Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Proposed Rules 56961

• The RELAP and TRACE codes use 

the FRAPCON information to calculate 

transient effects. 

The NRC has evaluated the 

advantages and disadvantages of the 

rulemaking requested by the petitioner 

with respect to the five performance 

goals set out by the Commission in the 

Strategic Plan for Fiscal years 2004–

2009 announced on August 12, 2004. 

1. Maintaining Safety: The NRC 

believes that the requested rulemaking 

would not make a significant 

contribution to maintaining safety 

because current regulations, regulatory 

guidance and practices already provide 

for monitoring, detecting, and correcting 

possible fouling effects on heat 

exchanger performance. In addition, no 

data or evidence was provided by the 

petitioner to suggest that fouling of heat 

exchanger surfaces created any 

significant safety problems. 

2. Ensure Secure Use and 

Management of Radioactive Material:

The petitioner has not established, nor 

has the NRC found the existence of, any 

safety issues regarding the performance 

of heat exchange surfaces that would 

compromise the secure use of licensed 

radioactive material. 

3. Ensuring Openness in the NRC 

Regulatory Process: The Administrative 

Procedures Act provides that any 

interested person has the right to 

petition an agency for issuance, 

amendment, or repeal of a rule. This 

statute expands on the ‘‘right to 

petition’’ provided by the First 

Amendment to the Constitution. The 

NRC implements this statute through 10 

CFR 2.802, Petition for rulemaking, 

using guidance provided in NUREG–

BR–0053, Revision 5, U.S. NRC 

Regulations Handbook, to ensure that 

the regulatory process takes place in an 

open manner. 

4. Improving Efficiency, Effectiveness, 

and Realism: The proposed revisions 

would not improve efficiency, 

effectiveness, and realism because 

licensees and the NRC would be 

required to generate additional and 

unnecessary information as part of the 

evaluation of numerous heat exchanger 

surfaces throughout the nuclear power 

plant. Revising the regulations to be 

more specific about effects of fouling on 

heat exchanger performance would 

require an expenditure of NRC resources 

with little or no added safety benefit. 

5. Ensure Excellence in NRC 

Management: The petitioner’s request to 

revise the regulations to address the 

impact of fouling on all heat exchange 

surfaces in a nuclear power plant is not 

applicable to the strategic goal of 

continuous improvement in NRC 

management effectiveness. 

Reasons for Denial 

The Commission is denying the 

petition for rulemaking (PRM–50–78). 

The NRC regulation and oversight of 

nuclear power plants includes the 

establishment of regulations, the 

issuance of operating licenses and 

technical specifications, and continual 

inspections and technical reviews of 

licensee programs and plant 

performance. When viewed in total, 

these regulatory requirements and 

related oversight practices provide 

confidence in the safety of operating 

nuclear power plants. The NRC’s 

finding that no rulemaking is required, 

is based on the determination that the 

existing structure of regulations (i.e., 10 

CFR 50.65, Appendix A and B to part 

50), technical specifications, and 

licensee programs subject to NRC 

inspection provides confidence that 

plant safety features, including heat 

exchangers, are properly designed and 

maintained in order to fulfill their 

intended function. 

The Commission concludes that the 

integration of the various requirements 

and related NRC oversight functions 

provide reasonable assurance that 

systems important to safety, such as 

heat exchangers, will perform their 

intended functions. The addition of 

specific requirements to a regulation to 

address heat exchanger performance is 

not necessary. 

For these reasons, the Commission 

denies PRM–50–78.

Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 17th 

day of September, 2004.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–21337 Filed 9–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. NM198; Notice No. 25–04–03–

SC] 

Special Conditions: Boeing Model 777 

Series Airplanes; Seats With Inflatable 

Lapbelts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed amendment 

of special conditions. 

SUMMARY: This notice proposes 

amended special conditions for Boeing 

Model 777 series airplanes. These 

airplanes, manufactured by Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, have novel or 

unusual design features associated with 

seats with inflatable lapbelts. Special 

Conditions No. 25–187–SC were issued 

on October 3, 2001, addressing this 

issue. The proposed amendment would 

add a new requirement that addresses 

the flammability of the material used to 

construct the inflatable lapbelt. The 

applicable airworthiness regulations do 

not contain adequate or appropriate 

safety standards for this design feature. 

The amended special conditions would 

contain the additional safety standards 

that the Administrator considers 

necessary to establish an appropriate 

level of safety considering the safety 

benefits associated with the inflatable 

lapbelt.

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 13, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket No. NM198, using 

any of the following methods: 

• Mail: Federal Aviation 

Administration, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, ANM–113, Attn: Rules 

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington 98055–4056. 

• Fax: 1–425–227–1232, Attn: Jayson 

Claar. 

• Electronically: 

jayson.claar@faa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jayson Claar, FAA, Airframe and Cabin 

Safety Branch, ANM–115, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington, 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2194.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposed special conditions, explain the 

reason for any recommended change, 

and include supporting data. We ask 

that you send us two copies of written 

comments. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning these special conditions. 

The docket is available for public 

inspection before and after the comment 

closing date. If you wish to review the 

docket in person, go to the address in 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive on or before the closing date for 

comments. We will consider comments 

56962 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

filed late if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. We 

may change these special conditions in 

light of the comments we receive. 

If you want the FAA to acknowledge 

receipt of your comments on this 

proposal, include with your comments 

a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on 

which the docket number appears. We 

will stamp the date on the postcard and 

mail it back to you. 

Background 

On April 20, 2001, Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, PO Box 3707, 

Seattle, Washington 98124, applied for 

a type certificate design change to 

install inflatable lapbelts for head injury 

protection on certain seats in Boeing 

Model 777 series airplanes. The Model 

777 series airplane is a swept-wing, 

conventional-tail, twin-engine, turbofanpowered transport. The inflatable 

lapbelt is designed to limit occupant 

forward excursion in the event of an 

accident. This will reduce the potential 

for head injury, as determined by the 

Head Injury Criteria (HIC) measurement. 

The inflatable lapbelt behaves similarly 

to an automotive airbag, but in this case 

the airbag is integrated into the lapbelt, 

and inflates away from the seated 

occupant. While airbags are now 

standard in the automotive industry, the 

use of an inflatable lapbelt is novel for 

commercial aviation. 

Because the existing airworthiness 

standards of 14 CFR part 25 do not 

address inflatable lapbelts, the FAA 

developed special conditions to address 

this design feature. Special Conditions 

No. 25–187–SC were issued to Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes on October 3, 

2001, and published in the Federal 

Register on October 12, 2001 (66 FR 

52017).

On February 26, 2004, The Boeing 

Company requested that the FAA 

amend SC No. 25–187–SC 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(a)(1)(i) of appendix F to part 25. The 

fabrics that were developed that meet 

the flammability requirement did not 

produce acceptable deployment 

characteristics. However, the 

manufacturer was able to develop a 

fabric the meets the less stringent 

flammability requirements of Part 

I(a)(1)(iv) of appendix F to part 25 and 

has acceptable deployment 

characteristics. 

Discussion 

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 a special 

condition, 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 additional proposed safety 

standard would be added as Item 14 to 

existing SC 25–187–SC. Although Items 

1 through 13 are standards already 

adopted in Special Conditions No. 25–

187–SC and are not subject to further 

public comment, they are repeated later 

in this notice in order to place the 

additional standard in proper 

perspective. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under the provisions of § 21.101, 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes must 

show that the Model 777 series 

airplanes, as changed, continue to meet 

the applicable provisions of the 

regulations incorporated by reference in 

Type Certificate No. T00001SE, 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. T00001SE are as follows: 

Amendments 25–1 through 25–82 for 

the Model 777–200, and amendments 

25–1 through 25–86 with exceptions for 

the Model 777–300. The U.S. type 

certification basis for the Model 777 is 

established in accordance with §§ 21.29 

and 21.17 and the type certification 

application date. The U.S. type 

certification basis is listed in Type 

Certificate Data Sheet No. T00001SE. 

If the Administrator finds that the 

applicable airworthiness regulations 

(i.e., part 25 as amended) do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards 

for Boeing Model 777 series airplanes 

because of a novel or unusual design 

feature, special conditions are 

prescribed under the provisions of 

§ 21.16. 

In addition to the applicable 

airworthiness regulations and special 

conditions, the Boeing Model 777 must 

comply with the fuel vent and exhaust 

emission requirements of part 34 and 

the noise certification requirements of 

part 36. 

Special conditions, as defined in 

§ 11.19, are issued in accordance with 

§ 11.38 and become part of the type 

certification basis in accordance with 

§ 21.101. 

Applicability 

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 or similar novel or 

unusual design feature, the special 

conditions would also apply to the other 

model under the provisions of § 21.101. 

Public Comment Period 

Delivery of Model 777 airplanes with 

the additional flammability standard is 

currently scheduled for January 2006. 

Because a delay would significantly 

affect the applicant’s installation and 

type certification of the airbag material, 

the public comment period is 20 days.

Conclusion 

This action affects only certain novel 

or unusual design features on the 

Boeing Model 777 series airplanes. It is 

not a rule of general applicability, and 

it affects only Model 777 series 

airplanes listed on Type Certificate Data 

Sheet T00001SE.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Proposed Rules 56963

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority Citation 

The authority citation for these 

special conditions is as follows:

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

44702, 44704. 

The Proposed Special Conditions 

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation 

Administration proposes the following 

additional special condition (Item No. 

14) as part of the type certification basis 

for the Boeing Model 777 series 

airplanes with inflatable lapbelts 

installed. (Existing special condition 

Items 1–13 are repeated below for 

clarity only.). 

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. 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 an 

inadvertent deployment that could 

cause injury to a standing or sitting 

person is improbable. 

7. 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 is extremely improbable. 

8. It must be shown that the inflatable 

lapbelt will not impede rapid egress of 

occupants 10 seconds after its 

deployment.

9. The system must be protected from 

lightning and HIRF. The threats 

specified in Special Condition No. 25–

ANM–78 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. 

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 reliably operate 

between inspection intervals. 

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). 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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 17, 2004. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 04–21393 Filed 9–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA–2004–17896; Airspace 

Docket No. 04–AGL–13] 

Proposed Modification of Class D 

Airspace; Grissom ARB, IN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

modify Class D airspace at Grissom 

ARB, IN, where Instrument Flight Rules 

Category E circling procedures are being 

used. Increasing the current radius of 

the Class D airspace area will allow for 

a lower Circling Minimum Descent 

Altitude. Controlled airspace extending 

upward from the surface of the earth is 

needed to contain aircraft executing 

these approach procedures. This action 

would increase the area of the existing 

controlled airspace for Grissom ARB, 

IN.

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 25, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the 

proposal to the Docket Management 

System, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001. You must identify the 

docket Number FAA–2004–17896/

Airspace Docket No. 04–AGL–13, at the 

beginning of your comments. You may 

also submit comments on the Internet at 

http://dms.dot.gov. You may review the 

public docket containing the proposal, 

any comments received, and any final 

disposition in person in the Dockets 

Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 

1–800–647–5527) is on the plaza level 

of the Department of Transportation 

NASSIF Building at the above address. 

An informal docket may also be 

examined during normal business hours 

at the office of the Regional Air Traffic 

Division, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 2300 East Devon 

Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. 

Mark Reeves, Air Traffic Division, 

Airspace Branch, AGL–520, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 2300 East 

Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 

60018, telephone (847) 294–7477.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this proposed rulemaking