[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47098-47100]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19041]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF14-11-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Planned Tri-County Bare Steel
Replacement Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Tri-County Bare Steel
Replacement Project involving construction and operation of facilities
by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) in Allegheny, Greene, and
Washington Counties, Pennsylvania. The Commission will use this EA in
its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on September 5, 2014.
    You may submit comments in written form. Further details on how to
submit comments are in the Public Participation section of this notice.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on

the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a number of
typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how
to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Summary of the Planned Project

    Columbia plans to replace approximately 32 miles of its existing
Line 1570 with approximately 34 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline in
Allegheny, Washington, and Greene Counties, Pennsylvania. The project
would also include associated appurtenant facilities including bi-
directional pig \1\ launcher/receivers, cathodic protection, mainline
valves, and taps. A majority of the planned project would be
constructed utilizing the ``lift and lay'' technique and would by
definition involve the removal of the existing Line 1570 pipeline.
However, at several locations the new pipe would be installed offset
from the existing Line 1570 pipeline. At these locations, Columbia
would abandon in place the existing Line 1570 pipeline unless otherwise
agreed upon with the landowner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``pig'' is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into
and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline,
conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Tri-County Bare Steel Replacement Project consists of the
following:
     Segment 1: Hero Valve to Waynesburg Compressor Station in
Greene County--replace approximately 14.2 miles of the existing Line
1570 with 20-inch-diameter pipeline;
     Segment 2: Redd Farm Station to Sharp Farm Station in
Washington County--replace approximately 7 miles of the existing Line
1570 with approximately 8.1 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline; and
     Segment 3: Sharp Farm Station to Walker Farm Station in
Washington and Allegheny Counties--replace approximately 11 miles of
the existing Line 1570 with approximately 11.7 miles of 20-inch-
diameter pipeline.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to page 6 of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction and operation of the project will require the
acquisition of temporary and permanent easements. To the extent
feasible, the project's right-of-way would parallel or overlap the
existing right-of-way and other utility corridors while providing a
safe separation distance between the pipeline and existing facilities.
    Columbia anticipates using a 75-foot-wide construction right-of-
way, which includes the 50-foot permanent easement for operation. In
areas where the project is co-located with the existing Line 1570,
Columbia would overlap the existing right-of-way (generally by 25
feet), thereby minimizing the width of the new permanent right-of-way.
Approximately 7.6 miles of the project would be greater than 30 feet
from the existing Line 1570 centerline in order to avoid
environmentally sensitive features and/or encroachments that exist in
the Line 1570 permanent right-of-way.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\3\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species; and
     public safety.
    We will also evaluate cumulative impacts and possible alternatives
to the planned project or portions of the project, and make
recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various
resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before
the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we
have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their
involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section beginning on page 5.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues
related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EA.\4\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office, and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\5\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
the construction right-of-way, contractor/

pipe storage yards, and access roads). Our EA for this project will
document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and
summarize the status of consultations under Section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and
the environmental information provided by Columbia; specifically,
potential impacts on residences in close proximity to the right-of-way,
as well as specific land use concerns. This preliminary list of issues
may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC, on or before
September 5, 2014.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (PF14-11-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested
persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
planned project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Columbia files its application with the Commission, you may
want to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for
intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission
receives a formal application for the project.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF14-
11). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: August 6, 2014 .
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19041 Filed 8-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 54)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12094-12096]
[DOCID:fr23mr09-13]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28348; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-060-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, and -900 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900
series airplanes. The original NPRM would have required sealing the
fasteners on the front and rear spars inside the main fuel tank and on
the lower panel of the center fuel tank, inspecting the wire bundle
support installation in the equipment cooling system bays to identify
the type of clamp installed and determine whether the Teflon sleeve is
installed, and doing related corrective actions if necessary. We
subsequently issued a supplemental NPRM to revise the compliance time
for the corrective actions specified in the original NPRM. This action
resulted from a design review of fuel tank systems. This second
supplemental revises the original NPRM by clarifying the applicability
of certain actions for certain airplanes. We are proposing this second
supplemental NPRM to prevent arcing at certain fuel tank fasteners in
the event of a lightning strike or fault current event, which, in
combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank
explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by April 17,
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
425-227-1152.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Spitzer, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6510; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-
28348; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-060-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (the
``first supplemental NPRM'') to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an
airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to certain Boeing Model
737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900 series airplanes. The first
supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 2,
2008 (73 FR 73). That first supplemental NPRM proposed to require
sealing the fasteners on the front and rear spars inside the main fuel
tank and on the lower panel of the center fuel tank, inspecting the
wire bundle support installation in the equipment cooling system bays
to identify the type of clamp installed and determine whether the
Teflon sleeve is installed, and doing related corrective actions if
necessary.

Actions Since Supplemental NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the first supplemental NPRM, Boeing has revised
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1279, dated January 24, 2007,
(which we referred to as the appropriate source of service information
in the first supplemental NPRM), because certain airplanes were
assigned to an incorrect group number. Additional work is necessary for
the mis-assigned airplanes. The additional work includes sealing the
fuel tank fastener and general visual inspections of the wire bundle
support installation, as applicable. We have reviewed Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-57A1279, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008

(``Revision 1 of the service bulletin''). Revision 1 of the service
bulletin includes a change to the service bulletin effectivity as well
as changes to the access instructions for the Krueger flap operation.

Comments

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

Request for More Detailed Information in Airplane Maintenance Manuals
(AMMs)

    Continental Airlines (CAL) is concerned that not enough attention
has been given in the proposed AD to ensure that the specific detailed
inspections are preserved for the long-term operation of the CAL fleet.
CAL notes that the AMM includes only generic information. CAL states
that including information detailed by the airplane's production
drawings must be available in manuals that are routinely used by
maintenance personnel. Including this information will prevent
inadvertent reversal of the design configuration that can lead to
creating potential ignition sources.
    We infer that CAL would like us to revise the first supplemental
NPRM to include an action to revise maintenance documents that are
routinely used by maintenance personnel. We partially agree. We agree
that ensuring that the requirements of the proposed AD are maintained
throughout the life of the airplane maintains the required level of
safety for this design. We disagree with delaying the issuance of the
AD while the manufacturer works through its processes to develop
revisions to the maintenance documents. We have determined that an
unsafe condition exists and that the actions proposed in this second
supplemental NPRM must be mandated in a timely fashion to ensure
continued operational safety. If the revised maintenance documents are
available and approved, we might consider further rulemaking at that
time.
    In addition, we note that as a result of CAL's comment, we have
initiated discussions with Boeing about including more detail in the
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) to ensure that the
proposed requirements are maintained throughout the life of the
airplane. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM regarding this
issue.

Explanation of Additional Change

    We have added a new paragraph (d) to this second supplemental NPRM
to identify the Air Transport Association (ATA) of America code for the
unsafe condition. We have re-lettered subsequent paragraphs
accordingly.

FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all
pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the original NPRM.
As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the
comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to
comment on this second supplemental NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 1,754 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet; of these, 645 airplanes are U.S. registered. The
following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to
comply with this second supplemental NPRM, at an average hourly labor
rate of $80.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
             Action                    Group        Work hours       Cost per       registered      Fleet cost
                                                                     airplane        airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sealant application.............               1              62          $4,960             586      $2,906,560
                                               2              28           2,240              44          98,560
                                               3              28           2,240              15          33,600
Inspection......................               1               4             320             586         187,520
                                               2               4             320              44          14,080
                                               3               2             160              15           2,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator,

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2007-28348; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
060-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 17, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and -900
series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1279, Revision 1, dated
September 25, 2008.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank
systems. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to
prevent arcing at certain fuel tank fasteners in the event of a
lightning strike or fault current event, which, in combination with
flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and
consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Fastener Sealant

    (g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Seal
the fasteners on the front and rear spars inside the main fuel tank
and on the lower panel of the center fuel tank, as applicable, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-57A1279, Revision 1, dated September 25, 2008.

Inspection

    (h) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD:
Perform a general visual inspection of the wire bundle support
installation in the equipment cooling system bays to identify the
type of clamp installed, and determine whether the Teflon sleeve is
installed. Do these actions in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1279, Revision
1, dated September 25, 2008 (``the service bulletin''). Do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight in accordance
with the service bulletin.

Actions Accomplished Previously

    (i) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1279, dated
January 24, 2007, are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of this AD only for the following line
numbers (L/Ns): LNs 1 through 570 inclusive, and L/Ns 1692 through
1754 inclusive.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
Attn: Samuel Spitzer, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-
140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue,
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(425) 917-6590.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a principal
inspector, your local FSDO. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 10, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E9-6217 Filed 3-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 140)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42309-42312]
[DOCID:fr21jy08-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 2006-25017]
RIN 2127-AG41

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rearview Mirrors

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

ACTION: Withdrawal of rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a petition for rulemaking, in 2005 the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed to amend Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, ``Rearview Mirrors'' to require
straight trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of between
4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and 11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds) to
be equipped with a system capable of providing drivers with a view of
objects directly behind the vehicle. More refined data generated since
the 2005 NPRM shows that the sub-population of mid-sized trucks
accounts for only four of the estimated 183 fatalities per year due to
back-over accidents. In addition, the recently signed Cameron
Gulbranson Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 \1\ (K.T. Safety Act
of 2007) requires NHTSA to revise the Federal standard for rearward
visibility, specifically to reduce backing crashes involving children
and disabled people. Considering these developments, the agency
believes it more appropriate to address backing safety of straight
trucks as part of the comprehensive effort to address backing safety
generally, and that solutions should be formulated after the completion
and review of ongoing research and data gathering on backing safety. We
are therefore withdrawing this rulemaking at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 110-189, February 28, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
Mr. Clarke Harper, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (NVS-120),
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone:
202-366-1740) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    For legal issues, you may contact Mr. Ari Scott, (NCC-112), Office
of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590 (Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of Comments to the NPRM
III. Agency Activities Since the NPRM
IV. Legislative Actions Since the NPRM
V. Agency Decision to Withdraw the Rulemaking

I. Background

    In March 1995, Mr. Dee Norton, an individual, submitted a petition
for rulemaking seeking to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 111, ``Rearview Mirrors,'' to require convex, cross-view
mirrors on the rear of the cargo box of stepvans and walk-in style
delivery and service trucks. The requested rule was intended to prevent
future tragedies similar to one that befell Mr. Norton's grandson, who
was killed when he was struck and backed over by a delivery truck in an
apartment complex parking lot.
    The agency granted Mr. Norton's petition. However, because Mr.
Norton's solution was only one of many at that time, and the agency had
no performance specification for cross-view mirrors, NHTSA published a
request for comments in the Federal Register on June 17, 1996. The
agency sought specific information on cross-view

mirrors such as costs and performance specifications, and any other
alternatives with costs similar to the mirrors described by Mr. Norton
(61 FR 30586).\2\ The agency received six comments in response to that
notice. In general, commenters urged the agency to consider both visual
systems such as cameras and mirrors and non-visual systems such as
sonar or radar, to address the safety issue. Additionally, truck
manufacturers suggested that mirrors would not address the safety
problem and that there were several types of straight trucks for which
cameras would not be an effective solution. In addition to the analysis
of comments, NHTSA performed additional studies related to this
rulemaking. A program was initiated to determine the size of the safety
problem, that is, determine the number of people being backed over by a
motor vehicle of any size. Using a combination of our own Fatality
Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and National Center for Health
Statistics data, the agency was able to estimate the number of non-
traffic crashes, including backover accidents. Next, the agency
performed research on state-of-the-art and prototype rear cross-view
mirror designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This Request for Comments and the comments subsequently
received are available in hard copy in Docket No. NHTSA-96-53.
However, for ease of reference, the Request for Comments also has
been included in the electronic docket located at http: //
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7967-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 27, 2000, NHTSA published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) (65 FR 70681).\3\ In addition to a request for
general comments, the ANPRM posed twenty specific questions regarding
rear cross-view mirrors, rear video systems, and rear object detection
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7967-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA received fourteen comments in response to the ANPRM,
including submissions from trade associations, automobile and rear
object detection system manufacturers, fleet operators, organized
labor, a State agency, and individuals. Although the commenters were
generally supportive of efforts to improve backing safety, many
expressed concerns about a regulatory requirement in this area. In
addition to responding to the questions posed in the ANPRM, commenters
also raised a variety of issues, including scope of the regulatory
requirement, potential exclusions, alternatives to regulation,
maintenance and training requirements, and preemption.
    Using the information obtained from these two previous notices, the
agency then published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on
September 12, 2005 (70 FR 53753).\4\ To address the identified problem
of backing-related deaths and injuries associated with straight trucks,
NHTSA proposed to amend FMVSS No. 111, to require medium straight
trucks with a GVWR of between 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) and 11,793 kg
(26,000 pounds) to be equipped with either a cross-view mirror or rear
video system in order to provide the driver with a visual image of a 3
meters by 3 meters area immediately behind the vehicle. The NPRM set
out proposed requirements for each of these two compliance options, as
well as test procedures suitable for each option. However, in light of
concerns regarding the feasibility of attaching rear object detection
systems on certain types of trucks, we also requested comments on
categories of vehicles that the agency should consider excluding from
the requirements of a final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19239-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of Comments to the NPRM

    The agency received 55 comments pursuant to our September 12, 2005,
NPRM. Comments were received from a variety of interested parties,
including consumers, a consumer advocacy group, fleet operators,
equipment manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers, trade associations, the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and two
members of Congress, Representative Marsha Blackburn and Representative
Nathan Deal. These comments are available in Docket No. NHTSA-2004-
19239, and are generally summarized as follows.
    Comments from consumers were generally in favor of rear object
detection systems, with several commenters urging the agency to expand
the scope of the rulemaking to include all vehicles (including
passenger vehicles). The consumer advocacy group recommended expansion
of the proposal's applicability to passenger vehicles and larger
trucks, recommended that the rule require a combination of cameras and
non-visual systems, and recommended requiring retrofitting the systems
onto existing vehicles. Conversely, one consumer suggested that we not
regulate in this area and leave the decision to install a rear object
detection system up to the purchaser of the vehicle.
    Fleet operators expressed divergent opinions regarding the agency's
proposal. Some delivery companies were generally supportive of the
proposal and enthusiastic about rear object detection systems. However,
fleets involved in construction suggested that we exclude construction
service trucks from the proposed requirements because of the potential
for ongoing maintenance problems associated with repairing systems
subject to continuous damage in rugged environments such as
construction sites. Fleets in the category of leasing companies (e.g.,
self-move companies) were also opposed to mandatory regulation, again
due to the potential maintenance burden and questionable system
effectiveness, caused in part by the equipment being used by non-
professional drivers who might substitute reliance on such systems for
the recommended ``spotter'' system,\5\ which they say has proven highly
effective in practice for such users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A spotter is a person who stands outside a vehicle to aid
the driver in backing and alert the driver of an object or person
behind the vehicle, to ensure nothing or no one is in the way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Equipment manufacturers were supportive of the intent of the
proposal, and manufacturers of mirrors and camera systems had minor
technical suggestions.
    However, non-visual system equipment (e.g., sonar or radar-based)
manufacturers and Representatives Blackburn and Deal urged us to alter
the rulemaking proposal to adopt broader criteria which would allow
non-visual systems to be used to comply with the standard's
requirement.
    Vehicle manufacturers asked for changes to the proposal or
exclusions for certain vehicles specific to their market. Several
manufacturers of traditional straight delivery trucks had specific
technical suggestions. Manufacturers of specialty trucks suggested
their vehicles should be excluded from the proposed requirements
because of the lack of any apparent safety need, difficulty in
installing systems based on certain vehicle configurations, and
durability problems associated with systems subject to excessive
environmental abuse. The cited specialty vehicles included ambulances,
buses, concrete trucks, refuse trucks, fire trucks, small volume
equipment trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) with a GVWR of over
10,000 pounds.
    Various associations also offered positions. The National
Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services
requested that NHTSA not include a rear object detection requirement
for school buses. The Truck Manufacturers Association questioned the
appropriateness of a mandatory regulation, although it suggested that
an

equipment standard might be useful if this equipment is voluntarily
installed. The National Truck Equipment Association, which represents
multistage manufacturers, argued that the proposed requirements may not
be practical for certain types of vehicles, and that there could be
problems with continual maintenance for construction-type vehicles. The
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers suggested the rulemaking was
premature and should await completion of an assessment of rear object
detection systems required under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-
LU).\6\ The Truck Renting and Leasing Association urged us to adopt
less restrictive requirements and to delay the rule until a more
accurate cost-benefit analysis could be conducted. The Truck Trailer
Manufacturers Association urged the agency not to extend the proposed
requirements to combination truck trailers, arguing that such systems
would be impractical and of little benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NIOSH provided insight into the scope of the backing problem in
occupational settings and studies into potential solutions.
Specifically, NIOSH provided data concerning backing accidents at
highway construction sites and field experience studies concerning
durability problems with rear video systems. Furthermore, NIOSH noted
that a system whereby workers wear a device that can alert both the
wearer and the driver of a vehicle when the wearer is in a danger zone
offers some promise in addressing backing accidents involving heavy
trucks.

III. Agency Activities Since the NPRM

    As noted above, in 2005, Congress passed related mandates for the
agency as part of its SAFETEA-LU legislation, specifically, requiring
two actions by NHTSA related to backing incidents. In Section 10304,
Congress mandated NHTSA to ``conduct a study of effective methods for
reducing the incidence of injury and death outside of parked passenger
motor vehicles with a gross weight rating of not more than 10,000
pounds attributable to movement of such vehicles.'' That provision of
the Act further stipulated that the study shall, ``(1) Include an
analysis of backover prevention technology; (2) identify, evaluate, and
compare the available technologies for detecting people or objects
behind a motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of not more
than 10,000 pounds for their accuracy, effectiveness, cost, and
feasibility for installation; and (3) provide an estimate of cost
saving that would result from widespread use of backover prevention
devices and technologies in motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating of not more than 10,000 pounds, including savings attributable
to the prevention of (A) injuries and fatalities; and (B) damage to
bumpers and other motor vehicle parts and damage to other objects.''
    Under section 10305 of the Act, Congress directed the agency as
follows: ``(a) In General.--In conjunction with the study required in
section 10304, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shall
establish a method to collect and maintain data on the number and types
of injuries and deaths involving motor vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating of not more than 10,000 pounds in non-traffic incidents''
and ``(b) data collection and publication.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall publish the data collected under subsection (a) no
less frequently than biennially.''
    In response to section 10304 of SAFETEA-LU, a report of the
agency's study of technologies with possible application to reducing
deaths and injuries from backing passenger vehicles was submitted to
Congress in November 2006. That report is titled, ``Vehicle Backover
Avoidance Technology Study,'' and is available in the Department of
Transportation docket at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket NHTSA-
25579-0003.
    In this Report to Congress, NHTSA reported on several systems
currently available as original equipment on vehicles or as aftermarket
products to evaluate their performance and potential effectiveness in
mitigating backover crashes. The backover prevention technologies that
are currently offered by vehicle manufacturers are marketed as
``parking aids,'' which are designed to assist attentive drivers in
performing low speed parking maneuvers. Some aftermarket systems using
similar technologies are being marketed as safety devices. NHTSA
testing that predated SAFETEA-LU showed that the performance of sensor-
based (ultrasonic and radar) parking aids in detecting child
pedestrians behind the vehicle was typically poor, sporadic and limited
in range. Based on calculation of the distance required to stop from a
typical backing speed, detection ranges exhibited by the systems tested
were not sufficient to prevent collisions with pedestrians or other
objects. Of the technologies tested for their potential to reduce
backover incidents, the camera-based system may have the greatest
potential to provide drivers with reliable assistance in identifying
people in the path of the vehicle when backing. However, the agency is
concerned that the human factors issues surrounding camera systems are
not well understood, issues such as: Will drivers use cameras if they
are installed? Will they be relied on too much, to the exclusion of
actually looking to the rear of a vehicle and checking rear view
mirrors? Will new patterns of driver behavior that emerge if cameras
are in place enhance the safe operation of vehicles?
    In support of this rulemaking, NHTSA conducted research
specifically aimed at evaluating the performance of various mirror,
sensor and video systems for medium trucks. All the systems were
purchased in the aftermarket. The systems evaluated include three
sensor systems, one sensor/rear video combination system, one rear
video system, and one rear cross-view mirror system. The results
indicated that sensor-based systems were poor, sporadic, and limited in
range with regards to their ability to consistently detect child
pedestrians and objects. Additionally, the mirror system image was
insufficient to allow drivers to see a small object behind a vehicle
and would not be a very effective means of allowing drivers to see
behind vehicles. Video systems provided excellent images but only under
well-lit, good-weather conditions. The agency has conducted similar
research involving light vehicles with similar results.
    At this time, the agency does not know whether drivers would use
the information from the video displays of rear object detection
systems and if they did whether they would do so in enough time to
prevent back-over incidents. Agency research involving driver use of
rearward visual images in passenger vehicles is underway. This research
will examine drivers' use of rearview video systems during backing
maneuvers to assess their potential to reduce the incidence of
collisions with rear obstacles and pedestrians. While performance
testing of sensor-based backing systems and field of view measurement
for rearview video systems give data to quantify their likelihood to
``perceive'' an obstacle behind a vehicle, only examining drivers' use
of the systems can provide a sense of the potential effectiveness of
the systems in preventing crashes. The main purpose of the study is to
determine (1) whether drivers of vehicles equipped with camera systems
look at the display prior to and/or during backing and (2) whether use
of the system affects backing performance

(i.e., obstacle avoidance success). We expect to complete the testing
portion of this research in 2008 and believe that the findings of this
study will apply to the performance of typical drivers of all straight
trucks.
    During the preparation of the Report to Congress, the agency also
developed more refined non-traffic crash data than was reported in the
2005 NPRM.\7\ The agency estimated in the Report to Congress, that
there is an average of 183 fatalities annually for all backover
crashes, which is below what was estimated in the NPRM. Our more recent
data analysis focusing on trucks of the sort that were addressed in the
original petition, is indicating that this a sub-population of straight
trucks (those less than 20 feet in length), accounts for 2 of the
estimated 183 fatalities per year due to back-over accidents.
Similarly, when all straight trucks from 10,000 to 26,000 pounds GVWR
(including those less-than-20-feet) are included, the number of
fatalities from backovers accounts for only 4 fatalities per year.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See ``Regulatory Evaluation, FMVSS No. 111, Rear Detection
System for Single Unit Trucks'' in Docket No. 25017.
    \8\ ``Estimation of Backover Fatalities'' at http://
www.regulation.gov, Docket NHTA-25579.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to sections 2012 and 10305 of SAFETEA-LU, the agency's
National Center for Statistics and Analysis is currently exploring
expanded approaches to gathering both injury and fatality data on non-
traffic incidents, which include non-traffic backing crashes that occur
on private property, in driveways, and in parking facilities. The
primary issues facing NHTSA in the collection of data on non-traffic
crashes are the collection of fatality and injury counts and the
detailed data at the event level needed to fully understand the
circumstances surrounding the crash. The agency conducted a review of
existing systems within NHTSA, surveillance systems in other Federal
agencies, and non-Federal sources to determine the feasibility for
collecting non-traffic fatality and injury counts and detailed crash
data. The review suggested possible expansion of NHTSA's existing crash
databases and the use of other Federal agencies, especially the
National Center for Health Statistics and the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, which operate surveillance systems that may provide some
useful information in arriving at a better estimate of the backover
safety problem. However, the review of the non-Federal sources
including hospital systems, emergency medical services systems,
insurance company data, and news media databases found that they were
generally incomplete or lacked the detail needed by NHTSA to understand
the circumstances surrounding backing incidents.
    Based upon this review, efforts to collect both the fatality and
injury data and detailed collision data are underway. The agency is
currently using the existing Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)
infrastructure to collect information about non-traffic crash
fatalities and the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS)
infrastructure for non-traffic injuries. Similarly, the agency's
Special Crash Investigation team is conducting detailed investigations
of backovers involving light passenger vehicles.

IV. Legislative Actions Since the NPRM

    On February 28, 2008, the President signed the K.T. Safety Act of
2007. Section 2(b) of this law requires that within 12 months of the
President's signing the bill, NHTSA must initiate rulemaking to expand
the required driver's field of view behind vehicles to reduce deaths
and injuries from backing crashes, especially crashes involving small
children and disabled people. NHTSA must issue a final rule no later
than three years after the President signs the bill. Section 2(c)(1) of
this law requires that the expanded rear visibility requirements be
phased-in. Section 2(c)(2) requires NHTSA to consider whether the
phase-in should give priority to particular types of motor vehicles if
NHTSA finds that there are any differences in the frequency with which
individual types are involved in backing crashes.
    The new law does not specifically influence the straight trucks at
issue in this rulemaking. The K.T. Safety Act of 2007 is applicable
only to motor vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (see
section 2(e)). However, as explained above, the agency believes that
additional data on backovers collected by the agency, with regard to
all vehicles, will allow us to address this problem in a more
comprehensive manner.

V. Agency Decision To Withdraw the Rulemaking

    The agency is charged by the new law to take a comprehensive look
at backing safety for all types of motor vehicles. As described above,
the agency has a great deal of research and data gathering currently
underway that will allow us to develop appropriate and effective
improvements to backing safety. The agency needs to better understand
the effectiveness of the video-based systems. We believe the results of
NHTSA's current study that will be completed in 2008 will substantially
improve our understanding of how video systems are used by drivers and
therefore their potential to reduce the backover risk. Given this, the
agency believes that efforts to address medium truck backing safety by
itself should held in abeyance pending the research and data gathering,
and that this problem should be addressed as a part of the agency's
comprehensive approach to backing safety.
    Accordingly, we have decided to withdraw this rulemaking and
incorporate medium trucks into consideration of a possible broad based
approach, including passenger vehicles, to addressing the backing
safety problem.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR
1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.

    Issued: July 15, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-16530 Filed 7-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: March 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 14484-14485]
[DOCID:fr25mr10-112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0031; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
1991 Porsche 911 Series Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming
1991 Porsche 911 series passenger cars, are eligible for importation.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
1991 Porsche 911 series passenger cars that were not originally
manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States
because they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally
manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and
that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety
standards (the U.S.-certified version of the 1991 Porsche 911 series
passenger cars), and they are capable of being readily altered to
conform to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is April 26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the
heading of this document notice. Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in
the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit
late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search
the Docket for new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United
States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as
the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being
readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    J.K. Technologies, LLC (``JK''), of Baltimore, Maryland (Registered
Importer 90-006) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming
1991 Porsche 911 series passenger cars are eligible for importation
into the United States. The vehicles which JK believes are
substantially similar are 1991 Porsche 911 series passenger cars that
were manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by their
manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner states that it compared non-U.S. certified 1991
Porsche 911 series passenger cars to their U.S.-certified counterparts,
and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with

respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
    JK submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate
that non-U.S. certified 1991 Porsche 911 series passenger cars, as
originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the same manner as
their U.S.-certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily
altered to conform to those standards.
    Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 1991
Porsche 911 series passenger cars are identical to their U.S.-certified
counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102
Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission
Braking Effect, 103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104
Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, 105 Hydraulic and Electric Brake
Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 109 New Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood Latch
System, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 124 Accelerator Control
Systems, 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 202 Head
Restraints, 204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement, 205 Glazing
Materials, 206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 207 Seating
Systems, 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages,
211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel Disks, and Hub Caps, 212 Windshield Mounting, 216
Roof Crush Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, 301 Fuel System
Integrity , and 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.
    The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being
readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated:
    Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: replacement of the
instrument cluster with a conforming U.S.-model component.
    Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: installation of the following conforming U.S.-model
components on vehicles that are not already so equipped: (a) Front side
marker lamps; (b) headlamps; (c) tail lamps with integral rear side
marker lamps; and (d) a high mounted stop lamp.
    Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims: installation of a tire
information placard.
    Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: installation of a conforming
U.S.-model passenger side rearview mirror, or inscription of the
required warning statement on the face of that mirror.
    Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: installation of a supplemental
key warning buzzer to ensure that the theft protection system meets the
requirements of this standard.
    Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel
Systems: installation of a supplemental interlock relay to ensure that
the power-operated window system meets the requirements of this
standard.
    Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: installation of a
supplemental seat belt warning buzzer to ensure that the seat belt
warning system meets the requirements of this standard.
    The petitioner states that the occupant restraint systems used in
vehicle consist of a driver's side air bag, and combination lap and
shoulder belts at the front and rear outboard seating positions.
    Standard No. 214 Side Impact Protection: installation of U.S.-model
door reinforcement beams.
    The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification
plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post to
meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: March 19, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2010-6567 Filed 3-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58421-58424]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26725]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-1999-D-4079]

Product Name Placement, Size, and Prominence in Promotional
Labeling and Advertisements; Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a guidance for industry entitled ``Product Name
Placement, Size, and Prominence in Promotional Labeling and
Advertisements.'' The guidance clarifies the requirements for product
name placement, size, prominence, and frequency in promotional labeling
and advertisements for human prescription drugs, including prescription
biological products, and for animal prescription

drugs. This guidance finalizes the revised draft guidance issued on
November 20, 2013 (``Product Name Placement, Size, and Prominence in
Advertising and Promotional Labeling'').
    FDA is also announcing that a proposed collection of information
has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the
PRA).

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on December 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to [email protected]. All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910--New and
title ``Product Name Placement, Size, and Prominence in Promotional
Labeling and Advertisements.'' Also, include the FDA docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.
    You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency
guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-1999-D-4079 for ``Product Name Placement, Size, and Prominence in
Promotional Labeling and Advertisements; Guidance for Industry;
Availability.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management
Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale
Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the Office of
Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or
the Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary
Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville,
MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office
in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for electronic access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regarding human prescription drugs:
Sheila Ryan, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 3320, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Regarding human prescription
biological products: Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Regarding animal prescription drugs: Thomas Moskal, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-216), Food and Drug Administration, 7519
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Product Name Placement, Size, and Prominence in Promotional
Labeling and Advertisements.'' This guidance clarifies the requirements
for product name placement, size, prominence, and frequency in
promotional labeling and advertisements for human prescription drugs,
including prescription biological products, and for animal prescription
drugs. The disclosure of the product

name in promotional labeling and advertisements for all human
prescription drugs, including prescription biological products, and
animal prescription drugs is important for the proper identification of
such products to ensure their safe and effective use.
    The placement, size, prominence, and frequency of the proprietary
and established names for human prescription drugs, including
prescription biological products, and for prescription animal drugs are
specified in labeling and advertising regulations (21 CFR 201.10(g) and
(h) and 202.1(b), (c), and (d)).
    The recommendations in this guidance pertain to product names in
traditional print promotional labeling and advertisements (e.g.,
journal ads, detail aids, brochures), audiovisual promotional labeling
(e.g., videos shown in a health care provider's office), broadcast
advertisements (e.g., television advertisements, radio advertisements),
and electronic and computer-based promotions (e.g., internet, social
media, emails, CD-ROMs, DVDs).
    In the Federal Register of November 20, 2013 (78 FR 69691), FDA
announced the availability of the revised draft guidance entitled
``Product Name Placement, Size, and Prominence in Advertising and
Promotional Labeling.'' FDA received one comment on the revised draft
guidance, which requested additional clarification on the individual
recommendations in the guidance, and FDA considered this comment as the
guidance was finalized. In addition to a title change and editorial
changes made primarily for clarification, the guidance has been revised
to clarify certain concepts discussed in the revised draft guidance and
to provide examples illustrating prominence issues.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Product Name Placement, Size, and
Prominence in Promotional Labeling and Advertisements.'' It does not
establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the
public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance
is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following
proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. The
information collection requests in support of the guidance are
discussed below. Specifically, the guidance discusses the requirement
in FDA's regulations for prescription drug promotional labeling and
advertisements to include the established name in conjunction with the
proprietary name, and explains FDA recommendations that:
     Firms should include the established name at least once
per page or spread where the proprietary name most prominently appears.
     The established name should be placed either directly
beside or below the proprietary name without any intervening matter.
     The size of the established name should be at least half
the size of the presentation of the proprietary name wherever the
established name is required.
     For superimposed text that is equivalent to a headline or
tagline, the established name should be presented alongside the most
prominent presentation of the proprietary name in audiovisual
promotional materials (promotional labeling and broadcast
advertisements).
     For electronic and computer-based promotion, the
established name should accompany the proprietary name at least once
per Web page, and this should generally be where the proprietary name
most prominently appears on the Web page.
    Thus, the guidance recommends that firms disclose certain
information to others to fulfill the product name placement
requirements found in FDA's regulations. This ``third-party
disclosure'' constitutes a ``collection of information'' under the PRA.
Disclosures in advertising pursuant to 21 CFR 202.1 are covered by an
existing information collection (OMB control number 0910-0686), so this
information collection request covers only disclosures in labeling in
accordance with 21 CFR 201.10(g) and (h).
    In the Federal Register of November 20, 2013, FDA published a 60-
day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of
information and the estimated annual burden for third party disclosure.
FDA received no comments in response to the four information collection
topics solicited in the notice. FDA has received more up-to-date
submission data since the 60-day notice published, therefore, we have
adjusted our estimates of respondents and disclosures accordingly. The
estimated amount of time per disclosure has not changed. We therefore
estimate the burden associated with the information collection as
follows:

                                               Table 1--Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                       Average burden
                      Guidance recommendations                          Number of       disclosures      Total annual    per disclosure    Total hours
                                                                       respondents    per  respondent    disclosures       (in hours)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosures Related to Product Name Placement, Size, and Prominence             407            256.4          104,358                3          313,074
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    As reflected in table 1, we provide an estimate of the annual
third-party disclosure burden associated with this collection of
information. The placement, size, prominence, and frequency of the
proprietary and established names for human prescription drugs,
including prescription biological products, and animal prescription
drugs are specified in labeling and advertising regulations (21 CFR
201.10(g) and (h); 202.1(b), (c) and (d); and 610.62). Using calendar
year 2015 data, FDA estimates that, for prescription human and animal
drugs and biological products, approximately 407 firms disseminate
approximately 104,358 advertisements and promotional pieces each year.
We further estimate that the burden hours associated with the
regulatory requirements would be approximately 3 hours per disclosure.
    FDA is issuing this final guidance subject to OMB approval of the
information collection. Before implementing the information collection
provisions of the guidance, FDA will publish a notice in the Federal
Register announcing OMB's decision to

approve, modify, or disapprove the collections of information,
including OMB control number(s) for newly approved collections.
    This guidance also refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information
associated with 21 CFR 202.1 have been approved under OMB control
number 0910-0686.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm, or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: December 7, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-26725 Filed 12-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 54700]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19276]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1262]

Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease
Product

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare
pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration
Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), authorizes FDA to award priority
review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product
applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish
notice of the award of the priority review voucher. FDA has determined
that ZTALMY (ganaxolone), manufactured by Marinus Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathryn Lee, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority
review voucher to the sponsor of an approved rare pediatric disease
product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
360ff), which was added by FDASIA, FDA will award priority review
vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product
applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined that ZTALMY
(ganaxolone), manufactured by Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., meets the
criteria for a priority review voucher. ZTALMY (ganaxolone) is
indicated to treat seizures associated with cyclin-dependent kinase-
like 5 (CDKL5) deficiency disorder in patients 2 years of age and
older.
    For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority
Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529
of the FD&C Act, go to https://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/RarePediatricDiseasePriorityVoucherProgram/default.htm. For further
information about ZTALMY (ganaxolone), go to the ``[email protected]'' website
at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/.

    Dated: August 31, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-19276 Filed 9-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P