Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee-New Task, 68599-68602 [2015-28151]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Notices
time segments does not create an undue
burden on competition, rather, it
provides the Market Maker with clarity
as to the manner in which the System
counts quotes and orders and thereby
provides NOM Market Makers with an
increased ability to monitor
transactions.
Rounding
The Exchange’s amendment to add
that if the Issue Percentage, rounded to
the nearest integer, equals or exceeds
the Specified Percentage, the System
automatically removes a Market Maker’s
quotes and orders in all series of an
underlying security does not create an
undue burden on competition because
this amendment also provides the
Market Maker with clarity as to the
manner in which the System will
remove quotes and orders and thereby
provides NOM Market Makers with an
increased ability to monitor transactions
and set risk limits.
Reset
The amendment to the rule text
concerning resetting does not create an
undue burden on competition. The
Exchange proposes to amend the
manner in which a Market Maker may
re-enter the System after a removal of
quotes and orders. This amendment
provides information to NOM Market
Makers as to the procedure to re-enter
the System after a trigger. This
information is intended to provide NOM
Market Makers with access to the
market.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From
Members, Participants, or Others
No written comments were either
solicited or received.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
Because the foregoing proposed rule
change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant
burden on competition; and (iii) become
operative for 30 days from the date on
which it was filed, or such shorter time
as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 28 and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b–4
thereunder.29
At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may
28 15
29 17
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).
CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:06 Nov 04, 2015
Jkt 238001
temporarily suspend such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such
action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in
the public interest; (ii) for the protection
of investors; or (iii) otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule
should be approved or disapproved. The
Exchange has provided the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days
prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing,
including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
• Use the Commission’s Internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an email to rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
NASDAQ–2015–122 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File
Number SR–NASDAQ–2015–122. This
file number should be included on the
subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use
only one method. The Commission will
post all comments on the Commission’s
Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68599
office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change;
the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR–
NASDAQ–2015–122 and should be
submitted on or before November 27,
2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.30
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–28143 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee—New Task
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of a new task assignment
for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee.
AGENCY:
The FAA assigned the
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (ARAC) a new task to
provide recommendations regarding
occupant protection rulemaking in
normal and transport category rotorcraft
for older certification basis type designs
that are still in production. The FAA
amended regulations to incorporate
occupant protection rules, including
those for emergency landing conditions
and fuel system crash resistance, for
new type designs in the 1980s and
1990s. These rule changes do not apply
to newly manufactured rotorcraft with
older type designs or to derivative type
designs that keep the certification basis
of the original type design. This
approach has resulted in a very low
incorporation rate of occupant
protection features into the rotorcraft
fleet, and fatal accidents remain
unacceptably high. At the end of 2014,
only 16% of U.S. fleet had complied
with the crash resistant fuel system
requirements effective 20 years earlier,
and only 10% had complied with the
emergency landing requirements
effective 25 years earlier. A recent fatal
accident study has shown these
measures would have been effective in
saving lives.
This notice informs the public of the
new ARAC activity and solicits
SUMMARY:
30 17
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
05NON1
68600
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Notices
membership for the new Rotorcraft
Occupant Protection Working Group.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Martin R. Crane, Federal Aviation
Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177,
Martin.R.Crane@faa.gov, phone number
817–222–5110, facsimile number 817–
222–5961.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ARAC Acceptance of Task
As a result of the September 17, 2015,
ARAC meeting, the FAA assigned and
ARAC accepted this task establishing
the Rotorcraft Occupant Protection
Working Group. The Rotorcraft
Occupant Protection Working Group
will serve as staff to the ARAC and
provide advice and recommendations
on the assigned task. The ARAC will
review and accept the recommendation
report and will submit it to the FAA.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
The FAA established the ARAC to
provide information, advice, and
recommendations on aviation-related
issues that could result in rulemaking to
the FAA Administrator, through the
Associate Administrator of Aviation
Safety.
The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection
Working Group will provide advice and
recommendations to the ARAC on
occupant protection rulemaking,
including both initial certification and
continued airworthiness. The basic
concept of occupant protection is to give
all occupants the greatest possible
chance to egress an aircraft without
serious injury after a survivable
emergency landing or accident. While
the number of U.S. helicopter accidents
and the corresponding accident rate
over the past 10 years have steadily
decreased, during that same time period
data associated with fatal helicopter
accidents and fatalities remains
virtually unchanged. A number of
regulations were promulgated in the
1980s and 1990s to address and greatly
improve occupant protection in a
survivable emergency landing or
accident. These occupant protection
improvements involve seat systems that
reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries to
the occupant in a crash (14 CFR 27.562,
27.785, 29.562, and 29.785); structural
requirements that maintain a survivable
volume and restrain large items of mass
above and behind the occupant (14 CFR
27.561 and 29.561); and fuel systems
that reduce the likelihood of an
immediate post-crash fire (14 CFR
27.952 and 29.952). If the occupant
protection improvement rules are not
incorporated in new production
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:06 Nov 04, 2015
Jkt 238001
helicopters, there will be no meaningful
reduction in the number of fatalities in
helicopter accidents.
Following a series of accidents
involving post-crash fires, the
Australian Civil Aviation Safety
Authority asked the FAA for assistance
in determining the airworthiness of
certain helicopters. This request
resulted in a collaborative post-crash
fire/blunt force trauma study performed
by the FAA’s Rotorcraft Directorate and
Civil Aerospace Medical Institute
(CAMI). The data consisted of 97 fatal
accidents involving U.S. registered,
type-certificated helicopters in a fiveyear timeframe from 2008 to 2013. Part
27 rotorcraft comprised the largest mass
of data (87 of 97 fatal accidents, 90% of
the total) in the study. The post-crash
fire portion of the study found that postcrash fires occurred in 30 of 76 (39%)
of fatal accidents involving part 27
helicopters without fuel systems that
meet the full crash resistance
requirements of 14 CFR 27.952. The
post-crash fire contributed to a fatality
in 20% of these fatal accidents. While
the data set for part 29 rotorcraft was
much smaller (10 of 97 fatal accidents,
10% of the total), the results were
comparable. Through the course of the
study, the Rotorcraft Directorate further
discovered that there were only about
16% of U.S. registered, type-certificated
rotorcraft that fully complied with the
fuel system crash resistance provisions
in §§ 27.952 and 29.952, despite those
rules having been in effect for 20 years
at the time of the study.
In the time since increased rotorcraft
occupant protection standards became
effective as federal regulations, research
efforts have studied injury patterns in
fatal rotorcraft accidents. In April 2003,
Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine published Narinder Taneja
and Douglas A. Wiegmann’s ‘‘Analysis
of Injuries Among Pilots Killed in Fatal
Helicopter Accidents.’’ Using autopsy
data from 1993 to 1999, Taneja and
Wiegmann analyzed the pattern of
specific bony injuries (ribs, skull, and
pelvis) and organ/visceral injuries
(brain, lung, and heart) documented in
74 fatal rotorcraft accidents. They found
blunt trauma as the cause of death in
88% of the cases, with the highest
percentages of injuries to the head and
core body regions. Among the
implications cited in their study was,
‘‘Protection of the occupants exposed to
a crash is a realistic objective that can
be achieved if crashworthiness becomes
a primary element of initial helicopter
design and future upgrade programs.’’
The second component of the
Rotorcraft Directorate/CAMI study
involved blunt force trauma. Blunt force
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
trauma accounted for cause of death in
92% of the 2008–2013 fatal accident
data. In addition, blunt force trauma
also was the cause of death in 80% of
the part 27 fatal rotorcraft accidents
where a post-crash fire occurred. The
Rotorcraft Directorate and CAMI built
their study using the framework and
methodology previously established by
Taneja and Wiegmann’s 2003 study.
Further, they used the percentages of
bony injuries and organ/visceral injuries
documented in Taneja and Wiegmann’s
study as a baseline for comparison. The
intent was to see if a statistically
significant change occurred in blunt
force trauma injury patterns in fatal
rotorcraft accidents in the 10 years since
the previous study. They concluded
there was no statistically significant
difference across most categories of
bony injuries and across all categories of
organ/visceral injuries. The Rotorcraft
Directorate further discovered that only
10% of U.S. registered, type-certificated
rotorcraft complied with increased
occupant protection measures related to
blunt force trauma mandated in the
§§ 27.562 and 29.562 rules, despite the
rules being in effect for 25 years at the
time of the study. The provisions of
§§ 27.562 and 29.562 were specifically
designed for increased protection of the
head and core body regions, the same
regions documented with the highest
levels of injury in the fatal accident
studies conducted by Taneja and
Wiegmann and the Rotorcraft
Directorate/CAMI.
Additional research found that about
9,000 occupants had been involved in
U.S. helicopter accidents in the 25 years
since §§ 27.562 and 29.562 became
effective. Only 2% of helicopters in
those accidents were compliant with
§§ 27.562 and 29.562. Over 1,300
occupants were killed in accidents
involving the 98% of helicopters that
were not compliant with §§ 27.562 and
29.562.
The Task
The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection
Working Group is tasked to:
1. Perform a cost-benefit analysis for
incorporating the existing occupant
protection standards 14 CFR 27.561,
27.562, 27.785, 27.952, 29.561, 29.562,
29.785, and 29.952 via §§ 27.2 and 29.2
for newly manufactured rotorcraft that
addresses the following:
a. Estimate what the regulated parties
would do differently as a result of the
proposed regulation and how much it
would cost.
b. Estimate the improvement in
survivability of future accidents.
c. Estimate any other benefits (e.g.,
reduced administrative burden) or costs
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Notices
that would result from implementation
of the occupant protection standards
identified above.
2. Develop a cost-benefit analysis
report containing the information
explained in task 1 above.
3. After the FAA accepts and
considers the cost benefit analysis
report, the FAA will task the Rotorcraft
Occupant Protection Working Group
either to make specific written
recommendations on how all or part of
the existing occupant protection
standards 14 CFR 27.561, 27.562,
27.785, 27.952, 29.561, 29.562, 29.785,
and 29.952 should be made effective via
§§ 27.2 and 29.2 for newly
manufactured rotorcraft, or to propose
new alternative performance-based
occupant protection safety regulations
for newly manufactured rotorcraft that
will be effective via §§ 27.2 and 29.2.
4. If new alternative performancebased occupant protection safety
regulations effective via §§ 27.2 and 29.2
are proposed, perform a cost-benefit
analysis that addresses the following:
a. Estimate what the regulated parties
would do differently as a result of the
proposed regulation and how much it
would cost.
b. Estimate the improvement in
survivability of future accidents from
the proposed recommendations.
c. Estimate any other benefits (e.g.,
reduced administrative burden) or costs
that would result from implementation
of the recommendations.
5. Develop an initial report containing
recommendations on the findings and
results of the tasks explained above.
a. The initial recommendation report
should document both majority and
dissenting positions on the findings and
the rationale for each position.
b. Any disagreements should be
documented, including the rationale for
each position and the reasons for the
disagreement.
6. Complete the following after the
FAA accepts the initial recommendation
report identified in task 5:
a. Specifically advise and make
written recommendations on
incorporating rotorcraft occupant
protection improvements and standards
into the existing rotorcraft fleet.
Occupant protection standards include
either all or part of 14 CFR 27.561,
27.562, 27.785, 27.952, 29.561, 29.562,
29.785, and 29.952, or new alternative
proposed performance-based
regulations.
b. Develop an addendum report
containing recommendations on the
findings and results of the tasks
explained above.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:06 Nov 04, 2015
Jkt 238001
c. Document both majority and
dissenting positions on the findings and
the rationale for each position.
d. Any disagreements should be
documented, including the rationale for
each position and the reasons for the
disagreement.
7. The working group may be
reinstated to assist the ARAC in
responding to the FAA’s questions or
concerns after the recommendation
report has been submitted.
Schedule
This tasking notice requires three
reports.
• The task 2 cost-benefit analysis
report must be submitted to the FAA for
review and acceptance no later than 6
months after publication of this notice
in the Federal Register.
• The task 5 initial recommendation
report must be submitted to the FAA for
review and acceptance no later than 12
months after initiation of task 3 above.
• The task 6 addendum
recommendation report must be
submitted to the FAA for review and
acceptance no later than 6 months after
the initial recommendation report is
submitted.
Working Group Activity
The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection
Working Group must comply with the
procedures adopted by the ARAC as
follows:
1. Conduct a review and analysis of
the assigned tasks and any other related
materials or documents.
2. Draft and submit a work plan for
completion of the task, including the
rationale supporting such a plan, for
consideration by the ARAC.
3. Provide a status report at each
ARAC meeting.
4. Draft and submit the
recommendation reports based on
review and analysis of the assigned
tasks.
5. Present the cost-benefit analysis
report in task 2 at the ARAC meeting.
6. Present the initial recommendation
report at the ARAC meeting.
7. Present the findings from the
addendum recommendation report at
the ARAC meeting.
Participation in the Working Group
The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection
Working Group will be comprised of
technical experts having an interest in
the assigned task. A working group
member need not be a member
representative of the ARAC. The FAA
would like a wide range of members
(normal category rotorcraft
manufacturers, transport category
rotorcraft manufacturers, and rotorcraft
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68601
operators from various segments of the
industry such as oil and gas exploration,
emergency medical services, and air
tour operators) to ensure all aspects of
the tasks are considered in development
of the recommendations. The provisions
of the August 13, 2014, Office of
Management and Budget guidance,
‘‘Revised Guidance on Appointment of
Lobbyists to Federal Advisory
Committees, Boards, and Commissions’’
(79 FR 47482), continues the ban on
registered lobbyists participating on
Agency Boards and Commissions if
participating in their ‘‘individual
capacity.’’ The revised guidance now
allows registered lobbyists to participate
on Agency Boards and Commissions in
a ‘‘representative capacity’’ for the
‘‘express purpose of providing a
committee with the views of a
nongovernmental entity, a recognizable
group of persons or nongovernmental
entities (an industry, sector, labor
unions, or environmental groups, etc.)
or state or local government.’’ (For
further information see Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995 as amended, 2
U.S.C 1603, 1604, and 1605.)
If you wish to become a member of
the Rotorcraft Occupant Protection
Working Group, write the person listed
under the caption FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT expressing that
desire. Describe your interest in the task
and state the expertise you would bring
to the working group. The FAA must
receive all requests by December 7,
2015. The ARAC and the FAA will
review the requests and advise you
whether or not your request is
approved.
If you are chosen for membership on
the working group, you must actively
participate in the working group, attend
all meetings, and provide written
comments when requested. You must
devote the resources necessary to
support the working group in meeting
any assigned deadlines. You must keep
your management and those you may
represent advised of working group
activities and decisions to ensure the
proposed technical solutions do not
conflict with the position of those you
represent. Once the working group has
begun deliberations, members will not
be added or substituted without the
approval of the ARAC Chair, the FAA,
including the Designated Federal
Officer, and the Working Group Chair.
The Secretary of Transportation
determined the formation and use of the
ARAC is necessary and in the public
interest in connection with the
performance of duties imposed on the
FAA by law.
The ARAC meetings are open to the
public. However, meetings of the
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
68602
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Notices
Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working
Group are not open to the public, except
to the extent individuals with an
interest and expertise are selected to
participate. The FAA will make no
public announcement of working group
meetings.
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 30,
2015.
Lirio Liu,
Designated Federal Officer, Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2015–28151 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0053; Notice 2]
BMW of North America, Inc., Grant of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of Petition.
AGENCY:
BMW of North America, Inc.
(BMW) has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2015 MINI Cooper,
Cooper S hardtop 2 door, and Cooper S
hardtop 4 door passenger cars do not
fully comply with paragraph S4.2.3(a) of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 226, Ejection Mitigation.
BMW has filed an appropriate report
dated May 20, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.
ADDRESSES: For further information on
this decision contact Karen Nuschler,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), telephone
(202) 366–5829, facsimile (202) 366–
3081.
SUMMARY:
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556),
BMW submitted a petition for an
exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the petition was
published, with a 30-day public
comment period, on September 1, 2015
in the Federal Register (80 FR 52845).
No comments were received. To view
the petition, and all supporting
documents log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:06 Nov 04, 2015
Jkt 238001
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2015–
0053.’’
II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are
approximately 4,208 MY 2015 MINI
Cooper, Cooper S hardtop 2 door, and
Cooper S hardtop 4 door passenger cars
manufactured from February 25, 2015 to
April 24, 2015.
III. Noncompliance: BMW explains
that written information describing the
ejection mitigation countermeasure
installed in the vehicles was not
provided to the vehicle consumers as
required by paragraph S4.2.3(a) of
FMVSS No. 226.
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.2.3 of
FMVSS No. 226 requires in pertinent
part:
S4.2.3 Written information.
(a) Vehicles with an ejection mitigation
countermeasure that deploys in the event of
a rollover must be described as such in the
vehicle’s owner manual or in other written
information provided by the vehicle
manufacturer to the consumer. . . .
V. Summary of BMW’s Arguments:
BMW stated its belief that the subject
noncompliance in the affected vehicles
is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. A summary of its reasoning is
provided as follows. Detailed
explanations of its reasoning are
included in its petition:
1. The vehicles are equipped with a
countermeasure that meets the
performance requirements of FMVSS
No. 226.
2. The owner’s manuals contain a
description of the ejection mitigation
countermeasure in the context of side
impact.
3. The owner’s manuals contain
precautions related to the [ejection
mitigation] system even though not
required by FMVSS No. 226.
4. The [ejection mitigation] system
uses the FMVSS No. 208 required
readiness indicator, as allowed by
FMVSS No. 226.
5. BMW has not received any
customer complaints due to this issue.
6. BMW is not aware of any accidents
or injuries due to this issue.
7. NHTSA may have granted similar
manufacturer petitions re owner’s
manuals.
8. BMW has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future
production vehicles will comply with
FMVSS No. 226.
In summation, BMW believes that the
described noncompliance of the subject
vehicles is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt BMW from providing recall
notification of noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
remedying the recall noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be
granted.
NHTSA’s Decision
NHTSA’s Analysis: NHTSA believes
that while written information was not
provided to vehicle owners describing
the installed head air bags (side curtain)
as vehicle occupant ejection mitigation
countermeasures that deploy in the
event of a rollover, the owner’s manuals
for the affected vehicles otherwise
effectively describe, and illustrate the
location of, the head air bags. NHTSA
also believes that the status of the head
air bags is monitored by the vehicle’s air
bag readiness indicator intended to
show operational readiness of the entire
airbag system. Therefore, drivers should
be alerted to a malfunction of the head
air bags that are intended to provide
ejection countermeasures in the event of
a rollover event, and occupant
protection in the event of a significant
side impact event.
BMW has also reported that they have
not received any complaints from
vehicle owners regarding the subject
noncompliance and that vehicle
production was corrected so that the
noncompliance did not occur in
subsequent vehicles. NHTSA’s Decision:
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that BMW has met
its burden of persuasion that the subject
FMVSS No. 226 noncompliance in the
affected vehicles is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
BMW’s petition is hereby granted and
BMW is exempted from the obligation of
providing notification of, and a remedy
for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
file petitions for a determination of
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
exempt manufacturers only from the
duties found in sections 30118 and
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
noncompliance and to remedy the
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this
decision only applies to the subject
vehicles that BMW no longer controlled
at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, the
Granting of this petition does not relieve
vehicle distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale,
or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their
control after BMW notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.
E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM
05NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68599-68602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28151]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee--New Task
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of a new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA assigned the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(ARAC) a new task to provide recommendations regarding occupant
protection rulemaking in normal and transport category rotorcraft for
older certification basis type designs that are still in production.
The FAA amended regulations to incorporate occupant protection rules,
including those for emergency landing conditions and fuel system crash
resistance, for new type designs in the 1980s and 1990s. These rule
changes do not apply to newly manufactured rotorcraft with older type
designs or to derivative type designs that keep the certification basis
of the original type design. This approach has resulted in a very low
incorporation rate of occupant protection features into the rotorcraft
fleet, and fatal accidents remain unacceptably high. At the end of
2014, only 16% of U.S. fleet had complied with the crash resistant fuel
system requirements effective 20 years earlier, and only 10% had
complied with the emergency landing requirements effective 25 years
earlier. A recent fatal accident study has shown these measures would
have been effective in saving lives.
This notice informs the public of the new ARAC activity and
solicits
[[Page 68600]]
membership for the new Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin R. Crane, Federal Aviation
Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177,
Martin.R.Crane@faa.gov, phone number 817-222-5110, facsimile number
817-222-5961.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ARAC Acceptance of Task
As a result of the September 17, 2015, ARAC meeting, the FAA
assigned and ARAC accepted this task establishing the Rotorcraft
Occupant Protection Working Group. The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection
Working Group will serve as staff to the ARAC and provide advice and
recommendations on the assigned task. The ARAC will review and accept
the recommendation report and will submit it to the FAA.
Background
The FAA established the ARAC to provide information, advice, and
recommendations on aviation-related issues that could result in
rulemaking to the FAA Administrator, through the Associate
Administrator of Aviation Safety.
The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group will provide
advice and recommendations to the ARAC on occupant protection
rulemaking, including both initial certification and continued
airworthiness. The basic concept of occupant protection is to give all
occupants the greatest possible chance to egress an aircraft without
serious injury after a survivable emergency landing or accident. While
the number of U.S. helicopter accidents and the corresponding accident
rate over the past 10 years have steadily decreased, during that same
time period data associated with fatal helicopter accidents and
fatalities remains virtually unchanged. A number of regulations were
promulgated in the 1980s and 1990s to address and greatly improve
occupant protection in a survivable emergency landing or accident.
These occupant protection improvements involve seat systems that reduce
the likelihood of fatal injuries to the occupant in a crash (14 CFR
27.562, 27.785, 29.562, and 29.785); structural requirements that
maintain a survivable volume and restrain large items of mass above and
behind the occupant (14 CFR 27.561 and 29.561); and fuel systems that
reduce the likelihood of an immediate post-crash fire (14 CFR 27.952
and 29.952). If the occupant protection improvement rules are not
incorporated in new production helicopters, there will be no meaningful
reduction in the number of fatalities in helicopter accidents.
Following a series of accidents involving post-crash fires, the
Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority asked the FAA for assistance
in determining the airworthiness of certain helicopters. This request
resulted in a collaborative post-crash fire/blunt force trauma study
performed by the FAA's Rotorcraft Directorate and Civil Aerospace
Medical Institute (CAMI). The data consisted of 97 fatal accidents
involving U.S. registered, type-certificated helicopters in a five-year
timeframe from 2008 to 2013. Part 27 rotorcraft comprised the largest
mass of data (87 of 97 fatal accidents, 90% of the total) in the study.
The post-crash fire portion of the study found that post-crash fires
occurred in 30 of 76 (39%) of fatal accidents involving part 27
helicopters without fuel systems that meet the full crash resistance
requirements of 14 CFR 27.952. The post-crash fire contributed to a
fatality in 20% of these fatal accidents. While the data set for part
29 rotorcraft was much smaller (10 of 97 fatal accidents, 10% of the
total), the results were comparable. Through the course of the study,
the Rotorcraft Directorate further discovered that there were only
about 16% of U.S. registered, type-certificated rotorcraft that fully
complied with the fuel system crash resistance provisions in Sec. Sec.
27.952 and 29.952, despite those rules having been in effect for 20
years at the time of the study.
In the time since increased rotorcraft occupant protection
standards became effective as federal regulations, research efforts
have studied injury patterns in fatal rotorcraft accidents. In April
2003, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine published Narinder
Taneja and Douglas A. Wiegmann's ``Analysis of Injuries Among Pilots
Killed in Fatal Helicopter Accidents.'' Using autopsy data from 1993 to
1999, Taneja and Wiegmann analyzed the pattern of specific bony
injuries (ribs, skull, and pelvis) and organ/visceral injuries (brain,
lung, and heart) documented in 74 fatal rotorcraft accidents. They
found blunt trauma as the cause of death in 88% of the cases, with the
highest percentages of injuries to the head and core body regions.
Among the implications cited in their study was, ``Protection of the
occupants exposed to a crash is a realistic objective that can be
achieved if crashworthiness becomes a primary element of initial
helicopter design and future upgrade programs.''
The second component of the Rotorcraft Directorate/CAMI study
involved blunt force trauma. Blunt force trauma accounted for cause of
death in 92% of the 2008-2013 fatal accident data. In addition, blunt
force trauma also was the cause of death in 80% of the part 27 fatal
rotorcraft accidents where a post-crash fire occurred. The Rotorcraft
Directorate and CAMI built their study using the framework and
methodology previously established by Taneja and Wiegmann's 2003 study.
Further, they used the percentages of bony injuries and organ/visceral
injuries documented in Taneja and Wiegmann's study as a baseline for
comparison. The intent was to see if a statistically significant change
occurred in blunt force trauma injury patterns in fatal rotorcraft
accidents in the 10 years since the previous study. They concluded
there was no statistically significant difference across most
categories of bony injuries and across all categories of organ/visceral
injuries. The Rotorcraft Directorate further discovered that only 10%
of U.S. registered, type-certificated rotorcraft complied with
increased occupant protection measures related to blunt force trauma
mandated in the Sec. Sec. 27.562 and 29.562 rules, despite the rules
being in effect for 25 years at the time of the study. The provisions
of Sec. Sec. 27.562 and 29.562 were specifically designed for
increased protection of the head and core body regions, the same
regions documented with the highest levels of injury in the fatal
accident studies conducted by Taneja and Wiegmann and the Rotorcraft
Directorate/CAMI.
Additional research found that about 9,000 occupants had been
involved in U.S. helicopter accidents in the 25 years since Sec. Sec.
27.562 and 29.562 became effective. Only 2% of helicopters in those
accidents were compliant with Sec. Sec. 27.562 and 29.562. Over 1,300
occupants were killed in accidents involving the 98% of helicopters
that were not compliant with Sec. Sec. 27.562 and 29.562.
The Task
The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group is tasked to:
1. Perform a cost-benefit analysis for incorporating the existing
occupant protection standards 14 CFR 27.561, 27.562, 27.785, 27.952,
29.561, 29.562, 29.785, and 29.952 via Sec. Sec. 27.2 and 29.2 for
newly manufactured rotorcraft that addresses the following:
a. Estimate what the regulated parties would do differently as a
result of the proposed regulation and how much it would cost.
b. Estimate the improvement in survivability of future accidents.
c. Estimate any other benefits (e.g., reduced administrative
burden) or costs
[[Page 68601]]
that would result from implementation of the occupant protection
standards identified above.
2. Develop a cost-benefit analysis report containing the
information explained in task 1 above.
3. After the FAA accepts and considers the cost benefit analysis
report, the FAA will task the Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working
Group either to make specific written recommendations on how all or
part of the existing occupant protection standards 14 CFR 27.561,
27.562, 27.785, 27.952, 29.561, 29.562, 29.785, and 29.952 should be
made effective via Sec. Sec. 27.2 and 29.2 for newly manufactured
rotorcraft, or to propose new alternative performance-based occupant
protection safety regulations for newly manufactured rotorcraft that
will be effective via Sec. Sec. 27.2 and 29.2.
4. If new alternative performance-based occupant protection safety
regulations effective via Sec. Sec. 27.2 and 29.2 are proposed,
perform a cost-benefit analysis that addresses the following:
a. Estimate what the regulated parties would do differently as a
result of the proposed regulation and how much it would cost.
b. Estimate the improvement in survivability of future accidents
from the proposed recommendations.
c. Estimate any other benefits (e.g., reduced administrative
burden) or costs that would result from implementation of the
recommendations.
5. Develop an initial report containing recommendations on the
findings and results of the tasks explained above.
a. The initial recommendation report should document both majority
and dissenting positions on the findings and the rationale for each
position.
b. Any disagreements should be documented, including the rationale
for each position and the reasons for the disagreement.
6. Complete the following after the FAA accepts the initial
recommendation report identified in task 5:
a. Specifically advise and make written recommendations on
incorporating rotorcraft occupant protection improvements and standards
into the existing rotorcraft fleet. Occupant protection standards
include either all or part of 14 CFR 27.561, 27.562, 27.785, 27.952,
29.561, 29.562, 29.785, and 29.952, or new alternative proposed
performance-based regulations.
b. Develop an addendum report containing recommendations on the
findings and results of the tasks explained above.
c. Document both majority and dissenting positions on the findings
and the rationale for each position.
d. Any disagreements should be documented, including the rationale
for each position and the reasons for the disagreement.
7. The working group may be reinstated to assist the ARAC in
responding to the FAA's questions or concerns after the recommendation
report has been submitted.
Schedule
This tasking notice requires three reports.
The task 2 cost-benefit analysis report must be submitted
to the FAA for review and acceptance no later than 6 months after
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
The task 5 initial recommendation report must be submitted
to the FAA for review and acceptance no later than 12 months after
initiation of task 3 above.
The task 6 addendum recommendation report must be
submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance no later than 6 months
after the initial recommendation report is submitted.
Working Group Activity
The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group must comply with
the procedures adopted by the ARAC as follows:
1. Conduct a review and analysis of the assigned tasks and any
other related materials or documents.
2. Draft and submit a work plan for completion of the task,
including the rationale supporting such a plan, for consideration by
the ARAC.
3. Provide a status report at each ARAC meeting.
4. Draft and submit the recommendation reports based on review and
analysis of the assigned tasks.
5. Present the cost-benefit analysis report in task 2 at the ARAC
meeting.
6. Present the initial recommendation report at the ARAC meeting.
7. Present the findings from the addendum recommendation report at
the ARAC meeting.
Participation in the Working Group
The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group will be comprised
of technical experts having an interest in the assigned task. A working
group member need not be a member representative of the ARAC. The FAA
would like a wide range of members (normal category rotorcraft
manufacturers, transport category rotorcraft manufacturers, and
rotorcraft operators from various segments of the industry such as oil
and gas exploration, emergency medical services, and air tour
operators) to ensure all aspects of the tasks are considered in
development of the recommendations. The provisions of the August 13,
2014, Office of Management and Budget guidance, ``Revised Guidance on
Appointment of Lobbyists to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards, and
Commissions'' (79 FR 47482), continues the ban on registered lobbyists
participating on Agency Boards and Commissions if participating in
their ``individual capacity.'' The revised guidance now allows
registered lobbyists to participate on Agency Boards and Commissions in
a ``representative capacity'' for the ``express purpose of providing a
committee with the views of a nongovernmental entity, a recognizable
group of persons or nongovernmental entities (an industry, sector,
labor unions, or environmental groups, etc.) or state or local
government.'' (For further information see Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1995 as amended, 2 U.S.C 1603, 1604, and 1605.)
If you wish to become a member of the Rotorcraft Occupant
Protection Working Group, write the person listed under the caption FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT expressing that desire. Describe your
interest in the task and state the expertise you would bring to the
working group. The FAA must receive all requests by December 7, 2015.
The ARAC and the FAA will review the requests and advise you whether or
not your request is approved.
If you are chosen for membership on the working group, you must
actively participate in the working group, attend all meetings, and
provide written comments when requested. You must devote the resources
necessary to support the working group in meeting any assigned
deadlines. You must keep your management and those you may represent
advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure the
proposed technical solutions do not conflict with the position of those
you represent. Once the working group has begun deliberations, members
will not be added or substituted without the approval of the ARAC
Chair, the FAA, including the Designated Federal Officer, and the
Working Group Chair.
The Secretary of Transportation determined the formation and use of
the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the
performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.
The ARAC meetings are open to the public. However, meetings of the
[[Page 68602]]
Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group are not open to the
public, except to the extent individuals with an interest and expertise
are selected to participate. The FAA will make no public announcement
of working group meetings.
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 30, 2015.
Lirio Liu,
Designated Federal Officer, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2015-28151 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
