Rules and Regulations. Notice of proposed special conditions

34,478 words·~157 min read·/register/2008/01/23/08-229

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 73 15 Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE280; Notice No. 23-07-05-SC] Special Conditions: Embraer S.A., Model EMB-500; High Fuel Temperature AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions. SUMMARY: This notice proposes special conditions for the Embraer S.A., Model EMB-500 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature(s) associated with high fuel temperature.

The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Mail comments on this proposal in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention:

Rules Docket, Docket No. CE280, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, or deliver them in duplicate to the Regional Counsel at the above address. Mark comments: CE280. You may inspect comments in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter L. Rouse, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri, 816-329-4135, fax 816-329-4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of these proposed special conditions by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Identify the regulatory docket or notice number and submit them in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The proposals described in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received.

All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. If you wish the FAA to acknowledge receipt of the comments submitted in response to this notice, include with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made:

“Comments to CE280.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Background On October 5, 2005, Embraer S.A. applied for a type certificate for their new Model EMB-500. The Model EMB-500 is a normal category, low-winged monoplane with “T” tailed vertical and horizontal stabilizers, retractable tricycle type landing gear and twin turbofan engines mounted on the aircraft fuselage. Its design characteristics include a predominance of metallic construction. The maximum takeoff weight is 9,965 pounds, the V MO /M MO is 275 KIAS/M 0.70 and maximum altitude is 41,000 feet.

Fuel temperatures on the Embraer EMB 500 are higher than envisioned by 14 CFR part 23. The rule governing fuel system hot weather operation is 14 CFR part 23, § 23.961, and the rule requires the following: Each fuel system must be free from vapor lock when using fuel at its critical temperature, with respect to vapor formation, when operating the airplane in all critical operating and environmental conditions for which approval is requested. For turbine fuel, the initial temperature must be 110 °F, −0°, +5° or the maximum outside air temperature for which approval is requested, whichever is more critical.

During other airplane certification projects, the fuel system temperatures associated with the PW600 series turbofan engines were much higher than those previously encountered on other engines. The engine oil/fuel heat fuel system includes an exchanger that cools the oil and heats the fuel. Consequently, the motive flow fuel that is returned to the airplane from the engine is hot and heats the airplane wing fuel and tank. As a result, on the PW615F, the engine inlet maximum fuel temperature was increased from a development value of 126 °F (52 °C) to an initial (Transport Canada) certification value of 172 °F (78 °C) for kerosene type fuels.

Initial concerns regarding the safe operation of the airplane with fuel temperatures significantly greater than 110 °F are identified as: • Fuel degradation with resultant byproducts at high temperatures. • Operation with the higher vapor liquid ratios. • Fuel system component qualification at the higher temperatures. • Solubility of water in fuel. • Microbial growth. • Fuel tank material/surrounding structure compatibility with the elevated temperatures. • Service and maintenance personnel susceptibility to burns.

An initial review of FAA experience regarding airplane fuel temperatures identifies that for large part 25 aircraft, fuel temperature upper limits are characterized by § 25.961 values, i.e. 110-120 °F. Operationally, the buildup of vapor pockets within fuel lines has been an issue from this perspective for large transport category airplanes. A summary of the maximum engine inlet fuel temperatures for engines used in part 23 and part 25 business jet airplanes that are FAA certified follows:

Engine model Sea level maximum inlet fuel temperature PWC615F 126 F (52 C) draft IM. PWC615F 172 F (78 C) Transport Canada. PWC615F 190 F (88 C). 530A, 535A 135 F (57 C). 545A 135 F (57 C). 305A 135 F (57 C). 308 135 F (57 C). JT15D-4, -4B, -4D 135 F (57 C). FJ44-3A 200 F (93 C). FJ44-2A 135 F (57 C). FJ44-1B 135 F (57 C). TFE731-2/-3 135 F (57 C). TFE731-20 135 F (57 C). CAR part 3, as amended to May 15, 1956, defined the maximum anticipated summer air temperatures in § 3.583;

“The maximum anticipated summer air temperature shall be considered to be 100 °F at sea level and to decrease from this value at the rate of 3.6 °F per thousand feet above sea level.” Concurrently, § 3.438 required that “* * * fuel system features conducive to vapor formation shall be demonstrated to be free from vapor lock when using fuel at a temperature of 110 °F under critical operating conditions.” Building from CAR part 3, 14 CFR part 23 envisioned maximum fuel temperatures at or near 110 °F as set forth in 14 CFR part 23, § 23.961.

The turbine fuel temperature requirement for hot weather operation is 110 −0, +5 °F, or the maximum outside air temperature for which approval is requested, whichever is more critical. Engine heat rejection such that the airplane fuel temperature is characterized by engine heat rejection rather than ambient air temperature is a new and novel design that was not envisioned by 14 CFR part 23. 14 CFR part 23 certification experience to date has shown that hot weather certification testing with 110 °F fuel temperatures is adequate for fuel system operations for fuel tank fuel temperatures characterized by ambient air temperatures including cooling as a result of the atmospheric temperature lapse rate.

Heating that increases the airplane fuel system operational temperatures introduces several fuel system concerns. Each must be shown to be acceptable. Compliance by design (i.e. lack of ability to shutoff the engine motive flow) may be utilized although associated type certificate data sheet information may also be necessary to assure future system changes are compliant. A special condition for the higher fuel system temperatures of the Embraer EMB 500 airplane is proposed. The special condition would require the compliance to 14 CFR part 23, § 23.961, fuel system hot weather operation test temperature to be commensurate with the highest fuel temperature expected at the maximum outside air temperature for which approval is requested.

Type Certification Basis Under 14 CFR part 21, § 21.17, Embraer S.A. must show that the Model EMB-500 meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 23, as amended by Amendments 23-1 through 23-55, thereto. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model EMB-500 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under § 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model EMB-500 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.

” Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued under § 11.38, and become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101(a)(1). Novel or Unusual Design Features The Model EMB-500 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

High Fuel Temperatures. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model EMB-500. Should Embraer S.A. apply later for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under § 21.101(a)(1). Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model, Model EMB-500, of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.17; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Proposed Special Conditions Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for the Embraer S.A. Model EMB-500 airplanes. 1. SC § 23.961: Instead of compliance with § 23.961, the following apply: Each fuel system must be free from vapor lock when using fuel at its critical temperature, with respect to vapor formation, when operating the airplane in all critical operating and environmental conditions for which approval is requested. For turbine fuel, the initial temperature must be the highest fuel temperature expected at the maximum outside air temperature for which approval is requested. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 7, 2008. John Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-1075 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE284; Notice No. 23-08-02-SC] Special Conditions: Embraer S.A.; Model EMB-500; Static Pressure System AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions. SUMMARY: This notice proposes special conditions for the Embraer S.A.; Model EMB-500 airplane. This airplane has a novel or unusual design feature associated with the static pressure system. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to harmonize with Brazil's Agencia Nacional de Aviacao Civil

(ASE)(difference between the pressure altitude displayed to the flightcrew when referenced to the International Standard Atmosphere

(ISA)standard ground pressure setting and free stream pressure), Static Source Error (difference between the pressure sensed by the static system at the static port and the undisturbed ambient pressure) and Static Source Error Correction

(SSEC)(correction for static source error). These parameters are essential, for example, in operation in Reduced Vertical Minimum Separation

(RVSM)airspace. This special condition for the Embraer EMB-500 airplane for the Static Pressure System, including new avionics and certain performance characteristics inherent in this type of airplane, was partially envisioned in existing regulations. This special condition contains the additional airworthiness standards that the FAA considers necessary to harmonize with ANAC and to maintain the same level of safety between the ANAC Type Certificate and the U.S. Type Certificate. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.17, Embraer S.A. must show that the EMB-500 meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 23, as amended by Amendment 23-1 through Amendment 23-55 thereto. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the EMB-500 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the EMB-500 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.” Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38 and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features The EMB-500 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The avionics system provides corrections to the altimeter indication, which introduces failure conditions not in other Static Pressure Systems. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the EMB-500. If Embraer S.A. applies at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under § 21.101. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.17; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Proposed Special Conditions Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for the Embraer S.A.; Model EMB-500 airplanes. Static Pressure System If an altimeter system is fitted with a device that provides corrections to the altimeter indication, the device must be designed and installed in such a manner that it can be bypassed when it malfunctions, unless an alternate altimeter system is provided. Each correction device must be fitted with a means for indicating occurrence of reasonably probable malfunctions, including power failure, to the flightcrew. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 15, 2008. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-1076 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE283; Notice No. 23-08-01-SC] Special Conditions: Embraer S.A.; Model EMB-500; Brakes—Designation of Applicable Regulations AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions. SUMMARY: This notice proposes special conditions for the Embraer S.A.; Model EMB-500 airplane. This airplane has a novel or unusual design feature associated with the braking system. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to harmonize with Brazil's Agencia Nacional de Aviacao Civil

(ANAC)and to maintain the same level of safety between the ANAC Type Certificate and the U.S. Type Certificate. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: Mail comments on this proposal in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket, Docket No. CE283, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, or delivered in duplicate to the Regional Counsel at the above address. Comments must be marked: CE283. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie B. Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri, 816-329-4134, fax 816-329-4090, e-mail at *leslie.b.taylor@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of these proposed special conditions by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Identify the regulatory docket or notice number and submit them in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The proposals described in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. If you wish the FAA to acknowledge receipt of the comments submitted in response to this notice, include with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. CE283.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Background On October 5, 2005, Embraer S.A. applied for a type certificate for their new Model EMB-500. The EMB-500 is a twin engine jet of a type popularly referred to as a very light jet. The airplane is proposed to be type certificated in the normal category of 14 CFR part 23 (and comparable Brazilian requirements RBHA 23). The EMB-500 is predominantly of metallic construction and is a conventionally configured low-wing monoplane with a T-tail and tricycle landing gear. The two Pratt and Whitney of Canada 1,600 pound thrust P&WC 617F/1 turbofan engines are aft fuselage mounted in typical business jet fashion. The engines are full authority digital engine control (FADEC) equipped. The airplane's maximum takeoff weight is 9,965 pounds. The VMO/MMO is 275 KIAS/M .70, with a maximum operating altitude of 41,000 feet. Requested operations are day/night VFR/IFR, and icing operations approval is requested. The FAA considers it necessary to add an additional airworthiness standard to adopt the commuter category requirement in 14 CFR 23.735(e), which the Administrator considers necessary to harmonize with ANAC and to maintain the same level of safety between the ANAC Type Certificate and the U.S. Type Certificate. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR part 21, § 21.17, Embraer S.A. must show that the EMB-500 meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 23, as amended by Amendment 23-1 through Amendment 23-55 thereto. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the EMB-500 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the EMB-500 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.” Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued under § 11.38 and become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2). Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1). Novel or Unusual Design Features The EMB-500 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The takeoff speed and takeoff distance for this jet airplane make it necessary to adopt rejected takeoff requirements. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the EMB-500. If Embraer S.A. applies at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under § 21.101(a)(1). Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.17; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Proposed Special Conditions Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for the Embraer S.A. Model EMB-500 airplanes. Brakes-Designation of Applicable Regulations. SC 23.735(e): Delete “In addition, for commuter category airplanes.” The rejected takeoff brake kinetic energy capacity rating of each main wheel brake assembly must not be less than the kinetic energy absorption requirements determined under either of the following methods. (e)(1) The brake kinetic energy absorption requirements must be based on a conservative rational analysis of the sequence of events expected during a rejected takeoff at the design takeoff weight. (e)(2) Instead of rational analysis, the kinetic energy absorption requirements for each main wheel brake assembly may be derived from the following formula— KE = 0.0443WV 2 N Where: KE =Kinetic energy per wheel (ft.-lbs.); W = Design takeoff weight (lbs.); V = Ground speed, in knots, associated with the maximum value of V 1 selected in accordance with § 23.51(c)(1); N = Number of main wheels with brakes. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on January 15, 2008. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-1077 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0042; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-26-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter Deutschland GMBH Model MBB-BK 117C-2 Helicopters AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for Eurocopter Deutschland GMBH (Eurocopter) Model MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The European Aviation Safety Agency for the Republic of Germany, with which we have a bilateral agreement, states in the MCAI: During inadvertent operation of the fire extinguishing system, in one case it occurred that one of the two injection tubes became disconnected. This condition, if not corrected, could affect the ability of the fire extinguishing system to perform its intended function in the case of activation. The inability of the fire extinguishing system to suppress an engine fire creates an unsafe condition. The proposed actions are intended to address this unsafe condition by further securing the injection tubes with improved clamps, allowing suppression of a contained engine fire, and preventing an uncontained engine fire and subsequent loss of the helicopter. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* Deliver to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Strasburger, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone

(817)222-5167, fax

(817)222-5961. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This 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-2008-0042; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-26-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 based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued an MCAI in the form of an EASA AD No. 2007-0121, dated May 3, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for this German-certificated product. The MCAI states: During inadvertent operation of the fire extinguishing system, in one case it occurred that one of the two injection tubes became disconnected. This condition, if not corrected, could affect the ability of the fire extinguishing system to perform its intended function in the case of activation. The inability of the fire extinguishing system to suppress an engine fire creates an unsafe condition. The proposed actions are intended to address this unsafe condition by further securing the injection tubes with improved clamps, allowing suppression of a contained engine fire, and preventing an uncontained engine fire and subsequent loss of the helicopter. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI and service information in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Eurocopter has issued Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C-2-26A-001, dated January 22, 2007. The actions described in the MCAI are intended to correct the same unsafe condition as that identified in the service information. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the Federal Republic of Germany, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. Any such differences are highlighted in the “Differences Between the FAA AD and the MCAI” section in the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 26 helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3.5 work-hours per helicopter to replace the clamps on the injection tubes. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost $20 per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $7,800, or $300 per helicopter. 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 an economic 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: **Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0042; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-26-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by February 22, 2008. Other Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Model MBB-BK 117C-2 helicopters, Serial Number (S/N) 9004 through S/N 9104, and S/N 9106, 9107, and 9111, with a fire extinguishing system B26K1002-801, B262K1003-801, or B262K1004-801, installed, certificated in any category. Reason

(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: During inadvertent operation of the fire extinguishing system, in one case it occurred that one of the two injection tubes became disconnected. This condition, if not corrected, could affect the ability of the fire extinguishing system to perform its intended function in the case of activation. The inability of the fire extinguishing system to suppress an engine fire creates an unsafe condition. The proposed actions are intended to address this unsafe condition by further securing the injection tubes with improved clamps, allowing suppression of a contained engine fire, and preventing an uncontained engine fire and subsequent loss of the helicopter. Actions and Compliance

(e)At the next 100 hours time-in-service inspection, unless already done, replace the current injection tube clamps by installing GBS clamps, part number GBSM24/18W4SK, by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph A., and Figure 1 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C-2-26A-001, dated January 22, 2007. Differences Between the FAA AD and the MCAI

(f)The FAA refers to the compliance time by hours time-in-service rather than flight hours as referred to in the MCAI. Subject

(g)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code JASC 262 Extinguishing System. Other FAA AD Provisions

(h)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: John Strasburger, Aviation Safety Engineer, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone

(817)222-5167, fax

(817)222-5961.

(2)*Airworthy Product:* Use only FAA-approved corrective actions. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent) if the State of Design has an appropriate bilateral agreement with the United States. 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, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(i)MCAI Airworthiness Directive No. 2007-0121, dated May 3, 2007, contains related information. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 4, 2008. David A. Downey, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-1023 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0040; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-13-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada

(BHTC)Models 206A, 206B, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, and 206L-4 Helicopters AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the specified BHTC model helicopters. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The aviation authority of Canada, with which we have a bilateral agreement, states in the MCAI: It has been determined that some helicopters have been fitted with a CRES steel fitting, part number (P/N) 407-030-750-103, and the installation of the tailboom attachment bolt does not meet the design criteria. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition that results from an improper installation of the tailboom attachment bolt in the upper left-hand tailboom attachment CRES steel fitting. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 22, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD from Bell Helicopter Textron Canada, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4, telephone

(450)437-2862 or

(800)363-8023, fax

(450)433-0272. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov;* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone

(817)222-5122, fax

(817)222-5961. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. This 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-2008-0040; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-13-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 based on those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued an MCAI in the form of Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-01, dated January 19, 2007 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the Canadian-certificated products. The MCAI states: It has been determined that some helicopters have been fitted with a CRES steel fitting, part number (P/N) 407-030-750-103, and the installation of the tailboom attachment bolt does not meet the design criteria. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI and service information in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Bell Helicopter Textron has issued Alert Service Bulletin Nos. 206-06-110 and 206L-06-140, both dated September 7, 2006. The actions described in the MCAI are intended to correct the same unsafe condition as that identified in the service information. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and the service information. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in the “Differences Between the FAA AD and the MCAI” section in the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 2,206 helicopters (1,471 Model 206A and 206B helicopters and 735 Model 206L helicopters) of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about .5 work-hour per helicopter to determine if a tailboom attachment bolt must be replaced and, if so, 1 additional work hour to replace the tailboom attachment bolt. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $133 for Model 206L series helicopters, and $71 for Model 206A and B series helicopters. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $466,916, or $253 for each Model 206L series helicopter and $191 for each Model 206 A and B series helicopter. 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 an economic 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: **Bell Helicopter Textron Canada:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0040; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-13-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by February 22, 2008. Other Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Model 206A, 206B, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, and 206L-4 helicopters, with an upper left-hand tailboom attachment CRES steel fitting, part number (P/N) 407-030-750-103, installed, certificated in any category. Reason

(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: It has been determined that some helicopters have been fitted with a CRES steel fitting, part number (P/N) 407-030-750-103, and the installation of the tailboom attachment bolt does not meet the design criteria. We have determined that an improper installation of the tailboom attachment bolt in the upper left-hand tailboom attachment CRES steel fitting, P/N 407-030-750-103, creates an unsafe condition. Actions and Compliance

(e)Within the next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS), unless already done, do the following:

(1)For those helicopters with an upper left-hand CRES tailboom attachment fitting, P/N 407-030-750-103, determine if the correct number and type of washers are installed, the tailboom attachment bolt is oriented in the correct direction, and the correct number of bolt threads are exposed in accordance with the NOTES on Figure 1 of the applicable Alert Service Bulletin

(ASB)in the following Table I. Table I Model ASB No. and date 206A, 206B 206-06-110, dated September 7, 2006. 206L, L-1, L-3, L-4 206L-06-140, dated September 7, 2006.

(i)If the correct number and type of washers are installed, the tailboom attachment bolt is oriented in the correct direction, and the correct number of tailboom attachment bolt threads is exposed, do a torque check of the nut.

(A)If the torque is below the minimum required amount, replace the tailboom attachment bolt in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, Part II, step 1 of the applicable ASB listed in Table I of this AD.

(B)If the torque is above the maximum amount, adjust the torque to within the allowable range.

(ii)If an incorrect number or type of washer is installed or the tailboom attachment bolt is oriented in the wrong direction, reconfigure as necessary to meet the requirements of the Notes on Figure 1 of the applicable ASB listed in Table I of this AD.

(iii)If there is less than 1 tailboom attachment bolt thread exposed, adjust the number of washers and retorque the nut so that between 1 and 3 tailboom attachment bolt threads are exposed at the proper nut torque.

(iv)If more than 3 tailboom attachment bolt threads are exposed, replace the attachment bolt in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, Part II, step 1 of the applicable ASB listed in Table 1 of this AD.

(2)If a tailboom attachment bolt must be replaced based on a requirement of this AD, at 100 hours TIS after the tailboom attachment bolt is replaced, do a torque check of the nut. Differences Between the FAA AD and the MCAI

(f)None. Subject

(g)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code 5340, Fuselage Main, Attach Fittings. Other Information

(h)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Sharon Miles, Aerospace Engineer; Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone

(817)222-5122, fax

(817)222-5961.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(i)MCAI Transport Canada Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-01, dated January 19, 2007, contains related information. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 9, 2008. Mark R. Schilling, Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-1025 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0039; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-13-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Model 222, 222B, 222U, 230 and 430 Helicopters AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This document proposes adopting a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for Bell Helicopter Textron Canada

(BHTC)Model 222, 222B, 222U, 230 and 430 helicopters. This proposal would require rewiring and testing the fuel valve switch on each engine and testing the ignitor system. This proposal is prompted by an in-flight incident in which a fuel valve switch failed, causing the fuel valve to inadvertently close. The actions specified by this proposed AD are intended to prevent interruption of the fuel supply caused by failure of the fuel switch, which could result in loss of engine power and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD from Bell Helicopter Textron Canada, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4, telephone

(450)437-2862 or

(800)363-8023, fax

(450)433-0272. You may examine the comments to this proposed AD in the AD docket on the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carroll Wright, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0110, telephone

(817)222-5120, fax

(817)222-5961. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to the address listed under the caption ADDRESSES . Include the docket number “FAA-2008-0039, Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-13-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://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the search function of our docket web site, you can find and read the comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent or signed the comment. 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://www.regulations.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the docket that contains the proposed AD, any comments, and other information in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is located in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. Discussion This document proposes adopting a new AD for the following BHTC helicopters: Model No. Serial Nos. 222 47006 through 47089. 222B 47131 through 47156. 222U 47501 through 47574. 230 23001 through 23038. 430 49001 through 49101. This proposal would require, within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS), rewiring the switches that control the operation of the No. 1 and No. 2 engines' fuel valves, and testing the switches and the ignitor system. This proposal is prompted by an in-flight incident in which a fuel valve switch failed. The manufacturer reports that there is a possibility that a switch may fail during flight due to vibration, causing the switch to open and then causing the fuel valve to close, resulting in inadvertent shut down of an engine. The actions specified by this proposed AD are intended to prevent interruption of the fuel supply caused by failure of the fuel switch, which could result in loss of engine power and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Transport Canada, the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on BHTC Model 222, 222B, 222U, 230 and 430 helicopters. Transport Canada advises of an investigation into an incident involving a BHTC Model 222 helicopter, in which the fuel shut-off switch, part number (P/N) 10648BH1-1, failed during flight causing the fuel valve to close and the engine to shut down. Review of the Service Difficulty Report database identified two other incidents of switch failure. Bell Helicopter Textron has issued the following technical bulletins, all dated June 11, 2003, which specify rewiring the fuel valve switch: Technical bulletin Helicopter models affected No. 222-03-171 Model 222 and 222B helicopters. No. 222U-03-96 Model 222U helicopters. No. 230-03-35 Model 230 helicopters. No. 430-03-33 Model 430 helicopters. Transport Canada classified these technical bulletins as mandatory and issued AD No. CF-2006-03, dated February 28, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in Canada. That AD requires compliance no later than May 3, 2006. This proposal would require compliance within 50 hours TIS. This helicopter model is manufactured in Canada and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the applicable bilateral agreement, Transport Canada has kept us informed of the situation described above. We have examined the findings of Transport Canada, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of these type designs that are certificated for operation in the United States. This previously described unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs registered in the United States. Therefore, the proposed AD would require, within 50 hours TIS, rewiring the switches, P/N 10648BH1-1, located in the cockpit overhead console, that control the operation of the No. 1 and No. 2 engines' fuel valves. The actions would be required to be accomplished by following the specified portions of the technical bulletins described previously. We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 165 helicopters of U.S. registry and the proposed actions would take approximately four work hours per helicopter to rewire the 2 fuel valve switches, and test those switches and the ignitor system at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $52,800 ($320 per helicopter). Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. Additionally, 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 draft economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD. See the AD docket to examine the draft economic evaluation. 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to read as follows: **Bell Helicopter Textron Canada:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0039; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-13-AD. *Applicability:* The following model helicopters, certificated in any category: Model No. Serial Nos. 222 47006 through 47089. 222B 47131 through 47156. 222U 47501 through 47574. 230 23001 through 23038. 430 49001 through 49101. *Compliance:* Required within 50 hours time-in-service, unless accomplished previously. To prevent interruption of the fuel supply caused by failure of the fuel switch, which could result in loss of engine power and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:

(a)Rewire the No. 1 and No. 2 engines' fuel valve switch, part number 10648BH1-1, and test the fuel valve switches and the ignitor system, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions in Bell Helicopter Textron Technical Bulletin

(TB)No. 222-03-171, Part 1, applicable to Model 222 helicopters, serial number (S/N) 47006-47038, and Part 2, applicable to Model 222 helicopters, S/N 47039-47089, and Model 222B helicopters, S/N 47131-47156; TB No. 222U-03-96, applicable to Model 222U helicopters; TB No. 230-03-35, applicable to Model 230 helicopters; and TB No. 430-03-33, applicable to Model 430 helicopters. All of the technical bulletins are dated June 11, 2003.

(b)To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the Manager, Regulations and Policy Group, FAA, *ATTN:* Carroll Wright, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0110, telephone

(817)222-5120, fax

(817)222-5961, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance. Note: The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada (Canada) AD CF-2006-03, dated February 28, 2006. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 8, 2008. Mark R. Schilling, Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-1026 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0041; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-16-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model AS 355 N Helicopters AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model AS 355 N helicopters. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the technical Agent for France, with which we have a bilateral agreement states in the MCAI: This Airworthiness Directive

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Cuevas, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Safety Management Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone

(817)222-5355, fax

(AD)is issued because it was found that the power drawn by the starter generators from the engines is above the consumption capacity at altitudes above 3,000 meters, declared for the engines of AS 355 N helicopters. Excessive power consumption of the starter generators reduces the engine surge margin, which can result in engine failure. The starter-generator is a single unit that operates as both an engine starter generator and after starting, as an operational generator. The EASA AD and the Eurocopter service bulletin refer to this unit as a starter generator when used as a generator. The starter generator requires energy from the engine to generate electricity. When the electrical current exceeds 100 amps, the load on the engine reduces the engine surge margin and may cause the engine to surge and flame out. Therefore, at altitudes above 10,000 feet, the maximum continuous current supplied by each starter generator must be limited to 100 amps to prevent engine surging. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI and service information in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Eurocopter has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 01.00.52, Revision 1, dated September 14, 2006. The actions described in the MCAI are intended to correct the same unsafe condition as that identified in the service information. FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in the “Differences Between the FAA AD and the MCAI” section in the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 17 helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 15 minutes to install the placard in each helicopter. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. The manufacturer states in its service bulletin that the “labels will be delivered free of charge on the Operator's order.” Because the manufacturer has indicated it will provide the placard free of charge, we have assumed there will be no charge for these placards. However, because we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $340 or $20 per helicopter. 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 an economic 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: **Eurocopter France:** Docket No. FAA-2008-0041; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-16-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by February 22, 2008. Other Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to Model AS 355 N helicopters, certificated in any category. Reason

(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: This Airworthiness Directive

(e)Within 100 hours time-in-service or within 12 months, whichever occurs first, unless already done, do the following actions:

(1)Install a limitation placard (indicating the new load limitation for the starter generator) on the overhead instrument panel, immediately below the ammeter.

(2)The placard must state the following: Maximum continuous load per generator 100A IF Hp>10000 ft. Differences Between the FAA AD and the MCAI

(f)None. Subject

(g)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code 2435—Electrical Power Starter Generator, 80—Starting. Other Information

(h)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Ed Cuevas, Aviation Safety Engineer, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone

(817)222-5355, fax

(817)222-5961.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(i)MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive No. 2006-0338, dated November 7, 2006, and Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin, Revision 1, No. 01.00.52, dated September 14, 2006, contain related information. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 27, 2007. David A. Downey, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8-1027 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1926 [Docket ID-OSHA-2007-0026] RIN 1218-AB47 Confined Spaces in Construction AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; extension of written comment period. SUMMARY: On November 28, 2007, OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM)titled “Confined Spaces in Construction.” The period for submitting written comments is being extended 30 days to allow parties affected by the rule more time to review the proposed rule and collect information and data necessary for comments. DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by February 28, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments, identified by Docket No. OSHA-2007-0026, by any of the following methods: *Electronically:* You may submit comments and attachments electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov,* which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions. *Fax:* If your comments, including attachments, do not exceed 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at

(202)693-1648. *Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier service:* You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0026, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-2350 (OSHA's TTY number is

(877)889-5627). Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and courier service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., E.T. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the Agency name and the docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0026). All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Therefore, OSHA cautions you about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and birthdates. For further information on submitting comments, plus additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* To read or download comments and materials submitted in response to this **Federal Register** notice, go to Docket No. OSHA-2007-0026 at *http://www.regulations.gov* or at the OSHA Docket Office at the above address. All comments and submissions are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through that Web page. All comments and submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. For information on accessing exhibits referenced in the Confined Spaces in Construction proposal, see the “Public Participation” heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Electronic copies of this **Federal Register** document are available at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Copies also are available from the OSHA Office of Publications, Room N-3101, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-1888. This document, as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page at *http://www.osha.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *General information and press inquiries:* Contact Mr. Kevin Ropp, Office of Communications, Room N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-1999. *Technical inquiries:* Contact Mr. Garvin Branch, Directorate of Construction, Room N-3468, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-2020 or fax

(202)693-1689. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Extension of Comment Period On November 28, 2007, at 72 FR 67351, OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM)titled “Confined Spaces in Construction.” In this NPRM, OSHA announced a proposed rule for confined spaces in construction; provided an explanation of the rule and its economic analysis; and solicited comments from the public regarded various confined-spaces issues. The period for submitting written comments was to expire on January 28, 2008. However, the following associations have requested a 60-day extension for submitting their written comments and information: The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), the National Utility Contractors Association (NUCA), and the Associated Builders and Contractors Association (ABC). The NAHB cites as reasons for its request the complexity of the rule and its need for additional time to enable them to consult with their members. The ABC cites these reasons and notes that the comment period coincided with the holiday season, which made it more difficult for ABC to survey its members on the NPRM. OSHA believes that a 30-day extension will be sufficient to accommodate these considerations, facilitate the submission of more thorough reviews, and provide OSHA with a complete record for this proposed rule. Accordingly, the comment period has been extended by 30 days and written comments must now be submitted (sent or postmarked) by February 28, 2008. II. Submission of Comments and Access to Comments You may submit comments in response to this document

(1)electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal;

(2)by facsimile (FAX); or

(3)by hard copy. All comments, attachments and other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0026). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If, instead, you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or fax submission, you must submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by name, date, and docket number so OSHA can attach them to your comments. Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section). Comments and submissions in response to this **Federal Register** notice are posted without change at *http://www.regulations.gov* (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0026). Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and date of birth. Although all submissions in response to this **Federal Register** notice and all supporting materials cited in the Confined Spaces in Construction proposal are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* and *http://dockets.osha.gov* indexes, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from that Web page. All submissions and supporting materials, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web page to submit comments is available at the Web page's User Tips link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the Web pages and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions. Electronic copies of this **Federal Register** document are available at *http://www.regulations.gov* . This document, as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page at *http://www.osha.gov* . Authority and Signature This document was prepared under the authority of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, pursuant to Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the OSH Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), and 29 CFR part 1911. Signed at Washington, DC this 17th day of January, 2008. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E8-1081 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 916 [Docket No. OSM-2008-0001; Sats No. KS-024-FOR] Kansas 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 Kansas regulatory program (Kansas program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Kansas proposes revisions to its 2002 Kansas Revegetation Guidelines and its Normal Husbandry Practices. Kansas intends to update obsolete information used in determining the forage production success standard for warm season native grasses. Kansas also proposes to update their normal husbandry practices to increase clarity and to update references to other Agencies technical guidelines. These documents give the times and locations that the Kansas programs and proposed amendments to that program are available for your inspection, the comment period during which you may submit written comments on the amendments, 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., c.d.t., February 22, 2008. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on February 19, 2008. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4 p.m., c.d.t. on February 7, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. OSM-2008-0001, by any of the following methods: • Mail/Hand Delivery: Alfred L. Clayborne, Director, Tulsa Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1645 South 101 St East Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov* . The proposed rule has been assigned Docket ID: OSM-2008-0001. If you would like to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, go to *www.regulations.gov* and do the following. Click on the “Advanced Docket Search” button on the right side of the screen. Type in the Docket ID (OSM-2008-0001) and click the “Submit” button at the bottom of the page. The next screen will display the Docket Search Results for the rulemaking. If you click on OSM-2008-0001, you can view the proposed rule and submit a comment. You can also view supporting material and any comments submitted by others. Instructions: 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: In addition to obtaining copies of documents at *www.regulations.gov* , you may review copies of the Kansas program, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document, at 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 Tulsa Field Office. Alfred L. Clayborne, Director, Tulsa Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1645 South 101 St East Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128-6547, Telephone:

(918)581-6430, E-mail: *aclayborne@osmre.gov* . In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular business hours at the following location: Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Surface Mining Section, 4033 Parkview Drive, Frontenac, Kansas 66763, Telephone:

(316)231-8540. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alfred L. Clayborne, Director, Tulsa Field Office. Telephone:

(918)581-6430. E-mail: *aclayborne@osmre.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Kansas Program II. Description of the Proposed Amendment III. Public Comment Procedures IV. Procedural Determinations I. Background on the Kansas 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 Kansas program on January 21, 1981. You can find background information on the Kansas program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval, in the January 21, 1981, **Federal Register** (46 FR 5892). You can also find later actions concerning the Kansas program and program amendments at 30 CFR 916.10, 916.12, 916.15, and 916.16. II. Description of the Proposed Amendment By letter dated November 19, 2007 (Administrative Record No. 626 and 627), Kansas sent us amendments to its program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201, *et seq.* ). Kansas sent the amendments in one package, identifying the Revegetation Success Guidelines as KS-024-FOR and the Normal Husbandry Practices as KS-025-FOR. We have combined these both under one docket number (KS-024-FOR). Kansas submitted these amendments at their own initiative. Below is a summary of the changes proposed by Kansas. The full text of the program amendments are available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES . Kansas determined that a portion of its currently approved 2002 Revegetation Guidelines contains information that needs to be updated. During a review of its revegetation guidelines, the State found that Appendix C, USDA-SCS Technical Guide Notice KS-145 (KS-415) lists an animal unit month

(AUM)value that yields an extremely low production rate. The AUM value is used to calculate the forage production success standard for warm season native grasses. Upon discovering this, Kansas contacted the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS)who informed the State that KS-415 is now considered obsolete. Because of this, Kansas proposes to no longer allow Kansas coal operators to use KS-415 in determining the forage production success standard for warm season native grasses only. Kansas coal operators will continue to use KS-415 for determining forage production success standards for wheat, grain sorghum, and soybeans. In order to calculate the forage production success standard for any area seeded to warm season native grasses where the postmining land use requires both cover and production data, Kansas proposes to replace KS-415 with the NRCS's “Electronic Field Office Technical Guides” for rangeland, grazed forestland, and native pastureland interpretations for Linn, Crawford, Cherokee, and Bourbon Counties. Kansas also proposes that the forage production success standard established in each permit be based on the total dry weight production listed for an average year. Kansas Department of Health and Environment

(KDHE)proposes to update the approved selected husbandry practices which are considered to be normal in Kansas. Utilization of these practices will not result in the KDHE mandating an extension to the period of responsibility for revegetation success and bond liability. The probability of permanent revegetation failure will not be increased if the approved practices are discontinued after expiration of the liability period. Kansas suggests that the proposed practices are considered normal husbandry practices within the region for unmined lands having land uses similar to the approved postmining land use of the disturbed area. They include such practices as mowing, liming, fertilization, disease, pest and vermin control; and any pruning, reseeding, and transplanting specifically necessitated by such actions. Practices not approved, and which will result in an extension of the liability period, include any seeding, fertilization, or irrigation performed at levels which exceed those normally applied in maintaining comparable unmined land in the surrounding area. In determining what is an approved selective husbandry practice, evaluations shall include Surface Mining Section

(SMS)Professional Judgments, the incorporation of guidelines provided by approved source documents, and information provided by Kansas State University

(KSU)and the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Both NRCS and KSU have established and published many recommended fertility and management practices for row crops, hayland, and grazingland tailored for soil conditions, crop rotations, tillage and application practices. If this amendment is approved, the SMS will compare the proposed management practices on mined land with recommended practices provided by KSU and NRCS to determine if the mined land practices can be considered normal husbandry. Through the routine inspection process, the SMS will monitor liability start dates, liming and fertilization activities and evaluate and determine the success of the reclamation. If the SMS determines site specific management practices are outside the normal husbandry practices, a decision will be made whether or not the liability period must restart. On all lands with a postmining land use in perennial cover, the SMS shall consider limited reseeding and associated fertilization and liming as non-augmentative if the cumulative area is small. Reseeding of small areas without restarting the period of operation responsibility shall be left up to the judgment of the SMS in conjunction with the NRCS or KSU Extension Agriculture Service and in no case shall the cumulative areas reseeded be greater than 3 acres or 10% of the permit area whichever is less. Exceptions to this maximum size may be made if the area is comprised of a waterway, terrace or other water control structures. In all cases, the reestablished vegetation shall be in place for a sufficient length of time to not adversely affect the SMS's ability to make a valid determination at the time of bond release as to whether the site has been properly reclaimed. Approved normal husbandry practices conducted in consultation with KSU or NRCS are not considered augmentation. Evidence of consultation may be required by the SMS. Practices listed in the following documents are approved: Kansas State University Publications, Established Native Grasses, October 1997 Native Hay Meadow Management, July 1992 Trees and Shrubs for Difficult Sites, February 2006 Fertilization Trees, May 2001 Chemical Weed Control in Tree Planning, March 2001 Weed Control Options in Tree Planting, February 2006 Tree Planting Guide, June 2004 Tall Planting Guide, June 2004 Tall Fescue Production and Utilization, April 1994 Maintaining Grass Waterways, April 2004 Rangeland Weed Management, December 1991 United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA)Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS)Conservation Practice Standards 314 Brush Management 322 Channel Bank Vegetation 327 Conservative cover 656 Constructive Wetland 332 Contour Buffer Strips 340 Cover Crop 341 Critical Area Planting 362 Diversion 647 Early Successional Habitat Development/Management 386 Field Boarder 393 Filter Strip 511 Forage Harvest Management 666 Forest Stand Improvement 412 Grassed Waterway 484 Mulching 590 Nutrient Management 512 Pasture and Hay Planting 595 Pest Management 338 Prescribed Burning 528 Prescribed Grazing 550 Range Planting 329B Residue Management, Mulch Till 329A Residue Management, No Till/Strip Till 344 Residue Management, Seasonal 391 Riparian Forest Buffer 656 Shallow Water Management for Wildlife 580 Streambank and Shoreline protection 600 Terrace 612 Tree/Shrub Establishment 660 Tree/Shrub Pruning 645 Upland Wildlife Habitat Management 644 Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management 380 Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment Kansas Forestry Technical Note KS-9 Tree/Shrub Establishment and Maintenance Guidelines The repair of rills and gullies will not be allowed in the State of Kansas without restarting the revegetation liability period, unless the occurrences and the treatment of such rills and gullies constitutes a normal conservation practice in the region as described below: In the coal mining region of Kansas, the normal range of precipitation during fall or spring seeding seasons may result in the formation of rills and gullies during the initial establishment of a permanent vegetation cover for any land use. The NRCS has prepared guidelines for the treatment of rills and gullies as part of their critical areas planting

(CAP)process. The SMS has determined that the NRCS CAP for the treatment of rills and gullies in the coal mining regions of Kansas constitutes the treatment practice which is the usual degree of management customarily performed to prevent exploitation, destruction or neglect of the soil resources and maintain the productivity of the land uses. This treatment would not be considered an augmented practice because the NRCS guidance is the standard development for the normal treatment of rills and gullies that may develop during the initial establishment of a permanent cover of vegetation on unmined lands in Kansas. If the use of the NRCS guidelines to control rills and gullies under CAP does not stop erosion, any continued treatment of rills and gullies after the initial vegetative establishment would be considered an augmented practice that would restart the liability period. In addition, the KDHE SMS defines the treatment of rills and gullies requiring a permanent reseeding of more than 10 acres in a contiguous block, or 10 percent of the permit area initially seeded during a single year, to be an augmented practice because of the potential for delay of seeding large area to reduce the probability of revegetation success. CAP requires active furrows, rills, ditches, or gullies be filled to aid the conservation practices application. The rills and gullies should be filled with topsoil, if the eroding site is not large, or contoured and/or smoothed if the site is large. The area must be seeded during the appropriate seeding season with approved perennial species followed by an application of mulch. If permanent seeding of the area must be delayed due to weather condition, then appropriate temporary erosion control measures must be utilized. Mulch that is to be applied must be free of noxious weeds including Johnson grass and sericea lespedeza, anchored during or immediately after application, and be applied at the following rates: 1. *Native hay or straw:* Apply at the rate of 2 tons/acre and crimp into the soil. Native hay mulch should be less than two

(2)years old. Where appropriate based on surrounding vegetation, cool season (fescue) hay may be used. Apply at the rate of 2 tons/acre and crimp into the soil. 2. *Wood chips:* Apply at the rate of 11-15 tons/acre. 3. *Strawy manure:* Apply at the rate of 10 tons/acre. Strawy manure need not be anchored if it contains heavy solids. The use of fabric, hay bales, and/or designed rock riprap structure to fill or repair rills and gullies will be approved on a case-by-case basis. Monitoring of these areas will be required to assure that the treatment provides long-term erosion control, does not disrupt the post mining land use, and that the permanent vegetation becomes established. If this treatment is not effective, then filling of the rills and gullies with topsoil and revegetation will be required. Depending on site conditions, terracing, erosion control fabric, wattles, or other measures may be needed to control erosion until vegetation is established. If the drainage area is of a sufficient size to create continued problems with rills and gullies, the operator will install terraces to control the amount and/or velocity of water moving across the area. These terraces will be designed and constructed in accordance with K.A.R. 47-9-(c)(9). Liming, fertilization, mulching, seeding or stocking (stems) following the reclamation of any temporary roads, temporary sediment or hydraulic control structures, or areas where the vegetation was disturbed by vehicular traffic not under the control of the permittee shall not be considered augmentation. Reliming and/or refertilization of revegetated areas, reseeding cropland in annual crops; or renovating pastureland or cropland areas in perennial cover by over seeding with legumes after a phase II bond release shall be considered normal husbandry practices and shall not restart the liability period if the amount and frequency of these practices do not exceed normal husbandry practices used on unmined land within the region. Other normal husbandry practices that my be conducted on postmining land uses of fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and forestry without restarting the liability period are disease, pest, and vermin control; and any pruning, reseeding, and transplanting specifically necessitated by such actions. Replanting more than 20% of the trees/shrubs needed to meet the established technical success will restart the 5-year liability time clock. Trees and shrubs counted in determining the success of stocking shall be healthy and have been in place for not less than two growing seasons. At the time of bond release, at least 80% of the trees and shrubs used to determine such success shall have been in place for a minimum of three years. 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 one of the two addresses 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 cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES ) or sent to an address other than the two listed above will be included in the docket for this rulemaking and considered. Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Public Hearing If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m., c.d.t. on February 7, 2008. If you are disabled and need reasonable 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 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, 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 Kansas program does not regulate coal exploration and surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Indian lands. Therefore, the Kansas 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 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), 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 916 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: December 26, 2007. Len Meier, Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Region. [FR Doc. E8-1113 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office 37 CFR Part 201 [Docket No. RM 2008-1] Recordation of Notices of Termination of Transfers and Licenses; clarifications AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress. ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is proposing to make clarifications to its regulations governing the recordation of notices of termination and certain related provisions. This notice seeks public comment on the proposed amendments, which would communicate the Office’s practices as to notices of termination that are untimely filed; clarify the fact that a notice of termination is not legally sufficient simply because it has been recorded; update the legibility requirements for all recorded documents, including notices of termination; make minor explanatory edits to the fee schedule for multiple titles within a document (adding notices of termination as an example); and create a new mailing address to which notices of termination should be sent. DATES: Written comments are due February 22, 2008. Reply comments are due March 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five copies of any comment should be brought to Room LM-401 of the James Memorial Building between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. and the envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, James Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-401, First and Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20559-6000. If hand delivered by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of any comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site located at Second and D Streets, NE, Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, Room LM-403, James Madison Memorial Building, First and Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20559-6000. If sent by mail, an original and five copies of any comment should be addressed to: Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. Comments may not be delivered by means of overnight delivery services such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service or DHL, due to delays in processing receipt of such deliveries. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Pallante, Deputy General Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone

(202)707-8380. Fax

(202)707-8366. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In addition to its legal, regulatory and policy responsibilities, the Copyright Office is an office of public record which receives and records documents that pertain to copyright. Such documents include notices of termination, which may be served by authors (and some heirs of authors) to extinguish certain exclusive or nonexclusive grants of transfers or licenses of copyright or the divisible rights thereunder. The termination provisions are set forth in Sections 304(c), 304(d) and 203 of the 1976 Copyright Act, Title 17 of the United States Code. The provisions have an equitable function; they exist to allow authors or their heirs a second opportunity to share in the economic success of their works. The House Report accompanying the 1976 Copyright Act states that the provisions are “needed because of the unequal bargaining position of authors, resulting in part from the impossibility of determining a work’s value until it has been exploited.” H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 124 (1976). The law provides for termination according to the time table and prescription set forth in each respective section, including mandatory, timely recordation with the Copyright Office. 1 1 The provisions exclude grants made by will and works for hire. Section 304(c) governs any work in which the copyright was subsisting in its first or renewal term as of January 1, 1978, and provides for termination of a grant at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of fifty-six years from the date copyright was originally secured. Section 304(d) provides a termination right for a subset of works for which the termination right expired on or before the effective date (October 27, 1998) of the “Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act,” which extended the copyright term by 20 years. Section 304(d) allows an author, or certain heirs and successors, to terminate the grant of a transfer or license of the renewal copyright or any right under it, at anytime during a five year period beginning at the end of 75 years from the date copyright was originally secured. 2 Section 203 governs works created on or after January 1, 1978. The author, or certain heirs and successors, may terminate any grant made on or after this date at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier. In contrast to the provisions of Section 304, termination under Section 203 is possible only if the author executed the grant. 2 The provisions do not apply if the termination right under Section 304(c) was previously exercised. The termination provisions are not self-executing. On the contrary, they are formalistic and include several conditions precedent. For example, the provisions require that the author (or if the author is deceased, the author’s widow, widower, children or other heirs specified by statute) serve the notice of termination in writing on a grantee or the grantee’s successor in title prior to the effective date of termination which, as referenced above, must fall within a five-year window prescribed by the statutory section. Moreover, the notice must state the effective date of the termination and must be served not less than two or more than ten years before the effective date. And, as a condition of the termination taking effect, a copy of the notice of termination must be recorded with the Copyright Office prior to the effective date of termination. 17 U.S.C. 304(c)(4); 304(d)(1); 203(a)(4). The process and other formal requirements for submitting a copy of the notice to the Copyright Office for recordation are prescribed by regulation and addressed herein. In short, the regulations require the recording party to submit a complete and exact duplicate of the notice that he or she served on the grantee or grantee’s successor-in-title. The copy must include either actual signatures or reproductions of signatures, a statement setting forth the date the notice was served, an indication of the manner of service, and submission of the appropriate filing fee. The Copyright Office reviews for each of the above-referenced elements and may refuse recordation in the event any one element is missing. 37 CFR 201.10(f). The requirements of the Copyright Office with respect to document legibility, fee schedule and mailing address are also prescribed by regulation and addressed herein. 37 CFR 201.4(c)(3); 201.3; 201.1. Summary of Proposed Amendments Timeliness of Notices of Termination Under the law, the failure to file a notice of termination in a timely manner is a fatal mistake that cannot be construed as an immaterial, harmless error. 37 CFR 201.10(e). Thus, before recording a notice, the Copyright Office looks for confirmation that the relevant statutory deadlines have been met. Because the Office’s practice in this regard is not currently stated in the regulations, the proposed amendments would introduce a new, explanatory paragraph. In summary, if in the judgment of the Office the document is untimely, the Office will take one of two actions. If the notice is premature, the Office will return it with an explanation, so that it may be resubmitted within the proper statutory window. On the other hand, if the document is late, the Office will offer only to record and index the document as a “document pertaining to copyright.” 17 U.S.C. 205(a); 37 CFR 201.4(a)(2). It will not accept the document as a “notice of termination,” meaning that it will not be specially indexed as such. Whether such general recordation by the Copyright Office will be sufficient in any particular instance to effect termination as a matter of law is an issue that only the courts may resolve. Recordation as Distinguished from Legal Sufficiency By way of clarification, the fact that the Office has recorded a document as a notice of termination does not necessarily mean that the notice is legally sufficient to effect termination. In fact, recordation is without prejudice to any party claiming that the legal and formal requirements for issuing a valid notice have not been met. This denotation already appears in the regulations, but the proposed amendment would rephrase the existing language to provide greater clarity. Legibility of Notices of Termination and Other Documents Pertaining to Copyright With regard to legibility (an issue that affects not only notices of termination but all documents submitted for recordation), the amendments would make a change that is relatively minor but which would nonetheless underscore the mission of the Copyright Office as an office of public record. The current legibility requirement has two prongs, one that applies to the content of the original document and one that applies to its technical quality: “a document must be legible and capable of being reproduced in legible microform copies.” (Emphasis added.) 37 CFR 201.4(c)(3). No change is proposed as to the first prong. When the Office records a document, it creates an index for the public that reflects the nature of the document and is searchable by certain key information contained in the document, e.g. the title of a work. If the content is indecipherable or difficult to read, the Office cannot create an accurate index. In addition, with respect to copyrighted works, a document that is recorded in the Office provides constructive notice as to the facts stated in the recorded document, provided that identification of the work is such that, after the document is indexed by the Office, it would be reasonably revealed under the title or registration number of the work; and provided that registration has been made for the work. 17 U.S.C. 205(c). Again, if the facts of the document are indecipherable, there can be no accurate indexing, thus preventing the possibility of constructive notice, nor will an illegible document prevail in the event of a conflicting claim of transfer. 17 U.S.C. 205(d). As to the second prong, the amendment would make a small change by deleting the outdated reference to “microform copies” and replacing it with a broader, more flexible standard. If a document is faded, faint, or similarly difficult to see, the Office may be unable to successfully reproduce it for the public record. Thus, the amended regulation would require that documents be “legible and *capable of being imaged or otherwise reproduced in legible copies by the technology employed by the Office at the time of submission.”* (Emphasis added.) Fee Requirements for Notices of Termination With respect to fees, it is the Copyright Office’s experience that parties who submit notices of termination for recordation sometimes miscalculate the amount due, especially where grants of rights in multiple works are being terminated by virtue of one document. The proposed amendment would add the notice of termination as an express example in the schedule of fees under section 201.3(c)(16), specifying that the basic fee for recordation of a notice of termination containing a single title is $95, and the fee for recordation of a notice of termination containing more than one title is an additional $25 per group of 10 titles. Mailing Address for Notices of Termination Finally, because notices of termination are time-sensitive, a delay in processing may have serious consequences. The proposed amendment would create a special post office box at the Copyright Office, from which notices of termination could more easily be sorted and routed for recordation. This revision would also delete the address for the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP). All CARP proceedings were terminated in 2007 and the reference is no longer valid. 72 FR 45071 (August 10, 2007). Conclusion We hereby seek comment from the public as to the issues identified herein associated with certain requirements of the Copyright Office under Sections 201.1, 201.3, 201.4 and 201.10 of Chapter 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations. List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201 Copyright. Proposed Regulations For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office proposes to amend part 201 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 201-GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows: Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702. 2. Revise § 201.1(b)(2) to read as follows: § 201.1 Communication with the Copyright Office.

(b)* * *

(2)*Notices of Termination.* Notices of termination submitted for recordation should be mailed to Copyright Office, Notices of Termination, P.O. Box 71537, Washington, DC 20024-1537. § 201.3 [Amended] 3. Amend § 201.3(c)(16) by removing the phrase, “Recordation of document, including a Notice of Intention to Enforce (NIE)(single title),” and adding in its place the phrase “Recordation of document (single title), e.g. a Notice of Termination or a Notice of Intent to Enforce (NIE)”. 4. Revise § 201.4(c)(3) to read as follows: § 201.4 Recordation of transfers and certain other documents.

(c)* * *

(3)To be recordable, the document must be legible and capable of being imaged or otherwise reproduced in legible copies by the technology employed by the Office at the time of submission. 5. Section 201.10(f) is amended as follows: a. By adding paragraph (f)(1)(iii); b. By redesignating paragraph (f)(4) as (f)(5); c. By adding paragraph (f)(4); d. By revising redesignated paragraph (f)(5) and e. By adding paragraph (f)(6). The revisions and additions to § 201.10 read as follows: § 201.10 Notices of termination of transfers and licenses.

(f)* * *

(1)* * *

(iii)The copy submitted for recordation must be legible per the requirements of § 201.4(c)(3) of this part.

(4)Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this section, the Copyright Office reserves the right to refuse recordation of a notice of termination if, in the judgment of the Copyright Office, such notice of termination is untimely. If a document is submitted as a notice of termination after the statutory deadline has expired, the Office will offer to record the document as a “document pertaining to copyright” pursuant to § 201.4(c)(3) of this part, but the Office will not index the document as a notice of termination. Whether a document so recorded is sufficient in any instance to effect termination as a matter of law shall be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(5)The mere fact that a notice of termination has been recorded does not mean that it is legally sufficient. Recordation of a notice of termination by the Copyright Office is without prejudice to any party claiming that the legal and formal requirements for issuing a valid notice have not been met.

(6)Notices of termination should be submitted to the address specified in § 201.1(b)(2) of this part. Dated: January 14, 2008 Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights. [FR Doc. E8-888 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1150; FRL-8518-9] Disapproval of Plan of Nevada; Clean Air Mercury Rule; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: EPA is extending the comment period for action proposed on December 13, 2007 (72 FR 70812) concerning disapproval of the Nevada State Plan to address the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by March 13, 2008. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1150, by one of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions. 2. *E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail or deliver:* Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lily Wong, EPA Region IX,

(415)947-4114, *wong.lily@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 13, 2007, EPA proposed to disapprove the State Plan submitted by Nevada on November 15, 2006. The State Plan is intended to address the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule, promulgated on May 18, 2005, and subsequently revised on June 9, 2006. EPA proposed to determine that the submitted Nevada State Plan does not meet certain Clean Air Mercury Rule requirements. The proposed action provided a 45-day public comment period. In response to a request from Leo M. Drozdoff, Administrator of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, submitted by letter on January 3, 2008, EPA is extending the comment period for an additional 45 days. Dated: January 9, 2008. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E8-1117 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. 2007-0048] RIN 2127-AJ44, RIN 2127-AJ49 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Child Restraint Systems; Anthropomorphic Test Devices (Hybrid III 10-Year-Old and Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Dummies) AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). SUMMARY: This document supplements NHTSA's notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)of August 31, 2005 that proposed to:

(a)Expand the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, *Child restraint systems,* to restraints recommended for children up to 80 pounds, and

(b)require booster seats and other restraints to meet performance criteria when tested with a crash test dummy representative of a 10-year-old child. In Part 1 of this SNPRM, NHTSA is proposing a test procedure for positioning the 10-year-old child dummy in a child restraint, to reduce variation due to chin-to-lower neck contact that was exhibited by the dummy in sled tests conducted subsequent to the NPRM. Comments are also requested in Part 1 on some other changes or clarifications to the NPRM, proposed in response to the public comments. In Part 2 of this SNPRM, we likewise propose to add a seating procedure for positioning the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy in a child restraint for FMVSS No. 213 compliance testing. Concerns about the variability in HIC measurements obtained by that test dummy have led NHTSA to postpone mandatory use of the dummy in agency compliance tests. The seating procedure will address this variability issue and facilitate the full use of the dummy as a compliance instrument. DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than March 24, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the DOT Docket ID Number above) by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. *Instructions:* For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below. *Privacy Act:* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* or the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call Dr. Roger Saul, Office of Rulemaking ( *Telephone:* 202-366-1740) (Fax: 202-493-2990). For legal issues, you may call Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel ( *Telephone:* 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820). You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents Part 1. 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy I. Background II. Summary of Responses to August 31, 2005 NPRM III. Agency Follow Up IV. Proposals or Requests for Comments on This SNPRM Relating to the HIII-10C Dummy a. Dummy Positioning Procedures b. Continued Use of the Weighted HIII-6-Year-Old Dummy c. Head Support Surface d. Housekeeping Measures Part 2. Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Test Dummy I. Background II. Proposed Amendments Relating to the HIII-6C Dummy III. Testing Submission of Comments Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Part 1. 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy I. Background On August 31, 2005, NHTSA issued an NPRM proposing:

(a)To expand the applicability of FMVSS No. 213, *Child restraint systems,* to restraints recommended for children up to 80 pounds (lb); and

(b)to require booster seats and other restraints to meet performance criteria when tested with a Hybrid III crash test dummy representative of a 10-year-old child (70 FR 51720; NHTSA Docket No. 21245). The rulemaking proposal was part of an on-going agency initiative to enhance the safety of children in motor vehicle crashes. It also furthered Section 4(b) of Public Law 107-318, 116 Stat. 2772 (“Anton's Law”), which required the initiation of a rulemaking proceeding for the adoption of an anthropomorphic test device that simulates a 10-year-old child. 1 1 Section 4 of Anton's Law, signed on December 4, 2002, states: *Section 4. Development of Anthropomorphic Test Device Simulating a 10-Year-Old Child.*

(a)Development and Evaluation. Not later than 24 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and evaluate an anthropomorphic test device that simulates a 10-year-old child for use in testing child restraints used in passenger motor vehicles.

(b)Adoption by Rulemaking. Within 1 year following the development and evaluation carried out under subsection (a), the Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the adoption of an anthropomorphic test device as developed under subsection (a). The agency completed its evaluation of the suitability of the Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy in September 2004. Following the evaluation, NHTSA initiated rulemaking to adopt specifications and performance requirements for the test dummy into 49 CFR part 572 (notice of proposed rulemaking published July 13, 2005, 70 FR 40281; Docket No. NHTSA 2004-2005-21247), in addition to publishing the August 31, 2005 NPRM to incorporate the dummy into FMVSS No. 213. Booster seats provide a seating platform which boosts the child to a position that enables the vehicle lap and shoulder belts to fit better. Without booster seats, children who are too small to be adequately restrained with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt system are at higher risk of injury due to the belts' improper placement. The agency recommends that children who have outgrown their internal harnessed child restraint systems, but who cannot adequately fit a vehicle's lap and shoulder belt system, be properly restrained using booster seats until they are at least 4 feet 9 inches tall. The August 31, 2005 NPRM addressed the view expressed by many in the child passenger safety community that efforts to increase booster seat use should go hand-in-hand with expanding the applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to all booster seats. In that way, this view maintains, the seating system that we recommend for older children will be closely assessed in the standard's rigorous dynamic test for adequate performance in a crash. FMVSS No. 213 currently applies to child restraint systems that are designed to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 30 kg (65 lb) or less. 2 Booster seats recommended for children weighing up to 65 lb are now subject to FMVSS No. 213 testing, but they are currently tested 3 with a 52-lb 6-year-old instrumented child dummy for injury performance response criteria, and with a 62-lb weighted 6-year-old uninstrumented child dummy for structural integrity. The NPRM proposed to upgrade the test parameters by using the 78-lb (35 kg) instrumented Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy to test boosters recommended for children weighing up to 80 lb. 4 (The 10-year-old dummy is referred to as the “HIII-10C dummy.”) 2 FMVSS No. 213, S4, definition of “child restraint system.” 3 For an overview of the current and proposed weight ranges, see Table 1 of the NPRM, 70 FR at 51723. 4 The NPRM also requested comments on whether FMVSS No. 213's 4.4 kg mass limit (S5.4.3.2) for belt-positioning boosters should be eliminated, and replaced by a chest deflection requirement (70 FR at 51724). In addition, the NPRM document announced NHTSA's decision not to propose at this time performance criteria for seat belt fit for booster seats or other belt guidance devices (70 FR at 51726). II. Summary of Responses to August 31, 2005 NPRM The agency received 11 comments on the August 31, 2005 NPRM. Comments were received from Britax Child Safety, Inc. (Britax), Dorel Juvenile Group (Dorel), Evenflo Company, Inc. (Evenflo), Graco Children's Products, Inc. (Graco), the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the American Automobile Association (AAA), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), and Public Citizen. All commenters supported extending the applicability of FMVSS No. 213 to child restraints recommended for children up to 80 lb, and supported having a 10-year-old dummy to test higher-weight rated child restraints. Dorel, however, expressed concerns about the biofidelity of the HIII-10C dummy, particularly with regard to a metal “spine box” in the dummy's thorax region. Dorel stated that the dummy exhibited “chin to chest contacts resulting in higher HIC scores in backed boosters as compared to backless.” 5 Similarly, Graco stated that it conducted a limited series of sled tests

(22)using the HIII-10C dummy and observed a spike in the head X and Z accelerations beginning between 45 and 50 milliseconds, typically of a duration of less than 10 milliseconds. Graco stated that it did not have an explanation for the phenomenon, i.e., “[whether] the spike was caused by a chin strike, the biofidelity of the dummy's neck or some other cause,” but suggested that additional testing should be performed to ensure that the HIII-10C dummy is appropriate for use in FMVSS No. 213 testing. (See also comments to the July 13, 2005 NPRM proposing to adopt specifications for the HIII-10C into 49 CFR part 572, Docket 2004-21247.) 5 Dorel also had concerns about the durability of the HIII-10C, the characteristics of the abdominal inserts, and the availability of the dummy for evaluation. Public Citizen suggested that the HIII-10C dummy “must be upweighted to more closely match the mean weight of children today.” III. Agency Follow-Up In response to these comments, NHTSA conducted additional sled tests to assess booster seat performance using the HIII-10C dummy. As a result of the tests, the agency determined that dummy set-up (posture) prior to the test significantly affected the consistency of HIC measurements of repeat tests with the HIII-10C dummy. When the dummy was somewhat reclined in the child restraint at the outset of the test, reduced head forward translation and increased head rotation caused severe dummy chin contact to a rigid portion of the dummy, which resulted in increased HIC readings. After analyzing the test results, NHTSA developed a seating procedure for positioning the HIII-10C dummy for the FMVSS No. 213 compliance test to address the chin-to-rigid body impacts. The agency has issued this SNPRM to seek public comment on incorporating this procedure into the standard. This issue is discussed in more detail in the next section. Commenters made other suggestions about or asked for clarification of certain aspects of the August 31, 2005 NPRM. Two of these, discussed in the next section, are topics on which we seek comment in this SNPRM. These relate to the proposed parameters that would specify which test dummy would be used by NHTSA to test child restraints of recommended weight ranges (this issue was raised by Britax), and to the issue of head support requirements for CRSs and how the agency would test booster seats and other child restraints if the HIII-10C's head were above the seat back of the standard seat assembly used in the FMVSS No. 213 compliance test (this issue was raised by Evenflo). Commenters also remarked on various other aspects of the NPRM. Comments were submitted on the proposed injury criteria 6 (Advocates believed that the agency should conduct research into whether the criteria should be scaled; IIHS and CHOP asked whether the proposed head excursion limits are adequate; and Graco supported the NPRM's approach of having the injury assessment reference values

(IARV)and performance measurements be generally the same regardless of child restraint tested). Comments were also submitted on the NPRM's discussion of injury criteria under development, with NTSB, AAP, CHOP and IIHS supporting the development of an abdominal criterion, and the latter opposed to the abdominal injury ratio discussed in the NPRM. Regarding lead time, Graco noted the spikes observed in the dummy's HIC measurements and suggested that three years of lead time should be provided to allow manufacturers time to gain experience with the HIII-10C dummy, and to make any necessary product design changes. A number of comments were received on the agency's decision, announced in the NPRM, not to propose at this time performance criteria for seat belt fit for booster seats. 6 The NPRM proposed performance criteria for the HIII-10-year-old dummy similar to the current FMVSS No. 213 criteria, because the agency was not aware of any injuries unique to children in booster seats that would necessitate separate and differing injury criteria limits. Thus, we tentatively concluded that the existing injury criteria would likely ensure the continued effectiveness of child restraints rated to the higher weight limit of 80 lb. The specific injury criteria measurement maximums for the HIII-10-year-old dummy were: HIC 36 = 1000; chest acceleration = 60 g's (3 millisecond clip); head excursion = 813 millimeters

(mm)for untethered condition, 720 mm for tethered condition (if applicable); and knee excursion = 915 mm. In preparation for proposing these criteria measurement maximums, the agency's Vehicle Research and Test Center

(VRTC)performed testing on booster seats with the HIII-10C dummy; only one child restraint in the test series failed the existing FMVSS No. 213 injury criteria. The agency is evaluating the comments to the NPRMs on the HIII-10C, and will respond to all relevant comments in rulemaking documents following this SNPRM. It is not necessary for commenters to resubmit views on today's SNPRM that were expressed in previous comments on the earlier NPRMs. The agency notes that the regulatory text proposed in this SNPRM includes text that was proposed in the August 31, 2005 NPRM. In some instances, comments were received on aspects of the proposed regulatory text. The agency is including text that was proposed in the earlier notice simply to illustrate the appearance of the affected sections. The inclusion does not mean that NHTSA has already decided to adopt the regulatory text. The agency will respond to all relevant comments in a final rule or other document following this SNPRM. IV. Proposals or Requests for Comments on This SNPRM Relating to the HIII-10C Dummy a. Dummy Positioning Procedures Following publication of the NPRM, in March/April 2006 NHTSA conducted additional sled testing of booster seats at the agency's Vehicle Research and Test Center

(VRTC)using the HIII-10C dummy. The findings of this testing program indicated that there were HIC measurement inconsistencies in repeated tests with the same booster seat model. To determine the reasons behind this finding, VRTC conducted additional sled tests in July 2006. The following discussion summarizes the findings of these testing programs. The findings are discussed at length in a NHTSA technical report, “Development of HIII 6-Year-Old and 10-Year-Old Seating Procedure for Booster Seat Testing,” (hereinafter “VRTC report”), which has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. March/April 2006 Testing Program VRTC conducted 58 sled test exposures using 30 booster seats with the HIII-10C dummy (see Table 1). All booster seats were installed on the FMVSS No. 213 seat test fixture in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions. High-back child restraints with adjustable head restraints were positioned such that they were at the correct height relative to the dummy's head and also gave optimal shoulder belt fit (i.e., the belt was not on the dummy's neck or too far outboard on the shoulder). Child restraints with non-adjustable head restraints with shoulder belt guides attached were tested according to the manufacturers' instructions as to belt placement, if provided. Table 1 summarizes the chest acceleration, head and knee excursions, and HIC 36 measurements observed in the March/April 2006 tests. The full description of the testing set-up and details of all injury parameters measurements are provided in the VRTC report. Table 1.—Evaluation of HIII-10-Year-Old Dummy in FMVSS No. 213 Sled Tests (Mar/Apr 2006) IARV HIC 36 ms 1000 Chest acc. 3 ms 60 g Head excursion 813 mm Knee excursion 915 mm Restraint: Graco Treasured Cargo 1094 51 490 667 903 48 562 763 Graco Treasured Cargo 1128 52 527 736 910 51 475 637 Cosco High Rise 506 45 421 568 395 48 436 590 Cosco High Rise 541 45 437 614 532 44 449 631 Safety 1st Intera 824 52 518 716 Safety 1st Intera NA 46 502 746 Safety 1st Apex 65 1137 49 540 824 950 49 521 801 Evenflo Generations 622 56 603 809 1216 56 580 808 Britax Parkway 764 58 638 863 649 51 658 834 Graco Treasured CarGo 667 46 539 768 751 50 537 822 Compass 500 792 65 651 851 1594 58 583 802 Graco Cherished CarGo 773 55 585 777 1126 51 650 875 Evenflo Big Kid 836 54 538 770 731 50 517 743 Cosco Summit Deluxe 481 47 528 775 753 45 557 862 Cosco Commuter DX 826 52 591 881 1137 52 670 985 Safety 1st Enspira 586 48 602 874 653 50 625 905 Cosco Alpha Omega 627 44 601 801 472 42 560 767 Safety 1st Intera NA 49 492 751 1030 43 551 864 Cosco High Rise (no back) NA 47 470 494 733 45 682 696 Evenflo Chase Premiere 839 52 639 907 997 53 560 864 Graco Turbo Booster 450 46 571 753 903 47 525 739 Recaro Young Style 852 55 678 856 848 57 592 778 Safety 1st Vantage Point 911 49 694 1024 725 45 609 909 Combi Dakota (no back) 414 52 507 711 424 51 505 695 Cosco Protek 511 47 578 740 855 46 598 794 Recaro Young Sport 931 50 651 884 808 37 607 802 Combi Kobuk 989 73 679 895 573 52 653 808 Cosco Commuter 737 51 573 826 Cosco Summit 632 52 598 832 Cosco Alpha Omega 638 42 654 839 Safety 1st Enspira 620 41 616 758 Safety 1st Apex 65 NA 53 577 937 965 42 530 822 The results of the March/April 2006 tests indicated that there were inconsistencies in several HIC 36 measurements in repeated tests with the HIII-10C dummy placed in the same type/model child restraint system. For example, the HIC 36 measurements for the belt positioning booster

(BPB)Evenflo Generations varied from 622 (Pass IARV) to 1216 (Fail IARV). The HIC 36 measurements for the Compass 500 varied from 792 (Pass IARV) to 1594 (Fail IARV) (see Figure 1). Generally, there were no inconsistencies observed in the other FMVSS No. 213 injury criteria measurements of chest acceleration, and head and knee excursions. After analyzing the test results, VRTC determined that dummy posture and belt placement affected the kinematic response of the dummy, which in turn affected HIC readings. A dummy that is set up to have a more reclined torso (high torso angle) is more likely to submarine under the vehicle belt. The motion of the head is much different in a submarining case than in a situation where the dummy is well restrained. When the dummy is restrained effectively (shoulder belt centered on the sternum, lap belt on the pelvis), the head moves forward in unison with the upper torso as the belt tension increases. Then, as the belt reaches its spooling limit, the head rotates in a wide arc and late in the event contacts a location either on the ribcage or into a portion of the bib 7 having a large clearance to the spine box. Since the ribcage is compliant, the bib-to-spine box clearance is high, and the contact occurs very late in the event, the resulting head acceleration due to chin contact is low. Thus its contribution to the HIC calculation is minimal. 7 The bib is a piece of thin plastic on the front of the dummy that serves as an interface between the ribs and the sternum plate. It extends over each shoulder and covers the cavity between the top rib and the lower neck region of the spine box. The chest jacket covers the bib. In contrast, in a submarining case, the head does not translate forward much at all because the shoulder belt engages the neck instead of restraining the upper torso. Therefore the upper torso steadily becomes more horizontal and reclined because the overwhelming majority of the dummy's mass is below the shoulder belt. The head is pulled downward by the weight of the dummy through the neck, and the forward inertia of the head mass causes severe rotation about the shoulder belt at the bottom of the neck. As a result, the head arc is much tighter and chin contact occurs sooner in the event, before a significant amount of kinetic energy is dissipated through the belt. This motion causes the chin to contact the low-clearance portion of the bib overlaying the top part of the spine box housing the lower neck load cell. The bib does not provide much resistance to the head's increased rotational energy and the chin essentially “bottoms out” on the spine box, causing a large spike in head acceleration and increased HIC. In summary, VRTC found that a more reclined posture of the HIII-10C dummy leads to an increased likelihood for submarining of the dummy. This situation leads to much higher rotational velocity in the dummy's head, putting it in non-representative contact with a more rigid portion of the dummy structure. It was thus determined that through kinematics, dummy posture significantly affects HIC. July 2006 Testing Program In this test program, an additional matrix of 12 sled tests was conducted to address the finding that the dummy HIC 36 response is sensitive to the seating posture of the dummy in the booster seat. The purpose of this testing program was to determine if the HIC 36 variability could be decreased by tighter controls on both the dummy's posture and the placement of the belt to restrain the dummy to the test seat assembly. Four factors were evaluated in the VRTC testing program: • Seating position—Left Side vs. Right Side • Torso angle—Upright vs. Reclined • Dummy manufacturer—FTSS vs. Denton • Booster model—Evenflo Generations vs. Compass 500 The results of the testing indicate that the dummy torso angle (representing posture) had a much larger effect on HIC 36 than the other three variables. Dummy posture was the only variable to have a statistically significant effect on HIC 36 outcome (alpha significance level = 0.007, n = 8) and the p-value was more than an order of magnitude smaller than the next largest effector (dummy manufacturer had p = 0.065). Figure 1 shows the average HIC 36 with error bars giving the minimum/maximum values for each variable comparison. These test results indicate that the kinematics associated with a more horizontal torso (i.e., reclined initial posture) led to more head rotation and more severe dummy chin contact, which ultimately resulted in higher HIC 36 readings. Belt placement, which is largely a function of both booster seat design and dummy posture, was also shown to influence HIC in a similar manner to dummy posture (torso angle). A more inboard shoulder belt was found to have the same effect as a more reclined posture, and thus similarly, resulted in higher HIC 36 values. Controlling the posture and belt placement of the dummy decreased the HIC 36 variability in the booster seats tested by 78%. 8 8 When the torso angle for the HIII-10-year-old dummy was set to the upright position of approximately 16°, the average coefficient of variation for HIC 36 for repeat tests of the two booster seats used in the July 2006 test series was 12.4%. HIC 36 variability was lessened to an acceptable level below the pass/fail criterion of 1000, and the average HIC readings for the two seats used in repeat testing ranged from 874-921. Figure 2 shows the relationship of HIC 36 measurements vs. torso angle (representing posture) for the two belt-positioning boosters

(BPBs)(Evenflo Generations and Compass 500) that were tested using the pulse and seat assembly of FMVSS No. 213. The plot indicates that for these two BPBs, a 20° torso angle is correlated to a HIC 36 value of 1000. Note that the dispersion in the data at each torso angle in Figure 2 is due to the combined effects of left side versus right side, dummy manufacturer, dynamic belt motion due to booster seat design, and small variations in the controlled torso angle. BILLING CODE 8011-01-P EP23JA08.006 EP23JA08.007 Proposed Dummy Positioning Procedure A detailed description of the seating procedure used by VRTC is provided in the VRTC report and in the proposed regulatory text. The general approach is as follows: 1. Set the dummy's neck angle at 16 degrees. 2. Set the dummy's lumbar angle at standard posture. 3. Place the booster seat on the FMVSS No. 213 bench seat. 4. Place the dummy in the booster seat so that the midsagittal line of the dummy is aligned with the centerline of the booster. 5. Measure the X and Z locations of the left and right shoulder pivots. Make sure that the X and Z values for these two points are within 10 mm of each other to ensure that the dummy is not twisted or tilted in the seat. 6. Locate the head CG, H-point, and knee pivot point. Calculate the H-point location of the dummy relative to the FMVSS No. 213 seat Z point by first measuring the X and Z coordinates of the knee pivot and head center of gravity. Then mathematically locate the intersection point of two circles using the knee pivot and head center of gravity as the centers and the known dummy anthropometric lengths as radii (see VRTC report for more detailed explanation). 7. Set the torso angle (established with the head CG and H-point) to 14 degrees ± 0.5 degrees from vertical. 8. Apply the belt restraints following the booster manufacturer's routing instructions and using standard FMVSS No. 213 belt tensions. We note that the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) has also developed a seating procedure for use with the HIII-10C dummy that is similar to the procedure proposed in this SNPRM. 9 UMTRI had similar findings to the ones of VRTC concerning HIC measurements of the dummy. In a June 14, 2006 presentation to the agency on its preliminary findings of an on-going biomechanics study, UMTRI stated that both the dummy's initial position and belt placement affected HIC measurements during sled testing of booster seats with the HIII-10C dummy. The test data are publicly available on the NHTSA biomechanics database. The data and videos can also be accessed from the NHTSA Web site *http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/biodb/querytesttable.aspx* . VRTC used the average child posture data from the UMTRI Stapp paper in combination with the HIII-10C dummy's anthropometry to derive a mean torso angle of 14.5° as the optimal angle to reduce HIC 36 variability for the HIII-10C dummy while maintaining a biofidelic posture. This angle is consistent with the upright torso angle of approximately 16° used by the agency in the series of sled tests conducted by VRTC in July 2006. A series of tests using the HIII-10C dummy was conducted in March/April of 2007 to validate the seating procedure. This series was a subset of the BPBs that were tested in the March/April 2006 series (see Table 1). Table 2 contains the test matrix and Table 3 summarizes the test results. All of the tests were conducted at the proposed torso angle of 14° ± 0.5°. This ± 0.5° tolerance limit was achievable with the various BPB models evaluated. The Graco Turbo Booster was tested both with and without the highback to determine the effect of the highback. The results indicated that controlling the torso angle reduced dummy response variability for the BPBs that were tested. The IARVs were not exceeded in any of the tests. 9 Reed MP, *et al.* “Improved Positioning Procedures for 6YO and 10YO ATDs Based on Child Occupant Postures,” Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 50 (November 2006), pp. 337-388. Table 2.—Test Matrix for Validation of Proposed Seating Procedure Using HIII-10C Dummy (Mar/Apr 2007) BPB model Dummy SN Number of tests Britax Parkway D001 3 Safety 1st Apex 65 F001 3 Recaro Young Style D001 3 Cosoc Protek F001 3 Graco Turbo Booster: Without back D001 3 With back F001 3 Table 3.—Results for Validation of Proposed Seating Procedure Using HIII-10C Dummy in FMVSS No. 213 Sled Tests (Mar/Apr 2007) IARV HIC 36 ms 1000 Chest acc. 3 ms 60 g Head excursion 813 mm Knee excursion 915 mm Restraint: Safety 1st Apex 65 830 51.1 614 790 683 55.7 610 815 893 53.3 637 810 Britax Parkway 473 48.4 574 704 507 49.0 617 717 420 47.0 614 732 Graco Turbo Booster: With highback 433 42.0 611 707 356 43.3 602 709 Graco Turbo Booster: No back 622 47.3 569 684 625 49.3 540 698 703 52.1 579 692 Recaro Young Style 680 50.1 697 770 838 46.4 617 754 763 52.2 706 773 Cosco Protek 496 42.9 622 694 403 43.8 574 603 Comments are requested on the proposed dummy positioning procedure. It is noted that the proposed dummy positioning procedure may not necessarily lower HIC values across the board for the HIII-10C dummy (i.e., for some restraints, positioning the dummy in an upright posture may not necessarily prevent submarining and high head accelerations when the seat is tested dynamically). However, when testing the HIII-10C dummy in a more upright posture, the HIC values the dummy produces should be within an acceptable range of variability in repeated testing. The proposed positioning procedure would apply when the HIII-10C is used to test booster seats and not when the dummy is used to test child restraints other than booster seats (“non-booster seats”) that are recommended for children weighing over 30 kg (65 lb). 10 NHTSA tentatively concludes that the procedure is not needed in tests of the HIII-10C in non-booster seats because those restraints have an internal harness to help position the dummy. For those restraints, there is already a methodology set forth in FMVSS No. 213 and in the agency's Laboratory Test Procedures for the standard 11 for positioning test dummies in the restraint systems. The methodology specifies applying a certain load to the dummy's pelvic/lower torso area to ensure the dummy is as far back in the restraint as possible, and tightening the internal harness to specifications. Those procedures reasonably assure that the dummy is properly positioned in the child restraint, and appear suitable for positioning the HIII-10C. In contrast, booster seats do not have an internal harness to help position the dummy, so there is more opportunity for variation in the positioning of the HIII-10C and a greater need to control the torso angle and the positioning of the lap/shoulder belt. Comments are requested on this issue. 10 There are only a few non-booster seats recommended for children weighing over 30 kg (65 lb) (e.g., Britax Regent and Sunshine Kids Radian 80). 11 *http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Test%20Procedures/Associated%20Files/TP213-9a.pdf* Comments are also requested on whether FMVSS No. 213 should require boosters or other child restraint systems

(CRSs)to be designed such that the dummy can be positioned in the CRS in accordance with positioning procedures. Conversely, if the dummy cannot be so positioned, what flexibility should be established to fluctuate from the procedures to fit the dummy in the CRS? The agency is also considering whether FMVSS No. 213 should expressly require that each child restraint system must be capable of fitting the test dummy that is specified in S7 of FMVSS No. 213 to evaluate the restraint. (For example, if the CRS were recommended for use by children weighing more than 30 kg (65 lb), should the standard specify that the CRS must be capable of fitting and being tested with the HIII-10C dummy?) b. Continued Use of the Weighted HIII-6-Year-Old Dummy FMVSS No. 213 requires that booster seats recommended for use by children weighing between 22.7 kg (50 lb) and 30 kg (65 lb) be tested with the HIII 6-year-old (HIII-6C) (52 lb) instrumented dummy for injury assessment performance requirements, and with the weighted HIII 62 lb 6-year-old uninstrumented dummy for assessment of the restraint's structural integrity. Because a number of booster seats are currently recommended by their manufacturers for children weighing up to 80 lb (36 kg), the NPRM proposed to use the instrumented HIII-10C 78 lb dummy (35 kg) to test all child restraints recommended for children over 50 lb, and to discontinue the use of the weighted HIII 6-year-old dummy entirely in FMVSS No. 213. Britax commented that it agreed with our proposal to use the HIII-10C dummy when testing CRS with a weight capacity greater than 65 lb, but disagreed with using the dummy for testing CRS with a weight capacity between 50 and 65 lb. The commenter stated that “Restraints, and potentially booster seats, with a maximum capacity between 50 and 65 pounds are not structurally and/nor dimensionally designed for testing with an ATD [anthropomorphic test device], or use by a child, having the weight or size of the HIII-10C dummy.” Britax therefore suggested that FMVSS No. 213 remain as it is currently for CRS with weight capacity between 50 and 65 lb, using the HIII-6C dummy to measure injury criteria and the weighted HIII-6C dummy to assess structural integrity. We have determined that this comment has merit. We tentatively agree that it might not be advisable to require all child restraints rated above 50 lb to be tested with the 78 lb HIII-10C dummy, since some of these seats are not designed for or intended to accommodate a 10-year-old child. Some of these child restraints do not currently fit a 10-year-old dummy, or, if made to fit, might not be able to meet the performance requirements of the standard when tested with the HIII-10C. Britax stated that some child restraints rated above 50 lb now serve a safety need by providing a 5-point harness restraint system for children up to 65 lb. The commenter was concerned that these child restraints would be pulled off the market because they might not be able to meet FMVSS No. 213's requirements when tested with the HIII-10C dummy, a result that would be unwarranted and undesirable since the restraints are not intended for children weighing more than 65 lb. Because Britax's arguments appear reasonable, we are proposing that, for child restraints rated for children weighing from 50 to 65 lb, these restraints would continue to be tested with the HIII-6C instrumented dummy for performance, and with the weighted HIII-6C uninstrumented dummy for structural integrity. Accordingly, under this proposal, the uninstrumented HIII-6C dummy would be retained in FMVSS No. 213. Under the proposal, the instrumented HIII-10C dummy would only be used to test child restraints rated for children weighing 30 kg to 36 kg or more (65 to 80 lb or more). c. Head Support Surface FMVSS No. 213 (S5.2.1.1) currently requires some CRSs to have a seat back to provide restraint against rearward movement of the child's head (rearward in relation to the child). The determination of whether a seat back is required is based on the dummy used in the compliance testing of the restraint. A child restraint need not have a seat back if a specified point on the dummy's head (approximately located at the top of the dummy's ears) is below the top of the standard seat assembly on which the restraint is installed for compliance testing (S5.2.1.2). Because the Hybrid II and Hybrid III 6-year-old dummies are not used in the assessment, booster seats are excluded from the requirement to have a seat back. The agency excluded boosters from the seat back requirement because it was concerned that the additional costs associated with redesigning booster seats to add a seat back were not justified from a safety standpoint. The agency did not know of real world crash data that indicated a problem with head or neck injuries in rear impact crashes. (60 FR 35126, 35135; July 6, 1995.) This SNPRM proposes to keep this exclusion unchanged by amending S5.2.1.2, such that S5.2.1.2 would specify that the HIII-10C, in addition to the 6-year-old test dummies, would not be used to determine the applicability of the head support surface requirements of S5.2.1.1. We are not aware of real world crash data indicating a problem with head or neck injuries in rear impact crashes, i.e., a need for a head support surface requirement. NHTSA is interested in crash data indicating a need for a requirement for a seat back on booster seats for older children. Comments are also requested on any additional costs that might result from redesigning booster seats to provide a seat back. A related issue concerns how the agency would test backless booster seats if the HIII-10C's head were above the seat back of the standard seat assembly used in the FMVSS No. 213 compliance test. Evenflo stated that it instructs its consumers to ensure that the child's head is supported by the vehicle seat back or head restraint. Evenflo noted that when a backless booster is placed on the FMVSS No. 213 test bench, the HIII-10C “is too tall to satisfy this criterion.” NHTSA intends to test the booster to FMVSS No. 213's dynamic test requirements even if the HIII-10C's head is above the seat back of the standard seat assembly. Such a test would assess the performance of the CRS with an older child if the CRS did not have a head support, or if the CRS were used in a vehicle that did not have a head restraint or other supporting structure for the child. On the other hand, Evenflo also observed that in a test of a backless booster seat with the HIII-10C, upon rebound the dummy's head struck the cross bar behind the test bench seat back that supports the tether anchorage, resulting in a HIC 36 value above 1000. Evenflo believed that the outcome was “purely an artifact of the test environment and does not reflect real-world vehicle experience in this country and in Europe that clearly demonstrates the efficacy of backless boosters.” We are interested in other commenters' experiences testing with the HIII-10C, especially during the rebound stage of the FMVSS No. 213 sled test. d. Housekeeping Measures In an effort to delete outdated text from FMVSS No. 213, this document will remove and reserve S7.1.1 of the standard and a part of S7.1.3. S7.1.1 and S7.1.3 were adopted when the CRABI and Hybrid III 3-year-old and 6-year-old test dummies were incorporated into FMVSS No. 213's test procedures. The paragraphs relate to the effective date (August 1, 2005) for testing with the new dummies. Since the August 1, 2005 date has passed, the text is no longer necessary in FMVSS No. 213. Part 2. Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Child Test Dummy In this Part 2 of the SNPRM, we are proposing to add a seating procedure for positioning the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (HIII-6C) in a child restraint for FMVSS No. 213 compliance testing. Concerns about the variability in HIC measurements obtained by that test dummy have led NHTSA to postpone mandatory use of the dummy in compliance tests. The seating procedure addresses the variability issues and facilitates the full use of the dummy as a compliance instrument. I. Background When NHTSA incorporated the Hybrid III

(HIII)6-year-old dummy (codified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart N) into FMVSS No. 213 by way of a 2003 final rule, 12 the agency expected to use the test dummy in compliance tests of child restraints manufactured on or after August 1, 2005. It was brought to the agency's attention, however, that manufacturers needed more time than provided in the final rule to optimize their product designs to the requirements of the standard. Dorel informed the agency 13 that Dorel belt positioning booster seats evaluated with the new dummy would fail to meet FMVSS No. 213, showing HIC measurements approximately double that when the same booster seats were tested with the Hybrid II

(HII)6-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart I). Dorel believed that the HIII dummy “exhibits severe, non-biofidelic neck elongation and head rotation* * *This results in the chin/face of the dummy striking the chest, causing artificially high HIC measurements.” [Footnote not included.] Dorel asked NHTSA to take immediate action to permit continued use of the HII 6-year-old to test CRSs manufactured on and after August 1, 2005. 12 June 24, 2003, 68 FR 37620, Docket 15351. 13 *http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf92/340975_web.pdf* . NHTSA issued an interim final rule that delayed the August 1, 2005 date to August 1, 2008. (August 3, 2005; 70 FR 44520, Docket 22010.) The agency sought to provide manufacturers additional time to gain experience using the test dummy and to optimize their product designs. The rule allowed use of the Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy at the manufacturers' option, for child restraints manufactured until August 1, 2008. II. Proposed Amendments Relating to the HIII-6C Dummy This SNPRM follows up on the interim final rule by proposing dummy positioning procedures for the HIII-6C dummy that would be used when testing booster seats. The proposed seating procedure for the HIII-10C dummy outlined earlier in this notice is also proposed for the HIII-6C dummy, with the exception of the computational values used to determine the H-point and torso angle. These values are different for the HIII-6C dummy due to differences in dummy size. A test program, discussed below, for the 6-year-old dummy was conducted in July 2007, using the new seating procedure. The agency believes that the introduction of this repeatable positioning procedure will address the HIII 6-year-old issues raised by Dorel. We have tentatively concluded that the procedure eliminates the variability of the test environment that is caused by different seating positions, and that implementation of the seating procedure will lead to more consistent results in the transition from the Hybrid II dummies to the Hybrid III dummies. In order to allow sufficient time for manufacturers to incorporate this seating procedure into their compliance testing with the HIII 6-year-old dummy, NHTSA is proposing to postpone the 2008 effective date until 2010. Comments are requested on this postponement. As with the HIII-10C, the proposed positioning procedure for the HIII-6C dummy would apply when the dummy is used to test booster seats and not when the dummy is used to test non-booster seats. The agency's reasons for concluding that the procedure is not needed in tests of the HIII-6C in non-booster seats are the same as those explained above for the HIII-10C, i.e., non-booster seats have an internal harness that positions the dummy and, together with the adjustment procedures already in FMVSS No. 213, controlled and careful positioning of the dummy is already achieved. Comments are requested on this issue. III. Testing In July 2007, a series of sled tests were conducted to determine if the proposed seating procedure developed for the HIII-10C dummy could be applied to the HIII-6C when tested in a BPB. Two models of BPBs were selected, based on the results observed with the HIII-10C, to test with the HIII-6C: The Britax Parkway and the Safety 1st Apex 65. Each BPB was tested at the optimum torso angle of 14° and in the more reclined posture of 22°. Table 4 contains the test matrix for the HIII-6C and Table 5 contains a summary of the test results. As with the HIII-10C dummy, the variability in dummy responses was minimal among repeated tests for the HIII 6-year-old dummy. The same trend observed for the HIII-10C was observed with the HIII-6C dummy: a more reclined initial posture resulted in higher HIC 36 values compared to the more upright posture. Table 4.—Test Matrix for Validation of Proposed Seating Procedure Using HIII-6C Dummy (July 2007) [Numbers in cells indicate sled run numbers] Torso angle = 14 deg Driver SN 008 Passenger SN108 Torso angle = 22 deg Driver SN 088 Passenger SN 108 Britax Parkway 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 Safety 1st Apex 65 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6 Table 5.—Results for Validation of Proposed Seating Procedure Using HIII-6C Dummy (July 2007) Restraint Torso angle

(deg)HIC 36 ms 1000 3 ms. Chest Acc.

(g)60 Head excursion

(mm)813 Knee excursion

(mm)915 Britax Parkway 14.2 523 57.4 538 652 13.9 445 52.9 550 656 14.5 422 56.7 551 676 22.3 691 47.0 523 674 22.3 613 53.8 565 684 21.9 670 52.0 571 695 Safety 1st Apex 65 15.1 478 47.7 517 649 13.9 599 49.2 541 694 14.7 497 47.3 522 657 21.9 671 46.1 562 726 22.0 655 43.3 511 693 21.9 690 44.2 569 729 Submission of Comments How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments? Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are filed correctly in the docket, please include the docket identification number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21) NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to the docket at the address given above under ADDRESSES . You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically. Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html* . How do I submit confidential business information? If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to the docket at the address given above under ADDRESSES . When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in NHTSA's confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512). Will the agency consider late comments? NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES . To the extent possible, the agency will also consider comments that the docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for the agency to consider it in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), the agency will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action. How can I read the comments submitted by other people? You may read the comments received by the docket at the address given above under ADDRESSES . The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also read the comments on the Internet. Please note that even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, the agency recommends that you periodically check the docket for new material. 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). Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). The August 31, 2005 NPRM provided a discussion of the costs associated with the proposed incorporation of the HIII-10C dummy into FMVSS No. 213. The agency stated in the NPRM that the costs are largely attributable to the expense of an instrumented HIII-10C dummy. The 2004 price of an uninstrumented 10-year-old dummy is about $36,550. The specified instrumentation costs approximately $59,297. The NPRM and this SNPRM do not require manufacturers to use any test dummy in certifying their child restraints. Rather, this rulemaking proposes changes to how NHTSA would conduct compliance testing under FMVSS No. 213. The minimal impacts of today's proposal do not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation. We cannot quantify the benefits of this rulemaking. However, the agency believes this rulemaking would enhance the safety of child restraint systems by setting dummy positioning procedures for the Hybrid III 6-year-old and HIII-10C. This proposed rule would increase the repeatability of the test dummies' HIC measurements, which increases the utility of the dummies in FMVSS compliance tests. The result of this proposed rule would be to provide better assurance that each child restraint safely restrains the children for whom the restraint is recommended. 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), unless the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. I certify that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The reasons underlying this certification are discussed in the August 31, 2005 NPRM. This SNPRM would not increase the testing that NHTSA conducts of child restraints. The SNPRM addresses dummy positioning procedures and generally would not have any significant impact on the testing performed on restraints recommend for children weighing up to 80 lb. Manufacturers currently must certify their products to the dynamic test of Standard No. 213. They typically provide the basis for those certifications by dynamically testing their products using child test dummies. The effect of this SNPRM on most child restraints would be to specify procedures that NHTSA would take in positioning the HIII 6-year-old and HIII-10C dummies. Testing child restraints using the procedures is not expected to affect the pass/fail rate of the restraints significantly. National Environmental Policy Act NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) NHTSA has examined today's NPRM 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 rulemaking would not have federalism implications because a final rule, if issued, would 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 rulemaking. 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 proposed standard and test regime. NHTSA may opine on such conflicts in the future, if warranted. See id. at 883-86. Civil Justice Reform This NPRM would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending, or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court. 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 control number from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This proposed rule would not establish any requirements that are considered to be information collection requirements as defined by the OMB in 5 CFR Part 1320. 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 NHTSA 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 NHTSA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The agency searched for, but did not find, any voluntary consensus standards applicable to this proposed rulemaking. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, Federal requires 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 annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). (Adjusting this amount by the implicit gross domestic product price deflator for the year 2000 increases it to $109 million.) This NPRM would not result in a cost of $109 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector. Thus, this NPRM is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 of the UMRA. Regulation Identifier Number 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. List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 571 as set forth below. 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 571.213 is amended by: a. Revising the definition of *Child restraint system* in S4, the introductory paragraph of S5.2.1.2, revising S6.1.1(d)(2), S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii), the introductory paragraph of S6.2.3, revising S7.1.2(d) and S7.1.2(e), S7.1.3, S9.1(f), S9.3.2, and the heading and introductory paragraph of S10.2.2; b. Removing and reserving S7.1.1; c. Adding S7.1.2(f), S10.2.3 and S10.2.4, and d. Adding Figures 13, 14, 15, 16, 17a, 17b, 18, 19, 20 and 21, at the end of the section. The revised, reserved and added text and figures read as follows: § 571.213 Standard No. 213; Child restraint systems. S4. *Definitions.* *Child restraint system* means any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 36 kilograms

(kg)(80 lb) or less. S5.2.1.2 The applicability of the requirements of S5.2.1.1 to a front-facing child restraint, and the conformance of any child restraint other than a car bed to those requirements is determined using the largest of the test dummies specified in S7.1 for use in testing that restraint; provided, that the 6-year-old dummy described in subpart I or subpart N of part 572 of this title and the 10-year-old dummy described in subpart T of part 572 of this title, are not used to determine the applicability of or compliance with S5.2.1.1. A front-facing child restraint system is not required to comply with S5.2.1.1 if the target point on either side of the dummy's head is below a horizontal plane tangent to the top of * * * S6.1.1 *Test conditions.* (d)(1) * * *

(2)When using the test dummies specified in 49 CFR Part 572, subparts N, P, R, or T, performance tests under S6.1 are conducted at any ambient temperature from 20.6 °C to 22.2 °C and at any relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent. S6.1.2 * * *

(a)* * *

(ii)*Belt-positioning seats.* A belt-positioning seat is positioned on either outboard seating position of the standard seat assembly in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the system pursuant to S5.6.1, except that only the standard vehicle lap and shoulder belt is used to fasten the belt-positioning seat. No tether strap or any other supplemental device is used to attach the belt-positioning seat to the standard seat assembly. Place the booster seat on the standard seat assembly such that it is centered between the lap belt anchor positions. Position the base of the booster rearward as far as possible against the seat back of the standard seat assembly by pushing the booster seat rearward until the intersection of the booster's back and bottom contacts the intersection of the standard bench seat's back and base cushion. S6.2.3 Pull the sling tied to the dummy restrained in the child restraint system and apply the following force: 50 N for a system tested with a newborn dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart K); 90 N for a system tested with a 12-month-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart R); 200 N for a system tested with a 3-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart P); 270 N for a system tested with a 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart N or I); 350 N for a system tested with a weighted 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart S); or 437 N for a system tested with a 10-year-old-dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart T). The force is applied in the manner illustrated in Figure 4 and as follows: S7.1.1 [Reserved] S7.1.2 * * *

(d)A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a specified mass range that includes any children having a mass greater than 18 kg (40 lb) but not greater than 22.7 kg (50 lb) or by children in a specified height range that includes any children whose height is greater than 1100 mm but not greater than 1250 mm is tested with a 49 CFR part 572, subpart N dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy).

(e)A child restraint that is recommended by its manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a specified mass range that includes any children having a mass greater than 22.7 kg (50 lb) but not greater than 30 kg (65 lb) or by children in a specified height range that includes any children whose height is greater than 1100 mm but not greater than 1250 mm is tested with a 49 CFR part 572, subpart N dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy) and with a part 572, subpart S dummy (Hybrid III 6-year-old weighted dummy).

(f)A child restraint that is manufactured on or after [compliance date of final rule] and that is recommended by its manufacturer in accordance with S5.5 for use either by children in a specified mass range that includes any children having a mass greater than 30 kg (65 lb) or by children in a specified height range that includes any children whose height is greater than 1250 mm is tested with a 49 CFR part 572, subpart T dummy (Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy). S7.1.3 Voluntary use of alternative dummies. At the manufacturer's option (with said option irrevocably selected prior to, or at the time of, certification of the restraint), with regard to testing a child restraint manufactured before August 1, 2010, when this section specifies use of the 49 CFR part 572, subpart N (Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy) test dummy, the test dummy specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart I (Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy) may be used in place of the subpart N test dummy. S9.1 Type of clothing.

(f)*Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart N), Hybrid III 6-year-old weighted dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart S), and Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart T).* When used in testing under this standard, the dummies specified in 49 CFR part 572, subparts N, S, and T, are clothed in a light-weight cotton stretch short-sleeve shirt and above-the-knee pants, and size 12 1/2 M sneakers with rubber toe caps, uppers of dacron and cotton or nylon and a total mass of 0.453 kg. S9.3.2 When using the test dummies conforming to part 572 subparts N, P, R, S, or T, prepare the dummies as specified in this paragraph. Before being used in testing under this standard, dummies must be conditioned at any ambient temperature from 20.6 °C to 22.2 °C and at any relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent, for at least 4 hours. S10.2.2 *Three-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart P), Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart I), Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart N), Hybrid III 6-year-old weighted dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart S), and Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart T) positioned in child restraints other than belt-positioning seats).* Position the 3-year-old dummy and Hybrid II 6-year-old dummy according to the instructions for child positioning that the restraint manufacturer provided with the system in accordance with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while conforming to the provisions in S10.2.2. When using the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy, the Hybrid III 6-year-old weighted dummy and the Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy to test child restraints other than belt-positioning seats, position the dummy according to the instructions for child positioning that the restraint manufacturer provided with the system in accordance with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while conforming to the provisions in S10.2.2. S10.2.3 *Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart N) in belt-positioning seat.* When using the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR part 572, subpart N) to test belt-positioning seats, position the dummy in the child restraint as follows:

(a)Place the dummy in the booster seat so that the midsagittal line of the dummy is coincident with the centerline of the booster.

(b)Measure the X and Z locations of the left and right shoulder pivots. Position the dummy so that the difference between the X and Z values for these two points is less than or equal to 1 cm (see Figure 13).

(c)As illustrated in Figure 14 of this section, calculate the H-point location of the dummy relative to the standard seat assembly Z point (see Figure 1B of this standard) by:

(1)Measuring the X and Z coordinates of the knee pivot (X KP and Z KP ) and head center of gravity (X CG and Z CG );

(2)Mathematically locating the intersection point of two circles using the knee pivot and head center of gravity as the centers and the known dummy anthropometric lengths as radii. The equations for calculating the H-point are as follows: EP23JA08.000 Where: EP23JA08.001

(3)Use the H-point location and head center of gravity location to determine the torso angle relative to vertical. This angle is calculated using EP23JA08.002

(4)Adjust the dummy until the torso angle is 14±0.5 degrees from vertical.

(5)Secure the dummy and booster with belt restraint, following booster manufacturer's instructions for routing the shoulder and lap belts. Only the standard vehicle lap and shoulder belt is used to fasten the belt-positioning seat. No tether strap or any other supplemental device is used to attach the belt-positioning seat to the standard seat assembly. Apply the belt tensions specified in S6.1.2(d) of this standard.

(6)Locate the shoulder and lap belts as follows while conforming to the booster manufacturer's belt-routing instructions. If it is not possible to do both, follow the manufacturer's instructions:

(i)Place the outboard edge of the shoulder belt inside of the outer edge of the chest jacket (see Figure 15) or as close to the outer edge of the chest jacket as possible.

(ii)The straight line distance from the bottom of the dummy's chin to the center of the shoulder belt/middle of the sternum along the dummy's midsagittal line is 15.5±0.5 cm (see Figure 16).

(iii)The shoulder belt angle relative to horizontal is 50°±10°. If it is not feasible to achieve the specified shoulder belt angle, position the shoulder belt as near as possible to the 50° angle.

(iv)Place the lap belt such that the top of the belt is 2.54 cm or more below the top rim of the pelvis molded skin at the dummy's midsagittal line (illustrated Figure 17). If it is not feasible to locate the lap belt at least 2.54 cm below the top of the pelvis due to the booster seat's routing path, position belt as low as possible on pelvis.

(7)Place upper arms as close as possible to, and in alignment with, the sides of the upper torso. If possible, bend arms at the elbows such that the hands are resting on the booster seat cushion; otherwise bend lower arm perpendicular to upper arm and have hands pointed forward.

(8)Level dummy's head ± 1° off of horizontal. S10.2.4 *Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart T) in belt-positioning seat.* When using the Hybrid III 10-year-old child dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart T) to test belt-positioning seats, position the dummy in the child restraint as follows:

(a)Set the dummy's neck angle at the SP-16 setting (Figure 17a). See also Figure 20 of the [Draft] Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and Inspection

(PADI)of the Hybrid III 10-year-old Child Test Dummy (HIII-10C), [April 2005] for more detail.

(b)Set the dummy's lumbar angle at the SP-12 setting (“SP” means standard posture), see Figure 17b. This is done by aligning the notch on the lumbar adjustment bracket with the SP-12 notch on the lumbar attachment. See also Figure 45 of PADI for more detail.

(c)Place the dummy in the booster seat so that the midsagittal line of the dummy is coincident with the centerline of the booster.

(d)Measure the X and Z locations of the left and right shoulder pivots. Position the dummy so that the difference between the X and Z values for these two points is less than or equal to 1 cm (see Figure 18).

(e)As illustrated in Figure 19 of this section, calculate the H-point location of the dummy relative to the standard seat assembly Z point (see Figure 1B of this standard) by:

(1)Measuring the X and Z coordinates of the knee pivot (X KP and Z KP ) and head center of gravity (X CG and Z CG );

(3)Use the H-point location and head center of gravity location to determine the torso angle relative to vertical. This angle is calculated using EP23JA08.005

(4)Adjust the dummy until the torso angle is 14±0.5 degrees from vertical.

(6)Locate the shoulder and lap belts as follows while conforming to the booster manufacturer's belt routing instructions. If it is not possible to do both, follow the booster manufacturer's instructions:

(i)Place the outboard edge of the shoulder belt inside of the outer edge of the chest jacket (see Figure 20) or as close to the outer edge of the chest jacket as possible.

(ii)The straight line distance from the bottom of the dummy's chin to the center of the shoulder belt/middle of the sternum along the dummy's midsagittal line is 16±0.5 cm (see Figure 21).

(iv)Place the lap belt such that the top of the belt is 2.54 cm or more below the top rim of the pelvis molded skin at the dummy's midsagittal line (illustrated Figure 21). If it is not feasible to locate the lap belt at least 2.54 cm below the top of the pelvis due to the booster seat's routing path, position belt as low as possible on pelvis.

(8)Level dummy's head ±1° off of horizontal. BILLING CODE 4910-59-P EP23JA08.008 EP23JA08.009 EP23JA08.010 EP23JA08.011 EP23JA08.012 EP23JA08.013 EP23JA08.014 EP23JA08.015 EP23JA08.016 Issued: January 11, 2008. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E8-856 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-C 73 15 Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request January 16, 2008. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Rural Utilities Service *Title:* 7 CFR Part 1744, Subpart B, Lien Accommodations and Subordination Policy. *OMB Control Number:* 0572-0126. *Summary of Collection:* The Rural Utilities Service

(RUS)is a credit agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). It makes mortgage loans and loan guarantees to finance electric, telecommunications, and water and waste facilities in rural areas. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandates that universally available and affordable telecommunications services, including advanced services, be made available to all U.S. citizens—weather in rural areas or city centers, affluent, or poor communities. In support of this mandate, RUS is amending its regulation to ensure that, with the assistance of advanced telecommunications technology, rural citizens be provided the same economic, educational, and health care benefits available in the large metropolitan areas. *Need and Use of the Information:* This regulation will help RUS facilitate funding from non-RUS sources in order to meet the growing capital needs of rural Local Exchange Carriers and enable the providers to compete in an expanding number of telecommunications services. RUS will use the information to provide “automatic” approval for borrowers requesting lien accommodations that meet the required financial tests. These tests are designed to ensure that the financial strength of the borrower is more than sufficient to protect the government's loan security interests; hence, the lien accommodations will not adversely affect the government's financial interests. *Description of Respondents:* Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 30. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: On occasion. *Total Burden Hours:* 23. Rural Utilities Service *Title:* Electric System Emergency Restoration Plan. *OMB Control Number:* 0572-0140. *Summary of Collection:* Electric power systems have been identified in Presidential Decision Directive 63, May 1998, as one of the critical infrastructures of the United States. The term “critical infrastructure” is defined in section 1016(e) of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 5195c(e)). To ensure that the electric infrastructure in rural America is adequately protected, Rural Utilities Service requires that all current electric borrowers enhance an existing Emergency Restoration Plan

(ERP)or, if none exists, develop and maintain an ERP. *Need and Use of the Information:* Rural Development Utilities Programs

(RDUP)requires that all current electric borrowers conduct a Vulnerability and Risk Assessment

(VRA)of its respective systems and utilize the results of this assessment to enhance an existing ERP or create an ERP if none exists. The ERP provides written procedures detailing response and restoration efforts in the event of a major system outage resulting from a natural or man made disaster. RDUP requires each electric borrower to provide annually a self-certification, in writing, that an ERP exists and that an initial VRA has been performed. If this information were not collected, vulnerabilities may exist in the electric system infrastructure. The result would be increased risk to public safety and may affect the Government loan security. *Description of Respondents:* Not-for-profit institutions; business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 676. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 338. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E8-1043 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Farm Service Agency Request for Extension With Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection; Representation for CCC and FSA Loans Authorization To File a Financing Statement AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, USDA. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Commodity Credit Corporation

(CCC)and the Farm Service Agency

(FSA)is seeking from all interested individuals and organizations on an extension with revision of a currently approved information collection associated with form CCC-10 used to support the CCC and FSA Farm Loan Programs (FLPs). DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or beforeMarch 24, 2008 to be assured consideration. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Kyer, USDA, Farm Service Agency, Price Support Division, phone

(202)720-7935. ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on this Notice. In your comment, include volume, date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** . You may submit comments by any of the following methods: *E-mail:* Send comments to: *chris.kyer@wdc.usda.gov* . *Fax:*

(202)690-1536. *Mail:* Chris Kyer, Program Manager, USDA, Farm Service Agency, Price Support Division, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0512, Washington, DC 20250-0512. Comments also should be to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Representations for Commodity Credit Corporation or Farm Service Agency Loans and Authorization to File a Financing Statement and Related Documents. *OMB Control Number:* 0560-0215. *Expiration Date of Approval:* September 30, 2008. *Type of Request:* Extension and revision. *Abstract:* Form CCC-10 is necessary to:

(a)Gather or verify basic data provided by a CCC or FSA loan applicant that is required on a financing statement filed by CCC or FSA to perfect a security interest in collateral used to secure a loan; and

(b)obtain loan applicant permission to file a financing statement prior to the execution of a security agreement. *Estimate of Burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 minutes per response. The average travel time, which is included in the total annual burden, is estimated to be 1 hour per respondent. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 55,500. *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:* 1. *Estimated Total Annual Burden On Respondents:* 32,357 hours. Comments are invited on the following:

(1)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)The accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; or;

(4)Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a mater of public records. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection. Signed in Washington, DC, on January 15, 2008. Teresa C. Lasseter, Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation, Administrator, Farm Service Agency. [FR Doc. E8-1044 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Bull Run Watershed Management Unit Agreement, Multnomah County, OR AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final Agreement. SUMMARY: The Mt. Hood National Forest (Forest) in coordination with the City of Portland Water Bureau

(City)has prepared a new Bull Run Watershed Management Unit Agreement pursuant to Public Law 95-200, section 2(d). This Agreement will guide and be applicable to all occupancy, use, and management of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit by the City and the Forest. This Agreement replaces the 1979 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This new Agreement provides the revised administrative direction and agreements needed to structure the parties' roles, responsibilities, business processes, and working relationships for the coming decades. The Agreement was approved on December 17, 2007. A copy of the Final Agreement is available on the following Internet Web sites, *http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mthood* under projects & plans, or *http://www.portlandonline.com/water/.* Hard copies of the Final Agreement may be obtained by contacting the contact person listed below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the Agreement or requests for copies should be directed to Rick Acosta, Mt. Hood National Forest, Public Affairs Officer, 16400 Champion Way, Sandy, Oregon 97055-7248, (e-mail: *racosta@fs.fed.us* ), or phone: 503-668-1791, or Terry Black, City of Portland Water Bureau, Outreach Specialist, 1120 SW., 5th Avenue, Portland, OR 97204, (e-mail: *Terry.Black@ci.portland.or.us* ), or phone: 503-823-1168. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bull Run watershed, located in the Mt. Hood National Forest, is the largest and oldest of the several water supplies serving the Portland metropolitan area. Its role in the region's past, present and future, along with its unprecedented level of water quality, make it a high priority for both the City and the Forest Service to take the steps necessary to ensure its continuing quality, productivity and protection. As the City and the Forest Service began to look closely at the administrative and policy frameworks that guided their interactions they noted that much of that framework dated from the late 1970s and arose from the direction provided in the 1977 Bull Run Management Act (Pub. L. 95-200). As little of that framework had been updated over time, its applicability to current issues and needs is limited. Thus, this new agreement replaces the 1979 MOU, aligns practice with existing legislation, and provides the revised administrative direction and agreements needed to structure the parties' roles, responsibilities, business processes, and working relationships for the coming decades. The City and the Forest Service, along with community interests in the greater Portland metropolitan area, have had a long and sometimes contentious history of working together to protect and manage the valuable ecological and water resources of the Bull Run watershed. But with the coming of the 21st century, the issues and conflicts in policy and direction that held attention for the last fifty years have all but disappeared. Now, the parties are turning to the future, responding to new fiscal realities, and working together to frame the structures, processes, roles and responsibilities that will allow them to act effectively as joint stewards of this valuable regional and national resource, in concert with citizens who increasingly desire to redeem their responsibilities in stewardship of their lands. Officials from the City of Portland and the Mount Hood National Forest prepared this new Agreement between the City and the Forest Service to identify preferred administrative arrangements for their joint management of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit. The purpose and hope of the Agreement is to document a new and more relevant relationship between the City and the Forest Service for the long-term stewardship of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit that is built on a firm foundation of citizen involvement. The final Agreement was approved on December 17, 2007. In completing the Agreement, the Forest and the City responded to comments received during the comment period and also jointly prepared a Report to the Community. This Report discussed the history and background of discussions that led to the new agreement. This Report is also available on both of the Web sites listed above. The Agency officials are Gary Larsen, Forest Supervisor, Mt. Hood National Forest for the Forest Service, and the City official is Randy Leonard, Commissioner-in-Charge, City of Portland Water Bureau for the City of Portland. (Authority: Sec. 2, Pub. L. 95-200, 91 Stat. 1425 (16 U.S.C. 482b) Dated: January 2, 2008. Gary L. Larsen, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 08-229 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 34

Traces to 34 documents

U.S. Code