Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 19839

reportable toxic chemicals to reflect the

present legal status of the chemicals

addressed in this final rule.

Since this action does not contain any

requirements, it does not require review

by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under Executive Order

12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and

Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),

or Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). For

the same reason, it does not require any

review under Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

(Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 12875,

entitled Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR

58093, October 28, 1993), or Executive

Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,

1994). In addition, since this action does

not require a proposal, no action is

needed under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

The deletion of these chemicals from

the EPCRA section 313 list will reduce

the overall reporting and recordkeeping

burden estimate provided for EPCRA

section 313, but this action does not

require any review or approval by OMB

under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. until EPA

decides to subtract the total burden

eliminated by today’s action from the

EPCRA section 313 overall burden

approved by OMB. At some point in the

future, EPA will determine the total

EPCRA section 313 burden associated

with the chemcials being deleted today,

and will complete the required

Information Collection Worksheet to

adjust the total EPCRA section 313

estimate. The reporting and

recordkeeping burdens associated with

EPCRA section 313 are approved by

OMB under OMB No. 2070–0093

(EPCRA section 313 base program and

Form R, EPA ICR No. 1363) and under

OMB No. 2070–0145 (Form A, EPA ICR

No. 1704). The current public reporting

burden for EPCRA section 313 is

estimated to average 61.3 hours for a

Form R submitter and 34.5 hours for a

Form A submitter. These estimates

includes the time needed for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the

data needed, and completing and

reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding this burden

estimate, including suggestions for

reducing this burden, to Chief,

Information Policy Branch, Mail Code

2137, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Please do not send your

completed forms to this address.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review

Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

will submit a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the United States prior to

publication of the rule in the Federal

Register. However, section 808 of that

Act provides that any rule for which the

issuing agency for good cause finds (and

incorporates the finding and a brief

statement of reasons therefor in the rule)

that notice and public procedure

thereon are impracticable, unnecessary,

or contrary to the public interest, shall

take effect at such time as the agency

promulgating the rule determines (5

U.S.C. 808(2)). As stated previously,

EPA has made such a good cause

finding, including the reasons therefor,

and established an effective date of

April 22, 1998. This rule is not a ‘‘major

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

Environmental protection,

Community right-to-know, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, and

Toxic chemicals.

Dated: April 13, 1998.

Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention,

Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 372 is

amended to read as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 372

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11013 and

11028.

§ 372.65 [Amended]

2. Section 372.65 is amended by

deleting the entries for 2-bromo-2-

nitropropane-1,3-diol,

dimethyldichlorosilane, 2,6-

dimethylphenol, methyltrichlorosilane,

and trimethylchlorosilane under

paragraph (a), and deleting the entire

CAS No. entries for 52–51–7, 75–77–4,

75–78–5, 75–79–6, and 576–26–1 under

paragraph (b).

[FR Doc. 98–10712 Filed 4–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Parts 571 and 589

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–3421]

RIN 2127–AB85

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Head Impact Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petitions for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This document denies

petitions for reconsideration submitted

by the American Automobile

Manufacturers Association (AAMA) and

ASC, Incorporated (ASC). On April 8,

1997, NHTSA published a final rule

amending provisions in Standard No.

201, Head Impact Protection, relating to

upper interior head impact protection.

The amendments revised and clarified

test procedures, added an optional

compliance phase-in plan, allowed

carry-forward credits to facilitate

compliance, and excluded small buses

from the Standard’s upper interior

impact protection requirements. ASC’s

petition stated the company’s concerns

about the impact of the final rule on the

integrated convertible roof and frame

designs and requested a further

amendment to the definition of

‘‘convertible roof frame system.’’

AAMA’s petition requested that NHTSA

reconsider and modify the final rule in

reference to approach angles, moveable

side glazing, multiple impacts, the

procedure for locating CG-F (a reference

point corresponding to the location of a

front seat occupant’s head), and the

definition of ‘‘forehead impact zone.’’

DATES: Petition Date: Any petitions for

reconsideration of this denial must be

received by NHTSA no later than June

8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for

reconsideration should refer to the

docket and notice number of this notice

and be submitted to: Administrator,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

legal issues: Mr. Otto Matheke, Office of

the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 400 Seventh

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Mr.

Matheke’s telephone number is (202)

366–5253. His facsimile number is (202)

366–3820. For non-legal issues: Dr.

William Fan, Office of Crashworthiness

Standards, NPS–11, Dr. Fan’s telephone
19840 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

number is (202) 366–4922. His facsimile

number is (202) 366–4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

18, 1995, the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA)

published a final rule (60 FR 43031—

Docket No. 92–28; Notice 4) amending

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 201, ‘‘Occupant Protection

in Interior Impact,’’ to require passenger

cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose

passenger vehicles (MPVs) with a gross

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536

kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less to

provide head protection during a

vehicle crash when the occupant’s head

strikes pillars, side rails, headers, or the

roof of the vehicle. The final rule

specifies a 24 km/h (15 mph) in-vehicle

component impact test that uses a freemotion headform (FMH). The injury

criterion is the HIC limit of 1,000. The

effective date is a four-year phase-in

plan (10 percent, 24 percent, 40 percent,

70 percent and 100 percent) beginning

on September 1, 1998. An optional

implementation plan is a one-year

phase-in plan (0 percent and 100

percent) beginning on September 1,

1998. A final stage manufacturer or

alterer must comply with the standard’s

upper interior impact requirements for

vehicles manufactured on or after

September 1, 2002.

The agency received ten petitions for

reconsideration in response to the

August 1995 final rule. In response to

those petitions, NHTSA published

another final rule on April 8, 1997 (62

FR 16718—Docket No. 92–28; Notice 7)

revising test procedures, adding an

optional phase-in plan, allowing carryforward credits, and excluding small

buses from the upper interior head

impact requirements. In addition,

NHTSA initiated a new rulemaking

concerning alternative procedures for

testing dynamically deployed head

protection systems.

In response to the April 1997 final

rule, the American Automobile

Manufacturers Association (AAMA) and

ASC, Incorporated submitted new

petitions for reconsideration. The ASC

petition requested exclusion of the

convertible top from the FMH impact

requirements, while the AAMA petition

addressed technical issues in general

areas.

The ASC Petition for Reconsideration

On May 22, 1997, ASC submitted a

petition for reconsideration arguing that

the amendments to the August 1995

final rule did not address current

convertible top designs that include

integrated roof and frame systems (e.g.,

a removable hardtop). ASC also

indicated its belief that the addition of

padding to an integrated convertible

roof and frame system would prevent

the roof from folding into the available

storage area below the beltline or in the

rear storage area, thereby interfering

with rear vision or requiring elimination

of the rear seat in some models.

Compliance with Standard No. 201’s

upper interior impact requirements

would, in ASC’s view, limit future

design and development of convertible

tops to traditional vinyl or canvas top

convertibles with separate frames. As a

result, production and sale of more

‘‘advanced’’ integrated convertible top

designs would become impracticable.

Accordingly, in its petition for

reconsideration, ASC requested that the

convertible roof frame definition in the

amended final rule be revised to read as

follows:

Convertible roof frame means the frame of

a convertible roof and the roof and frame of

a convertible with an integrated roof and

frame system which is capable of folding and

being stored below the beltline or in the rear

storage compartment of the vehicle.

Without this revision, ASC believes that

the automobile industry will not be able

to continue production and

development of new convertible

automobile designs with integrated roof

and frame systems.

The agency notes that the exclusion of

convertible roofs and linkages is an

issue that was examined extensively

throughout the rulemaking process

leading up to the August 1995 and April

1997 final rules. In the August 1995

final rule, NHTSA agreed to exclude

‘‘convertible roof frames and linkage

mechanisms because the presence of a

countermeasure such as padding would

interfere with their movement’’ (60 FR

43031, at 43047). The April 1997 final

rule, issued in response to petitions for

reconsideration filed after the issuance

of the August 1995 final rule, deleted

the word ‘‘metal’’ from the definition of

‘‘convertible roof frame’’ in response to

objections that limiting excluded frames

to those made of metal was design

restrictive (62 FR 16718, 16721).

ASC’s request for reconsideration

raises an issue that NHTSA examined

prior to the issuance of the August 1995

final rule and the April 1997 final rule.

In the preamble to the April 1997 final

rule, the agency observed that

commenters did not provide any

support for the claim that

countermeasures could not be installed

on areas other than convertible roof

frames and linkage mechanisms.

NHTSA further stated that rigid

convertible tops could produce head

injuries and that the agency believed

that protection should be provided for

all the hard areas inside a vehicle unless

it is not practicable to do so. The ASC

petition does not include any new data

or information demonstrating either that

the agency’s prior decision not to

exclude convertible roofs was wrong or

that newer roof designs require

reconsideration of the issue.

In the absence of new data, the agency

considered the ASC petition based on

the agency’s current knowledge of

vehicle roof designs. The upper roof

area of a typical passenger car is

relatively soft in comparison with the

pillar and side rail components of the

vehicle. Based on the agency’s current

knowledge, the upper roof structure of

a typical production car does not

require any padding to comply with the

FMH impact requirements. The roof

structure is basically a shallow, thin

shell design with some rib-type

reinforcement members (roof crossmember and/or roof bow member). A

properly designed thin shell structure is

a very effective energy absorptive

design. A roof structure made of sheet

metal or other flexible materials should

be able to meet Standard 201’s

requirements without the extensive use

of padding or other countermeasures.

ASC has not submitted any data

indicating that convertible hardtops

cannot be made as flexible as a

conventional roof structure. NHTSA

believes that there is not a sufficient

basis for treating convertible hardtops

differently from regular vehicle roof

structures and that convertible hardtops

should be subject to Standard No. 201’s

upper interior impact requirements.

Agency test data indicate that the

upper roof of many production cars can

comply with those requirements

without any modification. An integrated

convertible roof, except frames and

linkage mechanisms, is basically a

shallow thin shell design that is soft and

smooth. Since convertible roof frames

and linkage mechanisms are excluded

from the final rule, the design of the

remainder of the convertible hardtop

roof should not present additional

compliance difficulties. The agency

believes that integrated convertible roof

designs should be able to meet Standard

201 when the roof top membrane

structure is tested using the FMH

impactor at a speed up to 24 km/h (15

mph). Since ASC has not demonstrated

that a ‘‘hard’’ convertible top that meets

Standard 201’s upper interior impact

requirements cannot be built or is

otherwise impracticable, the agency is

denying ASC’s petition.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 19841

The AAMA Petition for

Reconsideration

On May 23, 1997, AAMA submitted a

petition for reconsideration requesting

that NHTSA consider additional

changes to Standard No. 201 to address

concerns relating to approach angles in

compliance testing, hinged and

moveable glazing, multiple FMH

impacts, the procedure for locating a

reference point that corresponds to the

head position of a front seat occupant

and is known as CG–F, and the

definition of the forehead impact zone

of the FMH.

In defining the trajectory of the FMH

when it is propelled at target points

located on all pillars except the A-pillar,

the April 1997 final rule specified a

vertical approach angle range for the

FMH of +50 to ¥10 degrees. AAMA

believes that the minimum vertical

angle of ¥10 degrees may not be

sufficient to allow the FMH to make

proper contact with certain targets. In

AAMA’s view, simultaneous contact of

the forehead and chin may occur when

the pillar surface on which the target is

located is canted (from top to bottom)

toward the inside of the vehicle at an

angle of approximately 10 degrees.

AAMA recommended that the existing

target exclusion in S6.1 be expanded so

that targets that cannot be tested using

the approach angle limits specified in

S8.13.4 would be excluded from the

upper interior impact requirements.

NHTSA does not believe that the

exclusion in S6.1 must be modified to

address AAMA’s concern. As it appears

in the April 1997 final rule, S6.1

indicates that the FMH impact

requirements do not apply to any target

that cannot be located using the

procedure of S10. S10(b) specifies that,

except as specified in S10(c), if there is

no combination of horizontal and/or

vertical approach angles specified in

S8.13.4 at which the forehead impact

zone of the FMH can contact one of the

targets located using the procedures in

S10.1 through S10.13, the center of that

target is moved to any location within

a 25 mm sphere, centered on the center

of the original target and measured

along the vehicle interior, that the

forehead impact zone can contact at one

or more combination of angles. S10(c)

specifies that if there is no point within

the sphere specified in S10(b) which the

forehead of the FMH can contact at one

or more combination of horizontal and/

or vertical approach angles specified in

S8.13.4, the sphere is increased by

25 mm increments until it contains at

least one point that can be contacted at

one or more combination of angles. In

addition, S8.13.4.2 specifies procedures

for determining vertical approach angles

that would avoid simultaneous contact

of the forehead and chin. If a specific

target cannot be tested using the

approach angle limits specified in

S8.13.4, the target should be relocated

using S10(b) or S10(c). Accordingly,

NHTSA concludes that an amendment

to the final rule is not necessary to

resolve AAMA’s concern.

As noted above, the April 1997 final

rule excluded convertible roof frames

and linkage mechanisms from Standard

No. 201’s upper interior impact

requirements. AAMA’s petition for

reconsideration requested that the hinge

and latch components for sunroofs and

moveable side glazing be accorded

similar treatment. The organization

argued that these components, like

convertible roof frames and linkage

mechanisms, cannot function if they

must be padded to meet Standard No.

201.

NHTSA does not believe that the

same considerations that apply to

convertible roof frames and linkage

mechanisms also apply to sunroof and

side window latches and hinges. First,

convertible roofs are large and complex

compared to sunroofs and moveable

glazing, and therefore require much

stronger latches and anchorages to

stabilize the whole roof during high

speed travel. Second, the size and

complexity of convertible roof

mechanisms are such that padding those

components may interfere with the

operation of the convertible roof top. In

contrast, the latches and hinges used in

the sunroofs and moveable glazing of

current production vehicles are usually

small in size and made of, or enclosed

with, plastic materials. Although the

amended final rule does not identify the

latches or hinges of moveable side

glazing or sunroofs as targets for

compliance testing, these components

could be located in target areas.

However, the agency believes that

padding these fasteners, if required,

would not significantly affect the

operation of sunroofs and side

windows. NHTSA also notes that

similar components, such as safety belt

anchorages and grab handles, may also

have to be padded. The agency is not

aware of any justification for

differentiating between the latter and

sunroof or side window hinges and

latches.

The April 1997 final rule specified

that a FMH impact may not occur

within 150 mm distance of any prior

FMH impact. AAMA believes that the

minimum distance of 150 mm is not

adequate to address complex impact

conditions. The organization contends

that the type of countermeasure, the

target location, the size of target

component, the impact approach angles,

and the interaction of chin loading are

factors that may lead to multiple

impacts affecting test results. Since

damage to trim as a result of an impact

cannot be readily detected through

visual observation and manufacturers

cannot reliably anticipate the effects on

material or component performance,

AAMA contends that only one impact

be allowed for each component.

The agency does not agree. In order to

complete vehicle compliance tests with

one vehicle, NHTSA concluded in the

final rule that multiple FMH impacts on

a component should be allowed, that

impacts on both left and right side

components should be allowed, but that

an overlap of two FMH impacts should

not be allowed. The agency determined

that the minimum distance between two

targets should be 150 mm (6 inches). In

order to allow padding to recover from

a FMH impact, a 30-minute waiting

period is specified if the next impact is

to be on the same component.

NHTSA believes that the existing

minimum distance between impact

points is adequate. The maximum width

of the Hybrid III headform is 150 mm

and the effective width of the forehead

impact zone is much less than 150 mm.

With two adjacent targets at 150 mm

distance, overlapping of the FMH

contact should not occur. The agency

also believes that manufacturers may

test in a fashion that minimizes multiple

impacts. The amended final rule allows

testing of both left and right side

components; multiple impacts would

generally occur during the A or B-pillar

component tests. If target selection is

made using both side components, the

actual distance between two adjacent

targets could be much larger than the

specified minimum distance of 150 mm.

In addition, NHTSA testing indicates

that the foam damage area from an

impact is smaller than the forehead

impact zone.

AAMA also argued that only one

FMH impact should be allowed for each

component due to the uncertainty

involved in choosing a design and/or

material for compliance testing. NHTSA

notes that AAMA has raised this issue

in a previous petition for

reconsideration. In that instance, AAMA

did not submit any test data establishing

that permitting only a single test for

each component is necessary or

desirable. In its current request, AAMA

has not submitted any new test data

supporting such a contention. NHTSA

has previously declined to adopt a

limitation on the number of impacts per

component and declines to do so now.
19842 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

The agency also wishes to make it

clear that where Standard 201, or other

Federal motor vehicle safety standards,

do not address a specific test condition,

vehicles must comply in all

circumstances consistent with

anticipated use of the vehicle by

occupants. Multiple impacts to one

component are an example of a

circumstance that might be encountered

in a crash. NHTSA may therefore test

single components with multiple

impacts when performing compliance

testing under Standard 201.

The AAMA petition also requests that

the agency rectify an apparent conflict

involving the procedure for locating

CG–F by use of the ‘‘seating reference

point (SgRP).’’ The SgRP is a single

point which establishes the rearmost

normal design driving or riding

position. In Standard No. 201,

S8.12(a)(1) uses SgRP with the seat in its

rearmost normal design or driving

position to locate the rearmost CG–F

(CG–F2). The forwardmost CG–F (CG–

F1) is, according to S8.12(a)(2), located

horizontally forward of CG–F2 by the

distance equal to the fore and aft

distance of the seat track. Because

S8.12(a)(2) describes CG–F1 as the head

center of gravity with the seat in its

forwardmost adjustment position,

AAMA believes that S8.12 implies that

the reference point to be used is not

SgRP, which is a single point, but rather

the design H-point, which can occupy a

number of points according to the seat

adjustment. In its petition, AAMA

suggested that a conflict existed and

requested that it be resolved.

When the August 1995 final rule was

published, NHTSA was requested to

change the reference point from the

SgRP to the H-point. The agency

explained in the preamble of the April

1997 final rule that a change of the

reference point is not necessary. This is

because the only point used for locating

CG–F1 and CG–F2 is the single SgRP.

The agency notes that, prior to a recent

correcting amendment published on

January 2, 1998 (63 FR 27), S8.12(a)(1)

incorrectly specified that C–-F2 should

be located with the seat in its rearmost

adjustment position rather than the

rearmost normal design driving or

riding position. As the SgRP only exists

in the latter position and not the former,

AAMA and others could have

reasonably concluded that NHTSA

intended that the design H-point rather

than the SgRP be used to locate CG–F1

and CG–F2. The reference in S8.12(a)(2)

to the seat being in its forwardmost

adjustment position to assist in

describing CG–F1 may have created

further opportunities for

misunderstanding. However, the agency

believes that the correcting amendment

to S8.12(a)(1) resolved this issue and

that further rulemaking is not required.

AAMA also suggested that the

existing definition of the forehead

impact zone is in error. In its petition,

AAMA recommended that in S8.10(d),

the word ‘‘vertical’’ be replaced with

‘‘horizontal’’ as it refers to a plane along

the contour of the outer skin of the

forehead of the FMH. S8.10(d) specifies

the procedure for locating the upper

boundary of the forehead impact zone

by directing that a line be drawn along

the contour of the headform and

through a point on a vertical line in the

midsagittal plane of the FMH so that the

line is bisected by that point. This line

is described as being coincident to a

vertical plane, while the procedure for

locating the lower horizontal boundary,

found in S8.10(c), specifies that the

lower boundary line be coincident to a

horizontal plane. AAMA’s belief that

the use of the vertical plane in S8.10(d)

is in error may be premised on the use

of the horizontal plane in S8.10(c) for

locating a similar line. However, at the

point where the upper boundary of the

forehead impact zone is located, the

contours of the FMH are such that the

use of a horizontal plane for locating the

upper boundary would result in the

forehead impact zone extending along

the sides of the FMH. NHTSA has

determined that the use of a vertical

plane in describing this procedure is

more appropriate. Use of a horizontal

plane to describe the forehead impact

zone would include part of the side of

the head in the forehead impact zone.

Based on the foregoing, NHTSA

denies the AAMA and ASC petitions.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and

501.8.

Issued on: April 10, 1998.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator .

[FR Doc. 98–10674 Filed 4–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AD35

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Determination of

Threatened Status for One Plant,

Arctostaphylos pallida (Pallid Manzanita),

From the Northern Diablo Range of

California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) determines threatened status

for Arctostaphylos pallida (pallid

manzanita) pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).

This plant species is found only in the

northern Diablo Range of California in

Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.

The primary threats to the species are

the effects of fire suppression, and

shading and competition from native

and alien plants. To a lesser extent, the

species is threatened by disease,

herbicide spraying, hybridization, and

the ongoing effects of habitat loss and

fragmentation. This rule implements the

Federal protection and recovery

provisions afforded by the Act for this

species.

DATES: Effective May 22, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this

rule is available for public inspection,

by appointment, during normal business

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Sacramento Field Office, 3310

El Camino, Suite 130, Sacramento, CA

95821–6340.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dwight Harvey, at the above address or

by telephone (916/979–2725).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Arctostaphylos pallida (pallid

manzanita) is found only in the

northern Diablo Range of California. The

Diablo Range is part of the inner South

Coast Range of California. The Diablo

Range extends in a northwest to

southeast direction as a more or less

continuous mountain chain, 32 to 48

kilometers (km) (20 to 30 miles (mi))

wide, for approximately 300 km (190

mi) from San Pablo Bay in central

California to Polonio Pass in northeast

San Luis Obispo County. The altitude of

the Diablo Range varies from 600 to

1,280 meters (m) (2,000 to 4,200 feet (ft))

and is broken by four or five east to west

passes. These passes divide the Diablo