[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 9, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62105-62112]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23796]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 393 and 396

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0211]
RIN 2126-AC31

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Rear Impact
Guards and Rear Impact Protection

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA amends the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to include rear impact guards on the list of items that must
be examined as part of the required annual inspection for each
commercial motor vehicle (CMV). In addition, FMCSA amends the labeling
requirements for rear impact guards, and excludes road construction
controlled (RCC) horizontal discharge trailers from the rear impact
guard requirements, consistent with changes made by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to the corresponding
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). This final rule
responds to rulemaking petitions, as well as a recommendation from the
Government Accountability Office (GAO).

DATES: This final rule is effective December 9, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke Loy, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, FMCSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Dockets Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FMCSA organizes this final rule as follows:

I. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
II. Executive Summary
III. Legal Basis
IV. Background
    A. History of Rear Impact Guard Requirements
    B. History of Appendix A Requirements
V. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments
    A. Background and Proposed Rulemaking
    B. Comments and Responses
    1. Rear Impact Guards in Appendix A
    2. Rear Impact Guard Labeling
    3. Applicability--RCC Horizontal Discharge Trailers
    4. Other Comments
VI. International Impacts
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis
VIII. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review),
and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    B. Congressional Review Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small Entities)
    D. Assistance for Small Entities
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    H. Privacy
    I. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
    J. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

I. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket,
go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2019-0211/document and
choose the document to review. To view comments, click this final rule,
and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations
in Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202)
366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Dockets Operations.

II. Executive Summary

    Section 393.86 of the FMCSRs, ``Rear impact guards and rear end
protection,'' requires rear impact guards to be installed on most CMVs
to reduce the incidence of passenger compartment intrusion during
underride crashes in which a passenger vehicle strikes the rear of the
CMV. Regulations requiring rear impact guards have been in the FMCSRs
since 1952. The FMCSRs require that all CMVs be systematically
inspected, repaired, and maintained to ensure that all required parts
and accessories--including rear impact guards--are in safe and proper
operating condition at all times (Sec.  396.3(a)(1)). Operation of a
CMV with a missing or noncompliant rear impact guard is a violation of
the FMCSRs.
    Every CMV must be inspected at least once every 12 months. 49 CFR
396.17. A motor carrier may not use a CMV unless each component
identified in Appendix A to Part 396, Code of Federal Regulations,
``Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards,'' has passed the required
annual inspection. While the FMCSRs have required rear impact guards
for more than 65 years, they have not been included on the list of
components in Appendix G that must be inspected during the annual CMV
inspection. This means that a vehicle can pass an annual inspection
with a missing or damaged rear impact guard.
    In response to petitions from the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance (CVSA) and Jerry and Marianne Karth

(``the Karths'' \1\), a recommendation included in GAO Report GAO-19-
264, ``Truck Underride Guards: Improved Data Collection, Inspections,
and Research Needed,'' \2\ and Congressional correspondence,\3\ this
final rule amends the FMCSRs to include rear impact guards on the list
of items that must be examined as part of the required annual
inspection for each CMV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Copies of the petitions from CVSA and the Karths are
available online at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0211 and in Dockets Operations.
    \2\ A copy of the GAO Report is available in the docket for this
final rule.
    \3\ A copy of the letter is in the docket for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA published two final rules on November 19, 2004, relating to
rear impact guards. First, NHTSA amended the labeling requirement in
FMVSS No. 223, ``Rear impact guards,'' to permit the rear impact guard
certification label to be mounted on either the forward- or rearward-
facing surface of the horizontal member of the guard, provided the
label does not interfere with the retroreflective sheeting required by
the FMVSS (69 FR 67660).\4\ Prior to the amendment, the certification
label was required to be mounted on the forward-facing surface of the
horizontal member, 12 inches inboard of the right end of the guard.
Second, NHTSA amended the applicability section of FMVSS No. 224,
``Rear impact protection,'' to exclude RCC horizontal discharge
semitrailers from the requirements of the standard (69 FR 67663).\5\
NHTSA concluded that installation of rear impact guards on RCC
horizontal discharge trailers would interfere with the intended
function of the trailers and was therefore impracticable due to the
unique design and purpose of those vehicles. However, neither of
NHTSA's November 2004 amendments to the FMVSS was incorporated into the
corresponding rear impact requirements in section 393.86 of the FMCSRs.
FMCSA amends the FMCSRs to adopt the changes above to maintain
consistency with FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ You may view the NHTSA rule online at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2004/11/19/04-25704/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-rear-impact-guard-labels.
    \5\ RCC horizontal discharge trailers are used in the road
construction industry to deliver asphalt to construction sites and
gradually discharge asphalt mix into the paving machines overlaying
the road surface. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Rear
Impact Guards; Final Rule, 69 FR 67663 (Nov. 19, 2004). You may view
the NHTSA rule online at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2004/11/19/04-25703/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-rear-impact-guards-final-rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule does not result in incremental costs or benefits
beyond the baseline established in the FMCSRs. Although rear impact
guards are not currently among the items that must be examined during
annual inspections, 49 CFR 393.86 requires that certain CMVs operated
in interstate commerce be equipped with the devices, and 49 CFR
396.3(a) requires that parts and accessories, including rear impact
guards, remain in safe and proper operating conditions at all times.
Therefore, for the purposes of assessing the economic impact of this
final rule on motor carriers, the Agency assumes compliance as part of
the baseline established by the existing FMCSRs in section 393.86.
Neither the labeling requirements resulting from this final rule, nor
the exclusion of RCC horizontal discharge semitrailers from these
requirements, will result in incremental costs or benefits.

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act
of 1935 (1935 Act) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (1984 Act).
The 1935 Act, as amended, provides that ``[t]he Secretary of
Transportation may prescribe requirements for--(1) qualifications and
maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and
equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours
of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a private
motor carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation'' (49 U.S.C.
31502(b)). This final rule amends the FMCSRs to respond to petitions
for rulemaking. The adoption and enforcement of such rules is
specifically authorized by the 1935 Act. This final rule rests squarely
on that authority.
    The 1984 Act provides concurrent authority to regulate drivers,
motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary to
``prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety.'' The
regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for CMVs. At a
minimum, the regulations shall ensure that: (1) CMVs are maintained,
equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed
on operators of CMVs do not impair their ability to operate the
vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of CMVs is
adequate to enable them to operate vehicles safely; (4) the operation
of CMVs does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of
the operators; and (5) drivers are not coerced by motor carriers,
shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries to operate a
vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 31136
(which is the basis for much of the FMCSRs) or 49 U.S.C. chapters 51 or
313 (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5)).
    This final rule concerns parts and accessories necessary for the
safe operation of CMVs, and the inspection, repair, and maintenance of
CMVs. It is based on section 31136(a)(1) because it deals with CMV
maintenance of rear impact guards. The final rule does not address the
driver-centered requirements of sections 31136(a)(2)-(4). As the
amendments adopted by this final rule are primarily technical changes
that clarify existing requirements and improve enforcement consistency,
FMCSA believes there will be stakeholder support for this initiative
and that coercion to violate the amendments, which is already
prohibited by section 31136(a)(5), will not be an issue.
    Before prescribing any such regulations, FMCSA must consider the
``costs and benefits'' of any proposal (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and
31502(d)). As discussed in greater detail in the ``Regulatory
Analyses'' section, FMCSA has determined that this final rule is not a
significant regulatory action.

IV. Background

A. History of Rear Impact Guard Requirements

    The first Federal requirements concerning heavy vehicle rear
underride protection were issued in 1952 by the Bureau of Motor
Carriers of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The regulation
required all heavy trucks, trailers, and semitrailers manufactured
after December 31, 1952, to be equipped with a rear-end protection
device designed to help prevent underride. The rule required that the
ground clearance of the underride guard be no more than 30 inches when
the vehicle is empty. The rule also required that the underride guard
be located no more than 24 inches forward of the rear of the vehicle
and extend laterally to within 18 inches of each side. The underride
device was required to be ``substantially constructed and firmly
attached'' (17 FR 4445, May 15, 1952). The ICC's authority over motor
carrier safety was transferred to DOT by Section 6(e)(6)(C) of the
Department of Transportation Act (Pub. L. 89-670, 80 Stat. 931, 939-
940, Oct. 15, 1966). The authority was delegated by the Secretary to
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
    NHTSA was established in 1970 and authorized to prescribe safety
standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment in interstate
commerce, i.e., the FMVSS applicable to vehicle and equipment
manufacturers. On January

24, 1996, NHTSA published a final rule creating FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224
(61 FR 2004). The requirements apply to most trailers and semitrailers
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or more,
manufactured on or after January 26, 1998.
    FMVSS No. 223 specifies requirements that rear impact guards must
meet before they can be installed on new trailers or semitrailers. It
specifies strength and energy absorption requirements, as well as test
procedures that manufacturers and NHTSA will use to determine
compliance with the standard. The standard also requires the guard
manufacturer to permanently label the impact guard to certify that it
meets the requirements, and to provide instructions on the proper
installation of the guard.
    FMVSS No. 224 requires that most new trailers and semitrailers with
a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or more be equipped with a rear
impact guard meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 223. The guards must
extend laterally to within 4 inches of the sides of the trailer, have a
ground clearance of no more than 22 inches, and be placed as close as
possible to, but not more than 12 inches from, the rear of the vehicle.
To ensure that the guard will perform properly, the standard also
requires it to be mounted on the trailer or semitrailer in accordance
with the installation instructions provided by the guard manufacturer.
    On September 1, 1999, FHWA published a final rule amending the
FMCSRs to require trailers and semitrailers manufactured on or after
January 26, 1998, with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or more, be
equipped with rear impact guards that meet the requirements of FMVSS
No. 223. The rear impact guards must be installed to ensure that the
trailer or semitrailer meets the rear end protection requirements of
FMVSS No. 224. This rule was intended to ensure that the rear impact
protection requirements of the FMCSRs are consistent with the FMVSS (64
FR 47703).
    As stated previously, NHTSA published two final rules on November
19, 2004, relating to rear impact guards. NHTSA amended the labeling
requirement in FMVSS No. 223 to permit the rear impact guard
certification label to be mounted on either the forward- or rearward-
facing surface of the horizontal member of the guard (69 FR 67660), and
amended the applicability section of FMVSS No. 224 to exclude RCC
horizontal discharge semitrailers from the requirements of the standard
(69 FR 67663). However, neither of NHTSA's November 2004 amendments to
the FMVSS was incorporated into the corresponding rear impact
requirements in section 393.86 of the FMCSRs.

B. History of Appendix A Requirements

    Section 210 of the 1984 Act required the Secretary of
Transportation to establish standards for the annual or more frequent
(i.e., periodic) inspection of all CMVs engaged in interstate or
foreign commerce (49 U.S.C. 31142(b)). In response, FHWA adopted new
section 396.17 on December 7, 1988, which requires all CMVs to be
inspected at least once every 12 months (53 FR 49380, as amended on
Dec. 8, 1989 (54 FR 50722)). In establishing specific criteria for the
newly required annual inspection, FHWA looked to inspection criteria
that had been developed based on the specifications in part 393,
notably (1) the CVSA vehicle out-of-service criteria and (2) the
vehicle portion of the FHWA National Uniform Driver-Vehicle Inspection
Procedure (NUD-VIP). FHWA decided to use the vehicle portion of the
NUD-VIP as the criteria for successful completion of the annual
inspection, and in the December 1988 rule, established Appendix G to
the FMCSRs as the minimum periodic inspection standards for Sec.
396.17. FHWA noted that utilization of the FHWA NUD-VIP would (1)
provide the necessary inspection-related pass/fail criteria for the
periodic inspection at a more stringent level than the vehicle out-of-
service criteria, and (2) provide the proper level of Federal oversight
in establishing and revising the criteria. On October 14, 2021, the
final rule titled, ``Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; General
Technical, Organizational, Conforming, and Correcting Amendments'' (86
FR 57060) redesignated Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter III as
Appendix A to Part 396.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments

A. Background and Proposed Rulemaking

    Rear Impact Guards in Appendix A.\6\ In its petition, CVSA
requested that the Agency amend Appendix G to include specific language
regarding the inspection of rear impact guards during annual
inspections. The petition stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ At the time of the petitions for rulemaking, the GAO report,
and publication of the NPRM, Appendix A to Part 396 was codified as
Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter III. Therefore, those
petitions and the comments on the NPRM refer to Appendix G. However,
this final rule discusses them as referring to Appendix A.

    A vehicle's rear impact guard/rear end protection is inspected
roadside as part of the North American Standard Inspection Program.
However, the majority of commercial motor vehicles do not come into
contact with an inspector on an annual basis. . . .
    According to data available through FMCSA's Analysis and
Information Online web page, in fiscal year 2017 inspectors
document[ed] more than 2,300 violations related to rear impact
guards and rear end protection, more than half of which are for
components that are missing, damaged or improperly constructed.
Including rear impact guards and rear end protection in the periodic
inspection requirements in Appendix G will call additional attention
to this critical safety component and help ensure that each vehicle
is checked at least once a year, improving compliance and helping to
prevent fatalities and injuries when rear-end collisions occur.
Furthermore, including rear impact guards and rear end protection in
the periodic annual inspection standards will harmonize U.S.
regulations with those in Canada and Mexico, which include rear
impact guards and rear end protection as part of their annual
inspection programs.

    The Karths' petition requested that FMCSA ``[a]dd underride guards
to Appendix [A] and 396.17 (Periodic Inspection).''
    In addition, several Senators asked GAO to review data on truck
underride crashes and information on underride guards. Between January
2018 and March 2019, GAO conducted a performance audit that included a
literature review and interviews with stakeholders familiar with
underride crashes and guards.
    GAO Report GAO-19-264, published in March 2019, examines (1) the
data that DOT reports on underride crashes, and (2) the development and
use of underride guard technologies in the United States. GAO analyzed
DOT's underride crash data for 2008 through 2017; reviewed NHTSA's
proposed regulations and research on new guard technologies (80 FR
78418, Dec. 16, 2015); and interviewed stakeholders including DOT
officials, industry and safety groups, and State officials.
    With respect to FMCSA, GAO concluded that the lack of an annual
inspection requirement for rear impact guards potentially affects the
safety of the traveling public and FMCSA's ability to achieve its
safety mission. GAO stated that ``without explicitly including the
inspection of the rear guard in Appendix G, there is no assurance that
rear guards in operation will be inspected at least annually to ensure
they perform as designed to prevent or mitigate an underride crash.''
In its ``Recommendations for Executive Action,'' GAO stated:

    The Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration should revise Appendix [A] of the agency's
regulations to require that rear guards are inspected during
commercial vehicle annual inspections. (Recommendation 3)

    While the GAO review was being conducted, a group of Senators urged
the Agency to ``add `underride guards' to the list of annual inspection
items required [for] trucks and trailers under current periodic
inspection regulations.'' The Senators stated:

    Requiring an annual inspection of rear underride guards, in
addition to the current list of items already checked during annual
inspections, would ensure trucks and trailers are complying with
regulations already on the books. Therefore, we ask that FMCSA
consider initiating a rulemaking to amend federal Minimum Periodic
Inspection Standards to include a subsection on ``underride
guards.'' Should you decide to move forward with this rulemaking, we
respectfully request that an inserted subsection be identical to the
already mandated minimum standards of rear impact guards and rear
end protection.

    FMCSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on December
29, 2020 (85 FR 85571). In the NPRM, FMCSA proposed to amend then
Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter III, now Appendix A to Part 396,
``Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards,'' by adding rear impact guards
to the list of items required to be inspected pursuant to Sec.  396.17
as part of the required annual inspection for each CMV. FMCSA proposed
to amend Sec.  393.86(a)(6) to clarify that the certification label may
be on the forward- or rear-facing surface of the horizontal member of
the guard, provided it does not interfere with the retroreflective
sheeting required by the FMVSS. FMCSA also proposed to amend (1) Sec.
393.5 to add a definition of road construction controlled horizontal
discharge trailer consistent with the NHTSA definition in FMVSS No.
224, and (2) Sec. Sec.  393.86(a)(1) and 393.86(b)(1) to make it clear
that RCC horizontal discharge trailers are not required to have a rear
impact guard installed, consistent with the amendments made by NHTSA in
2004.
    Although neither of NHTSA's November 2004 amendments had been
incorporated into the rear impact requirements in section 393.86, FMCSA
stated in the NPRM that it was not aware of any enforcement or
compliance issues with respect to these items in the ensuing 15 years.
As such, FMCSA stated that it did not expect the proposed amendments to
have any impact on motor carriers.

B. Comments and Responses

    FMCSA solicited comments to the NPRM for a 60-day period, ending on
March 1, 2021. The Agency received a total of 23 comments from the
following parties: The Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys, Advocates
for Highway and Auto Safety, the American Trucking Associations (ATA),
the CVSA, the Institute for Safer Trucking, the Law Firm for Truck
Safety, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), the
National Association of Trailer Manufacturers (NATM), the National
Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), the Truck Trailer Manufacturers
Association (TTMA), the Truckload Carriers Association, and 12
individuals (Lois Durso, Stephen Eimers, Cathy Forman, Mark Hawkins,
Eric Hein, Jerry and Marianne Karth, Sulev Oun, Michael Poplaski,
Roderick Throgmorton, and three anonymous commenters).
    1. Rear Impact Guards in Appendix A. All commenters supported the
proposal to amend Appendix G to require rear impact guards to be
inspected as part of the annual inspection required under section
396.17, and this rule adopts the amendments largely as proposed in the
NPRM.
    TTMA suggested alternative language from that proposed in the NPRM
to clarify certain elements in Appendix A.
    TTMA stated that the phrase ``not securely attached'' in the
proposed 15.a.2 of Appendix A ``is vague and insufficient to catch many
unsafe, damaged or improperly repaired guards.'' TTMA suggested that
the inspection should not allow ``broken or missing fasteners, cracked
welds, corrosion that evidences any loss of original or parent
material, bends that indicate prior impact damage not yet repaired, or
asymmetrical repairs indicating the use [of] non-OEM approved
components.''
    FMCSA response: FMCSA agrees that the proposed language was
somewhat broad, and--consistent with other sections of Appendix A--has
amended the language of 15.a.2 to include examples of specific
conditions that could constitute ``not securely attached.'' FMCSA
emphasizes that the amended language is not an all-inclusive list, and
that motor carriers will have discretion to determine that a guard is
not securely attached (and thus, needs to be repaired/replaced) as a
result of other conditions observed during the annual inspection.
    TTMA stated that the phrase ``and not beyond'' in the proposed
15.a.3 of Appendix A ``is vague and could refer to either `the side
extremity of the trailer' or to the point 4 inches inboard.'' To avoid
confusion, TTMA suggested using the phrase ``. . . and not beyond the
side extremity of the trailer.''
    FMCSA response: FMCSA agrees, and has amended the language of
15.a.3 to make it clear that the guard must extend to within 4 inches
of the side extremity of the vehicle, but may not extend beyond the
side extremity of the vehicle.
    TTMA stated that the proposed language in 15.a.4-6 and 15.b.4-5 of
Appendix A starts with ``Guard,'' and since the guard is the whole
system including the uprights, horizontal member, and attachments, TTMA
suggested that ``Guard'' should more appropriately be ``Guard
horizontal member'' in these sections.
    FMCSA response: FMCSA agrees, and has amended the language as
suggested. (FMCSA notes that this applies to 15.a.3-6, as opposed to
15.a.4-6, and to 15.b.3-5, as opposed to 15.b.4-5, respectively).
    2. Rear Impact Guard Labeling. Most commenters supported the NPRM
proposal to amend the labeling requirements in Sec.  393.86(a)(6) to be
consistent with the changes made by NHTSA in 2004.
    While ATA supported the proposed amendment to make the FMCSR
labeling requirement consistent with the corresponding FMVSS labeling
requirement, it noted support for a CVSA petition for rulemaking
submitted to FMCSA requesting that the rear impact guard labeling
requirement be removed from section 393.86(a)(6) of the FMCSRs. CVSA
and NADA opposed the proposed amendment, and both recommended that
FMCSA instead eliminate the labeling requirement.
    FMCSA response: As noted in the NPRM, the proposal to amend the
labeling requirement in section 393.86(a)(6) was simply an action to
make the labeling requirement in the FMCSRs consistent with a change
made to the corresponding FMVSS by NHTSA in 2004. While CVSA has
submitted petitions for rulemaking to both FMCSA and NHTSA requesting
elimination of the labeling requirement for rear impact guards, FMCSA
action on that petition is outside the scope of this rulemaking and
will be addressed separately.
    3. Applicability--RCC Horizontal Discharge Trailers. Most
commenters supported the NPRM proposal to add a definition of road
construction controlled horizontal discharge trailer, and to make it
clear that RCC horizontal discharge trailers are not required to have a
rear impact guard installed,

consistent with the amendments made by NHTSA in 2004.
    The Law Firm for Truck Safety opposed the proposal to exclude RCC
horizontal discharge trailers from the requirement to have a rear
impact guard, stating that ``NHTSA is wrong to have amended the
applicability section of FMVSS No. 224, `Rear impact protection,' to
exclude RCC horizontal discharge semitrailers from the requirements of
the standard.'' The commenter noted that there are rear impact guards
on various trucks in Europe ``that this rule making is attempting to
exclude.''
    FMCSA response: As noted in the NPRM, the proposal to exclude RCC
horizontal discharge trailers from the requirement to have a rear
impact guard installed was simply an action to make the applicability
requirements in the FMCSRs consistent with those made via an amendment
to the FMVSS made by NHTSA in 2004. Any action to remove RCC horizontal
discharge trailers from the list of excluded vehicles in FMVSS No. 224
would have to be done by NHTSA through a notice and comment rulemaking
proceeding and is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    4. Other comments. In addition to comments on the proposed
amendments to Appendix A, labeling, and RCC horizontal discharge
trailers, FMCSA also received comments regarding a wide range of other
issues relating to underride protection, including (a) enhanced
strength requirements for rear impact guards, (b) the lack of
regulations for side underride protection, (c) rear impact protection
for single unit trucks, (d) the recommendations from the GAO Report,
and (e) automatic emergency braking. All these issues are outside of
the scope of this rulemaking.

VI. International Impacts

    The FMCSRs, and any exceptions to the FMCSRs, apply only within the
United States (and, in some cases, U.S. territories). Motor carriers
and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries in
which they operate, unless an international agreement states otherwise.
Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences
among nations.

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis

A. Part 393--Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation

Sec.  393.5 Definitions
    FMCSA amends this section by adding a definition of Road
construction controlled horizontal discharge trailer.
Sec.  393.86(a)(1) General Requirements for Trailers and Semitrailers
Manufactured on or After January 26, 1998
    FMCSA amends this section by adding RCC horizontal discharge
trailers to the list of vehicles that are not required to have a rear
impact guard.
Sec.  393.86(a)(6) Certification and Labeling Requirements for Rear
Impact Protection Guards
    FMCSA amends this section to clarify that the label may be on the
forward- or rear-facing surface of the horizontal member of the guard,
provided it does not interfere with the retroreflective sheeting
required by the FMVSS.
Sec.  393.86(b)(1) Requirements for Motor Vehicles Manufactured After
December 31, 1952 (Except Trailers or Semitrailers Manufactured on or
After January 26, 1998)
    FMCSA amends this section by adding RCC horizontal discharge
trailers to the list of vehicles that are not required to have a rear
impact guard.

B. Appendix A to Part 396 Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards

    FMCSA amends Appendix A by adding rear impact guards to the list of
items required to be inspected pursuant to Sec.  396.17.

VIII. Regulatory Analyses

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O.
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    FMCSA has considered the impact of this final rule under E.O. 12866
(58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563
(76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review, and DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) determined that this final rulemaking is not a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by
E.O. 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and
benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. Accordingly, OMB has not
reviewed it under that E.O.
    In response to rulemaking petitions and a recommendation from the
GAO, FMCSA amends Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter III in 49 CFR.
This amendment adds rear impact guards to the list of items that must
be examined as part of the required annual inspection for each CMV.
    Section 393.86(a) currently requires most trailers and semitrailers
manufactured on or after January 26, 1998, to be equipped with rear
impact guards. This final rule does not require installation or
maintenance of rear impact guards beyond the current requirements in
section 393.86.
    This final rule does not result in incremental costs or benefits
beyond the baseline established in the FMCSRs. As required by 49 CFR
396.17, motor carriers currently complete annual inspections of all
items identified in Appendix G. FMCSA assumes that motor carriers
currently review rear impact guards in their annual inspection programs
to remain in compliance with the current requirements in 49 CFR
396.3(a)(1), which states that parts and accessories, including rear
impact guards, must be in safe and proper operating conditions at all
times. Additionally, CMVs are subject to inspections conducted in
accordance with the CVSA's North American Standard Inspection Program
that may occur throughout the year, which include the examination of
rear impact guards. According to data contained in the Motor Carrier
Management Information System (MCMIS), most motor carriers comply with
49 CFR 396.3(a)(1). Specifically, there were approximately 2.1 million
vehicle roadside inspections conducted in the United States in 2019,
and there were approximately 3.1 million vehicle violations cited
during those inspections. Only 3,189--or about 0.103 percent--were rear
impact guard violations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Data Source: MCMIS data snapshot as of 5/28/2021, including
current year-to-date information for CY 2021. The data presented are
accurate as of the date listed, but are subject to update as new or
additional information may be reported to MCMIS following the
snapshot date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA also makes two minor changes to maintain consistency between
the FMCSRs and NHTSA's FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224. As described above,
these changes provide consistent labeling requirements and exclude RCC
horizontal discharge semitrailers from the requirements of this
standard. These administrative changes do not result in incremental
impacts.

B. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808), the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as
not a ``major rule.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A ``major rule'' means any rule that OMB finds has resulted
in or is likely to result in (a) an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more; (b) a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, geographic regions, Federal,
State, or local government agencies; or (c) significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export
markets (49 CFR 389.3).

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small Entities)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their regulatory
actions on small businesses and other small entities and to minimize
any significant economic impact. The term small entities comprises
small businesses and 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 (5
U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the
impact of all regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies
strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.
    Small entity is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(3) as having the same
meaning small business concern under Section 3 of the Small Business
Act. This includes any small business concern that is independently
owned and operated and is not dominant in its field of operation.
Section 601(4), likewise, includes within the definition of ``small
entities'' not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their fields of operation. In
addition, Section 601(5) defines small entities as governments of
cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts with populations less than 50,000. The Small Business
Administration develops the size standards used to classify entities as
small, and establishes separate standards for each industry, as defined
by the North American Industry Classification System. The motor
carriers affected by this final rule fall into many different industry
codes with differing size standards. Because this final rule impacts
all motor carriers, including those considered to be small entities,
this rule will impact a substantial number of small entities.
    However, FMCSA has determined that this final rule does not have a
significant impact on the affected entities. This final rule requires
motor carriers to include rear impact guards on the list of items that
must be examined as part of the required annual CMV inspection. FMCSA
believes that motor carriers have been inspecting the rear impact
guards on their CMVs to remain in compliance with requirements that
have been in the FMCSRs since 1952. As such, this final rule does not
have incremental impacts on the affected entities. The two minor
changes to maintain consistency between the FMCSRs and NHTSA's FMVSS
Nos. 223 and 224 do not result in incremental impacts. The impacts of
this final rule are de minimis, and therefore, the final rule does not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    Consequently, I certify that the final rule does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,\9\ FMCSA wants to assist small
entities in understanding this final rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking
initiative. If the final rule would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, (Mar. 29, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National
Ombudsman, see https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/oversight-advocacy/office-national-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 FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
DOT has a policy regarding the rights of small entities to regulatory
enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for
exercising these rights.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
(UMRA) 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 $170 million
(which is the value equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for
inflation to 2020 levels) or more in any one year. Though this final
rule would not result in such an expenditure, and the analytical
requirements of UMRA do not apply as a result, the Agency discusses the
effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains no new information collection under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for federalism under Section 1(a) of
Executive Order 13132 if it has ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' FMCSA determined that this final rule
does not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor does it
limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document
preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this final rule does
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation
of a Federalism Impact Statement.

H. Privacy

    The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005,\10\ requires the Agency
to assess the privacy impact of a regulation that will affect the
privacy of individuals. This rule would not require the collection of
personally identifiable information (PII).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Public Law 107-347, sec. 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec.
17, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies
and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system
of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.
    The E-Government Act of 2002,\11\ requires Federal agencies to
conduct a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that
collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable
form. No new or substantially changed technology will collect,
maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rule.
Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, note following 5
U.S.C. 552a (Dec. 4, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Agency submitted a Privacy Threshold Assessment to
evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on

collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information.
The DOT Privacy Office has determined that this rulemaking does not
create privacy risk.

I. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

    This final 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.

J. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    FMCSA analyzed this final rule pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined this action is categorically excluded from further analysis
and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680, March 1, 2004),
Appendix 2, paragraph (aa). The Categorical Exclusion (CE) in paragraph
(aa) covers regulations requiring motor carriers, their officers,
drivers, agents, representatives, and employees directly in control of
CMVs to inspect, repair, and provide maintenance for every CMV used on
a public road. The requirements adopted in this rule are covered by
this CE and the final rule does not have any effect on the quality of
the environment.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA amends 49 CFR part 393 and
Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter III as follows:

PART 393--PARTS AND ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR SAFE OPERATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 393 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 31136, 31151, and 31502; sec. 1041(b) of
Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); sec. 5301 and 5524 of
Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1543, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
2. Amend Sec.  393.5 by adding a definition for Road construction
controlled horizontal discharge trailer in alphabetical order to read
as follows:

Sec.  393.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Road construction controlled horizontal discharge trailer means a
trailer or semitrailer that is equipped with a mechanical drive and a
conveyor to deliver asphalt and other road building materials, in a
controlled horizontal manner, into a lay down machine or paving
equipment for road construction and paving operations.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  393.86 revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(6) introductory text,
and (b)(1) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  393.86  Rear impact guards and rear end protection.

    (a)(1) General requirements for trailers and semitrailers
manufactured on or after January 26, 1998. Each trailer and semitrailer
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or more,
and manufactured on or after January 26, 1998, must be equipped with a
rear impact guard that meets the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 223 (49 CFR 571.223) in effect at the time the
vehicle was manufactured. When the rear impact guard is installed on
the trailer or semitrailer, the vehicle must, at a minimum, meet the
requirements of FMVSS No. 224 (49 CFR 571.224) in effect at the time
the vehicle was manufactured. The requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section do not apply to pole trailers (as defined in Sec.  390.5 of
this chapter); pulpwood trailers, low chassis vehicles, special purpose
vehicles, wheels back vehicles, and road construction controlled
horizontal discharge trailers (as defined in Sec.  393.5); and trailers
towed in driveaway-towaway operations (as defined in Sec.  390.5).
* * * * *
    (6) Certification and labeling requirements for rear impact
protection guards. Each rear impact guard used to satisfy the
requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be permanently
marked or labeled as required by FMVSS No. 223 (49 CFR 571.223, S5.3).
The label shall be placed on the forward or rearward facing surface of
the horizontal member of the guard, provided that the label does not
interfere with the retroreflective sheeting required by S<IP_ADDRESS>.1(c)
of FMVSS No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), and is readily accessible for visual
inspection. The certification label must contain the following
information:
* * * * *
    (b)(1) Requirements for motor vehicles manufactured after December
31, 1952 (except trailers or semitrailers manufactured on or after
January 26, 1998). Each motor vehicle manufactured after December 31,
1952, (except truck tractors, pole trailers, pulpwood trailers, road
construction controlled horizontal discharge trailers, or vehicles in
driveaway-towaway operations) in which the vertical distance between
the rear bottom edge of the body (or the chassis assembly if the
chassis is the rearmost part of the vehicle) and the ground is greater
than 76.2 cm (30 inches) when the motor vehicle is empty, shall be
equipped with a rear impact guard(s). The rear impact guard(s) must be
installed and maintained in such a manner that:
* * * * *

PART 396--INSPECTION, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE

0
4. The authority citation for part 396 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136, 31151, 31502; sec.
32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; sec. 5524, Pub. L. 114-
94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
5. Amend Appendix A to Part 396 by adding Section 15 to read as
follows:

Appendix A to Part 396--Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards

* * * * *
    15. Rear Impact Guard
    a. Trailers and semitrailers with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,001
lbs.) or more, manufactured on or after January 26, 1998 (see
exceptions in Sec.  393.86(a)(1)).
    1. Missing guard.
    2. Guard is not securely attached to trailer, including broken
or missing fasteners, any welds or parent metal cracked, or other
damage that compromises secure attachment of the guard.
    3. Guard horizontal member does not extend to within 100 mm (4
inches) of each, or extends beyond either, side extremity of the
vehicle.
    4. Guard horizontal member is more than 560 mm (22 inches) above
the ground.
    5. Guard horizontal member is more than 305 mm (12 inches)
forward of the rear extremity of the vehicle.
    6. Guard horizontal member does not have a cross sectional
vertical height of at least 100 mm (4 inches) across its entire
width.

    b. Commercial motor vehicles manufactured after December 31,
1952 (except trailers and semitrailers manufactured on or after
January 26, 1998) (see exceptions in Sec.  393.86(b)(1) and Sec.
393.86(b)(3)).
    1. Missing guard.
    2. Guard is not securely attached to trailer by bolts, welding,
or other comparable means.
    3. Guard horizontal member is more than 762 mm (30 inches) above
the ground.
    4. Guard horizontal member does not extend to within 457 mm (18
inches) of each side extremity of the vehicle.
    5. Guard horizontal member is more than 610 mm (24 inches)
forward of the rear extremity of the vehicle.

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
Meera Joshi,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-23796 Filed 11-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: November 22, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 70607]
[DOCID:fr22no05-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-85-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Annual
Great Plains Surcharge Refund

November 15, 2005.
    Take notice that on November 4, 2005, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Corporation (Transco) filed its report of Great Plains Surcharge
refunds for the period November 1, 2003 through March 31, 2004. Transco
states that its filing complies with the Great Plains Refund Provisions
in section 39 of the general terms and conditions (GT&C) of Transco's
FERC Gas Tariff.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on November 21, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6433 Filed 11-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42515-42516]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17012]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1050-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Neg Rate 2013-07-09 BP NRA NC to be effective 7/10/
2013.
    Filed Date: 7/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130709-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/22/13.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1043-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Withdraw filing in RP13-1043-000.
    Filed Date: 7/9/13.
    Accession Number: 20130709-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/22/13.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests,

service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information,
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 10, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17012 Filed 7-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 179 (Friday, September 14, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46666-46669]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19838]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9189; Product Identifier 2016-NM-114-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening
of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposal for certain The Boeing
Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series
airplanes. This action revises the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
by adding airplanes to the applicability and adding a measurement of
the distance between the hooks of the torsion spring of the lanyard
assembly. We are proposing this airworthiness directive (AD) to address
the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions would
impose an additional burden over those in the NPRM, we are reopening
the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these
changes.

DATES: The comment period for the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on October 13, 2016 (81 FR 70647), is reopened.
    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by October 29, 2018.

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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, 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-2016-9189.

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-2016-
9189; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this SNPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Craig, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin

Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-9189;
Product Identifier 2016-NM-114-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this SNPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this SNPRM 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 SNPRM.

Discussion

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that
would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on October 13, 2016 (81 FR 70647). The NPRM was
prompted by reports of passenger service units (PSUs) becoming detached
from the supporting airplane structure in several Model 737 airplanes
during survivable accidents. The NPRM proposed to require modifying the
PSUs and life vest panels by replacing the existing inboard lanyard and
installing two new lanyards on the outboard edge of the PSUs and life
vest panels.

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, we have determined that additional
airplanes are subject to the unsafe condition. In addition, we have
determined that the torsion spring of a certain lanyard assembly may be
manufactured incorrectly and have an inadequate distance between the
hooks of the torsion spring. Since the discrepant torsion springs may
have been installed in production, as well as on airplanes modified in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, dated September
24, 2015, we have determined that it is necessary to measure the
distance between the hooks of the torsion spring of the lanyard
assembly and replace discrepant lanyard assemblies.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM. The
following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's
response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and commenter
London Smith expressed their support for the NPRM.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets
per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not affect the
accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.
    We agree with the commenter that STC ST00830SE does not affect the
accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore,
the installation of STC ST00830SE does not affect the ability to
accomplish the actions that would be required by this SNPRM. We have
not changed this SNPRM in this regard.

Request To Extend the Compliance Time

    Japan Airlines (JAL) and American Airlines (AA) requested that the
compliance time in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be extended from 60
months to 84 months. JAL suggested that, due to Boeing's manufacturing
schedule for the kits, Boeing might not manufacture an adequate number
of kits within the proposed compliance time. AA stated that extending
the compliance time would allow operators to perform the modification
during regularly scheduled heavy maintenance checks, thereby reducing
the financial burden on operators.
    We disagree with the requests. In developing an appropriate
compliance time for this action, we considered the urgency of the
unsafe condition along with the practical aspect of accomplishing the
required modification at a time corresponding to the normal scheduled
maintenance for most operators. According to the manufacturer, an
adequate number of modification kits will be available to modify the
affected fleet within the proposed compliance time. However, under the
provisions of paragraph (i) of this SNPRM, we will consider requests
for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data
are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would
provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this SNPRM
in this regard.

Request To Clarify Service Information Requirements

    AA requested that we clarify that data notes (b) and (d) to Figure
1 of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, dated September 24, 2015, can
be complied with in accordance with an operator's procedures. AA noted
paragraph 3.B.1.b. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-25-1707, dated September 24, 2015, which requires the
installation of new lanyards in accordance with Figure 1 of the service
information, is a Required for Compliance (RC) step. AA added that data
notes (b) and (d) to Figure 1 of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707,
dated September 24, 2015, provide latitude when the operator has an
accepted alternative procedure by using the term ``refer to.''
    We agree to clarify that the operator is allowed latitude in
accomplishing work steps that use the term ``refer to.'' If a step is
marked RC and a procedure or document may be followed to accomplish an
action (e.g., the design approval holder's procedure or document may be
used, but an FAA-accepted procedure could also be used), the
appropriate terminology to use to cite the procedure or document is
``refer to . . . as an accepted procedure.'' We have not changed this
SNPRM in this regard.

Request To Add Airplanes to the Applicability

    United Airlines (UAL) noted that the proposed AD did not refer to
the PSUs on Model 757-200 and -300 airplanes, which can have the same
part numbers as the airplanes addressed by the proposed AD. UAL stated
that operators who operate both of these fleet types need to review the
risk of having both pre- and post-AD parts in their inventory. UAL
added that they will mitigate the risk of potential parts intermingling
by modifying their Model 757-200 and -300 airplanes with the same PSU
modification.
    We infer that UAL requests that Model 757-200 and -300 series
airplanes should be included in the applicability of this proposed AD.
We agree to investigate whether a similar unsafe condition exists on
Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes. We will take appropriate
action based on the result of that investigation. However, delaying
this SNPRM in order to determine if Model 757 airplanes should be added
to the applicability would be inappropriate given that we

have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that the
modifications must be done to ensure continued safety. We have not
changed this SNPRM in this regard.

Request To Change Text To Match the Service Information

    Boeing requested that we change wording in the proposed AD that
discusses ``. . . removing the existing lanyard and installing two new
lanyards. . .'' to instead read ``. . . replacing the existing lanyard
and installing two new lanyards. . . .'' Boeing stated that the
proposed text more accurately describes the modification required by
the service bulletin.
    We agree with the request. We have updated the wording of the
applicable sentence in the Discussion and Related Service Information
under 1 CFR part 51 sections of this SNPRM.

Request To Clarify Language Describing What Prompted the AD

    Boeing requested that the word ``incidents'' be changed to
``accidents'' in language describing what prompted the proposed AD.
Boeing noted that the events in which PSUs became detached were
accidents, not incidents, as defined by the NTSB and International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 13.
    We agree to make this change, which will more accurately define
these events according to industry standards. We have updated the
Discussion section and paragraph (e) of this SNPRM to reflect this
change.

Request To Refer to New Service Information

    Boeing requested that we update the proposed AD to refer to Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2018, which was
recently released. Boeing stated that the service bulletin would be
revised to include the 737NG Boeing Business Jet (BBJ) aircraft
effectivity blocks, which were omitted in the original revision of the
service bulletin.
    We agree with the commenter's request. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-
25-1707, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2018, adds airplanes to the
effectivity, adds a new measurement of the torsion spring of the
lanyard assembly, and clarifies the instructions for attaching the
lanyard assembly torsion spring to the PSU rail. For these reasons, we
have updated this SNPRM to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-
1707, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2018.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 1, dated
May 18, 2018. This service information describes procedures for
modifying the PSUs and life vest panels by replacing the existing
inboard lanyard and installing two new lanyards on the outboard edge of
the PSUs and life vest panels, measuring the distance between the hooks
of the torsion spring of the lanyard assembly, replacing any discrepant
lanyard assemblies, and re-identifying serviceable lanyard assemblies.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    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.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a
result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on
this SNPRM.

Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM

    This SNPRM would require accomplishment of the actions identified
as ``RC'' (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2018,
described previously, except as discussed under ``Differences Between
this SNPRM and the Service Information,'' and except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD. 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-2016-9189.

Differences Between This SNPRM and the Service Information

    The effectivity of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 1,
dated May 18, 2018, is limited to Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -
900, and -900ER series airplanes, line numbers 1 through 6009, without
a Boeing Sky Interior (BSI). However, the applicability of this
proposed AD includes all Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900,
and -900ER series airplanes without a BSI. Because the affected lanyard
assemblies are rotable parts, we have determined that these parts could
later be installed on airplanes that were initially delivered with
acceptable lanyard assemblies, thereby subjecting those airplanes to
the unsafe condition. This difference has been coordinated with Boeing.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 2,015 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                      Labor cost                  Parts cost                  Cost per product            Cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and modification........  Up to 75 work-hours x   Up to $11,760................  Up to $18,135................  Up to $36,542,025
                                      $85 per hour = Up to
                                      $6,375.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in
our cost estimate.

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-9189; Product Identifier
2016-NM-114-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 29, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category, without a Boeing Sky Interior (BSI).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/
furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of passenger service units
(PSUs) becoming detached from the supporting airplane structure in
several Model 737 series airplanes during survivable accidents. We
are issuing this AD to address PSUs and life vest panels detaching
from the supporting airplane structure, which could lead to
passenger injuries and impede passenger and crew egress during
evacuation.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do all
applicable actions identified as ``RC'' (required for compliance)
in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2018.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or
(h)(2) of this AD, no person may install on any airplane a PSU or
life vest panel, unless the lanyard assembly has been updated as
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes that have PSUs or life vest panels without the
updated lanyard assemblies installed: After modification of the
airplane as required by this AD.
    (2) For airplanes that have PSUs or life vest panels with the
updated lanyard assemblies installed: As of the effective date of
this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be
approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration
deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Scott Craig,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section,
FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 29, 2018.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-19838 Filed 9-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P