[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47301-47305]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21900]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0234]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 27 individuals
for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in
interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0234 using 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: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number(s) for this notice. 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
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day e.t.,
365 days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds ``such exemption
would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater
than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The
statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the
five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-
year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical
certification.
    The 27 individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
    Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population.
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal
Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777),
Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires
the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441). The revision must provide for
individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be
consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for three
years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin;
and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to
demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate
a CMV.
    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the three-year driving experience and
fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure
that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite
level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C.
31136 (e). Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers
of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers,
with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical
requirements that are deemed medically necessary.
    The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and
medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except
as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of
the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003, notice, except as
modified by the notice in the Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70
FR 67777), remain in effect.

II. Qualifications of Applicants

James J. Aden

    Mr. Aden, 70, has had ITDM since 1997. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Aden understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Aden meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him
in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds an operator's license from Minnesota.

Serafim S. Amaral

    Mr. Amaral, 62, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Amaral understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Amaral meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A from California.

John E. Biel

    Mr. Biel, 71, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Biel understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Biel meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined
him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.

Adam D. Comer

    Mr. Comer, 32, has had ITDM since 1987. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Comer understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Comer meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license
from Arkansas.

Timothy P. Conner

    Mr. Conner, 49, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him

in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more)
severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Conner understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Conner meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.

Miguel P. Flores

    Mr. Flores, 57, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Flores understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Flores meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.

Mark J. Fulks

    Mr. Fulks, 32, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Fulks understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fulks meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Iowa.

Daniel Gonzalez, III

    Mr. Gonzalez, 46, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gonzalez understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gonzalez meets
the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas.

Chad A. Hayden

    Mr. Hayden, 42, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hayden understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hayden meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.

Joseph F. Hubenka

    Mr. Hubenka, 57, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hubenka understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hubenka meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Nebraska.

Galen M. Hurd, III

    Mr. Hurd, 53, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hurd understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hurd meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined
him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from South Carolina.

Edward S. Jacobs

    Mr. Jacobs, 58, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jacobs understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jacobs meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license
from Michigan.

Jason D. Jones

    Mr. Jones, 45, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jones understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jones meets the
requirements

of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Oklahoma.

David M. Kelly

    Mr. Kelly, 63, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kelly understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kelly meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Maryland.

Robert A. Leboffe

    Mr. Leboffe, 25, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Leboffe understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Leboffe meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.

Tanner H. Littlefield

    Mr. Littlefield, 26, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Littlefield understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Littlefield meets
the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Rhode Island.

Veneta K. Mayor

    Ms. Mayor, 49, has had ITDM since 2012. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Mayor understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Mayor meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her
optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have
diabetic retinopathy. She holds an operator's license from Nevada.

Randy J. Nekuda

    Mr. Nekuda, 60, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Nekuda understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nekuda meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska.

Thomas M. Reece

    Mr. Reece, 45, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Reece understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Reece meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable
proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North
Carolina.

Michael L. Rivera

    Mr. Rivera, 36, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rivera understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rivera meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

Gary L. Robbins

    Mr. Robbins, 49, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Robbins understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Robbins meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon.

Eddie Rodriguez, Jr.

    Mr. Rodriguez, 37, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12

months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in
the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rodriguez
understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Rodriguez meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified
that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an
operator's license from Texas.

Erwin R. Rud

    Mr. Rud, 68, has had ITDM since 1954. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rud understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rud meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined
him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic
retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Minnesota.

Diane L. Simmons

    Ms. Simmons, 70, has had ITDM since 2016. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Simmons understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Simmons meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her
optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have
diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class B CDL from Idaho.

Russell Van Alphen

    Mr. Van Alphen, 47, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Van Alphen understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. Van Alphen meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's
license from Massachusetts.

Thomas C. Williams

    Mr. Williams, 22, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Williams understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Williams meets
the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Kansas.

Glen E. Wray, Jr.

    Mr. Wray, 55, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wray understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wray meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined
him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

III. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date's
section of the notice.

IV. Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket number FMCSA-2017-0234 and click
the search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue
``Comment Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new
page, enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and materials received during the
comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after
the close of the comment period.

V. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert
the docket number FMCSA-2017-0234 and click ``Search.'' Next, click
``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments
related to this notice.

    Issued on: October 2, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-21900 Filed 10-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


than 30 percent of automobile and truck dealerships have auto body
shops, and for the reasons I will elaborate on here today, NADA urges
OSHA to affirmatively recognize in its final rule that the overwhelming
majority of dealership employees are never exposed to respirable
crystalline silica at levels of concern.

		OSHA's current standard on respirable crystalline silica has
contributed to a 93 percent decline in silicosis deaths across all
industries and is adequately protective of automobile and truck
dealership worker health.  In the automotive industry, the current
standard has helped spur paint manufacturers to eliminate crystalline
silica from both factory and refinished automotive paint systems where
it once served as a flattening agent.  It has also spurred body filler
and abrasive blaster media manufacturers to offer products containing
little or no crystalline silica.  Moreover, the existing standard has
caused dealership auto body shops to consider the purchase and use of
ventilated sanders and ventilated abrasive blasting systems.

		Consequently, OSHA's proposed changes to the crystalline silica
permissible exposure limit and action level would do nothing to enhance
dealership auto body worker health, yet would potentially impose an
array of unnecessary regulatory costs and burdens on an industry that
consists overwhelmingly of small business.

		Historically, the potential for respirable crystalline silica
exposures and auto body operations were limited to two exposure
scenarios involving auto body technicians and painting prep workers.
The first involves the sanding of vehicles and vehicle body panel
surfaces.  In the past, body fillers and outmoded paint system
components sometimes contained a small amount of crystalline silica that
could become airborne during sanding.  Over time, crystalline silica was
removed from paint systems used in factory and auto body automotive
finishes to the point where NADA has been unable to identify its use in
automotive paint systems used in North America.

		With respect to body fillers, products containing a de minimis level
of less than 1 percent crystalline silica by weight exist in the
marketplace, but virtually every product manufacturer also offers
silica-free body fillers.  Moreover, some shops have moved to ventilated
sanders to control shop dust and improve workplace cleanliness.

		When body fillers with less than 1 percent silica are sanded during
prep work, the amount of respirable crystalline silica dust generated
should fall below even OSHA's proposed action level.  The second and
only other potential exposure involves the removal of paint or rust from
vehicles or vehicle body panels with or without the use of abrasives
containing crystalline silica.

		In preparation for filing comments on this rulemaking, NADA surveyed a
number of dealership auto body shop operations regarding their paint and
rust removal practices.  Survey results suggest that abrasive blasting
is not regularly used to remove paint and rust.  This is not surprising,
as most paint removal operations in dealership auto body shops do not
involve going to the bare metal.  Moreover, dealerships also tend to see
relatively few vehicles with significant rust.

		Dealership auto body technicians and paint prep personnel tend to use
chemical paint strippers and, when necessary, spot blasters with
silica-free abrasive media.  It is not uncommon for dealership auto body
shops to use ventilated spot blasters for dust control purposes
regardless of the media being used since such devices offer the
advantage of abrasive capture and recycling and have a cleaner workplace
environment.  The use of ventilated blasters, like ventilated sanders,
helps to minimize any potential dust exposures.

		In an effort to identify and evaluate potential crystalline silica
exposure risks involving dealership employees, NADA collaborated with
numerous state and metro dealership associations who run their own
workers' compensation pools, and evaluate a year of dealership worker
compensation data.  The result: NADA was unable to identify a single
instance of dealership employee injury or illness related to respirable
crystalline silica exposure over the past 10 years.  In addition, NADA
was unable to identify a single OSHA or state enforcement action
involving crystalline silica exposure in a dealership auto body shop
operation for that same time period.

		In conclusion, NADA thanks OSHA for the opportunity to comment on this
rulemaking and to testify here today.  As noted above, the use of
crystalline silica-free products, dust reduction work practices and
appropriate respiratory protection have served to virtually eliminate
significant exposure concerns for dealerships.  NADA urges OSHA to
reference this fact in the preamble to any final rule it promulgates and
to maintain the standards that exist today.

		Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Ms. Bailey.

		I'll open it up to questions.  Any questions from the audience?

		(No response.)

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Seeing none, I'll turn it over to OSHA.

		MR. O'CONNOR:  Thank you, Your Honor.

		And thank you, Ms. Bailey.  Greg Kuczura will begin OSHA's
questioning.

		MS. BAILEY:  Okay.

		MR. KUCZURA:  Hello.  Do you currently perform any of the exposure
monitoring?  Like, any companies, do they perform any exposure
monitoring in, you know, when they work on the body -- cars or in the
shops?

		MS. BAILEY:  I'm sure companies exist that do perform exposure
monitoring.

		MR. KUCZURA:  Is it possible to send any data that they have with --
to OSHA after the post-hearings?

		MS. BAILEY:  NADA doesn't have any data on that.

		MR. KUCZURA:  My second question is do you perform any training in
regards to silica or dust control?

		MS. BAILEY:  Not necessarily on silica, but we do have a long history
of respiratory protection.  We have a guide that NADA publishes.

		MR. KUCZURA:  Okay.  Thank you.  That's all my questions.

		MR. STONE:  Robert Stone.

		MS. BAILEY:  Hi.

		MR. STONE:  Hi.  Congratulations on your excellent proactive program
in terms of not having silicate exposures of note reported or citations
from OSHA.  I was wondering if you have a program to support your
dealerships in terms of having the use of non-silica or low-silica
products?  I mean, is that part of the work that you do, or who informs
the individual dealerships about the practices they should use to avoid
silica exposure?

		MS. BAILEY:  So we couldn't necessarily as a trade association propose
what products our members could use, whether it be a silica-free product
or not.  But the products that I've mentioned in my testimony have a
very, very low amount of silica in them, less than 1 percent by weight.
And that would be the body filler.  The paint systems no longer have
silica at all in them.

		MR. STONE:  Right.  Well, I think you've urged OSHA to recognize that
the overwhelming majority of your employees are never exposed to silica.
 I was wondering if it would be possible perhaps instead for you or some
other representatives from the dealerships to do some what I would call
objective analysis to verify that if they use these products, specific
products or specific practices, silica exposures would never exceed,
let's say, the action level of the PEL, which could then be used in your
industry, I believe, so long as the individual dealerships follow the
practices that you did the analysis on?

		MS. BAILEY:  I think our comments show that we use products with very,
very low concentrations of silica and we have engineering controls and
work practices that the employees are very, very unlikely to encounter
silica levels even close to the PEL.

		MR. STONE:  Right.  And what evidence do you base this on?  Do you
have any types of results, any types of exposure monitoring or other
analysis that's been done for you to demonstrate that what you say is
true?

		MS. BAILEY:  We don't.

		MR. STONE:  Okay.  Okay.  That's all for me.  Thank you very much.

		MS. BENNETT:  Anna Laura Bennett.  I have just a few questions.  For
page 2 of your written submission and also in your comments today, you
referred to the recent NADA survey of automobile dealership body shop
operations.  And you state that the survey showed that abrasive blasting
was not regularly used as the primary method for paint and rust removal.
 Would it be possible to provide the results of the survey in
post-hearing comments?

		MS. BAILEY:  So the survey results were not -- it was not a written
survey, so I don't think they would be able to be provided in
post-hearing comments.

		MS. BENNETT:  Okay.  So there's no written form of the results of the
survey to provide --

		MS. BAILEY:  Right.

		MS. BENNETT:  Okay.  Do you know from the survey how often these body
shop operations actually reported using abrasive blasting for paint and
rust removal?

		MS. BAILEY:  Almost never.  It would be a different type of operation
entirely. Taking the entire paint off of a car would be done at a
completely different facility.  And most of the people that talked about
abrasive blasting were the truck dealers, and that was not done at a
truck dealership operation.  It was done at a completely different
facility.

		MS. BENNETT:  Okay.  So this is uncommon for dealership auto body
shops?

		MS. BAILEY:  Uncommon for dealership -- when you're talking about an
independent body shop, they would be more likely to take the paint off
of a car.  Dealerships are usually using new cars.  They would take only
paint off a section of the car, so they wouldn't be using a giant
abrasive blaster.

		MS. BENNETT:  Okay.  Thank you.  And you also state that dealership
auto body shops sometimes use ventilated spot blasters that control dust
that allow for the capture and recycling of abrasives?

		MS. BAILEY:  Um-hum.

		MS. BENNETT:  Similar questions.  Do you know how often those control
methods are used or what percentage of dealership auto body shops use
them?

		MS. BAILEY:  So again, this would be dealing with a truck dealer who
used the abrasive -- the ventilated abrasive blaster.

		MS. BENNETT:  Okay.  So when you say that dealership auto body shops
sometimes use ventilated spot blasters, they just don't need to use them
more often because they're not doing that kind of work?

		MS. BAILEY:  Right.

		MS. BENNETT:  Okay.

		MS. BAILEY:  Correct.

		MS. BENNETT:  And you also mentioned in your comments today and on
page 3 of your written submission that a review of 10 years of data from
several state automobile dealership trade associations workers'
compensation programs turned up no claims involving silica dust
exposure.  Are those data in a form that you could submit in
post-hearing comments?

		MS. BAILEY:  No.

		MS. BENNETT:  Okay.  Do you happen to know what specific diseases or
symptoms were examined?

		MS. BAILEY:  So we looked for any sort of lung disease, anything
having to do with silica exposure, and the way that they were searching
their workers' compensation data, they actually looked through 10 years
of their lung diseases to see any sort of exposure that way.  So it
wasn't necessarily just looking for a silicosis claim.  It was looking
through all of the data on lung diseases.

		MS. BENNETT:  Okay.  Thank you.

		MR. O'CONNOR:  That concludes OSHA's questioning.  Thanks again,
Ms. Bailey for coming in.

		MS. BAILEY:  Thank you for accommodating me for today.  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you very much, Ms. Bailey.

		That concludes the program for today.  We'll resume with Day 13 of the
OSHA hearing tomorrow morning at 9:30.  We're adjourned.

		(Whereupon, at 3:34 p.m., the hearing was continued, to resume the
next day, Thursday, April 3, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

	This is to certify that the attached proceedings in the matter of:

INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE PROPOSED RULE

ON OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO

RESPIRABLE CRYSTALLINE SILICA

April 2, 2014

Washington, D.C.

were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcription
thereof for the files of the United States Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety & Health Administration.

			      						         					____________________________

			         	ED SCHWEITZER

			         	Official Reporter

_________________________

		Continued

  PAGE  3730

Free State Reporting, Inc.

1378 Cape St. Claire Road

Annapolis, MD 21409

(410) 974-0947

			   PAGE  3492


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 14469]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05985]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final notice.

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

SUMMARY: New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood
Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways
(hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on
the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities
listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance
Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.
The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to
calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their
contents.

DATES: The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table
below.

ADDRESSES: Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the
LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these
modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers
of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication.
The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any
appeals resulting from this notification.
    The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to
section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the
floodplain management measures that the community is required either to
adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain
qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
    This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet
the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to
calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new
buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in
flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the final flood hazard information available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: February 24, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Chief executive
      State and county          Location and      officer of     Community map    Effective date of   Community
                                  case No.        community        repository       modification         No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon: Deschutes (FEMA       (Unincorporated  The Honorable    Deschutes        July 6, 2015......       410055
 Docket No.: B-1503).          areas of         Tom Anderson,    County
                               Deschutes        Deschutes        Courthouse,
                               County) (15-10-  County           1164 NW Bond
                               0345P).          Administrator,   Street, Bend,
                                                1300 NW Wall     OR 97701.
                                                Street, Suite
                                                200, Bend, OR
                                                97701.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-05985 Filed 3-16-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 15, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71183-71186]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27078]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 15, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1023; Notice No. 25-21-05-SC]

Special Conditions: The Boeing Company, Model 737-10 Airplane;
Dynamic Test Requirements for Single-Occupant, Oblique (Side-Facing)
Seats Installed at a 49-Degrees With Airbag Devices and 3-Point
Restraints

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for The Boeing Company
(Boeing) Model 737-10 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or
unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology
envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category
airplanes. This design feature is single-occupant, passenger oblique
seats, with airbag devices and 3-point restraints, installed at 49
degrees relative to the airplane cabin bow-to-stern centerline. The
applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed
special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Send comments on or before January 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2021-1023 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as
described in the following paragraph, and other information as
described in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (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 FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about these special conditions.
    Confidential Business Information: 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 these special
conditions contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to these special conditions, 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 the indicated comments will not be placed in the public
docket of these special conditions. Send submissions containing CBI to
the Information Contact below. Comments the FAA receives, which are not
specifically designated as CBI, will be placed in the public docket for
these special conditions.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
https://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Shelden, Human Machine Interface
Section, AIR-626, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking
by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for
comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the
comments received.

Background

    On January 30, 2019, Boeing applied for a change to Type
Certificate No. A16WE for the installation of single-occupant oblique
seats, with airbag devices and 3-point restraints, installed at 49
degrees relative to the airplane cabin bow-to-stern centerline in the
Boeing Model 737-10 airplane. The Boeing Model 737-10 airplane is a
twin-engine, transport-category airplane with seating for 230
passengers and a maximum takeoff weight of 197,900 pounds.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Boeing must show that the
Model 737-10 airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable
provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A16WE, or
the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the
change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 737-10 airplane
because of a novel or unusual design

feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of
Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Boeing Model 737-10 airplane must comply with the fuel-
vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in Sec.  11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Boeing Model 737-10 airplane will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design feature:
    Single-occupant, oblique seats, with airbag devices and 3-point
restraints, installed at 49 degrees relative to the airplane cabin bow-
to-stern centerline.

Discussion

    Section 25.785(d) requires that each occupant of a seat installed
at an angle of more than 18 degrees, relative to bow-to-stern airplane
cabin centerline, must be protected from head injury using a seatbelt
and an energy-absorbing rest that supports the arms, shoulders, head,
and spine; or using a seatbelt and shoulder harness designed to prevent
the head from contacting any injurious object.
    The proposed Boeing Model 737-10 airplane single-occupant, oblique
seat installation with airbag devices and 3-point restraints is novel
such that the current requirements do not adequately address airbag
devices and protection of the occupant's neck, spine, torso, and legs
for seating configurations that are positioned at an angle of 49
degrees from the airplane centerline. The proposed seating
configuration installation angle is beyond the installation-design
limits of current special conditions issued for seat positions at
angles between 18 degrees and 45 degrees. For example, at these angles,
lateral neck bending and other injury mechanisms prevalent from a fully
side-facing installation become a concern. Although special conditions
no. 25-552-SC was issued for Boeing Model 787 airplane seats installed
at 49 degrees in 2014, that document is no longer applicable because
they were issued prior to the current oblique seat special conditions
that are based on the July 11, 2018, FAA policy statement PS-AIR-25-27,
``Technical Criteria for Approving Oblique Seats.'' These proposed
special conditions are based on the 787 special conditions with updates
from this policy statement, and to align with the fully side-facing
seat policy statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1, ``Technical Criteria for
Approving Side-Facing Seats.''
    To provide a level of safety equivalent to that afforded to
occupants of forward- and aft-facing seats, additional airworthiness
standards, in the form of dynamic testing requirements, including both
the injury criteria limits from the oblique seat policy and the fully
side-facing seat policy through new special conditions, are necessary.
    The proposed special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Boeing Model 737-10 airplane. Should Boeing apply at a later date for a
change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions
would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Proposed Special Conditions

    [squf] Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
proposes the following special conditions as part of the type
certification basis for Boeing Model 737-10 airplanes.
    In addition to the requirements of Sec. Sec.  25.562 and 25.785,
passenger seats, with airbag devices and 3-point restraints, installed
at an angle 49 degrees relative to the airplane cabin bow-to-stern
centerline, must meet the following:

a. Head Injury Criteria (HIC)

    HIC assessments are required only for head contact with the seat
and other structure.
    1. Compliance with Sec.  25.562(c)(5) is required, except that,
because an airbag device is present in addition to the 3-point
restraint system, when the anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) has no
apparent contact with the seat and other structure but has contact with
the airbag, a HIC score in excess of 1,000 is acceptable, provided the
HIC15 score (calculated in accordance with 49 CFR 571.208) for that
contact is less than 700.
    2. ATD head contact with the seat or other structure, through the
airbag, or contact subsequent to contact with the airbag, requires an
HIC value not exceeding 1,000.
    3. The HIC value must not exceed 1,000 in any condition in which
the airbag does or does not deploy, up to the maximum severity pulse
specified by the existing requirements.
    4. To accommodate a range of occupant heights (5th percentile
female to 95th percentile male), any surface, airbag or otherwise, that
provides support for the occupant head must provide that support in a
consistent manner regardless of occupant stature. Otherwise, additional
HIC assessment tests may be needed.

b. Body-to-Wall/Furnishing Contact

    If a seat is installed aft of structure, such as an interior wall
or furnishing that does not provide a homogenous contact surface for
the expected range of occupants and yaw angles, then additional
analysis and tests may be required to demonstrate that the injury
criteria are met for the area an occupant could contact. For example,
different yaw angles could result in different injury considerations
and airbag performance, and may require additional analysis, or
separate tests may be necessary to evaluate performance.

c. Neck Injury Criteria

    1. The seating system must protect the occupant from experiencing
serious neck injury. The assessment of neck injury must be conducted
with the airbag device activated, unless there is reason to also
consider that the neck injury potential would be higher for impacts
below the airbag device deployment threshold.

    2. Rotation of the head about its vertical axis, relative to the
torso, is limited to 105 degrees in either direction from forward-
facing.
    3. The neck must not impact any surface that would produce
concentrated loading on the neck.
    4. Assess neck injury for fore and aft neck bending using an FAA
Hybrid III ATD, as described in SAE 1999-01-1609, ``A Lumbar Spine
Modification to the Hybrid III ATD for Aircraft Seat Tests,'', applying
the following criteria:
    The Nij, calculated in accordance with 49 CFR 571.208,
must be below 1.0, where Nij = Fz/Fzc
+ My/Myc, and Nij critical values are:

Fzc = 1,530 lbs (6805 N) for tension
Fzc = 1,385 lbs (6160 N) for compression
Myc = 229 lb-ft (301 Nm) in flexion
Myc = 100 lb-ft (136 Nm) in extension

    In addition, peak upper-neck Fz must be below 937 lbs
(4168 N) in tension and 899 lbs (3999 N) in compression.
    5. When lateral neck bending is present, assess it using an ES-2re
ATD as defined by 49 CFR part 572, subpart U. The data must be filtered
at channel frequency class (CFC) 600 as defined in SAE Recommended
Practice J211-1, ``Instrumentation for Impact Test Part 1-Electrionic
Instrumentation:''
    i. The upper-neck tension force at the occipital condyle (O.C.)
location must be less than 405 lbs (1,800 N).
    ii. The upper-neck compression force at the O.C. location must be
less than 405 lbs (1,800 N).
    iii. The upper-neck bending torque about the ATD x-axis at the O.C.
location must be less than 1,018 in-lbs (115 Nm).
    iv. The upper-neck resultant shear force at the O.C. location must
be less than 186 lbs (825 N).

d. Spine and Torso Injury Criteria

    1. The seating system must protect the occupant from experiencing
spine and torso injury. The assessment of spine and torso injury must
be conducted with the airbag device activated, unless it is necessary
to also consider that the occupant-injury potential would be higher for
impacts below the airbag-device deployment threshold.
    2. Assess spine and torso injury, for oblique torso bending, using
an FAA Hybrid III ATD, applying the following criteria:
    i. The lumbar spine tension (Fz) cannot exceed 1,200 lbs
(5338 N).
    ii. Significant concentrated loading on the occupant's spine, in
the area between the pelvis and shoulders during impact, including
rebound, is not acceptable. During this type of contact, the interval
for any rearward (X direction) acceleration exceeding 20g must be less
than 3 milliseconds, as measured by the thoracic instrumentation
specified in 49 CFR part 572, subpart E, filtered in accordance with
SAE Recommended Practice J211-1.
    3. When lateral torso bending is present, assess spine and torso
injury using an ES-2re ATD, applying the following criteria:
    i. Thoracic: The deflection of any of the ES-2re ATD upper, middle,
and lower ribs must not exceed 1.73 inches (44 mm). Process the data as
defined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 571.214,
title 49 of the CFR.
    ii. Abdominal: The sum of the measured ES-2re ATD front, middle,
and rear abdominal forces must not exceed 562 lbs (2,500 N). Process
the data as defined in FMVSS 571.214.
    iii. Upper-torso support: The lateral flexion of the ATD torso must
not exceed 40 degrees from the normal upright positions during impact.

e. Pelvic Criteria

    1. The seating system must protect the occupant from experiencing
pelvis injury.
    2. Any part of the load-bearing portion of the bottom of the ATD
pelvis must not translate beyond the edges of the seat bottom seat-
cushion supporting structure.
    3. When pelvis contact with the armrest or surrounding interior
components is present, assess it using an ES-2re ATD. The pubic
symphysis force measured by the ES-2re ATD must not exceed 1,350 lbs
(6,000 N). Process the data as defined in FMVSS 571.214.

f. Femur Criteria

    Limit axial rotations of the upper leg (about the z-axis of the
femur, per SAE Recommended Practice J211-1) to 35 degrees from the
nominal seated position. Evaluation during rebound does not need to be
considered.

g. ATD and Test Condition

    1. Perform longitudinal tests, conducted to measure the injury
criteria above, using the FAA Hybrid III ATD or using the ES-2re ATD,.
Conduct the tests with the undeformed floor, at the most-critical yaw
cases for injury, and with all lateral structural supports (e.g.,
armrests or walls) installed.
    2. For longitudinal tests conducted in accordance with Sec.
25.562(b)(2), to show compliance with the seat-strength requirements of
Sec.  25.562(c)(7) and (8), and these special conditions, to ensure
proper loading of the seat by the occupant, the ATD pelvis must remain
supported by the seat pan, and the restraint system must remain on the
pelvis of the ATD until rebound begins. No injury criteria evaluation
is necessary for tests conducted only to assess seat-strength
requirements.
    3. If a seat installation includes adjacent items that are within
contact range of an occupant, assess the injury potential of that
contact. To make this assessment, tests may be conducted to include the
actual contact item, located and attached in a representative fashion.
Alternatively, the injury potential may be assessed through a
combination of tests with contact items having the same geometry as the
actual contact item, but having stiffness characteristics that would
create the worst case for injury, such as injuries due to both contact
with the item and lack of support from the item.
    4. Conduct the combined horizontal and vertical test, required by
Sec.  25.562(b)(1) and these special conditions, with a Hybrid II ATD
(49 CFR part 572, subpart B, as specified in Sec.  25.562) or
equivalent.
    5. The design and installation of seatbelt buckles must prevent
unbuckling due to applied inertial forces, or impact from seat occupant
hands and arms, during an emergency landing.

h. Inflatable Airbag-Restraint System Special Conditions

    An inflatable airbag-restraint system will be installed, and must
meet the requirements of Special Conditions No. 25-386-SC, ``Boeing
Model 737-600/-700/-700C/-800/-900 and 900ER Series Airplanes; Seats
With Inflatable Lapbelts,'' applicable to Boeing Model 737-10 series
airplanes.

i. General Test Guidelines

    1. The determination of the appropriate ATD to be used in assessing
occupant injury (FAA Hybrid III or ES-2re) is based on the occupant
kinematics at the selected test angle. At the +10-degree yaw angle, the
occupant kinematics show that occupant injury tests, using both ATDs,
are required.
    2. Conduct vertical tests with Hybrid II ATD or equivalent, with
existing pass/fail criteria.
    3. Conduct longitudinal structural tests with the Hybrid II ATD or
equivalent, deformed floor, with 10 degrees yaw, and with all lateral
structural supports (e.g., armrests or walls) required to support the
occupant.
    4. Conduct longitudinal occupant-injury tests, as necessary, with
the Hybrid III ATD or ES-2re ATD, undeformed floor, yaw, and with all
lateral structural supports (e.g., armrests or walls) critically
represented, and

which are within contact range of the occupant.
    i. Pass/fail injury assessments:
    A. Perform HIC, fore and aft neck injury, spinal tension, and femur
evaluations using an FAA Hybrid III ATD.
    B. Perform lateral neck injury, thoracic, abdominal, pelvis, and
femur evaluations using an ES-2re ATD.
    5. For injury assessments accomplished by testing with an ES-2re
ATD for longitudinal tests conducted in accordance with Sec.
25.562(b)(2) and these special conditions, the ATDs must be positioned,
clothed, and have lateral instrumentation configured as follows:
    i. ES-2re ATD Lateral Instrumentation:
    The rib-module linear slides are directional (i.e., deflection
occurs in either a positive or negative ATD y-axis direction). Install
the modules such that the moving end of the rib module is toward the
front of the airplane. Install the three abdominal-force sensors such
that they are on the side of the ATD toward the front of the airplane.
    ii. ATD Clothing:
    Clothe each ATD in form-fitting cotton-stretch garments with short-
to full-length sleeves, mid-calf to full-length pants, and size 11E
(45) shoes weighing about 2.5 lbs (1.1 kg), and having a heel height of
about 1.5 inches (3.8 cm). The color of the clothing should be in
contrast to the color of the restraint system and the background. The
color of the clothing should be chosen to avoid overexposing the high-
speed images captured during the test. The ES-2re jacket is sufficient
for torso clothing, although a form-fitting shirt may be used in
addition, if desired.
    iii. ATD Positioning:
    A. Lower the ATD vertically into the seat while simultaneously:
    (1) Aligning the midsagittal plane (a vertical plane through the
midline of the body, dividing the body into right and left halves) to
approximately the middle of the seat place.
    (2) Keeping the upper legs horizontal by supporting them just
behind the knees.
    (3) Applying a horizontal x-axis direction (in the ES-2re ATD
coordinate system) force of about 20 lbs (89 N) to the bottom rib of
the ES-2re, to compress the seat back cushion.
    B. After all lifting devices have been removed from the ATD:
    (1) Rock it slightly to settle it in the seat.
    (2) Bend the knees of the ATD.
    (3) Separate the knees by about 4 inches (100 mm).
    (4) Set the ATD's head at approximately the midpoint of the
available range of z-axis rotation (to align the head and torso
midsagittal planes).
    (5) Position the ATD's arms at the joints' mechanical detent, to
position them to an approximately 20- to 40-degree angle with respect
to the torso.
    (6) Position the feet such that the centerlines of the lower legs
are approximately parallel.
    Note: Seats installed via plinths or pallets must meet all
applicable requirements. Compliance with the guidance contained in
policy memorandum PS-ANM-100-2000-00123, ``Guidance for Demonstrating
Compliance with Seat Dynamic Testing for Plinths and Pallets,'' dated
February 2, 2000, is acceptable to the FAA.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 9, 2021.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Manager, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-27078 Filed 12-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P