[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 228 (Friday, November 27, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74052-74056]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-5816; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-029-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2006-10-
16, which applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D,
747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. AD 2006-10-16 requires,
for certain airplanes, repetitive inspections for cracking of the
outboard and center sections of the horizontal stabilizer, and repair
if necessary. For certain other airplanes, AD 2006-10-16 requires a
detailed inspection to determine the type of fasteners, and related
investigative actions and repair if necessary. Since we issued AD 2006-
10-16, additional cracking was found in the splice plates, hinge
fittings, terminal fittings, the upper skin of the outboard and center
sections, and the rear spar webs before reaching the inspection
interval specified in AD 2006-10-16. Cracked and fractured Maraging
steel fasteners were also found. This proposed AD would reduce the
compliance time for certain inspections and would add repetitive
inspections for cracking of the splice plates, hinge fittings, terminal
fittings, the upper skin of the outboard and center sections, and the
rear spar webs in Zone B. This proposed AD would also add an inspection
to determine whether fasteners are magnetic in Zone C, repetitive
ultrasonic inspections for cracking and fractures of affected
fasteners, and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary. This proposed AD would also add an optional modification,
which would terminate certain repetitive inspections, and would add
post-modification inspections and corrective action if necessary. We
are proposing this AD to detect and correct this cracking, which could
lead to reduced structural capability of the outboard and center
sections of the horizontal stabilizer and could result in loss of
control of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 11,
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed 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.
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-2015-5816.

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-
5816; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about

this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-5816; Directorate
Identifier 2015-NM-029-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On May 8, 2006, we issued AD 2006-10-16, Amendment 39-14600 (71 FR
28570, May 17, 2006), for all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400,
747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. AD 2006-10-16
requires, for certain airplanes, repetitive inspections for cracking of
the outboard and center sections of the horizontal stabilizer, and
repair if necessary. For certain other airplanes, AD 2006-10-16
requires a detailed inspection to determine the type of fasteners,
related investigative actions, and repair if necessary. AD 2006-10-16
resulted from reports of cracking in the outboard and center section of
the aft upper skin of the horizontal stabilizer, the rear spar chord,
rear spar web, terminal fittings, and splice plates; and a report of
fractured and cracked steel fasteners. We issued AD 2006-10-16 to
detect and correct this cracking, which could lead to reduced
structural capability of the outboard and center sections of the
horizontal stabilizer and could result in loss of control of the
airplane.

Actions Since AD 2006-10-16, Amendment 39-14600 (71 FR 28570, May 17,
2006), Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2006-10-16, Amendment 39-14600 (71 FR 28570, May
17, 2006), additional cracking was found in the splice plates, hinge
fittings, terminal fittings, the upper skin of the outboard and center
sections, and the rear spar webs before reaching the inspection
interval specified in AD 2006-10-16. Cracked and fractured Maraging
steel fasteners were also found.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated
January 23, 2015. The service information describes procedures for
accomplishing Zone A, Zone B, and Zone C inspections for cracking of
the upper skin and upper rear spar chord of the outboard and center
sections of the horizontal stabilizer, and related investigative and
corrective actions if necessary. The service information also describes
procedures for a magnetic inspection to determine the type of
fasteners, ultrasonic inspections for cracking and fractures of
affected fasteners, and related investigative actions and corrective
actions if necessary. The service information also describes procedures
for an optional modification, which would end certain repetitive
inspections, and procedures for post-modification inspections and
corrective action if necessary. 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 of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2006-10-16, Amendment 39-14600 (71 FR 28570, May 17,
2006), this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements. Those
requirements are referenced in the service information identified
previously, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this
proposed AD. This proposed AD would reduce the compliance time for
certain inspections and add new repetitive inspections for cracking of
the splice plates, hinge fittings, terminal fittings, the upper skin of
the outboard and center sections, and the rear spar webs in Zone B.
This proposed AD would also add an inspection to determine whether
fasteners are magnetic in Zone C (made of H-11 steel), repetitive
ultrasonic inspections for cracking and fractures of affected
fasteners, and related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary. This proposed AD would also add an optional modification,
which would end certain repetitive inspections, and procedures for
post-modification inspections and corrective action if necessary. This
proposed AD also adds optional open-hole NDT inspections (high
frequency eddy current inspections) for certain airplanes, for Zone B
inspections. This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the
actions specified in the service information described previously,
except as discussed under ``Difference Between this Proposed AD and the
Service Bulletin.'' For information on the procedures and compliance
times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-5816.
    The phrase ``related investigative actions'' is used in this
proposed AD. ``Related investigative actions'' are follow-on actions
that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate
the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an
AD could include, for example, inspections.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or address any
condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for
example, repairs.

Difference Between This Proposed AD and the Service Bulletin

    Although Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated
January 23, 2015, specifies that operators may contact the manufacturer
for disposition of certain repair conditions, this proposed AD would
require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 116 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                        Estimated Costs--Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Cost per          Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost         Parts cost        product           operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zone A Inspections (required by AD  8 work-hours x $85                 $0            $680  Up to $78,880.
 2006-10-16, Amendment 39-14600).    per hour = $680.
Zone B Open-hole NDT Inspection     30 work-hours x 85                  0           2,550  Up to $295,800.
 (required by AD 2006-10-16,         per hour = 2,550.
 Amendment 39-14600 for Groups 3,
 4, and 5 airplanes; and for
 Groups 1, 2, and 3 airplanes, if
 done).
Zone C Maraging or H-11 Steel       8 work-hours x 85 per               0             680  Up to $78,880.
 Fastener Inspection (required by    hour = 680.
 AD 2006-10-16, Amendment 39-14600
 for Groups 1, 2, and 3 airplanes).
New Zone B proposed inspections...  248 work-hours x 85                 0          21,080  $2,445,280.
                                     per hour = 21,080.
New Zone C proposed inspection....  26 work-hours x 85                  0           2,210  $256,360.
                                     per hour = 2,210.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                        Estimated Costs--Optional Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                        Labor cost               Parts cost            Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open-hole NDT inspections (high        Up to 298 work-hours x   $$0....................  Up to $25,330.
 frequency eddy current inspections.    $85 per hour = up to
                                        $25,330.
Zone B Modification..................  Up to 313 work-hours x   Up to $3,486...........  Up to $30,091.
                                        $85 per hour = up to
                                        $26,605.
Post-Modification Inspections........  Up to 298 work-hours x   $0.....................  Up to $25,330.
                                        $85 per hour = up to
                                        $25,330.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
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

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the 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.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive AD
2006-10-16, Amendment 39-14600 (71 FR 28570, May 17, 2006), and adding
the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-5816; Directorate Identifier
2015-NM-029-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 11,
2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2006-10-16, Amendment 39-14600 (71 FR 28570,
May 17, 2006).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400,
747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes; certificated
in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking found in the splice
plates, hinge fittings, terminal fittings, the upper skin of the
outboard and center sections, and the rear spar webs before reaching
the inspection interval specified in AD 2006-10-16. Cracked and
fractured Maraging steel fasteners were also found. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct this cracking, which

could lead to reduced structural capability of the outboard and
center sections of the horizontal stabilizer and could result in
loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections/Investigative and Corrective Actions

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2,
dated January 23, 2015, except as required by paragraphs (h)(1) and
(h)(2) of this AD: Do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs
(g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4) of this AD, and all applicable
related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the
applicable part of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, except as
required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat
the applicable inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2),
(g)(3), and (g)(4) of this AD at the applicable times specified in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015.
    (1) For Group 1 through 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015: Do non-
destructive test (NDT) inspections (ultrasonic, high frequency eddy
current, and low frequency eddy current inspections) or open-hole
NDT inspections (high frequency eddy current inspections), of Zone B
for cracking in accordance with Part 3 or Part 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050,
Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, as applicable.
    (2) For Group 4 through 6 airplanes identified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015: Do open-
hole NDT inspections (high frequency eddy current inspections), of
Zone B for cracking in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2,
dated January 23, 2015.
    (3) For Group 7 through 9 airplanes identified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015: Do
inspections of Zone A (detailed or high frequency eddy current
inspections) and Zone B (high frequency eddy current inspections)
for cracking, in accordance with Part 1, Part 2, or Part 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050,
Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, as applicable.
    (4) For Group 1 through 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015: Do an
inspection of Zone C Maraging or H-11 steel fasteners to determine
whether fasteners are magnetic, in accordance with Part 6 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050,
Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015.

(h) Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated
January 23, 2015, specifies a compliance time ``after the Revision 2
date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within
the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The Condition column of Table 1 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2,
dated January 23, 2015, refers to ``airplanes with certain total
flight cycles and total flight hours.'' This AD, however, applies to
the airplanes with the specified total flight cycles and total
flight hours as of the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated
January 23, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for repair
instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this
AD.

(i) Optional Terminating Action

    (1) For Group 1 through 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015:
Accomplishing the Zone B modification, including all applicable
related investigative and corrective actions, specified in Part 7 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, except as required by
paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, terminates the repetitive inspections
specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD for the
modified area only.
    (i) Inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD for Zone
B, as specified in Part 3 and Part 4 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2,
dated January 23, 2015.
    (ii) Inspections required by paragraph (g)(4) of this AD for
Zone C, as specified in Part 5 and Part 6 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2,
dated January 23, 2015.
    (2) For Group 1 through 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015:
Accomplishing the Zone B open hole NDT inspection, repairing any
cracking as applicable, and replacing fasteners as specified in Part
4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, terminates the
repetitive ultrasonic inspections required by paragraph (g)(4) of
this AD for Zone C, as specified in Part 6 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2,
dated January 23, 2015, for the inspected area only.
    (3) For Group 4 through 9 airplanes identified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015:
Accomplishing the Zone B modification, including all applicable
related investigative and corrective actions, specified in Part 7 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, except as required by
paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, terminates the repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (g)(2) or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable,
only for Zone B, as specified in Part 4 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2,
dated January 23, 2015, for the modified area only.

(j) Repetitive Post-Modification Inspections and Corrective Actions

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2,
dated January 23, 2015: Do the applicable inspections specified in
paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD and all applicable
corrective actions, in accordance with Part 8 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2,
dated January 23, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of
this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
Repeat the applicable inspections at the applicable times specified
in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015.
    (1) For Group 1 through 3 airplanes identified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015 on which
the Zone B modification specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD is
done: Do non-destructive test (NDT) inspections (ultrasonic, high
frequency eddy current, and low frequency eddy current inspections)
or open-hole NDT inspections (high frequency eddy current
inspections) of Zone B for cracking.
    (2) For Group 4 through 9 airplanes identified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015 on which
the Zone B modification specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD is
done: Do open-hole NDT inspections (high frequency eddy current
inspections) of Zone B for cracking.

(k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any
Maraging or H-11 steel fasteners in the locations specified in this
AD. Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated
January 23, 2015, specifies to install H-11 bolts (kept fasteners),
this AD requires installation of Inconel bolts.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (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 (m)(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 required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2006-10-16, Amendment 39-14600 (71 FR
28570, May 17, 2006), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding
provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD, except for approved AMOCs
that allow installation of Maraging or H-11 steel fasteners.

(m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For 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: 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>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 19, 2015.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-30120 Filed 11-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 21943]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9386]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 235 and
49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance
or modification of the signal system, as detailed below.

Docket Number FRA-2011-0022

    Applicant: Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad, Inc., Mr. Steve
Hefley, General Manager, 333 S.E. Mosher Avenue, P.O. Box 1083,
Roseburg, Oregon 97470.
    The Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad, Inc. (CORP) seeks approval
of the proposed discontinuance and removal of the automatic block
signal system (ABS) on three sections of the Roseburg Subdivision and
on one section of the Siskiyou Subdivision. The proposal consists of:
    1. On the Roseburg and Siskiyou Subdivisions between milepost (MP)
438.7 and MP 451, near Medford, OR, the removal of ABS signal numbers
427.4D; 4284/4283; 4298/4297; 4328/4327; 4358/4357; 4388/4389; 4406/
4407; 4424/4423; 4444/4443; 4456/4457 and 4482/4483. An aspect change
would be made in signal 4505.
    2. On the Roseburg Subdivision between MP 471 and MP 475, near
Grants Pass, OR, the removal of ABS signal numbers 4724/4725 and 4734/
4735. Aspect changes would be made in signals 4783; 4751; 4684 and
4712.
    3. On the Roseburg Subdivision between MP 507 and MP 509, near
Glendale, OR, the removal of ABS signal numbers 5076/5077; 5082/5083
and 5089. Aspect changes would be made in signals 5034 and 5060.
    4. On the Roseburg Subdivision between MP 559 and MP 563, near
Dillard, OR, the removal of ABS signal numbers 5604/5605 and 5614/5615.
Aspect changes would be made in signals 563.3; 565.5; 559.2 and 557.4.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2011-0022) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70;
Page 19477) or at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 13, 2011.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-9386 Filed 4-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 120 (Friday, June 25, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33511-33512]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13588]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0372]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Conn Brown Harbor; Aransas Pass, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters within a 600 feet radius of a fireworks display in
Aransas Pass, Texas. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by
the fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this temporary
zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the
Port Sector Corpus Christi or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 3,
2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0372 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Margaret Brown, Sector Corpus
Christi Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 361-
939-5130, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must
establish this safety zone immediately and lack sufficient time to
provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments
before issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated
with a fireworks display on July 3, 2021.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with a fireworks display
on July 3, 2021 will be a safety concern for anyone in the navigable
waters of Conn Brown Harbor within a 600-foot radius of a fireworks
display launched from Conn Brown Harbor Point Park in Corpus Aransas
Pass, Texas. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels
and persons on these navigable waters in the safety zone during the
fireworks show.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 9 p.m. through
10 p.m. on July 3, 2021. The fireworks will be launched in position
27[deg]54'05.37'' N, 097[deg]08'01.24'' W. No vessel or person is
permitted to enter the temporary safety zone during the effective
period without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz)
or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard will issue Local
Notices to Mariners, Safety Marine Information Broadcasts, and
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the
zone.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone covers a
600-foot radius for a fireworks display launched in Aransas Pass,
Texas. The temporary safety zone will be enforced for a short period of
only 60 minutes on July 3, 2021. The rule does not completely restrict
the traffic within a waterway and allows mariners to request permission
to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety
zone for navigable waters of Conn Brown Harbor within a 600-foot radius
of a fireworks display launched at position 27[deg]54'05.37'' N,
097[deg]08'01.24'' W, in Aransas Pass, Texas. The safety zone is needed
to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from
potential hazards created by a fireworks display. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60 Appendix A, Table 1 of
DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1 .

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0372 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0372   Safety Zone; Conn Brown Harbor; Aransas Pass, TX.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of Conn Brown Harbor within a 600-foot radius of a firework
display launched at position 27[deg]54'05.37'' N, 097[deg]08'01.24'' W,
in Aransas Pass, Texas
    (b) Effective period. This rule is effective from 9 p.m. through 10
p.m. on July 3, 2021.
    (c) Regulations. (1) According to the general regulations in Sec.
165.23 of this part, entry into this temporary safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Corpus
Christi (COTP) or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons or vessels seeking to enter the safety zone must
request permission from the COTP on VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) or by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply
with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this
safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to
Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts, as appropriate.

    Dated: June 22, 2021.
J.B. Gunning,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi.
[FR Doc. 2021-13588 Filed 6-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 67 (Monday, April 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20926-20927]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08014]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0349]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Providing Postmarket Periodic
Safety Reports in the International Conference on Harmonisation E2C(R2)
Format (Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report); Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Providing
Postmarket Periodic Safety Reports in the ICH E2C(R2) Format (Periodic
Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report).'' This guidance is intended to inform
applicants of the conditions under which FDA will exercise its waiver
authority to permit applicants to submit an International Conference on
Harmonisation (ICH) E2C(R2) Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report
(PBRER) in place of the ICH E2C(R1) Periodic Safety Update Report
(PSUR), U.S. periodic adverse drug experience report (PADER), or U.S.
periodic adverse experience report (PAER), to satisfy the periodic
safety reporting requirements in FDA regulations. The guidance
describes the steps applicants can take to submit the PBRER, and
discusses the format, content, submission deadline, and frequency of
reporting for the PBRER.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by May 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or
the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-
1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in
processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by calling
CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance
document.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean Chung, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 22, Rm. 4466, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17),
Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N,
Rockville, MD 20852-1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Providing Postmarket Periodic Safety Reports in the ICH
E2C(R2) Format (Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report).'' We are
issuing the draft guidance to describe the conditions under which FDA
will exercise its waiver authority to permit the holders of approved
new drug applications, abbreviated new drug applications, and biologics
license applications (applicants) to use the reporting format of the
PBRER to submit periodic safety reports for their marketed products.
The harmonized PBRER is intended to promote a consistent approach to
periodic postmarket safety reporting among the ICH regions (the
European Union, Japan, and the United States) and to enhance efficiency
by reducing the number of reports generated for submissions to the
regulatory authorities.
    FDA's postmarket safety reporting regulations require applicants to
submit periodic safety reports in the form of a

Periodic Adverse Drug Experience Report (PADER) (for drugs) or a
Periodic Adverse Experience Report (PAER) (for biologics) (21 CFR
314.80(c)(2) and 600.80(c)(2), respectively). FDA has routinely granted
waivers under 21 CFR 314.90(b) and 600.90(b) permitting applicants to
submit an internationally harmonized Periodic Safety Update Report
(PSUR) prepared in accordance with ICH E2C (see 62 FR 27470 (May 19,
1997) and 69 FR 5551 (Feb. 5, 2004)) instead of a PADER/PAER under
conditions stated in the waiver. On November 15, 2012, the ICH Steering
Committee signed off on the ICH harmonized guideline ``Periodic
Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report (PBRER) E2C(R2)'' and recommended that
the PBRER format be adopted by the ICH regulatory bodies of the three
regions. Therefore, the new and more comprehensive report format, the
PBRER, has superseded the PSUR report format.
    This guidance provides information on the steps applicants can take
to submit a PBRER to the FDA in place of a PSUR, PADER, or PAER. The
guidance discusses: (1) Applicants who have a waiver in place for their
approved product to submit a PSUR instead of a PADER/PAER and (2)
applicants who have not obtained a waiver and are currently submitting
PADERs/PAERs as required under FDA regulations. Because the PBRER has
replaced the PSUR as the ICH E2C harmonized postmarket safety report
format, FDA is permitting applicants with an existing PSUR waiver to
substitute the PBRER for the PSUR without submitting a new waiver
request. This guidance describes the steps an applicant should take to
submit the PBRER in place of the PSUR. For applicants who do not have a
PSUR waiver in place for their approved application but would like to
submit the PBRER in place of the PADER/PAER, this guidance provides
information on how to submit a waiver request if they wish to do so.
    This guidance describes the content, format, and submission
deadlines applicants should follow when submitting the PBRER, as well
as U.S.-specific appendices that should be submitted with the PBRER. It
also explains how applicants can fulfill FDA's annual reporting
requirement while submitting a harmonized PBRER that covers a longer
reporting interval. In addition, the guidance notifies applicants that
they may submit requests to be waived of the quarterly reporting
requirement and instead, to submit PBRERs on a 6-month basis.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on providing
postmarket periodic safety reports in the ICH E2C(R2) PBRER format. It
does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not
operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used
if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or
http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance addresses information collection provisions
that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
The collections of information related to submission of waiver requests
under Sec. Sec.  314.90(a) and 600.90 have been approved under OMB
control numbers 0910-0001 and 0910-0308. In accordance with the PRA,
before publication of the final guidance document, FDA intends to
solicit public comment and obtain OMB approval for any information
collections recommended in this guidance that are new or that would
represent material modifications to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations.

    Dated: April 2, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-08014 Filed 4-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35858-35860]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15279]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 572

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0175]
RIN 2127-AJ49

Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy; Corrections;
Incorporation by Reference

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

ACTION: Technical amendments.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA published a document in the Federal Register on February
27, 2012 (77 FR 11651), establishing specifications and qualification
requirements for a Hybrid III 10-year-old child size test dummy. The
regulatory text adopted by that document contained errors, as did some
of the drawings of the test dummy and other materials incorporated by
reference pertaining to the test dummy. This document corrects those
errors by revising regulatory text and incorporating by reference a
corrected drawing package. We have also made conforming changes to the
parts list and users' manual for the dummy, which this document also
incorporates by reference.

DATES: Effective date: June 23, 2015. The incorporation by reference of
the publications listed in this document has been approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of June 23, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Martin, NHTSA Office of
Crashworthiness Standards, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Deirdre Fujita,
NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This document corrects 49 CFR part 572, ``Anthropomorphic Test
Devices,''

Subpart T, ``Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy (HIII-10C).''
NHTSA published a final rule on February 27, 2012 (77 FR 11651),
establishing Subpart T, which contains specifications and qualification
requirements for the HIII-10C. The regulatory text adopted by that
document contains errors, as do some of the drawings and other
materials incorporated by reference pertaining to the test dummy. This
document corrects those errors by revising regulatory text and
incorporating by reference a corrected drawing package, parts list and
users' manual.

Need for Correction

Corrected Regulatory Text

    The following corrections are made to the regulatory text.
    a. Sections 572.170 and 572.171 of subpart T incorporate by
reference a drawings and inspection package, a parts/drawing list, and
a users' manual (``Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly and
Inspection'' (``PADI'')) for the HIII-10C by name and by date. NHTSA is
correcting several drawings in the package, and is making conforming
changes to the parts list and to several figures in the PADI. For ease
of use, rather than switch out individual drawings from the previous
drawings package and individual pages from the original PADI and risk
confusion by users in the future about which drawings and pages were
replaced, NHTSA is incorporating by reference a new set of materials.
We are referencing a new drawings and inspection package that has the
corrected drawings, a new parts/drawing list, and a new PADI. All these
new materials are dated March 2015. We are amending Sec.  572.170 and
Sec.  572.171 to reference the new versions of the materials.
    b. The February 2012 final rule incorrectly specifies in 49 CFR
572.177(a)(1) that the thorax impact probe mass is 6.89
0.012 kilograms (kg) (15.2  0.05 pounds (lb)). Figure T4 of
subpart T correctly lists the thorax impact probe mass as ``6.89  0.05 kg (15.2  0.1 lb).'' We are correcting the
second sentence of 49 CFR 572.177(a)(1) so that it refers to ``6.89
 0.05 kg (15.2  0.1 lb).''
    Likewise, the February 2012 final rule incorrectly specifies in
Sec.  572.177(a)(2) that the knee impact probe mass is 1.91  0.01 kg (4.21  0.02 lb). Figure T6 of subpart T
correctly lists the knee impact probe mass as ``1.91  0.05
kg (4.2  0.1 lb).'' We are correcting the second sentence
of 49 CFR 572.177(a)(2) to reference a mass of 1.91  0.05
kg (4.21  0.1 lb).
    c. The February 2012 final rule inadvertently excluded a
specification for the filter class used for the knee probe acceleration
and for the thorax probe acceleration. The filter class used for the
knee probe acceleration is SAE International (SAE) Channel Frequency
Class (CFC) 600. CFC 600 has historically been applied to other dummy
knee probe accelerations and NHTSA used CFC 600 in developmental
testing of the HIII-10C. The filter class used for the thorax probe
acceleration is CFC 180. NHTSA specifies the CFC 180 filter class with
other test dummies and used it in developing the HIII-10C. Accordingly,
NHTSA corrects 49 CFR 572.177(c) by adding the filter classes for the
knee and thorax probe accelerations.

Corrected Drawings

Drawing 420-5120, Upper Leg Flesh
    In the revisions table for this drawing, in Rev F, the overall
Upper Leg Flesh height dimension is correctly specified as ``4.50 +.06/
-.18 (was 4.5 +.16/-.13).'' Elsewhere on the drawing, the height
dimension next to the part does not match this value in the table. We
have corrected the height dimension next to the part to match that of
the table.
    In Drawing 420-5120, the dimension for the overall Upper Leg Flesh
width is correctly listed, next to the part, as ``4.92 +.05/-.20.'' In
the revisions table, Rev F, the width dimension is different and
incorrect. We have corrected the revisions table to match the dimension
listed next to the part.
Drawing 420-4300, Abdomen
    In the revision history table, Rev F, the width of the abdomen
pocket is correctly stated as (3.77) and the depth is correctly stated
as (2.14). Elsewhere on the drawing, the dimensions listed for those
parts do not match those correct dimensions in the revision history
table. We have corrected the drawing to match the correct dimensions in
the table.
    In the revision history table, Rev E, Note #2 had read: ``All
Dimensional Tolerances Are 0.12 inch.'' The note was
incorrectly removed, and in Rev F, a 0.06 inch tolerance
was incorrectly added to two dimensions (0.75 0.06 and 0.62
0.06). The 0.06 inch tolerance is in error; it
is an unrealistic dimensional requirement for a molded part. We have
revised the drawing to reestablished the 0.12 inch
tolerance for this part.
Drawing 420-1001, Skull, Machining, 6-Axis
    The drawing package incorporated by the February 2012 final rule
had drawing 880105-102, which had an error with respect to the
dimensions called out for the center of gravity (CG) location of the
skull. The correct CG dimensions for the head assembly are in drawing
420-0000, Sheet 4 of 5, as follows: CGx = 2.330  0.100 inch
and CGz = 1.200  0.100 inch. We have removed drawing
880105-102 and have revised drawing 420-1001 (Rev D) to add information
on the CG location.
Revisions Relating to Shoulder Assembly Drawings
    Some of the drawings of the HIII-10C's shoulder area are incorrect
because they depict the design of the dummy at the time of our
publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) \1\ preceding
the February 2012 final rule, and not the design of the HIII-10C as it
was adopted by the final rule. As adopted by the final rule, the HIII-
10C has a shoulder assembly design that can be modified by switching a
part of the shoulder assembly (the shoulder yoke), to enable the dummy
shoulder to accommodate either a load cell or a structural replacement
(SR) in place of a load cell. The drawings adopted by the final rule
show the shoulder yoke that accommodates an SR, but we inadvertently
did not include drawings showing the HIII-10C with the shoulder yoke
assembly that accommodates a load cell. We have corrected this
oversight by including in the new drawing package drawings of the
alternate shoulder yoke assembly that accommodates a load cell, and
drawings of the load cell and assorted hardware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 70 FR 40281, July 13, 2005, Docket No. NHTSA-2004-21247.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corrected PADI

    We have revised various figures in the PADI to conform the manual
to the changes discussed above. Most of the revisions relate to using
the shoulder yoke assembly when using the HIII-10C with a shoulder load
cell. The revised figures are: 12, 21, 22, 24, 29, 82 and 83.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 572

    Motor vehicle safety, Incorporation by reference.

    Accordingly, 49 CFR part 572 is corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:

PART 572--ANTHROPOMORPHIC TEST DUMMIES

0
1. The authority citation for Part 572 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95

Subpart T--Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test Dummy (HIII-10C)

0
2. Section 572.170 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1), the
introductory text of paragraph (b)(2), and paragraph (b)(3), to read as
follows:

Sec.  572.170  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) A parts/drawing list entitled, ``Parts/Drawing List, Part 572
Subpart T, Hybrid III 10 Year Old Child Test Dummy (HIII-10C), March,
2015,'' IBR approved for Sec.  572.171.
    (2) A drawings and inspection package entitled, ``Parts List and
Drawings, Part 572 Subpart T, Hybrid III 10 Year Old Child Crash Dummy
(HIII-10C), March 2015,'' IBR approved for Sec.  572.171, including:
* * * * *
    (3) A procedures manual entitled ``Procedures for Assembly,
Disassembly, and Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III 10 Year Old Child
Test Dummy (HIII-10C), March 2015''; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
572.171 and 572.177.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 572.171 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2),
and the introductory text of paragraph (a)(3), to read as follows:

Sec.  572.171  General description.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The parts enlisted in ``Parts/Drawing List, Part 572 Subpart T,
Hybrid III 10 Year Old Child Test Dummy (HIII-10C), March, 2015''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  572.170),
    (2) The engineering drawings and specifications contained in
``Parts List and Drawings, Part 572 Subpart T, Hybrid III 10 Year Old
Child Crash Dummy (HIII-10C), March 2015,'' which includes the
engineering drawings and specifications described in Drawing 420-0000,
the titles of the assemblies of which are listed in Table A, and,
    (3) A manual entitled ``Procedures for Assembly, Disassembly, and
Inspection (PADI) of the Hybrid III 10 Year Old Child Test Dummy (HIII-
10C), March 2015.''
* * * * ** * *

0
4. Section 572.177 is amended by revising the second sentence in
paragraph (a)(1) and the second sentence in paragraph (a)(2), and by
adding paragraphs (c)(18) and (c)(19), to read as follows:

Sec.  572.177  Test conditions and instrumentation.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * * It has a mass of 6.89  0.05 kg (15.2  0.1 lb) and a minimum mass moment of inertia of 2040 kg-cm\2\
(1.81 lbf-in-sec\2\) in yaw and pitch about the CG. * * *
    (2) * * * It has a mass of 1.91  0.05 kg (4.21  0.1 lb) and a minimum mass moment of inertia of 140 kg-cm\2\
(0.124 lbf-in-sec\2\) in yaw and pitch about the CG. * * *
    (c) * * *
    (18) Thorax probe acceleration, CFC 180,
    (19) Knee probe acceleration, CFC 600.
* * * * *

    Issued May 22, 2015.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator For Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-15279 Filed 6-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 25504]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09268]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4515-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Indiana; Amendment No. 10 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana (FEMA-4515-DR), dated April 3, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on March 28, 2022.

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

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

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-09268 Filed 4-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3382-3384]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01132]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0071; Notice 2]

Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota) has determined that
certain Model Year (MY) 2013-2019 Toyota RAV4 and MY 2014-2019 Toyota
Highlander/Highlander HV motor vehicles do not fully comply with S4 of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of
Interior Materials. Toyota filed a noncompliance report dated June 19,
2019, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on July 12, 2019, and later
amended that petition on August 13, 2019, for a decision that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety. This notice announces the grant of Toyota's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelley Adams-Campos, Safety Compliance
Engineer, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Toyota has determined that certain MY 2013-2019 Toyota RAV4 and
certain Toyota Highlander/Highlander HV motor vehicles do not fully
comply with paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior
Materials. Toyota filed a noncompliance report dated June 19, 2019,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on July 12, 2019, and
later amended its petition on August 13, 2019, for an exemption from
the notification and remedy requirement of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), and 49 CFR part
556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of Toyota's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on December 3, 2019, in the Federal Register (84
FR 66276). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0071.''

II. Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 2,144,217 MY 2013-2019 Toyota RAV4 and MY 2014-2019
Toyota Highlander/Highlander HV motor vehicles manufactured between
December 21, 2012, and March 28, 2019, are potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Toyota explains that the noncompliance relates to certain hook and
loop fasteners that attach the floor carpet to the underlying padding.
The loop side of the fastener is made from material that may not
comply, as required, with paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 302.
Specifically, when tested separately from the floor carpet, the loop
side of the fastener in the subject vehicles does not meet the burn
rate requirements of paragraph S4.3.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraphs S4.1 through S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 302 include the
requirements relevant to this petition:

    S4.1 The portions described in S4.2 of the following components
of vehicle occupant compartments shall meet the requirements of
S4.3: Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible
tops, armrests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and
side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings,
sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine
compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior
materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are
designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a
crash.
    S4.2.1 Any material that does not adhere to other material(s) at
every point of contact shall meet the requirements of S4.3.

    Paragraph S4.3(a) of FMVSS No. 302 requires that material described
in S4.1 and S4.2 shall not burn, nor transmit a flame front across its
surface, at a rate of more than 102 mm per minute. The requirement
concerning the transmission of a flame front shall not apply to a
surface created by cutting a test specimen for purposes of testing
pursuant to S5.

V. Summary of Toyota's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section (V.
Summary of Toyota's Petition), are the views and arguments provided by
Toyota.
    Toyota described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief
that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. In support of its petition, Toyota submitted the
following:

    1. During pre-production evaluations of the new model Highlander
(MY 2020) the supplier found that the loop fasteners might not meet
the burn rate requirement of FMVSS No. 302. These same fasteners are
used on the subject vehicles; they are attached to the underside of
the carpet near the front footwell. Toyota conducted testing of the
loop side of the fastener, in accordance with FMVSS No. 302; when
tested separately from the carpet, the burn rate of the loop side of
the fastener was 133 mm/min (worst of ten tests). The loop fastener
material did not have flame-retardant coating, and therefore the
burn rate requirement specified on the drawing was not met.
    2. The loop fastener material complies with FMVSS No. 302 when
tested as a ``composite'' as installed to the FMVSS No. 302
compliant carpet assembly.
    3. The purpose of FMVSS No. 302 is to ``reduce the deaths and
injuries to motor vehicle occupants caused by vehicle fires,
especially those originating in the interior of the vehicle from
sources such as matches or cigarettes.'' The noncomplying loop
fastener material would normally not be exposed to open flame or an
ignition source (like matches or cigarettes) in its installed
application, because it is installed beneath and completely covered
by the carpet material which complies with FMVSS No. 302.
    4. The loop fastener material is a very small portion of the
overall mass of the soft material portions comprising the carpet
assembly (i.e., 0.037% or less), and is significantly less in
relation to the entire vehicle interior surface area that could
potentially be exposed to flame. Therefore, it would have an
insignificant adverse effect on the interior material burn rate and
the potential for occupant injury due to interior fire.
    5. Toyota is not aware of any data suggesting that fires have
occurred in the field from installation of the noncomplying loop
fastener material.
     Toyota says NHTSA has previously granted at least ten
FMVSS No. 302 petitions for inconsequential noncompliance--one of
which was for a vehicle's seat heater assemblies, one of which was
for a vehicle's console armrest, one of which was for large truck
sleeper bedding, one of which was for seating material, and six of
which were for issues related to child restraints systems (CRS).
These are:

     Paccar (57 FR 45868, October 5, 1992)--Noncompliant
tape edging surrounding otherwise compliant bedding materials in a
large truck sleeper bed was deemed by the Agency to be
inconsequential given its low relative volume to the otherwise
complying surrounding material, as well as the fact the tape edging
passed bedding industry fire standards. Unlike the Toyota loop
fastener material in the subject vehicles, which is not exposed
directly to the occupant compartment air space, the tape edging of
the sleeper bed was exposed. Nonetheless, the Agency granted the
petition on the basis that the noncompliant material was surrounded
by compliant material and was of a low relative volume compared to
the compliant material.
     Fisher-Price (60 FR 41152, August 11, 1995)--
Noncompliant fabric used in CRS shoulder straps was deemed to be
inconsequential by the Agency, due to factors which included that
the margin of noncompliance was small; the shoulder straps that do
not comply are a small part of the CRS itself and a minimal part of
the fabric present in a vehicle's interior; the absence of reports
in which the noncompliance exists supported the Agency's decision
that the noncompliance is inconsequential. Toyota stated that the
Toyota loop fastener material is also a small part of the vehicle
carpet and a minimal part of the materials in the interior of the
subject vehicles.
     Century (60 FR 41148, August 11, 1995)--Noncompliant
seat covers were determined unlikely to pose a flammability risk
when securely sewn to the seat (i.e., the ``normal condition''),
based on some flammability testing of the material as a composite.
Unlike the Toyota loop fastener material in the subject vehicles,
which is not exposed directly to the occupant compartment air space
in the ``normal condition,'' the CRS covers were exposed. Similarly,
the Toyota subject loop material also passes the FMVSS No. 302
requirements when tested as a ``composite.'' The Agency also noted
that (as is the case with the subject Toyota loop material) ``the
absence of fires originating in these child restraints supported the
Agency's decision that the noncompliance does not have a
consequential effect on safety.''
     Cosco--(60 FR 41150, August 11, 1995)--Noncompliant
fabric used in CRS shoulder straps was deemed to be inconsequential
by the Agency due to the similarity to the Fisher-Price request for
inconsequentiality and the reasons set out in the notice granting
Fisher Price's appeal (see above). FMVSS No. 302 does not in itself
apply to child restraint systems, but paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 302
is invoked by reference in FMVSS No. 213; therefore, the child
restraint petitions are relevant precedents.
     Kolcraft (63 FR 24585, May 4, 1998)--One or more of the
fitting, face, or backing materials of CRS seat covers were
noncompliant. NHTSA determined the noncompliance to be
inconsequential because when tested as a composite (i.e., in the
``normal condition''), the covers met FMVSS No. 302 requirements.
Similarly, the Toyota subject loop fastener material passes the
FMVSS No. 302 requirements when tested as a ``composite.''
     Cosco (63 FR 30809, June 5, 1998)--NHTSA found that the
noncomplying fiberfill incorporated into a pillow located in a child
restraint was inconsequential to safety due to the unlikelihood of
exposure to an ignition source for various reasons: That the
noncompliant material was encased in materials which complied with
FMVSS No. 302, and that the fiberfill was only a limited quantity of
noncompliant material used in the CRS. Similarly, the subject Toyota
loop fastener material also passes the FMVSS No. 302 requirements
when tested as a composite, is unlikely to be exposed to a direct
ignition source, is surrounded by materials which comply with FMVSS
No. 302, and is only a limited quantity of noncompliant material in
the carpet assembly. The Agency also noted that (as is the case with
the subject Toyota loop material) ``the absence of fires originating
in these child restraints supported the Agency's decision that the
noncompliance does not have a consequential effect on safety.''
     Ford (63 FR 40780, July 30, 1998)--A noncompliant
center console armrest ``plus pad'' was determined by the Agency to
be inconsequential to safety in that, because of its location under
an exterior cover, it was unlikely to pose a flammability risk due
to the unlikelihood of its exposure to an ignition source. The
Agency was unaware of any occupant injuries in vehicle post-crash
fires that were caused by burning of the console armrests in those
vehicles. Toyota argued that Ford undertook ``composite'' testing
like Toyota's described above to support its petition.
     Graco (77 FR 14055, March 8, 2012)--Certain
noncompliant warning labels attached to the outside of detachable
accessory pillows were deemed inconsequential by the Agency due to
the relatively small size of the label, together with its proximity
to other materials on the CRS that were treated with flame retardant
materials, rendering the likelihood of ignition of the label
extremely low. The subject Toyota loop fastener material is
surrounded by compliant materials, is not exposed to the occupant
compartment air space, and is a small part of the vehicle carpet
assembly and a minimal part of the otherwise compliant materials in
the interior of the subject vehicles.
     Toyota (80 FR 4035, January 26, 2015)--Certain
noncompliant front and rear seat back and seat cushion seat heaters
were determined by the Agency to be inconsequential to safety in
that the seat heaters were unlikely to pose a flammability risk. The
Agency was unaware of any occupant injuries regarding these seat
heaters in the subject vehicles. The seat heaters would not
accommodate a flame rate beyond what is permitted by FMVSS No. 302
when exposed directly to an open flame in the installed condition
(as a composite). It was also demonstrated that the seat heater was
a very small portion of the overall mass of the seat assembly.
According to Toyota, the facts here are similar. The subject loop
fastener material is unlikely to be exposed to an ignition source in
the installed condition, it does not accommodate a flame beyond what
is permitted by FMVSS No. 302 when exposed directly to an open flame
in the installed condition (as a composite), the loop material is
only a very small portion of the overall mass of the carpet
assembly, and there are no known field ignition events.
     Toyota (83 FR 16433, April 16, 2018)--Certain
noncompliant needle punch felt material used in the front and rear
seat covers and rear center armrest assemblies was determined by the
Agency to be inconsequential to safety. The Agency stated that: (1)
The needle punch felt material is covered by other materials that do
comply with FMVSS No. 302, thus, the needle punch felt material is
protected from the occupant compartment where it could directly come
into contact with an ignition source such as a match or cigarette;
(2) when the needle punch felt material is tested as a composite
with the FMVSS No. 302 compliant materials (i.e., seat cover, cover
pad, foam pad, seat heater, carpet, and storage bin) that cover the
punch felt material, the requirements for burn rate are met
accordingly; and (3) the noncompliant material is approximately 0.32
percent of the total mass of the soft material of the front seat
assembly and between 0.48 percent and 0.55 percent (less than 1
percent) of the total mass of the soft material of the rear seat
assembly. Therefore, the noncompliant material represents an
insignificant quantity of material compared to the total quantity of
interior vehicle material. The loop fasteners in the subject
vehicles share these same characteristics.

    Toyota concluded that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety and that its petition to be
exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required
by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by
49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.

VI. NHTSA's Analysis

    NHTSA has reviewed Toyota's evaluation that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The burden of
establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a
performance requirement in a standard--as opposed to a labeling
requirement--is more substantial and difficult to meet. Accordingly,
the Agency has not found many such noncompliances inconsequential.\1\
Potential performance failures of safety-critical equipment, like seat
belts or air bags, are rarely deemed inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality
based

upon NHTSA's prior decisions on noncompliance issues is the safety risk
to individuals who experience the type of event against which the
recall would otherwise protect.\2\ NHTSA also does not consider the
absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue is
inconsequential to safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a
complaint does not mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does
it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.'' \3\
``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction
have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that good luck will
continue to work.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \3\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
    \4\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk when it
``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire,
and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards, in
this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in the
future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA considered the following factors in evaluating this petition:

    First, according to the data provided by Toyota, the
noncompliant material has a mass that is insignificant when compared
to the overall mass of the carpet assembly. The petitioner stated
that the mass of the loop fastener constitutes approximately 0.037
percent or less of the soft material portions of the carpet
assembly. However, while Toyota argues that the noncompliant
material would not significantly fuel a fire, should it become
exposed, the relative measure, i.e., percentage, of a material
characteristic, i.e., mass, surface area, thickness, etc. without
consideration of other factors, e.g. the surrounding of the
noncompliant material with complying materials, does not alone mean
such a material would not significantly fuel a fire upon exposure to
an ignition source.
    Second, the loop fastener material in the subject vehicles is
covered by the carpet material which complies with FMVSS No. 302,
thus, the loop fastener material is protected from contact with an
ignition source originating from the occupant space.
    Third, the data submitted by Toyota shows that, when tested as a
single unit, the loop fasteners along with the carpet comply with
FMVSS No. 302.

    Toyota also stated that NHTSA has granted previous petitions whose
facts align with those at issue in the instant case. These include a
Paccar petition (57 FR 45868, October 5, 1992), a Fischer Price (60 FR
41152, August 11, 1995) petition, a Century petition, (60 FR 41148,
August 11, 1995), Kolcraft (63 FR 24585, May 4, 1998), Cosco petition
(60 FR 41150, August 11, 1995) and a Toyota petition (80 FR 4035,
January 26, 2015) where the non-compliant material represented a small
percentage of the interior fabric. As NHTSA states previously in this
section, the relative measure, i.e., percentage, of a material
characteristic, i.e., mass, surface area, thickness, etc. without
consideration of other factors does not alone mean such a material
would not significantly fuel a fire upon exposure to an ignition
source. Toyota also offered a past grant where a combination of
compliant and non-compliant fabric met FMVSS No. 302 when tested as a
single unit. (Kolcraft (63 FR 24585, May 4, 1998)). Finally, Toyota
cited several grants where NHTSA determined that noncompliant fabric
located where it would not encounter an ignition source was
inconsequential to safety. These include two Cosco petitions, (63 FR
30809, (June 5, 1998) and 60 FR 41150 (August 11, 1995), two Toyota
petitions (83 FR 16433, (April 16, 2018) and (80 FR 4035, January 26,
2015)) and a Ford petition (63 FR 40780, (July 30, 1998)). As noted
above, NHTSA evaluates each petition on its individual facts and does
not consider itself to be bound by these earlier grants. Nonetheless,
NHTSA has evaluated the subject petition and has made a determination
in a similar fashion.

VII. NHTSA's Decision

    NHTSA finds that Toyota has met its burden of persuasion of
demonstrating that the noncompliant small loop fasteners sewn into the
carpet at issue in this case do not present a risk to safety. The
noncompliant fabric present here must be separated from the carpet to
be deemed noncompliant as the carpet and loop patch together meet the
standard. The loop fasteners also constitute a small percentage of the
fabric area and are located where they are not likely to encounter an
ignition source. Accordingly, Toyota's petition is hereby granted.
Toyota is consequently exempted from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a free remedy for, the noncompliance under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject vehicles that Toyota no longer controlled
at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Toyota notified
them that the subject noncompliance existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke, III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-01132 Filed 1-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P