; a high
temperature burst strength test; an increase in the length of time for
the high temperature conditioning test from 72 hours to 1,000 hours; a
quantitative adhesion test (also petitioned for by Degussa); and an
increase in the length of time for the long-term high temperature
conditioning and moisture absorption test from 100 hours to 720 hours.
As explained below, NHTSA has decided it will not make any of these
additions to test procedures applicable to plastic air brake tubing.
    2. Specifying Plastic v. Nylon--In the December 2004 final rule,
the agency adopted the generic term ``plastic'' for air brake tubing,
rather than specify that air brake tubing must be constructed from
``nylon.'' As discussed in the final rule, the agency did not intend
restrictions in FMVSS No. 106 for material that may be used to
manufacture air brake tubing (69 FR 76306). The agency stated that it
was adopting 22 performance test requirements (one of these is a
dimensional specification of the tubing) to ensure the safety of
plastic air brake tubing.
    Apgar stated that removing material requirements from standards and
regulations is an excellent goal to promote innovation, but makes
standards development more difficult because the known properties of
specific materials cannot be taken for granted when the material is not

specified. Apgar stated that in the absence of specifying polyamide as
the material for air brake tubing, more requirements than those in the
agency's final rule are needed. Apgar stated that there is an ongoing
activity by an SAE subcommittee to develop a standard designated as SAE
J2547 to describe requirements for alternate construction air brake
tubing, but that this standard is still a working document.
    Degussa stated that the 22 requirements for plastic air brake
tubing adopted in the agency's final rule will not guarantee that the
tubing material will provide safe service for air brake systems. It
stated that none of the requirements in FMVSS No. 106 or in SAE J844
reflects long-term field use, and that many of the requirements are
specific to nylon materials and do not cover potential deficiencies of
new materials without a proven track record. Degussa cited SAE J2260,
Nonmetallic Fuel System Tubing, with One or More Layers, that requires
a 5,000-hour fuel exposure at 60 degrees Celsius and heat aging for
1,000 hours at 90 degrees Celsius before tests are conducted. It
further stated that nylons used in air brake tubing have a successful
track record of many years, but that for new materials, neither the
requirements of SAE J844 nor the requirements in the FMVSS No. 106
final rule are sufficient. Degussa proposed that a statement be added
that materials used for air brake tubing must demonstrate a track
record over several years, or meet long term test requirements agreed
upon between material supplier, tubing manufacturer, and end user.
    Parker stated its belief that compared to the then-existing rule,
the agency's December 20, 2004 final rule compromises vehicle safety,
and that the new requirements are less practicable than the previous
requirements in FMVSS No. 106, because the agency did not specify nylon
for air brake tubing. Parker believes that the burden of compliance
will shift from the brake tubing component manufacturers to the
assemblers of air brake tubing assemblies, and that the DOT markings on
tubing and end fittings will no longer assure that these components are
compatible.
    Parker stated that numerous entities, including service shops, may
have to acquire testing capability for the assemblies made with
alternate tubing materials and the agency did not consider costs of
such testing capability. Parker stated that the chance of tubing
assemblies being put into service that do not meet the requirements of
the FMVSS No. 106 final rule is significant. Parker stated that it
knows of non-polyamide materials for tubing that can meet the
requirements of the final rule for tubing, but when made into
assemblies they do not meet the requirements of the final rule. Parker
provided no examples of its assertions. A brake hose assembly that does
not meet the December 20, 2004 final rule (when it takes effect) would
be in noncompliance. A noncompliant assembly would not be permitted on
a motor vehicle.
    Arkema stated that the strong safety record of polyamides is well
established, but it is impossible to foresee what testing will be
required upon introduction of countless unknown materials and
constructions. It stated that similar challenges were met by the
International Standards Organization (ISO) TC22 SC2 Working Group that
developed ISO 7628, a standard for plastic air brake tubing that allows
some flexibility of composition of the material used in the
construction of the tubing. Arkema also mentioned the efforts to
develop SAE J2547 but acknowledged that this SAE standard is still a
working document. Arkema asked that a list of all approved materials
and constructions for the manufacture of nonmetallic air brake tubing
be established, and that manufacturers of such alternate materials or
constructions apply for approval from either the agency or from the
SAE. Arkema asked that the optional early compliance provision in the
final rule (that manufacturers may meet the new FMVSS No. 106
requirements starting on February 18, 2005) be rescinded until its
requested changes to the final rule are made.
    Arkema also stated that tubing made from materials that are more
elastomeric (rubbery) than polyamide will probably require fittings
designed especially for that tubing. Arkema asked for adoption of
several new requirements for plastic air brake tubing including an
adhesion test for tubing with multi-layer construction; a chemical
resistance test for each layer of multi-layer tubing; a high-
temperature burst test (similar to that specified in Deutsches
Instit[uuml]t f[uuml]r Normung e.V. (DIN) 73378); \1\ increasing the
time of conditioning for the heat aging requirement at S12.11 of FMVSS
No. 106 from 72 hours to 1,000 hours; checking the effects of moisture
conditioning and hydrolysis on the mechanical performance of
alternative materials; and requiring that all currently available SAE
J246 and J2494 fittings function correctly with any DOT 106-marked air
brake tubing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NHTSA notes that DIN 73378 (February 1996) at Section 1
Scope states in the English translation: ``This standard specifies
requirements for and methods of testing polyamide tubing intended
for the transport of fuel in motor vehicles * * *'' Searching on the
DIN Web site, we were unable to find a DIN standard for polyamide
air brake hose, other than DIN 74323 that covers coiled tubing only.
No DIN standard was found for straight air brake tubing used on
motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed the requests and note that in many instances they
are similar to the comments submitted by the same commenters in
response to the NRPM. The issue of specifying the generic term
``plastic'' versus specifying ``nylon'' was discussed in the final rule
(69 FR 76306). The agency determined that it would not be appropriate
for FMVSS No. 106 to be design-restrictive regarding the material or
construction methods for air brake tubing, but the standard should be
performance based to the extent practicable. Arkema's suggestion that a
list of approved materials and constructions for plastic air brake
tubing be established and that manufacturers of alternate materials or
constructions apply for approval from either the agency or the SAE,
does not meet 49 U.S.C. Section 30115 Certification of Compliance that
specifies self-certification by each manufacturer of motor vehicles and
motor vehicle equipment.
    Specifying nylon as the sole construction material for plastic air
brake tubing would not permit alternate materials that can provide safe
and satisfactory performance when used in air brake systems. Arkema's
comments tacitly recognize this in Arkema's statement that use of new
materials and constructions will allow innovation, and will perhaps
lead to improved performance and economy. Therefore, the agency will
consider only the issue of establishing appropriate minimum performance
requirements to ensure the safety of plastic air brake tubing.
    Parker and Arkema suggested that because the agency did not specify
nylon as the sole material for plastic air brake tubing in the final
rule, it was their belief that air brake tubing and end fittings may no
longer work together. Parker stated that nylon provides a certain level
of hardness and compressive strength that enables end fittings to
retain the tubing. These companies also stated that there are non-nylon
tubing materials that can meet the new FMVSS No. 106 requirements for
the tubing, but will not retain the end fittings. The agency believes
that if this were the case, such tubing would be non-compliant with the
end fitting retention and performance requirements of air brake tubing
assemblies in FMVSS No. 106 (S11.3.17 through S11.3.24) when the
December 20, 2004 final rule takes effect. At such

time, the tubing and/or the assembly would be subject to the agency's
remedial actions for such non-compliance. Although the agency is not
able to analyze hypothetical non-compliance situations, it does not
agree that the burden of compliance has changed from the prior
requirements under FMVSS No. 106 solely because nylon is not specified
as the only material that can be used for air brake tubing.
    In the future, if different types of air brake tubing are developed
that require unique end fittings, additional rulemaking may be required
to differentiate (by labeling or other means) the various types of
tubing and end fittings. This is the approach currently taken in FMVSS
No. 106 for rubber air brake hoses that are designated as Types A, AI,
and AII (and now a Type AIII petitioned for addition by Gates
Corporation), that each have unique dimensions and corresponding end
fittings.
    3. Resistance to Battery Acid--Apgar's petition for reconsideration
requested that the agency include the battery acid resistance test from
ISO 7628-2 in FMVSS No. 106. ISO 7628-2 includes a battery acid
resistance test requirement for copolyester brake tubing. (See Section
7.11 of ISO 7628-2.) The ISO test requires that three samples of tubing
be bent around a test cylinder with a radius of five times the outside
diameter of the tubing, and then be immersed in a sulfuric acid
solution at room temperature for 70 hours. After this conditioning, the
tubing must have no dimensional change greater than two percent, no
change in weight greater than two percent, nor any evidence of
cracking.
    In considering whether to propose adopting the ISO 7628-2
requirement into FMVSS No. 106 to ensure the safety of all types of
plastic air brake tubing, the agency conducted additional review of SAE
J844 and found that under Section 1--Scope, the standard states that
the tubing it applies to is not to be used in an area subject to attack
by battery acid. In practice, the agency believes that the battery
installations on heavy vehicles are such that air brake tubing is not
routed in the vicinity of the batteries, so that exposure to battery
acid is avoided. There may be other situations (such as transportation
of new or used lead-acid batteries) in which air brake tubing could be
exposed to battery acid, but the agency believes that adequate
environmental and hazardous materials transportation requirements make
such exposure unlikely to occur. In addition, we note that the issue of
the need for battery acid resistance for plastic air brake tubing was
not raised by companies other than Apgar in response to the May 15,
2003 NPRM on air brake hoses or tubing. For these reasons, the part of
Apgar's petition asking that FMVSS No. 106 include a battery acid
resistance test for plastic air brake tubing incorporated from ISO
7628-2 is denied.
    Arkema's petition requested the addition of several other
requirements or substantial modifications (all relating to plastic air
brake tubing) to the current FMVSS No. 106 requirements published in
the agency's December 2004 final rule. These are described in further
detail below.
    4. High Temperature Burst Strength Test--Arkema asked that a high
temperature burst test be added for plastic air brake tubing. Arkema's
recommended text would specify filling a 12-inch brake hose assembly
with ASTM IRM 903 oil and conditioning the assembly in air at 100
degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit) for one hour, and then
increasing the oil pressure inside the assembly at a rate of 3,000 psi
per minute until burst occurs. The ratio of high temperature burst
pressure to room temperature burst pressure is then calculated, and the
required performance would be that the ratio must exceed 37 percent. In
other words, the burst strength of the tubing at an elevated
temperature must be greater than 37 percent of the burst strength at
room temperature.
    Arkema references DIN 73378, Polyamide Tubing for Use in Motor
Vehicles as the reference standard for calculating this ratio. Arkema
also provided a table of proposed burst strengths of each size of
tubing at room temperature and at 100 degrees Celsius. The data in that
table indicate high temperature to low temperature ratio equal to 40
percent.
    Degussa recommended that a high temperature burst test from ISO
7628 be added to FMVSS No. 106 for plastic air brake tubing. The ISO
test consists of conditioning the tubing in air at 100 degrees Celsius
(212 degrees Fahrenheit) for 1 hour, and performing a burst strength
test (pressure increased to failure within 15 to 60 seconds) with the
tubing at the elevated temperature. The required performance is to
withstand 2.50 MPa (363 psi) pressure if the tubing is designated as 1
MPa (145 psi) tubing, or to withstand 3.13 MPa (454 psi) pressure if
the tubing is designated as 1.25 MPa (181 psi) tubing.
    The agency evaluated the requirements from ISO 7628 to determine
the ratio of high temperature burst strength to room temperature burst
strength. For example, the required burst strength for a 1 MPa
designated tube is 4.00 MPa at room temperature and 2.50 MPa at 100
degrees Celsius, which yields a ratio of 2.50/4.00 = 0.625 or 63
percent. This is a much higher ratio than that in the test proposed by
Arkema, although it appears that the ISO 7628 room temperature burst
strength requirements (e.g., 4 MPa (580 psi) for 1 MPa type tubing) are
not particularly stringent in comparison to FMVSS No. 106 requirements
(e.g., 5.5 MPa (800 psi) to 9.7 MPa (1400 psi) depending on tubing
size), and even more so considering that trucks in the United States
are operating at slightly lower air system pressures than European
trucks.
    Arkema provided a graph of burst pressures for \5/16\ inch
polyamide tubing over a temperature range of 50 to 275 degrees
Fahrenheit that shows a considerable decrease in burst strength at
higher temperatures. The graph shows the burst strength at 200 degrees
Fahrenheit is approximately 450 psi or 45 percent of the 1,000 psi
burst strength at 75 degrees Fahrenheit.
    After reviewing Arkema's and Degussa's submissions, we have decided
that there is no safety need that would be met by adding an additional
high-temperature test to FMVSS No. 106. Based on requirements in SAE
J844, the agency adopted a series of high-temperature conditioning
tests in FMVSS No. 106 at S11.3.2, S11.3.8, S11.3.9, and S11.3.10 that
use a conditioning temperature of 230 degrees Fahrenheit. Arkema stated
that plastic air brake tubing may be subjected to intermittent
temperatures under a vehicle hood as high as 248 degrees Fahrenheit.
Arkema did not propose any tests be conducted at 248 degrees
Fahrenheit.
    We believe that vehicle manufacturers are not using plastic air
brake tubing in high temperature applications because we have not seen
temperature-related thermoplastic air brake tubing failures on
vehicles. In a common application of air brake tubing used in the
engine compartment of heavy trucks, the air brake tubing is routed to
the treadle valve located on the driver's side of the engine
compartment while the high-temperature engine exhaust components are
typically on the passenger's side of the engine compartment.
    In a high-temperature application such as an air compressor
discharge line, a wire-reinforced elastomeric hose is used rather than
plastic tubing. It is for these reasons that we believe we have not
seen instances of plastic tubing failing from high-temperature exposure
in vehicle applications. We are aware that the 2007 emission-compliant
heavy

duty engines could result in higher underhood temperatures.
    We also believe that the SAE Airbrake Tubing and Fittings
Subcommittee, working with vehicle manufacturers who are installing the
plastic air brake tubing on their vehicles, would be able to identify
any need for changes in high-temperature resistance requirements for
plastic air brake tubing.
    5. High Temperature Conditioning, Low Temperature Impact
Resistance--Arkema asked that the high-temperature conditioning
(temperature soak at 230 degrees Fahrenheit) component in S11.3.10 High
temperature conditioning, low temperature impact resistance of FMVSS
No. 106, be increased from 72 hours to 1,000 hours. Arkema's
justification for this request relates to their comment on intermittent
high underhood temperatures that can reach 248 degrees Fahrenheit
(measured at the brake tubing) for six minutes or longer upon stopping
the truck in high ambient temperature conditions. Arkema stated that
based on a service life of 5 years, with such a hot soak occurring four
times every twenty-four hours of truck operation, an equivalent of 30
days of continuous exposure to high temperatures would result.
    The agency does not dispute that brake tubing may see intermittent
high temperatures in underhood applications, particularly under high
ambient temperature conditions, but does not conclude that the
substantial test burden that would result by increasing the S11.3.10
high temperature soak from 72 hours to 1,000 hours has been shown to be
necessary to meet a safety issue. The agency does not conclude that
Arkema has provided sufficient technical justification for such an
increase in test burden in the absence of an apparent or known safety
problem. For these reason, the increase of the high temperature
conditioning component in S11.3.10 of FMVSS No. 106 from 72 hours to
1,000 hours is denied.
    6. Adhesion Test--Degussa recommended including a quantitative
adhesion test as described in S7.13 of SAE J2260, Nonmetallic Fuel
System Tubing with One or More Layers, November 20042. This includes a
peel test in which a sample of tubing is cut and then separated at the
layer interface so that a peel test can be conducted on the strength of
the interface bond. Degussa recommended that a minimum layer adhesion
of 1 N/mm (5.6 pounds per inch) be achieved using this method.
    Arkema recommended a similar test requirement. However, Arkema's
suggested procedure would first subject the tubing to one of ten
required pre-conditionings, including high temperature conditioning,
boiling water conditioning, moisture conditioning, and ultraviolet
light conditioning. Arkema's recommended test procedure describes how
the layers of the tubing are initially separated using a scalpel, then
additionally separated using pliers and clamped in a tensile testing
machine for the peel test to be conducted. Arkema recommended a peel
strength of 1.0 N/mm for an average value with no instantaneous peel
strength less than 0.5 N/mm.
    We discussed this issue in detail in both the May 2003 NPRM (68 FR
26400) and the December 2004 final rule (69 FR 76311). In the NPRM, the
agency proposed an adhesion test after the tubing was subjected to high
temperature conditioning. In the final rule, the agency decided not to
include an adhesion test because the industry comments on this issue
were divergent as to the peel strength that should be required, and
because the test appeared to be problematic from compliance and
enforcement standpoints.
    In their petitions, neither Arkema nor Degussa have satisfactorily
resolved the issues raised in the final rule regarding the adhesion
tests. An adhesion test for fuel hose may be suitable for testing
plastic tubing manufactured for fuel hoses where truly different layers
of materials exist in the tubing for chemical resistance, mechanical
strength and other factors. The layers in current plastic air brake
tubing are, to the agency's knowledge, uniform in material and fully
bonded such that they cannot be readily separated for a peel test.
Arkema's proposed method of initiating separation of the layers by
using a scalpel evidences the permanence of the bond in plastic air
brake hoses. An adhesion test in this situation can ultimately end up
testing the tensile strength of the brake tubing material rather than
the strength of its bonds, in particular where a particular layer is
very thin.
    Furthermore, we believe that Arkema's recommendation for conducting
ten pre-conditioning tests, each of which would be followed by an
adhesion test, would be a substantial compliance test burden on the
brake tubing manufacturers, especially since the agency is not aware of
any safety problem that has occurred due to poor adhesion
characteristics being exhibited by plastic air brake tubing. For these
reasons, we see no safety justification to propose to add Arkema's
recommended battery of adhesion tests. This portion of Arkema's
petition is denied. For technical reasons that have been described
regarding conducting adhesion tests on plastic tubing with high
interlayer bonding properties, both Arkema's and Degussa's requests to
add an adhesion test to FMVSS No. 106 for plastic air brake tubing are
also denied.
    7. Long-Term High Temperature Conditioning and Moisture
Absorption--Arkema cited regional high humidity environments in the
United States as a reason that the tubing conditioning in a humid
environmental chamber in S12.6, Moisture absorption and burst strength,
paragraph (c) should be increased from 100 hours to 720 hours. Adopting
Arkema's recommendation would substantially increase the compliance
test burden without a demonstrated safety need. Arkema's recommendation
may be based upon the specific performance of Arkema's brake tubing
product as discussed below in further detail.
    In its petition, Arkema included a graph of the elongation
properties of polyamide (nylon) tubing that shows a substantial
decrease in this elongation at approximately 40 days (960 hours) of
exposure (a comparison material is mentioned but does not appear in the
graph). The agency questions if this also translates into a
corresponding decrease in burst strength, and whether plastic air brake
tubing in service on motor vehicles experiences this level of
degradation. Also, the agency does not know if the degradation of
elongation would be mainly a function of exposure to ambient moisture
in the atmosphere (as stated by Arkema) or to exposure to moisture
contained within the air brake system. The data do not indicate whether
the elongation degradation at 960 hours is accompanied by an increase
in moisture weight gain or if such weight gain exceeds two percent.
    The data provided by Arkema raises many questions. We also note
that Arkema's proposed 720 hour conditioning is the time just prior to
when the nylon tubing properties begin to substantially degrade, so it
would appear the 720 hour value was selected to match the performance
curve of this particular material. We further note that Arkema's test
data shows a conditioning temperature of 212 degrees Fahrenheit, which
is substantially higher than the 75 degree Fahrenheit conditioning
temperature that is currently specified in FMVSS No. 106 and in SAE
J844.
    In reviewing Arkema's petition, the agency has once again reviewed
its decision to not include the moisture weight gain portion from the
SAE J844 requirements in the final rule. This requirement states that
after the tubing is conditioned in the environmental chamber at 100
percent relative

humidity at room temperature for 100 hours, the weight of the tubing
sample shall not increase by more than two percent. Such weight gain
would be caused by the tubing sample absorbing moisture. In its
petition, Arkema stated that some thermoplastics are very sensitive to
moisture associated with temperature, leading to degradation of the
material (hydrolysis). It stated that the material will get brittle and
lose mechanical strength over time.
    In the final rule, the agency stated that it did not have a basis
for believing that a weight gain of more than two percent would
constitute a safety problem. The agency instead included a burst
strength test at the end of the test sequence as a check of the
mechanical strength of the tubing after conditioning it in the humid
environment.
    We once again reviewed the comments submitted in response to the
May 2003 NPRM and note that Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics objected
to the weight gain limit as being designed around nylon and that using
weight gain as a performance metric is not appropriate. DuPont did not
object to having a weight gain limit but noted that several other tests
proposed (and subsequently adopted in the final rule) would be
satisfactory in evaluating the resistance of the tubing to degradation
from moisture absorption.
    Based upon all of the information we have at this time, the agency
has again decided not to propose the adoption of a weight gain limit.
Therefore, the part of Arkema's petition asking for an increase from
100 to 720 hours in tubing conditioning in a humid environmental
chamber in paragraph (c) of S 12.6 moisture absorption and burst
strength is denied.
    Before undertaking further rulemaking on plastic air brake tubing
moisture absorption and burst strength, we would ask for complete test
data from Arkema or other manufacturers so that we may review the
difference in weight gain for different materials of plastic air brake
tubing subjected to both 100-hour and longer conditioning times. We
need this information to determine how much moisture various types of
tubing materials absorb, and if there is a correlation to a degradation
of tubing mechanical properties such as burst strength.

V. Listing and Description of Corrections

    In addition, the agency has noted typographical errors or omissions
in the final rule of December 20, 2004. In this final rule document, we
are making the following corrections:
    1. S6.1.3 Calculation of expansion at 1,000 psi, 1,500 psi, and
2,900 psi for hydraulic brake hose. Paragraph (b) of this section
incorrectly states that the pressure increase rate is 1,500 psi per
minute. The correct rate of 15,000 psi per minute is being restored in
this corrections notice.
    2. Table III--Air brake hose dimensions. The minimum inside
diameter for \1/4\ inch inside diameter, Type A air brake hose, is
shown as 0.277 inches in Table III of the final rule. This is in error
and the correct dimension is 0.227 inches, consistent with SAE J1402
(January 2005) Table 1.
    3. S7.3 Test requirements for air brake hose. In the final rule,
the second sentence of 7.3 states that in addition to the constriction
requirements in S7.3.1, air brake hose is subject to the requirements
in S7.3.2 through S7.3.14. This is incorrect because it should cite the
requirements in S7.3.2 through S7.3.13.
    4. S7.3.5 Ozone resistance for air brake hose. The test temperature
is specified as 104 degrees Fahrenheit (49 degrees Celsius). The
correct metric conversion for 104 degrees Fahrenheit is 40 degrees
Celsius.
    5. S8.7 Flex strength and air pressure test for air brake hose.
This requirement includes a flex test apparatus figure with several
specified dimensions. The table accompanying Figure 5 describes the
dimensions of the test apparatus for various sizes of air brake hose.
The ninth column specifies the ``C'' dimension of Position ``2'' of the
test apparatus for a \7/16\, \1/2\, or \5/8\ inside diameter hose and
is shown as 5.00 inches (102 mm). The correct metric conversion for
5.00 inches is 127 mm. This correction is being made to the table
accompanying Figure 5.
    6. S8.12 End fitting corrosion resistance for air brake hose end
fittings. This section states how to conduct the corrosion test in
S6.9, using an air brake hose. However, in the final rule S6.9 was
changed to incorporate a new dynamic ozone resistance test, and the
corrosion test was moved to S6.11. The correct reference to the
corrosion resistance test in S6.11 is made to S8.12 in this notice.
This revision was inadvertently not included in the NPRM or final rule.
    7. S9.1.2 End fittings for vacuum brake hose. The first sentence of
this section states ``[e]xcept for an end fitting that is attached by
heat striking or by interference fit * * *'' However, the agency notes
that the word ``striking'' should be ``shrinking,'' consistent with
similar text in S9.1.3. Heat shrinking is a process that may be used to
assemble end fittings onto vacuum brake hose. This typographical error
is corrected in this notice.
    8. S9.2.1 Constriction test for vacuum brake hose and S10.10
corrosion resistance for vacuum brake hose. The citation at the end of
S9.2.1 references the constriction test procedure as S10.10. In the
December 2004 final rule, S10.10 is the constriction test, however,
this conflicts with the existing S10.10 in FMVSS No. 106 that is the
end fitting corrosion resistance test. Therefore, the constriction test
in the December 2004 final rule is redesignated as S10.11, and the
reference in S9.2.1 is changed to S10.11 as well.
    We also revise S10.10, corrosion resistance test, to correct a
revision that was omitted from the final rule. The reference in S10.10
to ``conduct the test specified in S6.9'' is changed to ``conduct the
test specified in S6.11'' to reflect changes that were made in S6 in
the December 2004 final rule.
    9. S9.2.3 Low temperature resistance for vacuum brake hose.
Paragraph (b) of this section references the hydrostatic pressure test
as S10.6. This is incorrect, because the hydrostatic pressure test
procedure is in S10.1(e). The correction is made in this notice.
    10. S10.7 Swell and adhesion test for vacuum brake hose. Paragraph
(c) of this section states that after soaking a vacuum brake hose in
reference fuel, the constriction test in S10.10 is to be conducted.
However, the reference for the constriction test is changed to S10.11
as described in item 8 above. This change is made in S10.7 as well.
    11. S10.9 Deformation test for vacuum brake hose. S10.9 states that
Table VI specifies the test specimen dimensions to be used for
conducting the deformation test. However, the header of the second
column in Table VI states ``Specimen dimensions (see fig. 4)'' is
incorrect because Figure 4 was changed to Figure 7 in the December 2004
final rule. This revision to the header in Table VI is made in this
final rule.
    12. S11.3 Test requirements for plastic air brake tubing. The final
rule states that in addition to the constriction requirements in
S11.3.1, plastic air brake tubing is subject to the requirements in
S11.3.2 through S11.3.22. This is incorrect. The correct citation is to
the requirements of S11.3.2 through S11.3.24.
    13. S12.6 Moisture absorption and burst strength for plastic air
brake tubing. Paragraph (e) of this section has an equation to
calculate the percentage moisture absorption, but a division symbol is
missing from the text in the final rule. Paragraph (g) of this section

is missing the letter ``S'' in reference to S12.5. The corrections to
both paragraphs (e) and (g) are made in this final rule.
    14. S12.10 High temperature resistance test for plastic air brake
tubing. The temperature specification for conditioning the tubing is
230 degrees Fahrenheit. The metric equivalent temperature of 110
degrees Celsius, missing from the text, is included in this final rule.
    15. S12.15 High temperature conditioning and collapse resistance
test for plastic air brake tubing. Paragraph (b)(4) of this section
states to condition the holding device and brake hose in an air oven at
230 degrees Fahrenheit (110 degrees Celsius) for 24 hours. However, as
stated in the test requirements in S11.3.14, the correct temperature
specification is 200 degrees Fahrenheit (93 degrees Celsius).
    Paragraph (c) of this of S12.15 includes an equation to calculate
the percentage collapse of the outside diameter of the tubing. A
division symbol missing from the text in the December 20, 2004 final
rule is included in this final rule.
    16. S12.17 Oil resistance test for plastic air brake tubing.
Paragraph (b) of this section references ASTM 903 oil. The correct
reference is ASTM IRM 903 oil.
    17. S12.23 Thermal conditioning and end fitting retention test for
plastic air brake tubing. Paragraph (a) of this section incorrectly
references ASTM IBM 903 oil. The correct reference is ASTM IRM 903 oil.

VII. Effective Date

    Because the changes in this final rule are minor ones on the order
of correcting typographical errors and other inadvertent omissions in
FMVSS No. 106, this final rule will take effect on December 21, 2007.
This final rule corrects the final rule of December 20, 2004 (69 FR
76298), which will take effect on December 20, 2007 (See 71 FR 74823,
December 13, 2006). Optional early compliance is permitted as of the
date this document is published in the Federal Register.

VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    This rule makes technical corrections and has no impact on the
regulatory burden of manufacturers. The agency discussed the relevant
requirements of Executive Order 12866, the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, Executive Order
13132 (Federalism), the Unfunded Mandates Act, Civil Justice Reform,
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, and the Paperwork
Reduction Act in the December 2004 final rule cited above. Those
discussions are not affected by these technical amendments.

Privacy Act

    Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all documents received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the document (or signing the document, 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).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Incorporation by Reference, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, and Tires.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority for part 571 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 571.106 is amended by:
0
a. Revising Table I;
0
b. Revising paragraph (b) of S6.1.3;
0
c. Revising Table III;
0
d. Revising in S7.3, the second sentence;
0
e. Revising S7.3.5;
0
f. Revising the Table Accompanying Figure 5, following S8.7.1;
0
g. Revising S8.12;
0
h. Revising in S9.1.2, the introductory text;
0
i. Revising S9.2.1;
0
j. Revising in S9.2.3, paragraph (b);
0
k. Revising in S10.7, paragraph (c);
0
l. Revising Table VI following S10.9.2(a);
0
m. Redesignating S10.10 as S10.11;
0
n. Adding new S10.10;
0
o. Revising in S11.3, the second sentence;
0
p. Revising in S12.6, paragraphs (e) and (g);
0
q. Revising in S12.10, the first sentence;
0
r. Revising in S12.15, paragraph (b)(4) and paragraph (c);
0
s. Revising in S12.17, in paragraph (b), the first sentence, and
0
t. Revising in S12.23, paragraph (a).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  571.106  Standard No. 106; Brake hoses.

* * * * *

                          Table I.--Maximum Expansion of Free Length Brake Hose, CC/FT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Test pressure
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            1,000 psi                 1,500 psi                 2,900 psi
   Hydraulic brake hose, inside    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             diameter                 Regular        Low          Low        Regular      Regular        Low
                                     expansion    expansion    expansion    expansion    expansion    expansion
                                        hose         hose         hose         hose         hose         hose
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1/8\ inch, or 3mm, or less.......         0.66         0.33         0.79         0.42         1.21         0.61
> \1/8\ inch or 3mm, to \3/16\             0.86         0.55         1.02         0.72         1.67         0.91
 inch or 5 mm.....................
> \3/16\ inch or 5 mm.............         1.04         0.82         1.30         1.17            *            *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    S6.1.3 Calculation of expansion at 1,000 psi, 1,500 psi, and 2,900
psi.
* * * * *
    (b) Close the valve to the burette, apply pressure at the rate of
15,000 psi per minute, and seal 1,000 psi in the hose (1,500 psi in the
second series, and 2,900 psi in the third series).
* * * * *

   Table III.--Air Brake Hose Dimensions--Inside Diameter (ID) and Outside Diameter (OD) Dimensions in Inches
                                                  (Millimeters)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Type A--Hose Size--Nominal Inside Diameter
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                \1/2\ SP
                                  \1/4\        \5/16\         \3/8\        \7/16\         \(1)\         \5/8\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min. I.D....................        0.227         0.289         0.352         0.407         0.469         0.594
                                     (5.8)         (7.3)         (8.9)        (10.3)        (11.9)        (15.1)
Max. I.D....................        0.273         0.335         0.398         0.469         0.531         0.656
                                     (6.9)         (8.5)        (10.1)        (11.9)        (13.5)        (16.7)
Min. O.D....................        0.594         0.656         0.719         0.781         0.844         1.031
                                    (15.1)        (16.7)        (18.3)        (19.8)        (21.4)        (26.2)
Max. O.D....................        0.656         0.719         0.781         0.843         0.906         1.094
                                    (16.7)        (18.3)        (19.8)        (21.4)        (23.0)        (27.8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Type AI \(2)\--Hose Size--Nominal Inside Diameter
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   \3/16\         \1/4\        \5/16\       \13/32\         \1/2\         \5/8\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min. I.D....................        0.188         0.250         0.312         0.406         0.500         0.625
                                     (4.8)         (6.4)         (7.9)        (10.3)        (12.7)        (15.9)
Max. I.D....................        0.214         0.281         0.343         0.437         0.539         0.667
                                     (5.4)         (7.1)         (8.7)        (11.1)        (13.7)        (16.9)
Min. O.D....................        0.472         0.535         0.598         0.714         0.808         0.933
                                    (12.0)        (13.6)        (15.1)        (18.1)        (20.5)        (23.7)
Max. O.D....................        0.510         0.573         0.636         0.760         0.854         0.979
                                    (13.0)        (14.6)        (16.2)        (19.3)        (21.7)        (24.9)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Type AII \(2)\--Hose Size--Nominal Inside Diameter
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   \3/16\         \1/4\        \5/16\       \13/32\         \1/2\         \5/8\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min. I.D....................        0.188         0.250         0.312         0.406         0.500         0.625
                                     (4.8)         (6.4)         (7.9)        (10.3)        (12.7)        (15.9)
Max. I.D....................        0.214         0.281         0.343         0.437         0.539         0.667
                                     (5.4)         (7.1)         (8.7)        (11.1)        (13.7)        (16.9)
Min. O.D....................        0.500         0.562         0.656         0.742         0.898         1.054
                                    (12.7)        (14.3)        (16.7)        (18.8)        (22.8)        (26.8)
Max. O.D....................        0.539         0.602         0.695         0.789         0.945         1.101
                                    (13.7)        (15.3)        (17.7)        (20.1)        (24.0)        (27.9)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(1)\ Notes: Type A, sizes \3/8\, \7/16\, and \1/2\ Special can be assembled with reusable end fittings. All
  sizes can be assembled using permanently-attached (crimped) end fittings.
\(2)\ Types AI and AII, all sizes, can be assembled with reusable or permanently-attached (crimped) end
  fittings.

* * * * *
    S7.3 Test requirements. * * * However, a particular hose assembly
or appropriate part thereof need not meet further requirements after
having met the constriction requirement (S7.3.1) and then having been
subjected to any one of the requirements specified in S7.3.2 through
S7.3.13.
* * * * *
    S7.3.5 Ozone resistance. An air brake hose assembly shall not show
cracks visible under 7-power magnification after exposure to ozone for
70 hours at 104 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Celsius) when bent
around a test cylinder of the radius specified in Table IV for the size
of hose tested (S8.4).
* * * * * Q

                                            Table Accompanying Figure 5.--Dimensions in Inches (Millimeters)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Dimensions
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Free hose length               Nominal hose inside diameter              Position ``1''                          Position ``2''
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              A         B         C      R\(1)\       A         B         C      R\(1)\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.00 (254)...............................  \3/16\, \1/4\...............     3.00      2.75      3.75      1.40      3.00      2.75      3.75      1.20
                                                                              (76)      (70)      (95)      (34)      (76)      (70)      (95)      (30)
11.00 (279)...............................  \5/16\, \3/8\, \13/32\......     3.00      3.50      4.50      1.70      3.00      3.50      4.50      1.30
                                                                              (76)      (89)     (114)      (43)      (76)      (89)     (114)      (33)
14.00 (355)...............................  \7/16\, \1/2\, \5/8\........     3.00      4.00      5.00      2.20      3.00      4.00      5.00      1.80
                                                                              (76)     (102)     (127)      (56)      (76)     (102)     (127)      (46)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note (1): This is an approximate average radius.

* * * * *
    S8.12 End fitting corrosion resistance test. Conduct the test
specified in S6.11 using an air brake hose assembly.
* * * * *
    S9.1.2 End fittings. Except for an end fitting that is attached by
heat shrinking or by interference fit with

plastic vacuum hose or that is attached by deformation of the fitting
about a hose by crimping or swaging, at least one component of each
vacuum brake hose fitting shall be etched, embossed, or stamped in
block capital letters and numerals at least one-sixteenth of an inch
high with the following information:
* * * * *
    S9.2.1 Constriction. Except for that part of an end fitting which
does not contain hose, every inside diameter of any section of a vacuum
brake hose assembly shall not be less than 75 percent of the nominal
inside diameter of the hose if for heavy duty, or 70 percent of the
nominal inside diameter of the hose if for light duty (S10.11).
* * * * *
    S9.2.3 Low temperature resistance. * * *
* * * * *
    (b) Not leak when subjected to a hydrostatic pressure test
(S10.1(e)).
* * * * *
    S10.7 Swell and adhesion test.
* * * * *
    (c) Remove fuel and conduct the constriction test in S10.11.
* * * * *

                   Table VI.--Dimensions of Test Specimen and Feeler Gage For Deformation Test
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Hose inside diameter *           Specimen dimensions (see Fig. 7)           Feeler gage dimensions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       in.                 mm            Depth (inch)      Length (inch)       Width (inch)     Thickness (inch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \7/32\                  5             \3/64\                  1              \1/8\             \3/64\
          \1/4\                  6             \1/16\                  1              \1/8\             \1/16\
         \9/32\    .................           \1/16\                  1              \1/8\             \1/16\
        \11/32\                  8             \5/64\                  1             \3/16\             \5/64\
          \3/8\                 10             \3/32\                  1             \3/16\             \3/32\
         \7/16\    .................           \5/64\                  1              \1/4\             \5/64\
        \15/32\    .................           \5/64\                  1              \1/4\             \5/64\
          \1/2\                 12              \1/8\                  1              \1/4\              \1/8\
          \5/8\                 16             \5/32\                  1              \1/4\             \5/32\
          \3/4\    .................           \3/16\                  1              \1/4\             \3/16\
              1    .................            \1/4\                  1              \1/4\              \1/4\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*These sizes are listed to provide test values for brake hoses manufactured in these sizes. They do not
  represent conversions.

* * * * *
    S10.10 End fitting corrosion resistance test. Conduct the test
specified in S6.11 using a vacuum brake hose assembly.
* * * * *
    S11.3 Test requirements. * * * However, a particular tubing
assembly or appropriate part thereof need not meet further requirements
after having met the constriction requirement (S11.3.1) and then having
been subjected to any one of the requirements specified in S11.3.2
through S11.3.24. * * *
* * * * *
    S12.6 Moisture absorption and burst strength.
* * * * *
    (e) Calculate percentage of moisture absorption as follows:

([Conditioned Weight--Initial Weight] / [Initial Weight]) x 100
* * * * *
    (g) Conduct the burst strength test in S12.5 except use 80 percent
of the burst strength pressure for the size of tubing being tested as
specified in Table VIII.
* * * * *
    S12.10 High temperature resistance test. Condition the tubing in an
air oven at 230 degrees Fahrenheit (110 degrees Celsius) for 72 hours.
* * *
* * * * *
    S12.15 High temperature conditioning and collapse resistance test.
* * * * *
    (b) Preparation.
* * * * *
    (4) Condition the holding device and tubing in an air oven at 200
degrees Fahrenheit (93 degrees Celsius) for 24 hours. Remove the
holding device and tubing and allow to cool at room temperature for
thirty minutes.
* * * * *
    (c) Calculation. Calculate the percentage collapse of the outside
diameter of the tubing as follows: ([Initial Outside Diameter--Final
Outside Diameter] / [Initial Outside Diameter]) x 100
* * * * *
    S12.17 Oil resistance test.
    (b) Immerse the tubing in ASTM IRM 903 oil at 212 degrees
Fahrenheit (100 degrees Celsius) for 70 hours. * * *
* * * * *
    S12.23 Thermal conditioning and end fitting retention test. (a)
Apparatus. A source of hydraulic pressure that includes a pressure
gauge or monitoring system, uses ASTM IRM 903 oil, and is constructed
so that an air brake tubing assembly mounted to it can be conditioned
in an environmental test chamber.
* * * * *

    Issued on: September 27, 2007.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-19467 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Mark Evangelista/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 06/ 03/ 2005 02: 50 PM T o afraas@ omb. eop. gov, aflynn@ omb. eop. gov, Jeff Holmstead/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Bill Wehrum/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Steve Page/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Peter Tsirigotis/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Lydia Wegman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Tyler Fox/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Joe Paisie/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Desmond Bailey/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Brian Orndorff/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Kathy Kaufman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Todd Hawes/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Lea Anderson/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Brian Timin/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Warren Peters/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Eric Ginsburg/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA c c S u b j e c t Corrections to CALPUFF Runs for BART Yesterday we discovered an error in calculating the emission rates for NOX and PM for Runs 1,3,4,5,6. This spreadsheet contains the complete 23 runs, with the corrected runs in place.

This table summarizes the corrections made to the emission rate inputs: Erroneous Corrected Run SO2 NOx PM SO2 NOx PM 1 10,000 3,570 50 10,000 3,500 50 3 5,000 1,785 25 5,000 3,500 50 4 5,000 3,125 25 5,000 6,250 50 5 1,000 357 5 1,000 3,500 50 6 1,000 625 5 1,000 6,250 50 These tables summarize the differences that result from the corrected emission inputs:

Days Above ddv Threshold: 5 yr. Average ddv ( km) Run 1 Run 3 Run 4 R Threshold Distance Error Correct Error Correct Error Correct Erro 0.1 50 116 116 83 95 189 214 14 0.1 100 97 98 61 74 168 191 0.1 200 72 72 43 50 78 101 0.5 50 36 29 13 18 36 62 0.5 100 24 23 9 11 25 56 0.5 200 13 13 5 7 7 15 1.0 50 12 12 3 5 12 25 1.0 100 8 8 2 3 5 14 1.0 200 4 4 1 1 2 4 Ten Highest ddv Values for 200 km ( 5 yr. Average) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Run 1 Error 2.17 1.39 1.29 1.11 0.98 0.93 0.79 0.74 Correct 2.16 1.39 1.28 1.10 0.98 0.93 0.79 0.73 Run 3 Error 1.14 0.72 0.66 0.57 0.50 0.47 0.40 0.37 Correct 1.31 0.85 0.76 0.65 0.58 0.54 0.49 0.45 Run 4 Error 1.47 1.09 0.82 0.67 0.59 0.54 0.50 0.46 Correct 2.19 1.67 1.29 1.03 0.93 0.82 0.74 0.70 Run 5 Error 0.24 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.08 Correct 0.66 0.49 0.40 0.34 0.28 0.25 0.24 0.22 Run 6 Error 0.30 0.22 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 Correct 1.73 1.31 1.03 0.85 0.73 0.64 0.57 0.54 Results of the corrected runs do appear more consistent with their input scenarios than do the previous set of results. These results remove the confusion we all experienced about having such low impacts from sources with high NOx emissions.

We certainly regret the confusion caused by the incorrect results, and apologize for the inaccuracies.


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS EMISSION STANDARDS DIVISION RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711 February 25, 2004 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Development of Central Nervous System and Respiratory System Lookup Tables for Industrial Boilers FROM: Scott Jenkins Risk and Exposure Assessment Group ( C404 01)

TO: David E. Guinnup, Leader Risk and Exposure Assessment Group ( C404 01)

Background:

The EPA has developed risk based lookup tables for emissions of central nervous system toxicants and respiratory toxicants from industrial boilers. The present draft memo describes the development of these tables and how facilities might utilize them.

Methods:

Table development: The lookup tables ( see appendix) are based on the SCREEN3 atmospheric dispersion model. SCREEN3 is a screening level Gaussian dispersion model used to predict worst case 1 hour concentrations on the centerline of the plume downwind from a source. SCREEN3 calculates the ambient concentration per g/ s of emissions assuming no deposition or atmospheric reactions. Predicted 1 hour concentrations from SCREEN3 are multiplied by 0.08, as described in the EPA Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library, to derive a predicted worst case chronic concentration ( annual average). Engineering judgment was used to develop the facility parameters that formed the basis for the lookup tables ( Table 1). These parameters represent approximate averages based on an engineering analysis of available facility data. Stack height and fenceline distance vary in the tables. SCREEN3 model runs were conducted using worst case meteorology defaults and local flat terrain.

Table 1 Parameter Value Stack Diameter ( m) 2.0 Stack Gas Exit Velocity ( m/ s) 13.6 2 Stack Gas Exit Temp. ( K) 425.5 To develop the respiratory lookup table, SCREEN3 model runs were conducted for each combination of stack height and fenceline distance to determine the emission rate of HCl in pounds per hour which would result in a maximum hazard quotient ( HQ) value equal to 1.0 outside the facility area. To develop the CNS table, SCREEN3 model runs were conducted for each combination of stack height and fenceline distance to determine the emission rate of manganese in pounds per hour which would result in a maximum HQ value equal to 1.0 outside the facility area.

Application of the Lookup Tables: To use the respiratory lookup table a facility would estimate the emission rates of HCl, Cl2, and/ or any other respiratory toxicants to be included in the assessment and then calculate a toxicity weighted emission rate expressed in equivalents of HCl according to equation 1.

TWERHCl =

( ERi x( RfCHCl/ RfCi) Eqn. 1 ERi = Emission rate of pollutant i,( lb/ hr)

RfCi = Reference concentration for pollutant i,( µ g/ m3)

RfCHCl = Reference concentration for HCl,( µ g/ m3) TWERHCl = Toxicity weighted emission rate expressed in HCl equivalents, ( lb/ hr)

Calculated toxicity weighted emission rates will then be compared to the allowable toxicityweighted emission rate in the table. To determine the correct value from the table, a source wide average value could be used for stack height and the minimum distance between any stack at the affected source and the property boundary could be used for fenceline distance.

To use the CNS lookup table a facility would estimate the emission rates of Mn and/ or any other CNS toxicants to be included in the assessment and then calculate a toxicity weighted emission rate expressed in equivalents of Mn as described for HCl above. Calculated toxicity weighted emission rates will then be compared to the allowable toxicity weighted emission rate in the table. To determine the correct value from the table, a source wide average value could be used for stack height and the minimum distance between any stack at the affected source and the property boundary could be used for fenceline distance.

Attachment OAQPS: ESD: REAG: SJenkins: bmiles: x5648: C404 01: 2 25 04 Draft Document 3 Appendix: Allowable toxicity weighted emission rate expressed in HCl equivalents ( lbs/ hr)

fenceline ( m)

Stack ht.( m) 50 100 150 200 250 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 5000 5 114.9 114.9 114.9 114.9 114.9 144.3 287.3 373.0 373.0 373.0 373.0 10 188.5 188.5 188.5 188.5 188.5 195.3 328.0 453.5 434.4 434.4 434.4 20 386.1 386.1 386.1 386.1 386.1 386.1 425.4 580.0 602.7 602.7 602.7 30 396.1 396.1 396.1 396.1 396.1 396.1 436.3 596.2 690.6 807.8 816.5 40 408.1 408.1 408.1 408.1 408.1 408.1 448.2 613.3 715.5 832.2 966.0 50 421.4 421.4 421.4 421.4 421.4 421.4 460.6 631.0 746.3 858.2 1002.8 60 435.5 435.5 435.5 435.5 435.5 435.5 473.4 649.0 778.6 885.0 1043.4 70 450.2 450.2 450.2 450.2 450.2 450.2 486.6 667.4 813.8 912.4 1087.4 80 465.5 465.5 465.5 465.5 465.5 465.5 500.0 685.9 849.8 940.9 1134.8 100 497.5 497.5 497.5 497.5 497.5 497.5 527.4 723.6 917.1 1001.2 1241.3 200 677.3 677.3 677.3 677.3 677.3 677.3 682.3 919.8 1167.1 1390.4 1924.6 Allowable toxicity weighted emission rate expressed in manganese equivalents ( lbs/ hr)

fenceline ( m)

Stack ht.( m) 50 100 150 200 250 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 5000 5 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.36 0.72 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 10 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.49 0.82 1.13 1.09 1.09 1.09 20 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.06 1.45 1.51 1.51 1.51 30 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.09 1.49 1.73 2.02 2.04 40 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.12 1.53 1.79 2.08 2.42 50 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.15 1.58 1.87 2.15 2.51 60 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.18 1.62 1.95 2.21 2.61 70 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.22 1.67 2.03 2.28 2.72 80 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.25 1.71 2.12 2.35 2.84 100 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.32 1.81 2.29 2.50 3.10 200 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.71 2.30 2.92 3.48 4.81 Draft Document 6


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 175 (Monday, September 12, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55687-55688]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19545]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0756]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Tennessee River 255-257, Florence, AL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary special local
regulation for navigable waters on the Tennessee River. The special
local regulation is needed to protect the participants of the Shoals
Scholar Dollar Dragon Boat Festival. Entry of vessels or persons into
this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain
of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 8, 2022, from 7 a.m. through 5
p.m.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0756 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Third Class Joshua Rehl, Marine Safety
Detachment Nashville, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MM Mile marker
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must
establish this regulation by October 8, 2022, and lack sufficient time
to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments
before issuing this rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the
effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest
because immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the
participants and vessels during the Shoals Scholar Dollar Dragon Boat
Festival. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must
establish this special local regulation by October 8, 2022.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio
Valley (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with
Shoals Scholar Dollar Dragon Boat Festival on October 8, 2022, will be
a safety concern from mile marker (MM) 255.0 to MM 257.0 of the
Tennessee River for 8 hours. This rule is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the
special local regulation while the event is taking place.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a special local regulation from MM 255.0 to
MM 257.0 on the Tennessee River. The special local regulation will be
in effect on October 8, 2022, from 7 a.m. through 5 p.m.. The duration
of the zone is intended to protect participants, and the marine
environment in these navigable waters while the Shoals Scholar Dollar
Dragon Boat Festival is taking place. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, location,
duration, and the time-of-day of the special local regulation. Vessel
traffic will be able to safely transit around the this special local
regulation which would impact a small designated area of the Tennessee
River before or after the time of the event. Moreover the Coast Guard
will issue a Broadcast the Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about
the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter
the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's

responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves special
local regulation lasting only 8 hours that will prohibit entry within a
2 mile segment of the Tennessee River. It is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T08-0756 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T08-0756   Tennessee River MM 255 to MM 257, Florence, AL.

    (a) Regulated area. The regulations in this section apply to the
following area: all waters of the Tennessee River from mile marker (MM)
255.0 to 257.0.
    (b) Regulations. (1) All non-participants are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area described in paragraph (a) of this section unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or
their designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Those in the regulated area
must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the
COTP or the designated representative.
    (3) The COTP will provide notice of the regulated area through
advanced notice via broadcast notice to mariners and by on-scene
designated representatives.
    (c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced on October 8,
2022, from 7 a.m. through 5 p.m.

    Dated: September 1, 2022.
H.R. Mattern,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2022-19545 Filed 9-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P