        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 595
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0031]
        RIN 2127-AL67
        Make Inoperative Exemptions; Vehicle Modifications To Accommodate People With Disabilities, Roof Crush Resistance

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          This NPRM proposes to amend 49 CFR part 595, subpart C, “Make Inoperative Exemptions, Vehicle Modifications to Accommodate People With Disabilities,” to include a new exemption relating to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard for roof crush resistance. The exemption would facilitate the mobility of physically disabled drivers and passengers. This document responds to a petition from Autoregs Consulting, Inc. on behalf of The National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association.

          DATES:
          You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the Docket receives them not later than May 10, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: 202-493-2251.

            Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.

            Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

          For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Christopher J. Wiacek, NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NVS-122 (telephone 202-366-4801) (fax 202-493-2739), or Jesse Chang, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-112 (telephone 202-366-2992) (fax 202-366-3820). The mailing address for these officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background

        The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. chapter 301) (“Safety Act”) and NHTSA's regulations require vehicle manufacturers to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) (see 49 U.S.C. 30112; 49 CFR part 567). A vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business generally may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in or on a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS (see 49 U.S.C. 30122). NHTSA has the authority to issue regulations that exempt regulated entities from the “make inoperative” provision (49 U.S.C. 30122(c)). The agency has used that authority to promulgate 49 CFR part 595 subpart C, “Make Inoperative Exemptions, Vehicle Modifications to Accommodate People with Disabilities.”

        49 CFR part 595 subpart C sets forth exemptions from the make inoperative provision to permit, under limited circumstances, vehicle modifications that take the vehicles out of compliance with certain FMVSSs when the vehicles are modified to be used by persons with disabilities after the first retail sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. The regulation was promulgated to facilitate the modification of motor vehicles so that persons with disabilities can drive or ride in them. The regulation involves information and disclosure requirements and limits the extent of modifications that may be made.
        Under the regulation, a motor vehicle repair business that modifies a vehicle to enable a person with a disability to operate or ride as a passenger in the motor vehicle and that avails itself of the exemption provided by 49 CFR part 595 subpart C must register with NHTSA. The modifier is exempted from the make inoperative provision of the Safety Act, but only to the extent that the modifications affect the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSSs specified in 49 CFR 595.7(c) and only to the extent specified in § 595.7(c). Modifications that would take the vehicle out of compliance with any other FMVSS, or with an FMVSS listed in § 595.7(c) but in a manner not specified in that paragraph are not exempted by the regulation. The modifier must affix a permanent label to the vehicle identifying itself as the modifier and the vehicle as no longer complying with all FMVSS in effect at original manufacture, and must provide and retain a document listing the FMVSSs with which the vehicle no longer complies and indicating any reduction in the load carrying capacity of the vehicle of more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds).
        II. FMVSS No. 216 “Roof Crush Resistance” and Part 595

        On May 12, 2009, as part of a comprehensive plan for reducing the serious risk of rollover crashes and the risk of death and serious injury in those crashes, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (74 FR 22348) a final rule substantially upgrading the roof crush resistance requirements by adopting new provisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. During the rulemaking, our analysis showed that roof strength is relevant to about seven percent (about 667) of the rollover crash fatalities each year. We estimated that the May 2009 rule would prevent 135 of those 667 fatalities. In summary, the final rule established the following main provisions.
        (1) For the vehicles currently subject to the standard, i.e., passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less, the rule doubled the amount of force the vehicle's roof structure must withstand in the specified test, from 1.5 times the vehicle's unloaded weight to 3.0 times the vehicle's unloaded weight. We note that this value is sometimes referred to as the strength-to-weight ratio (SWR), e.g., a SWR of 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and so forth.
        (2) The rule extended the applicability of the standard so that it will also apply to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds), but not greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). The rule established a SWR of 1.5 times for these vehicles.

        (3) The rule required all applicable vehicles to meet the specified force requirements in a two-sided test, an upgrade from the existing single-sided test, i.e., the same vehicle must meet the force requirements when tested first on one side and then on the other side of the vehicle prior to 127 mm of roof crush.

        (4) The rule established a new requirement for maintenance of headroom, i.e., survival space, during testing in addition to the existing limit on the amount of roof crush.
        As the agency was conscious of the fact that some vehicles are built in multiple stages, the rule provided an option for alterers and multi-stage (final stage) manufacturers (who complete or add raised roofs to vehicles prior to first retail sale) to certify to the school bus rollover protection requirements (FMVSS No. 220) instead. This option is available to manufacturers of vehicles with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds), but not greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds), except those built on chassis-cab incomplete vehicles.
        While the option to certify to the requirements in FMVSS No. 220 is available to manufacturers that alter vehicles prior to first sale, modifiers are prohibited from making similar changes to a vehicle (originally certified to meet FMVSS No. 216a) after first sale (due to the aforementioned make-inoperative prohibition in section 30122 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act). Further, 49 CFR part 595 does not currently provide for an exemption from FMVSS No. 216 for modifiers that raise the roof on vehicles to accommodate people with disabilities.
        III. Petition for Rulemaking
        On January 21, 2013, Autoregs Consulting, Inc. (Autoregs) on behalf of The National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) submitted a petition for rulemaking to amend § 595.7 to include an exemption from certain requirements of FMVSS No. 216. In its petition, Autoregs requested flexibility to allow modifiers to replace a vehicle's original roof after first sale with a raised or altered roof to accommodate the needs of persons with disability. Instead of complying with those requirements of FMVSS No. 216, the Petitioner states that modifiers should be afforded the same option (as alterers and multistage manufacturers—who alter vehicles prior to first sale) of installing a roof system that complies with the requirements of FMVSS No. 220, School bus rollover protection.
        Autoregs explained that raising the roof of a vehicle is an everyday manufacturing operation for hundreds of NMEDA members, most of which are modifiers of vehicles with a GVWR greater than 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds), but not greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). Autoregs further asserts there is a need for modifiers to raise the roofs of vehicles after first sale to meet the special needs of consumers with disabilities. Autoregs explained that in many cases a consumer will purchase a vehicle, usually over 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) GVWR and then approach a modifier to have a roof raised. Generally, customers ask to raise the roof 30.5 to 35.6 centimeters (14 to 16 inches) to suit their special needs. In other cases, a public agency or independent transportation company will purchase a vehicle to have the roof raised to provide public transportation for special needs citizens. They state that the make-inoperative prohibition and upgraded FMVSS No. 216 makes it impossible for such modifiers to provide transportation that accommodates those individuals who need a vehicle with a raised roof to drive or to access public transportation due to a disability.
        While modifiers would have difficultly ensuring the modified roof continues to meet the performance specified in FMVSS No. 216, the Petitioner stated that such modifiers are able to change the roof structures of these vehicles in a way so as to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities while still providing some roof strength protection to the vehicle occupants. Instead of adhering to the upgraded requirements of FMVSS No. 216, the petitioner states that such modifiers are able to ensure that a vehicle with the modified roof structure would meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 220.

        Prior to the upgrade to FMVSS No. 216, NMEDA had tested and provided consortium test and installation instruction to its members for a tubular structure, or roll cage, to comply with the requirements in FMVSS No. 220. NMEDA conducted this testing mainly because they believed that FMVSS No. 220 is a comparatively simpler test and the roll cage is less expensive to install. However, after the FMVSS No. 216 upgrade, a modifier that used the NMEDA roll cage would still be subject to the make-inoperative prohibition.
        IV. Response to Petition
        NHTSA tentatively agrees with the Petitioner and proposes to amend 49 CFR 595.7(c) and add an exemption to the upgraded roof strength requirements of FMVSS No. 216a. We also agree with the Petitioner and propose to condition this exemption on modifiers installing a new roof that would enable the vehicle to meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 220.
        A. What are the mobility needs that require accommodation?
        We tentatively agree with the Petitioner that there is a need to accommodate persons with special mobility needs in this situation and the new FMVSS No. 216 prevents vehicle modifiers from doing so. To accommodate those with disabilities, a vehicle's roof may have to be raised. Prior to the 2009 upgrade to FMVSS No. 216, the vast majority of the vehicles being modified for this purpose did not have to comply with any roof crush requirements because they were vehicles with a GVWR between 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) and 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). Thus, prior to the 2009 upgrade, modifiers could replace the roof of such a vehicle to accommodate a person with special mobility needs without making inoperative any equipment installed in compliance with FMVSS No. 216.
        While, such vehicles now have requirements under FMVSS No. 216, the need to accommodate such persons remains. A raised roof makes it easy for someone to enter the van seated in a wheelchair or for a personal care attendant to tend to them or walk in and out of the entrance. Doors may be raised in conjunction with a roof to enable a person in a wheelchair to enter without having to bend over or have a personal care attendant tilt the wheelchair back. Larger wheelchairs or motorized wheelchairs may also require modifications to the roof height to improve ingress and egress of the occupant. These modifications to the roof could take the vehicle out of compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 216.
        B. Our Proposal To Accommodate This Need
        We tentatively agree with the Petitioners that there is a need to provide an exemption in part 595 to the make inoperative prohibition for vehicles modified to accommodate persons with special mobility needs. We also tentatively agree with the Petitioners suggestion that FMVSS No. 220 is a viable alternative to ensure a minimum level of roof strength to protect the occupants of vehicles modified in this manner.

        Similar to the rationale we expressed in the 2009 upgrade of FMVSS No. 216 for altered vehicles (e.g., vehicles with a roof raised prior to first sale), we believe that there are certain technical problems modifying a vehicle to incorporate a raised roof and ensure that the vehicle continues to meet the requirements of the upgraded FMVSS No. 216. For example, if a van is altered by replacing its roof with a taller roof surface and structure, this would change the location of the test device with respect to the original roof surface and structure. If a vehicle is modified and the roof is raised to the heights suggested by the Petitioner (i.e., 305 to 356 mm), the 127 mm of platen travel specified in the requirements would likely be exceed prior to the platen engaging the original vehicle's roof structure in the FMVSS No. 216 test.
        We believe it would be difficult for modifiers (generally small businesses and subject to the differing needs of their customers) to raise the roof of a vehicle to these types of heights and ensure that the vehicle remains compliant with FMVSS No. 216 because the modified roof would require different testing for each variation of the roof modification. Given the small volume, variety of roof heights needed to accommodate different disabilities, and different vehicle models used for these modifications, we believe that there are substantial technical difficulties for designing a roof and structure that would enable a vehicle to continue to comply with FMVSS No. 216.
        However, we currently believe that providing FMVSS No. 220 as an option for compliance is a more appropriate balance between the need to modify these vehicles to accommodate a person with a disability and our interest in ensuring a sufficient level of safety. With FMVSS No. 220, modifiers can use a whole raised roof that is designed to be installed on the vehicle. Further, such a raised roof could be applied to vehicles of varying height and would still be able to absorb the load of the platen in the FMVSS No. 220 test. As the Petitioner stated, such a roof structure (that can be applied to the variety of needed modifications and would enable the modified vehicle to meet FMVSS No. 220) has been designed and is available to modifiers. NMEDA developed the Raised Roof Manufacturing Guidelines 1
           which provide their members with roof structure designs and installation considerations such that the modified vehicle would meet the minimum load requirements in FMVSS No. 220.

            1 NMEDA, Raised Roof Manufacturing Guidelines—Ford E series GM/Chevrolet Savana/Express Model years 2008-2009-2010, Revision 2, January 19, 2010.

        Further, as we stated in the 2009 upgrade to FMVSS No. 216, we believe that the requirements of FMVSS No. 220 offer a reasonable avenue for increasing safety in rollover crashes. We note that several states already require “para-transit” vans and other buses, which are typically manufactured in multiple stages, to comply with the roof crush requirements of FMVSS No. 220. These states include Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Michigan, Utah, Alabama, and California. Further, our crash data continue to show that FMVSS No. 220 has been effective for protecting school buses during rollover crashes.
        In addition, we believe that the strength requirements for FMVSS Nos. 216 and 220 are comparable—even though the test procedures differ. FMVSS No. 216 requires the roof to withstand a force that 1.5 times the unloaded vehicle weight of the vehicle when an angled plate (5 degree pitch forward and 25 degree rotation outward, along its lateral axis) is applied to the front corner of the roof over the occupant compartment on one side prior to 127 mm (5 inches) of plate travel or the roof makes contact with the head of seat 50th percentile dummy and repeated on the other side of the vehicle. The FMVSS No. 220 test uses a single horizontal platen over the whole roof of the vehicle to apply a load to the vehicle's roof. The standard requires the roof to withstand a force of 1.5 times the vehicle`s unloaded weight prior to 130 mm (5.1 inches) limit of platen travel.

        Thus, we recognize the concerns raised by Autoregs on behalf of NMEDA for continued mobility for people with disabilities with respect to the new FMVSS No. 216 requirements and tentatively believe their request to allow modifiers the option of meeting the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 220 reasonable. The agency continues to believe the requirements of FMVSS No. 220 have been effective for school buses and allows it as an option for certain multi-stage vehicles when the new requirements of FMVSS No. 216 become effective in 2017. In the context of the Petitioner's request and the work NMEDA has conducted in developing Raised Roof Manufacturing Guidelines for its members, we believe FMVSS No. 220 offers a reasonable avenue to balance the practicability of modifying vehicles to accommodate persons with a disability and the need to increase safety in rollover crashes. We request comments on the proposed exemption.
        V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
        Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
        NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” It is not considered to be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). NHTSA has determined that the effects are so minor that a regulatory evaluation is not needed to support the subject rulemaking. This rulemaking would impose no costs on the vehicle modification industry.
        Modifying a vehicle in a way that makes inoperative the performance of roof crush resistance could be detrimental for the occupants of the vehicle involved in a rollover crash. By allowing modifiers the option of designing a roof system to the school bus rollover test procedure and strength requirements there is essentially no known safety trade-off for persons with disabilities. The number of vehicles potentially modified would be also very few in number. The agency believes we have made the exemption narrow and conditioned on maintaining the integrity of the roof. This issue has also been discussed in the 2009 upgrade to the requirements of Standard No. 216. We have requested comments on how the agency may make the exemption as narrow as reasonably possible.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        NHTSA has considered the effects of this proposed rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Most dealerships and repair businesses are considered small entities, and a substantial number of these businesses modify vehicles to accommodate individuals with disabilities. I certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While most dealers and repair businesses would be considered small entities, the proposed exemption would not impose any new requirements, but would instead provide additional flexibility. Therefore, the impacts on any small businesses affected by this rulemaking would not be substantial.
        Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
        NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The proposal does not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” This proposed rule would not impose any requirements on anyone. This proposal would lessen a burden on modifiers.

        NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision stating that a State (or a political subdivision of a State) may prescribe or continue to enforce a standard that applies to an aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the FMVSS governing the same aspect of performance. See 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). This provision is not relevant to this rulemaking as it does not involve the establishing, amending or revoking of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.
        Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law. We are unaware of any State law or action that would prohibit the actions that this proposed rule would permit.
        Civil Justice Reform
        When promulgating a regulation, agencies are required under Executive Order 12988 to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language the preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed, circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship of regulations.
        Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive effect of this proposed rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.
        National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

        Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), “all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.” Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. No voluntary standards exist regarding this proposed exemption for modification of vehicles to accommodate persons with disabilities.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This proposed exemption would not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million annually.
        National Environmental Policy Act
        NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This proposal does not contain new reporting requirements or requests for information beyond what is already required by 49 CFR part 595 subpart C.
        Plain Language
        Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
        • Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
        • Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
        • Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear?
        • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
        • Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
        • Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
        • What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
        If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this proposal.
        Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
        The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
        Public Participation
        How do I prepare and submit comments?
        Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
        Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

        Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

        Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

        How can I be sure that my comments were received?
        If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
        How do I submit confidential business information?

        If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to the docket at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)
        Will the agency consider late comments?

        We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
        How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

        You may read the comments received by the docket at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

        Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material. You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 595
          Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

        In consideration of the foregoing, we propose to amend 49 CFR part 595 to read as follows:

          PART 595—MAKE INOPERATIVE EXEMPTIONS

        1. The authority citation for part 595 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30122 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

        2. Amend § 595.7 by adding paragraph (c)(18) to read as follows:

          § 595.7
          Requirements for vehicle modifications to accommodate people with disabilities.

          (c) * * *
          (18) S5.2(b) of 49 CFR 571.216a, in any case where the vehicle, after modification, meets the roof crush requirements in S4 of 49 CFR 571.220 when tested in accordance to S5 of 49 CFR 571.220.

          Issued on: March 2, 2016.
          R. Ryan Posten,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 2016-05372 Filed 3-10-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Aviation Administration
        14 CFR Part 39
        [Docket No. FAA-2012-0002; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-42-AD]
        RIN 2120-AA64
        Airworthiness Directives; Continental Motors, Inc. Reciprocating Engines

          AGENCY:
          Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

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

          SUMMARY:
          We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airmotive Engineering Corp. (AEC) replacement parts manufacturer approval (PMA) cylinder assemblies marketed by Engine Components International Division (ECi). These cylinder assemblies are used on all Continental Motors, Inc. (CMI) model 520 and 550 reciprocating engines, and on all other CMI engine models approved for the use of model 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies, such as the CMI model 470 when modified by supplemental type certificate (STC). The NPRM proposed to require initial and repetitive inspections, replacement of cracked cylinder assemblies, and replacement of cylinder assemblies at reduced times-in-service. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the installation of affected cylinder assemblies into any engine. The NPRM was prompted by reports of multiple cylinder head-to-barrel separations and cracked and leaking aluminum cylinder heads. This supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) modifies the schedule for removal of the affected cylinder assemblies, adds that overhauled affected cylinder assemblies be removed within 80 hours, eliminates a reporting requirement, and removes the requirement for initial and repetitive inspections. We are proposing this SNPRM to prevent failure of the cylinder assemblies, which could lead to failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of control of the airplane. We are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on the proposed changes to the NPRM.

          DATES:
          We must receive comments on this SNPRM by February 23, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Fax: 202-493-2251.
          • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
          • Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Engine Components International Division, 9503 Middlex Drive, San Antonio, TX 78217; phone: 210-820-8101; Internet: http://www.eci.aero/pages/tech_svcpubs.aspx. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

        Examining the AD Docket
        You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2012-0002; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this SNPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. Given the volume of comments received, we are not identifying the individual commenters within this SNPRM. However, we identify all commenters, other than individuals, in the docket. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jurgen E. Priester, Aerospace Engineer, Special Certification Office, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; phone: 817-222-5190; fax: 817-222-5785; email: jurgen.e.priester@faa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Comments Invited
        We invite your review of the commenter list provided in Docket No. FAA-2012-0002. If you submitted a comment to an organization and do not see the name of the organization in the commenter list, please submit your comment directly to us as provided for in this SNPRM. If you submitted as an individual, you will not be listed as a commenter.
        We also invite you to review our responses to comments, and to resubmit your comment if you conclude that your comment was not responded to below.

        We also invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this SNPRM. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2012-0002; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-42-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this SNPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this SNPRM because of those comments.
        We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this SNPRM.
        Discussion

        We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain AEC replacement PMA cylinder assemblies marketed by ECi. These assemblies are used on CMI model 520 and 550 reciprocating engines, and all other CMI engine models approved for the use of models 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies such as the CMI model 470 when modified by STC. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2013 (78 FR 48828). The NPRM proposed to require initial and repetitive inspections, immediate replacement of cracked cylinder assemblies, and replacement of cylinder assemblies at reduced times-in-service (TIS) since new. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the installation of affected cylinder assemblies into any engine.
        Actions Since Previous NPRM Was Issued
        Since the NPRM published on August 12, 2013 (78 FR 48828), we received numerous comments on the proposed rule. We reviewed those comments and considered their impact to safety. Some of those comments included additional failure information that we subsequently incorporated in our updated risk analysis.
        Following our comment review, we determined that we needed to review how we proposed to address the unsafe condition. So, we formed a multi-directorate/multi-disciplinary team to review the technical basis of the proposed rule, as well as the numerous public comments, and the additional failure information provided by commenters, to the NPRM. This team confirmed that the subject cylinder assemblies are unsafe.
        The team's review of the new data provided by commenters supports a lengthier compliance interval. This team therefore recommended several changes to the NPRM, which resulted in this SNPRM.
        Comments
        We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
        Request To Withdraw the NPRM Because ECi Cylinder Assemblies Are Not Unsafe
        Many operators, maintenance organizations, and private citizens asked that we withdraw the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013). The commenters claimed that the affected ECi cylinder assemblies have an equivalent, or lower, failure rate than that of cylinder assemblies manufactured by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). We concluded that these commenters were requesting that we withdraw the NPRM because they believe that the ECi cylinder assemblies are not unsafe.
        We disagree. The rate of separation for the affected ECi cylinder assemblies is at least 32 times greater than that of OEM cylinder assemblies over the same period. Although there are approximately four times as many OEM cylinder assemblies in service than ECi cylinder assemblies, the ECi cylinder assemblies suffered more cylinder head separations than OEM cylinder assemblies since 2004. This data is available for review in Docket No. FAA-2012-0002. We did not withdraw the NPRM.
        Request To Withdraw the NPRM Because Airplanes Can Operate Safely With a Separated Cylinder Head
        Numerous aircraft operators, maintenance organizations, and private citizens commented that we should not issue the AD because airplanes can continue to operate safely even after a cylinder head separation. Several commenters have also stated that airplane engines are designed and certified to safely operate with one failed cylinder. They cited 14 CFR 33.43 in support of their position.
        We disagree. The safety consequences represented by a cylinder head separation in flight are significant, and include multiple secondary effects, like fire. We did not withdraw the NPRM.
        We also disagree that § 33.43, Vibration Test, supports the commenter's position that airplanes are certified to operate safely after a cylinder head separation. Section 33.43(d), addressing the engine vibration survey of § 33.43(a), requires assessment of crankshaft vibration for an engine that has one cylinder that “is not firing.” That paragraph, like the rest of § 33.43, does not discuss cylinder head separation. We did not withdraw the NPRM.
        Request To Withdraw the NPRM Because Root Cause of Cylinder Failure Is Unknown
        Numerous aircraft operators, maintenance organizations, and private citizens requested that we withdraw the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013) because the FAA failed to identify the root cause(s) of cylinder head separations.
        We disagree. The root cause of the cylinder head separation is not the unsafe condition. We have identified the unsafe condition—cylinder head separation. Removal of the cylinder assembly resolves the unsafe condition. We did not withdraw the NPRM.
        Request To Withdraw the NPRM Because Pilot Error Is Causing Cylinder Head Separations
        Numerous organizations, aircraft operators, and private citizens commented that cylinder head separations involving the ECi cylinder assemblies affected by this NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013) were caused by pilot error rather than by design deficiencies of the cylinder assemblies. They therefore requested that we not issue the AD.
        We disagree. If pilot error was leading to cylinder head separation, then we would expect to see similar damage in engines with other than ECi cylinder assemblies installed where the pilots exceeded the same limitation(s). However, we do not have any such data. We did not withdraw the NPRM.
        Request To Adopt Less Stringent Compliance Requirements
        The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), other organizations, numerous aircraft operators, and private citizens commented that the compliance requirements in the proposed AD are too severe and that we should adopt less stringent requirements.
        We agree that the requirements for removal of the cylinder assemblies can be made less severe. Our updated analysis indicates that our proposed reduced compliance interval with the attendant removal from service of affected cylinder assemblies and lesser impact to operators addresses the unsafe condition and is consistent with our risk guidelines. We revised the compliance paragraphs in this SNPRM by changing the schedule for removal of affected cylinder assemblies to a phased removal schedule for all affected cylinder assemblies based on total time in service since new.
        The NTSB also recommended in NTSB Safety Recommendation A-12-7 that we impose a repetitive inspection requirement for certain ECi cylinder assemblies and their removal once they reach the manufacturer's recommended time between overhaul (TBO).
        We disagree. Repetitive inspections until TBO as suggested by the commenter, is inconsistent with the serious hazard represented by cylinder assembly failures. Therefore, we are requiring removal of affected cylinder assemblies from service prior to TBO. Also, engine overhaul is not a requirement for all operators. Therefore, tying the proposed recurrent inspection to engine overhaul would not resolve the unsafe condition. We did not change this proposed AD based on this comment.

        The NTSB also noted that the proposed rule would affect many more cylinder assemblies than the NTSB had included in its safety recommendation letter A-12-7, dated February 24, 2012, to the FAA. The NTSB commented that the NPRM's proposal to remove Group A cylinder assemblies (S/Ns 1 through 33696) with fewer than 500 hours TIS or more than 1,000 hours TIS within 25 hours does not appear to be supported by existing service information or discussions between the NTSB and the FAA.
        We disagree. Based on service failure data and known implementation of design improvements, this proposed AD must apply to cylinder assemblies S/Ns 1 through 61176. We did not change this proposed AD based on this comment.
        Request for FAA To Follow Its Own Risk Assessment Policies
        Numerous aviation associations, aircraft operators, maintenance organizations, and private citizens commented that the FAA had not followed its own risk assessment policies in issuing the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013).
        We disagree. The corrective actions proposed in the NPRM, and as revised by this SNPRM, are consistent with FAA Order 8040.4A, “Safety Risk Management Policy,” dated April 30, 2012, and the Monitor Safety/Analyze Data (MSAD) process defined in FAA Order 8110.107A, “Monitor Safety/Analyze Data,” dated October 1, 2012. The requirements of this proposed AD are also consistent with the guidance of Engine & Propeller Directorate memorandum “Risk Assessment for Reciprocating Engine Airworthiness Directives,” PS-ANE-100-1999-00006, dated May 24, 1999. We did not change this SNPRM as a result of this comment.
        Request To Withdraw the NPRM Because of the Risk of Maintenance Errors
        Numerous aircraft operators, maintenance organizations, and private citizens commented that the FAA should withdraw the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013) because the removal and replacement of affected cylinder assemblies before TBO would result in maintenance errors that would adversely affect safety.
        We disagree. Our regulatory framework presumes that maintenance will be performed correctly by personnel authorized by the FAA to return aircraft to service in an airworthy condition. Further, we have not observed any negative effects on safety due to removal of these cylinder assemblies during maintenance. Also, cylinder removal and replacement is a maintenance action addressed in engine maintenance manuals. We did not withdraw the NPRM.
        Request To Review Repetitive Compression Test and Leak Check
        Some aircraft operators commented that they successfully passed the compression test with the piston at top-dead-center, while still finding the cylinders cracked. We interpret the comment to be that the proposed inspection and test was inadequate to detect a cracked cylinder assembly.
        We agree. The inspection and test may not detect cracks. Also, we have received field reports of separated cylinders that occurred within the repetitive 50-hour compression test and leak check inspection intervals proposed by the NPRM. We therefore concluded that these tests are not sufficiently reliable and the cost associated with such ongoing tests outweighs the safety benefit. We changed this SNPRM by removing the requirement for repetitive compression and leak inspection tests.
        Request To Withdraw the NPRM Because of Excessive Cost
        Numerous aviation associations, aircraft operators, maintenance organizations, and private citizens commented that the FAA should withdraw the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013) because the cost of compliance is excessive to owners and operators of aircraft with engines that have affected cylinder assemblies.
        We disagree. We find that the safety benefits of the proposed rule, as changed by this SNPRM, outweigh its estimated cost. Further, we recalculated the cost of the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013). Our previous estimate was based on 36,000 cylinder assemblies. Based on data available to the FAA, we subsequently reduced the number affected cylinder assemblies to 28,874.
        We also determined that a replacement cost based on a pro-rated life of the cylinder assemblies more accurately reflects the true cost of replacing the cylinder assemblies. In the NPRM, we used $1,700 per cylinder assembly for the entire affected cylinder assembly population. We recalculated the total value for loss of the part based on a pro-rated estimate of usage for the cylinder assembly population over their current accumulated time in service. This recalculated loss is $19,867,882 for the entire affected cylinder assembly population.
        Finally, since we issued the NPRM, we eliminated those inspections and their associated cost from this SNPRM. For further information on the estimated cost of this AD, please see our Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the text of this SNPRM. We did not withdraw the NPRM.
        Miscellaneous Comments to the NPRM
        We received several comments on the rulemaking process, including several who supported the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013) as proposed. Several commenters stated that hundreds of failures of the affected cylinder assemblies had been reported to the FAA and ECi.
        We thank the commenters for their participation in the rulemaking process.
        Summary of Changes to the NPRM
        First, we removed the 50 hour repetitive inspection requirement in the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013). We did so because we determined that the inspection, compression test, and leak check proposed by the NPRM was not effective in detecting cracked cylinders. Based on further review of service information, we determined that a compression test and leak check will not identify a crack until the crack has propagated all the way through the cylinder wall to some detectable location. Therefore, we are relying on the phased removal of the cylinders along with annual or 100-hour inspections already required by other regulations to provide an adequate level of safety.

        We eliminated the requirement to report details of all cylinder assemblies removed per the requirements of the AD to the FAA. This information is no longer needed since we will rely on our established reporting channels, e.g., Service Difficulty Reporting (SDR) and Malfunction/Defect (M/D) reports, to report future cylinder head failures.
        We reduced the estimated population of affected cylinder assemblies from 36,000 to 28,874.
        We used a pro-rated loss of cylinder life which more accurately reflects the cost of replacing the affected cylinder assemblies.
        We removed the cost of inspection from this SNPRM since the recurrent visual inspections and compression/leak tests proposed by the NPRM were ineffective in detecting the unsafe condition.
        We changed the compliance paragraphs by removing references to “Group A” (serial numbers (S/Ns) between 1 and 33696) and “Group B” (S/Ns between 33697 and 61176). We determined that TIS and serial number (S/N) are sufficient to identify and correct the suspect cylinder assembly population.

        We modified the compliance schedule for removal of affected cylinder assemblies from 500 or 1,000 operating hours for all affected cylinder assemblies to a phased removal schedule based on total hours TIS since new. We determined that information submitted by commenters to the proposed rule justified a phased drawdown of the assemblies from service.
        Finally, we specified in this SNPRM that overhauled cylinder assemblies should be removed within 80 hours after the effective date of this AD. We concluded that overhauling of the cylinder assembly does not diminish the fatigue damage that has already accumulated in the cylinder head.
        FAA's Determination
        We are proposing this SNPRM because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. Certain changes described above revise the scope of the NPRM (78 FR 48828, August 12, 2013). As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
        Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM
        This SNPRM would require removal of the affected cylinder assemblies, including overhauled cylinder assemblies, according to a phased removal schedule.
        Costs of Compliance
        We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 5,000 CMI models IO-520, TSIO-520, IO-550, and IOF-550 reciprocating engines and all other CMI engine models approved for the use of CMI models 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies (such as the CMI model 470 when modified by STC), installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We estimate that about 18 hours would be required to replace all six cylinder assemblies during overhaul maintenance. We estimate the pro-rated value of the cost of replacement of six cylinder assemblies to be about $4,202 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this proposed AD to U.S. operators to change all ECi cylinder assemblies to be $28,660,000. Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.
        Authority for This Rulemaking
        Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
        We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
        Regulatory Flexibility Determination
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
        Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the Act.
        This proposed rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities of part 135 operators and smaller air services businesses.
        The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) classifies businesses as small based on size standards, typically expressed as number of employees. The FAA identified 609 part 135 operators that meet the SBA definition of a small entity (entities with 1,500 or fewer employees) which would be affected by this proposed rule. Of these 609, the FAA identified 209 small part 135 operators on which the rule would have a significant economic impact. We consider this a substantial number of small entities. In addition, we estimate that more than 2,000 smaller air services businesses would be affected by this proposed rule. This business segment also has a substantial number of small entities. The FAA is unaware of the assets or financial resources of these businesses. The FAA requests comments from these businesses regarding their economic impact.
        The FAA estimates the compliance cost from this AD to be the sum of the replacement cost per aircraft, plus the loss of use due to earlier replacement, plus minor paperwork cost. The labor cost to replace all six cylinder assemblies is the average labor rate $85 per hour multiplied by the estimated 18 hours to complete the task.
        The FAA believes that a pro-rated value of the replacement cost of the cylinder assemblies is more accurate and reflects on the true cost to replacing the cylinder assemblies. This AD would result in a loss-of-use as some cylinder assemblies would be replaced sooner than current practice. This AD requires removal of the cylinder assemblies at an average of 1,000 hours instead of at the average TBO of 1,700 hours. This means that the allowable life is only 1,000 of the original 1,700 hours, or at 58.82% of the current life. Therefore the life value that is lost equals 0.4118 (1.0−0.5882). We estimate the pro-rated loss of life value for six cylinder assemblies to be about $4,200 per engine (1,700 × 6 × .4118). The loss-of-use expense implicitly includes the earlier purchase of the replacement cylinder assemblies.
        Therefore the AD cost per aircraft equals the labor costs of $1,530 and the loss-of-service cost of $4,202, or about $6,000. Based on the number of aircraft owned by the operators impacted, total compliance costs range between $6 thousand to $525 thousand per small entity encompassing one to eighty-eight aircraft.
        To determine whether the compliance cost would be a significant economic impact, we measured the annualized compliance cost relative to the value of the aircraft. The estimated value of their aircraft ranges between $22 thousand to $21 million. Using the preceding information, the FAA estimates that their ratio of annualized cost to asset value is higher than 5 percent for many of these operators. Based on this information the FAA decided that the rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of entities. Therefore, we have performed a regulatory flexibility analysis for these small entities.
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
        Under Section 603(b) of the RFA, the initial analysis must address:
        (1) Description of reasons the agency is considering the action;

        (2) Statement of the legal basis and objectives for the proposed rule;

        (3) Description of the record keeping and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule;
        (4) All federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule;
        (5) Description and an estimated number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply; and
        (6) Describe alternatives considered.
        Description of Reasons the Agency is Considering the Action
        This proposed AD was prompted by failure reports of multiple cylinder head-to-barrel separations and cracked and leaking aluminum cylinder heads. This AD would apply to certain Airmotive Engineering Corp. replacement PMA cylinder assemblies marketed by ECi, used on CMI model 520 and 550 reciprocating engines, and all other engine models approved for the use of CMI models 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies, such as the CMI model 470 when modified by STC.
        Description and an Estimated Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply
        We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 5,000 Continental Motors, Inc. models IO-520, TSIO-520, IO-550, and IOF-550 reciprocating engines and all other engine models approved for the use of CMI models 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies (such as the CMI model 470 when modified by STC), installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
        The FAA will affect 609 part 135 operators and more than 2,000 air service businesses for which the rule will have an economic impact. The affected entities fly fixed wing aircraft; employ less than 1,500 employees; and conduct a variety of air services such as fly passengers and cargo for hire. We estimate that the small part 135 operators have assets valued between $22 thousand to $21 million (range of 1 to 88 aircraft).
        Description of the Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule
        Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response at an hourly wage rate of $85 per hour, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. The paperwork cost for them is between $7 and $616.
        All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
        The FAA is unaware of any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
        Description of Alternatives Considered
        The FAA received comments concerning this AD. Some commenters requested withdrawal of this NPRM because of excessive cost with only negligible safety gains. In response to comments about problems with repetitive compression/soap test, the FAA agrees that these tests are not reliable and the costs associated with such ongoing tests outweigh the safety benefit. This SNPRM has removed the requirement for repetitive compression/soap inspection tests. We also considered these following alternatives:
        (1) Do nothing—This option is not acceptable due to the number of failures of ECi cylinder assemblies and the consequences of the failures.
        (2) Periodic inspections only (no forced removals)—Though the NTSB recommends this option, the service history has shown that such inspections may not reliably detect existing cracks and the rate of crack growth to separation is unknown and variable.
        (3) Forced removal with periodic inspections—As stated above, such periodic inspections may not reliably detect cracks and the rate of crack growth to separation is unknown and variable.
        Regulatory Findings
        We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
        For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
        (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
        (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
        (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
        (4) Will have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

          List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
          Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

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

          PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

          § 39.13
          [Amended]

        2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

            Continental Motors, Inc. (formerly Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc., formerly Continental): Docket No. FAA-2012-0002; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-42-AD.
          (a) Comments Due Date
          We must receive comments by February 23, 2015.
          (b) Affected ADs
          None.
          (c) Applicability
          This AD applies to all Continental Motors, Inc. (CMI) model 520 and 550 reciprocating engines, and to all other CMI engine models approved for the use of model 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies such as the CMI model 470 when modified by supplemental type certificate (STC), with Airmotive Engineering Corp. replacement parts manufacturer approval (PMA) cylinder assemblies, marketed by Engine Components International Division (hereinafter referred to as ECi), part number (P/N) AEC631397, with ECi Class 71 or Class 76, serial number (S/N) 1 through S/N 61176, installed.
          (d) Unsafe Condition
          This AD was prompted by multiple failure reports of cylinder head-to-barrel separations and cracked and leaking aluminum cylinder heads. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the cylinder assemblies, which could lead to failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of control of the airplane.
          (e) Compliance
          Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
          (1) Review the engine maintenance records to determine if any affected cylinder assemblies are installed.
          (2) If you cannot determine based on review of engine maintenance records if any affected cylinder assemblies are installed, comply with paragraph (e)(4) of this AD.

          (3) If you do not have any of the affected ECi cylinder assemblies installed on your engine, no further action is required.

          (4) Cylinder Identification and Serial Number Location
          (i) Check the cylinder assembly P/N and Class number. The ECi cylinder assembly, P/N AEC631397, Class 71 or Class 76, is stamped on the bottom flange of the cylinder barrel. Guidance on the P/N and Class number description and location can be found in ECi Service Instruction No. 99-8-1, Revision 9, dated February 23, 2009.
          (ii) If you cannot see the cylinder assembly P/N when the cylinder assembly is installed on the engine, you may use the following alternative method of identification:
          (A) Remove the cylinder assembly rocker box cover.
          (B) Find the letters ECi, cast into the cylinder head between the valve stems.
          (C) Check the cylinder head casting P/N. Affected cylinder assemblies have the cylinder head casting P/N, AEC65385, cast into the cylinder head between the valve stems.
          (D) Find the cylinder assembly S/N as specified in paragraph (e)(4)(iii) or (e)(4)(iv) of this AD, as applicable.
          (iii) For ECi cylinder assemblies, P/N AEC631397, manufactured through 2008, find the cylinder assembly S/N stamped on the intake port boss two inches down from the top edge of the head.
          (iv) For ECi cylinder assemblies, P/N AEC631397, manufactured on or after January 1, 2009, find the cylinder assembly S/N stamped just below the top edge of the head on the exhaust port side.
          (5) Removal From Service
          (i) For any affected cylinder assembly with 680 or fewer operating hours time-in-service (TIS) since new on the effective date of this AD, remove the cylinder assembly from service before reaching 1,000 operating hours TIS since new.
          (ii) For any affected cylinder assembly with more than 680 operating hours TIS since new and 1,000 or fewer operating hours TIS since new on the effective date of this AD, remove the cylinder assembly from service within the next 320 operating hours TIS or within 1,160 operating hours TIS since new, whichever occurs first.
          (iii) For any affected cylinder assembly with more than 1,000 operating hours TIS since new on the effective date of this AD, remove the cylinder assembly from service within the next 160 operating hours or at next engine overhaul, whichever occurs first.
          (iv) For any affected cylinder assembly that has been overhauled, remove the cylinder assembly from service within the next 80 operating hours TIS after the effective date of this AD.
          (f) Installation Prohibitions
          After the effective date of this AD:
          (1) Do not repair, or reinstall onto any engine, any cylinder assembly removed per this AD.
          (2) Do not install any affected ECi cylinder assembly that has been overhauled, into any engine.
          (3) Do not install any engine that has one or more affected overhauled ECi cylinder assemblies, onto any aircraft.
          (4) Do not return to service any aircraft that has an engine installed with an ECi cylinder assembly subject to this AD, if the cylinder assembly has 1,000 or more operating hours TIS.
          (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
          The Manager, Special Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
          (h) Related Information

          (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jurgen E. Priester, Aerospace Engineer, Special Certification Office, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76193; phone: 817-222-5190; fax: 817-222-5785; email: jurgen.e.priester@faa.gov.

          (2) For ECi Service Instruction No. 99-8-1, Revision 9, dated February 23, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD, contact Engine Components International Division, 9503 Middlex Drive, San Antonio, TX 78217; phone: 210-820-8101; Internet: http://www.eci.aero/pages/tech_svcpubs.aspx.
          (3) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

          Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 23, 2014.
          Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
          Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-00152 Filed 1-7-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        Bureau of Economic Analysis
        15 CFR Parts 801, 806, and 807
        [Docket No.: 111012619-1619-01]
        RIN 0691-AA81
        International Services Surveys and Direct Investment Surveys Reporting

          AGENCY:
          Bureau of Economic Analysis.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) proposes to revise its rules to establish general guidelines for reporting on international trade in services and direct investment surveys provided for by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101 to 3108, (the Act)). In addition to the Act, the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 4908) provides authority for the international trade in services surveys. Currently, international trade in services and direct investment surveys are promulgated through separate rulemaking actions. This rule will modify the guidelines to allow such surveys to be issued through notices rather than as more formal rulemakings. The purpose of this rule is to provide a more general framework for collection of data on these surveys that are required, or provided for, by the statutes. The effect of this rule is to simplify and generalize existing regulations governing the procurement of information on international trade in services and direct investment.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule will receive consideration if submitted in writing on or before 5 p.m. March 6, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0691-AA81, and referencing the agency name (Bureau of Economic Analysis), by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. For Keyword or ID, enter “EAB-2011-0003.”
          • Email: David.Galler@bea.gov.
          • Fax: Office of the Chief, Direct Investment Division, (202) 606-2894.
          • Mail: Office of the Chief, Direct Investment Division, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, BE-50, Washington, DC 20230.
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: Office of the Chief, Direct Investment Division, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, BE-50, Shipping and Receiving, Section M100, 1441 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20005.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          David H. Galler, Chief, Direct Investment Division (BE-50), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; phone (202) 606-9835.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The purpose of the Act is to provide for the collection of comprehensive and reliable information pertaining to international investment, including international trade in services and direct investment, and to do so with a minimum of burden on respondents and with no unnecessary duplication of effort. The Act specifies that regular data collection programs and surveys, as specified in the Act or as deemed necessary by the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Executive Order 11961, as amended by Executive Orders 12318 and 12518, shall be conducted to secure information on international trade in services and on direct investment, including information that may be necessary for computing the international transactions and national income and product accounts and for deriving estimates of direct investment position and of operations of multinational companies.
        The existing regulations (15 CFR parts 801 and 806) implementing certain provisions of the Act govern the reporting information on surveys of international trade in services and direct investment and provide detailed instructions to survey respondents on how to report and what forms to complete and submit when responding to the surveys. This method ensures that all potential respondents are notified of the new survey, but the process can hinder the timely gathering of information due to the necessary rulemaking steps.

        BEA proposes to revise these regulations to generalize the reporting requirements with respect to these surveys under the Act. Because of the level of detail included in the existing regulations, a rulemaking is required each time a change—such as changes in the survey year for a benchmark survey, the title of a survey, and the reporting threshold for a survey—is made to a survey. For surveys that are conducted on an ongoing basis—quarterly, annually, quinqenially—specific reporting information regarding individual surveys can more efficiently be issued as notices rather than through individual rulemakings. BEA can determine the likely universe of survey respondents through ongoing research of databases and outreach to professional organizations, so the surveys will continue to receive similar coverage and response rates even if they are issued as notices. Finally, there is no requirement in the Act or elsewhere that the reporting requirements and detailed instructions for such surveys be issued following notice and comment rulemaking. Therefore, BEA proposes to remove the current regulations and publish in the Federal Register notices of future surveys of foreign and direct investment in the United States and international trade in services.

        If this proposed rule is adopted, notice of specific surveys pertaining to international investment and trade in services and direct investment, including applicable report forms and instructions, would now be separately published in the Federal Register. In addition, only respondents notified of these surveys would be required to respond to BEA surveys.
        Executive Order 12866
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
        Executive Order 13132
        This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that this proposed rulemaking, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The new rule will affect only BEA's internal procedures regarding how it conducts surveys of international trade in services and direct investment. None of the proposed changes would have a direct effect on any businesses, large or small. Those subject to these surveys will still be required to respond to BEA's requests for information, but the requests themselves will not be subject to notice and comment rulemaking. Therefore, the effect of this proposed rule is to simplify and generalize existing regulations governing the procurement of information on the international trade in services and direct investment under the Act. Because there would be no impact to small entities as a result of this change to the regulations, the Chief Counsel certified that this proposed rulemaking, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no initial regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

          List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 801
          Cross-Border transactions, Credit card, Debit card, Economic statistics, Foreign investment in the United States, Foreign trade, International transactions, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel expenses, U.S. investment abroad.

          Dated: December 20, 2011.
          J. Steven Landefeld,
          Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, Parts 801, and 806 of Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be revised to read as follows:

          PART 801—SURVEYS OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN SERVICES BETWEEN U.S. AND FOREIGN PERSONS AND SURVEYS OF DIRECT INVESTMENT

            Sec.
            801.1
            Purpose.
            801.2
            Definitions.
            801.3
            Reporting Requirements.
            801.4
            Recordkeeping Requirements.
            801.5
            Confidentiality.
            801.6
            Penalties Specified by Law.

            Authority:
             5 U.S.C. 301; 15 U.S.C. 4908; 22 U.S.C. 3101-3108; E.O. 11961 (3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 86), as amended by E.O. 12318 (3 CFR, 1981 Comp. p. 173); and E.O. 12518 (3 CFR, 1985 Comp. p. 348).

            Source: 42 FR 64315, Dec. 22, 1977 and 51 FR 7772, Mar. 6, 1986, unless otherwise noted.

            § 801.1
            Purpose.
            The purpose of this part is to provide general information on international trade in services and direct investment data collection programs and analyses under the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101 to 3108, as amended) (the Act). The purpose of the Act is to provide for the collection of comprehensive and reliable information pertaining to international investment, including international trade in services and direct investment, and to do so with a minimum of burden on respondents and with no unnecessary duplication of effort.

            § 801.2
            Definitions.
            For purposes of the Act and for reporting requirements under this Part:
            (a) United States, when used in a geographic sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and all territories and possessions of the United States.
            (b) Foreign, when used in a geographic sense, means that which is situated outside the United States or which belongs to or is characteristic of a country other than the United States.
            (c) Person means any individual, branch, partnership, associated group, association, estate, trust, corporation, or other organization (whether or not organized under the laws of any State), and any government (including a foreign government, the United States Government, a State or local government, and any agency, corporation, financial institution, or other entity or instrumentality thereof, including a government-sponsored agency).
            (d) United States person means any person resident in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
            (e) Foreign person means any person resident outside the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of a country other than the United States.
            (f) Business enterprise means any organization, association, branch, or venture which exists for profit-making purposes or to otherwise secure economic advantage, and any ownership of any real estate.
            (g) Services are economic activities whose outputs are other than tangible goods. This term includes, but is not limited to, banking, other financial services, insurance, transportation, communications and data processing, retail and wholesale trade, advertising, accounting, construction, design, engineering, management consulting, real estate, professional services, entertainment, education, and health care.
            (h) International investment means: (1) The ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by contractual commitment or otherwise, by foreign persons of any interest in property in the United States, or of stock, other securities, or short- and long-term debt obligations of a United States person; and (2) the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by contractual commitment or otherwise, by United States persons of any interest in property outside the United States, or of stock, other securities, or short- and long-term debt obligations of a foreign person.
            (i) Direct investment means the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one person of 10 percent or more of the voting securities of an incorporated business enterprise or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated business enterprise.

            § 801.3
            Reporting Requirements.

            (a) Notice of specific reporting requirements, including who is required to report, the information to be reported, the manner of reporting, and the time and place of filing reports, will be published by the Director of the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Federal Register prior to the implementation of a survey.
            (b) In accordance with section 3104(b)(2) of title 22 of the United States Code persons notified of these surveys and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall furnish, under oath, any report containing information which is determined to be necessary to carry out the surveys and studies provided for by the Act.

            § 801.4
            Recordingkeeping Requirements.
            In accordance with section 3104(b)(1) of title 22 of the United States Code, persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall maintain any information which is essential for carrying out the surveys and studies provided for by the Act.

            § 801.5
            Confidentiality.
            Information collected pursuant to 3104(c) of title 22 of the United States Code
            (a) Access to this information shall be available only to officials and employees (including consultants and contractors and their employees) of agencies designated by the President to perform functions under the Act.
            (b) Subject to paragraph (d) of this section, the President may authorize the exchange of information between agencies or officials designated to perform functions under the Act.
            (c) Nothing in this part shall be construed to require any Federal agency to disclose information otherwise protected by law.
            (d) This information shall be used solely for analytical or statistical purposes or for a proceeding under § 801.6.
            (e) No official or employee (including consultants and contractors and their employees) shall publish or make available to any other person any information collected under the Act in such a manner that the person to whom the information relates can be specifically identified.
            (f) Reports and copies of reports prepared pursuant to the Act are confidential and their submission or disclosure shall not be compelled by any person without the prior written permission of the person filing the report and the customer of such person where the information supplied is identifiable as being derived from the records of such customer.

            § 801.6
            Penalties.
            (a) Civil Penalties. Whoever fails to furnish any information required by the Act or to comply with any rule, regulation, order or instruction promulgated under the Act shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $2,500, and not more than $25,000, and to injunctive relief commanding such person to comply, or both (see 22 U.S.C. 3105(a) and (b)). These civil penalties are subject to inflationary adjustments (15 CFR 6.4.).
            (b) Criminal Penalties. Whoever willfully fails to submit any information required by the Act or willfully violates any rule, regulation, order or instruction promulgated under the Act, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than $10,000 and, if an individual, may be imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. Any officer, director, employee, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in such violations, upon conviction, may be punished by a like fine, imprisonment or both (see 22 U.S.C. 3105(c)).

          PART 806—[RESERVED]

          PART 807—[RESERVED]

      [FR Doc. 2012-47 Filed 1-5-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE P