41450 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

expert evidence shall include its expert

statement in its pre-status conference

filing. (See § 1.729(i)(4)(ii).)

[FR Doc. 98–20745 Filed 8–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

48 CFR Parts 1511, 1515, and 1552

[FRL–6135–5]

Acquisition Regulation: Administrative

Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is adopting as final an

interim rule that amended the EPA

Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) (48

CFR Chapter 15) to include a

requirement that any report prepared

under an Agency contract identify the

contract under which it was prepared

and the name of the contractor who

prepared the report, and to make an

administrative change in the approval

levels for Source Selection.

DATES: This final rule is effective on

August 4, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Louise Senzel, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Acquisition

Management (3802R), 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20460, Telephone:

(202) 564–4367.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

This final rule includes a requirement

that any report prepared under an

Agency contract identify the contract

under which it was prepared and the

name of the contractor who prepared

the report as required by section 411 of

Public Law 105–65, October 27, 1997,

and makes an administrative change in

the approval levels for Source Selection.

Section 411 of P.L. 105–65 (EPA’s

appropriation act) states ‘‘except as

otherwise provided by the law, no part

of any appropriation contained in this

Act shall be obligated or expended by

any executive agency, as referred to in

the Office of Federal Procurement

Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et. seq), for a

contract for services unless such

executive agency: (1) has awarded and

entered into such contract in full

compliance with such Act and the

regulations promulgated thereunder;

and (2) requires any report prepared

pursuant to such contract, including

plans, evaluations, studies, analyses and

manuals, and any report prepared by the

agency which is substantially derived

from or substantially includes any

report pursuant to such contract, to

contain information concerning: (A) the

contract pursuant to which the report

was prepared; and (B) the contractor

who prepared the report to such

contract.’’ Because immediate

compliance was essential for EPA

contracting activities, urgent and

compelling circumstances existed that

made it impracticable for EPA to

promulgate this rule using notice and

comment procedures. Therefore,

pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 418b(d), EPA

promulgated these revisions on an

interim basis and provided for a public

comment period of 60 days from the

date on which this rule was published,

March 4, 1998.

Only one public comment was

received. The comment suggested many

more detailed requirements for

submission of reports in paper and other

electronic or information technology

media, distribution requirements, and

publication requirements. After

considering the comment received, no

change was made because we believe

that the level of specificity of these

requirements should be considered on a

case-by-case basis for a particular

contract action and not specified as a

standard requirement for all contracts.

B. Executive Order 12866

The final rule is not a significant

regulatory action for the purposes of

Executive Order 12866; therefore, no

review was required by the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs

within the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB).

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does

not apply because this final rule does

not contain information collection

requirements that require the approval

of OMB under the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA certifies that this final rule

does not exert a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. The requirements to contractors

under the rule impose no reporting,

record keeping, or any compliance

costs.

E. Unfunded Mandates

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess their

regulatory actions on State, local, and

tribal governments, and the private

sector. This final rule does not contain

a Federal mandate that may result in

expenditures of $100 million or more

for State, local, and tribal governments,

in the aggregate, or the private sector in

one year. Any private sector costs for

this action relate to paperwork

requirements and associated

expenditures that are far below the level

established for UMRA applicability.

Thus, the rule was not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA.

F. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives and

the Comptroller General of United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

G. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

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

applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045

because it is not an economically

significant rule as defined by E.O.

12866, and because it does not involve

decisions on environmental health or

safety risks.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1511,

1515, and 1552

Government procurement.

Authority: The provisions of this

regulation are issued under 5 U.S.C. 301; Sec.

205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C.

486(c).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 149 /Tuesday, August 4, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 41451

Accordingly, the interim rule

amending 48 CFR Chapter 15 which was

published at 63 FR 10548–10549 on

March 4, 1998, is adopted as a final rule

without change.

Dated: July 20, 1998.

Betty L. Bailey,

Director, Office of Acquisition Management.

[FR Doc. 98–20770 Filed 8–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Parts 571

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–3847]

RIN 2127–AG07

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Head Impact Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the

upper interior impact requirements of

Standard 201, Occupant Protection in

Interior Impact, to permit, but not

require, the installation of dynamically

deploying upper interior head

protection systems currently being

developed by some vehicle

manufacturers to provide added head

protection in lateral crashes.

Compliance with those requirements is

tested at specified points called ‘‘target

points.’’ Since compliance is often not

practicable at target points located near

the places where these dynamic systems

are stored before they are deployed,

vehicles equipped with the dynamic

systems will be allowed to meet slightly

reduced requirements at those points.

However, these vehicles will also be

required to meet new requirements to

ensure that these dynamic systems

enhance safety. This final rule adds

procedures and performance

requirements for testing the deployment

of these systems and their protective

capability through a combination of invehicle tests and a full scale vehicle

crash test. In a separate final rule being

published today, the agency is

establishing specifications and

qualification requirements for a newlydeveloped anthropomorphic test

dummy to be used in determining

compliance with the dynamic crash test

requirements.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments

made in this rule are effective

September 1, 1998.

Petition Date: Any petitions for

reconsideration must be received by

NHTSA no later than September 18,

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: The

following persons at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20590:

For non-legal issues: Dr. William Fan,

Office of Crashworthiness Standards,

NPS–11, telephone (202) 366–4922,

facsimile (202) 366–4329, electronic

mail ‘‘bfan@nhtsa.dot.gov’’

For legal issues: Otto Matheke, Office of

the Chief Counsel, NCC–20, telephone

(202) 366–5253, facsimile (202) 366–

3820, electronic mail

‘‘omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. August 1995 Final Rule on Upper

Interior Impact Protection

B. Petitions for Reconsideration

C. March 1996 ANPRM on Dynamically

Deployed Upper Interior Head Protection

Systems

D. August 1997 NPRM on Dynamically

Deployed Upper Interior Head Protection

Systems

E. Comments Submitted in Response to

the NPRM

II. Final Rule

A. Deletion of the Proposed In-vehicle

Test

B. Vehicle-to-Pole Test

C. Rigid Pole

D. SID/HIII Dummy

E. Rear Seat Dummy

F. Impact Speed and Conditions

G. Target Locations

H. Safety Concerns

I. Other Issues

J. Dummy Seating Position

K. Selection of Options

L. Effective Date

III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Federal

Regulation) and DOT Regulatory Policies

and Procedures

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. National Environmental Policy Act

D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

and Unfunded Mandates Act

E. Civil Justice Reform

Regulatory Text

I. Background

A. August 1995 Final Rule on Upper

Interior Impact Protection

The August 1995 final rule issued by

the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) amended

Standard 201 to require passenger cars,

and trucks, buses, and multipurpose

passenger vehicles (collectively,

passenger cars and LTVs) with a gross

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536

kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, to

provide protection when an occupant’s

head strikes upper interior components,

including pillars, side rails, headers,

and the roof, during a crash. This final

rule, which requires compliance

pursuant to a phase-in schedule

beginning on September 1, 1998,

significantly expands the scope of

Standard 201. Previously, the standard

applied mainly to the portion of the

vehicle interior in front of the front seat

occupants, i.e., the instrument panel.

The amendments added procedures and

performance requirements for a new invehicle component test.

B. Petitions for Reconsideration

The agency received nine timely

petitions for reconsideration of the final

rule. The issues raised by the petitions

can be divided into five categories: (1)

Application of the new requirements to

dynamically deployed upper interior

head protection systems, (2) influence of

systems variables, (3) lead time and

phase-in, (4) exclusion of certain

vehicles, and (5) test procedure.

With respect to the last four categories

of issues raised by the petitions, NHTSA

responded by issuing amendments to

the August 18, 1995 final rule in a

notice dated April 8, 1997 (62 FR

16718). In the April 8, 1997 notice,

NHTSA modified the final rule to

exclude certain vehicles from the upper

interior impact requirements of

Standard 201, allowed carry-forward

credits, changed the phase-in

requirements by providing

manufacturers with the option of

complying with an additional

alternative schedule for meeting the

upper interior impact requirements of

the standard and amended other

sections of the standard to address

concerns about test procedures.

Since the first category of issues,

those relating to dynamically deployed

upper interior head protection systems,

was outside the scope of the rulemaking

that led to the August 18, 1995 rule, the

agency announced that it was treating

the requests relating to these issues as

petitions for rulemaking, and was

granting those petitions.

C. March 1996 ANPRM on Dynamically

Deployed Upper Interior Head

Protection Systems

On March 7, 1996, NHTSA published

an advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM) to assist the