[Federal Register: November 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 215)]
[Notices]
[Page 62895-62896]
[DOCID:fr07no07-100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0004]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a Currently
Approved Information Collection: Motor Carrier Identification Report

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

ACTION: Notice and request for information.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval and invites public comment. The FMCSA requests approval to
revise an ICR entitled, ``Motor Carrier Identification Report,'' which
is used to identify FMCSA regulated entities, help prioritize the
agency's activities, aid in assessing the safety outcomes of those
activities, and for statistical purposes.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before January 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Department of
Transportation (DOT) Docket Management System (DMS) Docket Number FMCSA
Docket Number FMCSA-2007-0004 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the on-line instructions for submitting

comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Group Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington DC, 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below:
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140

on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgement that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or post
card or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78; Apr. 11, 2000). This
information is also available at http://Docketinfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Arlene D. Thompson, Information
Systems Specialist, Office of Information Technology, Operations
Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 6th Floor, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail Address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: Title 49 U.S.C. 504(b)(2) provides the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) with authority to require carriers, lessors,
associations, or classes of them to file annual, periodic, and special
reports containing answers to questions asked by the Secretary. The
Secretary may also prescribe the form of records required to be
prepared or compiled and the time period during which records must be
preserved (See Sec. Sec.  504(b)(1) and (d)). The FMCSA will use this
data to administer its safety programs by establishing a database of
entities that are subject to its regulations. This database
necessitates that these entities notify the FMCSA of their existence.
For example, under 49 CFR 390.19(a), FMCSA requires all motor carriers
beginning operations to file a Form MCS-150 entitled, ``Motor Carrier
Identification Report.'' This report is filed by all motor carriers
conducting operations in interstate or international commerce within 90
days after beginning operations. It asks the respondent to provide the
name of the business entity that owns and controls the motor carrier
operation, address and telephone of principal place of business,
assigned identification number(s), type of operation, types of cargo
usually transported, number of vehicles owned, term leased and trip
leased, driver information, and certification statement signed by an
individual authorized to sign documents on behalf of the business
entity.
    The Department of Transportation (DOT) and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002 (DOT Appropriations Act) (Pub.
L. 107-87, 115 Stat. 833 (December 18, 2001) directed the agency to
issue an interim final rule (IFR) to ensure that new entrant motor
carriers are knowledgeable about the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) and standards. The IFR was published on May 13,
2002 (67 FR 31983). The Form MCS-150A associated with this rule is
entitled, ``Safety Certification for Application for U.S. DOT Number,''
and is used to help ensure that new entrants are knowledgeable about
the Federal motor carrier safety regulations and standards before being
granted registration authority to operate in interstate commerce
(Intrastate carriers are not considered new entrants since they do not
operate in interstate

commerce; and thus do not need to complete or file the Form MCS-150A.).
Under the Form MCS-150A, as required by 49 CFR 385.305, the new entrant
must certify that it has a system(s) in place to ensure compliance with
applicable requirements covering driver qualifications, hours-of-
service, controlled substance and alcohol testing, vehicle condition,
accident monitoring and hazardous materials (HM) transportation. The
certification reminds the new entrant of its statutory and regulatory
responsibilities, which if neglected or violated, may subject the
applicant to civil penalties and lead to the revocation of the new
entrant registration.
    On June 30, 2004, the agency issued another final rule entitled,
``Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations: Hazardous Materials Safety
Permits,'' (69 FR 39350) which required all HM carriers (both
interstate and intrastate) to complete and file the Form MCS-150B
entitled, ``Combined Motor Carrier Identification Report and HM Permit
Application,'' to obtain a safety permit to transport hazardous
materials. The safety program under 49 CFR 390.19(a) also requires all
HM permitted carriers to complete Form MCS-150B in place of the current
Form MCS-150 to ``renew'' both their permit and their DOT numbers
according to the DOT number renewal schedule.
    Accordingly, FMCSA seeks to revise this currently-approved
information collection to update the records and forms associated with
its safety programs identified above; and to identify the regulated
entities currently engaged in these activities.
    Title: Motor Carrier Identification Report.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0013.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently-approved information
collection.
    Respondents: Motor carriers and commercial motor vehicle drivers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 472,470.
    Estimated Time per Response: To complete Form MCS-150--20 minutes;
and for Form MCS-150A--9 minutes. To complete Form MCS-150B (HM Permit
Application)--6 minutes for interstate carriers that have already
completed the Form MCS-150; and for intrastate carriers that have never
completed a Form MCS-150--they will need about 16 minutes to complete
the permit renewal.
    Expiration Date: January 31, 2008.
    Frequency of Response: One-time for Form MCS-150; biennially for
MCS-150A; and MCS-150B.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 119,270 hours [108,825 hours for
Form MCS-150 + 10,305 hours for Form MCS-150A + 140 hours for Form MCS-
150B = 119,270 hours].
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the FMCSA's performance; (2) the accuracy
of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that
the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the
collected information. The agency will summarize or include your
comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued on: November 1, 2007.
Terry Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. E7-21880 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22016-22019]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07824]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0015; Notice 2]

Arai Helmet, 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: Arai Helmet, Inc. (Arai), has determined that certain Arai
Corsair X Mamola Edge motorcycle helmets, do not comply with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets. Arai
filed a noncompliance report dated March 6, 2019, and later amended it
on March 28, 2019. Arai subsequently petitioned NHTSA on March 28,
2019, and later amended its petition on July 9, 2020, for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the grant of Arai's
petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paloma Lampert, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Arai has determined that certain Arai Corsair X Mamola Edge
helmets, size small, do not comply with paragraph S5.6.1(b) of FMVSS
No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). Arai filed a
noncompliance report dated March 6, 2019, and later amended it on March
28, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Arai subsequently petitioned NHTSA on March
28, 2019, and later amended its petition on July 9, 2020, 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, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of Arai's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period on September 12, 2019, in the Federal Register
(84 FR 48211). One comment was received. To view the petition, all
supporting documents, and the comment received from the public, 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-2019-0015.''

II. Equipment Involved

    Approximately 24 Arai Corsair X Mamola Edge helmets, size small,
manufactured between June 29, 2018, and January 31, 2019, are
potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Arai explains that the noncompliance is that the discrete size
label may not be permanently attached as required by S5.6.1(b) of FMVSS
No. 218.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S5.6.1(b) of FMVSS No. 218, provides the requirements
relevant to this petition. Each helmet must be labeled permanently and
legibly, in a manner such that the label can be read easily without
removing padding or any other permanent part, with ``discrete size.''

V. Summary of Arai's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Arai's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
Arai and do not reflect the views of the agency. Arai describes the
subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Arai submits the following reasoning:
    1. Arai states that the subject motorcycle helmets comply with all
the performance requirements under FMVSS No. 218 and all labeling
requirements of FMVSS No. 218, except that the discrete size label does
not appear to be permanent as required by paragraph S5.6.1(b). Arai
cites FMVSS No. 218, which says the discrete size means ``a numerical
value that corresponds to the diameter of an equivalent circle
representing the helmet interior in inches (0.25 inch) or
to the circumference of the equivalent circle in centimeters (0.64 centimeters).''
    2. Arai believes NHTSA's reason for requiring the helmet's discrete
size is primarily to determine the appropriate headform for conducting
the performance testing of paragraph S6.1 of FMVSS No. 218. In
promulgating the discrete size label, Arai cites the agency as saying
that it added the discrete size requirement to the standard to
``eliminate enforcement problems.'' See 73 FR 57297, 57304 (October 2,
2008). Arai says that the agency had previously permitted generic head
sizes on helmet labels, however, they lacked the precision the agency
desired for enforcing the helmet standard, raising potential problems
with the objective requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). Arai says that
NHTSA explained its reasoning in the rulemaking for specifying the
discrete size and cited the following:
    a. The reason for this is to eliminate enforcement problems that
arise when helmets are labeled only with a generic size specification
(e.g., Small, Medium, or Large).
    b. Enforceability problems can arise because while S6.1 specifies
which headform is used to test helmets with a particular ``designated
discrete size or size range,'' a helmet's generic size may not
correspond to the same size ranges that the agency uses to determine
which headform to use for testing.
    3. Arai states that in the final rule, NHTSA further elaborated
that defining the discrete size ``would have two benefits.'' First, it
would provide certainty as to the headform on which the helmet would be
tested by NHTSA, thereby, improving the enforceability of the standard.
Second, it would provide more precise information to customers. Arai
further notes that the requirement would in no way preclude
manufacturers from specifying a generic size in addition to the
discrete size on the size label.
    4. Arai believes that the primary reason for requiring the discrete
size is related to enforceability of the performance tests and that a
label that is present on the helmet at the time of NHTSA's testing, but
that may not be permanently attached to the helmet does not expose the
user of the noncompliant helmet to a ``significantly greater risk''
than to a user of a compliant helmet.

    5. Arai states that NHTSA tested the subject Arai Helmet under
FMVSS No. 218, and that the testing demonstrated that these helmets
meet the performance standards. The discrete label on the helmet tested
by NHTSA permitted the Agency to select the correct headform for the
size small Arai Corsair-X helmet that was tested.
    6. Arai believes that in the FMVSS No. 218 final rule, NHTSA
explained that while the discrete label would provide ``more precise
information to customers,'' NHTSA acknowledged that generic sizes could
also be used on helmets. Arai believes this indicates that the value to
customers of a ``more precise'' helmet size serves limited safety
benefits. Arai says that NHTSA did not claim the discrete size served a
safety purpose, but stated that ``discrete size labeling requirements
will both improve customer information regarding the size of the helmet
and avert potential enforceability problems.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 76 FR 28145 (May 13, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Arai states that the noncompliance arose from the nonpermanency
of the label, not the content and that the label would be present, at a
minimum, to the first purchaser. Further, Arai states that another
label showing the discrete size of the helmet is sewn into a tag in the
headliner; moreover, the helmet's packaging provides the size
information and secondhand purchasers could try on the helmet to
determine whether it properly fits; accordingly, the consumer would
have sizing information available to determine the correct helmet size
for purchase.
    8. Arai says that in a petition related to a noncompliance that
resulted from a goggle strap potentially obscuring the DOT label of a
motorcycle helmet, NHTSA agreed that the noncompliance was
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. See 79 FR 47720. Arai went on
to write that NHTSA reasoned that ``the presence of the strap holder
which obscures the DOT label does not affect the helmet's ability to
protect the wearer in the event of a crash if that helmet meets or
exceeds the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 218.'' Arai believes
the same reasoning applies here as well.
    9. Arai stated their belief that the helmets' potential failure to
permanently provide ``customer information'' does not pose a
``significantly greater risk'' to the user of a noncompliant helmet
compared to the user of a compliant helmet. Arai says they are not
aware of any warranty claims, field reports, customer complaints, legal
claims, or any incidents or injuries related to the subject
noncompliance.
    In response to a request from NHTSA, Arai submitted a supplement to
the subject petition to include additional information regarding how
consumers would identify helmets subject to a potential recall in the
event of a future performance-related concern. Arai describes the
general approach it would use in the event a recall becomes necessary
to address a future safety concern.
    Arai explains that to assist consumers in identifying Arai helmets,
every Arai helmet is labeled with a unique serialized number on a Snell
label,\2\ which is cross-referenced to the helmet model, the date of
manufacture, the outer shell size, the corresponding fit of the helmet,
and the distributor to whom Arai sold the helmet--or for direct-
consumer sales, the customer information for the first retail sale.
Further, Arai states that while NHTSA does not require Snell
certification and the Snell label, these labels are permanently affixed
to the helmet and removing these labels leaves evidence of tampering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Arai states that it certifies its helmets through the Snell
Foundation, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to research,
education, testing, and development of helmet safety standards.
Additional information about the Snell Foundation can be found at
https://www.smf.org/about.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event of a recall, Arai would direct consumers to the Snell
label to determine whether a specific helmet was subject to the recall.
Depending on the scope and context of the recall, Arai may also rely on
other information on the helmet to guide consumers. This additional
information that is on every helmet includes the helmet model and
style, the graphics package on the shell of the helmet, the date code
laser-etched into the chinstrap's D-ring, and the information listed on
the label sewn into the headliner.\3\ To the extent necessary, Arai
would provide this information in the owner notification letter
required by 49 Part 577 to assist consumers. For example, photographs
of the Snell label and other relevant identifying information would be
included to assist consumers. Arai would also provide a customer
service line staffed by agents prepared to explain to consumers how to
locate the relevant identifying information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The headliners are snapped into the helmet and may be
removed. Arai does sell replacement headliners, which would have a
sewn-in label containing the helmet thickness, the generic helmet
size, and the country of origin. The liners are snapped into the
helmet, and replacement headliners must have corresponding snaps.
Accordingly, a size small headliner would not fit into a size MIL
shell and vice versa. Arai is not aware of any third-party
headliners for its helmets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to equipment such as motorcycle helmets, the scope of
any potential recall would be determined based on identifying
information available to the consumers. If any Arai helmet is involved
in a future recall, Arai would follow the general approach explained
above, looking first to the serial number on the Snell label and, if
necessary, to the other information depending on the context of the
recall. Arai states that FMVSS No. 218 does not define an objective
test for the label's permanency and Arai claims that NHTSA has not
generally defined the meaning of ``permanently affixed'' in other
contexts within the safety standards themselves. Rather, NHTSA has
generally dealt with the question of permanency through various legal
interpretations.\4\ Further, Arai states that within the context of the
labels required under FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA determined ``that a label is
permanent if it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it and
that the label should remain legible for the expected life of the
product under normal conditions.'' \5\ Based on these interpretations,
Arai contends, the permanency of the label depends on the purpose of
the label. For these determinations, the underlying purposes of these
labeling requirements were to provide useful safety information to
users over the life of the equipment or vehicle. Thus, it is
understandable that ``permanency'' in these contexts would mean that
the label could not be easily removed throughout the life of the
product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Letter to Todd Mitchell, 19 Mar. 2001, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/22512.rbm.html Letter to R. Mark Willingham,
1 Apr 1994; https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/9640.html (specifying
precisely how the label is to be permanently affixed would be design
restrictive).
    \5\ See Letter to Todd Mitchell; see also Letter to Tony
Dosmann, 15 Apr 2005, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/GF002565.html
(stating that the rim label ``must be affixed in a manner that would
make it likely to stay attached and legible during the lifetime of
the vehicle, under normal conditions'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the discrete size label, Arai reiterated its
argument that the label's primary purpose is to assist NHTSA in
selecting the correct headform to test a new helmet. The content of the
subject labels met this primary purpose, as NHTSA was able to select
the correct headform for the subject helmets. Moreover, the label did
not (and would not likely have) become detached from the helmet prior
to the final sale of the helmets. Indeed, removal of the label would
require a deliberate act; these labels would not fall off on their own
and, therefore,

would remain in place at the time of any NHTSA compliance test.
    Likewise, the secondary purpose of the label--to provide more
precise information to consumers--would remain satisfied as, again, the
label would be in place on the helmet at the time of purchase. Size
information is also available to consumers on the helmet's packaging
and on a label sewn into the helmet's headliner providing the generic
size.\6\ Moreover, Arai explains, that consumers are more likely to
rely on the fit of the helmet by trying it on, rather than the discrete
size listed on the label. And, as noted, this labeling issue does not
affect the helmet's ability to protect the wearer in the event of a
crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Arai's March 28, 2019 petition erroneously stated that the
label sewn into the headliner of the subject helmets included the
discrete size. Further investigation revealed that the size small
headliners that are used in the subject helmets do not include the
discrete size information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arai concludes by again contending 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. Public Comment

    NHTSA received one comment concerning Arai's petition, from Mr.
Zach Robertson. Mr. Robertson was of the opinion that Arai's subject
helmets were likely noncompliant with the letter of the regulation. He
believes, however, that the helmet is mostly, if not completely,
meeting the intent of the regulation since the discrete size is
included on the headliner and helmet packaging and there were no
performance failures during NHTSA's testing. NHTSA appreciates Mr.
Robertson's input and agrees that there were no performance failures
during testing but disagrees that a discrete size on the removable
comfort liner (headliner) or packaging is sufficient to meet the
labeling requirements since FMVSS No. 218 states the helmet shall be
labeled permanently with the discrete size.

VII. NHTSA's Analysis

    Discrete size labels on motorcycle helmets offer important
information to consumers, sellers, testing laboratories, and regulatory
entities. For NHTSA's enforcement purposes, the discrete size label
provides precise information necessary to determine the appropriate
headform for conducting performance testing per FMVSS No. 218. For
consumers and sellers, the discrete size label provides specific
information to help them determine the size of the helmet to aid them
in selling or purchasing a helmet that fits properly, which is
important to realizing the safety benefits a helmet offers in the event
of a crash. Furthermore, the discrete size label may be useful to
determine if a particular motorcycle helmet falls within the scope of a
recall when a remedy campaign is being conducted. It is worth
reiterating that the noncompliance in this case is not that the helmet
lacked a discrete size label, but that the discrete size label was not
permanent. All labels on a motorcycle helmet are required to be
permanent. This permanency requirement is related to the safety of the
helmet in that the labels, including the discrete size label, provide a
safety benefit for the life of the motorcycle helmet.
    Arai raises several points in support of its request to be exempt
from the notification and remedy requirements for this helmet. Arai
believes the primary reason for NHTSA requiring the discrete size is
related to enforceability of the performance tests in FMVSS No. 218 and
that a label that is present on the helmet at the time of NHTSA's
testing, but that may not be permanently attached to the helmet, does
not expose the user of the noncompliant helmet to a ``significantly
greater risk'' than to a user of a compliant helmet. NHTSA responds
that the discrete size label has other critical roles besides
enforceability of performance tests. It is important for motorcycle
helmets to be labeled permanently and legibly with a discrete size in a
manner that the label can be read easily without removing padding or
any other permanent part for the duration of the life of the product.
NHTSA disagrees with Arai's claim that the reason for requiring the
helmet's discrete size is restricted to determining the appropriate
headform for conducting the performance testing, and that therefore
having a permanent label is not necessary. Motorcyle helmets are safety
equipment and the ability of a consumer to select a well-fitting helmet
is a safety goal. Arai's claim that consumers are more likely to rely
on the fit of the helmet by trying it on, rather than the discrete size
listed on the label is not supported by data. Additionally, a permanent
discrete size label on a motorcycle helmet is important in the event a
recall is filed. A recall is necessary when a motor vehicle or item of
motor vehicle equipment does not comply with an FMVSS or when there is
a safety-related defect in the vehicle or equipment. A motorcycle
helmet with a discrete size label that is not permanent may hinder the
user from being able to determine if the motorcycle helmet is part of a
remedy campaign that includes a specific range of sizes.
    Regarding how permanency is assessed, NHTSA has published a test
procedure titled Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS No. 218 (TP-218-
07), which explains how permanency of the discrete size label (as well
as the other required labels) is evaluated as part of its motorcycle
helmet compliance program. That information follows:
    OVSC compliance labs shall attempt to remove labels without tools
and inspect for the following:
    (a) Labels according to S5.6.1(a) through (c) would be determined
to be permanent if they are located in a place such that it is intended
to remain there for the life of the product (i.e. not on the visor or a
removable padding) and at least one of the following five conditions:
    (1) It cannot be removed without the aid of tools or solvents, or
    (2) Attached by a seam, or
    (3) Tears into at least 3 or more pieces with no single piece being
larger than 50% of the total area of the label when removed, or
    (4) Removal damages the surface to which it is attached and the
size of the damage is greater than 50% of the size of the label, or
    (5) Removal creates physical evidence that an affixation was
originally present or required to be present. Physical evidence may
include such things as adhesive residue or an area of contrasting color
showing some information is missing.
    The tested helmets had a discrete size label, but the label failed
permanency requirements because it was removed without the aid of tools
or solvents, it was not attached by a seam, it did not tear into at
least 3 or more pieces, the removal did not damage the surface to which
it was attached, and the removal did not create physical evidence that
an affixation was originally present.
    Arai stated in its petition that another label showing the discrete
size of the helmet is sewn into a tag in the headliner and that the
helmet's packaging provides the size information. The Arai Corsair X
motorcycle helmets tested by NHTSA did not contain an additional
discrete size label sewn onto a tag in the headliner (removable comfort
liner). Furthermore, an additional size label sewn onto a removable
comfort liner (headliner) or placed on the packaging is not a suitable

replacement for a permanent discrete size label since the removable
comfort liner (headliner) is made to be exchanged for a new liner that
may not contain a size label (or may have an incorrect size label), and
expecting a consumer to rely on the original packaging is unrealistic
since product packaging is often discarded.
    Arai refers to a petition related to a noncompliance that resulted
from a goggle strap potentially obscuring the DOT label of a motorcycle
helmet and that NHTSA agreed that the noncompliance was inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety. See 79 FR 47720. NHTSA responds that the
agency determines whether a particular noncompliance is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety based on the specific facts of each case. NHTSA
does not agree that this petition supports granting Arai's petition
because the goggle strap petition does not seem related. For example,
(1) the noncompliance in the case referenced by Arai resulted from a
goggle strap potentially obscuring the DOT symbol which is completely
unrelated to a discrete size label; (2) the issue of permanency was not
examined; and (3) the purposes of the DOT symbol are significantly
different than the purposes for discrete size labels. NHTSA is not
persuaded to grant the Arai petition based on facts concerning the
goggle strap petition (79 FR 47720).
    However, Arai states, and NHTSA agrees, that the discrete label on
the helmet tested by NHTSA permitted the agency to select the correct
headform and that the Arai Corsair-X helmet samples tested by NHTSA met
the performance standards under FMVSS No. 218. In this instance, NHTSA
agrees the discrete size label non-permanency did not affect the
helmet's ability to be tested in accordance with FMVSS No. 218.
    The key issue in determining inconsequentiality is whether the
noncompliance in question is likely to increase the safety risk to the
individual persons who experience the type of injurious event against
which the standard is designed to protect.
    In response to Arai's statement that NHTSA tested the subject Arai
Helmet under FMVSS No. 218, and that the testing ``demonstrated that
these helmets meet the performance standards,'' NHTSA is clarifying
that testing performed on behalf of NHTSA is neither sufficient nor
intended to ensure that the item tested, nor similar products, meet or
exceed FMVSS. The burden to certify products and ensure every product
manufactured and imported into the United States meets or exceeds all
applicable FMVSS, falls squarely on the manufacturer. Arai has provided
NHTSA with its basis for certification of the Arai Corsai-X motorcycle
helmet.
    In this specific case, the subject helmets are labeled with a
unique serial number which helps satisfy the safety need associated
with the discrete size being permanent. In addition to certifying its
helmets to FMVSS No. 218, Arai also certifies its helmets through the
Snell Foundation. Every Arai helmet is permanently labeled with a
unique serialized number on a Snell label, which is cross-referenced to
the helmet model, the date of manufacture, the outer shell size, the
corresponding fit of the helmet, and the distributor to whom Arai sold
the helmet. Arai stated that in the event of a recall, it would direct
consumers to the Snell label to determine whether a specific helmet was
subject to the recall.
    Therefore, in this specific instance, NHTSA agrees that, because
the helmet was labeled with the discrete size and had additional
permanent labeling, the safety needs of consumers would be met despite
the discrete size label not being permanent.

VIII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Arai has met
its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 218 noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Arai's petition is hereby granted, and Arai is exempted from the
obligation to provide notification of and remedy for the subject
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 equipment that Arai no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve equipment distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant equipment under their control after Arai 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. 2022-07824 Filed 4-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: September 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 53455]
[DOCID:fr16se08-84]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213

Extension:
    Rule 10A-1, SEC File No. 270-425, OMB Control No. 3235-0468

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 10A-1 (17 CFR 240.10A-1) implements the reporting requirements
in Section 10A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78j-
1), which was enacted by Congress on December 22, 1995 as part of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-
67, 109 Stat 737. Under section 10A and Rule 10A-1 reporting occurs
only if a registrant's board of directors receives a report from its
auditors that (1) there is an illegal act material to the registrant's
financial statements, (2) senior management and the board have not
taken timely and appropriate remedial action, and (3) the failure to
take such action is reasonably expected to warrant the auditor's
modification of the audit report or resignation from the audit
engagement. The board of directors must notify the Commission within
one business day of receiving such a report. If the board fails to
provide that notice, then the auditor, within the next business day,
must provide the Commission with a copy of the report that it gave to
the board.
    Likely respondents are those registrants filing audited financial
statements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a, et
seq.) and the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1, et
seq.).
    It is estimated that Rule 10A-1 results in an aggregate additional
reporting burden of 10 hours per year. The estimated average burden
hours are solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are
not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or
study of the costs of SEC rules or forms.
    There are no recordkeeping retention periods in Rule 10A-1. Because
of the one business day reporting periods, recordkeeping retention
periods should not be significant.
    Filing the notice or report under Rule 10A-1 is mandatory once the
conditions noted above have been satisfied. Because these notices and
reports discuss potential illegal acts, they are considered to be
investigative records and are kept confidential.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    General comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to: Kimberly_P._
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Lewis W. Walker, Acting Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send
an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB
within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: September 8, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21528 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1618-1622]
[FR Doc No: 2012-350]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0009; Special Conditions No. 25-454-SC]

Special Conditions: The Boeing Company, Model 767-300; Seats With
Inflatable Lapbelts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Model 767-
300 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual
design feature associated with seats with inflatable lapbelts. The
applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special
conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is January 5,
2012. We must receive your comments by February 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2012-0009
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Shelden, FAA, Airframe and Cabin
Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions are
impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay
issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected
aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has
been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances
with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that
good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon
issuance.

Comments Invited

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

Background

    On April 19, 2011, The Boeing Company (hereafter referred to as
``Boeing'') applied for a change to Type Certificate No. A1NM for the
installation of inflatable lapbelts on

Boeing Model 767-300 series airplanes. The Model 767-300 is a transport
category airplane powered by two turbo-fan engines with a maximum
passenger capacity of 290 and a maximum takeoff weight of 351,600
pounds. These special conditions are to allow installation of
inflatable lapbelts for head injury protection on certain seats in the
767-300 series airplanes similar to Special Conditions No. 25-187A-SC
for Boeing Model 777 series airplanes and Special Conditions No. 25-
386-SC for Boeing Model 737 series airplanes.
    The inflatable lapbelt is designed to limit occupant forward
excursion in the event of an accident. This will reduce the potential
for head injury, thereby reducing the head injury criteria (HIC)
measurement. The inflatable lapbelt behaves similarly to an automotive
inflatable airbag, but in this case the airbag is integrated into the
lapbelt and inflates away from the seated occupant. While inflatable
airbags are now standard in the automotive industry, the use of an
inflatable lapbelt is novel for commercial aviation.
    Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 121.311(j) requires
that all passenger and flight attendant seats in transport category
airplanes meet the requirements of Sec.  25.562 in effect on or after
June 16, 1988, if they were type certificated after January 1, 1958,
manufactured on or after October 27, 2009, and operated under part 121
rules in passenger-carrying operations.
    Boeing is required to show compliance with certain aspects of Sec.
25.562 as specified per Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) A1NM for the
Model 767-300 (hereafter referred to as ``767-300'') series airplanes.
However, 767-300 series airplanes manufactured on or after October 27,
2009, operated under part 121, must meet all of the requirements of
Sec.  25.562 for passenger and flight attendant seats. Thus, it is in
the interest of installers to show full compliance to Sec.  25.562, so
that an operator under part 121 may be able to use the aircraft without
having to do additional certification work. It is also noted that some
foreign civil airworthiness authorities have invoked these same
operator requirements in the form of airworthiness directives.
    Section 25.785 requires that occupants be protected from head
injury by either the elimination of any injurious object within the
striking radius of the head, or by padding. Traditionally, this has
required a set back of 35 inches from any bulkhead or other rigid
interior feature or, where not practical, specified types of padding.
The relative effectiveness of these means of injury protection was not
quantified. With the adoption of Amendment 25-64 to 14 CFR part 25,
specifically Sec.  25.562, a new standard that quantifies required head
injury protection was created.
    Section 25.562 specifies that each seat type design approved for
crew or passenger occupancy during takeoff and landing must be shown to
be compliant by successful completion of dynamic tests or by rational
analysis based on dynamic tests of a similar type seat. In particular,
the regulations require that persons not suffer serious head injury
under the conditions specified in the tests, and that protection must
be provided, or the seat be designed, so that the head impact does not
exceed a HIC of 1000 units. While the test conditions described for HIC
are detailed and specific, it is the intent of the requirement that an
adequate level of head injury protection be provided for passengers in
a severe crash.
    Because Sec. Sec.  25.562 and 25.785 and associated guidance do not
adequately address seats with inflatable lapbelts, the FAA recognizes
that appropriate pass/fail criteria need to be developed that do fully
address the safety concerns specific to occupants of these seats.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Sec.  21.101, Boeing must show that the
767-300, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the
regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A1NM or
the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the
change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type
certificate are commonly referred to as the ``original type
certification basis.'' The regulations incorporated by reference in
Type Certificate No. A1NM are as follows: part 25 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-37,
except where superseded. The U.S. type certification basis for the 767-
300 is established in accordance with 14 CFR 21.29 and 21.17 and the
type certification application date. The U.S. type certification basis
is listed in TCDS No. A1NM.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 767-300 because of a
novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the
other model.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the 767-300 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust
emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification
requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The 767-300 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design
features: Boeing is proposing to install an inflatable lapbelt on
certain seats of the 767-300 series airplanes in order to reduce the
potential for head injury in the event of an accident. The inflatable
lapbelt works similarly to an automotive airbag, except that the airbag
is integrated with the lapbelt of the restraint system.
    The CFR states the performance criteria for head injury protection
in objective terms. However, none of these criteria are adequate to
address the specific issues raised concerning seats with inflatable
lapbelts. The FAA has therefore determined that, in addition to the
requirements of 14 CFR part 25, special conditions are needed to
address requirements particular to installation of seats with
inflatable lapbelts.
    Accordingly, in addition to the passenger injury criteria specified
in Sec.  25.785, these special conditions are proposed for the Boeing
Model 767-300 series airplanes equipped with inflatable lapbelts. Other
conditions may be developed, as needed, based on further FAA review and
discussions with the manufacturer and civil aviation authorities.

Discussion

    From the standpoint of a passenger safety system, the inflatable
lapbelt is unique in that it is both an active and entirely autonomous
device. While the automotive industry has good experience with
inflatable airbags, the conditions of use and reliance on the
inflatable lapbelt as the sole means of injury protection are quite
different. In automobile installations, the airbag is a supplemental
system and works in conjunction with an upper torso restraint. In
addition, the crash event is

more definable and of typically shorter duration, which can simplify
the activation logic. The airplane operating environment is also quite
different from automobiles and includes the potential for greater wear
and tear and unanticipated abuse conditions (due to galley loading,
passenger baggage, etc.); airplanes also operate where exposure to high
intensity electromagnetic fields could affect the activation system.
    The inflatable lapbelt has two potential advantages over other
means of head impact protection. First, it can provide significantly
greater protection than would be expected with energy-absorbing pads,
and second, it can provide essentially equivalent protection for
occupants of all stature. These are significant advantages from a
safety standpoint, since such devices will likely provide a level of
safety that exceeds the minimum standards of the Federal aviation
regulations. Conversely, inflatable lapbelts in general are active
systems and must be relied upon to activate properly when needed, as
opposed to an energy-absorbing pad or upper torso restraint that is
passive, and always available. Therefore, the potential advantages must
be balanced against these and other potential disadvantages in order to
develop standards for this design feature.
    The FAA has considered the installation of inflatable lapbelts to
have two primary safety concerns: First, that they perform properly
under foreseeable operating conditions, and second, that they do not
perform in a manner or at such times as would constitute a hazard to
the airplane or occupants. This latter point has the potential to be
the more rigorous of the requirements, owing to the active nature of
the system.
    The inflatable lapbelt will rely on electronic sensors for
signaling and pyrotechnic charges for activation so that it is
available when needed. These same devices could be susceptible to
inadvertent activation, causing deployment in a potentially unsafe
manner. The consequences of such deployment, as well as failure to
deploy, must be considered in establishing the reliability of the
system. Boeing must substantiate that the effects of an inadvertent
deployment in flight are either not a hazard to the airplane, or that
such deployment is an extremely improbable occurrence (less than
10-9 per flight hour). The effect of an inadvertent
deployment on a passenger or crewmember that might be positioned close
to the inflatable lapbelt should also be considered. The person could
be either standing or sitting. A minimum reliability level will have to
be established for this case, depending upon the consequences, even if
the effect on the airplane is negligible.
    The potential for an inadvertent deployment could be increased as a
result of conditions in service. The installation must take into
account wear and tear so that the likelihood of an inadvertent
deployment is not increased to an unacceptable level. In this context,
an appropriate inspection interval and self-test capability are
considered necessary. Other outside influences are lightning and high
intensity radiated fields (HIRF). Existing regulations regarding
lightning, Sec.  25.1316, and existing HIRF special conditions for the
767-300 series airplanes, Special Conditions No. 25-ANM-18, are
applicable. For the purposes of compliance with those conditions, if
inadvertent deployment could cause a hazard to the airplane, the
inflatable lapbelt is considered a critical system; if inadvertent
deployment could cause injuries to persons, the inflatable lapbelt
should be considered an essential system. Finally, the inflatable
lapbelt installation should be protected from the effects of fire, so
that an additional hazard is not created by, for example, a rupture of
the pyrotechnic squib.
    In order to be an effective safety system, the inflatable lapbelt
must function properly and must not introduce any additional hazards to
occupants as a result of its functioning. There are several areas where
the inflatable lapbelt differs from traditional occupant protection
systems and requires special conditions to ensure adequate performance.
    Because the inflatable lapbelt is essentially a single use device,
there is the potential that it could deploy under crash conditions that
are not sufficiently severe as to require head injury protection from
the inflatable lapbelt. Since an actual crash is frequently composed of
a series of impacts before the airplane comes to rest, this could
render the inflatable lapbelt useless if a larger impact follows the
initial impact. This situation does not exist with energy absorbing
pads or upper torso restraints, which tend to provide continuous
protection regardless of severity or number of impacts in a crash
event. Therefore, the inflatable lapbelt installation should be such
that the inflatable lapbelt will provide protection when it is
required, by not expending its protection during a less severe impact.
Also, it is possible to have several large impact events during the
course of a crash, but there will be no requirement for the inflatable
lapbelt to provide protection for multiple impacts.
    Since each occupant's restraint system provides protection for that
occupant only, the installation must address seats that are unoccupied.
It will be necessary to show that the required protection is provided
for each occupant regardless of the number of occupied seats, and
considering that unoccupied seats may have lapbelts that are active.
    The inflatable lap belt should be effective for a wide range of
occupants. The FAA has historically considered the range from the fifth
percentile female to the ninety-fifth percentile male as the range of
occupants that must be taken into account. In this case, the FAA is
proposing consideration of a broader range of occupants, due to the
nature of the lapbelt installation and its close proximity to the
occupant. In a similar vein, these persons could have assumed the brace
position for those accidents where an impact is anticipated. Test data
indicate that occupants in the brace position do not require
supplemental protection, and so it would not be necessary to show that
the inflatable lapbelt will enhance the brace position. However, the
inflatable lapbelt must not introduce a hazard in that case when
deploying into the seated, braced occupant.
    Another area of concern is the use of seats, so equipped, by
children whether lap-held, in approved child safety seats, or occupying
the seat directly. Although specifically prohibited by the FAA
operating regulations, the use of the supplementary loop belt (``belly
belt'') may be required by other civil aviation authorities, and should
also be considered with the end goal of meeting those regulations.
Similarly, if the seat is occupied by a pregnant woman, the
installation needs to address such usage, either by demonstrating that
it will function properly, or by adding appropriate limitation on
usage.
    Since the inflatable lapbelt will be electrically powered, there is
the possibility that the system could fail due to a separation in the
fuselage. Since this system is intended as crash/post-crash protection
means, failure due to fuselage separation is not acceptable. As with
emergency lighting, the system should function properly if such a
separation occurs at any point in the fuselage.
    Since the inflatable lapbelt is likely to have a large volume
displacement, the inflated bag could potentially impede egress of
passengers. Since the bag deflates to absorb energy, it is likely that
an inflatable lapbelt would be deflated at the time that persons would
be trying to leave their seats. Nonetheless, it is considered
appropriate to specify a time

interval after which the inflatable lapbelt may not impede rapid
egress. Ten seconds has been chosen as a reasonable time since this
corresponds to the maximum time allowed for an exit to be openable
(Sec.  25.809). In actuality, it is unlikely that an exit would be
prepared by a flight attendant this quickly in an accident severe
enough to warrant deployment of the inflatable lapbelt, and the
inflatable lapbelt will likely deflate much quicker than ten seconds.
    This potential impediment to rapid egress is even more critical at
the seats installed in the emergency exit rows. Section 25.813 requires
access to the exit from the main aisle in the form of an unobstructed
passageway and no interference in opening the exit. The restraint
system must not create an impediment to the access to, and the opening
of, the exit. In some cases, the passenger is the one who will open the
exit, such as a Type III over wing hatch. These lapbelts should be
evaluated in the exit row under existing regulations (Sec. Sec.  25.809
and 25.813) and guidance material. The inflatable lapbelts must also be
evaluated in post crash conditions and should be evaluated using
representative restraint systems in the bag-deployed condition. This
evaluation would include reviewing the access to and opening of the
exit, specifically for obstructions in the egress path and any
interferences in opening the exit. Each unique interior configuration
must be considered, for example, passageway width, single or dual
passageways with outboard seat removed, etc. If the restraint creates
any obstruction or interference, it is likely that it could impede the
rapid egress of the airplane. Project-specific guidance is likely
necessary if these restraint systems are installed at exit door rows.
    The current special conditions for the Boeing 777 series airplanes,
Special Conditions No. 25-187A-SC, were amended to address flammability
of the airbag material. During the development of the inflatable
lapbelt, the manufacturer was unable to develop a fabric that would
meet the inflation requirements for the bag and the flammability
requirements of part I, paragraph (a)(1)(ii), of appendix F to part 25.
The fabrics that were developed that met the flammability requirement
did not produce acceptable deployment characteristics. However, the
manufacturer was able to develop a fabric that meets the less stringent
flammability requirements of part I, paragraph (a)(1)(iv), of appendix
F to part 25 and has acceptable deployment characteristics.
    Part I of appendix F to part 25 specifies the flammability
requirements for interior materials and components. There is no
reference to inflatable restraint systems in appendix F, because such
devices did not exist at the time the flammability requirements were
written. The existing requirements are based on both material types, as
well as use, and have been specified in light of the state-of-the-art
of materials available to perform a given function. In the absence of a
specific reference, the default requirement would be for the type of
material used to construct the inflatable restraint, which is a fabric
in this case. However, in writing special conditions, the FAA must also
consider the use of the material, and whether the default requirement
is appropriate. In this case, the specialized function of the
inflatable restraint means that highly specialized materials are
needed. The standard normally applied to fabrics is a 12-second
vertical ignition test. However, materials that meet this standard do
not perform adequately as inflatable restraints. Since the safety
benefit of the inflatable restraint is very significant, the
flammability standard appropriate for these devices should not screen
out suitable materials, thereby effectively eliminating use of
inflatable restraints. The FAA will need to establish a balance between
the safety benefit of the inflatable restraint and its flammability
performance. At this time, the 2.5-inch per minute horizontal test is
considered to provide that balance. As the state-of-the-art in
materials progresses (which is expected), the FAA may change this
standard in subsequent special conditions to account for improved
materials.
    The following special conditions can be characterized as addressing
either the safety performance of the system or the system's integrity
against inadvertent activation. Because a crash requiring use of the
inflatable lapbelts is a relatively rare event, and because the
consequences of an inadvertent activation are potentially quite severe,
these latter requirements are probably the more rigorous from a design
standpoint.
    Finally, it should be noted that the special conditions are
applicable to the inflatable lapbelt system as installed. The special
conditions are not an installation approval. Therefore, while the
special conditions relate to each such system installed, the overall
installation approval is a separate finding and must consider the
combined effects of all such systems installed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
767-300. Should Boeing apply at a later date for a change to the type
certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that
model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been
derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is
unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change
from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would
significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is
imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment
are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting
these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments
to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been
submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described
above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Boeing Model 767-300 airplanes.
    1. Seats with Inflatable Lapbelts. It must be shown that the
inflatable lapbelt will deploy and provide protection under crash
conditions where it is necessary to prevent serious head injury. The
means of protection must take into consideration a range of stature
from a two-year-old child to a ninety-fifth percentile male. The
inflatable lapbelt must provide a consistent approach to energy
absorption throughout that range of occupants. In addition, the
following situations must be considered:
    a. The seat occupant is holding an infant.

    b. The seat occupant is a child in a child restraint device.
    c. The seat occupant is a child not using a child restraint device.
    d. The seat occupant is a pregnant woman.
    2. The inflatable lapbelt must provide adequate protection for each
occupant regardless of the number of occupants of the seat assembly,
considering that unoccupied seats may have active seatbelts.
    3. The design must prevent the inflatable lapbelt from being either
incorrectly buckled or incorrectly installed such that the inflatable
lapbelt would not properly deploy. Alternatively, it must be shown that
such deployment is not hazardous to the occupant and will provide the
required head injury protection.
    4. It must be shown that the inflatable lapbelt system is not
susceptible to inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear or
inertial loads resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers (including
gusts and hard landings) likely to be experienced in service.
    5. Deployment of the inflatable lapbelt must not introduce injury
mechanisms to the seated occupant or result in injuries that could
impede rapid egress. This assessment should include an occupant who is
in the brace position when it deploys and an occupant whose belt is
loosely fastened.
    6. It must be shown that inadvertent deployment of the inflatable
lapbelt, during the most critical part of the flight, will either not
cause a hazard to the airplane or its occupants, or meets the
requirements of Sec.  25.1309(b).
    7. It must be shown that the inflatable lapbelt will not impede
rapid egress of occupants 10 seconds after its deployment.
    8. The system must be protected from lightning and HIRF. The
threats specified in existing regulations regarding lightning, Sec.
25.1316, and existing HIRF special conditions for the Boeing Model 767
series aircraft, Special Conditions No. 25-ANM-18, are incorporated by
reference for the purpose of measuring lightning and HIRF protection.
For the purposes of complying with HIRF requirements, the inflatable
lapbelt system is considered a ``critical system'' if its deployment
could have a hazardous effect on the airplane; otherwise, it is
considered an ``essential'' system.
    9. Inflatable lapbelts, once deployed, must not adversely affect
the emergency lighting system (i.e., block proximity lights to the
extent that the lights no longer meet their intended function).
    10. The inflatable lapbelt must function properly after loss of
normal aircraft electrical power and after a transverse separation of
the fuselage at the most critical location. A separation at the
location of the lapbelt does not have to be considered.
    11. It must be shown that the inflatable lapbelt will not release
hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cabin.
    12. The inflatable lapbelt installation must be protected from the
effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result.
    13. There must be a means for a crewmember to verify the integrity
of the inflatable lapbelt activation system prior to each flight, or it
must be demonstrated to operate reliably between inspection intervals.
The FAA considers the loss of the airbag system deployment function
alone (i.e., independent of the conditional event that requires the
airbag system deployment) to be a major failure condition.
    14. The inflatable material may not have an average burn rate of
greater than 2.5 inches/minute when tested using the horizontal
flammability test as defined in 14 CFR part 25, appendix F, part I,
paragraph (b)(5).

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 5, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, ANM-100.
[FR Doc. 2012-350 Filed 1-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                         Calgon Carbon PFAS Experience

To Whom It May Concern:

This document is meant to summarize the key points of Calgon Carbon's (henceforth CCC) experience with regard to the treatment of per- and polyfluoro alkyl substances (PFAS) using granular activated carbon (GAC). A document with figures/images to supplement and elaborate on the talking points below is also provided.
We want to help provide the most up to date information to decision makers with respect to the ability to treat PFAS, so please do not hesitate to contact us directly for any additional clarification or discussion if you think it would be helpful.

Sincerely,

Frederic (Eric) Forrester
Technical Development Engineer  -  PFAS Applications
Calgon Carbon  -  A Kuraray Company
P:<PHONE_NUMBER>
E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

GAC is an effective and proven treatment technology for PFAS

 CCC has provided GAC systems for PFAS treatment for 15+ years
 CCC has provided more than 45+ unique municipal treatment systems across the US specifically for PFAS; a map is included on slide 8 of the supplemental deck.
 Performance data from laboratories studies published in the American Water Works Journal (January 2018) and the Remediation Journal (December 2018) are included in slides 13-15
 Performance graphs for the Village of Hoosick Falls, NY treatment system are included in slides 17-20 as case study demonstrating field performance

Not all GAC is the same

 GAC can be made from any substance made of carbon, but the starting material influences GAC properties
 Physical properties will vary from product to product (density, porosity, hardness, etc.)
 Performance/contaminant removal will vary from product to product (duration of service life)
 Starting material effects source of supply & product lead times (e.g. bituminous coal sourced from USA vs. coconut shell sources in SE Asia)
 Images of GAC and differences between starting materials are highlighted in slides 10-12
 Performance data showing differences between bituminous coal based GAC (good performer) and coconut shell based GAC (poor performer) are shown in slides 13-14

GAC is economical & sustainable

 GAC is listed as a best-available-technology (BAT) by the EPA for multiple classes of drinking water contaminants (PFAS, VOCs, DBPs)
 GAC can remove multiple contaminants from the same water source simultaneously, saving on current and future treatment requirements, lowering the burden no treatment utilities
 Capital costs are on the order of ~$300,000 for a 1 million gallon per day (1 MGD) GAC PFAS treatment system; a list of CCC installations and their associated capital costs (equipment + media only, delivery/freight no included) is given below as a reference
 GAC can be recycled and reused via thermal reactivation; thermal reactivation is a high temperature process used to remove contaminants from the carbon and restore its ability to treat water
 CCC currently working on a joint study with the EPA outlining the reactivation process and its ability to remove PFAS from GAC

                                     State
                                   Location
                                     Flow
                                 Concentration
                                    Package
                                Delivered Cost
                                      NY
                            Newburg/Lake Washington
                                   6,150 gpm
                                  50-150 ppt
                       18 x 12' vessels 720,000 lbs GAC
                                  $ 3,450,000
                                      AK
                                  Eielson AFB
                                   1,500 gpm
                                  100-500 ppt
                        6 x 10' vessels 120,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 900,000
                                      DE
                              Artesian Resources
                                   1,000 gpm
                                  50-250 ppt
                        4 x 10' vessels 80,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 536,900
                                      OH
                             Wright Patterson AFB
                                   1,900 gpm
                                  400-600 ppt
                        4 x 10' vessels 80,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 500,000
                                      PA
                                    Horsham
                                   1,000 gpm
                                  50-150 ppt
                        4 x 10' vessels 80,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 450,000
                                      NH
                                   Pease AFB
                                    500 gpm
                                  50-100 ppt
                        2 x 10' vessels 40,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 400,000
                                      DE
                         Municipal Services Commission
                                    350 gpm
                                 800-1,000 ppt
                        2 x 12' vessels 80,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 354,135
                                      AL
                           West Morgan-East Lawrence
                                   4,200 gpm
                                  100-250 ppt
                                270,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 320,000
                                      AZ
                                    Liberty
                                   1,100 gpm
                                  50-250 ppt
                         2 x 12' vessels 40,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 257,000
                                      FL
                              ECUA Spanish Trail
                                   1,000 gpm
                                  100-300 ppt
                        4 x 10' vessels 80,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 250,000
                                      FL
                                 ECUA Airport
                                   1,000 gpm
                                  100-300 ppt
                        4 x 10' vessels 80,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 274,990
                                      PA
                               Aqua PA, Chalfont
                                    400 gpm
                                  50-150 ppt
                        2 x 10' vessels 40,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 260,000
                                      PA
                               Aqua PA, Hatsboro
                                    200 gpm
                                  50-150 ppt
                           2 x 8' vessels 20,000 lbs
                                   $ 195,000
                                      NY
                           Hoosick Falls -Temporary
                                    500 gpm
                                  300-500 ppt
                        2 x 10' vessels 40,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 191,718
                                      NY
                           Hoosick Falls - Permanent
                                    700 gpm
                                  300-500 ppt
                        2 x 12' vessels 80,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 440,750
                                      NJ
                                   Montclair
                                    500 gpm
                                  100-150 ppt
                        2 x 10' vessels 40,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 249,900
                                      MA
                                  Barnstable
                                   1,000 gpm
                                  400-600 ppt
                        4 x 10' vessels 80,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 132,000
                                      NY
                                  Petersburgh
                                    50 gpm
                                  50-150 ppt
                         2 x 4' vessels  4,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 87,000
                                      NJ
                                   Garfield
                                    350 gpm
                                  50-150 ppt
                        2 x 10' vessels 40,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 63,000
                                      PA
                                  Warrington
                                    400 gpm
                                 500-2,000 ppt
                        2 x 10' vessels 40,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 362,650
                                      GA
                                     Rome
                                   6,250 gpm
                                  100-200 ppt
                                30,000 lbs GAC
                                   $ 61,000