mass is less than 4.4 kg, * * * each Type I and lap portion of a Type
II vehicle belt that is used to attach the system to the vehicle shall,
when tested in accordance with S6.1, impose no loads on the child that
result from the mass of the system[.]'' NHTSA sought the amendment
because the agency announced in 2003 that it would not enforce the
requirement of S<IP_ADDRESS> against belt-positioning seats until further
notice. (Letter to John Stipancich; April 11, 2003; Docket No. NHTSA
2003-15005-1.) We believed that it did not make sense to have a
requirement in the standard that the agency was not going to enforce.
However, in place of the 4.4 kg mass limit, NHTSA was considering
whether to propose a chest deflection limit. The agency's concern was
about belt-positioning seats over-compressing the child's chest between
a bulky booster seat back and the shoulder belt in a crash.
    In the NPRM, NHTSA presented data from VRTC tests of the HIII-10C
\52\ with belt-positioning seats of different mass. The VRTC tests
explored whether more massive booster seats caused excessive belt
forces. Data from the tests, while limited, did not demonstrate a
correlation between seat mass and belt force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ ``Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Dummy (HIII-10C) Injury Criteria
Development,'' supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    VRTC also examined the relationship between seat mass and the
measured chest deflection of an HIII-10C test dummy. The data showed
that the heaviest booster tested in the agency's limited test series
resulted in the highest measured chest deflection with the HIII-10C
test dummy. However, the second heaviest booster resulted in the lowest
measured chest deflection. NHTSA sought comments on a chest deflection
limit.
Comments
    Britax and JPMA concurred with eliminating the 4.4 kg mass limit.
On the other hand, Graco stated that there are insufficient injury data
at this time that would support the elimination of the 4.4 kg mass
limit for belt-positioning seats. No commenter provided data to augment
the VRTC test data.
    Britax, Evenflo, and Graco stated that the chest deflection
criterion needed further study before being considered for adoption as
a performance criterion in FMVSS No. 213. Britax stated that it was
important to adopt chest deflection performance criteria only after the
biomechanics community has agreed on reasonable limits. Evenflo stated
that, to propose the inclusion of a chest deflection requirement in
FMVSS No. 213, the interaction between the booster seat mass and dummy
response should be better understood.
Agency Response
    The agency has decided to amend S<IP_ADDRESS> to exclude belt-
positioning seats from the requirement, for the reasons provided in the
NPRM. Since the agency is not enforcing the requirement against belt-
positioning seats, it does not make sense to retain the requirement.
The requirement is removed from FMVSS No. 213 for those CRSs.
    At this time, we are not proposing a chest deflection limit to
address the risk that a massive belt-positioning seat could overload a
child's chest. We have studied the video footage of the VRTC tests of
the six belt-positioning seats discussed in the 2005 NPRM and believe
there is a possibility that the design of the belt-positioning seat,
including mass distribution, flexibility, vehicle seat belt routing and
geometry, could have more of an influence on the dummy's chest
deflection than the mass of the belt-positioning seat.
    We observed that, in a frontal impact sled test of a high back
belt-positioning seat, there is initially little relative motion
between the dummy and the belt-positioning seat on which it is
positioned.\53\ As the dummy moves forward and interacts with the lap/
shoulder belt, it begins to decelerate while the belt-positioning seat
may continue its forward motion (since it is not attached to the sled
bench seat, its forward motion is only restricted by frictional
forces). Later in the simulated crash event, the seat back of the belt-
positioning seat may interact with the dummy's back, whose forward
motion is restricted by the lap/shoulder belt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ The scenario described here is that when using a
deceleration sled system. The sled system only simulates forward
movement as described in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is this stage in the event where there may be a potential for
the seatback of the belt-positioning seat to load the dummy's back and
thereby result in increased loading of the shoulder belt on the dummy's
chest. If the seatback of the belt-positioning seat loads the dummy
during the time of maximum upper torso excursion when the chest
deflection is highest, this seatback interaction with the dummy may
result in elevated dummy chest deflection.
    We observed through our testing, however, that the different belt-
positioning seats loaded the ATD differently. The Britax Bodyguard
(Test 9498), which has a mass of 5.98 kg, resulted in the
lowest chest deflection of the six belt-positioning seat models tested.
The video showed that the back of the belt-positioning seat moved
together with the dummy and bent forward following the dummy's back and
head movement. This particular design showed a lot of flexibility, and
due to the low chest deflection measured by the ATD, we infer that the
belt-positioning seatback did not contribute or contributed minimally
to the loading of the dummy's chest by the belts.
    The Century Next Step (4.28 kg) (Test 9505), Cosco Voyager
(3.09 kg) (Test 9493) and Graco Grand Cargo (3.44 kg) (Test
9496) showed that at the time of maximum forward excursion,
which coincided with the time of peak belt loading, the belt-
positioning seatback was not in contact with the dummy's back. We can
deduce that the belt-positioning seatback was not contributing to the
loading of the chest at the time of maximum belt loading.
    On the other hand, the kinematics of the Century Breverra (4.25 kg)
(Test 9495) and Recaro Young Start (8.87 kg) (Test
9497) were less conclusive as the back of the belt-positioning
seats appeared to be in contact with the dummy's back at the time of
maximum forward excursion. However, it is not clear from the test data
if this contact resulted in additional loading to the dummy's chest.
The relevant test videos are available on NHTSA's Vehicle Crash Test
Database \54\ and may be accessed by identifying the test numbers
reported in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ http://wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/querytesttable.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our examination leads us to believe that belt-positioning seats can
be made to reduce the effect of belt loading of the child's chest. The
agency also believes

that because the loading of the seatback of the belt-positioning seat
on the dummy occurs during the rebound phase, after the maximum belt
loading, it appears that the risk of chest injury due to the mass of a
seat back are lessened. Accordingly, we are excluding belt-positioning
seats from S<IP_ADDRESS> altogether.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 213 limits the force that may be
imposed on a child by a belt resulting from the mass of the CRS.
While we are not aware of any non belt-positioning CRSs that can
apply such loads through the belts due to its mass, this requirement
prevents such future designs. Therefore, the agency believes there
is a need to retain S<IP_ADDRESS> for non-belt-positioning seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recognize that the agency's test data represent a small sample
of the variety of belt-positioning seats on the market. We are also
concerned about future belt-positioning seats and how they might
increase in mass to accommodate larger children. Accordingly, the
agency will continue to monitor and collect data on the effect of belt-
positioning seat mass on dummy responses.

h. Miscellaneous Issues

1. Housekeeping
    This final rule amends S10.2.1 of FMVSS No. 213 to add reference to
the 12-month-old test dummy in the heading of that section and to
remove reference in the section to the 9-month-old ATD, which is no
longer used in compliance tests. References to the 9-month-old ATD are
also removed from other sections of the standard. This final rule also
removes and reserves S<IP_ADDRESS> and S6.3 (specifying head impact
protection requirements for infant restraints manufactured before
August 1, 2005) since those sections are obsolete.
2. Belt Fit
    For several reasons, the agency did not propose belt fit
requirements in this rulemaking. In the 2005 NPRM, NHTSA considered
performance requirements for seat belt fit for booster seats or for
belt guidance devices, but determined that existing data did not
demonstrate that small differences in belt fit resulting from various
booster seats translated into associated improvements in the dynamic
performance of a belt system in a crash (70 FR at 51726). The agency
added that the point at which belt fit degrades the performance of the
belts from the point of ``acceptable'' to ``unacceptable'' was not
determined.\56\ (Id.) NHTSA also determined that previous static belt
fit studies demonstrated variation in fit could be attributed to the
interaction between vehicle designs and the CRSs (i.e., some vehicle-
to-booster seat combinations were not as good as others and some
booster seats made the belts fit the child dummies better in some
vehicles than in others).\57\ (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ NHTSA also stated that, although we believe that belts are
better positioned over bony structure of the body than over soft
tissue, how much variation from the optimal placement of the belt
should be permitted by a performance standard for the fit to be
considered ``passing'' is unknown. 70 FR 51727.
    \57\ Such variability makes challenging the meaningfulness of a
belt fit assessment that only uses a standard FMVSS No. 213-style
bench seat. Further, even when using the same booster and the same
vehicle seat, the belt fitting protocols that we assessed lacked
sufficient repeatability and reproducibility for regulatory
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Later, in the 2010 SNPRM, in the context of discussing the UMTRI
positioning procedure, we mentioned that we had made observations of
UMTRI's belt fit criteria when we were working with the HIII-6C and
HIII-10C dummies. The agency stated that the variance and range in
repeated measurements, especially for shoulder belt fit, was
unacceptably high (75 FR at 71656). The results suggested that the
belt-positioning procedure can be influenced by the operator.
    Several commenters submitted views in response to these
discussions. In response to the 2005 NPRM, IIHS, PC and Advocates
expressed support for NHTSA establishing criteria for safety belt fit
for booster seats. Conversely, JPMA believed that belt fit criteria
should not be included at this time. In response to the 2010 SNPRM,
IIHS and UMTRI stated that NHTSA's repeatability and reproducibility
concerns were associated with differences in the dummy jackets and
friction issues between the belt and the dummy's chest. They stated
that the procedure for measuring belt fit has been improved and the
repeatability and reproducibility issues have been addressed.
    Agency Response: The agency has not proposed belt fit requirements
for the reasons explained in the previous rulemaking documents. We are
not proceeding with a belt fit proposal at this time. We will keep an
open mind to evaluating the merits of static belt fit criteria in the
future. Among other issues, we will consider for future work whether
belt fit could or should be measured statically. Data indicate \58\
that the HIII-10C submarines like a human child. The dummy appears to
have potential as an appropriate device for use in assessing seat belt
syndrome in the event that we develop a sufficiently biofidelic abdomen
that has a means to measure compression.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Reed, M., Klinich MA, Ebert-Hamilton, S., Klinich, K.,
Manary, M., Rupp, J., ``Assessing Child Belt Fit, Volume II: Effects
of Restraint Configuration, Booster Seat Designs, Seating Procedure,
and Belt Fit on the Dynamic Response of the Hybrid III 10 YO ATD in
Sled Tests,'' September 2008, UMTRI-2008-49-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Shoe Size
    This final rule amends S9.1(f) of FMVSS No. 213 to amend the range
of shoe sizes specified for the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy, Hybrid III
6-year-old weighted dummy, and the Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy.
4. Preemption Language
    The American Association for Justice (AAJ) comments to the 2008
SNPRM objected to the preamble's discussion of the preemptive effect of
the rule. NHTSA's June 14, 2010 final rule on FMVSS No. 305,
``Electric-powered vehicles; electrolyte spillage and electrical shock
protection,'' has already responded to AAJ's concerns about this issue.
See, 75 FR 33515, at 33524-33525.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures

    This rulemaking action has considered the impact of this regulatory
action under E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 and the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) regulatory policies and procedures. This
rulemaking action was not reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget under E.O. 12866. The rulemaking has also been determined not to
be significant under DOT's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR
11034, February 26, 1979).
    This final rule adopts use of a new test dummy in agency tests of
child restraints. The benefits cannot be quantified. However, assuring
that child restraints can meet the FMVSS No. 213 requirements when
tested with a 10-year-old child test dummy should be beneficial. All
child restraints tested by the agency with the HIII-10C met the
performance requirements of this final rule, so costs will be minimal.

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
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). The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13
CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity
``which operates primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR Sec.
121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head
of an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA
amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    NHTSA estimates there to be 20 manufacturers of child restraints,
eight or ten of which could be small businesses.
    The certification responsibilities of manufacturers are generally
not affected by this final rule. Manufacturers of child restraints
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 final rule on most child restraints will be to subject them to
testing with a new dummy. All child restraints tested by the agency
with the HIII-10C met the performance requirements adopted today, so
costs will be minimal.
    The labels and owner's manual of some child restraints will have to
be revised to add a sentence on consumer information. The cost of
revising the labels is minimal.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined this final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule 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.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption 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 by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that
NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer,
notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard.
Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of
action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
    To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of this rule and
finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum
safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule preempt
state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor
vehicle manufacturers than that established by this rule. Establishment
of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with
the minimum standard announced here. Without any conflict, there could
not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of
action.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there
is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. Before seeking OMB
approval, Federal agencies must provide a 60-day public comment period
and otherwise consult with members of the public and

affected agencies concerning each collection of information
requirement. NHTSA believes the labeling requirement for the LATCH
anchorages will result in a collection of information burden on child
restraint system manufacturers. We are providing a 60-day comment
period on reporting burdens and other matters associated with the
labeling requirements.
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits
a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first
publish a document in the Federal Register providing a 60-day comment
period and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected
agencies concerning each proposed collection of information. The OMB
has promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a
document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must
ask for public comment on the following:
    Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility;
    The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology
and assumptions used;
    How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected;
    How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following collection of information:
    Title: ``Consolidated Child Restraint System Registration, Labeling
and Defect Notifications.'' OMB Control Number: 2127-0576.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the
approval date.
    Type of Request: Label revision of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Business, Individuals and Households.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: This rulemaking adds a
sentence to the printed instructions and labeling of certain child
restraint systems (those that have internal harnesses, and that are
recommended for older children). Currently, child restraint
manufacturers are required to provide printed instructions with step-
by-step information on how the restraint is to be used. Without proper
use, the effectiveness of these systems is greatly diminished. Each
child restraint system must also have a permanent label.\59\ A
permanently attached label gives ``quicklook'' information on whether
the restraint meets the safety requirements, recommended installation
and use, and warnings against misuse. The requested revision is to add
a sentence to the existing instructions brochure and labeling that will
inform the consumer that the lower anchors of a LATCH system may be
used up to a combined weight of child and harnessed-child restraint of
65 lb. The purpose of this label is to reduce consumer confusion about
using LATCH, and to assure that the lower anchors will be able to
withstand the forces generated by the child and CRS in virtually all
crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ FMVSS No. 213 also requires child restraint manufacturers
to provide owner-registration cards and to keep records relating to
owner registration information, so that owners can be notified about
noncompliance or defect recall campaigns. These owner registration
requirements are not affected by this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this rule, child restraint systems equipped with internal
harnesses to restrain the child and with components to attach to a
child restraint anchorage system and for which the combined weight of
the child restraint system and the maximum recommended child weight for
use with internal harnesses exceeds 65 pounds, will be required to be
labeled with the following statement: ``Do not use the lower anchors of
the child restraint anchorage system (LATCH system) to attach this
child restraint when restraining a child weighing more than --*--
[where * is the recommended weight value in English and metric units
such that the sum of the recommended weight value and the weight of the
child restraint system does not exceed 65 pounds (29.5 kg)] with the
internal harnesses of the child restraint.''
    NHTSA anticipates a change to the hour burden or costs associated
with the revised child restraint labels and written instructions. Child
restraint manufacturers produce, on average, a total of approximately
4,500,000 child restraints per year. The label would apply to
approximately 50 percent of the total annual production (2,250,000
units). The hour burden associated with the revised label consist of
the child restraint manufacturer: (1) Determining the maximum allowable
child weight when using the lower LATCH anchor attachments as a means
of installation by subtracting the weight of the child restraint from
65 pounds and (2) adding this information on an existing label and
instruction manual. We estimate 2 seconds of additional burden per
child restraint for the determination of the maximum allowable weight
and the addition of the information on the existing label and
instruction manual (2 sec x 2,250,000 units = 4,500,000 seconds = 1,250
hours).
Estimated Additional Annual Burden: 1,250 Hours
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
    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., Washington, DC, 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document. You may call the Docket at (202) 366-
9324.
    Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. 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).

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 the agency to provide Congress,
through the OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    After carefully reviewing the available information, NHTSA has
determined that there are no voluntary consensus standards relevant to
this rulemaking, except this rule incorporates by reference an American
Society for Testing and Materials standard for testing foam materials.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). This final rule would not result in the expenditure by
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of more than $100 million annually.

Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. This rulemaking is not subject to
the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as
defined in E.O. 12866.

Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) is determined to be economically significant as
defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse
effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that
is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is
not subject to E.O. 13211.

Plain Language

    The Plain Language Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) and
Executive Order 12866 require each agency to write all rules in plain
language. Application of the principles of plain language includes
consideration of the following questions:

--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please send them to
NHTSA at the ADDRESSES section in the heading of this final rule.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda. This rulemaking originally
had the RIN 2127-AJ44. This final rule has a new RIN because a
September 9, 2011 final rule on one of the issues of the rulemaking was
considered to have completed action on RIN 2127-AJ44.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all material
received into any of our dockets, including petitions for
reconsideration of this rule (a copy of which will be placed in the
docket), 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 at 19478).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority 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.

0
2. Section 571.5 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (d)(16) through
(d)(37) as paragraphs (d)(17) through (d)(38) and adding new paragraph
(d)(16), to read as follows:

Sec.  571.5  Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (16) ASTM D1056-07, ``Standard Specification for Flexible Cellular
Materials--Sponge or Expanded Rubber,'' approved March 1, 2007, into
Sec.  571.213.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 571.213 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the definition of ``child restraint system'' in S4;
0
b. Adding S5(e) and (f);
0
c. Revising the introductory text of S<IP_ADDRESS>;
0
d. Removing and reserving S5.2.3;
0
e. Revising the introductory text of S<IP_ADDRESS>;
0
f. Revising S5.5.2(g)(1)(ii);
0
g. Adding S<IP_ADDRESS>;
0
h. Revising S6.1.1(d), S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii), S6.1.2(d)(2)(i) and (ii), and
S6.2.3;
0
i. Removing and reserving S6.3 and S7.1.1;
0
j. Revising S7.1.2(d) and (e) and adding S7.1.2(f);
0
k. Removing and reserving S9.1(b);
0
l. Revising S9.1(f), S9.3.1, S9.3.2, and the introductory text of
S10.2.1;
0
m. Removing and reserving S10.2.1(a) and (b)(1);
0
n. Revising the first sentence of S10.2.1(b)(2), the introductory text
of S10.2.1(c)(1)(i), and the introductory text of S10.2.2;
0
o. Adding S10.2.3; and,
0
p. Adding Figures 13, 14a, and 14b.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  571.213  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 * * *

    (e) Each child restraint system tested with a part 572 subpart T
dummy need not meet S<IP_ADDRESS>(a).
    (f) Each child restraint system that is equipped with an internal
harness to restrain the child need not meet this standard when attached
to the lower anchors of the child restraint anchorage system, when
tested with a test dummy of a weight that results in the combined
weight of the child restraint system and the test dummy to exceed 65
pounds. Such a child restraint must meet this standard when tested
using its internal harnesses to restrain such a test dummy while
attached to the standard seat assembly using the belt system.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> The applicability of the requirements of S<IP_ADDRESS> 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 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 S<IP_ADDRESS>. A front
facing child restraint system is not required to comply with S<IP_ADDRESS>
if the target point on either side of the dummy's head is below a
horizontal plane tangent to the top of--* * *
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Direct restraint. Except for belt-positioning seats, each
belt that is part of a child restraint system and that is designed to
restrain a child using the system and to attach the system to the
vehicle, and each Type I and lap portion of a Type II vehicle belt that
is used to attach the system to the vehicle shall, when tested in
accordance with S6.1, impose no loads on the child that result from the
mass of the system, or--
* * * * *
    S5.5.2 * * *
    (g)(1) * * *
    (ii) ``Secure this child restraint with the vehicle's child
restraint anchorage system, if available, or with a vehicle belt.''
[For car beds, harnesses, and belt-positioning seats, the first part of
the statement regarding attachment by the child restraint anchorage
system (LATCH system) is optional. For belt-positioning seats, the
second part of the statement regarding attachment by the vehicle belt
does not apply.] Child restraint systems equipped with internal
harnesses to restrain the child and with components to attach to a
child restraint anchorage system and for which the combined weight of
the child restraint system and the maximum recommended child weight for
use with internal harnesses exceeds 65 pounds, must be labeled with the
following statement: ``Do not use the lower anchors of the child
restraint anchorage system (LATCH system) to attach this child
restraint when restraining a child weighing more than ----*----
[*insert a recommended weight value in English and metric units such
that the sum of the recommended weight value and the weight of the
child restraint system does not exceed 65 pounds (29.5 kg)] with the
internal harnesses of the child restraint.''
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> The instructions for child restraint systems equipped
with an internal harness to restrain the child and with components to
attach to a child restraint anchorage system, and for which the
combined weight of the child restraint system and the maximum
recommended child weight for use with internal harnesses exceeds 65
pounds, must include the following statement: ``Do not use the lower
anchors of the child restraint anchorage system (LATCH system) to
attach this child restraint when restraining a child weighing more than
----*---- [*insert a recommended weight value in English and metric
units such that the sum of the recommended weight value and the weight
of the child restraint system does not exceed 65 pounds (29.5 kg)] with
the internal harnesses of the child restraint.''
    S6.1.1 Test conditions.
* * * * *
    (d)(1) When using the test dummy specified in 49 CFR part 572,
subparts I and K, performance tests under S6.1 are conducted at any
ambient temperature from 19 [deg]C to 26 [deg]C and at any relative
humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent.
    (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 [deg]C to 22.2 [deg]C and at any
relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent.
* * * * *
    S6.1.2 * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Belt-positioning seats. A belt-positioning seat is attached to
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 using only the standard vehicle lap and
shoulder belt and no tether (or any other supplemental device). Place
the belt-positioning seat on the standard seat assembly such that the
center plane of the belt-positioning seat is parallel and aligned to
the center plane of the outboard seating positions on the standard seat
assembly and the base of the belt-positioning seat is flat on the
standard seat assembly cushion. Move the belt-positioning seat rearward
on the standard seat assembly until some part of the belt-positioning
seat touches the standard seat assembly back. Keep the belt-positioning
seat and the seating position center plane aligned as much as possible.
Apply 133 N (30 pounds) of force to the front of the belt-positioning
seat rearward into the standard seat assembly and release.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The lap portion of Type II belt systems used to restrain the
dummy is tightened to a tension of not less than 9 N (2 pounds) and not
more than 18 N (4 pounds).
    (ii) The shoulder portion of Type II belt systems used to restrain
the dummy is tightened to a tension of not less than 9 N (2 pounds) and
not more than 18 N (4 pounds).
* * * * *
    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:
    (a) Add-on Child Restraints. For an add-on child restraint other
than a car bed, apply the specified force by pulling the sling
horizontally and parallel to the SORL of the standard seat assembly.
For a car bed, apply the force by pulling the sling vertically.
    (b) Built-in Child Restraints. For a built-in child restraint other
than a car bed, apply the force by pulling the sling parallel to the
longitudinal centerline of the specific vehicle shell or the specific

vehicle. In the case of a car bed, apply the force by pulling the sling
vertically.
* * * * *
    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 (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 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).
* * * * *
    S9.1 Type of clothing.
* * * * *
    (f) Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy (49 CFR Part 572, Subpart N) and
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 and S, are clothed as specified in Subpart N and with child
or youth size 13 M sneakers weighing not more than 0.45 kg each. When
used in testing under this standard, the dummy specified in 49 CFR part
572, Subpart T, is clothed as specified in Subpart T and with youth
size 3 sneakers weighing not more than 0.6 kg each.
* * * * *
    S9.3.1 When using the test dummies conforming to part 572 C, I, or
K, 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 19 [deg] C to 25.5 [deg] C and at any relative
humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent, for at least 4 hours.
    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[deg] to 22.2[deg]C and
at any relative humidity from 10 percent to 70 percent, for at least 4
hours.
* * * * *
    S10.2.1 Newborn dummy and 12-month-old dummy. Position the test
dummy according to the instructions for child positioning that the
manufacturer provided with the system under S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while
conforming to the following:
    (b) * * *
    (2) When testing rear-facing child restraint systems, place the
newborn, or 12-month-old dummy in the child restraint system so that
the back of the dummy torso contacts the back support surface of the
system. * * *
* * * * *
    (c)(1)(i) When testing forward-facing child restraint systems,
extend the arms of the 12-month old test dummy as far as possible in
the upward vertical direction. Extend the legs of the 12-month-old test
dummy as far as possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the
dummy feet perpendicular to the centerline of the lower legs. Using a
flat square surface with an area of 2,580 square mm, apply a force of
178 N, perpendicular to:
* * * * *
    S10.2.2 Other dummies generally. When using: (1) the Hybrid III 3-
year-old (part 572, subpart P), Hybrid II 6-year-old (part 572, subpart
I), and Hybrid III weighted 6-year-old (part 572, subpart S) in child
restraint systems including belt-positioning seats; (2) the Hybrid III
6-year-old (part 572, subpart N) and the Hybrid III 10-year-old (part
572, subpart T) in child restraint systems other than belt-positioning
seats, position the dummy in accordance with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while
conforming to the following:
* * * * *
    S10.2.3 Hybrid III 6-year-old in belt-positioning seats and Hybrid
III 10-year-old in belt-positioning seats. When using the Hybrid III 6-
year-old (part 572, subpart N) or the Hybrid III 10-year-old (part 572,
subpart T) in belt-positioning seats, position the dummy in accordance
with S5.6.1 or S5.6.2, while conforming to the following:
    (a) Prepare the dummy. (1) When using the Hybrid III 10-year-old
dummy, prepare the dummy according to the following:
    (i) Set the dummy's neck angle at the SP-16 setting (``SP'' means
standard procedure), see Figure 14a.
    (ii) Set the dummy's lumbar angle at the SP-12 setting, see Figure
14b. This is done by aligning the notch on the lumbar adjustment
bracket with the SP-12 notch on the lumbar attachment.
    (iii) Adjust the limb joints to 1-2 g while the torso is in the
seated position.
    (iv) Apply double-sided tape to the surface of a lap shield, which
is a piece of translucent silicone rubber 3 mm 0.5 mm thick
(50A durometer) cut to the dimensions specified in Figure 13. Place the
lap shield on the pelvis of the dummy. Align the top of the lap shield
with the superior anterior edge of the pelvis skin. Attach the lap
shield to the dummy.
    (v) Apply double-sided tape to one side of a pelvis positioning
pad, which is a 125 x 95 x 20 mm (+/-2 mm tolerance in each of the
three dimensions) piece of closed cell (Type 2 according to ASTM D-
1056-07) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  571.5) foam or rubber
cut from material having the following specifications: compression
resistance between 9 to 17 psi in a compression-deflection test
specified in ASTM D-1056-07 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.
571.5), and a density of 7 to 12.5 lb/ft\3\. Center the long axis of
the pad on the posterior of the pelvis with the top edge of the foam
aligned with the superior edge of the pelvis skin. Attach the pelvis
positioning pad to the dummy.
    (vi) Dress and prepare the dummy according to S9.
    (2) When using the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy, prepare the dummy
according to the following:
    (i) If necessary, adjust the limb joints to 1-2 g while the torso
is in the seated position.
    (ii) Apply double-sided tape to the surface of a lap shield, which
is a piece of translucent silicone rubber 3 mm thick 0.5 mm
thick (50A durometer) cut to the dimensions specified in Figure 13.
Place the lap shield on the pelvis of the dummy. Align the top of the
lap shield with the superior anterior edge of the pelvis skin. Attach
the lap shield to the dummy.
    (iii) Dress and prepare the dummy according to S9.
    (b) Position the belt-positioning seat according to
S6.1.2(a)(1)(ii).
    (c) Position the dummy in the belt-positioning seat.

    (1) Place the dummy on the seat cushion of the belt-positioning
seat such that the plane of the posterior pelvis is parallel to the
plane of the seat back of the belt-positioning seat, standard seat
assembly or vehicle seat back, but not touching. Pick up and move the
dummy rearward, maintaining the parallel planes, until the pelvis
positioning pad, if used, or the pelvis or back of the dummy and the
back of the belt-positioning seat or the back of the standard seat
assembly, are in minimal contact.
    (2) Straighten and align the arm segments horizontally, then rotate
the arms upward at the shoulder as far as possible without contacting
the belt-positioning seat. Straighten and align the legs horizontally
and extend the lower legs as far as possible in the forward horizontal
direction, with the feet perpendicular to the centerline of the lower
legs.
    (3) Using a flat square surface with an area of 2580 square
millimeters, apply a force of 178 N (40 lb) first against the dummy
crotch and then against the dummy thorax on the midsagittal plane of
the dummy, perpendicular to:
    (i) The plane of the back of the belt-positioning seat, in the case
of a belt-positioning seat with a back, or,
    (ii) The plane of the back of the standard seat assembly or vehicle
seat, in the case of a backless belt-positioning seat or built-in
booster.
    (4) Rotate the arms of the dummy down so that they are
perpendicular to the torso.
    (5) Bend the knees until the back of the lower legs are in minimal
contact with the belt-positioning seat, standard seat assembly or
vehicle seat. Position the legs such that the outer edges of the knees
are 180 +/- 10 mm apart for the Hybrid III 6-year-old dummy and 220 +/-
10 mm apart for the Hybrid III 10-year-old dummy. Position the feet
such that the soles are perpendicular to the centerline of the lower
legs. In the case of a belt-positioning seat with a back, adjust the
dummy so that the shoulders are parallel to a line connecting the
shoulder belt guides. This can be accomplished by leaning the torso
such that the dummy's head and neck are centered on the backrest
components of the belt-positioning seat. In case of a backless child
restraint, adjust the dummy's torso so that the head is as close to
laterally level as possible.
    (d) Apply the belt. Attach the vehicle belts and tighten them as
specified in S6.1.2.
    (e) Dummy final positioning. (1) Check the leg, feet, thorax and
head positions and make any necessary adjustments to achieve the
positions described in S10.2.3(c)(5). Position the legs, if necessary,
so that the leg placement does not inhibit thorax movement in tests
conducted under S6.
    (2) Rotate each dummy arm downwards in the plane parallel to the
dummy's midsagittal plane until the arm contacts a surface of the child
restraint system or the standard seat assembly, in the case of an add-
on system, or the specific vehicle shell or specific vehicle, in the
case of a built-in system, as appropriate. Position the arms, if
necessary, so that the arm placement does not inhibit torso or head
movement in tests conducted under S6.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27FE12.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27FE12.002

    Issued on: February 16, 2012.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-4134 Filed 2-21-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-C


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 64 (Thursday, April 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18583-18584]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06832]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4435-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Missouri; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Missouri (FEMA-4435-DR), dated May 20, 2019, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on February 21, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, John Brogan, of
FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this
disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Jon K. Huss as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,

Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-06832 Filed 4-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 57 (Friday, March 26, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16133-16137]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06022]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0134; Project Identifier AD-2020-01254-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. This proposed AD
was prompted by significant changes, including new or more restrictive
requirements, made to the airworthiness limitations (AWLs) and Critical
Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs) related to fuel tank
ignition prevention, the engine fuel suction feed system, and the
nitrogen generation system. This proposed AD would require revising the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA
is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 10,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     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 Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0134; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0134; Project Identifier
AD AD-2020-01254-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most
helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain
the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The
FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such

marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be
placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI
should be sent to Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section,
FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, the FAA issued a
final rule titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction, and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements that rule
included Amendment 21-78, which established Special Federal Aviation
Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88'') to 14 CFR part 21. Subsequently, SFAR
88 was amended by: Amendment 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 10, 2002;
corrected at 67 FR 70809, November 26, 2002), Amendment 21-83 (67 FR
72830, December 9, 2002; corrected at 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003, to
change ``21-82'' to ``21-83''), and Amendment 21-101 (83 FR 9162, March
5, 2018).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the final rule published on
May 7, 2001, the FAA intended to adopt airworthiness directives to
mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions
identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, the FAA has established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in
combination with another latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    The FAA issued AD 2008-11-13, Amendment 39-15536 (73 FR 30737, May
29, 2008) (AD 2008-11-13), which applies to certain The Boeing Company
Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. The
applicability of AD 2008-11-13 did not include the Boeing Company Model
777F series airplane because those airplanes were not yet type
certificated. AD 2008-11-13 requires incorporation of fuel system AWLs
and also requires an initial inspection to phase in certain repetitive
inspections, and repair if necessary. The fuel system AWLs were
developed to satisfy SFAR 88 requirements and were included in the
Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the manufacturer's
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. Since the FAA issued AD 2008-
11-13, the ALS has been significantly revised by the manufacturer to
correct technical and editorial errors and also to add new or more
restrictive requirements. Many of those changes are related to fuel
tank ignition prevention, the engine fuel suction feed system, and the
nitrogen generation system. The FAA has determined that the specific
revisions of the AWL mandated by AD 2008-11-13 (which applies to
airplanes with an original standard airworthiness certificate or
original export certificate of airworthiness issued before December 5,
2007) and the revisions of the AWL that have been delivered with
airplanes as part of the type design and airworthiness certificate on
or after December 5, 2007, are inadequate to provide information
necessary to maintain critical design features and perform inspections.
    The FAA also issued AD 2014-09-09, Amendment 39-17844 (79 FR 30005,
May 27, 2014) (AD 2014-09-09), which applies to all The Boeing Company
Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes. AD
2014-09-09 requires revising the maintenance program to incorporate a
revision to the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the maintenance
planning data (MPD) document. Since the FAA issued AD 2014-09-09, 28-
AWL-101 has been revised, therefore, this proposed AD would require the
incorporation of the revised 28-AWL-101. Incorporating the revision
required by this proposed AD would terminate all the requirements of AD
2014-09-09.
    The FAA has received a report indicating that significant changes,
including new or more restrictive requirements, made to the AWLs and
CDCCLs related to fuel tank ignition prevention, the engine fuel
suction feed system, and the nitrogen generation system. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address ignition sources inside the fuel tanks and
the increased flammability exposure of the center fuel tank caused by
latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which
could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of an
airplane; and to address potential loss of engine fuel suction feed
capability, which could result in dual engine flameouts, inability to
restart engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), of Boeing 777-200/200LR/
300/300ER/777F Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D622W001-9,
dated November 2019. This service information describes airworthiness
limitations and CDCCLs tasks related to fuel tank ignition prevention,
the engine fuel suction feed system, and the nitrogen generation
system. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency evaluated all the
relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and
CDCCLs. Compliance with these actions and CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR

91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered,
or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator
may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions.
In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to
paragraph (k) of this proposed AD.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Paragraph (g) of this proposed AD would require operators to revise
their existing maintenance or inspection program by incorporating, in
part, AWL No. 28-AWL-11, ``Fuel Quantity Indicating System (FQIS) and
Auxiliary Fuel Tank (Cell) Electronic Fuel Level Indication System
(EFLI)--Out Tank Wiring Installation Separation Requirement,'' of
Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), of Boeing 777-200/200LR/300/300ER/777F
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D622W001-9, dated November
2019.
    Paragraph (h) of this proposed AD would allow certain changes to be
made to the requirements specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-11 as an option.
Where AWL No. 28-AWL-11 identifies certain wire types for routing and
installation of any new wiring under certain conditions, paragraph (h)
of this proposed AD provides acceptable alternative wire types.
Additionally, where AWL No. 28-AWL-11 identifies certain wiring sleeve
material for new wiring installed under certain conditions, paragraph
(h) of this proposed AD provides acceptable alternative wire sleeve
materials.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) Previously Approved for AD
2008-11-13

    The FAA has previously issued AMOC approvals for compliance with
paragraph (g)(2) of AD 2008-11-13 to allow operators to incorporate
alternative versions of AWL No. 28-AWL-11. AWL No. 28-AWL-11 includes
the requirements for new wiring introduced by any alterations or
changes to the type design, including STC modifications, in proximity
to wiring that penetrates the fuel tank wall. Certain STCs that
introduced new wiring near the fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS)
wiring utilized design features that were different from the critical
design features for fuel tank ignition prevention specified in the AD-
mandated version of AWL No. 28-AWL-11. For those STCs, the FAA has
approved alternative versions of AWL No. 28-AWL-11 that specified
critical design features associated with STC modifications. The FAA has
determined that certain critical design features specified in the AMOC-
approved versions of AWL No. 28-AWL-11 are not acceptable to meet the
intent of this AWL. Therefore, this proposed AD does not allow credit
for AMOCs previously approved under AD 2008-11-13. However, based on
the agency's assessment of critical design features, the FAA has
provided options under paragraph (h) of this proposed AD to allow
certain changes to be made to the requirements specified in AWL No. 28-
AWL-11.
    The requirements for new wiring versus existing wiring are
specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-11. Based on these requirements, any STC
modifications that are installed after the incorporation of the version
of AWL No. 28-AWL-11 required by paragraph (g) of this proposed AD must
comply with AWL No. 28-AWL-11, including any mandatory rework, or the
operator must request approval of an AMOC according to paragraph (k) of
this proposed AD. Any STC modifications that are installed prior to the
incorporation of the version of AWL No. 28 AWL-11 required by paragraph
(g) of this proposed AD are not required to be reworked for compliance
with the new wiring requirements of AWL No. 28-AWL-11, except that
future repair and replacement of existing wiring must follow AWL No.
28-AWL-11.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 219 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection
program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined
that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane
estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the average total cost per
operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA 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) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2021-0134; Project Identifier AD-
2020-01254-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) action by May 10, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2)
of this AD.
    (1) AD 2008-11-13, Amendment 39-15536 (73 FR 30737, May 29,
2008) (AD 2008-11-13).
    (2) AD 2014-09-09, Amendment 39-17844 (79 FR 30005, May 27,
2014) (AD 2014-09-09).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -
300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes having line numbers (L/Ns) 1
through 1609 inclusive, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel; 47,
Inert Gas System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by significant changes, including new or
more restrictive requirements, made to the airworthiness limitations
(AWLs) and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations
(CDCCLs) related to fuel tank ignition prevention, the engine fuel
suction feed system, and the nitrogen generation system. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address ignition sources inside the fuel tanks
and the increased flammability exposure of the center fuel tank
caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance
actions, which could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent
loss of an airplane; and to address potential loss of engine fuel
suction feed capability, which could result in dual engine
flameouts, inability to restart engines, and consequent forced
landing of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate the information in Section D, ``Airworthiness
Limitations--Systems,'' including Subsections D.1, D.2, and D.3, of
Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), of Boeing 777-200/200LR/300/300ER/
777F Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D622W001-9, dated
November 2019; except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. The
initial compliance time for doing the airworthiness limitation
instructions (ALI) tasks is at the times specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (10) of this AD.
    (1) For AWL 28-AWL-01, ``External Wires Over Center Fuel Tank'':
Within 16,000 flight cycles or 3,000 days, whichever occurs first
after the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate
or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of
airworthiness; or within 16,000 flight cycles or 3,000 days,
whichever occurs first after the most recent inspection was
performed as specified in 28-AWL-01; whichever occurs later.
    (2) For AWL 28-AWL-03, ``Fuel Quantity Indicating System
(FQIS)--Out of Tank Wiring Lightning Shield to Ground Termination'':
Within 16,000 flight cycles or 3,000 days, whichever occurs first
after the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate
or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of
airworthiness; or within 16,000 flight cycles or 3,000 days,
whichever occurs first after the most recent inspection was
performed as specified in 28-AWL-03; whichever occurs later.
    (3) For AWL 28-AWL-18, ``Over-Current and Arcing Protection
Electrical Design Features Operation--AC Fuel Pump GFI and GFP'':
Within 375 days after the date of issuance of the original
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
export certificate of airworthiness; or within 375 days after
accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin
777-28A0037; or within 375 days after accomplishment of the actions
specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0038; or within 375 days
after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in 28-
AWL-18; whichever occurs latest.
    (4) For AWL 28-AWL-21, ``External Wires Over Auxiliary Fuel Tank
(Cell)'': Within 16,000 flight cycles or 3,000 days, whichever
occurs first after the date of issuance of the original
airworthiness certificate or date of issuance of the original export
certificate of airworthiness; or within 16,000 flight cycles or
3,000 days, whichever occurs first after the most recent inspection
was performed as specified in 28-AWL-21; or within 365 days after
the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs latest.
    (5) For AWL 28-AWL-26, ``Auxiliary Fuel Tank (Cell) AC Fuel Pump
Uncommanded ON/Automatic Shutoff Circuit'': Within 375 days after
the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or
the date of issuance of the original export certificate of
airworthiness; or within 375 days after the most recent inspection
was performed as specified in 28-AWL-26; or within 30 days after the
effective date of this AD; whichever occurs latest.
    (6) For AWL 28-AWL-32, ``Cushion Clamps and Teflon Sleeving
Installed on Out-of-Tank Wire Bundles Installed on Brackets that are
Mounted Directly on the Fuel Tanks'': For airplanes having L/N 1
through 503 inclusive, within 3,750 days after accomplishment of the
actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletins 777-57A0050, or within
60 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later. For airplanes having L/N 504 and subsequent, within 3,750
days after the date of issuance of the original airworthiness
certificate or the date of issuance of the original export
certificate of airworthiness; or within 60 months after the
effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later.
    (7) For AWL 28-AWL-101, ``Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational
Test'': Within 7,500 flight hours after the date of issuance of the
original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness; or within 7,500 flight
hours after the most recent inspection was performed as specified in
AWL No. 28-AWL-101; whichever occurs later.
    (8) For AWL 47-AWL-04, ``NGS--Thermal Switch'': Within 108,000
flight hours after the date of issuance of the original
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
export certificate of airworthiness; or within 108,000 flight hours
after accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-47-0002; or within 108,000 flight hours after the most
recent inspection was performed as specified in 47-AWL-04; whichever
occurs latest.
    (9) For 47-AWL-05, ``NGS--Cross Vent Check Valve'': Within
10,682 flight hours after the date of issuance of the original
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
export certificate of airworthiness; or within 10,682 flight hours
after accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-47-0002; or within 10,682 flight hours after the most
recent inspection was performed as specified in 47-AWL-05; whichever
occurs latest.
    (10) For AWL 47-AWL-06, ``NGS--NEA Distribution Ducting
Integrity'': Within 10,682 flight hours after the date of issuance
of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of
the original export certificate of airworthiness; or within 10,682
flight hours after accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing
Service Bulletin 777-47-0002; or within 10,682 flight hours after
the most recent inspection was performed as specified in 47-AWL-06;
whichever occurs latest.

(h) Additional Acceptable Wire Types and Sleeving

    As an option, when accomplishing the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, the changes specified in paragraphs (h)(1)
and (2) of this AD are acceptable.
    (1) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-11 identifies wire types BMS 13-48, BMS
13-58, and BMS 13-60, the following wire types are acceptable: MIL-
W-22759/16, SAE AS22759/16 (M22759/16), MIL-W-22759/32, SAE AS22759/
32 (M22759/32), MIL-W-22759/34, SAE AS22759/34 (M22759/34), MIL-W-
22759/41, SAE AS22759/41 (M22759/41), MIL-W-22759/86, SAE AS22759/86
(M22759/86), MIL-W-22759/87, SAE AS22759/87 (M22759/87), MIL-W-
22759/92, and SAE AS22759/92 (M22759/92); and MIL-C-27500 and NEMA
WC 27500 cables constructed from these military or SAE specification
wire types, as applicable.
    (2) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-11 identifies TFE-2X Standard wall
(manufactured as specified in MIL-I-23053) for wire sleeving, the
following sleeving materials are acceptable: Roundit 2000NX and
Varglas Type HO, HP, or HM.

(i) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, or Critical Design Configuration
Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless
the

actions, intervals, and CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method
of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (k) of this AD.

(j) Terminating Actions

    Accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (g) of this
AD terminates the requirements specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and
(2) of this AD for that airplane.
    (1) All requirements of AD 2008-11-13 for Model 777-200, -200LR,
-300, and -300ER series airplanes only.
    (2) All requirements of AD 2014-09-09.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office,
as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of
the certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin Nguyen,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-
3555; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on March 2, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-06022 Filed 3-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 103)]
[Notices]
[Page 30035-30037]
[DOCID:fr30my07-122]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0034]

Overhead and Gantry Cranes; Extension of the Office of Management
and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend
OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in
its Standard on Overhead and Gantry Cranes (29 CFR 1910.179).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
July 30, 2007.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0034,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. 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. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2007-0034). 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.
 For further information on submitting comments see

the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice
titled ``Supplementary Information.''
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at

the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) 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 the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information
regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries,
illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires
that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers,
especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the
maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining
information (29 U.S.C. 657).

    The Standard specifies several paperwork requirements. The
following sections describe who uses the information collected under
each requirement, as well as how they use it. The purpose of these
requirements is to prevent death and serious injuries among employees
by ensuring that all critical components of the crane are inspected and
tested on a periodic basis and that the crane is not used to lift loads
beyond its rated capacity.

(A) Marking the Rated Load (Sec. Sec.  1910.179(b)(3), (b)(5), and
(k)(2))

    Paragraph (b)(5) requires that the rated load be plainly marked on
the side of each crane. If the crane has more than one hoist, the rated
load must be marked on each hoist or the load block. The manufacturer
will mark the rated loads. If the crane is modified, paragraph (b)(3)
requires the new rating to be determined and marked on the crane. Also,
paragraph (k)(2) requires employers to retain rated test load results
and that the results are readily available to appointed personnel.
Marking the rated load capacity of a crane ensures that employers and
employees will not exceed the limits of the crane, which can result in
crane failure.

(B) Inspection of and Certification Records for Hooks and Hoist Chains
(Sec. Sec.  1910.179(j)(2)(iii), (j)(2)(iv), and (j)(4))

    Paragraphs (j)(2)(iii) and (j)(2)(iv) require monthly inspections
with certification records of hooks and hoist chains. The certification
must include the date of the inspection, the signature of the person
who performed the inspection, and the serial number, or other
identifier, of the inspected hook or hoist chain. Paragraph (j)(4)
requires that cranes that are not in regular use meet the requirements
of paragraph (j)(2). Paragraph (j)(4)(iii) specifically requires that
standby cranes be inspected semi-annually in accordance with paragraph
(j)(2). Certification records provide employers, employees, and OSHA
compliance officers with assurance that the hooks and hoist chains used
on cranes regulated by the Standard have been inspected as required by
the Standard. These inspections help assure that the equipment is in
good operating condition, thereby preventing failure of the hooks or
hoist chains during material handling. These records also provide the
most efficient means for the compliance officers to determine that an
employer is complying with the Standard.

(C) Repair and Testing of Defective Hooks (Sec. Sec.  1910.179(l)(3)
and (k)(2))

    As required by paragraph (k)(2), employers must make readily
available test reports of load rating tests of repaired crane hooks
conducted under paragraph (l)(3)(iii)(a). These reports inform the
employer, employees, and OSHA compliance officers that a rated load
test was performed, providing information about the capacity of the
crane and the adequacy of the repaired hook. This information is used
by crane operators so that they will not exceed the rated load of the
crane or hook.

(D) Inspection of and Certification Records for Ropes (Sec. Sec.
1910.179(m)(1) and (m)(2))

    Paragraph (m)(1) requires employers to inspect thoroughly all
running rope in use, and do so at least once a month. In addition, rope
which has been idle for at least a month must be inspected before use,
and a record prepared to certify that the inspection was done. The
certification record must include the inspection date, the signature of
the person conducting the inspection, and the identifier of the rope
inspected. Employers must keep the certification records on file and
available for inspection. The certification records provide employers,
employees, and OSHA compliance officers with assurance that the ropes
are in good condition.
    In addition, paragraph (m)(2) requires that the employer thoroughly
inspect all rope which has been idle for period of a month or more.
This inspection shall be for all types of deterioration and shall be
performed by an appointed person whose approval shall be required for
further use of the rope. A certification record shall be prepared and
include the date of inspection; the signature of the person who
performed the inspection; and, an identifier for the rope which was
inspected.

(E) Disclosure of Certification Records

    The disclosure of certification records provide the most efficient
means for OSHA compliance officers to determine that an employer is
complying with the Standard.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Standard on Overhead and
Gantry Cranes (29 CFR 1910.179). The Agency is requesting to reduce its
current burden hour estimate associated with this Standard from 360,179
to 360,144 hours for a total reduction of 35 hours. The Agency will
summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will
include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Overhead and Gantry Cranes (29 CFR 1910.179).
    OMB Number: 1218-0224.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 35,000.
    Frequency: On occasion; monthly; semi-annually.
    Average Time Per Response: Varies from 5 minutes (.08 hour) to
disclose certification records to 2 hours to obtain and post rated load
information on cranes.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 360,144.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(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 the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0034). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.

    Because of security 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 at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index, some information (e.g., copyrighted

material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and

access the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available through the Web site, and for assistance in using the
Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR
65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 23, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E7-10290 Filed 5-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P