Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-02-06 · Nuclear Regulatory Commission · Notices

Notices. Proposed rule

61,296 words·~279 min read·/register/2007/02/06/07-517

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 24 Tuesday, February 6, 2007 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 40, 72, 74, and 150 RIN: 3150-AH85 Regulatory Improvements to the Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)is proposing to amend its regulations related to licensee reporting requirements for source material and special nuclear material
(SNM)to the Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System (NMMSS). The proposed amendments would lower the threshold of the quantities of SNM and certain source materials that require the submission of material status reports to the NMMSS. Also, the proposed amendments would make some modifications to the types of and timing of submittals of transaction reports to the NMMSS. The amendments would also require licensees to reconcile any material inventory discrepancies that NRC identifies in the NMMSS database. The proposed amendments would reduce some regulatory burden by reducing the current reporting requirements related to the export of certain source material and SNM. However, the annual reporting requirements would be new requirements for licensees who possess 350 grams or less, of SNM. These amendments are needed to improve the accuracy of the material inventory information maintained in the NMMSS. DATES: Submit comments on the rule by April 23, 2007. Submit comments specific to the information collections aspects of this rule by March 8, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number RIN 3150-AH85 in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. *E-mail comments to:* SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at
(301)415-1966. You may also submit comments via NRC's rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov* . Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher
(301)415-5905; e-mail *cag@nrc.gov* . Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* . *Hand deliver comments to:* 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays. (Telephone
(301)415-1966). *Fax comments to:* Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301)415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov* . Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . From this site, the public can gain entry into NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . You may submit comments on the information collections by the methods indicated in the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neelam Bhalla, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
(301)415-6843, e-mail, *nxb@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Discussion A. Special Nuclear Material Transfer Reports B. Special Nuclear Material Status Reports C. Source Material Transfer Reports D. Source Material Status Reports E. Reconciliation of Submitted Inventories F. Reporting Identification Symbol and Holding Accounts G. Reduction in Reporting Requirements for Export of Material Shipments H. Who Would This Action Affect? I. How Would the Information be Reported? III. Summary of Proposed Amendments by Section IV. Criminal Penalties V. Agreement State Compatibility VI. Plain Language VII. Voluntary Consensus Standards VIII. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement X. Public Protection Notification XI. Regulatory Analysis XII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification XIII. Backfit Analysis I. Background The NMMSS is the national database used in the United States by NRC licensees, the Agreement State licensees, and Department of Energy
(DOE)contractors to report the possession of certain special nuclear material
(SNM)and source material. The NMMSS was created as a result of comprehensive accounting procedures developed by the Atomic Energy Commission in response to the passage of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and began processing of facility submittals in 1965. The DOE is responsible for maintaining the NMMSS database. The NMMSS database supports NRC domestically in the review of licensee material control and accounting programs, and internationally as the U.S. Government database for collecting and reporting information required by international treaties. The NRC reporting requirements related to the NMMSS are primarily contained in 10 CFR Parts 40, 72, 74, 75, 76, and 150. The NMMSS database uses licensee submittals to serve two important functions:
(1)meeting international reporting obligations, and
(2)assisting in the oversight of licensee material control and accounting (MC&A) programs required by 10 CFR Parts 40, 72, 74, 75, 76, and 150. With regard to international commitments, the United States has committed to a national accountancy and control system for nuclear materials through treaties with nuclear trading partners and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The NMMSS is part of the overall program to help satisfy these international commitments by constituting the national database used by NRC and the Agreement State licensees, and DOE contractors to report the possession of certain quantities SNM and source material. The information submitted to the NMMSS is then reported externally by the United States in order to satisfy these treaty requirements. The NMMSS also maintains accounting data on U.S. peaceful use exports and imports of nuclear materials that have occurred since 1965. With respect to NRC's oversight of the MC&A at licensed facilities, the NMMSS is the national database that serves as the central collection and processing point for inventory, shipment, and receipt information required to be reported by commercial and Federal Government facilities. Applicable NRC reporting requirements are specified in 10 CFR Parts 40, 72, 74, 75, 150. As a result of these reporting requirements, the NMMSS can provide the NRC staff with a projection of quantities of reportable materials located, shipped, or received at a particular licensee site. In October 2001, the DOE Office of the Inspector General
(OIG)issued a report based on an audit of the NMMSS for DOE-owned nuclear materials. 1 One of the findings of that report was that DOE could not fully account for DOE-owned nuclear materials loaned or leased to licensees. A similar audit conducted by NRC's OIG, also raised concerns over the accuracy of material inventories in the NMMSS. 2 In the report, the NRC OIG recommended that the scope of licensee reporting should be expanded to include a requirement that smaller licensees (those possessing less than 350 grams of SNM), submit inventory information to the NMMSS annually. 1 This report entitled, “Accounting for Government Owned Nuclear Materials Provided to Non-Department Domestic Facilities” (October 26, 2001), is available at *http://www.ig.doe.gov/pdf/ig-0529.pdf* . 2 This report entitled, “Audit of NRC's Regulatory Oversight of Special Nuclear Materials” (OIG-03-A-15, May 23, 2003), is available at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-gen/2003/03-a-15.pdf* . As a result of its audit, NRC took immediate steps to verify and reconcile inventories in the NMMSS database by issuing a bulletin, NRC Bulletin 2003-04: “Rebaselining of Data in the Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System.” The bulletin was sent to all NRC and Agreement State licensees then holding NMMSS accounts and requested them to provide inventory information to the NMMSS. The NRC staff also conducted site visits to review selected licensees' submitted information in comparison to actual physical inventories. The review concluded that licensees did not submit or update inventories to the NMMSS for several years (or decades) because they possessed or transferred materials that did not meet minimum reporting thresholds. These efforts also helped identify accounts with zero balances. The rebaselining efforts resulted in decreasing the number of active accounts and supported a further review and reconciliation of material inventories in the remaining accounts. At the end of these efforts, NRC determined that enhanced reporting of inventory information by those licensees not presently required to do so would provide greater assurance about the accuracy of licensee inventory information maintained in the database. NRC believes that licensee inventories must be submitted regularly and reconciled in comparison to values projected by the NMMSS database to maintain the usefulness of the database for international and domestic regulatory needs. II. Discussion The NRC staff has had extensive interactions with the NMMSS operator and industry representatives since the issuance of NRC Bulletin 2003-04. On the basis of these efforts and an evaluation of the current regulations related to the NMMSS reporting, the NRC staff concluded that many of the discrepancies in NMMSS information resulted because:
(1)Many licensees (those that possess less than 350 grams of SNM) infrequently ship and/or receive reportable materials, and
(2)Many licensees do not meet the current regulatory threshold for annual reporting of SNM or source material and lose institutional awareness of the NMMSS over time. As a result, for many licensees there are no requirements to periodically confirm the accuracy of values projected by the NMMSS. This conclusion led NRC to embark on an effort to amend its regulations to enhance the accuracy of the NMMSS database. The proposed amendments would lower the threshold of quantities of special nuclear materials and certain source materials requiring the submission of both status and transaction reports to the NMMSS. Another amendment to keep the NMMSS data more current, would be to modify reporting requirements in § 40.64 to require licensees involved in enrichment services, downblending material initially enriched in U 235 isotope 10 percent or more, or mixed-oxide
(MOX)fuel fabrication of uranium, to report the transfer, receipt, inventory adjustment, inventory, and material balance information for source material. These changes to NMMSS reporting requirements would improve the accuracy of material balance (inputs/outputs) information. Currently, licensees are only required to report source material subject to international treaty requirements. However, source material reporting is an important part of the material balance equation because these materials are used as an input material in the downblending of uranium, MOX fuel fabrication, and uranium enrichment cycle. This type of facility reporting would facilitate the evaluation of the prior and ending source material balances of licensees that engage in activities that change the SNM values of materials. The NRC staff considered other possible consequences posed by inaccurate NMMSS information associated with these holders of small quantities of SNM. Gram quantities of SNM held by many small quantity licensees do not appear to pose a significant challenge to the promotion of security from an MC&A perspective. However, if periodic reporting and evaluation of small licensee balances are not required, it could reduce public confidence in the primary tool used by the NRC in the oversight of small licensee MC&A activities since NRC would not have assurance that projected material balances are representative of the quantities of materials at these sites. Further, this will allow for more accuracy in the NMMSS database. The following sections summarize the significant proposed changes to the regulations and the NRC's basis for those proposed changes. A. Special Nuclear Material Transaction Reports Currently, licensees are required by 10 CFR 74.15(a) to report to the NMMSS whenever they transfer or receive one gram or more of SNM. The proposed revision would add a requirement that licensees must also report to the NMMSS whenever it makes an on-site adjustment to the SNM inventory involving a quantity of one gram or more SNM. The inventory adjustments may be due to decay, or normal operational losses. Domestic MC&A safeguards would be enhanced by this change because the NRC inspection staff would be aware of possible inventory anomalies sooner and NMMSS generated inventories would more accurately reflect actual facility inventory values between reconciliation periods. Thus, required reporting of these adjustments as they are generated would improve the accuracy of the NMMSS database. Additionally, 10 CFR 72.78 and 74.15 require submission of material transaction reports for the transfer and receipt of SNM but do not specify the time frames in which the reports must be made. However, the reporting time frames are specified in NUREG/BR-0006, “Instructions for the preparation and Distribution of Material Transaction Reports.” In contrast, for source material transactions under § 40.64(a), nuclear material transaction reports are required to be submitted by the close of business, the next working day for the transfer of source material and within ten business days of receipt, for the receipt of source material. Therefore, for consistency with those provisions, §§ 72.78 and 74.15 would be amended to require each licensee who transfers SNM to submit a nuclear material transaction report no later than the close of business the next working day, and each licensee who receives the material to submit a nuclear material transaction report within ten days after the material is received. Consistent with this change, Part 150 would be amended to require licensees who transfer SNM to submit a nuclear material transaction report to NMMSS no later than the close of business the next working day. Currently, § 150.16(a) requires licensees only submit the SNM transaction report “promptly” after the SNM transfer takes place. By changing “promptly” to “no later than the close of business the next working day” the regulation would be unambiguous. A revision would also be made to the titles of §§ 72.78, 74.15 and 150.16. Currently, §§ 72.78 and 74.15 are entitled “Nuclear material transfer reports,” and § 150.16 is entitled “Submission to Commission of nuclear material transfer reports.” The amended titles of §§ 72.78 and 74.15 would be “Nuclear material transaction reports.” § 150.16 would be entitled “Submission to Commission of nuclear material transaction reports.” The amended titles would correctly reflect the requirements contained in these sections for both receipt and transfer of nuclear material, and would be consistent with the name of the submission report. B. Special Nuclear Material Status Reports Currently, licensees are required by § 74.13(a) to report annual SNM inventories to the NMMSS only if they are authorized to possess more than 350 grams of SNM. The proposed amendment would lower the reporting threshold to one gram or more, requiring a licensee who possesses or who had possessed in the previous reporting period, one gram or more of SNM to report an annual inventory to the NMMSS. By lowering the reporting threshold, NRC would improve its knowledge of the location and presence of SNM possessed by licensees. The staff considered changing the current 350 gram threshold to a number of values that were less than 350 grams but more than one gram. This approach was rejected because this would still result in a number of licensees that would not have to report inventory regularly and ultimately cause a variation of the same problem, that NRC would not have adequate input regarding inventories held by these licensees. The staff also considered lowering the inventory/material balance threshold to less than one gram of SNM. This method was not pursued because it would “mis-align” NRC regulations with DOE and international entities with whom the U.S. has treaty agreements in place. Also, the licensee community would have potentially an additional burden to develop new (less than one gram) measurement techniques. Finally, the staff established the new threshold at one gram of SNM because:
(1)International entities (those with which we have treaties) recognize one gram as the basic measuring unit for SNM;
(2)one gram is a threshold value accepted by DOE and would meet their reporting expectations for licensees possessing government-owned material;
(3)a one gram threshold would address the NRC OIG concern about ensuring we have interaction with and reporting from small quantity licensees; and
(4)the one gram threshold for inventory/material balance reporting would align with the present one gram requirement for licensees reporting shipments and receipts (transactions) of SNM. The submission of material balance reports under the current rule is linked to the performance and conduct of annual physical inventories and related reports required by §§ 74.19(c), 74.31(c)(5), 74.33(c)(4), or 74.43(c)(6), in March and September for those subject to § 74.51. Those provisions are linked for the convenience of licensees, since both reports contain the same minimum threshold requirements of more than 350 grams. However, the activities associated with performing, documenting, and maintaining records associated with a physical inventory, as required by 10 CFR 74.19(c), are different and more encompassing than those associated with preparing and submitting a material status report required in 10 CFR 74.13. Because the staff does not plan to revise § 74.19(c) as part of this rulemaking, it would therefore no longer be possible to link the reporting requirements of the two rules since a physical inventory under 74.19(c) is only implicated if a licensee is authorized to possess greater than 350 grams of SNM. Thus, § 74.13 would be revised to continue to permit licensees authorized to possess greater than 350 grams of SNM to submit material status reports along with their physical inventory reports as required by §§ 74.19(c), 74.31(c)(5), 74.33(c)(4), or 74.43(c)(6), and, in March and September of each year, for those subject to § 74.51. However, for those licensees who are authorized to possess 350 grams or less of SNM, the proposed rule would require the submission of material balance reports no later than March 31 of each year. The NRC finds that this schedule would eliminate any reporting problems related to inconsistencies in reporting quantities that would persist between §§ 74.13 and 74.19, but maintains the intended flexibility and efficiency of the current rule. C. Source Material Transaction Reports Currently, § 40.64(a) requires submission of a Nuclear Material Transaction Report whenever a licensee transfers, receives, or adjusts the inventory of foreign obligated source material by one kilogram or more. Foreign obligated materials are those nuclear materials that are subject to tracking by international treaties. Also, reports are required for the import and export of one kilogram or more of any source material, regardless of obligation. However, the current requirements do not require reporting when material is utilized. The proposed revision would amend the rule to require reporting when a licensee utilizes one kilogram or more of source material in enrichment services, downblend material initially enriched in the U 235 isotope to 10 percent or more, or mixed-oxide fuel fabrication, regardless of obligation. The NRC staff believes that source material reporting is an important part of the material balance equation because these materials are used as an input material in the downblending of uranium, mixed-oxide
(MOX)fuel fabrication, and uranium enrichment cycle. This amendment to NMMSS reporting would facilitate the evaluation of the prior and ending balances of licensees that engage in activities that change the SNM values of their inventories and thus improve the accuracy of the NMMSS data. D. Source Material Status Reports Currently, § 40.64(b) requires annual source material inventory reports of foreign obligated source material for licensees authorized to possess more than 1000 kilograms of source material. The proposed revision would lower this value to one kilogram or more of foreign obligated source material. A lowered reporting threshold would provide the NRC with better knowledge of the location and presence of foreign obligated source material possessed by the licensees. The proposed revision would also require the licensees to report annual source material inventory when a licensee utilizes one kilogram or more of any source material in enrichment services, downblend material initially enriched in the U 235 isotope to 10 percent or more, or mixed-oxide fuel fabrication, regardless of the obligation. Based on a review of the rebaselining efforts, the NRC staff has concluded that many licensees did not submit or update inventories to the NMMSS for several years, because they possessed or transferred materials that did not meet the minimum reporting thresholds. By lowering the reporting threshold from 1000 kilograms to 1 kilogram of foreign material, the staff believes the information maintained in the NMMSS database would be more current and reliable. E. Reconciliation of Submitted Inventories Facilities that presently report inventory and material balance information also voluntarily participate in a periodic reconciliation process with the NMMSS to address any differences between NMMSS generated inventory values and the facility reported inventory values. Although, the reconciliation process is not explicitly required by regulations, it is an integral part of routine NMMSS operations. To address this issue, the proposed amendments to §§ 40.64(b), 72.76(a), 74.13(a), 150.17(a) and 150.17(b) would require licensees to reconcile any inventory discrepancies identified by NRC in the NMMSS database within 30 days of being notified of a discrepancy by NRC. In the proposed amendments to §§ 40.4, 72.3, 74.4 and 150.3, a new definition, “reconciliation,” would be added to describe the process by which licensees” reports are evaluated and compared by NRC to the projected material balances by the NMMSS. The NMMSS projected balances are the NMMSS calculated material balances based on the transfer, receipt, or other adjustments reported to the NMMSS by the licensees during the previous reporting period. The process is considered complete when a licensee resolves any differences between the reported inventory and the inventory projected by the NMMSS database. This requirement would help in maintaining the accuracy of information in the NMMSS database. F. Reporting Identification Symbol
(RIS)and Holding Accounts NRC currently assigns a reporting account number called Reporting Identification Symbol
(RIS)to each licensee to submit information to the NMMSS. The proposed revisions to §§ 40.64(b) and 74.13(a) would require licensees to report inventory of source material and SNM, respectively, not only for their primary RIS account but also source and SNM inventories in associated holding accounts. Holding accounts were established by some licensees to identify the material that the licensee was not actively using. Currently, licensees are not required to acknowledge shipments and receipts, or report inventory information pertaining to the holding accounts to the NMMSS. MC&A safeguards would be enhanced by this change because of the increased accuracy and availability of inventory information to the NRC staff. G. Reduction in Reporting Requirements for Export of Material Shipments Currently, licensees who export reportable quantities of SNM or source material file both the shipper's and receiver's information on two separate forms when exporting nuclear material, as described in NUREG/BR-0006. Based on the NRC inspector observations, the current additional requirement to report a foreign facility description of the same transactions has not been useful in assuring the accuracy of domestic MC&A information and is not necessary to meet international reporting requirements. Consequently, this requirement can be eliminated to reduce burden without adverse effects on safety or security. This change would be reflected in the revised NUREG/BR-0006 and in the proposed amendments to §§ 40.64, 74.15 and 150.16. In the proposed amendment, licensees would be required to file only the shipper's information form unless a significant shipper/receiver difference, or, a theft or diversion is identified. In this context “significant” refers to a difference, for SNM, that requires resolution as described in §§ 74.31, 74.43, or 74.59, as applicable. For source material, the quantities delineated in § 40.64(c)(1) involving a theft or unlawful diversion would be the threshold quantity for additional reporting. This proposed change to the reporting requirement would reduce the licensees reporting burdens when shipping nuclear materials without significantly impacting the quality of the information reported to the database. H. Who Would This Action Affect? Currently, licensees possessing more than 350 grams of SNM report inventory and material balance information annually to the NMMSS. The lowering of the threshold to one gram of SNM and one kilogram of source material subject to treaty obligations would affect approximately 200 additional NRC and Agreement State licensees who presently possess between one and 350 grams of SNM. New requirements associated with source material reporting would also apply to licensees that perform uranium enrichment services, downblend material initially enriched in the U 235 isotope to 10 percent or more, and mixed-oxide fuel fabrication. However, the actual impact on these licensees would be minimal because much of the source material used for these types of processes has associated treaty obligations and is subject to the current reporting requirements. Finally, the reduction in reporting requirements associated with export of SNM and source material would impact approximately 17 NRC and Agreement State licensees that export such materials. This change to the current reporting requirements as specified in NUREG/BR-0006 would result in a reduction of about 1,700 reports per year, from the current number of 3400 reports per year to the NMMSS without impacting the quality of information in the NMMSS database. I. How Would the Information Be Reported? Licensees may continue to submit foreign obligated source material information pursuant to proposed § 40.64(b) as a statement and may submit the statement with other reports that the licensee is required to submit, such as the SNM material balance report. However, source material and SNM transaction reports must be submitted by filing Nuclear Material Transaction Reports forms in computer-readable format as specified in NRC NUREG/BR-0006. Additional source and SNM inventory and material balance reports must be submitted in computer-readable format as specified in the NRC NUREG/BR-0007. Specific details about the forms and format for these reports are contained in the NRC NUREG/ BR-0006 and 0007. Additionally, reporting software is available to the licensees free of charge from the NMMSS contractor. III. Summary of Proposed Amendments by Section Section 40.4 Definitions Section 40.4 would be amended to add a definition of “reconciliation.” Reconciliation would be defined to mean the process by which licensee inventory submittals are compared to values projected by the NMMSS, and that the process is considered complete when the licensee resolves any differences between the two values, including foreign obligated materials. Section 40.64 Reports Section 40.64(a) would be amended to
(1)require licensees who utilize one kilogram or more of source material, regardless of obligation, in enrichment services, downblending uranium that has an initial enrichment of the U 235 isotope of 10 percent or more, or in the fabrication of mixed-oxide fuels, to complete and submit a Nuclear Material Transaction Report; and
(2)to require licensees who export source material to complete only the licensee portion of the transaction report unless there is an indication of loss, theft, or diversion of the source material, in which case both the licensee's and the foreign facility's information on the form would have to be reported. Section 40.64(b) would be amended to
(1)lower reporting thresholds for possession and reporting of inventory of foreign obligated source material to one kilogram;
(2)require each licensee who possesses one kilogram or more of uranium or thorium source material in the operation of enrichment services, downblending uranium that has an initial enrichment of the U 235 isotope of 10 percent or more, or in the fabrication of mixed-oxide fuels, to complete and submit, in computer-readable format, Material Balance and Physical Inventory Listing Reports concerning all source material (both foreign obligated and non-obligated) that the licensee has received, produced, possessed, transferred, consumed, disposed of, or lost in the previous reporting period;
(3)resolve any inventory discrepancies identified by the NRC within 30 calendar days of submission of the information;
(4)require inventory reporting not only in the
(RIS)account but include material held in all associated holding accounts; and
(5)correct the NRC address to obtain the reporting instructions. Section 72.3 Definitions Section 72.3 would be amended to add a definition of “reconciliation.” Reconciliation would be defined to mean the process by which licensee submittals are compared to projected values developed by the NMMSS, and that the process is considered complete when the licensee resolves any differences between the two values, including foreign obligated materials. Section 72.72 Material Balance Inventory and Records Requirements for Stored Materials Section 72.72(a) would be amended to
(1)correct the reference for SNM to § 74.13(a) (the current reference to § 74.13(a)(1) is incorrect because there is no paragraph (a)(1) in § 74.13); and
(2)would require licensees to keep records showing the receipt, inventory, disposal, acquisition, and transfer of source material in quantities as specified in § 40.64. Section 72.76 Material Status Reports Section 72.76(a) would be amended
(1)to require reports on source material as specified in § 40.64;
(2)require licensees to resolve any discrepancies identified during the report review and reconciliation process within 30 calendar days of submission of the information; and
(3)correct the NRC address to obtain the reporting instructions. Section 72.78 Nuclear Material Transfer Reports The section heading would be revised to read, “ Nuclear Material Transaction Reports.” The amendment is consistent with the name of the report (transaction report) and describes requirements for both receipt and transfer of nuclear materials. Section 72.78(a) would be amended
(1)to add a reporting requirement when a licensee adjusts the inventory of SNM as specified by § 74.15 or source material as specified by § 40.64; and
(2)to correct the NRC address or obtaining the reporting instructions. Section 74.2 Scope Section 74.2(a) would be amended to lower the applicability of general reporting and record keeping requirements of subpart B of Part 74 to each person who possesses one gram or more of SNM. Section 74.4 Definitions Section 74.4 would be amended to add a definition of “reconciliation.” Reconciliation would be defined to mean the process by which licensee submittals are compared to projected values developed by NMMSS, and that the process is considered complete when the licensee resolves any differences between the two values, including foreign obligated materials. Section 74.13 Material Status Reports Section 74.13(a) would be amended to
(1)lower reporting thresholds from authorization to possess more than 350 grams of SNM to possession of one gram or more of SNM, or possession of one gram or more of SNM in the inventory reporting period;
(2)require inventory reporting to include not only the primary Reporting Identification Symbol
(RIS)account but SNM in any associated holding accounts;
(3)to require licensees to resolve any discrepancies identified during the report review and reconciliation process within 30 calendar days of notification of a discrepancy identified by the NRC;
(4)to require licensee submission of material balance reports no later than March 31 of each year for reports not covered under §§ 74.19, 74.31(c)(5), 74.33(c)(4), 74.43(c)(6), or 74.51; and
(5)to correct the NRC address to obtain the reporting instructions. Section 74.15 Nuclear Material Transfer Reports The section heading would be revised to read, “Nuclear Material Transaction Reports.” The amendment is consistent with the name of the report (transaction report) and describes requirements for both receipt and transfer of nuclear materials. Section 74.15(a) would be amended to
(1)add a reporting requirement when the inventory of SNM is adjusted in a quantity of one gram or more;
(2)specify that each licensee who transfers SNM to submit a Nuclear Material Transaction Report no later than the close of business the next working day, and each licensee who receives the material to submit a Nuclear Material Transaction Report within ten
(10)days after the material is received; and
(3)make a revision to correct the NRC address to obtain the reporting instructions. The current paragraph
(c)would be redesignated as a new paragraph (d). A new paragraph
(c)would be added to § 74.15 to require licensees who export one gram or more of SNM to complete only the supplier's portion of the form unless a significant shipper-receiver difference as described in §§ 74.31, 74.43, or 74.59 is identified. Section 150.3 Definitions Section 150.3 would be amended to add a definition of “reconciliation.” Reconciliation would be defined to mean the process by which licensee submittals are compared to projected values developed by the NMMSS and that the process is considered complete when the licensee resolves any differences between the two values, including foreign obligated materials. Section 150.8 Information Collection Requirements: OMB Approval In Section 150.8 paragraph (c)(1) would be revised, paragraph (c)(2) would be redesignated as a new paragraph (c)(3), and a new paragraph (c)(2) would be added to describe that in § 150.17, DOE/NRC Form 742 and its computer-readable format are approved under control number 3150-0004, and DOE/NRC Form 742C and its computer-readable format are approved under control number 3150-0058. Section 150.16 Submission to Commission of Nuclear Material Transfer Reports The section heading would be revised to read, “Submission to the Commission of nuclear material transaction reports.” The amendment is consistent with the name of the report (transaction report) and describes requirements for both receipt and transfer of nuclear materials. Section 150.16(a) would be revised to add a new paragraph (a)(1) that would generally retain the requirements of current paragraph (a), but would be amended to
(1)require reporting when the inventory of SNM is adjusted in a quantity of one gram or more;
(2)specify that for transfer of SNM, the information be submitted no later than the close of next business day;
(3)would require completion of only the licensee's portion of the form for exporting SNM unless a significant shipper-receiver difference as described in §§ 74.31, 74.43, or 74.59 is identified; and (4), correct the NRC address to obtain the reporting instructions. The new paragraph (a)(2) in § 150.16 would describe the material transaction reporting requirements for the source material. Currently, source material transaction reporting requirements are described in § 150.17(a), under the heading “Submission to Commission of source material reports.” Moving these requirements to § 150.16, would help licensees locate the material transaction reporting requirements for both SNM and source material in § 150.16. The new § 150.16(a)(2) would also
(1)require a licensee who utilizes any uranium or thorium source material, regardless of obligation, in a quantity of one kilogram or more, in enrichment services, downblending uranium that has an initial enrichment of the U 235 isotope of 10 percent or more, or in the fabrication of mixed-oxide fuels, to submit source material transaction reports;
(2)require licensees to file only the licensee's portion of the form when exporting one kilogram or more of source material, unless there is an indication of theft or diversion as described in § 40.64(c) of this chapter, in which case both the receiver's and shipper's portion of the form must be completed;
(3)require the shipper's portion of the form to be completed for imports; and
(4)correct the NRC address to obtain the reporting instructions. Section 150.17 Submission to Commission of Source Material Reports The section heading would be revised to read, “Submission to Commission of nuclear material status reports.” This amendment would help licensees locate the reporting requirements for material status reports for both source material and SNM. This format is similar to the reporting formats for source and SNM status reporting in 10 CFR Parts 40, 72, and 74. Section 150.17(a) would be amended to require each licensee who is in possession of, or had possessed in the previous reporting period, SNM in a quantity of one gram or more, to annually complete and submit in computer-readable format Material Balance and Inventory Reports concerning special nuclear material that the licensee has received, produced, possessed, transferred, consumed, disposed of, or lost. It would also require licensees to resolve any discrepancies identified during the report review and reconciliation process within 30 calendar days of notification of a discrepancy identified by NRC. Section 150.17
(b)would be amended to
(1)lower the annual inventory reporting threshold from the current 1000 kilogram of foreign obligated source material to one kilogram;
(2)add a reporting requirement that a licensee who utilizes one kilogram or more of any source material in enrichment services, downblend material initially enriched in the U 235 isotope to 10 percent or more, or mixed-oxide fuel fabrication would be required to submit material balance and physical inventory listing reports concerning source material that the licensee has received, produced, possessed, transferred, consumed, disposed, or lost;
(3)require licensees to resolve any discrepancies identified during the report review and reconciliation process within 30 calendar days of notification of a discrepancy identified by NRC; and
(4)correct the NRC address to obtain the reporting instructions. IV. Criminal Penalties For the purpose of Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR Parts 40, 72, 74, and 150 under one or more of Sections 161b, 161i, or 161o of the AEA. Willful violations of the rule would be subject to criminal enforcement. V. Agreement State Compatibility Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the **Federal Register** on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this proposed rule would be designated Compatibility Category “NRC.” The Compatibility Categories for the sections amended in this proposed rule would be the same as the sections in the current rule. The revisions to §§ 40.64, 72.72(a), 72.76, 72.78, 74.4, 74.13, 74.15, 150.16 and 150.17 are designated as Category “NRC,” because these are areas of exclusive NRC regulatory authority. The following new sections, §§ 40.4, 72.3 and 150.3, are also designated Compatibility Category “NRC.” Compatibility Category “NRC” are the NRC program elements that address areas of regulation that cannot be relinquished to Agreement States under the Atomic Energy Act or provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements via a mechanism that is consistent with the particular State's administrative procedure laws, but does not confer regulatory authority on the State. VI. Plain Language The Presidential Memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled, “Plain Language in Government Writing” directed that the Government's writing be in plain language. NRC requests comments on this proposed rule specifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent to the address listed under the heading “ ADDRESSES ” of this document. VII. Voluntary Consensus Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this proposed rule, the NRC would modify current reporting requirements for source material and special nuclear material to the Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System (NMMSS). This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that establishes generally applicable requirements. VIII. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion NRC has determined that this proposed rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1) for the proposed changes to Part 150 and as described in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(iii) for the changes to Parts 40, 72, and 74. Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule. IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule contains new or amended information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the information collection requirements. *Type of submission, new or revision:* Revision. *The title of the information collection:* 10 CFR Parts 40, 72, 74, and 150, “Regulatory Improvements to Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System,” Proposed Rule. *The form number if applicable:* DOE/NRC Form 741 “Nuclear Material Transaction Report,” DOE/NRC Form 742, “Material Balance Report,” and DOE/NRC Form 742C, “Physical Inventory Listing.” *How often the collection is required:* Annually, or when a transaction is made. *Who will be required or asked to report:* Licensees who possess one gram or more of special nuclear material, one kilogram or more of foreign obligated source material and licensees who possess one kilogram or more of source material used in uranium enrichment, downblending of uranium enriched to 10 percent or more in U-235 and mixed-oxide fuel fabrication activities. *An estimate of the number of annual responses:* 33,065 (currently 33,860 total responses for Forms 741, 742 and 742C per year. Proposed rule would decrease the responses to 33,065 per year because of a reduction in the information collection for export of special nuclear material and source material). The reduction was achieved by: *NRC Form 741:* −1195 responses. *NRC Form 742:* +200 responses. *NRC Form 742C:* +200 responses. *The estimated number of annual respondents:* 380. Currently, 180 licensees report information on Forms 741, 742 and 742C. Two hundred additional respondents for each of the Forms 742 and 742C are expected in the proposed rule as follows: *NRC Form 741:* 180 respondents. *NRC Form 742:* 380 respondents. *NRC Form 742C:* 380 respondents. *An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* A reduction of 695 hours ( *NRC Form 741:* −1495 hours at 1.25 hours/response; NRC Form 742, +400 hours at 2hours/response; NRC Form 742C, +400 hours at 2hours/response). *Abstract:* NRC is proposing to amend its regulations related to current reporting requirements for source material and special nuclear material to the NMMSS. The proposed amendments would require that all licensees possessing one gram or more of special nuclear material
(SNM)or one kilogram or more of source material with foreign treaty obligations to report and reconcile material balance and inventory information at least annually. Additionally, inventory adjustments would have to be reported. The proposed amendments would also reduce the current reporting requirements associated with the export of source material or SNM to require in most cases, only shipper information be reported. The rule would require licensees who engage in certain activities (i.e., enrichment, downblending, mixed-oxide fuel fabrication) to report information on all source materials used for those activities. These information collections are mandatory. NRC is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the information collections contained in this proposed rule and on the following issues: 1. Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NRC, including whether the information will have practical utility? 2. Is the estimate of burden accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques? A copy of the OMB clearance package may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. The OMB clearance package and rule are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html* for 60 days after the signature date of this notice and are also available at the rule forum site, *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* Send comments on any aspect of these proposed information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden and on the above issues, by March 8, 2007 to the Records and FOIA/Privacy Services Branch (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail to *INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV* and to the Desk Officer, Margaret A. Malanoski, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0020, 3150-0003, 3150-0132, 3150-0123, 3150-0032, 3150-0004, and 3150-0058), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. You may also e-mail comments to *Margaret_A._Malanoski@omb.eop.gov* or comment by telephone at
(202)395-3321. X. Public Protection Notification The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number. XI. Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading of this document. The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Single copies of the regulatory analysis are available from Neelam Bhalla, telephone
(301)415-6843, e-mail, *nxb@nrc.gov* of the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. XII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would affect about 180 licensees who are currently required to file reports and approximately 200 additional NRC and Agreement State licensees. Affected licensees include enrichment facilities, fuel fabricators, laboratories, reactors, universities, colleges, medical clinics, and hospitals, some of which may qualify as small business entities as defined by 10 CFR 2.810. The proposed rule would result in annual savings for the 17 licensees subject to current reporting requirements because there would be a reduction in the number of transaction forms submitted for certain export transactions. However, for the licensees possessing 350 grams or less of SNM, there would be an additional cost from the proposed regulations. The annual time required by these licensees to complete each inventory and material balance report is estimated at two hours. No research or compilation is necessary because all information is transcribed from in-house records kept for other purposes. The total annual burden to perform the proposed reporting and reconciliation for these 200 licensees would be 400 hours. Based on the draft regulatory analysis conducted for this action, the annual costs of the proposed amendments for affected licensees are estimated to be $34,800 total or on average about $174 per affected licensee. NRC believes that the selected alternative reflected in the proposed amendment is the least burdensome, most flexible alternative that would accomplish the NRC's regulatory objective. XIII. Backfit Analysis NRC has determined that the backfit rule (§§ 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, or 76.76) does not apply to this proposed rule because this amendment would not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined in the backfit rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 40 Criminal penalties, Government contracts, Hazardous materials transportation, Nuclear materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Source material, Uranium. 10 CFR Part 72 Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing. 10 CFR Part 74 Accounting, Criminal penalties, Hazardous materials transportation, Material control and accounting, Nuclear materials, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Special nuclear material. 10 CFR Part 150 Criminal penalties, Hazardous materials transportation, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Source material, Special nuclear material. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 40, 72, 74, and 150. PART 40—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL 1. The authority citation for part 40 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat. 932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, secs. 11e(2), 83, 84, Pub. L. 95-604, 92 Stat. 3033, as amended, 3039, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2), 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2111, 2113, 2114, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C. 2021); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 275, 92 Stat. 3021, as amended by Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (42 U.S.C. 2022); sec. 193, 104 Stat. 2835, as amended by Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-349 (42 U.S.C. 2243); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Section 40.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 40.31(g) also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 40.46 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 40.71 also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237). 2. In § 40.4, a new definition, Reconciliation, is added in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 40.4 Definitions. Reconciliation means the process of evaluating and comparing licensee reports required under this part to the projected material balances generated by the Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System. This process is considered complete when the licensee resolves any differences between the reported and projected balances, including those listed for foreign obligated materials. 3. In § 40.64, paragraphs
(a)and
(b)are revised to read as follows: § 40.64 Reports.
(a)Except as specified in paragraphs
(d)and
(e)of this section, each specific licensee who: transfers, receives, or adjusts the inventory in any manner, of uranium or thorium source material with foreign obligations by one kilogram or more; or who imports or exports one kilogram or more of uranium or thorium source material; or who uses one kilogram or more of any uranium or thorium source material in enrichment services, downblending uranium that has an initial enrichment of the U 235 isotope of 10 percent or more, or in the fabrication of mixed-oxide fuels, shall complete a Nuclear Material Transaction Report in computer-readable format as specified in the instructions in NUREG/BR-0006 and NMMSS Report D-24, “Personal Computer Data Input for NRC Licensees.” Each licensee who exports one kilogram or more of uranium or thorium source material shall complete in the format listed above the licensee's portion of the Nuclear Material Transaction Report unless there is indication of loss, theft, or diversion as discussed under paragraph
(d)of this section, in which case both the licensee's and the foreign facility's information must be reported. Licensees who import one kilogram or more of uranium or thorium source material shall complete the supplier's and the licensee's portion of the Nuclear Material Transaction Report. Copies of the instructions may be obtained either by writing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to *RidsNmssFcss@nrc.gov.* Each licensee who transfers the material shall submit a Nuclear Material Transaction Report in computer-readable format as specified in the instructions no later than the close of business the next working day. Each licensee who receives the material shall submit a Nuclear Material Transaction Report in computer-readable format in accordance with instructions within ten
(10)days after the material is received. The Commission's copy of the report must be submitted to the address specified in the instructions. These prescribed computer-readable forms replace the DOE/NRC Form 741 previously submitted in paper form.
(b)Except as specified in paragraphs
(d)and
(e)of this section, each licensee who:
(1)Possesses, or had possessed in the previous reporting period, at any one time and location, one kilogram or more of uranium or thorium source material with foreign obligations as defined in this part, shall document holdings as of September 30 of each year and submit to the Commission within 30 days, a statement of its source material inventory with foreign obligations as defined in this part. Alternatively, this information may be submitted with the licensee's material status reports on special nuclear material filed under parts 72 or 74 of this chapter, as a statement of its source material inventory with foreign obligations as defined in this part. This statement must be submitted to the address specified in the reporting instructions in NUREG/BR-0007, and include the Reporting Identification Symbol
(RIS)assigned by the Commission to the licensee.
(2)Possesses, or had possessed in the previous reporting period, one kilogram or more of uranium or thorium source material pursuant to the operation of enrichment services, downblending uranium that has an initial enrichment of the U 235 isotope of 10 percent or more, or in the fabrication of mixed-oxide fuels shall complete and submit, in computer-readable format, Material Balance and Physical Inventory Listing Reports concerning all source material that the licensee has received, produced, possessed, transferred, consumed, disposed of, or lost. Reports must be submitted for each Reporting Identification Symbol
(RIS)account including all holding accounts. Each licensee shall prepare and submit these reports as specified in the instructions in NUREG/BR-0007 and NMMSS Report D-24, “Personal Computer Data Input for NRC Licensees.” These reports must document holdings as of September 30 of each year and must be submitted to the Commission within 30 days. Alternatively, these reports may be submitted with the licensee's material status reports on special nuclear material filed under parts 72 or 74 of this chapter. Copies of the reporting instructions may be obtained either by writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to *RidsNmssFcss@nrc.gov.* Each licensee required to report material balance, inventory, and/or foreign obligation information, as detailed in this part, shall resolve any discrepancies identified during the report review and reconciliation process within 30 calendar days of notification of a discrepancy identified by the NRC. PART 72—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 4. The authority citation for Part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 651(e), Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 806-10 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111). Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2224 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198). 5. In § 72.3, a new definition, Reconciliation, is added in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 72.3 Definitions. Reconciliation means the process of evaluating and comparing licensee reports required under this part to the projected material balances generated by the Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System. This process is considered complete when the licensee resolves any differences between the reported and projected balances, including those listed for foreign obligated materials. 6. In § 72.72, paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 72.72 Material balance, inventory, and record requirements for stored materials.
(a)Each licensee shall keep records showing the receipt, inventory (including location), disposal, acquisition, and transfer of all special nuclear material with quantities as specified in § 74.13(a) and for source material as specified in § 40.64 of this chapter. The records must include as a minimum the name of shipper of the material to the ISFSI or MRS, the estimated quantity of radioactive material per item (including special nuclear material in spent fuel and reactor-related GTCC waste), item identification and seal number, storage location, onsite movements of each fuel assembly or storage canister, and ultimate disposal. These records for spent fuel and reactor-related GTCC waste at an ISFSI or for spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and reactor-related GTCC waste at an MRS must be retained for as long as the material is stored and for a period of 5 years after the material is disposed of or transferred out of the ISFSI or MRS. 7. In § 72.76, paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 72.76 Material status reports.
(a)Except as provided in paragraph
(b)of this section, each licensee shall complete in computer-readable format and submit to the Commission a Material Balance Report and a Physical Inventory Listing Report as specified in the instructions in NUREG/BR-0007 and NMMSS Report D-24 “Personal Computer Data Input for NRC Licensees.” Copies of these instructions may be obtained either by writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to *RidsNmssFcss@nrc.gov.* These reports, as specified by §§ 74.13 or 40.64 of this chapter, provide information concerning the special nuclear material and or source material possessed, received, transferred, disposed of, or lost by the licensee. Each report must be submitted within 60 days of the beginning of the physical inventory required by § 72.72(b) of this chapter. The Commission may, when good cause is shown, permit a licensee to submit Material Balance Reports and Physical Inventory Listing Reports at other times. Each licensee required to report material balance and inventory information as described in this part, shall resolve any discrepancies identified during the report review and reconciliation process within 30 calendar days of notification of a discrepancy identified by NRC. The Commission's copy of this report must be submitted to the address specified in the instructions. These prescribed, computer-readable forms replace the DOE/NRC Forms 742 and 742C previously submitted in paper form. 8. In § 72.78 the section heading and paragraph
(a)are revised to read as follows: § 72.78 Nuclear material transaction reports.
(a)Except as provided in paragraph
(b)of this section, whenever the licensee transfers or receives or adjusts the inventory in any manner, of special nuclear material as specified by § 74.15 and or source material as specified by § 40.64 of this chapter, the licensee shall complete in computer-readable format a Nuclear Material Transaction Report as specified in the instructions in NUREG/BR-0006 and NMMSS Report D-24, “Personal Computer Data Input for NRC Licensees.” Copies of these instructions may be obtained either by writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to *RidsNmssFcss@nrc.gov.* Each licensee who transfers the material shall submit a Nuclear Material Transaction Report in computer-readable format as specified in the instructions no later than the close of business the next working day. Each licensee who receives the material shall submit a Nuclear Material Transaction Report in computer-readable format in accordance with instructions within ten
(10)days after the material is received. Each ISFSI licensee who receives spent fuel from a foreign source shall complete both the supplier's and the receiver's portion of the Nuclear Material Transaction Report, verify the identity of the spent fuel, and indicate the results on the receiver's portion of the form. These prescribed computer-readable forms replace the DOE/NRC Form 741 which have been previously submitted in paper form. PART 74—MATERIAL CONTROL AND ACCOUNTING OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL 9. The authority citation for Part 74 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 53, 57, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 948, 953, 954, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended, sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953, (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2077, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2282, 2297f); secs. 201, as amended 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). 10. In § 74.2, paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 74.2 Scope.
(a)The general reporting and recordkeeping requirements of subpart B of this part apply to each person licensed under this chapter who possesses special nuclear material in a quantity of one gram or more of contained uranium-235, uranium-233, or plutonium; or who transfers or receives a quantity of special nuclear material of one gram or more of contained uranium-235, uranium-233, or plutonium. The general reporting and recordkeeping requirements of subpart B of this part do not apply to licensees whose MC&A reporting and recordkeeping requirements are covered by §§ 72.72, 72.76, and 72.78 of this chapter. 11. In § 74.4, a new definition, Reconciliation, is added in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 74.4 Definitions. Reconciliation means the process of evaluating and comparing licensee reports required under this part to the projected material balances generated by the Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System. This process is considered complete when the licensee resolves any differences between the reported and projected balances, including those listed for foreign obligated materials. 12. In § 74.13, paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 74.13 Material status reports.
(a)Each licensee, including nuclear reactor licensees as defined in §§ 50.21 and 50.22 of this chapter, possessing, or who had possessed in the previous reporting period, at any one time and location special nuclear material in a quantity totaling one gram or more of contained uranium-235, uranium-233, or plutonium shall complete and submit, in computer-readable format Material Balance Reports concerning special nuclear material that the licensee has received, produced, possessed, transferred, consumed, disposed, or lost. This prescribed computer-readable report replaces the DOE/NRC form 742 which has been previously submitted in paper form. The Physical Inventory Listing Report must be submitted with each Material Balance Report. This prescribed computer-readable report replaces the DOE/NRC Form 742C which has been previously submitted in paper form. Reports must be submitted for each Reporting Identification Symbol
(RIS)account including all holding accounts. Each licensee shall prepare and submit the reports described in this paragraph as specified in the instructions in NUREG/BR-0007 and NMMSS Report D-24 “Personal Computer Data Input for NRC Licensees.” Copies of these instructions may be obtained from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to *RidsNmssFcss@nrc.gov.* Each licensee subject to the requirements of § 74.51 shall compile a report as of March 31 and September 30 of each year and file it within 30 days after the end of the period covered by the report. Licensees subject to the requirements of §§ 74.19(c), 74.31(c)(5), 74.33(c)(4), or 74.43(c)(6) shall submit a report within 60 calendar days of the beginning of the physical inventory. All other licensees shall submit a report no later than March 31 of each year. The Commission may permit a licensee to submit the reports at other times for good cause. Each licensee required to report material balance, and inventory information, as detailed in this part, shall resolve any discrepancies identified during the report review and reconciliation process within 30 calendar days of notification of a discrepancy identified by NRC. 13. In § 74.15 the section heading and paragraph
(a)are revised, paragraph
(c)is redesignated as a new paragraph (d), and a new paragraph
(c)is added to read as follows: § 74.15 Nuclear material transaction reports.
(a)Each licensee who transfers, receives, or adjusts the inventory in any manner of special nuclear material in a quantity of one gram or more of contained uranium-235, uranium-233, or plutonium shall complete in computer-readable format a Nuclear Material Transaction Report. This shall be done as specified in the instructions in NUREG/BR-0006 and NMMSS Report D-24, “Personal Computer Data Input for NRC Licensees.” Copies of these instructions NUREG/BR-0006 and NMMSS Report D-24, “Personal Computer Data Input for NRC Licensees” may be obtained either by writing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to *RidsNmssFcss@nrc.gov.* Each licensee who transfers the material shall submit a Nuclear Material Transaction Report in computer-readable format as specified in the instructions no later than the close of business the next working day. Each licensee who receives the material shall submit a Nuclear Material Transaction Report in computer-readable format in accordance with instructions within ten
(10)days after the material is received. This prescribed computer-readable format replaces the DOE/NRC Form 741 which has been previously submitted in paper form.
(c)Each licensee who ships special nuclear material in a quantity of one gram or more of contained uranium-235, uranium-233, or plutonium to foreign recipient shall complete in computer-readable format the supplier's portion of the Nuclear Material Transaction Report. The licensee shall complete the receiver's portion of the Nuclear Material Transaction Report only if a significant shipper-receiver difference as described in §§ 74.31, 74.43, or 74.59 of this part, as applicable, is identified. PART 150—EXEMPTIONS AND CONTINUED REGULATORY AUTHORITY IN AGREEMENT STATES AND IN OFFSHORE WATERS UNDER SECTION 274 14. The authority citation for Part 150 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2021); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Sections 150.3, 150.15, 150.15a, 150.31, 150.32 also issued under secs. 11e(2), 81, 68 Stat. 923, 935, as amended, secs. 83, 84, 92 Stat. 3033, 3039 (42 U.S.C. 2014e(2), 2111, 2113, 2114). Section 150.14 also issued under sec. 53, 68 Stat. 930, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073). Section 150.15 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 150.17a also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 150.30 also issued under sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444 (42 U.S.C. 2282). 15. In § 150.3, a new definition, Reconciliation, is added in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 150.3 Definitions. Reconciliation means the process of evaluating and comparing licensee reports required under this part to the projected material balances generated by the Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System. This process is considered complete when the licensee resolves any differences between the reported and projected balances, including those listed for foreign obligated materials. 16. In § 150.8, paragraph (c)(1) is revised, paragraph (c)(2) is redesignated as a new paragraph (c)(3), and a new paragraph (c)(2) is added to read as follows: § 150.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval.
(c)* * *
(1)In § 150.16, DOE/NRC FORM 741 and its computer-readable format are approved under control number 3150-0003.
(2)In § 150.17, DOE/NRC Form 742 and its computer-readable format are approved under control number 3150-0004, and DOE/NRC Form 742C and its computer-readable format are approved under control number 3150-0058. 17. In § 150.16, the section heading and paragraph
(a)are revised to read as follows: § 150.16 Submission to Commission of nuclear material transaction reports. (a)(1) Each person who transfers, receives, or adjusts the inventory in any manner of special nuclear material in a quantity of one gram or more of contained uranium-235, uranium-233, or plutonium under an Agreement State license shall complete and submit in computer-readable format Nuclear Material Transaction Reports as specified in the instructions in NUREG/BR-0006 and NMMSS Report D-24, “Personal Computer Data Input for NRC Licensees.” Each licensee who receives special nuclear material in a quantity of one gram or more of contained uranium-235, uranium-233, or plutonium from a foreign source, or who ships special nuclear material in a quantity of one gram or more of contained uranium-235, uranium-233, or plutonium to a foreign source, shall submit the licensee portion of this information as specified in the instructions in this part. The applicable foreign facility portion of the form must be completed and submitted for imports. The foreign facility portion of the form must be completed for exports only if a significant shipper-receiver difference as described in §§ 74.31, 74.43, or 74.59, of this part, as applicable, is identified. Each person who transfers the material shall submit a Nuclear Material Transaction Report in computer-readable format as specified in the instructions no later than the close of business the next working day. Each person who receives special nuclear material shall submit in the computer-readable format as specified in the instructions within ten
(10)days after the special nuclear material is received. Copies of these instructions may be obtained either by writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to *RidsNmssFcss@nrc.gov.* These prescribed computer-readable formats replace the DOE/NRC Form 741s which have been previously submitted in paper form.
(2)Except as specified in §§ 150.17(d) and 150.17a, each person who, under an Agreement State specific license: transfers, receives, or adjusts the inventory in any manner, of uranium or thorium source material with foreign obligations by one kilogram or more; imports or exports one kilogram or more of uranium or thorium source material; or uses one kilogram or more of any uranium or thorium source material in enrichment services, downblending uranium that has an initial enrichment of the U235 isotope of 10 percent or more, or in the fabrication of mixed- oxide fuels, shall complete and submit in computer-readable format Nuclear Material Transaction Reports as specified in the instructions in NUREG/BR-0006 and NMMSS Report D-24, “Personal Computer Data Input for NRC Licensees.” Each person who, under an Agreement State specific license exports one kilogram or more of uranium or thorium source material shall complete in the format listed above the licensee's portion of the Nuclear Material Transaction Report unless there is indication of loss, theft, or diversion as discussed in § 40.64(c)(1) of this chapter is identified, in which case both the licensee's and the foreign facility's information shall be reported. For imports, the shipper's portion of the form must also be completed. Copies of the instructions may be obtained either by writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to *RidsNmssFcss@nrc.gov.* Each licensee who transfers the material shall submit a Nuclear Material Transaction Report in computer-readable format as specified in the instructions no later than the close of business the next working day. Each licensee who receives the material shall submit a Nuclear Material Transaction Report in computer-readable format in accordance with instructions within ten
(10)days after the material is received. The Commission's copy of the report must be submitted to the address specified in the instructions. These prescribed computer-readable forms replace the DOE/NRC Form 741 which have been previously submitted in paper form. 18. In § 150.17, the section heading and paragraphs
(a)and
(b)are revised to read as follows: § 150.17 Submission to Commission of nuclear material status reports.
(a)Except as specified in paragraph
(d)of this section and § 150.17a, each person possessing, or who had possessed in the previous reporting period, at any one time and location, under an Agreement State license, special nuclear material in a quantity totaling one gram or more of contained uranium-235, uranium-233, or plutonium, shall complete and submit, in computer-readable format Material Balance Reports concerning special nuclear material that the licensee has received, produced, possessed, transferred, consumed, disposed of, or lost. This prescribed computer-readable report replaces the DOE/NRC Form 742 which has been previously submitted in paper form. The Physical Inventory Listing Report must be submitted with each Material Balance Report. This prescribed computer-readable report replaces the DOE/NRC Form 742C which has been previously submitted in paper form. Each licensee shall prepare and submit the reports described in this paragraph as specified in the instructions in NUREG/BR-0007 and NMMSS Report D-24 “Personal Computer Data Input for NRC Licensees.” Copies of these instructions may be obtained from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to *RidsNmssFcss@nrc.gov.* Each person subject to this requirement shall submit a report no later than March 31 of each year. The Commission may, when good cause is shown, permit a licensee to submit Material Balance Reports and Physical Inventory Listing Reports at other times. Each licensee required to report material balance, and inventory information, as described in this part, shall resolve any discrepancies identified during the report review and reconciliation process within 30 calendar days of notification of a discrepancy identified by NRC.
(b)Except as specified in paragraph
(d)of this section and § 150.17a, each person possessing, or who had possessed in the previous reporting period, at any one time and location, under an Agreement State license:
(1)One kilogram or more of uranium or thorium source material with foreign obligations, shall document holdings as of September 30 of each year and submit to the Commission within 30 days. Alternatively, these reports may be submitted with the licensee's material status reports on special nuclear material filed under parts 72 or 74 of this chapter.
(2)One kilogram or more of uranium or thorium source material in the operation of enrichment services, downblending uranium that has an initial enrichment of the U235 isotope of 10 percent or more, or in the fabrication of mixed-oxide fuels shall complete and submit, in computer-readable format, Material Balance and Physical Inventory Listing Reports concerning source material that the licensee has received, produced, possessed, transferred, consumed, disposed of, or lost. Reports must be submitted for each Reporting Identification Symbol
(RIS)account including all holding accounts. Each licensee shall prepare and submit these reports as specified in the instructions in NUREG/BR-0007 and NMMSS Report D-24, “Personal Computer Data Input for NRC Licensees.” These reports must document holdings as of September 30 of each year and be submitted to the Commission within 30 days. Alternatively, these reports may be submitted with the licensee's material status reports on special nuclear material filed under parts 72 or 74 of this chapter. Copies of the reporting instructions may be obtained by writing the to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to *RidsNmssFcss@nrc.gov.* Each licensee required to report material balance, and inventory information, as described in this part, shall resolve any discrepancies identified during the report review and reconciliation process within 30 calendar days of the notification of a discrepancy identified by the NRC. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of January 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-1867 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26775; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-01-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Air Tractor, Inc. Model AT-602 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Air Tractor, Inc. (Air Tractor) Model AT-602 airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to install access holes to do repetitive detailed visual inspections for cracks in the horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly, and if any cracks are found as a result of a visual inspection, to replace the horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly with a new design horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly. The installation of the new design horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly is terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement. This proposed AD results from two reports of Model AT-602 airplanes with cracked horizontal stabilizer brace tube assemblies. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly, which could result in failure of the horizontal stabilizer. This failure could affect the ability to control pitch with consequent loss of control. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this proposed AD: • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Air Tractor Inc., P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374; telephone:
(940)564-5616; fax:
(940)564-5612. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone:
(210)308-3365; fax:
(210)308-3370. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, “FAA-2006-26775; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-01-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this proposed AD. Discussion We have received two reports of Model AT-602 airplanes with cracked horizontal stabilizer brace tube assemblies. One tube was cracked completely in two. The horizontal stabilizer brace tube assemblies failed as a result of fatigue. Air Tractor has also identified excessive corrosion as a potential contributing factor. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the horizontal stabilizer. This failure could affect the ability to control pitch with consequent loss of control. Air Tractor has developed an improved design horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly with a larger shank. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #129A, dated August 7, 2004, revised November 15, 2005; Service Letter #235, dated August 25, 2004, revised October 23, 2006; and Drill Template—602, Drawing Number SL129-602, dated August 2, 2004. The service information describes procedures for: • Installing access holes for visual inspection of the horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly (part number (P/N) 30012-7); • Conducting a detailed visual inspection for cracks in the horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly (P/N 30012-7); and • Replacing the horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly (P/N 30012-7) with a new design horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly (P/N 30766-1). FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require you to: • Install access holes to do visual inspections; • Do repetitive detailed visual inspections for cracks in the horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly; and • If any cracks are found as a result of a visual inspection, replace the horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly with a new design horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly. The installation of the new design horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly is terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 128 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to do the proposed installation of access holes to do visual inspections: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators 1 work-hour × $80 per hour = $80 $5 $85 $10,880 We estimate the following costs to do each visual inspection for cracks of the horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane Total cost on U.S. operators for initial inspection 1 work-hour × $80 per hour = $80 Not Applicable $80 $10,240 We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement of the horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly with a new design horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection or as the terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this replacement: Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per airplane 35 work-hours × $80 per hour = $2,800 $896 $3,696 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 have 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 that the 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. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* ; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Air Tractor Inc.:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26775; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-01-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by April 9, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Model AT-602 airplanes, all serial numbers through 602-0695 that:
(1)have horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly, part number (P/N) 30012-7, installed; and
(2)are certificated in any category. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from two reports of Model AT-602 airplanes with cracked horizontal stabilizer brace tube assemblies. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly, which could result in failure of the horizontal stabilizer. This failure could affect the ability to control pitch with consequent loss of control. Compliance
(e)To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already done: Actions Compliance Procedures
(1)Do the following:
(i)Install access holes for visual inspection of the part number (P/N) 30012-7 horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly.
(ii)Conduct a detailed visual inspection for cracks in the P/N 30012-7 horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly. Install the access holes and do the initial inspection upon accumulating 2,000 hours time-in-service
(TIS)or within the next 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Repetitively inspect thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS. Replacement of the P/N 30012-7 horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly with a new design P/N 30766-1 horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly following paragraph (e)(2) of this AD is terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement of this AD Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #235, dated August 25, 2004, revised October 23, 2006.
(2)Replace the P/N 30012-7 horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly with a new design P/N 30766-1 horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly Before further flight after any inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD where cracks are found. The installation of a new design P/N 30766-1 horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly is terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement of this AD Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #129A, dated August 7, 2004, revised November 15, 2005; Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter #235, dated August 25, 2004, revised October 23, 2006; and Snow Engineering Co. Drill Template—602, Drawing Number SL129-602, dated August 2, 2004.
(3)Do not install any P/N 30012-7 horizontal stabilizer brace tube assembly As of the effective date of this AD Not Applicable. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f)The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone:
(210)308-3365; fax:
(210)308-3370, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information
(g)To get copies of the service information referenced in this AD, contact Air Tractor Inc., P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374; telephone:
(940)564-5616; fax:
(940)564-5612. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov.* The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2006-26775; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-01-AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 31, 2007. Margaret Kline, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1874 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-27154; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-139-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Airplanes and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F airplanes (Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes) AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for all Airbus Model A310 airplanes and Model A300-600 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating new and revised certification maintenance requirements. This proposed AD results from the manufacturer determining that additional and revised certification maintenance requirements are necessary in order to ensure continued operational safety of the affected airplanes. We are proposing this AD to prevent safety-significant latent failures that would, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition of avionics, hydraulic systems, fire detection systems, fuel systems, or other critical systems. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425)227-1622; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2007-27154; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-139-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov* , or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified us that Part 3, “Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR)” of the Airworthiness Limitations section
(ALS)for Airbus Model A310 airplanes and Airbus Model A300-600 series airplanes has been updated. The new CMRs, among other things, introduce new inspections. CMRs are intended to detect safety-significant latent failures that would, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition of avionics, hydraulic systems, fire detection systems, fuel systems, or other critical systems. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued A310 Certification Maintenance Requirements AI/ST5/849/85, Issue 12, dated February 2005, to Part 3 of the ALS for Model A310. Airbus has also issued A300-600 Certification Maintenance Requirements AI/ST5/829/85, Issue 12, dated February 2005, to Part 3 of the ALS for Model A300-600. Issue 12 of the documents: • Adds two new Two Star CMR tasks for the thrust reverser actuation and cowling; • Corrects existing CMRs; and • For Model A300-600: Extends the applicability of a CMR and corrects the effectivity paragraph of the CMR. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DGAC mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2005-123, dated July 20, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating new and revised CMRs. Clarification of Compliance Time Between the Proposed AD and the French Airworthiness Directive The French airworthiness directive specifies to conform to the CMRs within two months with the exception of one CMR, MSI 78.30.99 (thrust reverser actuation and cowling tasks for airplanes that have installed a third line of defense). The French airworthiness directive specifies to conform to MSI 78.30.99 within three months or before the accumulation of 7,000 flight hours since installation of a third line of defense, whichever occurs later. However, this proposed AD would require revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating new and revised certification maintenance requirements within three months after the effective date of the proposed AD. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of affected operators accomplishing the operational and functional tests of critical systems and power plants and inspections for damage of certain parts that are specified in the CMRs. Costs of Compliance The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Revision of maintenance program 1 $80 $80 203 $16,240 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 have 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 that the 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. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus:** Docket No. FAA-2007-27154; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-139-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by March 8, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to all Airbus Model A310 airplanes, Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes, Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes, Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes, certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(g)of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure. The FAA has provided guidance for this determination in Advisory Circular
(AC)25.1529-1. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from the manufacturer determining that additional and revised certification maintenance requirements are necessary in order to ensure continued operational safety of the affected airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent safety-significant latent failures that would, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition of avionics, hydraulic systems, fire detection systems, fuel systems, or other critical systems. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
(f)Within three months after the effective date of this AD, revise the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating Airbus A300-600 Certification Maintenance Requirements
(CMRs)AI/ST5/829/85, Issue 12, dated February 2005 (for Model A310 airplanes); or Airbus A310 CMR AI/ST5/849/85, Issue 12, dated February 2005 (for Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes, Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes, Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes); as applicable. Accomplish the actions specified in the applicable CMRs at the times specified in the applicable CMRs. The actions must be accomplished in accordance with the applicable CMRs. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(h)French airworthiness directive F-2005-123, dated July 20, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 29, 2007. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1872 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26494; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-79-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Alpha Aviation Design Limited (Type Certificate No. A48EU previously held by APEX Aircraft and AVIONS PIERRE ROBIN) Model R2160 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: * * * unchecked corrosion developing on the wing spars due to access for inspections being difficult under normal maintenance practices, which could lead to an unsafe condition and possibly a failure of the wing. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.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
(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; fax:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. 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-2006-26494; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-79-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://dms.dot.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 The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, which is the airworthiness authority for New Zealand, has issued AD DCA/R2000/37, dated September 28, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: * * * unchecked corrosion developing on the wing spars due to access for inspections being difficult under normal maintenance practices, which could lead to an unsafe condition and possibly a failure of the wing, remove the main landing gear legs and all the wing inspection panels per the instructions in the aircraft Maintenance Manual. The MCAI Requires: Inspect the visible parts of the spar web, the front face of the spar and the upper and lower boom angle per Avions Pierre Robin Service Letter No. 19 and Service Bulletin No. 99. It may be necessary to cut inspection holes or remove the wings to achieve this. Inspection holes must be prepared to a manufacturer approved repair scheme (approved by FAA). If corrosion is found, treat per SL No. 19 and SB No. 99 before further flight. If corrosion is found that exceeds the limits specified in Service Letter No. 19, repair per a manufacturer approved repair scheme before further flight. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information AVIONS PIERRE ROBIN (recent type certificate responsibility was with APEX Aircraft and current responsibility with Alpha Aviation Design Limited) issued Avions Pierre Robin Service Letter No. 19, dated October 1980, and Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 99, dated June 24, 1983. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a note within the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 10 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 28 work-hours per product to comply with the proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $22,400, or $2,240 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need any necessary follow-on actions. Since the corrosion damage would vary from airplane to airplane, we are not able to estimate the costs of each follow-on action. 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. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Alpha Aviation Design Limited (Type Certificate No. A48EU previously held by APEX Aircraft and AVIONS PIERRE ROBIN):** Docket No. FAA-2006-26494; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-79-AD Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by March 8, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Model R2160 airplanes, serial numbers 001 through 378, certificated in any category. Subject
(d)Air Transport Association of America
(ATA)Code 57: Wings. Reason
(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: * * * unchecked corrosion developing on the wing spars due to access for inspections being difficult under normal maintenance practices, which could lead to an unsafe condition and possibly a failure of the wing. Actions and Compliance
(e)Unless already done, do the following actions within 66 months after aircraft date of manufacture or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, unless already done within the last 24 months, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months. Accomplishment of European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA)AD 2005-0028 satisfies the requirement of this AD. If the spars are replaced, the inspections at intervals of 24 months must be resumed within 60 months from the date of replacement:
(1)Inspect the visible parts of the spar web, the front face of the spar, and the upper and lower boom angle following Avions Pierre Robin Service Letter No. 19, dated October 1980, and Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 99, dated June 24, 1983.
(2)If corrosion is found as a result of the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD that does not exceed the limits in the service bulletins, before further flight, treat the corrosion following Avions Pierre Robin Service Letter No. 19, dated October 1980, and Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 99, dated June 24, 1983.
(3)If corrosion is found as a result of the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD that does exceed the limits specified in Avions Pierre Robin Service Letter No. 19, dated October 1980, before further flight, repair following a manufacturer approved repair scheme. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(f)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; fax:
(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(g)Refer to MCAI New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority AD DCA/R2000/37, dated September 28, 2006, and Avions Pierre Robin Service Letter No. 19, dated October 1980; and Avions Pierre Robin Service Bulletin No. 99, dated June 24, 1983, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 31, 2007. Margaret Kline, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1873 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 121, 125, and 135 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26135; Notice No. 06-16] RIN 2120-AI79 Filtered Flight Data AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); extension of comment period. SUMMARY: This action extends the comment period for an NPRM published on November 15, 2006. In that document, the FAA proposed to amend the digital flight data recorder regulations by prohibiting the filtering of some original parameter sensor signals. This extension is a result of a request from The Boeing Company to extend the comment period for the NPRM. DATES: Send your comments on the NPRM on or before April 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments on the NPRM or this extension [identified by Docket Number 2006-26135] using any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document and the NPRM. *Privacy:* We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. For more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the NPRM. *Docket:* To read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy W. Shaver, Avionics Systems Branch, Aircraft Certification Service, AIR-130, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone
(202)385-4686; facsimile
(202)385-4651; e-mail *tim.shaver@faa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited The FAA continues to invite interested persons to take part in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views about the NPRM. We also invite comments about the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in the NPRM. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the NPRM, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. Background On November 15, 2006, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)published Notice No. 06-16 in the **Federal Register** (Filtered Flight Data, 71 FR 66634) (the NPRM). The comment period for this NPRM ends on February 13, 2007. By letter dated January 12, 2007, The Boeing Company (Boeing) asked the FAA to extend the NPRM's comment period for sixty days. Boeing intends to submit comments that will include an assessment of those parameters that fall within the proposed definition of filtered data for each of its affected airplanes. Boeing also intends to provide cost data related to the proposed requirements to analyze in-service airplanes. Boeing states that it needs an additional sixty days to complete these assessments. The FAA agrees with Boeing's request for an extension of the comment period. We recognize the assessments being performed by Boeing are time-consuming, but are expected to produce valuable information. We have determined that an additional sixty days will be enough for potential commenters to collect the cost and operational data necessary to provide meaningful comments to the NPRM. Absent unusual circumstances, the FAA does not anticipate any further extension of the comment period for this NPRM. Extension of Comment Period In accordance with 14 CFR 11.47(c), the FAA has reviewed the petition submitted by Boeing for an extension of the comment period to the NPRM. The FAA finds that an extension of the comment period for Notice No. 06-16 is consistent with the public interest, and that good cause exists for taking this action. The FAA also has determined that Boeing has a substantive interest in the proposed rule and has shown good cause for the extension. Accordingly, the comment period for Notice No. 06-16 is extended until April 16, 2007. Issued in Washington, DC, on January 29, 2007. John J. Hickey, Director, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-1834 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 101 [Docket No. 2006P-0069] RIN 0910-AF94 Food Labeling: Health Claims; Soluble Fiber From Certain Foods and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is proposing to amend the regulation authorizing a health claim on the relationship between soluble fiber from certain foods and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). The amendment proposes to exempt certain foods from the nutrient content requirement of “low fat.” The exemption would apply if the food exceeds this requirement due to fat content derived from whole oat sources. FDA is taking this action in response to a petition submitted by the Quaker Oats Company (the petitioner). The amendment would expand the use of this health claim to some whole oat products that are currently ineligible for the health claim. DATES: Submit written or electronic comments by April 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 2006P-0069, by any of the following methods: Electronic Submissions Submit electronic comments in the following ways: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Agency Web site: *http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the agency Web site. Written Submissions Submit written submissions in the following ways: • FAX: 301-827-6870. • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. To ensure more timely processing of comments, FDA is no longer accepting comments submitted to the agency by e-mail. FDA encourages you to continue to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal or the agency Web site, as described in the *Electronic Submissions* portion of this paragraph. *Instructions* : All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number and Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)for this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* , including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the “Comments” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket* : For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm* 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 Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vincent de Jesus, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-830), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 301-436-1450. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (the 1990 amendments) (Public Law 101-535) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) in a number of important ways. Among other changes, the 1990 amendments clarified FDA's authority to regulate health claims on food labels and in food labeling. FDA issued several new regulations in 1993 to implement the health claim provisions of the 1990 amendments. Among these were § 101.14 (21 CFR 101.14), *Health claims: general requirements* (58 FR 2478, January 6, 1993), which sets out the rules for the authorization and use of health claims, and § 101.70 (21 CFR 101.70), *Petitions for health claims* (58 FR 2478, January 6, 1993), which sets out a process for petitioning the agency to authorize health claims about substance-disease relationships, and sets out the types of information that any such petition must include. Each of these regulations became effective on May 8, 1993. When implementing the 1990 amendments, FDA also conducted a review of evidence for a relationship between dietary fiber and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Based on this review, FDA concluded that the available scientific evidence did not justify authorization of a health claim relating dietary fiber to reduced risk of CVD (58 FR 2552 at 2572, January 6, 1993). However, the agency did conclude that there was significant scientific agreement that the totality of publicly available scientific evidence supported an association between diets relatively high in foods that are low in saturated fat and cholesterol and that naturally are good sources of soluble dietary fiber (i.e., fruits, vegetables, and grain products) and reduced risk of coronary heart disease
(CHD)1 (id.). Therefore, FDA authorized a health claim about the relationship between diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol and high in vegetables, fruit, and grain products that contain soluble fiber and a reduced risk of CHD (§ 101.77 (21 CFR 101.77)) (58 FR 2552 at 2572). In the preamble to the 1993 dietary fiber and CVD final rule, FDA commented that if a manufacturer could document with appropriate evidence that consumption of the type of soluble fiber in a particular food has the effect of lowering blood (serum or plasma) low density lipoprotein
(LDL)cholesterol, and has no adverse effects on other heart disease risk factors (e.g., high density lipoprotein
(HDL)cholesterol), the manufacturer should petition for authorization of a health claim specific for that particular dietary fiber-containing food (58 FR 2552 at 2567). 1 Cardiovascular disease means diseases of the heart and circulatory system. Coronory heart disease, one form of cardiovascular disease, refers to diseases of the heart muscle and supporting blood vessels. B. Soluble Fiber From Certain Foods and Coronary Heart Disease Health Claim (§ 101.81 (21 CFR 101.81)) In 1995, FDA received a petition for a health claim on the relationship between oat bran and rolled oats and reduced risk of CHD. FDA concluded there was significant scientific agreement that the totality of publicly available scientific evidence supported the relationship between consumption of whole oat products and reduced risk of CHD. FDA further concluded that the type of soluble fiber found in whole oats, i.e., beta-glucan soluble fiber, is the component primarily responsible for the hypocholesterolemic effects associated with consumption of whole oat foods as part of a diet that is low in saturated fat and cholesterol (62 FR 3584 at 3597 through 3598, January 23, 1997). As such, the final rule authorized a health claim relating the consumption of beta-glucan soluble fiber in whole oat foods, as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, and reduced risk of CHD (the oat beta-glucan health claim). The source of beta-glucan soluble fiber in foods bearing this health claim had to be one of three eligible whole oat products, i.e., oat bran, rolled oats, or whole oat flour (see § 101.81(c)(2)(ii)(A)). In 2002, FDA amended § 101.81 to add oatrim as a fourth source of beta-glucan soluble fiber eligible for the oat beta-glucan health claim (67 FR 61773, October 2, 2002). Oatrim is the soluble fraction of alpha-amylase hydrolyzed oat bran or whole oat flour. In order to bear the oat beta-glucan health claim, a food must, among other requirements, provide at least 0.75 grams
(g)of soluble fiber per reference amount customarily consumed
(RACC)and meet the nutrient content requirements in § 101.62 (21 CFR 101.62) for a “low saturated fat,” “low cholesterol,” and “low fat” food (§ 101.81(c)(2)(iii)(C)). II. Petition and Grounds The Quaker Oats Company (the petitioner), submitted a petition to FDA on November 7, 2005, under section 403(r)(4) of the act (21 U.S.C. 343(r)(4)) (Ref. 1). The petition requested that FDA amend the soluble fiber from certain foods and CHD health claim at § 101.81 so that foods that exceed the nutrient content requirement in § 101.62 for “low fat” due to fat content derived from whole oat sources (i.e., oat bran, rolled oats, whole oat flour, and oatrim) listed in § 101.81(c)(2)(ii)(A) would be eligible to bear the health claim. On February 15, 2006, FDA notified the petitioner that the agency had completed its initial review of the petition and that the petition had been filed for further action in accordance with section 403(r)(4) of the act. If the agency does not act, by either denying the petition or issuing a proposed regulation to authorize the health claim, within 90 days of the date of filing for further action, the petition is deemed to be denied unless an extension is mutually agreed upon by the agency and the petitioner (section 403(r)(4)(A)(i) of the act and § 101.70(j)(3)(iii)). On April 28, 2006, FDA and the petitioner mutually agreed to extend the deadline to September 30, 2006. On September 25, 2006, FDA and the petitioner mutually agreed to extend the deadline again to March 30, 2007. The petition described a problem certain products have in meeting the eligibility criteria of the soluble fiber and CHD health claim. Quaker Oats Company produces, among other things, flavored varieties of reduced sugar instant oatmeal products as well as unmodified (with respect to sugar content) instant oatmeal products. The petition stated that Quaker Oats Company's flavored, unmodified instant oatmeal products are eligible to bear the soluble fiber and CHD health claim, but flavored, reduced sugar instant oatmeal products are not because the latter products do not meet the nutrient content requirement in § 101.62 for “low fat.” The petition stated that the formulation of flavored instant oatmeal products with “reduced sugar” (the term consistent with 21 CFR 101.60(c)(5)) made these products technically ineligible to bear the oat beta-glucan health claim because by reducing sugar, the products contain more whole oats (and fat from whole oats) per RACC. The petition provided the information on the amount of rolled oats, sugar, and total fat per packet and total fat content per 55 g RACC for both flavored unmodified instant oatmeal and flavored reduced sugar instant oatmeal. Both products contain the same amount of rolled oats (28 g) and total fat (2 g) per packet but differ in sugar content: 15 g per packet of flavored unmodified instant oatmeal and 3 g per packet of flavored reduced sugar instant oatmeal. According to the petition, the 12 g difference in sugar content corresponds with a 12 g difference in packet weight (31 g packet weight for the flavored reduced sugar instant oatmeal and 43 g packet weight for the flavored unmodified product). Therefore, at the RACC for flavored instant oatmeal (55 g), the reduced sugar product has more rolled oats than the unmodified instant oatmeal. The petition computed total fat per 55 g RACC to be 2.558 g for flavored unmodified instant oatmeal and 3.548 g for flavored reduced sugar instant oatmeal. Because the total fat content of the flavored reduced sugar instant oatmeal exceeds 3 g per 55 g RACC (even considering permissible rounding), this product is not eligible for the health claim. The petition requested that FDA amend § 101.81(c)(2)(iii)(C) such that the “low fat” eligibility standard would not be applicable to foods exceeding this standard due to the total fat inherent in whole oat sources. The petition stated that such an amendment would have no impact on the benefit described in the soluble fiber and CHD health claim and discussed that the *2000 Dietary Guidelines for Americans* modified recommendations regarding total fat intake from a diet low in total fat to a diet moderate in total fat. The petition further stated that the total fat content and fatty acid composition of whole oats are consistent with the current authoritative understanding of dietary patterns likely to promote health and reduce risk of CHD, and referenced the executive summary of the *2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans* for recommending less than 10 percent of total calories from saturated fatty acids and 20 to 35 percent of total calories from total fat, mostly from sources of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids. The petition noted that the percent of calories from saturated fat and total fat in whole oats is 3 percent and 16 percent, respectively, and the ratio of saturated fatty acids to polyunsaturated plus monounsaturated fatty acids in whole oats is approximately 1:5. The petition stated that amending the soluble fiber from certain foods and CHD health claim regulation to allow use of the claim on products with greater fat content due to a greater proportion of whole oat sources would:
(1)Encourage food manufacturers to create products that are lower in added sugar while still retaining the heart-protective qualities of these whole oat-based foods and
(2)enhance consumer's ability to incorporate beta-glucan soluble fiber into their diets while reducing their sugar consumption. The petition also stated that the additional level of inherent fat in whole oats would not have a negative impact on the benefit of the oat beta-glucan health claim. The petition requested the following specific changes in the regulation governing the oat beta-glucan health claim: • Modify § 101.81(c)(2)(iii)(C) to state “The food shall meet the nutrient content requirement in § 101.62 for a ‘low saturated fat’ and ‘low cholesterol’ food” and • Create a new paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(D) stating “The food shall meet the nutrient content requirement in § 101.62 for a ‘low fat’ food, unless it exceeds this requirement due to fat content solely derived from whole oat sources listed in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A).” III. Decision To Amend the Health Claim In regulations authorizing CHD-related health claims, FDA has required, with a few exceptions, that foods bearing such claims meet the “low fat” criterion defined by § 101.62(b)(2), 2 the “low saturated fat” criterion defined by § 101.62(c)(2), and the “low cholesterol” criterion defined by § 101.62(d)(2) (see authorized claims in 21 CFR 101.75, 101.77, 101.81, 101.82, and 101.83) rather than applying the total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol content disqualifying levels specified in the general requirement for health claims (§ 101.14(a)(4)). The “low fat” criterion is currently applied to the soluble fiber from certain foods and CHD health claim in § 101.81(c)(2)(iii)(C). 2 “Low fat” food is defined in § 101.62(b)(2) as follows:
(1)A food that has a RACC greater than 30 g or greater than 2 tablespoons and contains 3 g or less of fat per RACC or
(2)a food that has a RACC of 30 g or less or 2 tablespoons or less and contains 3 g or less of fat per RACC and per 50 g of food. Further, meal products and main dish products, as defined in 21 CFR 101.13(l) and (m), respectively, are “low fat” if they contain 3 g or less of total fat per 100 g and not more than 30 percent of calories from fat (§ 101.62(b)(3)). As set out in § 101.62(b)(2), for purposes of the requirements for “low fat,” the measure of a food's total fat is the total fat per RACC (if the food has a RACC of 30 g or less or 2 tablespoons or less, the total fat measure is also based per 50 g of food). Hot dry breakfast cereals have two separate RACCs: 55 g for flavored, sweetened dry cereal and 40 g for plain dry cereal (21 CFR 101.12(b)). Thus, flavored, sweetened dry cereal has to contain 3 g or less of fat per 55 g, whereas plain dry cereal has to contain 3 g or less of fat per 40 g to meet the “low fat” criterion. The petition discussed that the Quaker Oats Company's flavored reduced sugar instant oatmeal products are ineligible for the oat beta-glucan health claim because these products do not meet the “low fat” criterion, whereas its flavored, unmodified instant oatmeal product containing the same amount of rolled oats and fat, but 12 g more sugar per packet does meet the criterion. The petition stated that removing sugar from the flavored unmodified instant oatmeal product results in more whole oats (and thus fat from whole oats) per RACC. The petition requested an exemption to the requirement of “low fat” for foods that exceed this requirement due to fat contained in whole oat soluble fiber sources listed in § 101.81(c)(2)(ii)(A) (i.e., oat bran, rolled oats, whole oat flour, and oatrim). To determine if the requested amendment is appropriate, the agency examined the amount of fat in the whole oat soluble fiber sources (i.e., whole oat flour, rolled oats, oat bran, and oatrim) eligible to bear the claim. The total fat content is about 6.9 g per 100 g for whole oats (same as whole oat flour) (Ref. 2), 6.3 g per 100 g for rolled oats (Ref. 2), 7.0 g per 100 g for oat bran (Ref. 2), and 2.1 g per 100 g for oatrim (Ref. 3). Whole oats contain a higher amount of total fat than barley (2.3 g per 100 g) or other cereal grains such as whole wheat (1.9 g per 100 g whole wheat flour), rice (2.9 g per 100 g brown rice), or corn (1.2 g per 100 g dry corn grits) (Ref. 2). As a result, it is possible that a product could exceed the maximum total fat permitted under the “low fat” requirement solely due to fat from whole oat sources. However, most whole oat products that are essentially all whole oats meet the “low fat” requirement unless fat from other sources are added. For some products that do not meet the “low fat” requirement due to fat from whole oat sources, the amount of fat exceeding the “low fat” requirement may be small. For example, if a flavored, sweetened instant oatmeal product were made almost entirely of whole oats, the total fat content of this product would exceed the 3 g per RACC maximum to meet the “low fat” requirement, but would not exceed 4 g per RACC. FDA also evaluated the type of fat in whole oats. Whole oats contain 1.2 g saturated fatty acids, 2.2 g monounsaturated fatty acids, and 2.5 g polyunsaturated fatty acids per 100 g (Ref. 2). Thus, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids are the predominant types of fat in whole oats. Whole oats do not contain cholesterol. The *2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans* (Ref. 4) recommended that total fat intake be kept between 20 and 35 percent of calories, with most fats coming from sources of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids, that less than 10 percent of calories come from saturated fatty acids, and that cholesterol intake be less than 300 milligrams
(mg)per day. Thus, the fat profile of whole oats is consistent with the *2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans* recommendation of consuming a moderate amount of total fat with most sources coming from polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids, and limiting intake of saturated fatty acids and cholesterol. FDA tentatively concludes that, for purposes of the oat beta-glucan health claim, it is appropriate to exempt foods that exceed the “low fat” criterion due to fat contained in whole oat sources listed in § 101.81(c)(2)(ii)(A) (i.e., oat bran, rolled oats, whole oat flour, and oatrim) from the requirement of “low fat” because:
(1)The fat profile in whole oats is consistent with the *2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans* ;
(2)the consumption of foods containing beta-glucan soluble fiber, such as whole oat products, is helpful in reducing the risk of CHD; and
(3)the amount by which the fat content from whole oat sources may exceed the criterion of 3 g of fat per RACC (e.g., by no more than 1 g) is not likely to be a health concern. FDA agrees with the petitioner that foods eligible for the oat beta-glucan health claim should meet the nutrient content requirement for a “low fat” food, unless it exceeds this requirement due to fat content solely derived from whole oat sources. The agency is aware that some whole oat products contain a small amount of fat from ingredients other than whole oat sources. Examples of the sources of fat included in these products are vitamin A palmitate, hydrogenated soybean oil, and soy lecithin. The petition has only requested that an exemption to the “low fat” requirement be given to foods that exceed this requirement “due to fat content solely derived from whole oat sources listed in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A).” Therefore, a food product that contains any fat from ingredients other than whole oat sources would not be exempt from the “low fat” requirement. The agency has not been given any justification why whole oat foods that contain sources of fat other than whole oat sources should be exempt from the “low fat“ requirement. However, the agency would like to ensure that this proposed rule achieves its intent of providing consumers with more choices of whole oat products. Therefore, FDA asks for comment on whether or not whole oat food products that contain sources of fat other than whole oat sources should be exempt from the “low fat” requirement and, if so, how much and what type(s) of fat contributed by these sources would be acceptable. IV. Description of Amendments to § 101.81 In light of the FDA's tentative decision to accept the petitioner's request, the agency is proposing to amend § 101.81(c)(2)(iii)(C) by removing the phrase, “low fat” food and creating a new § 101.81(c)(2)(iii)(D) to specify that the food shall meet the “low fat” food requirement, unless the food exceeds this requirement due to fat content derived from whole oat sources listed in § 101.81(c)(2)(ii)(A). V. Environmental Impact FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(p) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. VI. Analysis of Impacts A. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis FDA has examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency does not believe that this proposed rule is an economically significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive order. 1. The Need for Regulation Current § 101.81 authorizes a health claim on foods for the relationship between soluble fiber from certain foods and reduced risk of CHD. One of the requirements for the claim is the nutrient content requirement for “low fat.” In order to bear the claim, foods must contain no more than 3 g of fat per RACC. The RACC for plain oatmeal is 40 g dry weight and the RACC for flavored, sweetened oatmeal is 55 g dry weight, assuming that 15 g of sugar is added. The amount of fat in 40 g of rolled oats is just below 3 g, mostly polyunsaturated fatty acids and monounsaturated fatty acids. A recently introduced flavored reduced-sugar oatmeal does not meet the criterion of 3 g or less of fat per 55 g dry weight. Because the amount of added sugar in this reduced-sugar oatmeal is less than 15 g, the proportional amount of fat, essentially all from whole oats, is slightly more than 3 g of fat per 55 g of the product compared to the sweetened oatmeal, even thougth the total amount of fat in both the sweetened and reduced-sugar oatmeal products is the same. The ineligibility of reduced-sugar oatmeal for this health claim, due to less added sugar, is an uninitended consequence of the regulation. The current regulation, without amendment, causes distortion in the market, where products are essentially penalized for adding less sugar or filler. In certain instances where two products are identical at the package level, except for the amount of sugar added, only the product with more sugar is able to carry the CHD health claim because the product with less sugar has more oats per RACC and exceeds the “low fat” requirement. The proposed rule is needed to remove this unintended consequence. 2. Regulatory Options Considered The proposed rule would amend the regulation authorizing a health claim on the relationship between soluble fiber from certain foods and risk of CHD. The amendment would exempt certain foods from the nutrient content requirement of “low fat.” The exemption applies if the food exceeds this requirement due to fat content derived from oat sources. In drafting this document, FDA considered two regulatory alternatives in addition to these proposed amendments. The agency considered:
(1)No additional regulatory action and
(2)general relaxation of the total fat requirement, while keeping in place restrictions on saturated fat and cholesterol. This proposed rule would not be an economically significant regulatory action. FDA is not quantitatively estimating the benefits and costs of the regulatory alternatives to the proposed rule. In the following paragraphs, FDA qualitatively compares the costs and benefits of the regulatory options to the costs and benefits of the proposed rule. a. *Option one* . The first option would be no action. As stated earlier in this document, the current rule as it stands causes an unintended distortion in the market. Consumers have a higher than necessary search cost to find products that are both reduced in sugar and that have similar attributes of those currently carrying the CHD claim. Furthermore, taking no action stifles the innovation of new products that have all of the attributes of those with the CHD claim and that are reduced in sugar. b. *Option two* . A second alternative to the proposed rule is a general relaxation of the total fat requirement from all fat sources for all products covered by the rule, while keeping in place restrictions on saturated fat and cholesterol. Relaxing the restriction for total fat from whole oat sources will not dampen the signal of the CHD claim (i.e., it will not reduce the clarity of the message that products bearing that claim in their labeling may reduce the risk of CHD), whereas a general relaxation of total fat from all fat sources in such products may have a deleterious effect in that the fat content may be excessive and increase the risk of CHD and negate the health benefits from the beta-glucan soluble fiber sources. The total fat content is about 6.9 g per 100 g for whole oats (same as whole oat flour) (Ref. 2), 6.3 g per 100 g for rolled oats (Ref. 2), 7.0 g per 100 g for oat bran (Ref. 2), and 2.1 g per 100 g for oatrim (Ref. 3). Whole oats contain a higher amount of total fat than barley (2.3 g per 100 g) or other cereal grains such as whole wheat (1.9 g per 100 g whole wheat flour), rice (2.9 g per 100 g brown rice), or corn (1.2 g per 100 g dry corn grits) (Ref. 2). However, most whole oat products that are essentially all whole oats meet the “low fat” requirement unless fat from other sources is added. For some products that do not meet the “low fat” requirement due to fat from whole oat sources, the amount of fat exceeding the “low fat” requirement may be small. For example, if a flavored sweetened oatmeal product were made almost entirely of whole oats, the total fat content of this product would not exceed 4 g per 55 g of RACC. Further, whole oats contain 1.2 g saturated fatty acids, 2.2 g monounsaturated fatty acids, and 2.5 g polyunsaturated fatty acids per 100 g (Ref. 2), and thus, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids are the predominant types of fat in whole oats. Whole oats do not contain cholesterol. The *2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans* (Ref. 4) recommends total fat intake be kept between 20 to 35 percent of calories, with most fats coming from sources of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids, and less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fatty acids, and cholesterol intake be kept at less than 300 mg per day. Thus, the fat profile of whole oats is consistent with the *2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans* recommendation of a moderate amount of total fat with most sources coming from polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids, and limiting intake of saturated fatty acids and cholesterol. Relaxing the total fat requirement for fat from whole oats will not have a negative health effect and will allow the CHD claim to retain clarity when directing consumers to products consistent with a diet that is low in saturated fat and cholesterol, and high in soluble fiber. Relaxing the total fat requirement for fat from all fat sources in whole oat products may weaken the CHD claim signal that products bearing that claim in their labeling may reduce the risk of CHD. Under this scenario, products carrying the CHD claim could contain up to 13 g of fat per 55 g serving (i.e., the total fat disqualifying level for an individual food). The total fat disqualifying level is the level of total fat in a food above which the food will be disqualified from making a health claim (§ 101.14(a)(4)). Unlike whole oat sources, other products may have significantly more than the 3 g of fat per RACC that is the current total fat allowance for products carrying the CHD claim, and some may even approach the 13 g per RACC. Consumers using these products could easily increase their fat intake to levels above those recommended by the *2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans* (Ref. 4). Furthermore, under current regulation that only stipulates disqualifying levels for saturated fat, cholesterol, and total fat, some of the increased fat intake could include *trans* fat. The potential health benefits would therefore be lower and the costs higher under this option than under the proposed rule. 3. The Proposed Rule This section details the potential costs and benefits of the proposed rule. The baseline in this case is the current rule, option 1 listed earlier in this section. Thus, the benefits of the proposed rule are derived from an increase in the number of products that carry the CHD claim from which consumers may choose. The costs of the proposed rule are the health effects associated with the potential net increase in fat intake and the new labeling costs if a manufacturer decides to voluntarily use the health claim. 3 3 As discussed in detail in section VI.A.3.c of this document, firms will not choose to label their product with the CHD claim if they could not make up the cost in higher margins for their products, increased volume of sales, or a combination of the two. Further, consumers would not pay the higher margin, or CHD claim premium, if they did not value the product relatively more than other products not carrying the claim. This increase in consumer willingness to pay for the CHD claim, though not to be confused with health benefits, will offset the private cost of the new labels. a. *Coverage of the rule* . FDA asks for comment on the number of products currently on the market that will qualify for the CHD claim if FDA finalizes the rule to permit the relaxation of the total fat requirement for fat from whole oat sources. FDA also requests comment on the number of new products that may be introduced due to the proposed rule. Because much of the information required to assess whether a product will qualify for the CHD claim is not required on the Nutrition Facts panel (NFP), FDA does not know with certainty how many products currently marketed will be affected by the proposed rule. 4 Furthermore, FDA cannot predict how many new products will be introduced because of the proposed rule. 4 For example, the source of the fat content is not required on the NFP. In estimating the baseline number of products, FDA identified 5 products in the 2001 Food Label and Package Survey (FLAPS) (Ref. 5) that use the fiber related CHD claim. Of these products, three are hot cereals, one is a cold cereal, and one is wheat germ. Wheat germ products will not be affected by the proposed rule. Other types of products containing whole oats, such as cereal and snack bars, muffins, and cookies, will also not likely be affected by the proposed rule, as these products typically contain fat from sources other than whole oat sources, and would not be eligible to carry the CHD claim. FLAPS is only a sample of all of the products available on the market. The five hot cereal products sampled made up 90 percent of all hot cereal sales in 2001. Therefore, it is possible that one or two products on the market that carry the CHD claim in 2001 were missed by the survey. The six cold cereals sampled made up only 18 percent of all cold cereal sales in 2001. Assuming the sample is representative implies that six or more products carrying the CHD claim were not included in the survey. Since 2001, new products carrying the claim may have entered the market and some products may have dropped out. FDA requests comment on the baseline number of products carrying the CHD claim. Through a search of the web and local grocery stores, FDA identified a single “lower sugar” hot cereal product that does not currently qualify for the CHD claim, but might under the proposed rule. The company that produces this product also produces two other “lower sugar” hot cereal products that qualify for the claim under the current rule. Beyond this single product, it is difficult to accurately predict how many products will be developed that would qualify for the claim under the proposed rule. Other “lower sugar” flavors might be developed. Furthermore, “no sugar added” products could be developed that could qualify for the CHD claim. Based on the current, limited information FDA estimates that between 1 and 10 current and future products will be affected by this proposed rule. FDA requests comment on this estimate. b. *Benefits* . The principal benefits of the proposed rule are derived from an increase in the number of products that carry the CHD claim from which consumers may choose. Society benefits from the increased number of CHD claim products in two ways:
(1)Increased consumer information and
(2)a potential health benefit. i. *Increased consumer information* . Consumers place a premium on products bearing a reduced CDH risk claim. That is, they value these products more than similar products not carrying the CHD claim. Part of this premium is due to a perceived health benefit. Part of it is also due to the fact that the CHD claim on the label, if consistent, 5 instantly gives the consumer a lot of information about the product and therefore reduces search costs. The proposed rule, for example, will greatly increase the efficiency of a consumer's search for a product that is lower in sugar and also has all the qualities of a product carrying the CHD claim. FDA requests comment on the magnitude of this benefit. 5 In section VI.A.2.b of this document, we assert that the relaxation of the total fat requirement for products made primarily of whole oats does not decrease the consistency or strength of the signal given by the CHD claim. ii. *Potential health benefit* . If consumers substitute the new CHD claim products for less healthy alternatives, the proposed rule would have a positive health effect. If a consumer is currently eating a product daily that is “lower in sugar” but happens to be relatively high in saturated fat and cholesterol, that consumer could potentially enjoy better health by switching to the new “lower in sugar” product that also carries the CHD claim. For example, some evidence suggests that the risk of CHD may be decreased by more than 2 percent for every 1 g of oat bran consumed daily (Ref. 6). Without data allowing a prediction of consumer response, FDA cannot quantify this effect. Because the number of new products is likely to be small and the total dietary intake of consumers across the population is not likely to change drastically due to substitution between breakfast cereals, the health benefit is expected to be small. c. *Costs* . The principal costs of the proposed rule are the new labeling costs, if a manufacturer decides to voluntarily use the health claim, and the possible negative health effect due to a potential increase in fat intake. i. *Labeling costs* . Although voluntary labeling costs are necessarily less than the consumer premium placed on the products, it is useful to estimate the costs. Doing so gives a better idea of the costs generated and provides a lower bound to the total consumer utility gained from such products. FDA used the *2004 FDA Labeling Cost Model* (Ref. 7) to calculate the potential new labeling costs produced by the proposed rule. The model calculates the cost of a new label based on the product type, label type, type of analytical and market tests necessary to develop the new label, compliance time, and inflation. Because the label is voluntary, firms can choose when to add the CHD label to their packaging and therefore can control the cost of the new label. If the firm chooses to immediately add the new label to the packaging, the full cost of redoing the label can be attributed to the CHD claim. Costs in this case will fall between $4.9 thousand and $10.6 thousand (mean = $6.8 thousand) per unique product. Firms typically update their label about every 3 years. If firms add the CHD claim when they would normally update their label, the cost of adding the new information on the package approaches zero. New products that are developed because of the proposed rule will not incur new labeling costs due to the CHD claim label. They will simply work the claim into their initial label development. Because FDA only identified one current existing product that may qualify for the CHD claim because of the relaxation of the total fat requirement in the proposed rule, the one-time new labeling costs may fall between zero and $10.6 thousand. ii. *Potential increase in fat intake* . One other potential cost arises if total fat intake increases as a result of this claim. Total fat intake could either increase or decrease due to the proposed rule. Under the proposed rule, products carrying the CHD claim will, on average, contain more total fat than under the current rule. If there is no substitution between CHD claim products and other products, then the total intake of mostly polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats would increase slightly in the population currently consuming CHD claim products. There is no evidence that a small increase in unsaturated fatty acids due to increased consumption of whole oat sources, even for a person eating multiple servings daily, would cause a negative health effect. In fact, a person with such a diet would still easily fall within the recommended fat intake (Ref. 4). If there is substitution between other products and CHD claims products (for example, between CHD claims cereal and other cereals that are higher in fat), it is possible that new CHD claims products might actually cause a decrease in total fat consumption. Due to the small number of products likely to make the CHD claim in the future, the health effect is likely to be small, but because some substitution from higher fat products is likely to occur, the health effect of the proposed rule with respect to fat intake will probably be positive. d. *Summary of benefits and costs* . Benefits and costs of the proposed rule are likely to be small because few products will be affected. Voluntary labeling costs for those manufacturers who choose voluntarily to use the health claim are small (less than a one-time cost of $11 thousand) and necessarily less than the consumer premium placed on the products. Futhermore it is likely that, with more product choices available bearing the CHD claim, there will be a net shift towards these products carrying the claim and away from other products. Although the size of this shift cannot be estimated with available data, it would result in a public health benefit. B. Small Entity Analysis FDA has examined the economic implications of this proposed rule as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). If a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze the regulatory options that would lessen the economic effect of the rule on small entities. This proposed rule relaxes the total fat content requirement in the soluble fiber and CHD health claim for products whose fat content is derived solely from whole oat sources. Without this proposed rule, the more restrictive total fat content requirement would disqualify some products from being marketed with a CHD health claim. The proposed rule will not generate any compliance costs for any small entities because it does not require small entities to undertake any new activity. FDA therefore certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. C. Unfunded Mandate Analysis Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) requires cost-benefit and other analyses before any rulemaking if the rule would include a “Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $118 million, using the most current
(2004)Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this proposed rule, if finalized, to result in 1-year expenditures that would meet or exceed this amount and has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a significant rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. VII. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 FDA tentatively concludes that labeling provisions of this proposed rule are not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget because they do not constitute a “collection of information” under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Rather, the food labeling health claim on beta-glucan soluble fiber and CHD risk is a “public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal Government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public.” (see 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)). VIII. Federalism FDA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, would have a preemptive effect on State law. Section 4(a) of the Executive Order requires agencies to “construe * * * a Federal statute to preempt State law only where the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other clear evidence that the Congress intended preemption of State law, or where the exercise of State authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute.” Section 403A of the act (21 U.S.C. 343-1) is an express preemption provision. Section 403A(a)(5) of the act (21 U.S.C. 343-1(a)(5)) provides that: “* * *no State or political subdivision of a State may directly or indirectly establish under any authority or continue in effect as to any food in interstate commerce—* * *(5) any requirement respecting any claim of the type described in section 403(r)(1) of the act made in the label or labeling of food that is not identical to the requirement of section 403(r) * * *”. Currently, this provision operates to preempt States from imposing health claim labeling requirements concerning soluble fiber from certain foods and reduced risk of CHD because no such requirements had been imposed by FDA under section 403(r) of the act. This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, would amend existing food labeling regulations to provide an exemption for certain foods from the nutrient content requirement of “low fat.” Although the final rule would have a preemptive effect in that it would preclude States from issuing any health claim labeling requirements for soluble fiber from certain foods and a reduced risk of CHD that are not identical to those required by this proposed rule, this preemptive effect is consistent with what Congress set forth in section 403A of the act. Section 403A(a)(5) of the act displaces both state legislative requirements and state common law duties. *Medtronic* v. *Lohr* , 518 U.S. 470, 503
(1996)(Breyer, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); id. at 510 (O'Connor, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J., and Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); *Cipollone* v. *Liggett Group, Inc.* , 505 U.S. 504, 521
(1992)(plurality opinion); id. at 548-49 (Scalia, J., joined by Thomas, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). FDA believes that the preemptive effect of the proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is consistent with Executive Order 13132. Section 4(e) of the Executive order provides that “when an agency proposes to act through adjudication or rulemaking to preempt State law, the agency shall provide all affected State and local officials notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the proceedings.” FDA's Division of Federal and State Relations is inviting the States' participation in this rulemaking by providing notice via fax and e-mail transmission to State health commissioners, State agriculture commissioners, food program directors, and drug program directors as well as FDA field personnel of FDA's publication of the proposed amendment to the health claim regulation authorizing the health claim for soluble fiber from certain foods and CHD (§ 101.81). The notice provides the States with further opportunity for input on the rule. It advises the States of FDA's publication of this proposed rule and encourages the States and local governments to review the notice of proposed rulemaking and to provide any comments to the docket (Docket No. 2006P-0069). In conclusion, the agency has determined that the preemptive effects of this proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, are consistent with Executive Order 13132. IX. Comments Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. X. References The following references have been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. (FDA has verified the Web site addresses, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document publishes in the **Federal Register** .) 1. The Quaker Oats Company, “Petition for Amendment of Health Claim Regulation (21 CFR § 101.81)—Beta-Glucan Soluble Fiber from Whole Oat Sources and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease,” Item CP1, Docket 2005P-0449, November 7, 2005. 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, *USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 18* , Nutrient Data Laboratory Home Page ( *http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=13747* ), 2005. 3. The Quaker Oats Company and Rhodia, Inc., “Oatrim [Beta Trim TM ] Health Petition,” HCN1, vol. 1, Docket No. 01A-0313, April 12, 2001. 4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture, *Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005* , 6th Edition, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, ( *http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/* ), January 2005. 5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CFSAN/Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements, *Food Label and Package Survey 2000-2001* , ( *http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/lab-flap.html* ), May 2006. 6. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, *Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids* , the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 367-368, 2005. 7. RTI International, *FDA Labeling Cost Model, Final Report* , ( *http://www.foodrisk.org/lcm.htm* ), October 2004. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 101 Food Labeling, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and redelegated to the Deputy Director for Regulatory Affairs, it is proposed that 21 CFR part 101 be amended as follows: PART 101—FOOD LABELING 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 101 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 342, 343, 348, 371; 42 U.S.C. 243, 264, 271. 2. Section 101.81 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(C) and by adding new paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(D) to read as follows: § 101.81 Health claims: Soluble fiber from certain foods and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).
(c)* * *
(2)* * *
(iii)* * *
(C)The food shall meet the nutrient content requirement in § 101.62 for a “low saturated fat” and “low cholesterol” food; and
(D)The food shall meet the nutrient content requirement in § 101.62(b)(2) for a “low fat” food, unless the food exceeds this requirement due to fat content derived from whole oat sources listed in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section. Dated: January 30, 2007. Michael M. Landa, Deputy Director, Regulatory Affairs, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. [FR Doc. E7-1849 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 914 [Docket No. IN-156-FOR] Indiana Regulatory Program AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment. SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Indiana regulatory program (Indiana program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). The Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation (IDNR, department, or Indiana) proposes revisions to its rules concerning the definition of “government-financed construction”; underground mining reclamation plans for siltation structures, impoundments, dams, embankments, and refuse piles; performance bond release; surface mining permanent and temporary impoundments; surface mining primary roads; and inspections of sites. Indiana intends to revise its program to be consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations, to clarify ambiguities, and to improve operational efficiency. This document gives the times and locations that the Indiana program and proposed amendments to that program are available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendment, and the procedures that we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested. DATES: We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4 p.m., e.t., March 8, 2007. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on March 5, 2007. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4 p.m., e.t. on February 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. IN-156-FOR, by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: IFOMAIL@osmre.gov.* Include Docket No. IN-156-FOR in the subject line of the message. • *Mail/Hand Delivery:* Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field Division—Indianapolis Area Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Minton-Capehart Federal Building, 575 North Pennsylvania Street, Room 301, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. • *Fax:*
(317)226-6182. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Comment Procedures” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* For access to the docket to review copies of the Indiana program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document, you must go to the address listed below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free copy of the amendment by contacting OSM's Indianapolis Area Office: Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field Division—Indianapolis Area Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Minton-Capehart Federal Building, 575 North Pennsylvania Street, Room 301, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, *Telephone:*
(317)226-6700, *E-mail: IFOMAIL@osmre.gov.* In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular business hours at the following location: Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation, R.R. 2, Box 129, Jasonville, Indiana 47438-9517, *Telephone:*
(812)665-2207. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew R. Gilmore, Chief, Alton Field Division—Indianapolis Area Office. *Telephone:*
(317)226-6700. *E-mail: IFOMAIL@osmre.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Indiana Program II. Description of the Proposed Amendment III. Public Comment Procedures IV. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Indiana Program Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Indiana program effective July 29, 1982. You can find background information on the Indiana program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval of the Indiana program in the July 26, 1982, **Federal Register** (47 FR 32071). You can also find later actions concerning the Indiana program and program amendments at 30 CFR 914.10, 914.15, 914.16, and 914.17. II. Description of the Proposed Amendment By letter dated December 11, 2006 (Administrative Record No. IND-1741), Indiana sent us an amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* ). Indiana sent the amendment in response to a required program amendment at 30 CFR 914.16(ff) and to include changes made at its own initiative. Below is a summary of the changes proposed by Indiana. The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES . A. 312 IAC 25-1-57 “Government-Financed Construction” Defined Indiana proposes to revise its definition of “government-financed construction” to read as follows: “Government-financed construction” means construction funded at fifty percent (50%) or more by funds appropriated from a government financing agency's budget or obtained from general revenue bonds. Government financing at less than fifty percent (50%) may qualify if the construction is undertaken as an approved reclamation project under Title IV of the Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 through 30 U.S.C. 1328) and IC 14-34-19. Construction funded through:
(1)A government financing agency guarantee;
(2)Insurance;
(3)A loan;
(4)Funds obtained through industrial revenue bonds or their equivalent; or
(5)An in-kind payment; does not qualify as government-financed construction. B. 312 IAC 25-4-87 Underground Mining Permit Applications; Reclamation Plan for Siltation Structures, Impoundments, Dams, Embankments, and Refuse Piles 1. Indiana proposes to restructure and/or make minor wording changes to subsections (a)(1)(B); (a)(2)(A) and (C); (c); (e)(1) and (e)(4); and (f)(1). 2. At subsection (g)(3), Indiana proposes to remove the following sentence: If necessary to protect the health or safety of persons or property or the environment, even though the volume of water impounded is less than one hundred
(100)acre feet, the director may require an application to be made. C. 312 IAC 25-5-16 Performance Bond Release; Requirements 1. At subsection (a)(7), Indiana proposes to revise this subsection to remove the provision that allows persons to request an informal conference. 2. Indiana proposes to recodify existing subsections
(b)through
(f)as subsections
(c)through (g), and existing subsection
(h)as subsection (i). Indiana also proposes to remove the language in existing subsections
(g)and (i), which pertains to filing written objections to proposed bond releases and requesting and holding a public hearing. A portion of the provisions in existing subsection
(g)is currently found in subsection
(a)and portions of the provisions in existing subsections
(g)and
(i)are found in newly added subsection (j). 3. Indiana proposes to add new subsection
(b)to allow the director of IDNR to initiate an application for the release of bond. If a bond release application is initiated by the director of IDNR, the department will have to perform the notification and certification requirements otherwise imposed on the permittee. 4. At new subsection (d)(4) [existing subsection (c)(4)], Indiana proposes to change the last sentence to read as follows: The department shall notify, in writing, the permittee and any other interested person of a decision whether to release all or part of the performance bond or deposit within sixty
(60)days after receipt of the request if no public hearing or informal conference is held under subsection
(i)or
(j)or if an informal conference is held under subsection
(i)or public hearing is held under subsection
(j)within thirty
(30)days after the informal conference or public hearing is completed. 5. Indiana proposes to add new subsection
(h)to read as follows:
(h)A determination by the director under the provisions of this article or IC 14-34 is subject to review. An affected person may obtain administrative review under IC 4-21.5 and 312 IAC 3-1. The division of hearings of the commission shall, as soon as practicable, conduct any appropriate proceeding. 6. Indiana proposes to revise new subsection
(i)[existing subsection (h)] to read as follows:
(i)Upon receipt of written objection or a request for public hearing under subsection (a), the department, at the discretion of the director, may set a dispute under this section for an informal conference to resolve the objection. Conduct of an informal conference does not alter or prejudice the rights and responsibilities under this section of any of the following:
(1)A permittee.
(2)A person who files objections.
(3)The department.
(4)Another interested person. 8. Indiana proposes to add new subsection
(j)to read as follows:
(j)If objections filed under subsection
(a)are not resolved through an informal conference, the department shall hold a public hearing within a reasonable time following the receipt of the request. The public hearing shall be conducted as follows:
(1)The date, time, and location of the public hearing shall be sent to the permittee and other parties to the hearing and advertised by the department in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the surface coal mining and reclamation operation proposed for bond release is located one
(1)time each week for two
(2)consecutive weeks.
(2)The requirements of IC 4-21.5-3 shall not apply to the conduct of the public hearing. The public hearing shall be conducted by a representative of the director, who may accept oral or written statements and any other relevant information from any party to the public hearing. An electronic or stenographic record shall be made unless waived by all parties. The record shall be maintained and shall be accessible to the parties of the public hearing until final release of the applicant's performance bond or other equivalent guarantee under this article.
(3)The department shall furnish all parties of the public hearing with the following:
(A)The written findings of the director based on the public hearing.
(B)The reasons for the finding.
(4)If all parties requesting the public hearing withdraw their request before the conference is held, the public hearing may be canceled. D. 312 IAC 25-6-20 Surface Mining; Hydrologic Balance; Permanent and Temporary Impoundments 1. Indiana proposes to restructure and/or make minor wording changes to subsections (a)(1); (a)(3)(A), (B), and (C); (a)(5); (a)(6); (a)(7)(B)(iii); (a)(9)(A) and (D); (b)(3); (b)(8)(B); (c)(1) and (2); (d); and (e). 2. Indiana proposes to remove the language “and located where failure would not be expected to cause loss of life or serious property damage” from subsection (a)(3)(B). By removing this language, all impoundments not meeting the Class B or C criteria for dams in the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS)publication Technical Release No. 60 (TR 60) or size or other criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a) [except for coal mine waste impounding structures] must have a minimum static safety factor of 1.3 for a normal pool with steady state seepage saturation conditions. 3. Indiana also proposes to redesignate subsection (a)(9)(E)(ii) as new subsection (a)(9)(E)(iii), and to add the following new language at subsection (a)(9)(E)(ii):
(ii)Impoundments that are entirely contained within an incised structure such that the incised structure would completely contain the waters of the impoundment should failure occur and failure would not create a potential threat to public health and safety or threaten significant environmental harm. E. 312 IAC 25-6-66 Surface Mining; Primary Roads 1. At subdivision (2), Indiana proposes to revise the introductory paragraph to read as follows:
(2)Each primary road embankment shall have a minimum static safety factor of one and three-tenths (1.3) or be designed in compliance with the following design standards: 2. Indiana proposes to restructure and/or make minor wording changes to subdivisions (2)(A), (C), and (H); and (4)(B)(i). F. 312 IAC 25-7-1 Inspections of Sites 1. Indiana proposes to restructure and/or make minor wording changes to subsections (f)(3)(E) and (F); (g)(2); (h)(1)(D)(ii); and (h)(3)(A). 2. At subsection (h)(1)(D)(i), Indiana proposes to remove the language “or permit revocation proceedings have been initiated and are being pursued diligently.” By removing this language, the definition of “abandoned site” (if the site has previously been permitted or bonded) no longer includes a site where permit revocation proceedings have been initiated and are being pursued diligently. III. Public Comment Procedures Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the State program. Written Comments Send your written or electronic comments to OSM at the address given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. We will not consider or respond to your comments when developing the final rule if they are received after the close of the comment period (see DATES ). We will make every attempt to log all comments into the administrative record, but comments delivered to an address other than the Indianapolis Area Office may not be logged in. Electronic Comments Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII or Word file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “ *Attn:* Docket No. IN-156-FOR” and your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your Internet message, contact the Indianapolis Area Office at
(317)226-6700. Availability of Comments We will make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during normal business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments. If individual respondents request confidentiality, we will honor their request to the extent allowable by law. Individual respondents who wish to withhold their name or address from public review, except for the city or town, must state this prominently at the beginning of their comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public review in their entirety. Public Hearing If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m., e.t. on February 21, 2007. If you are disabled and need special accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold a hearing. To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard. Public Meeting If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES . We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record. IV. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings The provisions in the rule based on counterpart Federal regulations do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations. The revisions made at the initiative of the State that do not have Federal counterparts have also been reviewed and a determination made that they do not have takings implications. This determination is based on the fact that this rulemaking has no takings implications. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections
(a)and
(b)of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. Executive Order 13132—Federalism This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. This determination is based on the fact that the Indiana program does not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Indiana program has no effect on Federally-recognized Indian tribes. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is
(1)considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that a portion of the provisions in this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) because they are based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this part of the rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. The Department of the Interior also certifies that the provisions in this rule that are not based upon counterpart Federal regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). This determination is based upon the fact that the provisions are administrative and procedural in nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a)Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million;
(b)Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and
(c)Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that a portion of the State provisions are based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule. For the portion of the State provisions that is not based upon counterpart Federal regulations, this determination is based upon the fact that the State provisions are administrative and procedural in nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that a portion of the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate. For the portion of the State provisions that are not based upon counterpart Federal regulations, this determination is based upon the fact that the State provisions are administrative and procedural in nature and are not expected to have a substantive effect on the regulated industry. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: December 22, 2006. Charles E. Sandberg, Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region. [FR Doc. E7-1863 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 926 [SATS No. MT-027-FOR] Montana Regulatory Program AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment. SUMMARY: We are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Montana regulatory program (hereinafter, the “Montana program”) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Montana proposes revisions to and additions of rules about civil penalties. These are based on legislation it recently passed. Montana intends to revise its program to provide additional safeguards, clarify ambiguities, and improve operational efficiency. This document gives the times and locations that the Montana program and proposed amendment to that program are available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendment, and the procedures that we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested. DATES: We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4 p.m., m.s.t. March 8, 2007. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on March 5, 2007. We will accept requests to speak until 4 p.m., m.s.t. on February 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the SATS number MT-027-FOR: • *E-mail:* *JFleischman@osmre.gov* . Include “MT-027-FOR” in the subject line of the message. • *Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier:* Jeffrey W. Fleischman, Director, Casper Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 150 East B Street, Room 1018, Casper, WY 82601-1018, 307/261-6550, E-mail address: *JFleischman@osmre.gov* . • *Fax:* 307/261-6552. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and MT-027-FOR. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Comment Procedures” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* Access to the docket, to review copies of the Montana program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document, may be obtained at the addresses listed below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free copy of the amendment by contacting Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's
(OSM)Casper Field Office. In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular business hours at the following locations: Jeffrey W. Fleischman, Director, Casper Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 150 East B Street, Room 1018, Casper, WY 82601-1018, 307/261-6550, E-mail address: *JFleischman@osmre.gov* . Neil Harrington, Chief, Industrial and Energy Minerals Bureau, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 1520 E. Sixth Avenue, P.O. Box 200901, Helena, MT 59620-0901, 406/444-4973, E-mail address: *NHarrington@state.mt.us* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Fleischman, Director, Casper Field Office, Telephone: 307/261-6550, E-mail address: *JFleischman@osmre.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Montana Program II. Description of the Proposed Amendment III. Public Comment Procedures IV. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Montana Program Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Montana program on April 1, 1980. You can find background information on the Montana program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Montana program in the April 1, 1980, **Federal Register** (45 FR 21560). You can also find later actions concerning Montana's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 926.15, 926.16, and 926.30. II. Description of the Proposed Amendment By letter dated November 6, 2006, Montana sent us a proposed amendment to its program, administrative record No. MT-24-1, under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* ). Montana sent the amendment to include changes made at its own initiative. The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES . The provisions of the Administrative Rules of Montana
(ARM)that the State proposes to revise/add/delete are: ARM 17.24.1206, Notices, Orders of Abatement and Cessation Orders: Issuance and Service; ARM 17.24.1211, Procedure for Assessment and Waiver of Civil Penalties; ARM 17.24.1212, Point System for Civil Penalties and Waivers; ARM 17.24.1218, Individual Civil Penalties: Amount; ARM 17.24.1219, Individual Civil Penalties: Procedure for Assessment; ARM 17.24.1220, Individual Civil Penalties: Payment; ARM 17.24.301, Purpose; ARM 17.24.302, Definitions; ARM 17.24.303, Base Penalty; ARM 17.24.304, Adjusted Base Penalty—Circumstances, Good Faith and Cooperation, Amounts Voluntarily Expended; ARM 17.24.305, Total Adjusted Penalty, Days of Violation; ARM 17.24.306, Total Penalty—History of Violation, Economic Benefit; ARM 17.24.307, Economic Benefit; and ARM 17.24.308, Other Matters as Justice May Require. III. Public Comment Procedures Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the Montana program. Written Comments Send your written or electronic comments to OSM at the address given above. Your comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. We will not consider or respond to your written comments when developing the final rule if they are received after the close of the comment period (see Dates ). We will make every attempt to log all comments into the administrative record, but comments delivered to an address other than the Casper Field Office may not be logged in. Electronic Comments Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII or Word file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: SATS No. MT-027-FOR” and your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your Internet message, contact the Casper Field Office at 307/261-6550. In the final rulemaking, we will not consider or include in the administrative record any electronic comments received after the time indicated under DATES or at e-addresses other than the Casper Field Office. Availability of Comments We will make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during normal business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments. If individual respondents request confidentiality, we will honor their request to the extent allowable by law. Individual respondents who wish to withhold their name or address from public review, except for the city or town, must state this prominently at the beginning of their comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public review in their entirety. Public Hearing If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m., m.s.t. on February 21, 2007. If you are disabled and need special accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold the hearing. To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at a public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard. Public Meeting If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES . We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record. IV. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections
(a)and
(b)of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. Executive Order 13132—Federalism This rule does not have federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The rule does not involve or affect Indian Tribes in any way. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is
(1)considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 926 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: December 15, 2006. Allen D. Klein, Director, Western Region. [FR Doc. E7-1858 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 938 [PA-149-FOR] Pennsylvania Regulatory Program AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on a proposed amendment. SUMMARY: We are announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania regulatory program (the “Pennsylvania program”) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Pennsylvania proposes to revise its program to exclude coal extraction on government-financed construction projects from regulation under the surface coal mining regulations. The proposed amendment is intended to revise the Pennsylvania program to be consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations and to include provisions at its own initiative. This document gives the times and locations that the Pennsylvania program and this amendment are available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments, and the procedures that we will follow for the public hearing, if one is requested. DATES: We will accept written comments until 4 p.m., local time March 8, 2007. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on March 5, 2007. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4 p.m., local time on February 21, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by “PA-149-FOR”, by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: grieger@osmre.gov.* Include “PA-149-FOR” in the subject line of the message; • *Mail/Hand Delivery:* Mr. George Rieger, Chief, Pittsburgh Field Division Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 415 Market Street, Room 304, Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone:
(717)782-4036. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency docket number “PA-149-FOR” for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Comment Procedures” section in this document. You may also request to speak at a public hearing by any of the methods listed above or by contacting the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . *Docket:* You may review copies of the Pennsylvania program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document at OSM's Pittsburgh Field Division Office at the address listed above during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free copy of the amendment by contacting OSM's Pittsburgh Field Division's Harrisburg Office. In addition, you may receive a copy of the submission during regular business hours at the following location: Joseph P. Pizarchik, Director, Bureau of Mining and Reclamation, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rachel Carson State Office Building, P.O. Box 8461, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-8461, Telephone:
(717)787-5015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. George Rieger, Chief, Pittsburgh Field Division, Telephone:
(717)782-4036. E-mail: *grieger@osmre.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Pennsylvania Program II. Description of the Proposed Amendment III. Public Comment Procedures IV. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Pennsylvania Program Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act * * *; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Pennsylvania program on July 30, 1982. You can find background information on the Pennsylvania program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Pennsylvania program in the July 30, 1982, **Federal Register** (47 FR 33050). You can also find later actions concerning the Pennsylvania program and program amendments at 30 CFR 938.11, 938.12, 938.13, 938.15 and 938.16. II. Description of the Proposed Amendment By letter dated December 18, 2006 (Administrative Record Number PA 891.00), Pennsylvania sent us a proposed amendment to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.* ). The amendment adds new section 25 Pennsylvania Code (PA Code) 86.6 which provides for the exemption from the permitting requirements of 25 PA Code Chapters 87 and 88 when extraction of coal is incidental to government-financed construction or government-financed reclamation projects and specified requirements are met. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP or Department) believes that this amendment is consistent with the Federal program and is no less effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR part 707 (Exemption for Coal Extraction Incident to Government-Financed Highway or Other Construction). The full text of the proposed amendment is quoted below: § 86.6 Extraction of coal incidental to government-financed construction or government-financed reclamation projects.
(a)Extraction of coal incidental to government-financed construction or government-financed reclamation projects is exempt from the permitting requirements of the Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act Construction [sic] and this chapter as it relates to surface mining activities and operations, and Chapters 87 and 88 (relating to surface mining of coal; and anthracite coal) if the following conditions are met:
(1)During the project site selection process and prior to development of final construction plans or reclamation plans for projects located within coal bearing regions, the government entity financing the construction or reclamation has provided the Department with an opportunity to provide comments on the potential environmental impacts of the project.
(2)The extraction of coal is necessary to enable the construction or reclamation to be accomplished. Only that coal extracted from within the right-of-way, in the case of a road, railroad, utility line or other similar construction, or within the boundaries of the area directly affected by other types of government-financed construction or government-financed reclamation, may be considered incidental to that construction or reclamation.
(3)The construction or reclamation is funded by a Federal, Commonwealth, county, municipal, or local unit of government, or a department, bureau, agency, or office of the unit which, directly or through another unit of government, finances the construction or reclamation.
(4)The construction or reclamation is funded 50% or more by funds appropriated from the government unit's budget or obtained from general revenue bonds. Funding at less than 50% may qualify if the construction is undertaken as a Department-approved reclamation contract or project.
(5)The construction or reclamation is performed under a bond, contract and specifications that substantially provide for and require protection of the environment, reclamation of the affected area, and handling of excavated materials in a manner consistent with the acts and regulations implementing the acts.
(6)The Department has approved the standards and specifications for protection of the environment that will apply to the project when potential adverse environmental impacts have been identified.
(b)Construction funded through government financing agency guarantees, insurance, loans, funds obtained through industrial revenue bonds or their equivalent or in-kind payments do not qualify as government-financed construction.
(c)A person extracting coal incidental to government-financed construction or government-financed reclamation who extracts more than 250 tons of coal or affects more than 2 acres shall maintain on the site of the extraction operation and make available for inspection the following documents:
(1)A written description of the construction or reclamation project.
(2)A map showing the exact location of the construction or reclamation, right-of-way or the boundaries of the area which will be directly affected by the construction or reclamation.
(3)A statement identifying the government agency that is providing the financing and the kind and amount of public financing, including the percentage of the entire construction costs represented by the government financing.
(4)When the area delineated in paragraph
(2)is wholly or partially within an area designated unsuitable for mining by the EQB [Environmental Quality Board] under section 86.130 (relating to areas designated as unsuitable for mining), a copy of the detailed report required by section 86.124(e) (relating to procedures: Initial processing, recordkeeping and notification requirements).
(d)Government-financed construction projects and government-financed reclamation shall comply with Chapters 91-96, 102 and 105. III. Public Comment Procedures Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the Pennsylvania program. Written Comments Send your written comments to OSM at the address given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. We may not consider or respond to your comments when developing the final rule if they are received after the close of the comment period (see “ DATES ”). We will make every attempt to log all comments into the administrative record, but comments delivered to an address other than the Pittsburgh Field Division identified above may not be logged in. Electronic Comments Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: PA-149-FOR” and your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation that we have received your Internet message, contact the Pittsburgh Field Division's Harrisburg Office at
(717)782-4036. Availability of Comments We will make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during normal business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments. If individual respondents request confidentiality, we will honor their request to the extent allowable by law. Individual respondents who wish to withhold their name or address from public review, except for the city or town, must state this prominently at the beginning of their comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public review in their entirety. Public Hearing If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m., local time on February 21, 2007. If you are disabled and need special accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold the hearing. To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at a public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard. Public Meeting If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the submission, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES . We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record. IV. Procedural Determinations Executive Order 12630—Takings This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory Planning and Review This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that, to the extent allowable by law, this rule meets the applicable standards of Subsections
(a)and
(b)of that Section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM. Under Sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met. Executive Order 13132—Federalism This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA. Section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. The basis for this determination is that our decision is on a State regulatory program and does not involve a Federal program involving Indian lands. Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is
(1)considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and
(2)likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that a decision on a proposed State regulatory program provision does not constitute major Federal action within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c). A determination has been made that such decisions are categorically excluded from the NEPA process (516 DM 13.5(A)(2)). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 *et seq.* ). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). The State amendment that is the subject of this rule is based on counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
(a)Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million;
(b)Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, geographic regions, or Federal, State or local governmental agencies; and
(c)Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on any governmental entity or the private sector. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 938 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: January 12, 2007. H. Vann Weaver, Acting Regional Director, Appalachian Region. [FR Doc. E7-1862 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [CGD01-06-023] RIN 1625-AA98 Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York and Vicinity AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to expand the boundary of a Special Anchorage Area on the Hudson River at Nyack, NY. This proposed action is necessary to facilitate safe navigation in that area and provide safe and secure anchorages for vessels not more than 20 meters in length. This proposed action is intended to increase the safety of life and property on the Hudson River, improve the safety of anchored vessels, and provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of recreational vessel traffic and commerce. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Waterways Management Division (CGD01-06-023), Coast Guard Sector New York, 212 Coast Guard Drive, room 321, Staten Island, New York 10305. The Waterways Management Division of Coast Guard Sector New York maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room 321, Coast Guard Sector New York, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander M. McBrady, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector New York at
(718)354-2353. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-06-023), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Waterways Management Division at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose As part of a waterfront revitalization effort, the Village of Nyack is encouraging waterfront use by the general public. This proposed rule is in response to a request made by the Village of Nyack to ensure the safe navigation of increased vessel traffic expected to arrive along the village waterfront due to this revitalization effort. The Coast Guard is designating the area as a special anchorage area in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 471. In accordance with that statute, vessels will not be required to sound signals or exhibit anchor lights or shapes which are otherwise required by rule 30 and 35 of the Inland Navigation Rules, codified at 33 U.S.C. 2030 and 2035. The proposed expanded special anchorage area will be located on the west side of the Hudson River about 1,600 yards north of the Tappan Zee Bridge, well removed from the channel and located where general navigation will not endanger or be endangered by unlighted vessels. Providing an anchorage well removed from the channel and general navigation would greatly increase navigational safety. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed rule would expand the boundary of a current special anchorage area located on the Hudson River at the Village of Nyack, NY. It would include all waters of the Hudson River bound by the following points: 41°06′06.8″ N, 073°54′55.5″ W; thence to 41°06′06.8″ N, 073°54′18.0″ W; thence to 41°05′00.0″ N, 073°54′18.0″ W; thence to 41°05′00.0″ N, 073°55′02.2″ W; thence along the shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 1983). The boundaries of the special anchorage area would increase from its current size of approximately 735 yards by approximately 1,030 yards to approximately 935 yards by approximately 2,250 yards. The 200 yard expansion beyond the current boundary would occur on the eastern side and the 2,250 yard expansion would occur on the southern side of the special anchorage area. All proposed coordinates are North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83). The expanded special anchorage area would be limited to vessels no greater than 20 meters in length. Vessels not more than 20 meters in length are not required to sound signals as required by rule 35 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 2035) nor exhibit anchor lights or shapes required by rule 30 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 2030) when at anchor in a special anchorage area. Additionally, mariners utilizing the expanded anchorage area are encouraged to contact local and State authorities, such as the local harbormaster, to ensure compliance with additional applicable State and local laws. Such laws may involve, for example, compliance with direction from the local harbormaster when placing or using moorings within the anchorage. Vessels would not be authorized to anchor within a buoyed fairway within the expanded special anchorage area. The fairway will be marked to prevent vessels from anchoring near an active cable. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This finding is based on the fact that the proposal conforms to the changing needs of the Village of Nyack and the changing needs of recreational vessels along the Hudson River. The proposed eastern boundary of the special anchorage area is approximately 970 yards from the 12-foot contour on the west side of the Hudson River and approximately 2,600 yards from the 12-foot contour on the eastern side of the Hudson River. The resulting impact to vessel transits in this area is so minimal because the special anchorage area leaves more than enough room for the navigation of all vessels. This will allow for greater safety of navigation and traffic in the area, while also providing for a substantial improvement to the safety of anchorages in the area. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of recreational or commercial vessels intending to transit in a portion of the Hudson River near the expanded special anchorage area. However, this special anchorage area would not have a significant economic impact on these entities for the following reasons. The proposed eastern boundary of the special anchorage area is approximately 970 yards from the 12-foot contour on the west side of the Hudson River and approximately 2,600 yards from the 12 foot contour on the eastern side of the Hudson River. It is also about 1,700 yards from the 600-foot wide Hudson River Federal Project Channel. The eastern boundary of this proposed expanded Special Anchorage Area only extends an additional 200 yards from the Nyack shoreline. This is more than enough room for the types of vessels currently operating on the river, which include both small and large commercial vessels. Thus, this special anchorage area will not impede safe and efficient vessel transits on the Hudson River. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Commander M. McBrady, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector New York at
(718)354-2353. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits the category selected from paragraph (34)(f) as it would expand a special anchorage area. A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 Anchorage grounds. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows: PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035 and 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Amend § 110.60, by revising paragraph (o-2) to read as follows: § 110.60 Port of New York and vicinity.
(o)* * * (o-2) Hudson River, at Nyack. That portion of the Hudson River bound by the following points: 41°06′06.8″ N, 073°54′55.5″ W; thence to 41°06′06.8″ N, 073°54′18.0″ W; thence to 41°05′00.0″ N, 073°54′18.0″ W; thence to 41°05′00.0″ N, 073°55′02.2″ W; thence along the shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 1983), excluding a fairway in the charted cable area that is marked with buoys. Note: The area is principally for use by yachts and other recreational craft. A mooring buoy is permitted. Dated: January 24, 2007. Timothy S. Sullivan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-1882 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23882] RIN 2127-AH34 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Door Locks and Door Retention Components AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation (NHTSA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We are amending our safety standard on door locks and door retention components in order to add and update requirements and test procedures and to harmonize with the world's first global technical regulation for motor vehicles. Today's final rule adds test requirements and test procedures for sliding doors, adds secondary latched position requirements for doors other than hinged side doors and back doors, provides a new optional test procedure for assessing inertial forces, and extends the application of the standard to buses with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR)of less than 10,000 pounds, including 12-15 passenger vans. Today's final rule also eliminates an exclusion from the requirements of the standard for doors equipped with wheelchair platform lifts. DATES: Today's final rule is effective September 1, 2009. Optional early compliance is permitted on and after February 6, 2007. Petitions for reconsideration must be received by March 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration must be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Washington, DC 20590-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: *For technical issues:* Mr. Maurice Hicks, Structures and Special Systems Division, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202)366-6345; telefax
(202)493-2739; *Maurice.hicks@dot.gov.* *For legal issues:* Ms. Rebecca Schade, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202)366-2992; telefax
(202)366-3820. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Background A. Safety Problem B. Harmonization Efforts and the Proposed Upgrade 1. Global Technical Regulation
(GTR)2. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 3. Public Comments III. SAFETEA-LU IV. Upgrade to FMVSS No. 206 A. The GTR Process B. Definitions C. Hinged Door Requirements 1. Load Tests 2. Inertial Test 3. Door Hinges D. Side Sliding Door Requirements 1. Side Sliding Door Latch Requirements 2. Side Sliding Door Test Procedure a. Compression Versus Tension b. Test Device and Set-Up c. Application of Force d. Performance Requirement A. Door Locks B. Applicability V. Certification Information VI. Costs, Benefits, and the Effective Date VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices I. Executive Summary Between 1995 and 2003, over 54,000 motor vehicle occupants were ejected annually from their vehicles. Ejections through glazing ( *i.e.* , ejections through a vehicle window) comprised 59 percent of all ejections. Twenty-six percent of all ejections occurred through openings other than side glazing and doors, such as windshields, open convertible tops, and open truck beds. The remaining 15 percent of ejections occurred through a vehicle door. Given the sources and magnitude of the overall safety problem posed by ejections from vehicles, the agency is addressing the problem comprehensively, focusing on ejections through glazing as well as ejections through doors. 1 This final rule focuses on those ejections that occur through a vehicle door. 1 On September 15, 2004, the agency proposed revisions to FMVSS No. 214, *Side impact protection,* which would likely induce vehicle manufacturers to use side curtains as a countermeasure (69 FR 55550). The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) added a provision to 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 which requires the agency to conduct a rulemaking proceeding to establish performance standards to reduce complete and partial ejections of vehicle occupants. See 49 U.S.C. 30128(c)(1). Containment requirements for side curtains may be one of the countermeasures to prevent ejections through side glazing. Currently, passenger cars, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, *Door locks and door retention components.* Most of this standard's requirements were established in the early 1970s, in order to minimize the likelihood of occupant ejections through side door openings. In 1995, these requirements were expanded to address back doors. While these requirements have significantly improved door performance over the level of pre-standard doors, occupants continue to be ejected through doors. Crashes such as offset frontals, near side impacts, and especially rollovers lead to complex loading conditions, which cause doors to open. Additionally, less complex load conditions may occur in many non-rollover conditions. While the agency is continuing to develop a repeatable and practicable test procedure that will address complex loading, today's final rule updates the existing requirements and test procedures to ensure the strength of individual latch components for load conditions that are less complex, such as those that occur in many non-rollover collisions. The agency's efforts to improve the requirements and test procedures of FMVSS No. 206 to address door ejections in a more satisfactory way coincided with the adoption of the initial Program of Work under the 1998 Global Agreement. 2 The agency sought to work collaboratively on door ejections with other contracting parties to the 1998 Global Agreement, particularly Transport Canada, the European Union (EU), and Japan. Through the exchange of information on ongoing research and testing and through the leveraging of resources for testing and evaluations, the agency led successful efforts that culminated in the establishment of the first global technical regulation
(GTR)under the 1998 Agreement. 2 The 1998 Global Agreement was concluded under the auspices of the United Nations and provides for the establishment of globally harmonized vehicle regulations. This Agreement, whose conclusion was spearheaded by the United States, entered into force in 2000 and is administered by the UN Economic Commission for Europe's World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). This first GTR demonstrated that U.S./EU regulatory cooperation can achieve increased safety and harmonized standards that are science-based and free of unjustified requirements. If adopted into domestic law by the U.S. and EU, the GTR on door locks and door retention systems would essentially eliminate the differences between the U.S. and EU standards for reducing the likelihood that a vehicle's doors will open in a crash, thus allowing the ejection of the vehicle's occupants. Adopting amendments based on the GTR will not only result in improvements to the U.S. standard, but also to the EU standard. This will also benefit other countries since the EU standard is the United Nations' Economic Commission for Europe regulation (ECE R.11), which is used by the majority of the world community. The U.S., as a Contracting Party of the 1998 Global Agreement that voted in favor of establishing this GTR at the November 18, 2004 Session of the Executive Committee, was obligated under the Agreement to initiate the process for adopting the provisions of the GTR. 3 On December 15, 2004, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking closely based on the GTR, which satisfied this obligation (69 FR 75020; Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19840; NPRM). The provisions of the GTR proposed in the NPRM and adopted in today's final rule will improve the current requirements and test procedures of FMVSS No. 206, and reduce deaths and injuries from door ejections. 3 While the Agreement obligates such contracting parties to begin their processes, it leaves the ultimate decision of whether to adopt the GTR into their domestic law to the parties themselves. This final rule improves the current FMVSS No. 206 requirements in several areas. First and foremost, with respect to sliding doors, it replaces the existing requirement with new requirements and an associated full vehicle test procedure. It requires that sliding side doors either have a secondary latched position, which serves as a backup to the fully latched position and increases the likelihood that a striker will remain engaged with the latch when the door is incompletely closed, or a system to signal that the door is not fully closed and latched. The fully latched and secondary latched positions are also required to meet load test requirements and to meet inertial requirements the same way as the latches on hinged doors. Second, this final rule requires a secondary latched position for a latch system on double-doors (previously referred to as “cargo-doors”). Third, it adds a dynamic inertial test procedure to FMVSS No. 206 as an optional alternative to the current inertial calculation. Such a test procedure has been conducted in Europe for type approval purposes. Fourth, this document adds new requirements for side doors with rear mounted hinges to prevent potential inadvertent openings while the vehicle is moving. Fifth, this document adds minor modifications to our door lock requirements. This document also extends the application of FMVSS No. 206 to buses with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR)of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, including 12-15 passenger vans. Finally, today's final rule eliminates an exclusion from the requirements of FMVSS No. 206 previously provided to vehicle doors that were equipped with wheelchair platform lifts. With the improvements adopted in this rule to address non-rollover door ejections, we estimate that we will prevent 7 deaths and 4 serious injuries, annually. These benefits come primarily from the changes to the sliding door requirements and test procedure. The total costs of these improvements are estimated to be slightly over $8 million. Vehicle manufacturers, and ultimately, consumers, both here and abroad, can expect to achieve cost savings through the harmonization of differing sets of standards when the contracting parties to the 1998 Global Agreement implement the new GTR. Further, adopting amendments based on the GTR not only result in improvements to the FMVSS No. 206, but also to the door lock and door retention component regulation of the United Nations' Economic Commission for Europe (ECE R.11), which is used by the majority of the world community. In addition to the sliding door test procedure, the side door with rear mounted hinge requirements, and the inertial test procedure that are discussed above, ECE R.11, when amended per the GTR, will benefit from the inclusion of back door requirements and rear door locking requirements. To date, those requirements have been in place only in the U.S. and Canada. II. Background A. Safety Problem As originally established, FMVSS No. 206 was intended to reduce the likelihood of occupant deaths and injuries resulting from ejections through door openings by keeping vehicle doors closed in crashes. The opening of these doors was primarily due to structural failures in the latch, striker, or hinges. Sheet metal failures in the door structure or the B-pillar were rare. In crashes involving the opening of doors, the latch, striker, and hinges were subjected to tensile and compressive forces along the vehicle's longitudinal (forward-to-aft) and lateral (side-to-side) axes. Based on these findings, the automotive community concluded that the most effective means of reducing door openings would be through increasing the strength of the door retention components. In 1964, the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE)developed and issued the first test procedures designed to address door retention components: SAE Recommended Practice J839, *Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems* (SAE J839); and SAE Recommended Practice J934, *Vehicle Passenger Door Hinge Systems* (SAE J934). As initially issued in the early 1970s, FMVSS No. 206 was based, in large part, on the SAE recommended practices in existence at that time, except that NHTSA increased the test force requirement in the lateral direction. 4 Aside from the changes made in 1995 to address back door openings, no significant changes have been made to the current regulation since the early 1970s. Even with the strengthened door retention components required by the standard, ejections due to door openings still account for 15 percent of all ejections. 4 The force was increased to reduce the number of door openings resulting from occupant impacts on the interior of the door. SAE responded by adopting the same lateral force requirement in SAE J839. In further analyzing the door ejections, the agency found that, on an annual basis, during the study period, of the 15 percent (7,622) of vehicle ejections that occurred through a door, 4,533 ejections occurred in non-rollover crashes ( *i.e.* , frontal, side, and rear impact crashes) versus 3,089 ejections in rollover crashes. 5 5 The rate for ejection through a door in rollover crashes (0.75 percent) is higher than in non-rollover crashes (0.10 percent). However, the actual number of ejections in non-rollover crashes is higher. For further discussion on rates of rollover and ejection see Section IV. Scope of the Safety Problem, in the NPRM. A portion of door ejections due to non-rollover door openings occurred through sliding door openings and from doors in 12-15 passenger vans. Of those ejected through a sliding door, approximately 20 people are killed and 30 people are seriously injured each year, based on the 1995-2003 data from NASS. Based on the 2003 sales data, about 85 percent of vans sold in the U.S. have sliding doors. Only 15 percent of vans sold have double doors. We are particularly concerned that the individuals with the greatest exposure to sliding door failures are children. Children sit in the back of vehicles in disproportionately high numbers. 6 We do not believe that this exposure is acceptable when measures can be taken to minimize the likelihood that a sliding door would open in a crash. With the increasing popularity of vehicles with sliding doors on both the driver and passenger side of the vehicle, we expect the number of overall sliding door failures to increase unless the doors are required to be designed in a way that reduces the likelihood of a door opening. 6 “Child Restraint use in 2002: Results from the 2002 NOPUS Controlled Intersection Study.” *http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2003/ChildRestraints.pdf.* B. Harmonization Efforts and the Proposed Upgrade 1. Global Technical Regulation
(GTR)The agency's efforts to update the requirements and test procedures of FMVSS No. 206 in order to address the safety issues elucidated above coincided with the adoption of the initial Program of Work of the 1998 Global Agreement. Globally, there are several existing regulations, directives, and standards that pertain to door lock and door retention components. As all share similarities, the international motor vehicle safety community tentatively determined that these components might be amenable to the development of a GTR under the 1998 Agreement. The Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement charged the Working Party on Passive Safety
(GRSP)to form an informal working group to discuss and evaluate relevant issues concerning requirements for door locks and door retention components and to make recommendations regarding a potential GTR. 7 7 The GRSP is made up of delegates from many countries around the world, and who have voting privileges. Representatives from manufacturing and consumer groups also attend and participate in the GRSP and informal working groups that are developing GTRs. Those that chose not to participate are kept apprised of the GTR progress from progress reports presented at the GRSP meetings. The United States of America (U.S.) led the efforts to develop the recommended requirements for the GTR. The U.S., through this agency, sought to work collaboratively on door ejections with other contracting parties to the 1998 Global Agreement, particularly Transport Canada, the European Union, and Japan. The GRSP considered all relevant standards, regulations, and directives and evaluated alternative requirements and test procedures developed and presented by the U.S. and Canada, as well as refinements suggested by other GRSP delegates and representatives. The GRSP concluded its work and agreed to recommend the establishment of a GTR to the Executive Committee. A detailed discussion of the development of the GTR was provided in the NPRM. On November 18, 2004, the Executive Committee approved establishment of the GTR. The established GTR includes improvements over the current FMVSS No. 206. With respect to sliding doors, the GTR provides a replacement for the existing U.S. requirements and a new full vehicle test procedure. It also specifies that sliding doors either have a secondary latched position or a door closure warning system that signals if a door is not fully closed. For vehicles with side doors with rear mounted hinge systems, the GTR adds new requirements to prevent potential inadvertent openings while a vehicle is moving. The U.S., as a Contracting Party of the 1998 Agreement that voted in favor of establishing this global technical regulation, was obligated to initiate rulemaking to adopt the provisions of the GTR. 2. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On December 15, 2004, the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to update FMVSS No. 206 and provide consistency with the GTR (69 FR 75020). First and foremost, with respect to sliding doors, we proposed to replace the existing requirement with new requirements and an associated full vehicle test procedure. We also proposed to require sliding doors to have either a secondary latched position or a door closure warning system to signal that a door is not fully closed. Under the proposal, the fully latched and secondary latched positions would also be required to meet load test requirements and inertial requirements the same way as the latches on hinged doors. Second, we proposed to require a secondary latched position for double-doors, currently referred to as “cargo-doors.” This requirement already exists in the European and Japanese regulations. Third, we proposed in the NPRM to add a dynamic inertial test procedure to FMVSS No. 206 as an optional alternative to the current inertial calculation. Such a test procedure has been conducted in Europe for type approval purposes. Fourth, we proposed to add new requirements for side doors with rear mounted hinges. Fifth, we proposed to revise the requirements for door locks. Finally, we proposed to extend the application of FMVSS No. 206 to buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, including 12-15 passenger vans, and to remove an exclusion for vehicles equipped with wheelchair platform lift systems. 3. Public Comments The agency received comments in response to the NPRM from motor vehicle manufacturers, motor vehicle manufacturer trade associations, vehicle component manufacturers, an advocacy organization, and an individual citizen. Comments were submitted by: Nissan North America (Nissan); Porsche Cars North America (Porsche); America Honda Motor Company Limited (Honda); Blue Bird Body Company, a bus manufacturer (Blue Bird); Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance); Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM); Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA); TriMark Corporation, a door latch manufacturer (TriMark); Delphi, a vehicle component manufacturer; Advocates for Highway Safety, an advocacy organization (Advocates); and Barb Sachau, a private citizen. Vehicle component manufacturers, motor vehicle manufacturers, and their representative associations generally supported the proposed rulemaking as well as the GTR process. These commenters did raise issues regarding some of the proposed test requirements and test procedure specifications. Some of these commenters also requested additional clarification of the proposed rule. Advocates generally opposed the GTR process as lacking an opportunity for involvement from public interest groups. Advocates also generally opposed the proposed rulemaking, stating that it was not stringent enough and would not provide adequate protection against passenger ejection. Ms. Sachau generally requested stronger standards for vehicle doors. III. SAFETEA-LU On August 10, 2005, the President signed into law the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU; Pub. L. 109-59; 119 Stat. 1144). SAFETEA-LU contains a variety of provisions directing the Secretary of Transportation to undertake rulemakings for the purpose of improving motor vehicle safety. Specifically, § 10301(a) requires that the rulemaking proceeding initiated to upgrade FMVSS No. 206 be completed no later than 30 months after the enactment of SAFETEA-LU. Today's final rule fulfils that directive. IV. Upgrade to FMVSS No. 206 A.The GTR Process As explained above, our proposal to revise and update FMVSS No. 206 was coincident to the international effort to establish a GTR for door latch systems and locks. Advocates expressed concern that by coordinating efforts to update FMVSSs with the GTR process, there would be only marginal changes in vehicle safety protection and performance. Advocates also expressed concern with the apparent lack of opportunity for safety organizations to be involved in the GTR process, and that an “after-the-fact” presentation of a draft GTR threatens to abridge the agency's authority. This comment by Advocates reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the GTR process. Contrary to Advocates' comment, consumer groups have an opportunity to be involved in all aspects of the GTR process. The GTR process was transparent to country delegates, industry representatives, and public interest groups. Information regarding the meetings and negotiations was publicly available through notices published periodically by the agency and the UNECE Web site. 8 Consumer groups, through Consumer International, participated in the debates and negotiations of GRSP. In the U.S., notice of the proposal to develop a door lock and door retention GTR was published in the **Federal Register** (68 FR 5333; February 3, 2003; Docket No. NHTSA-03-14395). Comments were received and considered from Advocates and the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety. On October 8, 2004, the agency again discussed the GTR proposal (69 FR 60460; October 8, 2004; Docket No. NHTSA-03-14395). No comments were received on this notice. 8 See *www.unece.org* ; click on “Meetings,” and Committee on Inland Transportation. Further, once the GTR is agreed upon, all contracting parties that voted in favor of adopting it must then initiate their domestic rulemaking process to adopt the GTR. NHTSA published a proposal to implement the GTR and offered its justifications for adopting the proposed changes. Those justifications were not simply a recitation that the changes were in the GTR. Instead, NHTSA offered a point-by-point explanation of why it believed the proposed changes were better policy for the American public. The public was given the same opportunity to comment and be involved in this proposed rulemaking as any other NHTSA rulemaking. NHTSA then evaluates those comments and makes appropriate changes to the proposal in response to the comments and other new information that may become available. The fact that the proposal was developed from a GTR doesn't free the agency of its legal obligations, including the obligation to respond to all significant comments. Thus, it is not apparent why Advocates suggested that comments on proposals based on GTRs are “after the fact.” Of course, when NHTSA does not adopt the proposed version of a GTR, the agency will report the changes made in the United States back to the Executive Committee of the 1998 Agreement. Based on comments to the NPRM in this rulemaking, there are some minor differences between the Final Rule and the GTR. With the acceptance of the GTR, the GRSP recognized that further refinements and improvements to the language and test procedures would be needed and planned to identify these through the U.S. regulatory process. Over the last year, NHTSA has reported to GRSP that, as a result of comments to the NPRM, we would be making minor clarifications to the test procedures and the regulatory language in the U.S. safety standard. Once the Final Rule is published, the GRSP is expecting the U.S. proposal to amend the GTR to align the text of both requirements. We repeat that the GTR process offers tangible benefits for the American public. By participating in the GTR process, we were able to develop a better regulation by advancing our research efforts and leveraging resources through partnering with other countries. If we were to have undertaken revisions to FMVSS No. 206 independent of the GTR process, the agency would have incurred higher costs and would have required additional time to move forward with the rulemaking. The international effort helped identify concerns and difficulties that were present in requirements and test procedures that NHTSA was planning on proposing in the NPRM and resulted in improvements that the agency could not have achieved on its own. Through this international cooperation the sliding door test procedures were validated by another country, which identified problems in the existing test procedures which resulted in the improved procedure and regulatory language adopted in this document. Additionally, from testing already conducted in Europe, we were able to add a test procedure for the existing optional dynamic inertial test for which NHTSA had no test procedure previously. B. Definitions The agency is essentially adopting the definitions for FMVSS No. 206 as proposed, and with additional clarification of the definitions for “primary door latch” and “auxiliary door latch.” Today's rule requires that each hinged door system be equipped with at least one primary door latch system, which is defined as consisting of at a minimum, a primary door latch and a striker. A primary latch was defined in the NPRM and GTR as a latch equipped with both a fully latched and a secondary latched position. Conversely, an auxiliary latch was defined as a latch equipped with a fully latched position and fitted to a door or door system equipped with a primary latch. An auxiliary latch may be equipped with a secondary latched position, but it is not required to meet the secondary latch requirements mandated for a primary latch. A problem occurs in identifying the primary latch on a door or door system if the door or door system is also equipped with an auxiliary latch that has a secondary latch position. If both latches have a secondary latched position, it is not obvious which latch is the primary latch. At the GRSP, the International Organizations of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
(OICA)requested that the definitions of primary and auxiliary latches be revised in order to differentiate between the two types of latches for compliance purposes. Today's rule requires manufacturers to designate one of the latches as the primary latch in connection with their certification of compliance and to identify the primary door latch when asked to do so by the agency. Such a request would be made in connection with an agency inquiry regarding compliance with the standard. Also the definition of “auxiliary latch” adopted in today's document clarifies that an auxiliary latch may be equipped with a secondary latched position. NHTSA has already proposed an amendment to the GTR to reflect these clarifications, and the amendment was accepted by GRSP. C. Hinged Doors Requirements 1. Load Tests FMVSS No. 206 specifies load test requirements for latch and hinge systems on hinged side doors in the longitudinal and transverse directions. We did not propose significant changes to the existing requirements for latches on hinged side doors. Consistent with the GTR, we proposed regulatory text that removed any implication that the latch load is applied relative to the vehicle orientation. In the NPRM, we proposed to require a secondary latched position for “double doors,” which had been referred to as cargo-doors in FMVSS 206. To the extent a requirement for the secondary positions may prevent inadvertent door openings, we believe it would be beneficial for double doors. This requirement already exists in the ECE standard. We also proposed for the transverse requirement to apply to a primary door latch system in the fully latched and secondary latch position and to an auxiliary door latch system in the fully latched position. We are adopting the load test requirements as proposed, but with corrections and clarifications as suggested by commenters. Comments from manufacturers generally supported the side door hinge system requirements as proposed. The Alliance generally agreed with the proposed rule as applied to hinged doors but requested additional clarification and corrections to the requirements as proposed. It requested clarification that the vertical hinge load requirement at S4.1.2.1(d) applies to back doors only. TMA requested clarification as to whether the vertical load test procedure in S5.1.2.3(c) applies only to back doors. The Alliance also requested that the sign conventions used for the vehicle coordinate reference system be changed to correspond to SAE J1100 Feb 2001 and SAE J211-1 Dec 2003. The Alliance requested that the section titles for S4.1.1 and S5.1.1 be revised to reflect that these sections apply to primary and auxiliary latches and latch systems. It commented that the test plate specification for the secondary latched position (S5.1.1.1(b)(4)) should also apply to the fully latched position. The Alliance also noted that the reference to S4.2.3 in S5.1.1.4 appears incorrect. The Alliance and TMA are correct in that the vertical load requirement of S4.1.2.1(d) and the vertical load test procedure in S5.1.2.3(c) apply only to back doors that open upward. The regulatory text has been changed to clarify the application of these sections. Today's rule also incorporates sign conventions for the vehicle coordinate reference system consistent with SAE J1100 Feb 2001 and SAE J211-1 Dec 2003. Consistent use of sign conventions between FMVSS No. 206 and the SAE standards will minimize any potential for confusion. Today's rule also amends the headings for S4.1.1 and S5.1.1 to reflect that these sections apply to primary and auxiliary latches and latch systems. We are also revising S5.1.1.4 to correctly reference S4.2.1.3, instead of S4.2.3. The above clarifications will also be included in the U.S. proposal to amend the GTR. Advocates commented that the requirements for latch systems on hinged side doors as proposed were not stringent enough and that primary and auxiliary latch systems should be subject to the same requirements. The commenter stated that the load requirements do not replicate real world crash levels and continue to allow the use of the forkbolt striker engagement design. Advocates also objected to double door auxiliary latches not being subject to transverse load requirements. Advocates further commented, that while it supported the agency's proposal for secondary latching on double doors, the proposed load test is incomplete and does not replicate real-world crash forces that could result in the failure of the traditional fork/bolt and pin/striker designs used for double door closures. NHTSA does not agree with Advocates' assertion that the proposed requirements were not sufficiently stringent. NHTSA has done numerous studies regarding real-world door latch loading. *See* Docket No. 3705. The analyses of the data in those studies concluded that there is no evidence that increased latch strength would reduce ejections through the door. First door openings in a crash are an infrequent event. Using the 1995 to 2003 NASS data, door openings occur in less than one percent of all vehicle crashes. When door openings do occur, they are overwhelmingly a result of a failure of the supporting structure, not the latch mechanism. *See* Docket No. 3705-11. As discussed in the NPRM for this rulemaking, NHTSA has devoted its efforts to developing a test that will assess the potential for structural failure. This combination test procedure would be capable of testing at higher and more complex loading conditions, and would better simulate loading in rollover crashes. However, as also discussed in the NPRM for this rulemaking, that test is not yet sufficiently developed to allow us to propose it in this rulemaking. Nevertheless, NHTSA is continuing its work on this test. The GRSP made the following commitments with respect to the combination test: The adoption of the combination test into the GTR is not supported at this time due to the technical difficulties in conducting the test. Instead, the Working Party delegates and representatives will continue to review work on the modification of the United States of America-based procedure, or the development of a new procedure, to capture the benefits associated with a test addressing door failures due to simultaneous compressive longitudinal and tensile lateral loading of latch systems in real world crashes. Any acceptable procedure developed could then be added to the GTR as an amendment. ECE/TRANS/180/Add.1; page 11. Thus, there is a consensus within GRSP that devoting resources to developing a test that assesses the latch performance and includes an assessment of structural failure is the approach that would reduce ejections through the door. Advocates did not provide any new information to explain why or how it has concluded that increasing the stringency of the proposed requirements would further reduce door ejections. Accordingly, NHTSA is not adopting this comment. With regard to Advocates' concern with auxiliary latches on double doors, we recognize that there may have been some confusion with the NPRM. The preamble discussion stated that the transverse requirement would apply only to the primary and not the auxiliary door latches. This differs from the current requirement in which the latches on a single double door must jointly resist force loading in the lateral direction, *i.e.* , the transverse load requirement for each latch is determined by dividing a 9,000 N load by the number of latches on a single door. However, the proposed regulatory text would have explicitly required each primary and auxiliary latch on a double door to separately resist the entire transverse load requirement in the fully latched position. We are adopting the transverse load requirement for latches on side hinged doors as proposed in the regulatory text of the NPRM. This revision establishes uniform latching requirements for all side hinged door latches. Both primary and auxiliary latch systems are required to comply with the entire load requirement in the fully latched position. Also as proposed, this document requires primary latch systems on hinged side doors to comply with a 4,500 N load requirement in the secondary latched position. 2. Inertial Test FMVSS No. 206 requires that door latch systems on hinged doors and sliding doors remain engaged when subject to an inertial force of 30 g in the longitudinal and transverse directions. As FMVSS No. 206 was originally established, the agency had specified demonstration of compliance with the inertial requirement through a calculation in accordance with Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J839, or a NHTSA approved procedure. 9 9 As discussed in the NPRM, NHTSA approved a GM test procedure in the 1960s. Since that time, no other requests have been approved. Such an approach is inconsistent with the agency's usual practice over its history, which is to include test procedures in the regulatory text of the standard, either directly or by incorporation by reference. In the NPRM we proposed a dynamic inertial test as an option to the existing inertial calculation. As proposed, this provision would replace the existing provision that manufacturers may certify to an agency-approved test procedure. The proposed inertial test procedure was based on the testing conducted for United Nations' Economic Commission for Europe Regulation 11 (ECE R.11) type approval. It places inertial forces on doors, either when installed in the vehicle (full vehicle test) or when tested on a test fixture (in-frame test), in the longitudinal and transverse directions. The proposed test procedure was validated by the U.S. and Canada during the GTR process. 10 In proposing the procedure, we noted that the proposed test is similar to the testing that has been relied upon in Europe for type-approval, but that additional specificity may be required in characterizing the test fixture. 10 See presentation from Transport Canada in the DOT Docket NHTSA-1999-3705. In addition to the longitudinal and transverse tests, a test in the vertical direction was proposed for back doors that open in an upward direction. This was in response to a finding by Transport Canada that the most common failure mode in the inertial tests conducted by Canada was in the direction of door opening. 11 We are adopting inertial load requirements and test procedures generally as proposed, but with a clarification regarding the force requirements under the dynamic compliance options. 11 Id. Today's final rule specifies that under the dynamic compliance options, door latch systems must not disengage when subject to an inertial force as specified in the relevant test procedure. Under the proposal, the requirements for the dynamic options required that the door latch system not disengage when subject to an inertial load of 30g. Today's final rule clarifies that door latch systems must not disengage when subject to a 30g inertial force when applied as specified in the test procedure. Further, the test procedure adopted today specifies that the force is measured based on the acceleration of the sled. This is consistent with the sled test procedure specified in S13 of FMVSS No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* . These clarifications and those noted above will be included in the U.S. proposal to amend the GTR. In its comments, Advocates claimed that vertical force inertial testing should be required for side as well as rear doors, particularly side sliding doors equipped with only a single latch system. Moreover, Advocates contended that reliance on foreign test results is not acceptable. With respect to the Transport Canada test, Advocates stated that the testing did not rely on a demanding protocol and did not reproduce vertical forces, including roof crush strength demands that would be applied to vehicles in a roll-over. Advocates did not provide an explanation as to why it believes reliance on foreign test results is not acceptable. The agency believes that one of the benefits of establishing global technical regulations is that it leverages available data from other countries, thereby allowing better allocation of agency resources and establishment of safety requirements more quickly than if the testing and development were conducted solely by NHTSA. The inertial test requirements and procedures adopted today are based upon those that have been used successfully for many years under type-approval certification systems. However, further specifications for self-certification systems were necessary. Based upon testing performed by Transport Canada in association with NHTSA, we determined that the results and protocol sufficiently validate the feasibility of the procedure, and that the inertial test requirements adequately reflect the crash conditions experienced by the U.S. fleet. As noted in the NPRM, we believe that secondary latches will be necessary for sliding doors to pass the new test. The primary basis for Advocates' argument for a vertical inertial test appears to be that sliding doors have only one latch. However, we believe the sliding door test requirement will nullify this argument. Furthermore, we at this time have no testing or data to suggest effectiveness of a vertical inertial test requirement, nor did Advocates provide any. As stated in the NPRM, the focus of the GTR and the NPRM were to address door system failures in non-rollover crashes. As noted above, a combination test procedure was developed to replicate more complex loading experienced in frontal, rear and side offset and oblique crashes. However, difficulties were encountered with the test procedure due to the inability to conduct the test on some types of latches. This inability precluded our adopting the procedure for this rulemaking. With regard to certification, the Alliance noted that manufacturers often rely on testing a “body-in-white” vehicle ( *i.e.* , a pre-production developmental vehicle), whereas the FMVSS No. 206 test procedures specify testing on post-production vehicles. The Alliance requested the agency to confirm its understanding that manufacturers are not required to test post production vehicles for purposes of certification. The Alliance is correct in that the test procedures in FMVSS No. 206 are not requirements. Manufacturers certifying compliance with the safety standards are not required to follow exactly the compliance test procedures set forth in the applicable standard. In fact, manufacturers are not even required to conduct any actual testing before certifying that their products comply with applicable safety standards. However, to avoid liability for civil penalties in connection with any noncompliance that may be determined to exist, manufacturers must exercise “reasonable care” to assure compliance and in making its certification (49 U.S.C. 30115). It may be simplest for a manufacturer to establish that it exercised “reasonable care” if the manufacturer has conducted testing that strictly followed the compliance test procedures set forth in the standard. However, “reasonable care” might also be shown using modified test procedures, such as testing on a body in white, if the manufacturer could demonstrate that the modifications were not likely to have had a significant impact on the test results. In addition, “reasonable care” might be shown using engineering analyses, computer simulations, and the like. 3. Door Hinges The load testing requirements for door hinges in the GTR are the same as those currently in FMVSS No. 206 and ECE R.11. The agency believes that the side door requirements for hinges, which are based on SAE Recommended Practice J934, *Vehicle Passenger Door Hinge Systems,* adequately test the strength and design of door hinges. NHTSA has fully analyzed its crash data and possible failure modes associated with the failure of door retention components. We have not identified a significant safety problem with door hinges currently installed in vehicles. Accordingly, we are not changing the door hinge requirements of FMVSS No. 206, although we are articulating the test procedure for door hinges rather than relying on a modified incorporation by reference of the applicable SAE J839 recommended practice. D. Side Sliding Door Requirements 1. Side Sliding Door Latch Requirements In the NPRM, we proposed to require sliding doors to have either: 1. A primary door latch system that meets the same requirements as primary door latch systems on hinged side doors ( *i.e.* , has both a fully and secondary latched position), or 2. A system with a fully latched position and a door closure warning system to alert the driver when the door is not in the fully latched position. We stated that this second option would “assure vehicle occupants that a sliding door is completely closed.” 69 FR 75026. Advocates objected to the option of equipping a sliding door with a door closure warning system instead of requiring all sliding doors to be equipped with a secondary latch position. Advocates also questioned the effectiveness of a door closure warning system. That commenter stated that the agency should not provide a compliance option that relies on occupant behavior, as opposed to a mechanical solution, to ensure that occupants will not be ejected through a door that is not fully closed. It is appropriate to begin with the current requirements in FMVSS No. 206 to consider this comment. At present, FMVSS No. 206 does not require either a primary or a secondary latch system for sliding doors. The only requirement currently applicable to sliding side doors in the U.S. is set forth in S4.3, which provides that the track and slide combination shall not separate when a total transverse load of 17,800 Newtons is applied. There are currently no requirements for the individual latch components. The proposed GTR upgrades the U.S. requirements to require, in addition to the existing loading requirement, a latch with a fully latched position that meets additional loading requirements. We believe these new requirements achieve Advocates' suggestion that a mechanical solution is more dependable than one that requires some human behavior. The fully latched position and the associated loading requirements are vehicle attributes added in this rule. As a backup, the proposed rule also provided for some supplemental protection. The first option is to permit a reduced level of protection when the latch is not in the fully latched position. Under this alternative, the latch must have a secondary latched position, which is subject to loads 50% or less of what the fully latched position must meet. The second option is to alert the driver that the latch is not in the fully latched position, with the expectation that the driver will close the sliding door so that it is fully latched and receive the protection associated with the fully latched loading requirements. These options for backup protection for sliding door latches not in the fully latched position have been permitted in the ECE regulations for decades now. During the discussions of the GTR, the European governments said there were no data showing better ejection prevention with either of the options. NHTSA has no data showing a problem, since neither has been required in the United States, and Advocates did not provide any data in its comments. Given that the available data in Europe do not show a problem with either approach, NHTSA has no reason to change its proposed upgrade of the sliding door requirements in Standard No. 206. 2. Side Sliding Door Test Procedure In addition to the new requirement for side sliding door latches, the NPRM also proposed a sliding door test procedure that evaluates the door as a complete system. FMVSS No. 206 currently does not include a sliding side door test procedure. Since the test produces some level of longitudinal force, in addition to the direct lateral loading, the door components deform and twist. Therefore, compliant door latch systems will be required to more robust than was required in the past. We proposed a full vehicle test in which a sliding door is tested by applying force against the two edges of the door. The proposed test setup is initiated by placing two loading plates against the interior of the door. The loading plates are placed on top of the latch/striker system located at the door edge. If the door edge has two latch/striker systems along one edge, the loading plate is placed between the two systems. If a door edge does not have a latch/striker system, the loading plate is placed at a point midway along the length of the door edge. An outward lateral force of 18,000 N total is then applied to the loading plates ( *i.e.* , 9,000 N is applied to each plate). The proposed test procedure for the sliding door transverse loading test specifies that the force application device would be mounted on the vehicle floor. A test failure would be indicated by
(1)A separation which would permit a sphere with a diameter of 100 mm to pass unobstructed between the interior of the vehicle to the exterior at any point, or
(2)the force application device reaching a total displacement of 300 mm. The proposed 100 mm of separation requirement, even if the latch system does not fail, accounts for partial ejections through separation of sliding doors from the frame without the latch system failing. The 100 mm limit is based on a commonly used measurement for maximum allowable open space in the U.S. and Canada for school bus opening requirements. In general, we are adopting the sliding door test procedure as proposed. We are making several changes to the test procedure set-up and the test procedure operation in response to concerns raised by manufacturers. The changes noted below will also be included in the U.S. proposal to amend the GTR. a. Compression Verses Tension Motor vehicle manufacturers raised several concerns regarding the sliding door test procedure, particularly with the test set-up. The Alliance suggested applying the force loads in tension as opposed to compression. The procedure adopted in this rule specifies that the force loads are applied in compression. In early testing, Transport Canada applied force loads in tension. However, Transport Canada abandoned this force application method because of the extent of modifications needed to the door being tested and the resulting deformation that occurred at the attachment points. The necessary modifications and the deformation resulted in unacceptable testing variability. b. Test Device and Set-Up With regard to the force application device as specified in the proposed test procedure, Nissan and the Alliance favored mounting the device external to the vehicle, instead of on the vehicle floor. These commenters expressed concern that mounting the force application device inside the vehicle could deform the vehicle floor and allow the device to move from its original position when applying a load. This, they stated, would introduce a significant amount of test variability. The agency experienced similar concerns with the mounting of the test device, but resolved the issue through use of reinforced plates. The reinforcement plates provided a level surface for the support of the loading device. The plates also distribute loading on the floor of the test vehicle to reduce the movement of the device that could otherwise occur due to localized deformation at the attachment points. During a May 11, 2005 meeting between the agency and the Alliance, the Ford Motor Company presented the results of evaluation testing, which demonstrated that use of the reinforcement plates on the vehicle floor avoids problematic displacement while under loading. 12 Both the agency and commenters have demonstrated the ability to apply the requisite load to a vehicle door without causing displacement of the force application device. In order to minimize potential test variability, the final rule specifies that a loading device is to be rigidly mounted when applying a load. As proposed in the NPRM, the load is applied to a vehicle door through force application plates attached to the ram arms of the force application device. Nissan asked if the proposed sizes for the plates are correlated with a potential load area resulting from an occupant that impacts the interior of the door. 12 See, Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19840-14. NHTSA based the size of the force application plates on three considerations. First, the width of each load plate, 50 mm (2 inches), is designed to locate the center of the load application over the latch on each door edge (a distance of 25 mm (1 inch) from the door edge). Second, the length of the smaller plate (150 mm (6 inches)) is selected to give an area large enough to prevent the loading rams from pushing through the sheet metal of the door. In developmental testing, the 150 mm plate did not push through sheet metal. 13 Third, the length of the larger load plate (300 mm (12 inches)) is based upon a measurement that is compatible to the interior contour of most door edges. The door edge contours (especially along the top half of the door) of many of vehicles tend to be highly curved, which dictates where the load plates can be positioned. If a plate is too long, the contour of a door may interfere with the load application. 13 See Docket No. NHTSA-2004-19840-14. We proposed that a force application plate 300 mm in length, 50 mm in width, and 15 mm in thickness be placed equidistant between the multiple latches on doors that have more than one latch system on a single door edge, and this plate would be used to apply the load to any tested door edge. The Alliance commented that the vertical distance between the latches on a single door could exceed one meter in length. The Alliance stated that applying force to such a door with a plate that is shorter than the distance between the latches could cause the door to bow outwards in a manner that does not directly apply loading to the latches. The Alliance stated that this bowing is not representative of a real-world crash event and recommended that the load plates be extended to a length equal to the distance between the latches plus 150 mm. The agency is not adopting the Alliance's suggestion with regard to increasing the plate size used for testing sliding doors with more than one latch/striker system. We have concluded that the force application plate positioning proposed in the NPRM and adopted today is appropriate for testing vehicle doors that have more than one latch system, including door designs in which the latches are widely spaced. A door edge with latches separated by a large distance (such as up to or greater than 1-meter) could increase the likelihood that an occupant impacting the interior of the door during a crash would force a gap separation. Latches with excessive separation may not provide as much structural support along the length of the entire door edge. The proposed procedure, which places the force application plate equidistant between latches, identifies such weaknesses. Further, the agency was unable to identify any vehicles that had sliding doors equipped with latches systems on a door edge that were separated by a distance comparable to that which concerned the Alliance. Therefore, the sliding door test procedure is adopted as proposed. The Alliance also stated that vehicles are currently designed with access holes in the door sheet metal, which may not provide practicable surface area to place the force application plates in the location and manner specified in the NPRM. The Alliance recommended the use of a spreader device, which would bridge the access hole and contact the door in a manner in an area capable of transferring the load to the latch. After reviewing the Alliance's request to specify the use of a spreader device, we conclude that such a device would distribute the load over a large section of a vehicle door instead of at the latch/striker component, which is the intent of the test. Further, a spreader device would act to reinforce a door and alter it from its original manufactured condition. The agency considered other potential procedures to accommodate the presence of access holes. We evaluated moving the force application plate to accommodate an access hole, covering an access hole with a steel plate, and increasing the length of the force application plate to accommodate the access hole opening. However, each one of these alternatives proved to be unfeasible. Each one of the considered options would create compliance testing difficulties. Moving the plate to accommodate an access hole would require us to specify an adequate alternative location. This may not be the same location for every vehicle. For vehicles with an exceptionally long access hole or multiple access holes, it could be difficult or impossible to find a suitable location for the plate. Covering an access hole changes the door from its original manufactured condition, which is undesirable for compliance testing. Increasing the length of the load plate to the size of the access hole would create test variability given that not all access holes are uniform in size and location. With respect to access holes, we are adopting the test procedure as proposed. The Alliance did not provide test data to support an actual problem existing with force application plate size or placement and access holes. While the Alliance identified a vehicle that had access holes located in the area that the load plates would be positioned, the Alliance never conducted a test to demonstrate that the access holes actually created a problem. Based on our examination of the vehicle identified by the Alliance, we believe that if the vehicle had been tested, the lip of the access hole (approximately, 250 mm in length) would serve to offer some resistance to the plate and eventually, as with all sliding door tests, the interior sheet metal would quickly deform until the plate was in contact with the inside of the exterior door shell. Given this condition, there should be no difference in how the test is conducted, whether with or without an access hole present. If a latch or retention component exists in the boundary of the access hole opening, we believe that there should be no reason why the plate should not be allowed to contact and to apply force loading to that component. In such an instance the load plate would apply the force directly on the retention component. In its comments, Nissan questioned whether the procedure specified in the NPRM allows for a rotational joint at the connection between the plates and the loading arms. The Alliance noted that longitudinal displacement of the door may occur during testing, causing rotational forces and bending moments to occur between the load plates and the hydraulic rams. The Alliance recommended the procedure specify the use of socket/swivel joints at the end of the loading arms in order for the load plate to translate longitudinally and to adjust for any contour of the door. The Alliance also recommended that the procedure specify that the plate edges be rounded to a 6 mm radius to avoid the edge of the plate acting as a cutting edge that would potentially penetrate a door's sheet metal. The procedure, as proposed, specified that the plates are permitted to rotate in the longitudinal direction relative to the loading ram. As proposed in the NPRM, the loading plates are fixed perpendicularly to the hydraulic loading arms in a manner that does not allow for rotation in a transverse direction. Additionally, the loading plates are connected directly to the hydraulic ram shafts by a threaded stud attached to the back of the plate that allows for longitudinal rotation. This longitudinal rotation allowed for better adjustment of the plates to the contour of a vehicle door and provided acceptable results in testing performed by the agency. With regard to the permitted rotation of the force application plates, we are adopting the procedure as proposed. The agency is not adopting a procedure that would allow for rotation in a transverse direction, such as that which could be experienced if a swivel joint were used. Considerable difference in deformation patterns and in the direction of the force application potentially could result from the use of a swivel joint. The potential rotation from use of a swivel joint, *i.e.* , rotation in both the longitudinal and transverse directions, would introduce an uncontrollable degree of freedom. Past tests have demonstrated that use of a swivel joint causes extensive variability and repeatability problems. 14 Further, the test procedure specifies that the force application plates are to maintain the displacement of the force application device in the transverse direction. This ensures that as force is applied, a door system continues to experience a transverse load. 14 See Docket No. NHTSA-1998-3705-33. Although the agency did not experience penetration of door sheet metal from the loading plates, we recognize that without rounded edges on the plates, this may be a problem. Therefore, we are specifying that the loading plates have edges rounded to a radius of 6 mm ± 1 mm. The proposed test procedure specified that the loading plates be placed at the “door edge” (S5.2.2.3(f)(3), S5.2.2.3(g)(3), and S5.2.2.3(h)(3)). The proposed test procedure also specified that all of the door trim and decorative components are to be removed during the test set-up. In its comments Nissan stated that the term “door edge” could be prone to misinterpretation and asked that the term be further defined. Nissan also stated that trim components on a door pillar that overlap a sliding door could interfere with the test set-up. The agency agrees with both of these points. Therefore, the procedure adopted today further specifies that the force application plates are placed within 12.5 mm from the interior edge of a sliding door. This specification will ensure that force is applied directly to the portion of the door in which the latch mechanism is installed. Typically, a latch mechanism is within 12.5 mm of the interior edge of a vehicle door. Further, we are specifying that pillar trim and non-structural components that overlap a door be removed to permit proper placement of the loading plates. The Alliance commented that during its evaluation of the proposed test procedure, the loading plates would slide as the door inner panel deflected under loading. The Alliance recommended the addition of a spreader bar with swivels to be used as a connection between the load application devices. The Alliance contends that the spreader bar would:
(1)Limit the longitudinal motion of the loading plates while assuring that the lateral load of 9000 N is attained at both the fore and aft edges of the door;
(2)reduce sliding of the loading plates and moments into the load cells that lead to erroneous load measurements;
(3)reduce the bending moments sufficiently to make the test more practicable;
(4)reduce the likelihood of damage to the test equipment; and
(5)reduce the risk to laboratory technicians. Both NHTSA and Transport Canada have used a spreader bar, similar to the one requested by the Alliance, in previous testing when developing the sliding door test procedure. Based on these tests we concluded that use of a spreader bar confines the movement of the force application device, thus making it inappropriate for testing. Because the fore and aft loading plates displace unequally, a spreader bar causes the load plates to rotate and move towards one another. In testing, this resulted in abnormal bending forces produced at the connection between the plates and spreader. The force loading device specified in NHTSA Vehicle Research and Test Center testing used to validate the proposed test procedure incorporates 5 cm box beams for the support of the structure. 15 The box beams provide adequate support and are less prone to allow displacement of the hydraulic rams. In its initial testing, the Alliance did not incorporate supports that provide the same level of support as the ones specified in today's test procedure. Therefore, we are not amending the procedure to include use of a spreader bar. 15 Docket No. NHTSA-1998-3705-33. However, to control for movement of the load application device in order to further minimize test variability, the procedure adopted today limits longitudinal and vertical movements of the force application device by specifying that a device is to be rigidly mounted. c. Application of Force The sliding test door procedure proposed in the NPRM specified that each force application device be moved at a rate of 20-90 mm per minute until a force of 9,000 N is achieved on each device, or until either force application device reaches a total displacement of 300 mm. As proposed, if the 9,000 N force is achieved, it is held for 10 seconds. The Alliance raised several concerns with the specified procedure for operating the force application devices. First, the Alliance requested that a 500 N pre-load be applied prior to determining the initial position of the ram arms for the purpose of measuring the transverse displacement of the ram arms. The Alliance stated that a pre-load of 500 N would ensure that the loading plates are correctly positioned and would improve repeatability of the test by eliminating the effect of free play in the system. Specifying a pre-load is consistent with the force application test procedure specified in S11 of FMVSS No. 225, *Child restraint anchorage systems* . We agree with the Alliance that a pre-load for the sliding door test procedure would be appropriate. Therefore, we are specifying that the test loading device achieve a pre-load of 500 N. Once the pre-load is achieved the displacement measuring devices are then zeroed. The Alliance also requested that the test procedure define the location and procedure for measuring the 300 mm of displacement. The commenter recommended that the displacement of the loading device be measured relative to an undisturbed part of the vehicle. As explained above, we are specifying that a pre-load be applied to a sliding door, at which point the displacement measuring devices are to be zeroed. Given that we establish the point at which the displacement of the devices are zeroed and limit the movement of the force application test device, we do not believe it further necessary to measure displacement against an undisturbed portion of the vehicle. The portion of a vehicle that remains undisturbed could be different for each vehicle model, or even for each individual vehicle. By relying on the pre-load to establish the initial position of ram arm, there is no need to specify a portion of the vehicle against which to measure displacement. Third, the Alliance recommended that the test procedure control the load force application rather than displacement. As stated above, the NPRM proposed to control the displacement (20-90 mm per minute) until a load of 9000 N is reached, and then holding the resulting load for 10 seconds. The commenter stated that controllers currently in use do not allow for simultaneous control of both displacement and load, and that the procedure as specified would raise practicability concerns. In response to the Alliance's concern, the procedure adopted today specifies that the load be controlled at a rate not to exceed 2,000 N per minute. In the vehicle testing conducted by NHTSA, a load rate of 2,000 N per minute resulted in a displacement rate comparable to the proposed 20-90 mm displacement rate. However, we recognize that given the controllers currently in use, controlling for the load is a more practical procedure. Additionally, we are revising the procedure to specify holding the maximum load for 30 seconds. This duration was recommended by the Alliance. We also agree that this is sufficient time to measure any gap separations between the door and doorframe as specified by the procedure. d. Performance Requirement The NPRM, consistent with the GTR, specified that a test failure is indicated by a 100 mm separation of the interior of the door from the exterior of the vehicle's doorframe at any point. There must not be more than 100 mm of separation even if the latch holds, to protect against partial ejections. The 100 mm limit is based on a commonly used measurement for maximum allowable open space in the U.S. and Canada for school bus opening requirements. The Alliance recommended that we specify the use of a 100 mm sphere to on an extension rod to test the gap separation requirement. The Alliance also requested eliminating S5.2.2.3(j) from the test procedure. As proposed, this section specified that any equipment used for measuring gap separations be attached to the vehicle prior to the testing. The Alliance stated that this is not practical because a manufacturer may not be able to predict where a separation will occur. We recognize that as a practical manner the agency and many manufacturers likely will use a test method similar to that described by the Alliance, i.e., through the use of a sphere with a 100 mm diameter attached to a rod. The agency has used a similar procedure in its sliding door evaluation testing as well as for compliance testing under FMVSS No. 217, Bus emergency exit and window retention and release. The agency has been able to perform this procedure while maintaining the safety of the technicians. However, this is only one method that could be used to measure a gap and other viable methods may be developed, such as laser or telescoping measuring devices. While compliance is described in terms of passing a sphere, we are not adopting the sphere procedure as recommended by the Alliance. We are eliminating the sphere specification in S5.2.2.3(j) to facilitate the use of the sphere method or other similar techniques. Nissan requested clarification as to whether a noncompliance would occur in a case in which a gap separation occurred where the gap measured greater than 100 mm at the exterior opening, but less than 100 mm at the interior of the opening. We clarify that the separation throughout the gap must exceed 100 mm for a determination of noncompliance. The example provided by Nissan would not be a noncompliance. This is consistent with the intent to limit ejections through a separation. Both Nissan and the Alliance expressed concern that the specified period of 10 seconds for maintaining the load was not adequate to permit measurement of separations between a vehicle body and the sliding door. Nissan stated that based on its experience it could take up to a minute to make the necessary measurements. The Alliance recommended a period of 30 seconds. The Alliance stated that this would be adequate to limit deformation of the door sheet metal and still provide enough time for the necessary measurements. The agency is revising the test procedure to specify that the load be maintained for 30 seconds. As suggested by the Alliance, we believe that it is practical to make the specified measurements in this time. As stated above, we have successfully been able to perform this measuring procedure for compliance testing under FMVSS No. 217. E. Door Locks As proposed, we are adopting two minor changes to the door lock requirements. First, we are distinguishing between exterior and interior door locks. All exterior door locks must be capable of being unlocked from the interior of the vehicle by means of a lock release device which, when engaged, shall prevent operation of the exterior door handle or other exterior latch release control and which has an operating means and a lock release/engagement device located within the interior of the vehicle. Interior door locks are subject to the same requirements except that for rear side doors and back doors, this release mechanism must require a separate action distinct from the simple actuation of the door handle, and the release device must be readily accessible to the driver of the vehicle or an occupant seated adjacent to the door. The Alliance commented that the proposed door lock provision would prohibit a common European rear door lock design that permits a vehicle door to be unlocked and unlatched with a single pull of the handle so long as the vehicle has a child safety lock or an automatic door locking device. The Alliance stated that a requirement for a separate action distinct from the simple actuation of the door handles to release rear side door and back door interior locks effectively precludes designs that have been in use for many years in Europe as well as other markets. The Alliance stated that NHTSA did not provide data demonstrating a negative effect of the GTR provision that permits these designs on motor vehicle safety, and therefore did not provide justification for not proposing the provision as contained in the GTR. This was a subject that was discussed extensively while developing the GTR. The standard in the United States and Canada has always mandated that the interior release mechanism for the door locks on side and rear doors must require a separate action distinct from the simple actuation of the door handle. This requirement is in place because of our concern that children could inadvertently open the back door simply by playing with the door handle. A system in which a child could open a locked door with a single motion would almost certainly increase the number of inadvertent door openings and place child occupants at greater risk of ejection. The standard for Europe and Japan has always permitted rear vehicle doors to be unlocked and unlatched with a single pull of the door handle, provided that the vehicle has a child safety lock or an automatic door locking device. This regulatory structure reflects a concern that rescuers be able to quickly open rear doors to assist passengers after a crash. These regions believe that the requirement for child safety locks allows drivers to disable this feature when children are riding in the rear seat. Both of these are plausible safety concerns. Neither side to the dispute could provide data to resolve the problem. Absent a way to resolve this difference, the parties agreed to address the problem of inadvertent door openings by children by either the U.S./Canada approach of requiring a separate action to release locked doors in the rear or by the European/Japanese approach of requiring vehicles to have child safety locks or automatic door locking. Against this background, the Alliance comment is not persuasive. NHTSA agrees there are no data to show that drivers wouldn't always engage the child safety locks in their vehicles. However, if even a few drivers were to fail to engage their child safety locks and a few children in the rear were to open a locked door simply by playing with the door handle, those children would be at risk for ejection, even absent a crash. This risk can be ameliorated simply by continuing to follow the same requirements that have been in place for the interior rear door locks of every new car and light truck sold in the United States since 1968. Moreover, this approach is entirely consistent with the GTR. F. Applicability In the NPRM, the agency proposed expanding the applicability of the standard to buses with a GVWR of less than 10,000 lb and removing an exclusion for doors equipped with a wheelchair platform lift. Historically, FMVSS No. 206 has not applied to buses in general because the types of doors installed on buses in the 1960s were not amenable to testing under the standard. The exclusion of wheelchair platform lift equipped doors was originally adopted in 1985, at which time wheelchair lift designs typically provided a barrier to occupant protection when retracted. When retracted, wheelchair lift platforms typically covered the doorway opening. Changes in the vehicle fleet and in technology from the time of original adoption of these provisions necessitate revisions to the applicability of FMVSS No. 206. The Alliance commented that the final rule should not expand applicability of FMVSS No. 206 beyond that of the GTR. The Alliance stated that expanding the applicability undermines the GTR and mitigates the benefits of a common global technical requirement. The agency believes that all buses with a GVWR less than 10,000 lbs should be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 206. These buses are often equipped with traditional side-hinged doors as opposed to folding doors. With the advent of 12- and 15-passenger vans, smaller buses are now more frequently equipped with traditional side hinged doors. For those buses that are equipped with folding doors, we are adopting a definition of “folding door” that will accommodate those types of doors that remain unsuitable for testing. Hinged doors on buses with a GVWR less than 10,000 are the same door systems as those found on smaller vans, which are required to comply with the standard. Additionally, we anticipate that the impact of the extension will have little additional cost to vehicle manufacturers. The agency is aware that all 12-15 passengers vans, which are classified as buses, currently share the same door system and latching components as other smaller size vans, which already meet the requirements of our standard. Expanding the applicability of the standard to include these buses is not inconsistent with the GTR process. The GTR preamble notes that, “to address concerns about the applicability of door retention requirements of heavier vehicles, it was proposed that the [GTR] only apply to passenger cars, light commercial vehicles, and vans, and that other vehicles be excluded initially, then added in the future after further evaluation of various door designs.” As buses with a GVWR of less than 10,000 lbs have door designs identical to that of vehicles subject to the GTR, there is no reason to delay the inclusion of these vehicles under FMVSS No. 206. The agency intends to recommend that a similar provision be adopted by the GTR in subsequent revisions. Today's rule also eliminates the exclusion of doors equipped with platform lifts from the FMVSS No. 206 requirements. Blue Bird stated that the elimination of this exclusion appeared only in the NPRM regulatory text, but was not discussed in the preamble. Blue Bird commented that the platform lift exclusion is important to the industry and requested that it be retained in the final rule. As explained in the NPRM, the agency adopted the wheelchair platform lift exclusion in 1985 in response to a petition from Thomas Built Buses (50 FR 12029; March 27, 1985). At that time, wheelchair platform lifts typically retracted so as to cover the doorway opening and provide an adequate barrier to occupant ejections. When we established the exclusion the agency stated that the barrier created by a retracted wheelchair platform lift would be sufficient to prevent ejections. A 1998 evaluation revealed that wheelchair lift designs have evolved such that they no longer provide adequate protection for vehicle occupants as contemplated when the exclusion was adopted. The intent of the exclusion was that doors could be modified for use with wheelchair lifts and could have noncompliant latching systems, if the wheelchair lift platform could be used to barricade the vehicle doorway when in the retracted and stored position. This intent is no longer met by current wheelchair lift systems, which have platforms not covering or only partially covering the vehicle doorway. For example, some wheelchair lift systems connect only to one side of a vehicle door frame or have platforms that are stored horizontally above the vehicle floor and not serving as a barricade to the vehicle doorway. Also, some power-assisted door openers completely disable the OEM door latching systems. Disabled door latches and a horizontal stored platform would not provide an adequate barrier to preventing occupant ejection if the door were to open during a crash. Further, current wheelchair lift designs can be installed without modifying the OEM door system; installation of a wheelchair platform lift does not necessitate removal of a vehicle door from compliance with FMVSS No. 206. Vehicle manufacturers are now providing power assisted components for the installation of wheelchair adaptive equipment. Therefore, the exclusion is not necessary for doors modified for use with wheelchair lift systems. V. Certification Information Along with its comments, Trimark also submitted a series of questions that while related to FMVSS No. 206, were not directly related to the NPRM. Trimark's questions dealt more with compliance testing procedures and self-certification requirements in general. Trimark also asked about the agency's plans to address additional door lock and door latch requirements in the future. We have addressed Trimark's questions below. Trimark notes that S4.1.1.4 requires each primary door latch and auxiliary door latch system to meet either the dynamic requirements specified in paragraphs
(a)and
(b)of that section or the calculation requirement. Trimark then asked a series of questions regarding the calculation. What is the definition of the calculation? As explained in the NPRM and presented in the proposed regulatory text, the agency uses the SAE J 839 definition for the calculation. This is consistent with the current FMVSS No. 206 requirements. Trimark further asked if a computer simulation could be used, and could a pulse be applied in the simulation as it is in the dynamic requirement? As explained above, FMVSS test procedures specify the procedures that will be used by the agency to determine if a motor vehicle complies with the appropriate requirements. We understand Trimark's questions regarding the computer simulation to refer to a simulation of the dynamic requirements. If using reasonable care, Trimark relies on modeling to certify to the dynamic test, it may do so. However, if Trimark were to certify to the dynamic test, the agency would perform the appropriate dynamic test as specified in the standard to determine if a vehicle complies. Trimark noted that in the NPRM the agency referenced a comprehensive plan to address vehicle rollover. Trimark asked if the plan was subject for public review. In June 2003 the agency released the report, “Initiatives to Address the Mitigation of Vehicle Rollover.” This report is available at *http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca/capubs/IPTRolloverMitigationReport/* . Trimark also noted that the agency stated that we developed test procedures for door closure and operability requirements, but that these tests need to be validated before issuing a separate notice. Trimark asked if these test procedures are available for public review. The agency has not yet proposed door closure and operability requirements. Therefore, test procedures have not been published for review and comment in a notice of proposed rulemaking. Research results for the test procedures can be reviewed in Docket NHTSA-2004-19840. VI. Costs, Benefits, and the Effective Date This document adds and updates test procedures for door latches. We believe that only one of these, a new sliding door test procedure for FMVSS No. 206, will add costs to vehicles and provide quantifiable benefits for consumers. The agency determined that, aside from sliding doors that require the addition of a second latch in order to comply with the requirements as tested under the procedure adopted in the final rule, the current fleet complies with the final rule adopted today. Further, manufacturers failed to provide any data which indicates that non-compliant vehicles will need significant changes or extended timing to come into compliance with the proposed upgrades. The average annual ejections through sliding doors from 1995-2003 resulted in 20 fatalities and 30 injuries. When an occupant is retained in a vehicle and the ejection is eliminated, it does not necessarily mean that the occupant escapes injury. When all vehicles with sliding doors meet this proposal, annually an estimated 7 fatalities and 4 occupants with serious to severe injuries will be reduced in severity to minor injuries (AIS 1) as a result of remaining inside the vehicle. There were almost 1.4 million vans with sliding doors sold in 2003. The total number of sliding doors (more than 2 million) of these vans is higher because some of the vans have two sliding doors. The sliding door requirement, as tested according to the new test procedure, essentially requires sliding doors to have two latches. An estimated 1.2 million sliding doors (60%) on 660,000 vans (48%) need a second latch to comply. Most of the affected vans have two sliding doors. The incremental cost of adding a second latch is estimated to average $7.00 per door. Total costs are estimated at $8.4 million (in 2003 economics). The Alliance requested that manufacturers be permitted to comply with the final rule according to a phase-in schedule consistent with that proposed by the agency for the side impact upgrade (69 FR 27990; May 17, 2004; Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17694). The Alliance stated that vehicles which will require the addition of a second latch would require major structural modifications to the B-pillars and doors to accommodate a two-latch design. After considering the comments, the agency has decided to establish an effective date of September 1, 2009. Optional early compliance is permitted immediately. This provides manufacturers adequate time to make the necessary design changes. We do not believe it would be appropriate to tie the effective date for this rule with that of the side impact upgrade, since that would result in unnecessary delay in obtaining the benefits from this rule. The tests for the two rulemakings are very different, and the test for this rule is not a dynamic crash test. As mentioned above, the majority of vehicles already comply with the proposed upgrades of this rulemaking, and those not currently complying should not need significant changes to come into compliance. VII. Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Vehicle Safety Act Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, *Motor Vehicle Safety* (49 U.S.C. 30101 *et seq.* ), the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for prescribing motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms. 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). When prescribing such standards, the Secretary must consider all relevant, available motor vehicle safety information. 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). The Secretary must also consider whether a proposed standard is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed and the extent to which the standard will further the statutory purpose of reducing traffic accidents and associated deaths. *Id.* Responsibility for promulgation of Federal motor vehicle safety standards was subsequently delegated to NHTSA. 49 U.S.C. 105 and 322; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. The agency carefully considered these statutory requirements in adopting these amendments to FMVSS Nos. 206. The amendments to FMVSS No. 206 will be practicable. This document does not adopt significant changes to the current requirements of FMVSS No. 206. With regard to the sliding door requirement tested according to the new test procedure, 40 percent of current sliding doors already would comply. Additionally, the amendments harmonize the U.S. requirements with the global technical regulation. These amendments are appropriate for the vehicles subject to the requirements. Today's final rule continues to exclude vehicle doors for which the requirements and test procedures are impractical or unnecessary ( *e.g.* , folding doors, roll-up-doors). Finally, the agency has determined that the amendments provide objective procedures for determining compliance. The test procedures have been evaluated by the agency, and we have determined that they produce repeatable and reproducible results. The sliding door load test procedure and the inertial test procedure have also been evaluated by the international automotive community, which has determined them to be practicable. Further, we are adopting test procedures to provide additional objectivity to existing requirements. B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1)Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2)Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3)Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4)Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, but is significant due to public interest in the issues. Therefore, this document was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This document amends 49 CFR Part 571.206 by adding new performance requirements for hinged side doors and a new compliance test procedure for side sliding doors. These requirements must be met by vehicle manufacturers. The reason for Federal regulation is that consumers do not have any practical way of obtaining information relating to the strength and safety of sliding doors. The cost of modifications for sliding doors with one latch is estimated to be $7.00 per door, for a total cost to the entire fleet of approximately $8.4 million (2003 dollars). For a further explanation of the estimated costs, see the Final Regulatory Evaluation provided in the docket for this rule. C. Executive Order 13132 NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rule does not have federalism implications because the rule does not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect of today's rule. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at least two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemptive provision: “When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command that preempts State law, not today's rulemaking, so consultation would be inappropriate. In addition to the express preemption noted above, the Supreme Court has also recognized that State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes their State requirements unenforceable. *See Geier* v. *American Honda Motor Co.* , 529 U.S. 861 (2000). NHTSA has not outlined such potential State requirements in today's rulemaking, however, in part because such conflicts can arise in varied contexts, but it is conceivable that such a conflict may become clear through subsequent experience with today's standard and test regime. NHTSA may opine on such conflicts in the future, if warranted. *See id.* at 883-86. D. Executive Order 13045 Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rulemaking that:
(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and
(2)concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us. This rulemaking is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866. E. Executive Order 12988 With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1)Clearly specifies the preemptive effect;
(2)clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation;
(3)provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4)clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any;
(5)adequately defines key terms; and
(7)addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement. Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive effect of this rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court. F. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* , as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( *i.e.* , small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. I certify that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following is the agency's statement providing the factual basis for the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The final rule directly affects motor vehicle manufacturers and business that design and manufacture door latch systems. According to the Small Business Administration's small business size standards (see 5 CFR 121.201), a motor vehicle manufacturer (NAICS code 336111, Automobile Manufacturing) must have 1000 or fewer employees to qualify as a small business. A business that designs and manufacturers door latch systems (NAICS code 336399, All Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing) must have 750 or fewer employees to qualify as a small business. There are four motor vehicle manufacturers in the United States which would qualify as a small business for the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. None of these manufacturers make vehicles with sliding doors. Vehicle manufacturers typically have their door latches designed and produced by wholly-owned subsidiaries, and would not be small businesses for the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Accordingly, there are very few independent vehicle door latch manufacturers. G. National Environmental Policy Act We have analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it does not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment. H. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The final rule does not contain any new information collection requirements. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 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) directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. No voluntary consensus standards were used in developing the requirements because no voluntary standards exist that address the subject of this rulemaking. However, the SAE Recommended Practice J934, September 1998, *Vehicle Passenger Door Hinge Systems* and SAE Recommended Practice J839, September 1998, *Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems* continue to be incorporated by reference in the regulatory text. J. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. The final rule will not impose any unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This rulemaking does not meet the definition of a Federal mandate because it would not result in costs of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation with a base year of 1995 or 116 million in 2003 dollars) or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, this rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. K. Regulation Identifier Number
(RIN)The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN)to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda. L. 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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements, and Tires. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR 571.206 as follows: PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 2. Section 571.206 is amended by:
(a)Revising S1; S2; the definitions of “auxiliary door latch,” “back door,” “fork-bolt,” “primary door latch,” “side front door,” “side rear door,” and “trunk lid” in S3; S4 through S4.1.1.3; S4.1.2; S4.2 through S4.2.1.2; S4.2.2; S4.3; S5.1 through S5.1.1.2; S5.1.2; S5.2; S5.2.1; S5.2.2; Figure 1; and
(b)Adding “auxiliary door latch system,” “body member,” “door closure warning system,” “door hinge system,” “door latch system,” “door member,” “door system,” “double door,” “folding door,” “fork-bolt opening direction,” “fully-latched position,” “hinge,” “hinge pin,” “latch,” “primary door latch system,” “secondary latched position,” “striker,” to the definitions in S3; S4.1.1.4; S4.1.2.1 through S4.1.2.3; S4.2.1.3; S4.2.2.1; S4.2.2.2; S4.3.1; S4.3.2; S5; S5.1.1.3; S5.1.1.4; S5.1.2.1 through S5.1.2.4; S5.2.1.1 through S5.2.1.4; S5.2.2.1 through S5.2.2.4; S5.3; Figures 2 through 4; Table 1; Figures 5 through 9; and
(c)Removing “cargo-type door” and “fork-bolt opening” from the definitions in S3, S4.1.3, S4.1.3.1, S4.4 through S4.5, and S5.4 through S5.5, to read as follows: § 571.206 Standard 206; Door locks and door retention components. S1. *Scope and Purpose.* This standard specifies requirements for vehicle door locks and door retention components, including latches, hinges, and other supporting means, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being ejected from a vehicle as a result of impact. S2. *Application.* This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR)of 4,536 kg or less. S3. *Definitions.* *Auxiliary Door Latch* is a latch equipped with a fully latched position, with or without a secondary latched position, and fitted to a door or door system equipped with a primary door latch system. *Auxiliary Door Latch System* consists of door latches and strikers other than those associated with the primary door latch system. *Back Door* is a door or door system on the back end of a motor vehicle through which passengers can enter or depart the vehicle or cargo can be loaded or unloaded. It does not include:
(a)A trunk lid; or
(b)A door or window composed entirely of glazing material and whose latches and/or hinge systems are attached directly to the glazing material. *Body Member* is that portion of the hinge normally affixed to the body structure. *Door Closure Warning System* is a system that will activate a visual signal when a door latch system is not in its fully latched position and the vehicle ignition is activated. *Door Hinge System* is one or more hinges used to support a door. *Door Latch System* consists of latches and strikers installed on a door system. *Door Member* is that portion of the hinge normally affixed to the door structure and constituting the swinging member. *Door System* is the door, latch, striker, hinges, sliding track combinations and other door retention components on a door and its surrounding doorframe. The door system of a double door includes both doors. *Double Door* is a system of two doors where the front door or wing door opens first and connects to the rear door or bolted door, which opens second. *Folding Door* is a movable barrier, which will close off an entranceway to a bus, multipurpose passenger vehicle or truck, consisting of two or more hinge panels that swing, slide, or rotate; does not have a striker and latch assembly. *Fork-bolt* is the part of the latch that engages and retains the striker when in a latched position. *Fork-bolt Opening Direction* is the direction opposite to that in which the striker enters the latch to engage the fork-bolt. *Fully Latched Position* is the coupling condition of the latch that retains the door in a completely closed position. *Hinge* is a device system used to position the door relative to the body structure and control the path of the door swing for passenger ingress and egress. *Hinge Pin* is that portion of the hinge normally interconnecting the body and door members and establishing the swing axis. *Latch* is a device employed to maintain the door in a closed position relative to the vehicle body with provisions for deliberate release (or operation). *Primary Door Latch* is a latch equipped with both a fully latched position and a secondary latched position and is designated as a “primary door latch” by the manufacturer. *Primary Door Latch System* consists of a primary door latch(s) and a striker(s). *Secondary Latched Position* refers to the coupling condition of the latch that retains the door in a partially closed position. *Side Front Door* is a door that, in a side view, has 50 percent or more of its opening area forward of the rearmost point on the driver's seat back, when the seat back is adjusted to its most vertical and rearward position. *Side Rear Door* is a door that, in a side view, has 50 percent or more of its opening area to the rear of the rearmost point on the driver's seat back, when the driver's seat is adjusted to its most vertical and rearward position. *Striker* is a device with which the latch engages to maintain the door in the fully latched or secondary latched position. *Trunk Lid* is a movable body panel that provides access from outside the vehicle to a space wholly partitioned from the occupant compartment by a permanently attached partition or fixed or fold-down seat back. S4. *Requirements.* The requirements apply to all side and back doors, that lead directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations and the associated door components, except for those on folding doors, roll-up doors, detachable doors, and on bus doors used only for emergency egress purposes and labeled accordingly. S4.1 *Hinged Doors* S4.1.1 *Primary and Auxiliary Door Latch Systems.* Each hinged door system shall be equipped with at least one primary door latch system. By the time a vehicle is certified a manufacturer shall designate the door latch system(s) that is the “primary door latch system(s).” Upon certification, a manufacturer may not thereafter alter the designation of a primary door latch system. Each manufacturer shall, upon request from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, provide information regarding such designation. S4.1.1.1 *Load Test One.*
(a)Each primary door latch system and auxiliary door latch system, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of 11,000 N is applied in the direction perpendicular to the face of the latch such that the latch and the striker anchorage are not compressed against each other, when tested in accordance with S5.1.1.1.
(b)When in the secondary latched position, the primary door latch system shall not separate when a load of 4,500 N is applied in the same direction specified in paragraph
(a)of this section when tested in accordance with S5.1.1.1. S4.1.1.2 *Load Test Two.*
(a)Each primary door latch system and auxiliary door latch system, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of 9,000 N is applied in the fork-bolt opening direction and parallel to the face of the latch, when tested in accordance with S5.1.1.2.
(b)When in the secondary latched position, the primary door latch system shall not separate when a load of 4,500 N is applied in the same direction specified in paragraph
(a)of this section when tested in accordance with S5.1.1.2. S4.1.1.3 *Load Test Three.* (Applicable only to back doors that open in a vertical direction). Each primary door latch system on back doors, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of 9,000 N is applied in a direction orthogonal to the directions specified in S4.1.1.1 and S4.1.1.2 when tested in accordance with S5.1.1.3. S4.1.1.4 *Inertial Load.* Each primary door latch system and auxiliary door latch system shall meet either the dynamic requirements specified in paragraphs
(a)and
(b)of S4.1.1.4 or the calculation of inertial load resistance specified in paragraph
(c)of S4.1.1.4.
(a)Each primary door latch and auxiliary door latch on each hinged door shall not disengage from the fully latched position when an inertia load is applied to the door latch system, including the latch and its activation device, in the directions parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal and transverse axes with the locking device disengaged, when tested as specified in S5.1.1.4(b).
(b)Each primary door latch and auxiliary door latch on each hinged back door shall also not disengage from the fully latched position when an inertia load is applied to the door latch system, including the latch and its activation device, in the direction parallel to the vehicle's vertical axis with the locking device disengaged, when tested as specified in S5.1.1.4(b).
(c)Each component or subassembly is calculated for its minimum inertial load resistance in a particular direction. The combined resistance to the unlatching operation must assure that the door latch system, when properly assembled in the vehicle door, will remain latched when subjected to an inertial load of 30 g in the vehicle directions specified in paragraph
(a)of this section or paragraph
(b)of this section, as applicable, when calculated in accordance with S5.1.1.4 (a). S4.1.2 *Door Hinges.* S4.1.2.1 When tested in accordance with S5.1.2, each door hinge system shall:
(a)Support the door,
(b)Not separate when a longitudinal load of 11,000 N is applied,
(c)Not separate when a transverse load of 9,000 N is applied, and
(d)For back doors,
(1)Not separate when a load of 11,000 N is applied perpendicular to the hinge face plate (longitudinal load test) such that the hinge plates are not compressed against each other (Load Test One).
(2)Not separate when a load of 9,000 N is applied perpendicular to the axis of the hinge pin and parallel to the hinge face plate (transverse load test) such that the hinge plates are not compressed against each other (Load Test Two).
(3)Not separate when a load of 9,000 N is applied in the direction of the axis of the hinge pin (Load Test Three—only for back doors that open in a vertical direction). S4.1.2.2 If a single hinge within the hinge system is tested instead of the entire hinge system, the hinge must bear a load proportional to the total number of hinges in the hinge system. (For example, an individual hinge in a two-hinge system must be capable of withstanding 50% of the load requirements of the total system.) S4.1.2.3 On side doors with rear mounted hinges that can be operated independently of other doors,
(a)The interior door handle shall be inoperative when the speed of the vehicle is greater than or equal to 4 km/h, and
(b)A door closure warning system shall be provided for those doors. The door closure warning system shall be located where it can be clearly seen by the driver. S4.2 *Sliding Side Doors.* S4.2.1 *Latch System.* Each sliding door system shall be equipped with either:
(a)At least one primary door latch system, or
(b)A door latch system with a fully latched position and a door closure warning system. The door closure warning system shall be located where it can be clearly seen by the driver. Upon certification a manufacturer may not thereafter alter the designation of a primary latch. Each manufacturer shall, upon request from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, provide information regarding such designation. S4.2.1.1 *Load Test One.*
(a)At least one door latch system, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of 11,000 N is applied in the direction perpendicular to the face of the latch such that the latch and the striker anchorage are not compressed against each other, when tested in accordance with S5.2.1.1.
(b)In the case of a primary door latch system, when in the secondary latched position, the door latch system shall not separate when a load of 4,500 N is applied in the same direction specified in paragraph
(a)of this section when tested in accordance with S5.2.1.1. S4.2.1.2 *Load Test Two.*
(a)At least one door latch system, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of 9,000 N is applied in the fork-bolt opening direction and parallel to the face of the latch when tested in accordance with S5.2.1.2.
(b)In the case of a primary door latch system, when in the secondary latched position, the door latch system shall not separate when a load of 4,500 N is applied in the same direction specified in paragraph
(a)of this section when tested in accordance with S5.2.1.2. S4.2.1.3 *Inertial Load.* Each door latch system certified as meeting the requirements of S4.2.1.1 and S4.2.1.2 shall meet either the dynamic requirements specified in paragraph
(a)of this section or the calculation of inertial load resistance specified in paragraph
(b)of this section.
(a)The door latch system shall not disengage from the fully latched position when an inertial load is applied to the door latch system, including the latch and its activation mechanism, in the directions parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal and transversal axes with the locking mechanism disengaged, and when tested in accordance with S5.1.1.4(b).
(b)The minimum inertial load resistance can be calculated for each component or subassembly. Their combined resistance to the unlatching operation must assure that the door latch system, when properly assembled in the vehicle door, will remain latched when subjected to an inertia load of 30 g in the vehicle directions specified in paragraph
(a)of this section, when calculated in accordance with S5.1.1.4(a). S4.2.2 *Door System.* S4.2.2.1 The track and slide combination or other supporting means for each sliding door, while in the closed fully latched position, shall not separate from the door frame when a total force of 18,000 N along the vehicle transverse axis is applied to the door as specified in S5.2.2. S4.2.2.2 When a sliding door system is tested in accordance with S5.2.2, the following conditions shall not occur:
(a)A separation which permits a sphere with a diameter of 100 mm to pass unobstructed between the exterior of the vehicle to the interior of the vehicle, while the required force is maintained as shown in Figure 1.
(b)Either force application device reaches a total displacement of 300 mm. S4.3 *Door Locks.* Each door shall be equipped with at least one locking device which, when engaged, shall prevent operation of the exterior door handle or other exterior latch release control and which has an operating means and a lock release/engagement device located within the interior of the vehicle. S4.3.1 *Rear side doors.* Each rear side door shall be equipped with at least one locking device which has a lock release/engagement mechanism located within the interior of the vehicle and readily accessible to the driver of the vehicle or an occupant seated adjacent to the door, and which, when engaged, prevents operation of the interior door handle or other interior latch release control and requires separate actions to unlock the door and operate the interior door handle or other interior latch release control. S4.3.2 *Back doors.* Each back door equipped with an interior door handle or other interior latch release control, shall be equipped with at least one locking device that meets the requirements of S4.3.1. S5 *Test Procedures.* S5.1 *Hinged Doors.* S5.1.1 *Primary and Auxiliary Door Latches.* S5.1.1.1 *Load Test One Force Application.* The test procedures for S4.1.1.1 and S4.2.1.1 are as follows:
(a)*Fully latched position.*
(1)Attach the test fixture shown in Figure 2 to the mounting provisions of the latch and striker. Align the direction of engagement parallel to the linkage of the fixture. Mount the fixture with latch and striker in the fully latched position in the test machine so as to apply a load perpendicular to the face of the latch.
(2)Locate weights so as to apply a 900 N load tending to separate the latch and striker in the direction of the latch opening.
(3)Apply the test load, in the direction specified in S4.1.1.1 and Figure 5, at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Record the maximum load achieved.
(b)*Secondary Latched Position.*
(1)Attach the test fixture shown in Figure 2 to the mounting provisions of the latch and striker. Align the direction of engagement parallel to the linkage of the fixture. Mount the fixture with latch and striker in the secondary position in the test machine so as to apply a load perpendicular to the face of the latch.
(2)Locate weights so as to apply a 900 N load tending to separate the latch and striker in the direction of the latch opening.
(3)Apply the test load, in the direction specified in S4.1.1.1 and Figure 5, at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Record maximum load achieved.
(4)The test plate to which the door latch is mounted will have a striker cut-out configuration similar to the environment in which the door latch will be mounted on normal vehicle doors. S5.1.1.2 *Load Test Two Force Application.* The test procedures for S4.1.1.2 and S4.2.1.2 are as follows:
(a)*Fully Latched Position.*
(1)Adapt the test fixture shown in Figure 3 to the mounting provisions of the latch and striker. Mount the fixture with latch and striker in the fully latched position in the test machine so to apply a load in the direction of latch opening.
(2)Apply the test load, in the direction specified in S4.1.1.2 and Figure 5, at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Record the maximum load achieved.
(b)*Secondary Latched Position.*
(1)Adapt the test fixture shown in Figure 3 to the mounting provisions of the latch and striker. Mount the fixture with latch and striker in the secondary latched position in the test machine so as to apply a load in the direction of latch opening.
(2)Apply the test load, in the direction specified in S4.1.1.2 and Figure 5, at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Record the maximum load achieved. S5.1.1.3 *Load Test Three Force Application.* The test procedures for S4.1.1.3 are as follows:
(a)Adapt the test fixture shown in Figure 4 to the mounting provisions of the latch and striker. Mount the fixture with latch and striker in the fully latched position in the test machine so as to apply a load in the direction specified in S4.1.1.3 and Figure 5.
(b)Apply the test load, in the direction specified in S4.1.1.3 and Figure 5, at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Record the maximum load required. S5.1.1.4 *Inertial Force Application.* The test procedures for S4.1.1.4 and S4.2.1.3 are as follows:
(a)*Calculation.* The calculation is performed in accordance with paragraph 6 of Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J839, *Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems,* June 1991.
(b)*Dynamic Test.* The dynamic inertial force application is tested according to the setup specified in paragraph
(1)or
(2)of this section.
(1)*Test Setup and Directions for Full Vehicle Test.*
(i)Test Setup.
(A)Rigidly secure the full vehicle to an acceleration device that, when accelerated together, will assure that all points on the crash pulse curve are within the corridor defined in Table 1 and Figure 6.
(B)Install the equipment used to record door opening (doors may be tethered to avoid damaging the recording equipment).
(C)Close the door(s) to be tested and ensure that the door latch(es) is in the fully-latched position, that the door(s) is unlocked, and that all windows, if provided, on the door(s) are closed.
(ii)Test Directions. (See Figure 7)
(A)Longitudinal Setup 1. Orient the vehicle so that its longitudinal axis is aligned with the axis of the acceleration device, simulating a frontal impact.
(B)Longitudinal Setup 2. Orient the vehicle so that its longitudinal axis is aligned with the axis of the acceleration device, simulating a rear impact.
(C)Transverse Setup 1. Orient the vehicle so that its transverse axis is aligned with the axis of the acceleration device, simulating a driver-side impact.
(D)Transverse Setup 2. (Only for vehicles having different door arrangements on each side.) Orient the vehicle so that its transverse axis is aligned with the axis of the acceleration device, simulating a side impact in the direction opposite to that described in b(1)(ii)(C) of this paragraph.
(2)*Test Setup and Directions for Door Test.*
(i)Test Setup.
(A)Mount the door assemblies, consisting of at least the door latch(es), exterior door handle(s) with mechanical latch operation, interior door opening lever(s), and locking device(s), either separately or combined to a test fixture. Each door and striker is mounted to the test fixture to correspond to its orientation on the vehicle and to the directions specified in b(1)(ii) of this paragraph.
(B)Mount the test fixture to the acceleration device, and install the equipment used to record door opening.
(C)Ensure that the door latch is in the fully-latched position, that the door is tethered and unlocked, and that any windows are closed.
(ii)Test Directions. (See Figure 7)
(A)Longitudinal Setup 1. Orient the door subsystem(s) on the acceleration device in the direction of a frontal impact.
(B)Longitudinal Setup 2. Orient the door subsystem(s) on the acceleration device in the direction of a rear impact.
(C)Transverse Setup 1. Orient the door subsystem(s) on the acceleration device in the direction of a driver-side impact.
(D)Transverse Setup 2. Orient the door subsystem(s) on the acceleration device in the direction opposite to that described in (b)(2)(ii)(C) of this paragraph.
(E)Vertical Setup 1 (applicable only to back doors that open in a vertical direction). Orient the door subsystem(s) on the acceleration device so that its vertical axis (when mounted in the vehicle) is aligned with the axis of the acceleration device, simulating a rollover impact where the force is applied in the direction from the top to the bottom of the door (when mounted in a vehicle).
(F)Vertical Setup 2 (applicable only to back doors that open in a vertical direction). Orient the door subsystem(s) on the acceleration device so that its vertical axis (when mounted in the vehicle) is aligned with the axis of the acceleration device, simulating a rollover impact where the force is applied in the direction opposite to that described in (b)(2)(ii)(E) of this paragraph.
(3)*Test Operation.*
(i)The acceleration device platform shall be instrumented with an accelerometer and data processing system that conforms to the requirements specified in Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE)Recommended Practice J211 December 2003, “Instrumentation for Impact Test—Part 1—Electronic Instrumentation”, Channel Class 60. The accelerometer sensitive axis is parallel to the direction of test platform travel.
(ii)Maintaining a minimum acceleration level of 30 g for a period of at least 30 ms, while keeping the recorded acceleration within the pulse corridor defined in Table 1 and Figure 6, accelerate the acceleration device in the following directions:
(A)For Full Vehicle Tests, in the directions specified in S5.1.1.4(b)(1)(ii)(A) through S5.1.1.4(b)(1)(ii)(D).
(B)For Door Tests, in the directions specified in S5.1.1.4(b)(2)(ii)(A) through S5.1.1.4(b)(2)(ii)(F).
(iii)Check recording device for door opening and/or closure during the test.
(iv)If at any point in time, the pulse exceeds 36 g and the test specifications are met, the test shall be considered valid. S5.1.2 *Door Hinges.* The test procedures for S4.1.2 are as follows: S5.1.2.1 Multiple Hinge Evaluation; S5.1.2.1.1 *Longitudinal Load Test.*
(a)Attach the test fixture illustrated in Figure 8 to the mounting provisions of the hinge system. Hinge attitude is configured to simulate vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge centerline. For test purposes, the distance between the extreme end of one hinge in the system to the extreme end of another hinge in the system is to be set at 406 mm ± 4 mm. The load is to be applied equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions of the hinge pins and through the centerline of the hinge pin in the longitudinal vehicle direction (see Figure 8).
(b)Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Record maximum load achieved. S5.1.2.1.2 *Transverse Load Test*
(a)Attach the test fixture shown in Figure 8 to the mounting provisions of the hinge system. Hinge attitude is configured to simulate vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge centerline. For test purposes, the distance between the extreme end of one hinge in the system to the extreme opposite end of another hinge in the system is to be set at 406 mm ± 4 mm. The load is to be applied equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions of the hinge pins and through the centerline of the hinge pin in the transverse vehicle direction (see Figure 8).
(b)Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Record maximum load achieved. S5.1.2.2 *Back Door Hinge Load Test*
(a)Load Test One
(1)Attach the test fixture illustrated in Figure 8 to the mounting provisions of the hinge system. Hinge attitude is configured to simulate vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge centerline. For test purposes, the distance between the extreme end of one hinge system in the system to the extreme opposite end of another hinge system is to be set at 406 ± 4 mm. The load is to be applied equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions of the hinge pins and through the centerline of the hinge pin, and as specified in S4.1.2.1(d)(1). (See Figure 9).
(2)Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Failure consists of a separation of either hinge. Record the maximum load achieved.
(b)Load Test Two
(1)Attach the test fixture illustrated in Figure 8 to the mounting provisions of the hinge system. Hinge attitude is configured to simulate vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge centerline. For test purposes, the distance between the extreme end of one hinge system in the system to the extreme opposite end of another hinge system is to be set at 406 ± 4 mm. The load is to be applied equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions of the hinge pins and through the centerline of the hinge pin, and as specified in S4.1.2.1(d)(2). (See Figure 9).
(2)Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Failure consists of a separation of either hinge. Record the maximum load achieved.
(c)Load Test Three
(1)Attach the test fixture illustrated in Figure 8 to the mounting provisions of the hinge system. Hinge attitude is configured to simulate vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge centerline. For test purposes, the distance between the extreme end of one hinge system in the system to the extreme opposite end of another hinge system is to be set at 406 ± 4 mm. The load is to be applied through the centerline of the hinge pin, and as specified in S4.1.2.1(d)(3). (See Figure 9).
(2)Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Failure consists of a separation of either hinge. Record the maximum load achieved. S5.1.2.3 *Single Hinge Evaluation.* Individual hinges of a hinge system are tested in accordance with the procedures below:
(a)*Longitudinal Load.* Attach the test fixture illustrated in Figure 8 to the mounting provisions of the hinge. Hinge attitude is configured to simulate the vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge centerline. For test purposes, the load is to be applied equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions of the hinge pin and through the centerline of the hinge pin in the longitudinal vehicle direction. Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Failure consists of a separation of either hinge. Record maximum load achieved.
(b)*Transverse Load.* Attach the test fixture illustrated in Figure 8 to the mounting provisions of the hinge. Hinge attitude is configured to simulate the vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge centerline. For test purposes, the load is to be applied equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions of the hinge pin and through the centerline of the hinge pin in the transverse vehicle direction. Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Failure consists of a separation of either hinge. Record maximum load achieved.
(c)*Back Door Hinge Load Tests.*
(1)Load Test One. Attach the test fixture illustrated in Figure 8 to the mounting provisions of the hinge. Hinge attitude is configured to simulate the vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge centerline. For test purposes, the load is to be applied equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions of the hinge pin and through the centerline of the hinge pin, and as specified in S4.1.2.1(d)(1). (See Figure 9). Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Failure consists of a separation of either hinge. Record maximum load achieved.
(2)Load Test Two. Attach the test fixture illustrated in Figure 8 to the mounting provisions of the hinge. Hinge attitude is configured to simulate the vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge centerline. For test purposes, the load is to be applied equidistant between the linear center of the engaged portions of the hinge pin and through the centerline of the hinge pin, and as specified in S4.1.2.1(d)(2). (See Figure 9). Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Failure consists of a separation of either hinge. Record maximum load achieved.
(3)Load Test Three. Attach the test fixture illustrated in Figure 8 to the mounting provisions of the hinge. Hinge attitude is configured to simulate the vehicle position (door fully closed) relative to the hinge centerline. For test purposes, the load is to be applied through the centerline of the hinge pin, and as specified in S4.1.2.1(d)(3). (See Figure 9). Apply the test load at a rate not to exceed 5 mm/min until the required load has been achieved. Failure consists of a separation of either hinge. Record maximum load achieved. S5.1.2.4 For piano-type hinges, the hinge spacing requirements are not applicable and arrangement of the test fixture is altered so that the test forces are applied to the complete hinge. S5.2 *Sliding Side Doors.* S5.2.1 *Door Latches.* S5.2.1.1 *Load Test One Force Application.* The requirements of S4.2.1.1 are tested in accordance with the procedures specified in S5.1.1.1. S5.2.1.2 *Load Test Two Force Application.* The requirements of S4.2.1.2 are tested in accordance with the procedures specified in S5.1.1.2. S5.2.1.3 [Reserved.] S5.2.1.4 [Reserved.] S5.2.2 *Door System.* The test procedures for S4.2.2 are as follows: S5.2.2.1 Tests are conducted using a full vehicle with the sliding door and its retention components. S5.2.2.2 The test is conducted using two force application devices capable of applying the outward transverse forces specified in S5.2.2.4. The test setup is shown in Figure 10. The force application system shall include the following:
(a)Two force application plates,
(b)Two force application devices capable of applying the outward transverse load requirements for a minimum displacement of 300 mm.
(c)Two load cells of sufficient capacity to measure the applied loads specified in S5.2.2.4.
(d)Two linear displacement measurement devices required for measuring force application device displacement during the test.
(e)Equipment to measure for a 100 mm separation as specified in S4.2.2.2(a), while respecting all relevant safety and health requirements. S5.2.2.3 *Test Setup.*
(a)Remove all interior trim and decorative components from the sliding door assembly.
(b)Remove seats and any interior components that may interfere with the mounting and operation of the test equipment and all pillar trim and any non-structural components that overlap the door and cause improper placement of the force application plates.
(c)Each force application device and associated support structure is rigidly fixed on a horizontal surface on the vehicle floor, while applying the loads.
(d)Determine the forward and aft edge of the sliding door, or its adjoining vehicle structure, that contains a latch/striker.
(e)Close the sliding door, ensuring that all door retention components are fully engaged.
(f)For any tested door edge that contains one latch/striker, the following set-up procedures are used: (1)(i) The force application plate is 150 mm in length, 50 mm in width, and at least 15 mm in thickness. The plate edges are rounded to a radius of 6 mm ± 1 mm.
(ii)The plates are rigidly fixed perpendicular to the force application devices to maintain the displacement of the force application plate in the transverse direction. The plates allow for longitudinal rotation with respect to the vehicle's centerline axis. The plates do not allow for rotation in the vehicle's transverse direction.
(2)Place the force application device and force application plate against the door so that the applied force is perpendicular to the vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and vertically centered on the door-mounted portion of the latch/striker.
(3)The force application plate is positioned such that the long edge of the plate is as close to the edge of the interior edge of the door as possible, but not such that the forward edge of plate is more than 12.5 mm from the interior edge.
(g)For any tested door edge that contains more than one latch/striker, the following setup procedures are used: (1)(i) The force application plate is 300 mm in length, 50 mm in width, and at least 15 mm in thickness. The plate edges are rounded to a radius of 6 mm ± 1 mm.
(ii)The plates are rigidly fixed perpendicular to the force application devices to maintain the displacement of the force application plate in the transverse direction. The plates allow for longitudinal rotation with respect to the vehicle's centerline axis. The plates do not allow for rotation in the vehicle's transverse direction.
(2)Place the force application device and force application plate against the door so that the applied force is perpendicular to the vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and vertically centered on a point mid-way between the outermost edges of the latch/striker assemblies.
(3)The force application plate is positioned such that the long edge of the plate is as close to the edge of the interior edge of the door as possible, but not such that the forward edge of plate is more than 12.5 mm from the interior edge.
(h)For any tested door edge that does not contain at least one latch/striker, the following set-up procedures are used: (1)(i) The force application plate is 300 mm in length, 50 mm in width, and at least 15 mm in thickness. The plate edges are rounded to a radius of 6 mm ± 1 mm.
(ii)The plates are rigidly fixed perpendicular to the force application devices to maintain the displacement of the force application plate in the transverse direction. The plates allow for longitudinal rotation with respect to the vehicle's centerline axis. The plates do not allow for rotation in the vehicle's transverse direction.
(2)Place the force application device and force application plate against the door so that the applied force is perpendicular to the vertical longitudinal plane that passes through the vehicle's longitudinal centerline, and vertically centered on a point mid-way along the length of the door edge ensuring that the loading device avoids contact with the window glazing.
(3)The force application plate is positioned such that the long edge of the plate is as close to the edge of the interior edge of the door as possible, but not such that the forward edge of plate is more than 12.5 mm from the interior edge.
(i)The door is unlocked. No extra fixtures or components may be welded or affixed to the sliding door or any of its components.
(j)Place the load application structure so that the force application plates are in contact with the interior of the sliding door.
(k)Apply a preload of 500 N to each actuator and “zero” the displacement measuring device. S5.2.2.4 *Test Procedure.*
(a)Move each force application device at any rate up to 2000 N per minute until a force of 9,000 N is achieved on each force application device or until either force application device reaches a total displacement of 300 mm.
(b)If one of the force application devices reaches the target force of 9,000 N prior to the other, maintain the 9,000 N force with that force application device until the second force application device reaches the 9,000 N force.
(c)Once both force application devices have achieved 9,000 N each hold the resulting load.
(d)Maintain each force application device load as specified in paragraph
(c)and within 30 seconds measure the separation between the exterior edge of the doorframe and the interior of the door along the perimeter of the door. S5.3 [Reserved]. BILLING CODE 4910-59-P EP06FE07.006 EP06FE07.007 EP06FE07.008 EP06FE07.009 EP06FE07.010 EP06FE07.011 EP06FE07.012 EP06FE07.013 EP06FE07.014 EP06FE07.015 EP06FE07.016 Issued on: January 30, 2007. Nicole R. Nason, Administrator. [FR Doc. 07-517 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 85
Traces to 85 documents
CFR
U.S. Code
70 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 10 CFR 40
  • 10 CFR 72
  • 10 CFR 74
  • 10 CFR 150
  • 68 Stat. 932
  • Pub. L. 95-604
  • 92 Stat. 3033
  • 83 Stat. 444
  • Pub. L. 86-373
  • 73 Stat. 688
  • 88 Stat. 1242
  • 92 Stat. 3021
  • Pub. L. 97-415
  • 96 Stat. 2067
  • 104 Stat. 2835
  • Pub. L. 104-134
  • 112 Stat. 2750
  • Pub. L. 95-601
  • 92 Stat. 2951
  • 68 Stat. 939
  • 68 Stat. 954
  • 68 Stat. 955
  • 68 Stat. 929
  • Pub. L. 102-486
  • 106 Stat. 3123
  • Pub. L. 91-190
  • 83 Stat. 853
  • Pub. L. 97-425
  • 96 Stat. 2229
  • Pub. L. 100-203
  • 101 Stat. 1330
  • Pub. L. 109-58
  • 119 Stat. 806
  • 96 Stat. 2230
  • 96 Stat. 2202
  • 98 Stat. 2230
  • 96 Stat. 2252
  • 68 Stat. 930
  • 106 Stat. 2951
+ 30 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Proposed rule
C.F.R.§ 74.15
C.F.R.§ 72.78
C.F.R.§ 74.19
C.F.R.§ 74.13
C.F.R.§ 51.22
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 605
C.F.R.§ 2.810
U.S.C.§ 553
SCOTUS518 U.S. 470
SCOTUS505 U.S. 504
SCOTUS529 U.S. 861
Cites 155 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.