[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21507-21514]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08532]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0047]

NHTSA Activities Under the United Nations World Forum for the
Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations 1998 Global Agreement

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of activities under the 1998 Global Agreement and
request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is publishing this notice to inform the public of the
upcoming scheduled meetings of the World Forum for the Harmonization of
Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and its Working Parties of Experts for
calendar year 2014. It also provides the most recent status of
activities under the Program of Work of the 1998 Global Agreement (to
which the United States is a signatory Contracting Party) and requests
comments on those activities. Publication of this information is in
accordance with NHTSA's Statement of Policy regarding Agency Policy
Goals and Public Participation in the Implementation of the 1998 Global

Agreement on Global Technical Regulations (GTR).

DATES: Comments to this notice must be received on or before May 16,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket No. NHTSA-XXXX-
XXXX by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions:

Public Participation

    Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR part 553.21).
Attachments may be appended to these submissions without regard to the
15 page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage commenters to
detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion. If a commenter
wishes to submit certain information under a claim of confidentiality,
three copies of the complete submission, including purportedly
confidential business information, should be submitted to the Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, and two copies from which the purportedly
confidential information has been deleted should be submitted to the
docket. A request for confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover
letter setting forth the information specified in the agency's
confidential business information regulation. 49 CFR part 512. All
comments received before the close of business on the comment closing
date indicated above for this document will be considered, and will be
available for examination in the docket at the above address both
before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments on this
document will be available for inspection in the docket. NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information as it becomes available for
inspection in the docket after the closing date, and it is recommended
that interested persons continue to examine the docket for new
material. Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail. All
submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this
proposed collection of information. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ezana Wondimneh, Chief,
International Policy and Harmonization Division (NVS-133), National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    WP.29 and Its Working Parties of Experts
    1. WP.29
    2. Working Parties of Experts
II. List of Provisional Meetings of WP.29 and Its Working Parties of
Experts
III. Status of Activities Under the Program of Work of the 1998
Global Agreement
    A. GTRs Established in CY 2013 Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicles
    B. Status of GTRs Under Development
    1. Pedestrian Safety
    2. Head Restraints
    3. Quiet Electric and Hybrid-Electric Vehicles
    4. Electric Vehicles
    5. Light Vehicle Tires
    6. Pole Side Impact Protection and Harmonized Side Impact
Dummies
    C. Exchange of Information Item Enforcement Working Group
    D. Compendium of Candidate GTRs
IV. Request for Comments

I. Background

    On August 23, 2000, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (65 FR
51236) a statement of policy regarding the Agency's policy goals and
public participation in the implementation of the 1998 Global
Agreement, indicating that each calendar year the Agency would provide
a list of scheduled meetings of the World Forum for the Harmonization
of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) and the Working Parties of Experts, as
well as meetings of the Executive Committee of the 1998 Global
Agreement (AC.3).\1\ Further, the Agency stated that it would keep the
public informed about the Agreement's Program of Work (i.e., subjects
designated for Global Technical Regulation (GTR) development) and seek
comment on those subjects on a regular basis. In keeping with the
policy, NHTSA has notified the public about the status of activities
under the 1998 Global Agreement and sought comments on various issues
and proposals through a series of Federal Register notices published
beginning July 2000.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This statement of policy is codified in Appendix C of Part
553 of Title 49 of the CFR.
    \2\ The relevant Federal Register notices include: 65 FR 44565,
66 FR 4893, 68 FR 5333, 69 FR 60460, 71 FR 59582, 73 FR 7803, 73 FR
8743, 73 FR 31914, 73 FR 5520, 77 FR 4618, and 78 FR 21191.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice provides the latest and current status of the Agency's
activities at the World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle
Regulations under the 1998 Global Agreement.

WP.29 and Its Working Parties of Experts

1. WP.29
    WP.29 was established on June 6, 1952 as the Working Party on the
Construction of Vehicles, a subsidiary body of the Inland Transport
Committee (ITC) of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE). In March 2000, WP.29 became the ``World Forum for
Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29).'' The objective of the
WP.29 is to initiate and pursue actions aimed at the worldwide
harmonization or development of technical regulations for vehicles.\3\
Providing uniform conditions for periodical technical inspections and
strengthening economic relations worldwide, these regulations are aimed
at:

    \3\ For general information about WP.29, see the document,
``World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29)--How
It Works, How to Join It,'' available at http://www.unece.org/transport/resources/publications/publications.html. (last accessed
December 17, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Improving vehicle safety;
--protecting the environment;
--promoting energy efficiency; and
--increasing anti-theft performance.

WP.29 currently administers three UNECE Agreements:

    1. UNECE 1958 Agreement concerning the Adoption of Uniform
Technical Prescriptions for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts Which
Can Be Fitted and/or Be Used on Wheeled Vehicles and the Conditions for
Reciprocal Recognition of Approvals Granted on the Basis of These
Prescriptions;
    2. UNECE 1998 Agreement concerning the Establishing of Global
Technical Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which
can be Fitted and/or be Used on Wheeled Vehicles.
    3. UNECE 1997 Agreement concerning the Adoption of Uniform
Conditions for Periodical Technical Inspections of Wheeled Vehicles and
the Reciprocal Recognition of such Inspections.
    Four committees coordinate the activities of WP.29:

AC.1--Administrative Committee for 1958 Agreement
AC.2--Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work
AC.3--Executive Committee for 1998 Agreement
AC.4--Administrative Committee for 1997 Agreement
    AC.1, AC.3 and AC.4 are the Administrative/Executive Committees for
the Agreements administered by WP.29, constituting all Contracting
Parties of the respective Agreements.
    The coordination of work of the World Forum is managed by a
Steering Committee (AC.2) comprising the Chairperson and Secretariat of
WP.29, the Chairpersons of the Executive Committees of the 1958, 1997,
and 1998 Agreements administered by WP.29, the representatives of the
European Community, Japan and the United States of America, and the
Chairpersons of WP.29's subsidiary bodies (GRs or Working Parties). The
duties of AC.2 are to develop and recommend to WP.29 a Program of Work,
to review the reports and recommendations of WP.29's subsidiary bodies,
to identify items that require action by WP.29 and the time frame for
their consideration, and to provide recommendations to WP.29.
2. Working Parties of Experts
    The permanent subsidiary bodies of WP.29, also known as GRs (Groups
of Rapporteurs), assist the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle
Regulations in researching, analyzing and developing requirements for
technical regulations in the areas of their expertise. There are six
subsidiary bodies:

Working Party on Lighting and Light-Signaling (GRE)
Working Party on Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF)
Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP)
Working Party on General Safety Provisions (GRSG)
Working Party on Pollution and Energy (GRPE)
Working Party on Noise (GRB)
    Each subsidiary body consists of persons whose expertise is
relevant to the area covered by the body. All proposals for new
regulations or amendments to existing regulations are referred by the
World Forum to its relevant subsidiary bodies for the development of
technical recommendations. In view of the significance of the role of
these subsidiary bodies, they have been given permanent status under
the UN and have been designated as permanent and formal ``Working
Parties.'' More specifically, the working parties and their areas of
expertise are outlined below:
Active Safety of Vehicles and Their Parts (Crash Avoidance)
Working Party on Lighting and Light-Signaling (GRE)
Working Party on Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF)

    The regulations in this area seek to improve the behavior, handling
and equipment of vehicles so as to decrease the likelihood of a road
crash. Some of the regulations seek to increase the ability of drivers
to detect and avoid hazardous circumstances. Others seek to increase
the ability of drivers to maintain control of their vehicles. Specific
examples include regulations applying to lighting and light-signaling
devices, braking, steering, tires and rollover stability. This area of
safety technology is rapidly changing. The advent of advanced
technologies (e.g., electronic control systems, advanced sensors and
communication) is providing opportunities for developing new approaches
for helping drivers avoid crashes.
Passive Safety (Crashworthiness)
Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP)

    The regulations in this area seek to minimize the risk and severity
of injury for the occupants of a vehicle and/or other road users in the
event of a crash. As is done in other working groups, extensive use is
made of crash statistics to identify safety problems for which a
regulation or amendment to an existing regulation is needed and define
a proper cost/benefit approach when improving performance requirements
in this area. This is important, given the overall impact of new
requirements on vehicle construction, design and cost. Specific
examples of current regulations include ones addressing the ability of
the vehicle structure to manage crash energy and resist intrusion into
the passenger compartment, occupant restraint and protection systems
for children and adults, seat structure, door latches and door
retention, pedestrian protection, and for motorcycles, the quality of
the protective helmet for the rider. This area of technology also is
changing rapidly and becoming more complex. Examples include advanced
protection devices that adjust their performance in response to the
circumstances of individual crashes.
General Safety Considerations
Working Party on General Safety Provisions (GRSG)
    The regulations in this area address vehicle and component features
which are not directly linked to the above-mentioned subject areas. For
example, windshield wipers and washers, controls and displays, and
glazing are grouped under this heading. Further, theft prevention and
the considerations related to motorcoaches and other mass public
transport vehicles are covered under this category.
Environmental Considerations
Working Party on Pollution and Energy (GRPE)
Working Party on Noise (GRB)

    In general, the regulations in this area address questions of the
pollution of the environment, noise disturbances and conservation of
energy (fuel consumption). However, the issue of quiet vehicles'
unintended safety consequence related to pedestrian safety is currently
being addressed by GRB even though this group does not normally address
safety issues. This is because the necessary acoustics experts needed
to develop a safety regulation to address the issue are part of this
group.
Special Technical Considerations
Informal Working Groups (IWGs)
    In some cases, a specific problem needs to be solved urgently or
needs to be addressed by persons having a special expertise. There are
also cases where an issue cuts across multiple GRs or is not
specifically relevant to any of them. In such situations, a special
informal working group may be entrusted with the analysis of the
problem and invited to prepare a proposal for a regulation. Although
such cases have traditionally been kept to a minimum, the rapid
development of complex new technologies is increasing the necessity for
using this approach.

II. List of Provisional Meetings of WP.29 and Its Working Parties of
Experts

    The following list shows the scheduled meetings of WP.29 and its
subsidiary Working Parties of Experts for calendar year 2014. In
addition to these meetings, Working Parties of Experts may schedule, if
necessary, IWG sessions outside their regular schedule in order to
address technical matters specific to GTRs under consideration. The
formation and timing of these groups are recommended by the sponsoring
Contracting Party and are approved by WP.29 and AC.3. The schedules and
places of meetings are made available to interested parties in
proposals and periodic reports which are posted on the Web site of
WP.29, which can be found at: http://www.unece.org/trans/main/welcwp29.html (last accessed December 17, 2013).
2014 Provisional Schedule of Meetings of WP.29 and Its Working Parties
of Experts
JANUARY
    7-10 Working Party on Pollution and Energy (GRPE) (68th session)
FEBRUARY
    4-6 Working Party on Noise (GRB) (59th session)
    17-21 Working Party on Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF) (76th
session)
MARCH
    10 Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (WP.29/
AC.2) (114th session)
    11-14 World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29)
(162nd session)
    31-3 Working Party on Lighting and Light-Signalling (GRE) (71st
session)
MAY
    5-9 Working Party on General Safety Provisions (GRSG) (106th
session)
    19-23 Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) (55th session)
JUNE
    3-6 Working Party on Pollution and Energy (GRPE) (69th session)
    23 Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (WP.29/
AC.2) (115th session)
    24-27 World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29)
(163rd session)
SEPTEMBER
    1-3 Working Party on Noise (GRB) (60th session)
    16-19 Working Party on Brakes and Running Gear (GRRF) (77th
session)
OCTOBER
    7-10 Working Party on General Safety Provisions (GRSG) (107th
session)
    20-22 Working Party on Lighting and Light-Signalling (GRE) (72nd
session)
NOVEMBER
    10 Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (WP.29/
AC.2) (116th session)
    11-14 World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29)
(164th session)
    14 Working Party on Pollution and Energy (GRPE) (70th session)
DECEMBER
    9-12 Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP) (56th session)

III. Status of Activities Under the Program of Work of the 1998 Global
Agreement

    The current Program of Work of the 1998 Global Agreement is listed
in the table below. Note that the items listed are for those related to
vehicle safety only.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Sponsoring contracting
 Working party of experts           Subject                   party             Chair of informal working group
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP.29....................  Exchange of Information-  United States..........  United States.
                           Enforcement Working
                            Group.
GRRF.....................  GTR on Tires for Light    France.................  UK.
                            Vehicles.
                           Phase 2 of GTR No. 7      Japan..................  UK.
                            (Head Restraints).
                           Phase 2 of GTR No. 9      Japan/Germany..........  Germany/Japan.
                            (Pedestrian Safety).
GRSP.....................  GTR on Pole Side Impact.  Australia..............  Australia.
                           Exchange of Information   United States..........  United States.
                            on Harmonized Side
                            Impact Dummies.
                           Electric Vehicles Safety  United States/Japan/     United States/Japan.
                            GTR.                      European Commission
                                                      (EC)/China.
GRB......................  GTR on Quiet Road         United States/Japan/EC.  United States/Japan.
                            Transport Vehicles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. GTRs Established in CY 2013

Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicles
    GTR 13 for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles was established \4\ on
June 27, 2013, after a 6-year effort. Work on the GTR was initiated
when WP.29 adopted an Action Plan prepared by the co-sponsors (United
States, Germany and Japan) to develop a GTR for compressed gaseous and
liquefied hydrogen fuel vehicles in June 2007.\5\ WP.29 formed an IWG
to develop a GTR for these types of vehicles with the aim of attaining
levels of safety equivalent to those for conventional gasoline-powered
vehicles. In June 2013, the GTR for hydrogen vehicles was established
by a unanimous vote in WP.29. It covers the safety of automotive
hydrogen fuel containers, hydrogen fuel lines and their related
components, as well as the safety of high-voltage components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Under the 1998 Global Agreement, GTRs are established by
consensus vote of the Agreement's Contracting Parties present and
voting.
    \5\ The GTR Action Plan (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2007/4 I) and GTR
proposal (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/I 7) can be found at http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/gen2007.html and
http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29glob
proposal.html, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the provisions set forth under the 1998 Agreement,
NHTSA is currently evaluating the GTR for adoption and will provide a
regular status report to WP.29.
    For a possible second phase of work, the co-sponsors of the
hydrogen GTR are discussing and developing a new work plan and roadmap.
Focus topics for this Phase are expected to include:

(a) Potential harmonization of vehicle crash tests
(b) Potential scope revision to address additional vehicle classes
(c) Potential harmonization of crash test specifications
(d) Requirements for material compatibility and hydrogen embrittlement
(e) Requirements for the fueling receptacle
(f) Evaluation of performance-based test for long-term stress rupture
proposed in Phase 1

(g) Consideration of research results reported after completion of
Phase 1--specifically research related to electrical safety, hydrogen
storage systems, and post-crash safety

B. Status of GTRs Under Development

1. Pedestrian Safety
    As discussed in the 2013 notice, the November 2008 session, WP.29
voted to establish GTR 9 on Pedestrian Safety.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 78 FR 21191. NHTSA received one comment from the American
Motorcycle Association on the Pedestrian Safety GTR, offering to
assist NHTSA in evaluating how this GTR could also reduce injuries
to motorcyclists. The comment has been forwarded to those at NHTSA
working on a proposal to introduce the GTR in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GTR contains two sets of performance criteria applying to: (a)
The hood; and (b) the front bumper. Unique test procedures address
adult and child head and adult leg impact protection for each of the
two crash scenarios. At the time GTR 9 was adopted, a legform impactor
developed by TRL (Transport Research Laboratory, UK) was used to
evaluate front bumper impact performance. WP.29, however, agreed to
consider the future use of a newer legform impactor called Flex-PLI
(Flexible Pedestrian Legform Impactor), which may be more biofidelic.
At the May 2011 session of GRSP, NHTSA reported research results that
raised concerns about the readiness of the Flex-PLI device. As a
result, at its June 2011 session, WP.29 agreed to form a new IWG under
the sponsorship and chairmanship of Germany and Japan to further refine
the Flex-PLI device to replace the existing leg form impacter in GTR 9.
A task force bumper test area was established within the informal group
with the objective to improve the Flex-PLI test procedure as the size
of the bumper test area is reduced due to new bumper designs. The
European Commission is chairing this effort.
    To evaluate the Flex-PLI, the IWG started an international vehicle
round-robin test program in September 2012, and finalized it in March
2013. Testing was conducted in Europe, Korea and the United States. The
results showed a stable performance of the legform impactor with good
repeatability. No problem with durability was found during testing. The
working group has also developed certification procedures and cost
benefit assessments for the Flex-PLI.
    With regard to the injury criteria, the IWG agreed on injury
assessment reference values (IARVs) that were derived from two
different approaches, one proposed by Germany and another proposed by
Japan. NHTSA requested information about the derivation of the injury
risk functions using these two approaches, as the information had not
been made available to the IWG. At this point the United States is not
prepared to agree or disagree with the IAVRs in the current draft
proposal for this GTR amendment until our own cost-benefit analysis is
completed. For this reason, the United States recommended including
alternate language allowing Contracting Parties to select different
IARVs using cost-benefit analysis in their own country, provided they
were based on the same injury risk functions used to select the IARVs
in the GTR. The United States also added language to the draft preamble
of this pending GTR amendment to reflect our concerns about the level
of stringency of the IARVs.
    The formal proposal to amend GTR 9 by introducing the Flex-PLI
impactor was submitted to GRSP in December 2013. Delegates objected to
the United States proposal, and instead a footnote was added allowing
only contracting parties without pre-existing pedestrian protection
regulations or standards to adopt other IARVs, but without included any
criteria for those IARVs. The international Organization of Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA) objected to this language also, therefore
while GRSP agreed to recommend the draft GTR to WP.29 for a vote at the
June 2014 session, it also agreed to ask for WP.29's advice regarding
the injury criteria issue at the March 2014 session. The document would
then be returned to GRSP for the May 2014 session if necessary.
2. Head Restraints
    The GTR for head restraints (GTR 7) was established by WP.29 at its
March 2008 session. At that time, the GTR incorporated a dynamic test
option to some of the static requirements using the Hybrid III test
dummy. It was anticipated that a new dummy, the Biofidelic Rear Impact
Dummy (BioRID II), might eventually allow for a full system whiplash
evaluation test that incorporates the combined performance of the seat
and head restraint, but the dummy was not then sufficiently developed
to incorporate, even as an option, the way the Hybrid III dummy was
incorporated. Therefore, in November 2009, WP.29 initiated a second
phase of development for the GTR by forming a new IWG tasked with the
development of a fully developed BioRID II test tool, including test
procedures, injury criteria and associated corridors.
    At the December 10-11, 2012 meeting of the IWG, the chairman
confirmed that the development of a proposal for a certification
procedure of the BioRID II was in progress and that the study, which is
funded by the EC, identified areas of dummy performance, (specifically,
reproducibility) still required further investigation. He also reported
that the group may have to consider proposing it as an option to Hybrid
III rather than a replacement. The goal of the IWG was to submit a
proposal for consideration at the December 2013 session of GRSP.
    At the June, 2013 session of WP.29 the chairman reported that the
IWG had agreed on draft proposals for: (i) An effective head restraint
height measurement procedure and (ii) an appropriate dynamic test,
including the test procedure and the associated corridors for the
BioRID II. However, he added that the development of injury criteria
for the use of the BioRID II was at a critical point, because medical
research in the United States was still progressing, but not as rapidly
as was expected. As a result, WP.29 agreed to extend the mandate of the
IWG until the end of 2015. Since that time, availability of redesigned
BioRID II dummies from the manufacturer has caused some additional
changes, but the IWG is still hopeful that it can submit a proposal for
consideration at the May 2014 session of GRSP. If GRSP votes to
recommend the amendments at that session, WP.29 could vote on the
amendments as early as the November 2014 session, earlier than this new
deadline.
    At the December 2013 session of GRSP, a new proposal to amend the
GTR was submitted jointly by Germany, the Netherlands, and the United
Kingdom. The proposal would require front outboard designated seating
positions to have at least one position of head restraint adjustment
that was not less than 830 mm, an increase of 30 mm over the current
requirement of 800 mm, and to have no position of head restraint
adjustment that was less than 720 mm, a decrease of 30 mm over the
current requirement of 750 mm.
    Both OICA and the United States submitted informal documents
responding to this proposal. OICA indicated that the new measurement
method included in the draft proposal from the IWG would lead to
results on average 30 mm lower than when using the current measurement
method and that therefore, the effect of this proposal combined with
that change would be to require an average 60 mm increase in head
restraint height. The United States document requested data to support
the proposal, and also noted that feasibility issues had previously
been raised when high head restraint heights had been proposed in the
past.

3. Quiet Electric and Hybrid-Electric Vehicles
    As discussed in the 2013 notice, in 2009, NHTSA published a report
on the incident rates of crashes involving hybrid-electric vehicles and
pedestrians under different scenarios.\7\ The U.S. study, using crash
data collected from several states, compared vehicle to pedestrian
crash rates for hybrid electric-vehicles and vehicles with internal
combustion engines (ICE). In the study, the agency concluded that there
was an increased rate of pedestrian crashes for hybrid electric
vehicles versus similarly sized ICE vehicles. In 2010, the agency
published a second report that found that the overall sound levels for
the hybrid-electric vehicles tested were lower at low speeds than for
the peer ICE vehicles tested.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Research on Quieter Cars and the Safety of Blind
Pedestrians, A Report to Congress'' prepared by National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
October 2009. This report can be found at http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crash%20Avoidance/Technical%20Publications/2010/RptToCongress091709.pdf.
    \8\ Garay-Vega, Lisandra; Hastings, Aaron; Pollard, John K.;
Zuschlag, Michael; and Stearns, Mary D., Quieter Cars and the Safety
of Blind Pedestrians: Phase I, John A. Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center, DOT HS 811 304 April 2010, available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/Crash%20Avoidance/Technical%20Publications/2010/811304rev.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and
Tourism (MLIT), after studying the feasibility of alert sounds for
electric and hybrid-electric vehicles, issued guidelines for pedestrian
alert sounds in 2010. MLIT concluded that pedestrian alert sounds
should be required only on hybrid-electric vehicles that can run
exclusively on an electric motor, electric vehicles and fuel-cell
vehicles. MLIT guidelines require that electric and hybrid-electric
vehicles generate a pedestrian alert sound whenever the vehicle is
moving forward at any speed less than 20 km/h and when the vehicle is
operating in reverse. The guidelines do not require vehicles to produce
an alert sound when the vehicle is operating, but stopped, such as at a
traffic light. Also, manufacturers are allowed to equip the vehicle
with a switch to deactivate the alert sound temporarily.
    WP.29 also determined that vehicles propelled in whole or in part
by electric means, present a danger to pedestrians and consequently
adopted guidelines covering alert sounds for electric and hybrid
vehicles that are closely based on the Japanese guidelines at its March
2011 meeting. The guidelines were published as an annex to the UNECE
Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3).
    Considering the international interest and work in this new area of
safety, the United States, the European Commission (EC) and Japan
agreed to work, as co-sponsors, on a new GTR to develop harmonized
pedestrian minimum sound requirements for electric and hybrid-electric
vehicles under the 1998 Global Agreement.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Additionally, the agency is taking this action because the
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act requires the agency to issue a
standard specifying minimum sound for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles.
The agency announced its proposal on January 14, 2013 (78 FR 2797).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WP.29 is currently working to develop the GTR. In 2013, three
meetings of the IWG were held: (1) Brussels, Belgium, in April, (2)
Washington DC, in July, and (3) Tokyo, Japan in December.
    At its November 2013 session, WP.29 decided to extend the timeline
for completing the GTR by one year--it is now expected to be
established November 2015. The next meeting of the IWG will take place
in Washington DC in May 2014. The meeting agendas, reports and related
documents can be found on the UN Web site for this IWG.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ https://www2.unece.org/wiki/display/trans/GTR+for+QRTV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Electric Vehicles
    At the March 2012 session of WP.29, the co-sponsors (the United
States, Japan, and the EC) submitted a joint proposal (ECE/Trans/WP.29/
2012/36. and its Corr1) to establish two working groups to address the
safety and environmental issues associated with electric vehicles
(EVs). The WP.29 Executive Committee adopted this proposal as well as
approved China, per its request, as the fourth co-sponsor.
    For the safety aspects, an electric vehicle safety (EVS) IWG was
formed to begin development of the GTR, which would apply to high
voltage hybrid and pure electric vehicles with a gross vehicle mass of
4,536 kilograms or less, their batteries, and other associated high-
risk components. The United States chairs the IWG with China and the EU
as co-vice chairs, and Japan as the secretary. To the extent possible,
the GTR will include performance-based requirements and testing
protocols designed to allow for innovation, while ensuring that the
unique safety risks posed by electric vehicles are mitigated. The GTR
will address the safety of high voltage electrical components,
including lithium-ion and other types of batteries, their performance
during normal use, after a crash event, and while recharging at a
residential or commercial station.
    The third and fourth EVS IWG meetings were held in 2013: (1) Tokyo,
Japan, in April and (2) Beijing, China, in October. At these meetings,
the IWG exchanged current regulatory, technical and research
information and drafted an outline for the GTR. The IWG also discussed
the OICA's proposal which was submitted for the IWG consideration. This
proposal contained requirements based on the existing UNECE regulation
(R100) for electric vehicle safety, which included safety requirements
for occupant protection against high voltage and rechargeable energy
storage systems. At the Beijing IWG meeting, the U.S. submitted a
battery research plan and approach to rulemaking to the IWG for
information and consideration. As presented at the IWG meetings, NHTSA
believes that it is important to select boundary conditions and test
methods that appropriately and accurately capture the nature of the
vehicle working/or operating environment. The research tests include
mechanical shock, mechanical integrity, fire hazard, vibration, thermal
shock, cycling, and others. Based on the approach of the Hydrogen Fuel-
Cell Vehicle GTR no. 13, NHTSA is using similar vehicle conditions to
establish the rechargeable energy storage system (REESS) research test
boundary conditions, such as operating temperatures and test
temperature and exposure time for fire test. For example, the vibration
schedule must be representative of the general operating environment of
a vehicle. Each performance requirement and test method must correlate
to safety risks of in-use and post-crash automobiles. The abuse
conditions that NHTSA believes must be considered in the process of
developing performance standards include mechanical penetration,
internal short circuit, chemical compatibility, and the liberation of
stranded energy in the post-crash or inoperative environment. We
believe that the results of the anticipated research will play an
important role in better informing the appropriate approach to evaluate
battery system safety.
    NHTSA recognizes that the OICA proposal addresses some of the
general topics that may be required by a comprehensive REESS safety
standard. However, many of these requirements were developed to
evaluate criteria under conditions unrelated to the automotive
applications during use and post-crash. Some of these requirements
support general reliability criteria for product development but do not

directly support safety performance metrics. Rather they may only imply
safety by demonstrating the lack of a safety failure during the tested
conditions, which are unacceptable from a performance point of view.
Other requirements impose safety relevant abuse conditions to a cell or
module then observe or measure the response to that abuse. During REESS
development, these tests may describe some sub-component safety limits
that are useful in designing protections from those conditions.
However, they generally do not cascade to vehicle or pack level
performance, and boundary conditions to these tests must be accurately
defined to the specific application requirements.
    NHTSA believes that a system-level evaluation is the most
appropriate method for determining safety performance in this context.
NHTSA will continue to work with the IWG and share technical data and
analysis for future IWG discussions and drafting the GTR.
5. Light Vehicle Tires
    The IWG for developing a GTR on light vehicle tires began its work
in September 2006. The activity is sponsored by France and chaired by
the UK. The GTR would apply to radial passenger and light truck tires
designed for use on vehicles with a gross mass of 10,000 pounds or
less. Its provisions include five mandatory performance and labeling
requirements (tire sidewall markings, tire dimensions, high speed
performance, low pressure and endurance performance, and wet traction
performance).
    In addition, there are two optional modules, with one containing a
tire strength test and bead unseating resistance test, and the second
containing a tire rolling sound emission test. During the course of the
development of the GTR, it became apparent that the requirements for
light truck tires would require more time to develop. It was therefore
decided by WP.29 to split the work on the GTR into two phases. The
first phase covers passenger car tires only, and the second will
address the light truck tires.
    NHTSA received a comment from the Rubber Manufacturers Association
(RMA) on this GTR in response to the 2013 Federal Register notice. The
RMA noted that the GTR should have been included in the ``GTRs Nearing
Completion and Establishment by Vote'' section, rather than the ``GTRs
Under Development'' section, and urged the agency to vote in support of
the GTR at the November 2013 session of WP.29. The vote has yet to
occur because of an outstanding issue involving the validation of a
trailer-based method for evaluating wet traction performance of tires.
The U.S. is currently conducting research in this area which should
conclude by mid-2014. Subsequently, if agreement is reached on the
final text of the GTR, a vote to establish it is expected to take place
at the November 2014 session of WP.29/AC.3.
6. Pole Side Impact Protection and Harmonized Side Impact Dummies
    In November 2009, an informal meeting was held in Washington, DC
among interested experts to discuss international cooperation in the
development of harmonized side impact dummies. In June 2010, WP.29
formed an IWG to develop a GTR for pole side impact (PSI) protection
under the sponsorship and chairmanship of Australia. At the same time,
an IWG on Harmonized Side Impact Dummies was formed under the
sponsorship and chairmanship of the United States. The second group was
tasked with supporting the PSI GTR by evaluating and further developing
the World Side Impact Dummy (WorldSID) family of dummies. The two
groups have generally met in conjunction. The side impact dummy IWG
held its first meeting in November of 2009 and the PSI group held its
first meeting in November 2010. The first tasks of the PSI IWG included
confirming the safety need for the GTR and assessing potential
candidate crash test procedures for the GTR. As originally planned, the
GTR would contain pole side impact test procedures using side impact
test dummies representing a WorldSID 50th percentile adult male and a
WorldSID 5th percentile adult female.
    At the November 2013 session, WP.29 adopted a Pole Side Impact GTR
that incorporates an oblique pole test similar to that in the FMVSS No.
214, ``Side impact protection;'' however, it uses the 50th percentile
male WorldSID dummy only. While WP.29 agreed to a change of the terms
of reference of the IWG to allow a GTR with only one dummy instead of
both the World SID 50th percentile adult male and World SID 5th
percentile adult female as originally planned, it included a provision
that no Contracting Party would be required to initiate the process to
adopt the GTR until both phases were complete, even if it were to vote
in favor of the first phase of the GTR. However, the United States was
not in a position to vote yes on the IARVs for the 50th percentile
adjult male at the time the vote was taken and was concerned about its
future position since it could not predict the outcome of a second
phase. Therefore, the United States abstained from the vote for the
pole side impact GTR.
    At the November 2012 session, WP.29 established Mutual Resolution
(M.R.1) of the 1958 and 1998 Agreements concerning the description and
performance of test tools and devices necessary for the assessment of
compliance of wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts according to the
technical prescriptions specified in Regulations and global technical
regulations. It is intended that test tools and devices necessary for
compliance assessment will be comprehensively defined in terms of their
essential characteristics and performance in an addenda to M.R.1. In
conformity with this a parallel proposal to the Pole Side Impact GTR
for Addendum 2 to M.R.1 introducing drawings and specifications for the
WorldSID 50th percentile male will be submitted at a later stage to
GRSP and to WP.29 for adoption. The Secretariat of the UN is currently
negotiating with the International Organization for Standardization
(150) which holds the copywrite on many of the documents on how to
incorporate them into M.R.I.
    Concerning the 5th percentile female WorldSID dummy, as previously
reported, issues will significantly increase development time for this
dummy. Currently, the effort on the 5th percentile female is expected
to be completed by December 2015. Because of this, the PSI IWG has
suspended its meetings until the 5th percentile female WorldSID dummy
development is complete. At that time it will resume its meetings to
complete work on the GTR to incorporate the second dummy.

C. Exchange of Information Item

Enforcement Working Group
    At the June 2011 session of WP.29, NHTSA proposed that WP.29
consider forming a new working group that would meet to facilitate the
regular exchange of non-proprietary or otherwise non-privileged
information on enforcement-related activities from around the world to
help governments identify and manage incidences of automotive non-
compliance or defects more quickly. The participants of WP.29 welcomed
and accepted the proposal. To date, four meetings of the IWG have been
held, each during the November 2011, June 2012, November 2012, and June
2013 sessions of WP.29. The IWG is open to all the delegates to WP.29
including the Contracting Parties, Non-Governmental Organizations and
industry associations and is expected to meet twice a year going
forward (each

June and November sessions of WP.29) subject to the agreement of WP.29.

D. Compendium of Candidate GTRs

    Article 5 of the 1998 Global Agreement provides for the creation of
a compendium of candidate technical regulations submitted by the
Contracting Parties. To date, NHTSA has submitted several FMVSSs for
inclusion in this Compendium. These FMVSSs have all been listed in the
Compendium after an affirmative vote of the Executive Committee of the
1998 Global Agreement.
    The FMVSS currently listed in the Compendium include:

 FMVSS No. 108: Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated
Equipment
 FMVSS No. 135: Passenger Car Brake Systems
 FMVSS No. 139: New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles
 FMVSS No. 202a: Head Restraints
 FMVSS No. 205: Glazing Materials
 FMVSS No. 213: Child Restraint Systems
 EPA and DOT programs for Light-duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-
Duty Engines and Vehicles
 EPA and NHTSA Programs for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards
and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles
 EPA and NHTSA Programs for Revisions and Additions to the
Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label: New Fuel Economy and Environment
Labels for a New Generation of Vehicles
    No additional candidate technical regulations have been added as of
the publication of this notice.

IV. Request for Comments

    NHTSA invites public comments on the various activities outlined in
this notice. As discussed in Appendix C of 49 CFR part 553, if NHTSA
votes ``yes'' on a GTR, the agency will publish a notice requesting
public comment on adopting the regulation as a U.S. standard. Any
decision by NHTSA whether to issue a final rule adopting the regulation
or to issue a notice terminating consideration of that regulation will
be made in accordance with applicable U.S. law and only after careful
consideration and analysis of public comments. In the event that NHTSA
issues a final rule based on a GTR and, due to the public comments and/
or new information and data, the final rule significantly differs from
the GTR, NHTSA will consider seeking amendments to the GTR in an effort
to achieve consistency. The agency plans to issue individual notices
based on each GTR as it is established by WP.29 and will consider
additional detailed comments at that time.

Claude H. Harris,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2014-08532 Filed 4-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


 Summary of Phone Conversations with the San Diego Air Pollution Control District  Prepared by Nicole Law April 24, 2013

Phone conversation between Nicole Law (EPA) and Natalie Yates (SDAPCD) on April 9, 2011.

Nicole asked Natalie about the averaging provision in the rule.  Natalie confirmed the averaging provision is no longer in use.  She also confirmed the annual reporting in the rule ended when the averaging provision ended.  Natalie explained the district has drafted a new rule based on CARB's 2007 SCM and will have a workshop in about a month.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 219 (Monday, November 14, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79384-79389]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25491]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-7527; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-094-AD;
Amendment 39-18686; AD 2016-21-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the
manufacturer discovered locations where the control components and
wiring of the left and right engine fuel spar valves do not have
adequate physical separation to meet the redundant system separation
requirements. This AD requires modifying the wiring, and installing a
new relay bracket and new location for the relay on the left and right
engine fuel spar valves. This AD also requires an inspection to
identify the part number of the motor operated valve (MOV) actuators
for the left and right engine fuel spar valves; replacement of
specified MOV actuators with new MOV actuators; certain bonding
resistance measurements; and applicable corrective actions. We are
issuing this AD to prevent loss of control of both the left and right
engine fuel spar valves during a single event, such as local wire
bundle damage or a wire bundle fire, which could cause both engines to
shut down or result in the inability to control an engine fire.

DATES: This AD is effective December 19, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 19,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also

available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-7527.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
7527; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brendan Shanley, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2015 (80 FR 79754)
(``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that the
manufacturer discovered locations where the control components and
wiring of the left and right engine fuel spar valves do not have
adequate physical separation to meet the redundant system separation
requirements. The NPRM proposed to require modifying the wiring, and
installing a new relay bracket and new location for the relay on the
left and right engine fuel spar valves. The NPRM also proposed to
require an inspection to identify the part number of the MOV actuators
for the left and right engine fuel spar valves; replacement of
specified MOV actuators with new MOV actuators; certain bonding
resistance measurements; and applicable corrective actions. We are
issuing this AD to prevent loss of control of both the left and right
engine fuel spar valves during a single event, such as local wire
bundle damage or a wire bundle fire, which could cause both engines to
shut down or result in the inability to control an engine fire.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment. Boeing stated that it has reviewed
the NPRM and concurs with the contents of the NPRM.

Request To Reduce the Compliance Time

    One commenter, Geoffrey Barrance, requested that we reduce the
compliance time in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. Mr. Barrance
stated he is concerned that the timescale proposed for implementing the
required modification, 60 months after the effective date of the AD, is
too long. Mr. Barrance commented that the unsafe condition is a common
failure affecting the continued operation of both engines, and
therefore is critical to the safe flight and landing of any airplane.
    We disagree with the commenter's request. It is important to note
that while the commenter has indicated there is currently a common mode
failure affecting the continued operation of both engines, it is more
accurate to say that certain airplanes are currently in a configuration
that makes them vulnerable to a single event causing a common mode
failure. However, there have been no reports of any events causing this
condition. This AD is intended to eliminate that condition.
    The compliance time is determined to be appropriate in
consideration of the risk and the safety implications, the average
utilization rate of the affected fleet, the practical aspects of an
orderly modification of the fleet during regular maintenance periods,
and the availability of required modification parts. In addition to our
own criteria, we have also considered the manufacturer's safety
assessment and recommendation for the compliance time. The compliance
time accounts for the risk to the fleet, availability of parts, and
other factors. Therefore, we have determined that the compliance time
is acceptable. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Remove the Concurrent Requirements

    All Nippon Airways (ANA), Japan Airlines (JAL), and United Airlines
(UAL) requested that we remove the concurrent requirement for
accomplishing Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 3, dated
September 25, 2015. JAL and ANA stated that there was no relationship
between the wiring change and the actuator replacement. ANA, JAL, and
UAL commented that Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 3,
dated September 25, 2015, is already mandated by AD 2013-05-03,
Amendment 39-17375 (78 FR 17290, March 21, 2013) (``AD 2013-05-03''),
and it addressed MOV actuator part number (P/N) MA20A1001-1; therefore,
it should not be a concurrent requirement. ANA also added that because
the MOV actuator has been addressed, paragraphs (i)(2) and (i)(3) of
the proposed AD should not be included.
    We partially agree with the commenters. We agree that the actions
in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 3, dated September 25,
2015, are the same actions that are required by AD 2013-05-03 in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 2, dated
September 20, 2010, with a compliance date of April 25, 2018. Because
of the overlap in compliance times, the action required by AD 2013-05-
03 may not be fully completed by the time the requirements of this AD
become effective. To ensure that the actuator change, in accordance
with Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 3, dated September
25, 2015, is done prior to the wiring change in accordance with Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0061, Revision 2, dated May
4, 2015, we have required Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision
3, dated September 25, 2015, as a concurrent requirement in this AD.
Without this concurrent requirement, it is possible that this AD could
approve certain configurations that are not compliant and safe. The
concurrent requirement eliminates this possibility. The requirements of
Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 3, dated September 25,
2015, and related credit for previous actions, will remain as stated.
We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Use Boeing Information Notice for Completing the
Requirements in the AD

    ANA requested that we include Boeing Service Bulletin Information
Notice 777-28-0061, IN 03, dated November 16, 2015, to this AD to allow
the operators to complete the proposed requirements of the NPRM.
    We partially agree with the commenter's request. We cannot include
Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 777-28-0061, IN 03, dated
November 16, 2015, as an

appropriate source of service information in this AD because it is not
an FAA-approved document. However, we acknowledge that for certain
airplanes, Figure 22, Sheet 9, of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-28-0061, Revision 2, dated May 4, 2015, includes an
editorial error, which shows incorrect wire routing. Boeing Service
Bulletin Information Notice 777-28-0061, IN 03, dated November 16,
2015, allows for a modification of Group 2 airplanes that meets the
requirements of the AD without an additional burden to operators. We
have included a corrected figure in paragraph (h) of this AD to address
this issue.
    In addition, Figure 11, Sheet 1, of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 777-28-0061, Revision 2, dated May 4, 2015, is
incorrect in that it shows the cap and stow of an existing wire, W4255-
1002-20, which is terminated at splice SP41201. The correct wire number
to be capped and stowed is W6251-1002-20, which is terminated at splice
SP41201. We have clarified this information in paragraph (h)(2) of this
AD.

Request To Clarify the Terminating Action

    JAL and UAL requested that we clarify the terminating action
specified in the proposed rule. JAL asked that Boeing Service Bulletin
777-28A0034 be used as a terminating action for the requirements of the
proposed rule. UAL stated that since AD 2013-05-03 already addressed
MOV actuator P/N MA20A2027 and P/N MA30A1001, it contradicts
airworthiness limitations (AWL) 28-AWL-MOV, which was mandated in AD
2015-19-01, Amendment 39-18264 (80 FR 55521, dated September 16, 2015)
(``AD 2015-19-01'').
    We agree that clarification is necessary. We agree that certain
configurations in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 3,
dated September 25, 2015, in conjunction with previous airplane
configurations, alleviate the need to do the AWL task implemented by AD
2013-05-03 because the configurations are outside the applicability of
that AWL. However, we disagree with using Boeing Service Bulletin 777-
28A0034, Revision 3, dated September 25, 2015, as a terminating action
because the requirement of AD 2015-19-01 is to implement the
airworthiness limitations items (ALI) into an operator's maintenance
program, and this must be done regardless of the configuration of the
airplane. Further, certain MOV actuator part numbers can be installed
that will place an airplane in the applicability of AWL 28-AWL-MOV,
thus requiring periodic inspections to ensure safe operation. Each
operator has the option to select a configuration best for its
circumstances and can evaluate its configurations and determine if AWL
28-AWL-MOV is applicable to their fleet configuration. We have not
changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Review the Design and Certification Process

    Geoffrey Barrance requested that we review the design and
certification process that allowed for the unsafe condition to exist,
as well as a review of designs in other airplanes with similar unsafe
conditions. Mr. Barrance commented that the unsafe condition indicated
a failure has occurred in the design and certification process for the
airplane type. Mr. Barrance also commented that a review of the
airplane design is required to prevent the implementation of common
mode fault exposures for redundant systems.
    We acknowledge the commenter's concerns. We continuously evaluate
our certification system and procedures and improve them when problems
are found. If the FAA is made aware of potential design deficiencies
occurring on a certificated product, we conduct an investigation,
evaluate the manufacturer's root-cause analysis, and make a
determination whether or not an unsafe condition exists. We then take
appropriate action to mitigate the unsafe condition and to identify and
incorporate certification system process improvements for future
designs. Furthermore, the manufacturer performs a cross model
evaluation to determine if the condition exists on other models. We
agree with the manufacturer's actions in this regard. We have not
changed this AD regarding this issue.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0061,
Revision 2, dated May 4, 2015. The service information describes
procedures for modifying the wiring, and installing a new relay bracket
and new location for the relay on the left and right engine fuel spar
valves.
    We have also reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision
3, dated September 25, 2015. The service information describes
procedures for an inspection of the MOV actuators of the left and right
engine fuel spar valves for (P/N) MA20A1001-1, replacement of MOV
actuators, measurement of the electrical resistance of the bond from
the adapter plate to the airplane structure, and applicable corrective
actions.
    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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 133 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                   Labor cost          Parts cost       Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation and modification...  119 work-hours x    Up to $3,780        Up to $13,895       Up to $1,848,035
                                   $85 per hour =      depending on        depending on        depending on
                                   $10,115.            airplane            airplane            airplane
                                                       configuration.      configuration.      configuration.
Inspection of MOV actuators       1 work-hour x $85   $0................  $85...............  $11,305.
 [concurrent requirements].        per hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
and bonding resistance measurements that would be required based on the
results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                        Labor cost               Parts cost            Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of MOV actuators for the   Up to 105 work-hours x   Up to $10,954..........  Up to $19,879.
 left and right engine fuel spar        $85 per hour = $8,925.
 valves.
Bonding resistance measurements......  1 work-hour x $85 per    $0.....................  $85.
                                        hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data on the costs of the corrective
actions for the bonding resistance measurement in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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 (AD):

2016-21-05 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18686; Docket No. FAA-
2015-7527; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-094-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 19, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -
300, and -300ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0061,
Revision 2, dated May 4, 2015.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2822, Fuel Boost
Pump.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the
manufacturer discovered locations where the control components and
wiring of the left and right engine fuel spar valves do not have
adequate physical separation to meet the redundant system separation
requirements. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of control of
both the left and right engine fuel spar valves during a single
event, such as local wire bundle damage or a wire bundle fire, which
could cause both engines to shut down or result in the inability to
control an engine fire.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the
wiring and install new relay brackets in new locations to allow
installation of new relays for the left and right engine fuel spar
valves, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0061, Revision 2, dated
May 4, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

(h) Exceptions to the Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0061,
Revision 2, dated May 4, 2015, specifies to use Figure 22, Sheet 9,
for the wiring installation of the right engine fuel spar valve,
this AD requires using figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (2) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0061,
Revision 2, dated May 4, 2015, specifies to use Figure 11, Sheet 1,
for the wiring change at E2-6--Shelf to Disconnect Panel and Splice
Area. The figure shows the capping and stowing of an existing wire,
W4255-1002-20, which is terminated at splice SP41201. The wire
number is incorrect. The correct wire number to cap and stow is
W6251-1002-20, which is terminated at splice SP41201.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO16.003

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

(i) Concurrent Requirements

    (1) Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the requirements
of paragraph (g) of this AD: Do an inspection of the motor operated
valve (MOV) actuators of the left and right engine fuel spar valves
for part number (P/N) MA20A1001-1, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034,
Revision 3, dated September 25, 2015. A review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the
part number can be conclusively determined from that review.
    (2) If any MOV actuator having P/N MA20A1001-1 is found during
the inspection required by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, prior to or
concurrently with accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (g) of
this AD, replace the MOV actuator with either a new or serviceable
MOV actuator having P/N MA30A1001, MA30A1017, MA20A2027, or an MOV
actuator that meets the criteria specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i)
and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD; and, as applicable, measure the
electrical resistance of the bond from the adapter plate to the
airplane structure and, before further flight, do all applicable
corrective actions. All actions specified in this paragraph for the
left and right engine fuel spar valves must be done in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-
28A0034, Revision 3, dated September 25, 2015.
    (i) The replacement MOV actuator must be a Boeing part that is
approved after the issuance of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034,
Revision 3, dated September 25, 2015, by the Manager, Seattle
Aircraft

Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been
authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to approve the part.
    (ii) The replacement MOV actuator must be fully interchangeable
with the part specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034,
Revision 3, dated September 25, 2015.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the requirements of
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-28-0061, dated October 25, 2010; or Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0061, Revision 1, dated January
26, 2012; as applicable. These documents are not incorporated by
reference in this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the requirements of
paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
April 25, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-05-03, Amendment 39-
17375 (78 FR 17290, March 21, 2013), ``AD 2013-05-03''), using
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, dated August 2, 2007; or
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 1, dated May 20,
2010; except that the replacement of MOV actuators of the left and
right engine fuel spar valves must also include cap sealing the
bonding jumper, as described in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034,
Revision 2, dated September 20, 2010; and provided that the
replacement is an MOV actuator identified in paragraph (j)(2)(i) or
(j)(2)(ii) of this AD. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-28A0034,
dated August 2, 2007, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-28A0034,
Revision 1, dated May 20, 2010, are not incorporated by reference in
this AD. Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 2, dated
September 20, 2010, is incorporated by reference in AD 2013-05-03.
    (i) An MOV actuator that has P/N MA30A1001, MA30A1017, or
MA20A2027.
    (ii) An MOV actuator that has a part number other than P/N
MA20A1001-1 and meets the criteria specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i)
and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the requirements of
paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034,
Revision 2, dated September 20, 2010, which was incorporated by
reference in AD 2013-05-03.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, 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 local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
ACO, 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 local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district 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 Commercial Airplanes ODA that has
been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, 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 Brendan Shanley,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-28-0061,
Revision 2, dated May 4, 2015.
    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 3, dated
September 25, 2015.
    (3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 7, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-25491 Filed 11-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P