[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77709-77712]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32072]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0732; FRL-9327-6]

Butyl acrylate-methacrylic acid-styrene polymer; Tolerance
Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer
with butyl 2-propenoate and ethenylbenzene (CAS Reg. No. 25036-16-2);
also known as butyl acrylate-methacrylic acid-styrene polymer when used
as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. Momentive
Performance Materials submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of 2-Propenoic acid,
2-methyl-, polymer with butyl 2-propenoate and ethenylbenzene on food
or feed commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective December 14, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 13, 2012,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0732. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Fertich, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. how can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. Can I File an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0732 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
February 13, 2012. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0732, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of October 5, 2011 (76 FR 61647) (FRL-8890-
5), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP 1E7909) filed
by Momentive Performance Materials, 3500 South State Route 2; Friendly,
WV 26146. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance for residues of 2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with
butyl 2-propenoate and ethenylbenzene; CAS Reg. No. 25036-16-2. That
notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner
and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency received
one comment from a private citizen who opposed the authorization to
sell any pesticide that leaves a residue on food. The Agency
understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some
individuals believe that no residue of pesticides should be allowed.
However, under the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of
FFDCA EPA is authorized to establish pesticide tolerances or exemptions
where persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated
that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by the statute.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * * *'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Butyl acrylate-methacrylic acid-styrene
polymer conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR
723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify
low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    7. The polymer's number average MW of 17,000 is greater than or
equal to 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 2% oligomeric
material below MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric material below MW
1,000.
    Thus, butyl acrylate-methacrylic acid-styrene polymer meets the
criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250.
Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian
toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to
butyl acrylate-methacrylic acid-styrene polymer.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that butyl acrylate-methacrylic acid-styrene
polymer could be present in all raw and processed agricultural
commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary
exposure was possible. The number average MW of butyl acrylate-
methacrylic acid-styrene polymer is 17,000 daltons. Generally, a
polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact
gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since butyl
acrylate-methacrylic acid-styrene polymer conform to the criteria that
identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated
with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable.
The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect
the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found butyl acrylate-methacrylic acid-styrene polymer
to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and
butyl acrylate-methacrylic acid-styrene polymer does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
butyl acrylate-methacrylic acid-styrene polymer does not have a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding
EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see
EPA's Web site at http:[sol][sol]www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of butyl acrylate-
methacrylic acid-styrene polymer, EPA has not used a safety factor
analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional
tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of butyl acrylate-methacrylic acid-
styrene polymer.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for butyl acrylate-methacrylic
acid-styrene polymer.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of butyl acrylate-
methacrylic acid-styrene polymer from the requirement of a tolerance
will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from
review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it involve any technical standards that
would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards
pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or otherwise have any unique
impacts on local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not
apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L.
104-4).
    Although this action does not require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA seeks to achieve
environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is
publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency
considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of
their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical
or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or
environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this
document, compared to the general population.

XI. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this rule in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 29, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.960, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following polymers to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with butyl 2-            25036-16-2
 propenoate and ethenylbenzene, minimum number average
 molecular weight (in amu), 17,000.........................

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-32072 Filed 12-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 151)]
[Notices]
[Page 47604]
[DOCID:fr06au10-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0495]

Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration
Staff; Medical Devices; Neurological and Physical Medicine Device
Guidance Document; Reopening of Comment Period; Correction

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
that appeared in the Federal Register of July 28, 2010 (75 FR 44267).
The document reopened the comment period for a notice of availability
of draft guidance documents for 11 neurological and physical medicine
devices. The document was published with an inadvertent error. This
document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Joyce Strong, Office of Policy, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, rm. 3208,
Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2010-18406, appearing on page
44267, in the Federal Register of Wednesday, July 28, 2010, the
following correction is made:
    1. On page 44267, in the first column, the heading ``[Docket No.
FDA-2009-N-0495]'' is corrected to read ``[Docket No. FDA-2009-D-
0495]''.

    Dated: July 30, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-19355 Filed 8-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9623-9628]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02987]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0011]
RIN 2127-AL11

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Air Brake Systems

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: On July 27, 2009, NHTSA published a final rule that amended
the Federal motor vehicle safety standard for air brake systems by
requiring substantial improvements in stopping distance performance on
new truck tractors. This final rule responds to petitions for
reconsideration of a July 27, 2011 final rule that slightly relaxed the
stopping distance requirement for typical loaded tractors tested from
an initial speed of 20 mph. NHTSA is granting the request to remove the
stopping distance requirements for speeds of 20 mph and 25 mph and
denying the request to relax the stopping distance requirements for
speeds between 30 mph and 55 mph.

DATES: This final rule is effective February 11, 2013.
    Petitions for reconsideration must be received not later than March
28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number and must be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
George Soodoo, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, by telephone at
(202) 366-4931, and by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For legal issues, you may contact David Jasinski, Office of the
Chief Counsel, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at (202) 366-
3820.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background of the Stopping Distance Requirement
II. Petition for Reconsideration
III. Response to Petition
    A. Stopping Distance Requirements at Speeds Between 30 and 55
MPH
    B. Stopping Distance Requirements at Speeds of 20 and 25 MPH
IV. Administrative Procedure Act Requirements
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background of the Stopping Distance Requirement

    On July 27, 2009, NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal
Register amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
121, Air Brake Systems, to require improved stopping distance
performance for heavy truck tractors.\1\ This rule reduced the maximum
allowable stopping distance, from 60 mph, from 355 feet to 250 feet for
the vast majority of loaded heavy truck tractors. For a small minority
of loaded very heavy tractors, the maximum allowable stopping distance
was reduced from 355 feet to 310 feet. Having come to the conclusion
that modifications needed for ``typical three-axle tractors'' to meet
the improved requirements were relatively straightforward, NHTSA
provided two years lead time for those vehicles to comply with the new
requirements. These typical three-axle tractors comprise approximately
82 percent of the total fleet of heavy tractors. The agency concluded
that other tractors, which are produced in far fewer numbers and may
need additional work to ensure stability and control while braking,
would need more lead time to meet the requirements. Due to extra time
needed to design, test, and validate these vehicles, which included
two-axle tractors and severe service tractors, the agency allowed four
years lead time for these tractors to meet the improved stopping
distance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 74 FR 37122; Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0083-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Requirements in FMVSS No. 121 provide that if the speed attainable
by a vehicle in two miles is less than 60 mph, the speed at which the
vehicle shall meet the specified stopping distances is four to eight
mph less than the speed attainable in two miles. In the July 2009 final
rule, the agency used an equation to derive the required stopping
distances for vehicles with initial speeds of less than 60 mph.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The complete derivation for this equation was included in
the docket. See Docket No. NHTSA-2005-21462-0039, at 18-22.

St = (\1/2\ Vo tr) + ((\1/2\)
Vo\2\/af)-((1/24) af tr
\2\)
Where:

St = Total stopping distance in feet
Vo = Initial Speed in ft/sec
tr = Air pressure rise time in seconds
af = Steady-state deceleration in ft/sec\2\

For the final rule, the agency selected an air pressure rise time of
0.45 seconds,

which is equal to the brake actuation timing requirement in FMVSS No.
121. The steady-state deceleration was based on a theoretical
deceleration curve in which vehicle deceleration would increase
linearly during the rise time portion of the stopping event, followed
by constant steady-state deceleration, followed by an instantaneous
decrease in acceleration back to zero at the completion of the stop.
Table II in FMVSS No. 121 sets forth the stopping distance requirements
for speeds from 60 mph down to 20 mph (in increments of 5 mph) for both
typical and severe service tractors in the loaded conditions and all
tractors in the unloaded condition derived using that formula.
    In a final rule published in the Federal Register on November 13,
2009, the agency addressed petitions for reconsideration regarding the
stopping distance requirements for reduced speeds, the omission of
four-axle tractors under 59,600 pounds gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) from the listed requirements and the date on which the improved
stopping distance requirements should apply to those tractors, the
manner in which NHTSA characterized the typical three-axle tractor, and
the fuel tank fill level testing specification.\3\ The November 2009
final rule made the following amendments: (1) The agency accepted the
recommendation of the petitioners and required compliance with the
improved stopping distance requirements for tractors with four or more
axles and a GVWR of 59,600 pounds or less by August 1, 2013, thereby
giving four years of lead time; (2) the agency revised the definition
of a ``typical three-axle tractor'' in the regulatory text to include
three-axle tractors having a steer axle gross axle weight rating (GAWR)
of 14,600 pounds or less and a combined drive axle GAWR of 45,000
pounds or less; (3) the agency removed the fuel tank loading
specification from the test procedure; (4) the agency made two
typographical corrections.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 74 FR 58562; Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0175-0001.
    \4\ The agency made further correcting amendments to correct an
omission in the November 2009 final rule. See 75 FR 15620 (Mar. 30,
2010); Docket No. 2009-0175-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a final rule published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2011,
the agency responded to petitions for reconsideration with respect to
the new stopping distance requirements from reduced initial speeds.\5\
The agency increased the stopping distances set forth in Table II of
FMVSS No. 121 for typical tractors in the loaded condition (column (3))
and for unloaded tractors (column (6)) from an initial speed of 20 mph.
For typical tractors in the loaded condition, the agency increased the
stopping distance from an initial speed of 20 mph from 30 feet to 32
feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 76 FR 44829; Docket No. 2009-0175-0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency made this change after conducting additional tractor
testing.\6\ In the test program, one of the agency's three-axle
tractors that had been used in previous brake research was loaded to a
modified gross vehicle weight so that it was able to stop from 60 mph
as close as possible to the 250-foot stopping distance requirements.
Additional tests were then conducted at each initial speed specified in
Table II of FMVSS No. 121 in both the loaded and unloaded condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Experimental Measurement of the Stopping Performance of a
Tractor-Semitrailer from Multiple Speeds, Report No. DOT HS 811 488
(June 2011); Docket No. 2009-0175-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 60 mph stop showed a slightly different deceleration profile
compared to the idealized deceleration profile that was predicted by
the stopping distance equation. For example, the equation assumed that
the deceleration rate would remain steady for the majority of the stop.
However, testing found varying deceleration rates during the stop with
slightly higher deceleration rates as the vehicle's speed approached
zero. By averaging the stopping distances from six stops from each
speed in each loading condition, the agency was able to compare the
test results to Table II. The test tractor performed slightly better
than the Table II stopping distance requirements at each test speed
between 30 mph and 55 mph. At 25 mph, the test tractor closely matched
the Table II stopping distance (44.2 feet in testing compared to 45
feet in Table II). However, at 20 mph, the test tractor performed worse
than the Table II stopping distance (31.2 feet in testing compared to
30 feet in Table II).
    The agency concluded that the tractor testing demonstrated that
there were slight inaccuracies in the equation due to the theoretical
deceleration profile's not matching the test tractor. We found that
braking tests with initial speeds below 35 mph are of such short
duration that there is insufficient time to attain and maintain the
level of steady-state deceleration performance that is seen from higher
initial braking speeds. However, the agency determined that additional
research would not likely lead to improvements in the robustness of the
equation, nor would it be likely to suggest a need for any significant
changes to the Table II stopping distance requirements.

II. Petition for Reconsideration

    NHTSA received one petition for reconsideration of the July 2011
final rule from the Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA).\7\
The petition for reconsideration addressed two issues. First, EMA
requested that the agency amend the reduced-speed stopping distances
for loaded tractors that fall outside of the definition of a typical
three-axle tractor. Second, EMA requested that the agency amend FMVSS
No. 121 to remove the stopping distance requirements for initial speeds
of 20 and 25 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0175-0008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Heavy Duty Brake Manufacturers Council (HDBMC) submitted a
document that it styled as comments regarding the July 2011 final rule.
In its comments, HDBMC requested that the agency do four things: (1)
Reconsider adopting HDBMC's recommendations regarding stopping
distances at lower speeds; \8\ (2) eliminate the 20 mph stopping
distance requirements from Table II; (3) initiate additional research
to study the effect of different design solutions on stopping distance
from 25 and 30 mph and revise Table II based on that research; and (4)
consider the impact of the agency's 20 mph stopping distance
requirements on in-service braking performance set by the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Because HDBMC's submission was
styled as a comment, we will consider it to the extent it is applicable
to EMA's petition for reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Docket Nos. NHTSA-2005-21462-0020; NHTSA-2009-0083-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Response to Petition

A. Stopping Distance Requirements at Speeds Between 30 and 55 MPH

    EMA's first request in its petition for reconsideration is for
NHTSA to reduce the stopping distance requirements in Table II of FMVSS
No. 121 for initial speeds between 30 mph and 55 mph. EMA acknowledged
NHTSA has conducted testing at lower speeds, but EMA contended that
NHTSA's testing of a single tractor falls short of what is needed to
confirm that the reduced-speed stopping distance requirements are
appropriate for all types of tractors regulated by FMVSS No. 121.
Further, EMA asserted that the tractor tested by the agency was not
representative of a typical three-axle tractor because it was equipped
with 24.5 inch diameter wheels, instead of the more common 22.5 inch
diameter wheels, which provided the tractor with additional tire-to-
road surface friction. EMA also

stated that the agency's testing was insufficient to justify the
reduced-speed stopping distance requirements because the test tractor
was equipped with disc brakes on the steer axle, which generated
braking power more quickly than if drum brakes had been used. It also
stated that, for the fully loaded testing, the vehicle had been loaded
to a lighter weight than the tractor was rated for, which improved its
braking performance by allowing brake torque to be generated in less
time and with less brake fade during the stops. EMA also asserted that
the tractor's brakes were conditioned much more thoroughly than is done
using the FMVSS No. 121 brake burnishing procedure, which enhanced the
vehicle's braking performance. Even assuming that the vehicle tested by
the agency was representative of a typical three-axle tractor, EMA
asserted that the testing cannot be used to validate the stopping
distance requirements for two-axle tractors or severe service tractors.
    EMA included with its petition the results of TruckSim computer
simulations used to determine the braking performance at reduced
initial speeds for two types of tractors (normal duty and severe duty)
that EMA stated had the precise braking improvements needed to meet the
new 60 mph stopping distance requirements for each type of tractor (250
feet and 310 feet, respectively). EMA's TruckSim results are shown in
Table 1.

             Table 1--EMA TruckSim Stopping Distance Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          EMA TruckSim results,    EMA TruckSim results,
 Initial braking speed       typical tractor      severe service tractor
         (mph)            (stopping distance in    (stopping distance in
                                  feet)                    feet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               30                       74                       86
               35                       96                      111
               40                      122                      143
               45                      150                      177
               50                      180                      212
               55                      214                      260
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EMA also included an appendix showing stopping distance performance
from reduced speeds of seven tractors that are considered typical
three-axle tractors. EMA observed that, although the compliance margins
for stops from 60 mph ranged from 10.5 to 12.3 percent, the compliance
margins for stops from 30 mph varied much more greatly, from -3.2 to
16.3 percent. A summary of EMA's three-axle testing appears in Table 2.

                                                  Table 2--EMA Typical Three-Axle Tractor Test Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               FMVSS No. 121                              Stopping distance performance (feet)
                                                  stopping    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Speed (mph)                      distance
                                                requirement     Vehicle A    Vehicle B    Vehicle C    Vehicle D    Vehicle E    Vehicle F    Vehicle G
                                                   (feet)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30..........................................               65         54.4         67.1         56.3  ...........         61.4         56.9         59.3
35..........................................               89  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
40..........................................              114         93.0  ...........         92.3         96.2         98.2         99.0         97.7
45..........................................              144  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
50..........................................              176        143.6  ...........        151.0  ...........        152.4  ...........        156.5
55..........................................              212  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
60..........................................              250        219.2        220.1        219.8        220.2        223.6  ...........        223.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EMA requested in its petition that the agency adopt the stopping
distances for initial test speeds between 30 mph and 55 mph set forth
in Table I in place of the existing stopping distance requirements
specified in Table II of FMVSS No. 121. Alternatively, EMA requested
that the agency should change the stopping distance requirements from
reduced initial speeds back to those that were in place prior to the
July 2009 final rule.
    For the reasons discussed below, we do not believe changes to the
reduced speed stopping distance requirements are necessary, nor do we
believe that unique or complicated braking systems (that is,
modifications beyond those contemplated in the July 2009 final rule)
are needed to comply with the requirements that went into effect for
typical three-axle tractors on August 1, 2011 and will go into effect
for 4x2 and severe-service tractors on August 1, 2013. We note that,
although EMA's petition expressly requested that NHTSA change the
stopping distance requirements at reduced speeds for severe-service
tractors, EMA's petition contained substantial discussion regarding the
stopping distance requirements for typical tractors. Thus, the agency
has considered all of the reduced speed stopping distance requirements
in the loaded condition.
    By way of background, the agency notes that, in setting the
requirements for tractor stopping distances at reduced initial test
speeds, the agency did not intend that unique or complicated brake
systems would be needed solely to meet the new requirements at reduced
initial test speeds. The agency assumed that most tractors would
require some type of foundation brake system improvement in order to
meet the new 60 mph stopping distance requirements of 250 feet for
typical tractors and 310 feet for severe-service tractors. As discussed
in the July 2009 final rule, the agency's best estimate was that, at a
minimum, all typical three-axle tractors would need to have larger S-
cam drum foundation brakes installed on the steer and drive axles and
all two-axle tractors and severe-service tractors would need to be
equipped with disc brakes on the steer and drive axles in order to meet
the new 60 mph stopping distance requirements with an adequate margin
for compliance.\9\ EMA's current petition for reconsideration suggests
that, without changing the stopping distance requirements for reduced
initial speeds, vehicle manufacturers will need to develop unique or
complicated braking systems to comply with these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 74 FR 37152-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its petition for reconsideration, EMA raised several issues
regarding the

validity of the agency's testing of stopping distance from reduced
initial speeds. The outcome of this testing led NHTSA to make minor
adjustments in the July 2011 final rule to the Table II stopping
distance requirements final rule from an initial speed of 20 mph.
    The agency selected the vehicle that was tested based on its prior
60 mph stopping distance of 249 feet, which is nearly equal to the
upgraded 60 mph stopping distance requirement. However, when the
tractor was prepared for additional testing, its 60 mph stopping
distance was found to have increased to approximately 295 feet.
Therefore, a substantial amount of ballast reduction was necessary to
improve the tractor's performance to reach a zero margin of compliance
relative to the 60 mph stopping distance requirement. Contrary to EMA's
assertion that this tractor had braking performance that was better
than normal tractors, we believe this tractor had poor braking
performance that required the agency to remove ballast weight.
    EMA identified four factors in the agency's test program that it
believed had a disproportionately positive effect on stopping
performance from reduced initial speeds:
     It was equipped with 24.5 inch diameter wheels rather than
the more common 22.5 inch wheels.
     The disc brakes on the steer axle generated more braking
power than drum brakes would have and caused more load transfer to the
steer axle resulting in less tendency for wheel lockup.
     The reduction in test weight resulted in a lightly loaded
condition and the brakes had excess power to stop the vehicle with less
fade than brakes designed for a tractor with a lower GVWR.
     The additional stops conducted during the test program
provided exceptional brake burnish that would not be accomplished in an
FMVSS No. 121 compliance test.
    The agency does not believe that any of these factors had a
substantial effect on the outcome of the braking tests. Many of EMA's
concerns are countered by the alteration of the ballast weight to
provide a zero margin of compliance with the 250-foot stopping distance
requirement from 60 mph. For example, we agree that changing the wheel
diameter or type of steer axle brakes could result in better or worse
braking performance than was achieved during the agency's testing.
Similarly, HDBMC asserted that, by removing ballast weight and reducing
the load on the tires, the tire-to-road coefficient increases, which
would enable shorter stopping distances. However, had the wheel
diameter, steer axle brake type, or tires been changed, the agency
would have adjusted the ballast weight up or down as needed so that the
tractor would have a zero margin of compliance with the 250-foot
stopping distance requirement from an initial speed of 60 mph. The
tractor deceleration rate is generally based on the quotient of the
total braking force divided by the total vehicle weight. Thus,
deceleration rate can be adjusted by increasing or decreasing the
braking force or the weight.\10\ That is, changing the weight
normalized the braking performance so the agency could make direct
comparisons of stopping distances at different speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ An upper deceleration limit could be reached if the brakes
can generate sufficient torque to lock up all of the vehicle's
wheels. However, this limit was not reached in the agency's tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the brake burnish, we note that the vehicle's braking
performance was consistent throughout the test program. Furthermore,
after testing at reduced speeds, the agency conducted additional stops
from 60 mph to ensure the vehicle's stopping distance performance had
not changed. As indicated in the agency's test report, nothing about
the vehicle's stopping distance performance changed during testing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0175-0005, at 13, 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the issue of whether the agency's test tractor is
representative of a 4x2 tractor or a severe-service tractor, which was
raised by both EMA and HDBMC, we believe that all types of tractors
share the same overall characteristics in terms of brake system
reaction time and steady-state deceleration. The largest severe-service
tractors are expected to have lower steady-state deceleration based on
prior agency testing at 60 mph. Thus, they are provided with longer
allowable stopping distances than lighter tractors. However, we would
not expect that the brake systems would perform substantially
differently. EMA did not provide any detailed test data showing that
these other types of tractors brake differently from reduced initial
speeds than the typical three-axle tractor that the agency tested. The
test data provided by EMA to the agency in 2006 for 4x2 and severe-
service tractors addressed only the initial test speed of 60 mph.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2005-21462-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency has reviewed the stopping distance data that EMA listed
in Appendix A of its petition for typical three-axle tractors. Test
results were not provided for each of the seven tractors at each
initial test speed. Six of the tractors were tested from 60 mph, four
were tested from 50 mph, six were tested from 40 mph, and six were
tested from 30 mph.
    The 60 mph braking performance for the six vehicles that were
tested showed stopping distances between 219 and 224 feet,
corresponding to margins of compliance with the upgraded stopping
distance requirement of 10 to 12 percent. From an initial test speed of
50 mph the four vehicles that were tested had stopping distances
between 143 and 157 feet, corresponding to an 11 to 18 percent margin
of compliance with the 176-foot stopping distance requirement from 50
mph. From an initial test speed of 40 mph, the four tractors that were
tested had stopping distances between 92 and 99 feet, corresponding to
a 13 to 19 percent margin of compliance with the 114-foot stopping
distance requirement.
    From an initial test speed of 30 mph, the current FMVSS No. 121
stopping distance requirement is 65 feet. Three of the tractors tested
by EMA met this requirement with at least a 10 percent margin of
compliance. One tractor met this requirement with a 9 percent margin of
compliance. One tractor met this requirement with a 6 percent margin of
compliance. One tractor (Vehicle B) had a stopping distance of 67 feet,
which was 3 percent longer than the FMVSS No. 121 requirement. Vehicle
B test data was only provided at initial test speeds of 30 mph and 60
mph.
    The agency could not conduct a technical evaluation of EMA's
stopping distance results. EMA did not provide details regarding how
many stops were conducted at each speed. This is important because the
FMVSS No. 121 stopping distance requirement states that a vehicle must
stop within the distance specified in Table II at least once out of six
stops. If six stops were conducted, EMA's data does not show how much
variability occurred in each tractor's six-stop series. Moreover, EMA
did not provide information about the specific tractors tested such as
GVWR, GAWRs, wheelbase, type and size of brake components, antilock
brake system configurations, and brake application timing, which would
provide more information regarding braking performance. Without this
information, the agency cannot determine what measures might be needed
in order for Vehicle B's braking performance to be improved to meet the
65-foot stopping distance requirement from 30 mph. The difference in
performance from Vehicle B could be explained by differences in brake

systems among the seven tractors tested. However, EMA did not provide
sufficient details for the agency to determine if any of the brake
system differences would be considered to be unique or complicated
beyond the brake system improvements contemplated by the agency in its
July 2009 final rule.
    Similarly, the TruckSim results provided by EMA do not contain
sufficient detail to justify a change to the stopping distance
requirements. Aside from stating that the simulated tractors were
equipped with brake system improvements needed to meet the 60 mph
stopping distance requirements, EMA did not provide any information of
the characteristics of the simulated tractors, including the number of
axles, GVWR, GAWR, foundation brake type and size, brake actuator size,
brake application timing, brake system deceleration rise time, or
stopping distance deceleration profiles for the agency to review.
Without sufficient details underlying the simulation, the agency cannot
accept the simulation results as sufficient justification to revise the
stopping distance requirements.
    Based on the foregoing, the agency concludes that EMA's assertion
that unique or complicated brake systems would be needed to meet the
stopping distance requirements from reduced initial test speeds is not
supported by the information before the agency. Without details
regarding the testing of tractor brake testing or the TruckSim
simulations, those results do not demonstrate that brake systems
changes other than those contemplated by the July 2009 final rule are
necessary to meet the reduced stopping distance requirements.
Accordingly, the agency is denying EMA's request to amend Table II of
FMVSS No. 121 to increase the required stopping distance from reduced
initial test speeds between 30 and 55 mph.

B. Stopping Distance Requirements at Speeds of 20 and 25 MPH

    EMA also requested that NHTSA amend FMVSS No. 121 to remove the
stopping distance performance requirements at initial speeds of 20 and
25 mph. As set forth in S3, FMVSS No. 121 does not apply to any truck
or bus that has a speed attainable in 2 miles of not more than 33 mph.
For vehicles that cannot attain a speed of 60 mph in 2 miles, the
vehicle is required to stop from a speed in Table II or IIa that is 4
to 8 mph less than the speed attainable in 2 miles.\13\ Therefore, a
tractor that can only attain a speed of 34 mph would be tested from an
initial speed of 30 mph, and there are no vehicles that would be
subjected to testing from an initial speed of 20 or 25 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Tractors that are not what the agency considers ``typical
three-axle tractors'' have additional lead time to comply with the
improved stopping distance requirements. Prior to August 1, 2013,
those tractors may comply with the stopping distance requirements in
Table IIa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EMA states that, because the stopping distances from 20 and 25 mph
have no bearing on compliance with FMVSS No. 121, maintaining those
stopping distances in FMVSS No. 121 wastes time and resources and keeps
a potentially confusing contradiction in the standard. HDBMC supported
eliminating the 20 mph stopping distances from FMVSS No. 121.
    We agree with EMA inasmuch as they state that maintaining the 20
and 25 mph stopping distance is unnecessary because those stopping
distances do not apply to any vehicle subject to FMVSS No. 121.\14\
Accordingly, we are granting EMA's request to delete the 20 and 25 mph
stopping distances for all vehicle types from Tables II and IIa in
FMVSS No. 121 for both the service brake and the emergency brake. This
final rule replaces Tables II and IIa with new tables without stopping
distances for 20 and 25 mph that are otherwise substantively
unchanged.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ We need not comment on EMA's other bases for removing the
20 and 25 mph stopping distances from FMVSS No. 121.
    \15\ We have also taken the opportunity to correct a formatting
error in Table IIa. The present version of the table separates the
term ``PFC'' (peak coefficient of friction) from the 0.9 value for
PFC. The correct format is included in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Administrative Procedure Act Requirements

    This final rule eliminates the 20 and 25 mph stopping distances
from Table II for all types of vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 121,
including buses and single unit trucks that were not addressed in the
rulemaking proceeding leading to the July 2009, November 2009, and July
2011 final rules. This final rule does not impose any substantive
requirements. It simply removes stopping distances from Tables II and
IIa that are not requirements for any vehicle subject to FMVSS No. 121.
This final rule will have no substantive effect. Therefore the agency
has determined that notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant
to 5 USC 553(b) is unnecessary.
    A rule ordinarily cannot take effect earlier than 30 days after it
is published pursuant to 5 USC 553(d) except when the agency finds,
among other things, good cause for an earlier effective date. In
addition, 49 USC 30111(d) provides that a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard may not become effective before the 180th day after the
standard is prescribed or later than one year after it is prescribed
except when a different effective date is, for good cause shown, in the
public interest. These amendments would not impose new requirements;
rather, these amendments simply delete stopping distances at speeds
that are not tested by the agency and will have no substantive effect.
Therefore, good cause exists for these amendments to be made effective
immediately.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action
under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and the DOT's regulatory
policies and procedures. This action was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agency has
considered the impact of this action under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979), and has determined that it is not ``significant''
under them.
    This action completes the agency's response to petitions for
reconsideration regarding the July 2011 final rule amending FMVSS No.
121. This final rule deletes stopping distances from the tables in
FMVSS No. 121 for speeds that are not tested by NHTSA. Today's action
will not cause any additional expenses for vehicle manufacturers. This
action will not have any safety impacts.

B. Privacy Act

    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 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://docketsinfo.dot.gov/.

C. Other Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    In the July 2009 final rule, the agency discussed relevant
requirements related to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Civil Justice Reform, the National
Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health
and Safety Risks). As today's final rule merely deletes stopping
distances from the table in FMVSS No. 121 for speeds that are not
tested by NHTSA, it will not have any effect on the agency's analyses
in those areas.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.

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

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. In Sec.  571.121, revise Table II and Table IIA to read as follows:

Sec.  571.121  Standard No. 121; Air brake systems.

* * * * *

                                                           Table II--Stopping Distance in Feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Service brake                                  Emergency brake
             Vehicle speed in miles per hour             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            PFC 0.9     PFC 0.9     PFC 0.9     PFC 0.9     PFC 0.9     PFC 0.9     PFC 0.9     PFC 0.9
                                                                 (1)         (2)         (3)         (4)         (5)         (6)         (7)         (8)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30......................................................          70          78          65          78          84          61         170         186
35......................................................          96         106          89         106         114          84         225         250
40......................................................         125         138         114         138         149         108         288         325
45......................................................         158         175         144         175         189         136         358         409
50......................................................         195         216         176         216         233         166         435         504
55......................................................         236         261         212         261         281         199         520         608
60......................................................         280         310         250         310         335         235         613         720
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
(1) Loaded and Unloaded Buses.
(2) Loaded Single-Unit Trucks.
(3) Loaded Tractors with Two Axles; or with Three Axles and a GVWR of 70,000 lbs. or less; or with Four or More Axles and a GVWR of 85,000 lbs. or less.
  Tested with an Unbraked Control Trailer.
(4) Loaded Tractors with Three Axles and a GVWR greater than 70,000 lbs.; or with Four or More Axles and a GVWR greater than 85,000 lbs. Tested with an
  Unbraked Control Trailer.
(5) Unloaded Single-Unit Trucks.
(6) Unloaded Tractors (Bobtail).
(7) All Vehicles except Tractors, Loaded and Unloaded.
(8) Unloaded Tractors (Bobtail).

 Table IIa--Stopping Distance in Feet: Optional Requirements for: (1) Three-Axle Tractors With a Front Axle That
Has a GAWR of 14,600 Pounds or Less, and With Two Rear Drive Axles That Have a Combined GAWR of 45,000 Pounds or
     Less, Manufactured Before August 1, 2011; and (2) All Other Tractors Manufactured Before August 1, 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Service Brake                         Emergency Brake
  Vehicle speed in miles per hour  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      PFC 0.9      PFC 0.9      PFC 0.9      PFC 0.9      PFC 0.9      PFC 0.9
                                            (1)          (2)          (3)          (4)          (5)          (6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30................................           70           78           84           89          170          186
35................................           96          106          114          121          225          250
40................................          125          138          149          158          288          325
45................................          158          175          189          200          358          409
50................................          195          216          233          247          435          504
55................................          236          261          281          299          520          608
60................................          280          310          335          355          613          720
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: (1) Loaded and unloaded buses; (2) Loaded single unit trucks; (3) Unloaded truck tractors and single unit
  trucks; (4) Loaded truck tractors tested with an unbraked control trailer; (5) All vehicles except truck
  tractors; (6) Unloaded truck tractors.

* * * * *

    Issued On: February 4, 2013.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-02987 Filed 2-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: March 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 53)]
[Notices]
[Page 14472]
[DOCID:fr18mr08-84]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 2007F-0478]

Kemira Oyj; Filing of Food Additive Petition (Animal Use);
Partially Ammoniated Formic Acid; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a
document announcing the filing of a food additive petition that
appeared in the Federal Register of January 11, 2008. FDA is correcting
the name of the petitioner which was misspelled during document
drafting.

DATES: This correction is effective March 18, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George K. Haibel, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. E8-316, published on January 11,
2008 (73 FR 2055), the following correction is made:
    On page 2055, in the second column, in the SUMMARY and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections, ``Oyi'' is corrected to read
``Oyj''.

    Dated: March 7, 2008.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. E8-5453 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 101 (Friday, May 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24342-24343]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10826]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-120-000.
    Applicants: Viridity Energy Solutions Inc., ORIX Corporation.
    Description: Application of Viridity Energy Solutions Inc., et al.
for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 5/19/17.
    Accession Number: 20170519-5244.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2331-065; ER10-2317-056; ER10-2319-056; ER10-
2330-063; ER13-1351-038.
    Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, BE Alabama
LLC,

BE CA LLC, Florida Power Development LLC, Utility Contract Funding,
L.L.C.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the J.P.
Morgan Sellers.
    Filed Date: 5/19/17.
    Accession Number: 20170519-5258.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1610-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Mountrail-Williams Electric
Cooperative Formula Rate Ministerial Filing to be effective 7/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/19/17.
    Accession Number: 20170519-5220.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1629-001.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to properly locate
proposed new Section 6.17 in the OATT to be effective 7/18/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170522-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1641-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-05-19_SA 3016 ATXI-UEC-
AIC TIA to be effective 5/19/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/19/17.
    Accession Number: 20170519-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1642-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to AEP
Depreciation Rates (ER17-829) to be effective 1/15/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/19/17.
    Accession Number: 20170519-5209.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1643-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Attachment AE
to Modify Offer Database Roll Forward Logic to be effective 7/20/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/19/17.
    Accession Number: 20170519-5239.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1644-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Removal of Simultaneous
Submission Window to be effective 7/19/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170522-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1645-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3325 WAPA & Corn Belt Power
Interconnection Agreement to be effective 5/2/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170522-5015.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1646-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-05-22_SA 3015 Red Lake
Falls-OTP GIA (R101) to be effective 5/23/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170522-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1647-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-05-22_SA 2194 Elk Wind
Energy-ITC GIA (H007 J443) to be effective 5/23/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170522-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1649-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: FPL-FMPA Service Agreement
No. 274 to be effective 10/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 5/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170522-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/12/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to
the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 22, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-10826 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 37 (Monday, February 27, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11804-11806]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03507]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-0986; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-7]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Eastern United
States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies area navigation (RNAV) routes Q-39 and Q-
67, in the eastern United States. The modifications provide a more
efficient airway design within a portion of the airspace assigned to
the Indianapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC).

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, April 27, 2017. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA, Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming
amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group,
Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

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
the 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 modifies air traffic service routes Q-39 and Q-67 in
the eastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air
traffic.

History

    On October 7, 2016, the FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) (81 FR 69729), Docket No. FAA-2016-9086, to amend
RNAV routes Q-39 and Q-67 to expand the availability of area navigation
routes and provide a more efficient airway design within Indianapolis
ARTCC's airspace.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. One comment was
received.

Discussion of Comment

    The commenter asked how much air traffic is actually using routes
Q-39 and Q-67. A review of six months Performance Data Analysis and
Reporting System (PDARS) information for Q-39 and Q-67 revealed a total
of 13,524 aircraft filed the RNAV routes.
    Area navigation routes are published in paragraph 2006 of FAA Order
7400.11A dated August 3, 2016 and effective September 15, 2016, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The area navigation routes
listed

in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 to modify RNAV routes Q-39 and Q-67 in the eastern United
States. The modifications expand the availability of area navigation
routes and provide a more efficient airway design within Indianapolis
ARTCC's airspace. The route modifications are described below.
    Q-39 RNAV route Q-39 extends between the CLAWD, NC waypoint (WP)
and the WISTA, WV, WP. This action shifts the alignment of the route
slightly to the east, bypassing the WISTA WP, to cross the TARCI, WV,
WP (located at lat. 38[deg]16'36.08'' N., long. 081[deg]18'34.08'' W.);
then the route continues northward to a new ASERY, WV, WP (located at
lat. 38[deg]28'35.97'' N., long. 081[deg]17'34.14'' W.).
    Q-67 RNAV route Q-67 extends between the SMTTH, TN, WP to the
COLTZ, OH, fix. In its current alignment, the route proceeds from the
JONEN, KY, WP northward to the COLTZ, OH, fix. The FAA is eliminating
the segment between the JONEN WP and the CLOTZ fix and replacing it
with a segment from the JONEN WP to the DARYN, WV, WP (located at lat.
38[deg]46'07.80'' N., long. 082[deg]00'57.92'' W.). The DARYN WP is
located near the Henderson, WV, VORTAC.

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.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (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 of modifying two RNAV Q-
routes qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National
Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR
part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F. Environmental
Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically
excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions
that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes,
and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C,
D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting
Points). This action is not expected to cause any potentially
significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order
1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this
action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a
normally categorically excluded action may have a significant
environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined
that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of
an environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 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 is amended to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016 and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2006 United States Area Navigation Routes

* * * * *

Q-39 CLAWD, NC to ASERY, WV [Amended]

CLAWD, NC              WP                    (Lat. 36[deg]25'08.98'' N., long. 081[deg]08'49.75'' W.)
TARCI, WV              WP                    (Lat. 38[deg]16'36.08'' N., long. 081[deg]18'34.08'' W.)
ASERY, WV              WP                    (Lat. 38[deg]28'35.97'' N., long. 081[deg]17'34.14'' W.)
Q-67 SMTTH, TN to DARYN, WV [Amended]

SMTTH, TN              WP                    (Lat. 35[deg]54'41.57'' N., long. 084[deg]00'19.74'' W.)
CEMEX, KY              WP                    (Lat. 36[deg]45'44.94'' N., long. 083[deg]23'33.58'' W.)
IBATE, KY              WP                    (Lat. 36[deg]59'12.36'' N., long. 083[deg]13'40.36'' W.)
TONIO, KY              FIX                   (Lat. 37[deg]15'15.20'' N., long. 083[deg]01'47.53'' W.)
JONEN, KY              WP                    (Lat. 37[deg]59'08.91'' N., long. 082[deg]32'46.19'' W.)
DARYN, WV              WP                    (Lat. 38[deg]46'07.80'' N., long. 082[deg]00'57.92'' W.)

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 6, 2017.
Leslie M. Swann,
Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2017-03507 Filed 2-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36440-36443]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11928]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-5810; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-116-AD;
Amendment 39-18526; AD 2016-10-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This AD
was prompted by a design review that revealed that a wiring failure,
external to the center wing fuel tank, could cause a hot short circuit
to a maximum level sensor wire, and result in excessive heating of the
maximum level sensor element. This AD requires modifying the wiring of
the maximum level sensors in the center wing fuel tank, performing
after-installation tests, and corrective action if necessary. This AD
also requires revising the airplane maintenance or inspection program
to incorporate fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical design
configuration control limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent
the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in
combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank
explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 12, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 12,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357,
2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax
+31 (0)88-6280-111; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view

this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-5810.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
5810; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulation evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Fokker Services
B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on November 27, 2015 (80 FR 74039) (``the NPRM'').
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2014-0138, dated May 30, 2014 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Fokker
Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

* * * [T]he FAA published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR)
88, and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published Interim
Policy INT/POL/25/12.
    The review conducted by Fokker Services on the Fokker 70/100
design, in response to these regulations, revealed that a wiring
failure, external to the centre wing fuel tank, causing a hot short
circuit to a maximum (max) level sensor wire may result in excessive
heating of the max level sensor element.
    This condition, if not corrected, could create an ignition
source in the centre wing fuel tank vapour space, possibly resulting
in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.
    EASA issued AD 2012-0240 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2012_0240.pdf/AD_2012-0240], to address this unsafe
condition, which required installation of three fuses in the wiring
of the max level sensor(s) in the centre wing fuel tank per Fokker
Services Service Bulletin (SB) SBF100-28-073. After that AD was
issued, it was found that this technical solution caused fuel spills
during refueling and, consequently, EASA cancelled AD 2012-0240.
    More recently, Fokker Services issued SBF100-28-078, which
cancelled SBF100-28-073, to correct the unsafe condition without the
risk of fuel spills.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires removal
of one fuse from post-SBF100-28-073 aeroplanes, and installation of
only two fuses on pre-SBF100-28-073 aeroplanes and, subsequently,
the implementation of the associated Critical Design Configuration
Control Limitation (CDCCL) items.
    More information this subject can be found in Fokker Services
All Operators Message AOF100.186#03.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
5810.

Comments

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

Explanation of Changes Made to This AD

    We have made the following changes to this AD. These changes are
for formatting purposes and do not affect the requirements of this AD.
     Added a new paragraph (j) to this AD to specify the
required service information, and redesignated subsequent paragraphs
accordingly.
     Revised paragraph (g) of this AD by referring to the
document citations in paragraph (j) of this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described
previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-28-078, dated January
23, 2014, and Fokker Manual Change Notification MCNM-F100-166, dated
January 23, 2014.
    This service information describes procedures for modifying the
wiring of the maximum level sensors in the center wing fuel tank,
after-installation tests, and corrective action if necessary. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 15 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it takes up to 9 work-hours per product to
modify the wiring of the maximum level sensors in the center wing fuel
tank, as specified in this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-
hour. Required parts will cost about $1,700 per product. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of this modification on U.S. operators to
be up to $36,975, or up to $2,465 per product.
    We also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to
revise the maintenance or inspection program as specified in this AD.
The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of this revision on U.S. operators to be $1,275, or
$85 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 that 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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

    2016-10-15 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-18526. Docket No.
FAA-2015-5810; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-116-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective July 12, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and
0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with a center
wing tank.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a design review which revealed that a
wiring failure, external to the center wing fuel tank, could cause a
hot short circuit to a maximum level sensor wire, and result in
excessive heating of the maximum level sensor element. We are
issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside
fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could
result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Wiring Modification

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify the
wiring of the maximum level sensors of the center wing fuel tank, as
specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
Before further flight after accomplishing the modification, do all
applicable tests and corrective actions, in accordance with Part 5
of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information
identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (1) For post-SBF100-28-073 configuration airplanes: Do the
modification in accordance with Part 1 or Part 3, as applicable, of
the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information
identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (2) For pre-SBF100-28-073 configuration airplanes: Do the
modification in accordance with Part 2 or Part 4, as applicable, of
the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information
identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(h) Revise the Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 30 days after installing the modification specified in
paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable: Revise the
airplane maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate the fuel airworthiness limitation items and critical
design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) specified in
paragraph 2.L.(1)(c) of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-28-078, dated
January 23, 2014.

(i) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or CDCCLs

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (h) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, or
CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, or CDCCLs are
approved as an alternative method of compliance in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

(j) Required Service Information

    Do the actions specified in this AD in accordance with Fokker
Service Bulletin SBF100-28-078, dated January 23, 2014, and Fokker
Manual Change Notification MCNM-F100-166, dated January 23, 2014, as
applicable.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Fokker B.V. Service's EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0138, dated May 30, 2014, for
related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2015-5810.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-28-078, dated January 23,
2014, including the attached required drawings specified in
paragraphs (m)(2)(i)(A), (m)(2)(i)(B), and (m)(2)(i)(C) of this AD,
as applicable.
    (A) Drawing W41192, Sheet 052, Issue AW, ``Retro-Fit Wiring
Diagram, Tank Fueling/Defueling, Center Tank,'' undated;
    (B) Drawing W41192, Sheet 054, Issue AW, ``Retro-Fit Wiring
Diagram, Tank Fueling/Defueling,'' undated; and
    (C) Drawing W59520-405, ``Cableloom Connection List,'' Sheet 3,
Issue F, dated May 12, 2011.
    (ii) Fokker Manual Change Notification MCNM-F100-166, dated
January 23, 2014.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130
EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31
(0)88-6280-111; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 12, 2016.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-11928 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P