Crash Test Laboratory Requirements for FHWA Roadside Safety Hardware Acceptance, 17447-17449 [E7-6533]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules
(Lat. 68°01′53″ N., long. 162°54′11″ W.)
Noatak NDB/DME, AK
(Lat. 67°34′19″ N., long. 162°58′26″ W.)
Selawik VOR/DME, AK
(Lat. 66°36′00″ N., long. 159°59′30″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile
radius of the Red Dog Airport, AK; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 ft.
above the surface within a 14-mile radius of
the Red Dog Airport, AK, and within 5 miles
either side of a line from the Selawik VOR/
DME, AK, to lat. 67°38′06″ N., long.
162°21′42″ W., to lat. 67°54′30″ N., long.
163°00′00″ W., and within 5 miles either side
of a line from the Noatak NDB/DME, AK, to
lat. 67°50′20″ N., long. 163°19′16″ W., and
within 8 miles either side of the 219° bearing
of the Red Dog NDB, AK, extending from the
14-mile radius from the Red Dog NDB, AK,
to 30 miles southwest of the Red Dog Airport,
AK.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in Anchorage, AK, on March 30,
2007.
Michael A. Tarr,
Acting Manager, Alaska Flight Services
Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. E7–6539 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 637
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA–2006–26501]
RIN 2125-AF21
Crash Test Laboratory Requirements
for FHWA Roadside Safety Hardware
Acceptance
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
request for comments.
AGENCY:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
SUMMARY: The FHWA proposes to revise
its regulation that establishes the
general requirements for quality
assurance procedures for construction
on all Federal-aid highway projects on
the National Highway System (NHS).1
Specifically, the FHWA proposes to
require accreditation of laboratories that
conduct crash tests on roadside
hardware by an accrediting body that is
recognized by the National Cooperation
for Laboratory Accreditation (NCLA) or
is a signatory to an International
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation
1 The National Highway System (NHS) includes
the Interstate Highway System as well as other
roads important to the nation’s economy, defense,
and mobility. See 23 U.S.C. 103(b). The NHS was
developed by the Department of Transportation
(DOT) in cooperation with the States, local officials,
and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:56 Apr 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
(ILAC) Mutual Recognition
Arrangement (MRA), an Asia Pacific
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation
(APLAC) MRA, or another comparable
accreditation body approved by FHWA.
The objective of this proposed rule is to
improve the agency’s ability to
determine that crash test laboratories are
qualified to conduct and evaluate tests
intended to determine the
crashworthiness of roadside safety
features. Laboratory accreditation is
widely recognized as a reliable indicator
of technical competence.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 8, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver
comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Management
Facility, Room PL–401, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590–
0001, or submit electronically at
https://dmses.dot.gov/submit or fax
comments to (202) 493–2251.
Alternatively, comments may be
submitted via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. All
comments must include the docket
number that appears in the heading of
this document. All comments received
will be available for examination and
copying at the above address from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. Those
desiring notification of receipt of
comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard or you
may print the acknowledgment page
that appears after submitting comments
electronically. Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70, Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt
Lupes, Office of Safety Design, HSSD,
202–366–6994, Nicholas Artimovich,
Office of Safety Design, HSSD, 202–
366–1331, or Raymond Cuprill, Office of
the Chief Counsel, (202) 366–0791,
Federal Highway Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590–0001. Office hours are from 7:45
a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
You may submit or retrieve comments
online through the Document
Management System (DMS) at: https://
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17447
dms.dot.gov/submit. The DMS is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days
each year. Electronic submission and
retrieval help and guidelines are
available under the help section of the
Web site. An electronic copy of this
document may be downloaded from the
Federal Register’s home page at:
https://www.archives.gov and the
Government Printing Office’s database
at: https://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue
to file relevant information in the
Docket as it becomes available. Further,
some people may submit late comments
and we will consider all late comments
to the extent practicable. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically
check the Docket for new material.
Background
Section 109(c) of title 23, United
States Code, as amended by section 304
of the National Highway System
Designation Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–
59; 109 Stat. 188; Nov. 28, 1995),
requires the Secretary, in cooperation
with the State transportation
departments, to approve design and
construction standards on the NHS,
regardless of funding source. These
design standards include not only
elements pertaining to the roadway
itself, but also to any appurtenances
installed along the roadway, such as
traffic barriers (roadside and median
barriers, and bridge railings), sign and
luminaire supports and crash cushions.
Statement of the Problem. The
roadside safety hardware sector has
evolved since the 1960’s and now
includes additional crash test
laboratories that are not sponsored by an
academic institution. During the same
period, the FHWA funding of roadside
safety hardware testing at crash test
laboratories and direct observation of
crash test laboratories have decreased.
There are about 10 laboratories within
the United States that conduct, or have
conducted, the types of vehicle/
hardware tests needed to establish
crashworthiness. Additionally, there are
more manufacturers and increasing
types of roadside safety hardware
devices available. The FHWA
recognized that most State DOT
personnel were not experienced in
assessing test laboratory reports to
determine if the hardware was subjected
to all required tests and if all tests met
the appropriate evaluation criteria.
Therefore, as a service to the State
transportation departments, and to the
highway safety industry in general, the
FHWA began reviewing test reports,
upon request, and providing written
acknowledgements that specific
E:\FR\FM\09APP1.SGM
09APP1
17448
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
appurtenances were crashworthy and
thus eligible for use on the NHS. These
‘‘FHWA Acceptance Letters’’ quickly
became essential to the manufacturers
and widely recognized by the States.
The FHWA Office of Safety Design
reviews such requests for acceptance
and currently maintains listings of
crashworthy barriers, bridge railings,
transitions to bridge railings, barrier
terminals, crash cushions, truck
mounted attenuators, breakaway
luminaire support hardware, breakaway
sign supports, work zone devices, and
other hardware. Hardware approved
through acceptance letters are posted on
the FHWA Safety Web site at https://
safety.fhwa.dot.gov/report350hardware.
Similar to the individual State DOTs,
the FHWA does not have adequate
personnel or resources to continuously
verify, on-site, the capabilities of the
established test laboratories to conduct
required tests, to calibrate recording
devices used to collect and analyze data,
and to determine compliance with
evaluation criteria. Should new
laboratories be established in the future,
the FHWA would be similarly limited in
its ability to assess their competence to
set up, run, and evaluate full-scale
vehicular tests. The objective of this rule
would be to provide increased
confidence in roadside hardware safety
by ensuring that all crash test
laboratories are capable of conducting
crash tests and analyzing and reporting
test results. The FHWA believes that
appropriate stewardship requires that
we establish minimum accreditation
requirements for these laboratories.
General Discussion of the Proposal
The FHWA is proposing to amend 23
CFR 637.209 by adding 637.209(a)(5)
that would require all laboratories that
perform crash testing for acceptance of
roadside safety hardware to be
accredited by an accreditation body that
is recognized by NACLA or is a
signatory to the APLAC MRA, ILAC
MRA, or another comparable
accreditation body approved by FHWA.
To FHWA’s knowledge, NACLA and
laboratory accreditation bodies that are
members of ILAC and APLAC are the
only laboratory accreditation bodies that
exist. Information on accrediting bodies
that are signatories to APLAC’s MRA
and ILAC’s MRA, including estimated
costs and application procedures for
laboratory accreditation, can be found at
their respective Web sites
http:llwww.aplac.org and https://
www.ilac.org; similar information on
NACLA’s accrediting bodies can be
found at https://nacla.net. Formal
accreditation assesses factors such as
the technical competency of laboratory
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:56 Apr 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
personnel, the validity of test methods,
the calibration and maintenance of test
equipment, and the quality assurance of
calibration and test data.
Laboratory accreditation will be
assessed according to the current
International Standard ISO/IEC
17025:2005, General Requirements for
the Competence of Testing and
Calibration of Laboratories. The ISO/IEC
17025:2005 standard is divided into
management and technical requirements
that ensure the competence of the
laboratory to produce valid data and
results. Many other countries require
organizations and testing laboratories to
be accredited to the ISO/IEC 17025
standard for any test results used for
establishing compliance. The FHWA
acknowledges the ISO/IEC 17025: 2005
standard as the benchmark for assessing
the competence of the testing and
calibration laboratories
This rulemaking proposes to provide
a 2-year phase-in period from the date
of final rule to allow adequate time to
prepare documentation and budgeting
for formal accreditation. Based on the
experience of the two accredited labs
operating in the U.S., we estimate that
adequate preparation for accreditation
could vary depending on the size of the
lab and could take 2 to 6 months. We
welcome your comments on what
burdens this proposed accreditation
would impose on a laboratory and if the
proposed 2-year phase-in period is
sufficient.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
All comments received before the
close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be
considered and will be available for
examination using the docket number
appearing at the top of this document in
the docket room at the above address.
The FHWA will file comments received
after the comment closing date and will
consider late comments to the extent
practicable. In addition to late
comments, the FHWA will also
continue to file in the docket relevant
information becoming available after the
comment closing date, and interested
persons should continue to examine the
docket for new material. A final rule
may be published at any time after the
close of the comment period.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined
preliminarily that this action would not
be a significant regulatory action within
the meaning of Executive Order 12866
or would not be significant within the
meaning of U.S. Department of
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Transportation regulatory policies and
procedures. It is anticipated that the
economic impact of this rulemaking
would be minimal. Currently, two of the
test laboratories in the U.S. are already
accredited and this proposed regulation
would have no effect on those entities.
The two currently accredited
laboratories, E-Tech Testing Services
Incorporated in Rocklin, California and
Safe Technologies Incorporated in Rio
Vista, California provided an estimate of
direct time and costs incurred to receive
initial accreditation as 480 to 960
person-work hours to prepare
documentation and $9,000 in direct
costs. The initial fee of $9,000 included
a one-time registration fee of $5,000, a
3-day on-site assessment visit costing
$3,000, and materials and equipment
costs of $1,000. It is expected that the
amount of person work hours and costs
associated with document preparation
will vary depending on the size of the
laboratory and the extent to which its
operating procedures are already
formalized. We believe the time and
cost to gain accreditation is not a
burden. Laboratory accreditation
renewal is required bi-annually and
includes an annual review. The two
laboratories mentioned above cite
recurring annual costs of maintaining
formal accreditation to be 160 person
work hours and only $3,000 annually.
This rulemaking proposes to provide
a 2-year phase-in period from the date
of final rule to allow adequate time to
prepare documentation and budgeting
for formal accreditation. We believe 2
years is more than adequate time for
laboratories to obtain the necessary
accreditation. These proposed changes
would not adversely affect, in a material
way, any sector of the economy. In
addition, these changes would not
interfere with any action taken or
planned by another agency and would
not materially alter the budgetary
impact of any entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a
full regulatory evaluation is not
required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, 5 U.S.C.
601–612), the FHWA has evaluated the
effects of this proposed action on small
entities, including small governments.
The FHWA certifies that this proposed
action would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. As noted
above, there are about ten (10) agencies
that test roadside hardware for
crashworthiness and two of these have
already been certified as proposed
herein. Estimated time and cost for an
E:\FR\FM\09APP1.SGM
09APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Proposed Rules
initial certification is 3 days on-site and
$ 9,000. Re-certification is required biannually at an estimated annual cost of
$3,000.
Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
The FHWA has analyzed this
proposed action under Executive Order
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that this is not a significant
energy action under this order because
it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy
Effects under Executive Order 13211 is
not required.
The FHWA analyzed this proposed
amendment in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in
Executive Order 13132, dated August 4,
1999, and the FHWA has determined
that this proposed action would not
have a substantial direct effect or
sufficient federalism implications on
States and local governments that would
limit the policy making discretion of the
States and local governments.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed rule would not impose
unfunded mandates as defined by the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4, March 22, 1995; 109
Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not
result in the expenditure by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $128.1
million or more in any one year (2
U.S.C. 1532).
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.),
Federal agencies must obtain approval
from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for each collection of
information they conduct, sponsor, or
require through regulations. The FHWA
has determined that this proposed
action does not contain a collection of
information requirement for the
purposes of the PRA.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
This proposed action meets
applicable standards in Sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, to eliminate ambiguity, and to
reduce burden.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children)
The FHWA has analyzed this
proposed action under Executive Order
13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This is not an economically
significant proposed action and does not
concern an environmental risk to health
or safety that may disproportionately
affect children.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
Private Property)
This proposed action would not affect
a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:56 Apr 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal
Consultation)
Since none of the existing test
laboratories are owned, operated, or in
any way controlled by Indian tribes, the
FHWA believes that it will not have any
direct effects on one or more Indian
tribes; will not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments; and will not preempt
tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary
impact statement is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this
proposed action for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has
determined that it would not have any
effect on the quality of the environment.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. This proposed rule
uses voluntary consensus standards.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number
(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory
Information Service Center publishes
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17449
the Unified Agenda in April and
October of each year. The RIN contained
in the heading of this document can be
used to cross-reference this action with
the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 637
Construction inspection and approval;
Highways and roads.
Issued on: March 30, 2007.
J. Richard Capka,
Federal Highway Administrator.
In consideration of the foregoing, the
FHWA proposes to amend, title 23,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 637,
as set forth below:
PART 637—QUALITY ASSURANCE
PROCEDURES FOR CONSTRUCTION
1. The authority citation for part 637
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 1307, Pub. L. 105–178, 112
Stat. 107; 23 U.S.C. 109, 114, and 315; 49
CFR 1.48(b).
2. In § 637.209, add paragraph (a)(5) to
read as follows:
§ 637.209 Laboratory and sampling and
testing personnel qualifications
(a) * * *
(5) After [insert date two years after
the date of publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register], laboratories
that perform crash testing for acceptance
of roadside hardware by the FHWA
shall be accredited by a laboratory
accreditation body that is recognized by
the National Laboratory Accreditation
Cooperation (NACLA), is a signatory to
the Asia Pacific Laboratory
Accreditation Cooperation (APLAC)
Mutual Recognition Arrangement
(MRA), is a signatory to the
International Laboratory Accreditation
Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition
Arrangement (MRA), or another
accreditation body acceptable to FHWA.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E7–6533 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 946
[VA–123–FOR]
Virginia Regulatory Program
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\09APP1.SGM
09APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 67 (Monday, April 9, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17447-17449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6533]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 637
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2006-26501]
RIN 2125-AF21
Crash Test Laboratory Requirements for FHWA Roadside Safety
Hardware Acceptance
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA proposes to revise its regulation that establishes
the general requirements for quality assurance procedures for
construction on all Federal-aid highway projects on the National
Highway System (NHS).\1\ Specifically, the FHWA proposes to require
accreditation of laboratories that conduct crash tests on roadside
hardware by an accrediting body that is recognized by the National
Cooperation for Laboratory Accreditation (NCLA) or is a signatory to an
International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual
Recognition Arrangement (MRA), an Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation
Cooperation (APLAC) MRA, or another comparable accreditation body
approved by FHWA. The objective of this proposed rule is to improve the
agency's ability to determine that crash test laboratories are
qualified to conduct and evaluate tests intended to determine the
crashworthiness of roadside safety features. Laboratory accreditation
is widely recognized as a reliable indicator of technical competence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Highway System (NHS) includes the Interstate
Highway System as well as other roads important to the nation's
economy, defense, and mobility. See 23 U.S.C. 103(b). The NHS was
developed by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in cooperation
with the States, local officials, and metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, or submit electronically at
https://dmses.dot.gov/submit or fax comments to (202) 493-2251.
Alternatively, comments may be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. All comments must include the
docket number that appears in the heading of this document. All
comments received will be available for examination and copying at the
above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of
comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or you may
print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments
electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Lupes, Office of Safety Design,
HSSD, 202-366-6994, Nicholas Artimovich, Office of Safety Design, HSSD,
202-366-1331, or Raymond Cuprill, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202)
366-0791, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document
Management System (DMS) at: https://dms.dot.gov/submit. The DMS is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission
and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section
of the Web site. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded
from the Federal Register's home page at: https://www.archives.gov and
the Government Printing Office's database at: https://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments and we will
consider all late comments to the extent practicable. Accordingly, we
recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
Background
Section 109(c) of title 23, United States Code, as amended by
section 304 of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-59; 109 Stat. 188; Nov. 28, 1995), requires the Secretary,
in cooperation with the State transportation departments, to approve
design and construction standards on the NHS, regardless of funding
source. These design standards include not only elements pertaining to
the roadway itself, but also to any appurtenances installed along the
roadway, such as traffic barriers (roadside and median barriers, and
bridge railings), sign and luminaire supports and crash cushions.
Statement of the Problem. The roadside safety hardware sector has
evolved since the 1960's and now includes additional crash test
laboratories that are not sponsored by an academic institution. During
the same period, the FHWA funding of roadside safety hardware testing
at crash test laboratories and direct observation of crash test
laboratories have decreased. There are about 10 laboratories within the
United States that conduct, or have conducted, the types of vehicle/
hardware tests needed to establish crashworthiness. Additionally, there
are more manufacturers and increasing types of roadside safety hardware
devices available. The FHWA recognized that most State DOT personnel
were not experienced in assessing test laboratory reports to determine
if the hardware was subjected to all required tests and if all tests
met the appropriate evaluation criteria. Therefore, as a service to the
State transportation departments, and to the highway safety industry in
general, the FHWA began reviewing test reports, upon request, and
providing written acknowledgements that specific
[[Page 17448]]
appurtenances were crashworthy and thus eligible for use on the NHS.
These ``FHWA Acceptance Letters'' quickly became essential to the
manufacturers and widely recognized by the States.
The FHWA Office of Safety Design reviews such requests for
acceptance and currently maintains listings of crashworthy barriers,
bridge railings, transitions to bridge railings, barrier terminals,
crash cushions, truck mounted attenuators, breakaway luminaire support
hardware, breakaway sign supports, work zone devices, and other
hardware. Hardware approved through acceptance letters are posted on
the FHWA Safety Web site at https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/
report350hardware.
Similar to the individual State DOTs, the FHWA does not have
adequate personnel or resources to continuously verify, on-site, the
capabilities of the established test laboratories to conduct required
tests, to calibrate recording devices used to collect and analyze data,
and to determine compliance with evaluation criteria. Should new
laboratories be established in the future, the FHWA would be similarly
limited in its ability to assess their competence to set up, run, and
evaluate full-scale vehicular tests. The objective of this rule would
be to provide increased confidence in roadside hardware safety by
ensuring that all crash test laboratories are capable of conducting
crash tests and analyzing and reporting test results. The FHWA believes
that appropriate stewardship requires that we establish minimum
accreditation requirements for these laboratories.
General Discussion of the Proposal
The FHWA is proposing to amend 23 CFR 637.209 by adding
637.209(a)(5) that would require all laboratories that perform crash
testing for acceptance of roadside safety hardware to be accredited by
an accreditation body that is recognized by NACLA or is a signatory to
the APLAC MRA, ILAC MRA, or another comparable accreditation body
approved by FHWA. To FHWA's knowledge, NACLA and laboratory
accreditation bodies that are members of ILAC and APLAC are the only
laboratory accreditation bodies that exist. Information on accrediting
bodies that are signatories to APLAC's MRA and ILAC's MRA, including
estimated costs and application procedures for laboratory
accreditation, can be found at their respective Web sites
http:llwww.aplac.org and https://www.ilac.org; similar information on
NACLA's accrediting bodies can be found at https://nacla.net. Formal
accreditation assesses factors such as the technical competency of
laboratory personnel, the validity of test methods, the calibration and
maintenance of test equipment, and the quality assurance of calibration
and test data.
Laboratory accreditation will be assessed according to the current
International Standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005, General Requirements for the
Competence of Testing and Calibration of Laboratories. The ISO/IEC
17025:2005 standard is divided into management and technical
requirements that ensure the competence of the laboratory to produce
valid data and results. Many other countries require organizations and
testing laboratories to be accredited to the ISO/IEC 17025 standard for
any test results used for establishing compliance. The FHWA
acknowledges the ISO/IEC 17025: 2005 standard as the benchmark for
assessing the competence of the testing and calibration laboratories
This rulemaking proposes to provide a 2-year phase-in period from
the date of final rule to allow adequate time to prepare documentation
and budgeting for formal accreditation. Based on the experience of the
two accredited labs operating in the U.S., we estimate that adequate
preparation for accreditation could vary depending on the size of the
lab and could take 2 to 6 months. We welcome your comments on what
burdens this proposed accreditation would impose on a laboratory and if
the proposed 2-year phase-in period is sufficient.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available
for examination using the docket number appearing at the top of this
document in the docket room at the above address. The FHWA will file
comments received after the comment closing date and will consider late
comments to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, the
FHWA will also continue to file in the docket relevant information
becoming available after the comment closing date, and interested
persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final
rule may be published at any time after the close of the comment
period.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined preliminarily that this action would not be
a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order
12866 or would not be significant within the meaning of U.S. Department
of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. It is anticipated
that the economic impact of this rulemaking would be minimal.
Currently, two of the test laboratories in the U.S. are already
accredited and this proposed regulation would have no effect on those
entities. The two currently accredited laboratories, E-Tech Testing
Services Incorporated in Rocklin, California and Safe Technologies
Incorporated in Rio Vista, California provided an estimate of direct
time and costs incurred to receive initial accreditation as 480 to 960
person-work hours to prepare documentation and $9,000 in direct costs.
The initial fee of $9,000 included a one-time registration fee of
$5,000, a 3-day on-site assessment visit costing $3,000, and materials
and equipment costs of $1,000. It is expected that the amount of person
work hours and costs associated with document preparation will vary
depending on the size of the laboratory and the extent to which its
operating procedures are already formalized. We believe the time and
cost to gain accreditation is not a burden. Laboratory accreditation
renewal is required bi-annually and includes an annual review. The two
laboratories mentioned above cite recurring annual costs of maintaining
formal accreditation to be 160 person work hours and only $3,000
annually.
This rulemaking proposes to provide a 2-year phase-in period from
the date of final rule to allow adequate time to prepare documentation
and budgeting for formal accreditation. We believe 2 years is more than
adequate time for laboratories to obtain the necessary accreditation.
These proposed changes would not adversely affect, in a material way,
any sector of the economy. In addition, these changes would not
interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would
not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation
is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this proposed
action on small entities, including small governments. The FHWA
certifies that this proposed action would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As noted
above, there are about ten (10) agencies that test roadside hardware
for crashworthiness and two of these have already been certified as
proposed herein. Estimated time and cost for an
[[Page 17449]]
initial certification is 3 days on-site and $ 9,000. Re-certification
is required bi-annually at an estimated annual cost of $3,000.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
The FHWA analyzed this proposed amendment in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated
August 4, 1999, and the FHWA has determined that this proposed action
would not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism
implications on States and local governments that would limit the
policy making discretion of the States and local governments.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22,
1995; 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $128.1 million or more in any one year (2
U.S.C. 1532).
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has
determined that this proposed action does not contain a collection of
information requirement for the purposes of the PRA.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposed action meets applicable standards in Sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, to eliminate ambiguity, and to reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order
13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks. This is not an economically significant proposed action
and does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This proposed action would not affect a taking of private property
or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.
Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that this is not a
significant energy action under this order because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy
Effects under Executive Order 13211 is not required.
Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
Since none of the existing test laboratories are owned, operated,
or in any way controlled by Indian tribes, the FHWA believes that it
will not have any direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; will not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal
governments; and will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal
summary impact statement is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
has determined that it would not have any effect on the quality of the
environment.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. This proposed rule uses voluntary consensus
standards.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned 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. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 637
Construction inspection and approval; Highways and roads.
Issued on: March 30, 2007.
J. Richard Capka,
Federal Highway Administrator.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend,
title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 637, as set forth below:
PART 637--QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES FOR CONSTRUCTION
1. The authority citation for part 637 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 1307, Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107; 23 U.S.C.
109, 114, and 315; 49 CFR 1.48(b).
2. In Sec. 637.209, add paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 637.209 Laboratory and sampling and testing personnel
qualifications
(a) * * *
(5) After [insert date two years after the date of publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register], laboratories that perform
crash testing for acceptance of roadside hardware by the FHWA shall be
accredited by a laboratory accreditation body that is recognized by the
National Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (NACLA), is a signatory
to the Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (APLAC) Mutual
Recognition Arrangement (MRA), is a signatory to the International
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition
Arrangement (MRA), or another accreditation body acceptable to FHWA.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-6533 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P