[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 149 (Thursday, August 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 47812]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16673]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-051, OMB Control No. 3235-0064]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request: Extension: Form 10

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the office of Management and
Budget for approval of extensions on the following:
    Form 10 (17 CFR 249.210) is used by issuers to register a class of
securities pursuant to Section 12(b) or Section 12(g) (15 U.S.C. 78l(b)
and 78l(g)) of the Exchange Act of 1934. Form 10 requires financial and
other information about such matters as the issuer's business,
properties, identity and remuneration of management, outstanding
securities and securities to be registered and financial condition. The
information provided by Form 10 is intended to ensure the adequacy of
information available to investors about a company. Form 10 takes
approximately 215.537 hours per response to prepare and is filed by
approximately 216 respondents. We estimated that 25% of the 215.537
hours per response (53.884 hours) is prepared by the company for an
annual reporting burden of 11,639 hours (53.8842 hours per response x
216 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication by October 3, 2022.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: July 29, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-16673 Filed 8-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From:
D'Angelo, Wayne J<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Monday, June 7, 2021 12:12 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: 3hr BLDS alarm issue - examples of enforcement problems

Understood.  We will certainly let everyone know.  Thank you,
Wayne

WAYNE D'ANGELO

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 12:11 PM
To: D'Angelo, Wayne J<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: 3hr BLDS alarm issue - examples of enforcement problems

Make sure everyone realizes it may not go forward without their help for specifics.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: D'Angelo, Wayne J<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 12:09 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Stuart, Eric<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Balserak, Paul<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Green, Joseph J<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: 3hr BLDS alarm issue - examples of enforcement problems

Hello Dr. Jones,  We will work with the associations and their members to try to get some additional specificity on this.  This will require a fair bit of member outreach but we will do our best to compile a response.
Best,
Wayne

WAYNE D'ANGELO

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 11:48 AM
To: D'Angelo, Wayne J<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Stuart, Eric<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Balserak, Paul<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Green, Joseph J<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: 3hr BLDS alarm issue - examples of enforcement problems

Hello - I had a question come from my management requesting explanation of the extent of problems with enforcement in regard to the 3-hr BDLS response time. Can you please provide examples of problems with enforcement and estimate of occurrences of the problem over a typical year in the industry? If there was enforcement discretion applied, please also provide specifics of this with an estimate of the amount over a typical year (note, this information only will be used in regard to the rulemaking).

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78931-78933]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32469]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0002]

Advisory Committees; Tentative Schedule of Meetings for 2012

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a

tentative schedule of forthcoming meetings of its public advisory
committees for 2012. During 1991, at the request of the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs (the Commissioner), the Institute of Medicine (the IOM)
conducted a study of the use of FDA's advisory committees. In its final
report, one of the IOM's recommendations was for the Agency to publish
an annual tentative schedule of its meetings in the Federal Register.
This publication implements the IOM's recommendation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa L. Hays, Advisory Committee
Oversight and Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5290, Silver Spring, MD 20993, (301) 796-
8220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The IOM, at the request of the Commissioner,
undertook a study of the use of FDA's advisory committees. In its final
report in 1992, one of the IOM's recommendations was for FDA to adopt a
policy of publishing an advance yearly schedule of its upcoming public
advisory committee meetings in the Federal Register; FDA has
implemented this recommendation. The annual publication of tentatively
scheduled advisory committee meetings will provide both advisory
committee members and the public with the opportunity, in advance, to
schedule attendance at FDA's upcoming advisory committee meetings.
Because the schedule is tentative, amendments to this notice will not
be published in the Federal Register. However, changes to the schedule
will be posted on the FDA advisory committees' Internet site located at
http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm. FDA will continue to
publish a Federal Register notice 15 days in advance of each upcoming
advisory committee meeting, to announce the meeting (21 CFR 14.20).
    The following list announces FDA's tentatively scheduled advisory
committee meetings for 2012.

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Committee name              Tentative date(s) of meeting(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pediatric Advisory Committee...........  January 30-31, May & December
                                          date(s), if needed, to be
                                          determined.
Risk Communication Advisory Committee..  February 13-14, April 30, May
                                          1, August 16-17, November 1-2.
Science Board to FDA...................  January 6, May 2, October 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              CENTER FOR BIOLOGICS EVALUATION AND RESEARCH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allergenic Products Advisory Committee.  April 18, October 18.
Blood Products Advisory Committee......  February 28-29, May 15-16, July
                                          31-August 1, December 4-5.
Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies      February 9-10, June 27-28,
 Advisory Committee.                      November 29-30.
Transmissible Spongiform                 Date(s), if needed, to be
 Encephalopathies Advisory Committee.     determined.
Vaccines and Related Biological          February 28-29, May 16-17,
 Products Advisory Committee.             September 19-20, November 14-
                                          15.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anesthetic and Analgesic Drugs Advisory  February 9.
 Committee (formerly the Anesthetic and
 Life Support Drugs Advisory Committee).
Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee  Date(s), if needed, to be
                                          determined.
Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee.....  May 16-17.
Arthritis Advisory Committee...........  March 12.
Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory  February 23.
 Committee.
Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs        February 27.
 Advisory Committee.
Drug Safety and Risk Management          Date(s), if needed, to be
 Advisory Committee.                      determined.
Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs       February 22, March 28-29.
 Advisory Committee.
Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory          March 13-14.
 Committee.
Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory           Date(s), if needed, to be
 Committee.                               determined.
Nonprescription Drugs Advisory           Date(s), if needed, to be
 Committee.                               determined.
Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee.....  February 8-9, March 20-21, June
                                          20-21, July 24-25, September
                                          12-13, November 6-7, December
                                          4-5.
Peripheral and Central Nervous System    Date(s), if needed, to be
 Drugs Advisory Committee.                determined.
Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical    March 14.
 Science and Clinical Pharmacology.
Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory       Date(s), if needed, to be
 Committee.                               determined.
Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory         February 23-24.
 Committee.
Advisory Committee for Reproductive      January 20, April 5.
 Health Drugs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               CENTER FOR DEVICES AND RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Medical Devices Advisory Committee (Comprised of 18 Panels)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Device Good Manufacturing Practices      Date(s), if needed, to be
 Advisory Committee.                      determined.
Anesthesiology and Respiratory Therapy   June 8, November 16.
 Devices Panel.
Circulatory System Devices Panel.......  Date(s), if needed, to be
                                          determined.
Clinical Chemistry and Clinical          April 20, July 18-19, September
 Toxicology Devices Panel.                20-21.
Dental Products Panel..................  Date(s), if needed, to be
                                          determined.
Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices Panel....  Date(s), if needed, to be
                                          determined.
Gastroenterology-Urology Devices Panel.  July 13.
General and Plastic Surgery Devices      July 17.
 Panel.
General Hospital and Personal Use        August 16-17.
 Devices Panel.
Hematology and Pathology Devices Panel.  June 28.
Immunology Devices Panel...............  Date(s), if needed, to be
                                          determined.

Medical Devices Dispute Resolution       Date(s), if needed, to be
 Panel.                                   determined.
Microbiology Devices Panel.............  Date(s), if needed, to be
                                          determined.
Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel..  June 27.
Neurological Devices Panel.............  Date(s), if needed, to be
                                          determined.
Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel  July 5-6.
Ophthalmic Devices Panel...............  November 8-9.
Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Devices    September 13-14, November 16,
 Panel.                                   December 6-7.
Radiological Devices Panel.............  November 2.
National Mammography Quality Assurance   October 18.
 Advisory Committee.
Technical Electronic Product Radiation   June 14.
 Safety Standards Committee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND APPLIED NUTRITION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Advisory Committee................  December 13-14.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       CENTER FOR TOBACCO PRODUCTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory     January 18-20, March 1-2.
 Committee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     CENTER FOR VETERINARY MEDICINE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee.  Date(s), if needed, to be
                                          determined.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            NATIONAL CENTER FOR TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH (NCTR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science Advisory Board to NCTR.........  October 23-24.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: December 14, 2011.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-32469 Filed 12-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 227 (Monday, November 28, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72871-72873]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25817]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1004; Airspace Docket No. 22-ACE-16]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Liberal, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace at Liberal, KS. This
action is the result of an airspace review conducted as part of the
decommissioning of the Liberal very high frequency (VHF)
omnidirectional range (VOR) as part of the VOR Minimal Operational
Network (MON) Program. The name and geographic coordinates of the
airport and the name of the navigational aid are also being updated to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 23, 2023. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can

be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the Class E surface airspace, and the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Liberal Mid-America
Regional Airport, Liberal, KS, to support instrument flight rule
operations at this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register (87 FR 51620; August 23, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-
2022-1004 to amend the Class E airspace at Liberal, KS. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002 and
6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022,
and effective September 15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in
14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

Differences From the NPRM

    Subsequent to publication, it was discovered that the name of the
airport was not updated in the Class E airspace area designated as a
surface area airspace legal description. That error has been corrected
in this action.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:
    Amends the Class E surface airspace at Liberal Mid-America Regional
Airport, Liberal, KS, by removing the Liberal VORTAC and associated
extensions from the airspace legal description; updates the name
(previously Liberal Municipal Airport) and geographic coordinates of
the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and
updates the outdated terms ``Notice to Airmen'' with ``Notice to Air
Missions'' and ``Airport/Facility Directory'' with ``Chart
Supplement'';
    And amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 6.7-mile (increased form a 6.4-mile) radius
of Liberal Mid-America Regional Airport; removes the Liberal VORTAC and
associated extensions from the airspace legal description; updates the
extension south of the airport to 3.9 (increased from 3) miles each
side of the 180[deg] bearing from the Liberal Mid-America Regional: RWY
35-LOC (previously ILS localizer course) extending from the 6.7-mile
(increased from 6.4-mile) radius of the airport to 11.9 (decreased from
12) miles south of the airport; and updates the name (previously
Liberal Municipal Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport
and the name of the Liberal Mid-America Regional: RWY 35-LOC
(previously Liberal Municipal Airport ILS) to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database.
    This action is due to an airspace review conducted as part of the
decommissioning of the Liberal VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures this airport, as part of the
VOR MON Program.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas

* * * * *

ACE KS E2 Liberal, KS [Amended]

Liberal Mid-America Regional Airport, KS

    (Lat. 37[deg]02'38'' N, long. 100[deg]57'36'' W)
    Within a 4.2-mile radius of Liberal Mid-America Regional
Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions.
The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

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

* * * * *

ACE KS E5 Liberal, KS [Amended]

Liberal Mid-America Regional Airport, KS
    (Lat. 37[deg]02'38'' N, long. 100[deg]57'36'' W)
Liberal Mid-America Regional: RWY 35-LOC
    (Lat. 37[deg]03'27'' N, long. 100[deg]57'23'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of Liberal Mid-America Regional Airport;
and within 3.9 miles each side of the 180[deg] bearing from the
Liberal Mid-America Regional: RWY 35-LOC extending from the 6.7-mile
radius of the airport to 11.9 miles south of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 22, 2022.
Steven T. Phillips,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-25817 Filed 11-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 82)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22521-22524]
[DOCID:fr29ap10-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0525; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-027-AD;
Amendment 39-16275; AD 2010-09-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of

another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    AD CF-2002-12 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2003-04-21, amendment
39-13070] mandated installation of revised overwing emergency exit
placards showing that the exit door should be opened and disposed
from a seated position. However, it was later discovered that the
new placards illustrated an incorrect hand position for removal of
the exit upper handle cover. These incorrect instructions could
cause difficulty or delay when opening the overwing emergency exit.

As a result, the timely and safe evacuation of passengers and crew may
be impeded. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 3, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 3,
2010.
    On April 4, 2003 (68 FR 9509, February 28, 2003), the Director of
the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a
certain other publication listed in this AD.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Alfano, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified
products. That supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register
on December 23, 2009 (74 FR 68198), and proposed to supersede AD 2003-
04-21, Amendment 39-13070 (68 FR 9509, February 28, 2003). That
supplemental NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    AD CF-2002-12 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2003-04-21] mandated
installation of revised overwing emergency exit placards showing
that the exit door should be opened and disposed from a seated
position. However, it was later discovered that the new placards
illustrated an incorrect hand position for removal of the exit upper
handle cover. These incorrect instructions could cause difficulty or
delay when opening the overwing emergency exit.

As a result, the timely and safe evacuation of passengers and crew may
be impeded. The required actions include replacing the incorrect
placards with revised placards. You may obtain further information by
examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comment received from the only commenter.

Request To Refer to Updated Service Information

    Air Wisconsin requests that we update the supplemental NPRM to
refer to the most recent service information. Air Wisconsin notes that
Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-11-088, Revision A, dated March 24,
2009, has been revised. Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 601R-11-
088, Revision B, dated November 17, 2009.
    We agree to refer to the latest service information. We have
determined that the actions specified in the revised service bulletin
are essentially identical to the actions specified in Bombardier
Service Bulletin 601R-11-088, Revision A, dated March 24, 2009. We have
revised paragraphs (h) and (k) of this AD to refer to Bombardier
Service Bulletin 601R-11-088, Revision B, dated November 17, 2009. We
have revised paragraph (i) of this AD to also give credit for actions
done in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-11-088,
Revision A, dated March 24, 2009.

Explanation of Change Made to This AD

    We have revised this AD to identify the legal name of the
manufacturer as published in the most recent type certificate data
sheet for the affected airplane models.

Conclusion

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance

    After the supplemental NPRM was issued, we reviewed the figures we
have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to
operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline
industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these
calculations from $80 per work hour to $85 per work hour. The cost
impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified
hourly labor rate.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 664 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $128 per product.
Where the service information lists required parts costs that are
covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge
for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators
to be $141,432, or $213 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-13070 (68 FR
9509, February 28, 2003) corrected at 68 FR 14309, March 25, 2003, and
adding the following new AD:

2010-09-10 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-16275. Docket No. FAA-
2009-0525; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-027-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 3,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2003-04-21 R1, Amendment 39-13070.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any
category, serial numbers 7003 and subsequent.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 11: Placards
and markings.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    AD CF-2002-12 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2003-04-21, amendment
39-13070] mandated installation of revised overwing emergency exit
placards showing that the exit door should be opened and disposed
from a seated position. However, it was later discovered that the
new placards illustrated an incorrect hand position for removal of
the exit upper handle cover. These incorrect instructions could
cause difficulty or delay when opening the overwing emergency exit.

As a result, the timely and safe evacuation of passengers and crew
may be impeded. The required action includes replacing the incorrect
placards with revised placards.

Restatement of Certain Requirements of AD 2003-04-21 R1

    (f) Unless already done, for airplanes identified in Table 1 of
this AD, within 12 months after April 4, 2003 (the effective date of
AD 2003-04-21 R1), replace the door weight placards, and no-baggage
placards with new placards (including cleaning of the applicable
surface), as applicable, per Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin
A601R-11-077, Revision A, dated December 11, 2001, excluding Service
Bulletin Comment Sheet--Facsimile Reply Sheet and CRJ 100/200
Service Bulletin Compliance Facsimile Reply Sheet.

                          Table 1--Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Serial Nos.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
7003 through 7434 inclusive.
7436 through 7442 inclusive.
7444 through 7452 inclusive.
7454 through 7458 inclusive.
7460 through 7497 inclusive.
7499 through 7504 inclusive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (g) Replacement accomplished before April 4, 2003, per
Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-11-077, dated July 12, 2001,
is considered acceptable for compliance with the replacement
specified in paragraph (f) of this AD.

New Requirements of This AD

Actions and Compliance

    (h) Unless already done, within 24 months after the effective
date of this AD, replace the existing overwing emergency exit
placards with new placards in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-11-088, Revision B,
dated November 17, 2009.
    (i) Replacing the overwing emergency exit placards with new
placards before the effective date of this AD in accordance with
Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-11-088, dated June 25, 2008; or
Revision A, dated March 24, 2009; is considered acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding action specified in this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: The MCAI applicability includes certain airplanes. This
AD expands the applicability to include serial numbers 7003 and
subsequent.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (j) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Program Manager, ANE-170,
Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York, 11590; telephone 516-228-
7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal
maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI),
as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD. AMOCs approved previously in
accordance with AD 2003-04-21, Amendment 39-13070, are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (k) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-02,
dated January 19, 2009; Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A601R-11-
077, Revision A, dated December 11, 2001; and Bombardier Service
Bulletin 601R-11-088, Revision B, dated November 17, 2009; for
related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-11-088,
Revision B, dated November 17, 2009; and Bombardier Alert Service
Bulletin A601R-11-077, Revision A, dated December 11, 2001,
excluding Service Bulletin Comment Sheet--Facsimile Reply Sheet and
CRJ 100/200 Service Bulletin Facsimile Reply Sheet; as applicable;
to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Bombardier Service Bulletin A601R-11-
088, Revision B, dated November 17, 2009, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51.
    (2) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the
incorporation by reference of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin
A601R-11-077, Revision A, dated December 11, 2001, excluding Service
Bulletin Comment Sheet--Facsimile Reply Sheet and CRJ 100/200
Service Bulletin Compliance Facsimile Reply Sheet, on April 4, 2003
(68 FR 9509, February 28, 2003).
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on April 16, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-9594 Filed 4-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 201 (Thursday, October 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58387-58389]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22974]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0038; Notice 2]

Ride the Ducks International, LLC, Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Ride the Ducks International, LLC (RTDI), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 1996-2014 Ride the Ducks International Stretch
Amphibious passenger vehicles (APVs) do not fully comply with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield Wiping and
Washing Systems. RTDI filed a noncompliance information report dated
March 15, 2017. RTDI also petitioned NHTSA on April 12, 2017, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Dold, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, NHTSA, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: RTDI has determined that certain MY 1996-2014 RTDI
Stretch APVs do not fully comply with paragraph S4.2.2 of FMVSS No.
104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems (49 CFR 571.104). RTDI filed
a noncompliance information report dated March 15, 2017, pursuant to 49
CFR 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. RTDI also
petitioned NHTSA on April 12, 2017,

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of RTDI's petition was published in the Federal
Register (82 FR 38993) with a 30-day public comment period on August
16, 2017. No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2017-0038.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 105 MY 1996-2014 RTDI Stretch
APVs, manufactured between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 2014 are
potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: RTDI explained that the noncompliance is that
the subject vehicles were manufactured without a windshield washing
system, as required by paragraph S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 104.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 104 includes
the requirements relevant to this petition. Each multipurpose passenger
vehicle, truck, and bus shall have a windshield washing system that
meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J942 (1965)
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  571.5), except that the reference
to ``the effective wipe pattern defined in SAE J903, paragraph 3.1.2''
in paragraph 3.1 of SAE Recommended Practice J942 (1965) shall be
deleted and ``the pattern designed by the manufacturer for the
windshield wiping system on the exterior surface of the windshield
glazing'' shall be inserted in lieu thereof.
    V. Summary of RTDI's Petition: As background, RTDI began to produce
APVs in 1996 by performing extensive modifications to General Motors
amphibious military trucks originally designated as DUKWs. The ability
of the DUKW to transport troops, supplies or equipment across both land
and water made them indispensable in World War II and the Korean War.
The modifications performed by RTDI, which included replacement of the
original drivetrain and enlarging the hull or body, were such that the
end product was a newly manufactured vehicle employing donor parts. The
resulting ``Stretch'' APVs were refurbished by RTDI in accordance with
state and U.S. Coast Guard rules and regulations. RTDI has not
manufactured any vehicles since 2014.
    RTDI described the subject noncompliance as the absence of a
compliant windshield washer system and stated its belief that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, RTDI submitted the following reasoning:

    1. FMVSS No. 104 specifies, in relevant part, that ``each . . .
[vehicle] shall have a windshield washing system that meets the
requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J942 (1965).'' 49 CFR
571.104, S4(a), S4.2.2. This FMVSS is designed to ensure that when
activated, the windshield washing system is capable of reaching a
sufficient portion of the exterior surface of the windshield, as
designed by the manufacturer. The standard establishes minimum
performance requirements for the windshield wiping and washing
systems so that the vehicle operator is able to sufficiently see
through the windshield. The APVs have features installed that are
designed to achieve the same purpose as the standard. If there is
debris present on the windshield, the driver is able to engage the
vehicle's windshield wipers to clear the windshield's exterior
surface. Further, the windshield of the APVs have a unique design
that allows the driver to fully lower and raise the windshield
glass. In the event that the windshield wipers could not clear the
surface of the windshield, the driver has the option of lowering the
windshield. Under either option, the visibility of the operator
would not be compromised.
    2. In the water portion of the vehicles' tours, the APVs are
required to have the windshield lowered during operation, per U.S.
Coast Guard regulations. The Coast Guard has recognized that in the
event of an accident on the water, a raised windshield could impede
passenger egress. Consequently, the Coast Guard has issued guidance
which provides that the windshields of APVs be ``designed to fold
down with minimal force to allow egress.'' U.S. Coast Guard
Navigation and Inspection Circular (NVIC) 1-01, inspection of
Amphibious Passenger Carrying Vehicles, p. 24. Further, the APV's
exteriors, including the windshields, are washed after each tour,
removing any debris that may have accumulated during the last tour.
    3. From its inception, the Safety Act has included a provision
recognizing that some noncompliances may pose little or no actual
safety risk. The Safety Act exempts manufacturers from their
statutory obligation to provide notice and remedy upon a
determination by NHTSA that a noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(d). In applying this
recognition to particular fact situations, the Agency considers
whether the noncompliance gives rise to ``a significantly greater
risk than . . . in a compliant vehicle.'' 69 FR 19897, 19900 (April
14, 2000). As described above, the specialized design of the APVs
and the vehicles' pattern of use does not expose the vehicles to
conditions that could create an increased safety risk when compared
to a vehicle that has a windshield washing system installed.

    RTDI concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    VI. Supplemental Information: On October 10, 2017, RTDI, per a
request from NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, provided the following
supplemental information: Regarding FMVSS No. 104, RTDI asserted that:

    a. As per U.S. Coast Guard NVIC 1-01 ``Guidelines for the
Certifications of Amphibious Vessels,'' for the purposes of
emergency egress the windshields of APVs should be designed to fold
down with minimum force. The RTDI vehicles' front windshields are
hinged at the bottom and there is a mechanical lever linked to the
windshield frame. To quickly and safely lower or open the
windshield, the driver simply lifts upward or pulls downward on the
mechanical lever. The action of lowering and raising the windshield
takes little effort as there are gas springs incorporated into the
hinge which minimizes the weight and force involved in operating the
windshield. Testing revealed the highest peak measurement at 22.6
lbs. of force. RTDI drivers often open the windshield when the
vehicle is stopped or in slow moving heavy traffic and at a low rate
of speed to allow fresh air into the driver and passenger space. The
U.S. Coast Guard inspects and tests the windshield opening feature
annually.
    b. RTDI has established operational safety guidelines for the
use of the drivers open/close feature. RTDI's guidelines states that
an operator should not open the windshield ``unless the visibility
through the windshield becomes obstructed, the opening and closing
of the front windshield should only take place when the vehicle is
traveling at a slow rate of speed (i.e., slow moving traffic
conditions) and/or when the vehicle comes to a complete stop.''

    VII. NHTSA's Analysis: NHTSA has considered RTDI's arguments and
has determined that RTDI has not met its burden of demonstrating that
the subject noncompliance is inconsequential. The Agency responds to
RTDI's arguments below.
    The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in a standard--as opposed to a
labeling requirement--is more substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such noncompliances
inconsequential.\1\ Potential performance failures of safety-

critical equipment, like seat belts or air bags, are rarely deemed
inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality
based upon NHTSA's prior decisions on noncompliance issues was the
safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\2\ NHTSA also does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue
is inconsequential to safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a
complaint does not mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does
it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.'' \3\
``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction
have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that good luck will
continue to work.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \3\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
    \4\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk when it
``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire,
and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards, in
this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in the
future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected have also not justified granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\5\ Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions
based on the assertion that only a small percentage of vehicles or
items of equipment are likely to actually exhibit a noncompliance. The
percentage of potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a
noncompliance does not determine the question of inconsequentiality.
Rather, the issue to consider is the consequence to an occupant who is
exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
    \6\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For safe viewing through the front windshield, FMVSS No. 104
requires both a windshield wiping system and a washing system. The
Agency believes that both systems are critical, and at times must work
together, to ensure a clear view through the windshield. The purpose of
the washing system is to aid the wiping system in the event that dust,
dirt, mud, or other obstructions occur and the wipers are not
sufficient to quickly and properly clear the windshield.
    RTDI stated that the features of the APVs achieve the same purpose
as the standard without a windshield washing system. According to RTDI,
if debris is present on the windshield the driver can engage the
windshield wiping system to clear the windshield exterior surface. RTDI
also explained that in the event the windshield wipers could not clear
the surface of the windshield the driver has the option of lowering the
windshield.
    The Agency does not agree with RTDI's assessment that the subject
APVs are designed to achieve the same purpose as the standard without a
windshield washing system. The Agency understands that these vehicles
can be operated on public roadways at speeds up to 50 miles per hour.
It is not uncommon while traveling at posted speeds to encounter
conditions where the windshield wipers and the washing system must be
used together to maintain forward visibility through the windshield.
One good example of such a condition occurs shortly after a rain shower
has ended, the roads are still wet, and other vehicles operating on the
roadway are throwing up water spray and road dirt that can accumulate
on following vehicle windshields. In this situation, both the
windshield wipers and windshield washing systems would be required for
safe operations.
    Furthermore, in a follow-up response to a request from the Agency,
RTDI informed the Agency that its safety guidelines only permit the
driver to open and close the windshield should visibility become
obstructed, and only when the vehicle is traveling at a slow rate of
speed or is stopped. Thus, if the vehicle is moving at higher speeds
under conditions as mentioned above, the Agency believes it would
present a safety concern to lower the windshield.
    VIII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
finds that RTDI has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject
FMVSS No. 104 noncompliance in the subject vehicles is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, RTDI's petition is hereby denied
and RTDI is consequently obligated to provide notification of, and a
free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Joseph Kolly,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2021-22974 Filed 10-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P