80 FR 68599 - Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee-New Task
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 214 (November 5, 2015)
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 214 (November 5, 2015)
| Page Range | 68599-68602 | |
| FR Document | 2015-28151 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 68599-68602] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-28151] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee--New Task AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of a new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The FAA assigned the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) a new task to provide recommendations regarding occupant protection rulemaking in normal and transport category rotorcraft for older certification basis type designs that are still in production. The FAA amended regulations to incorporate occupant protection rules, including those for emergency landing conditions and fuel system crash resistance, for new type designs in the 1980s and 1990s. These rule changes do not apply to newly manufactured rotorcraft with older type designs or to derivative type designs that keep the certification basis of the original type design. This approach has resulted in a very low incorporation rate of occupant protection features into the rotorcraft fleet, and fatal accidents remain unacceptably high. At the end of 2014, only 16% of U.S. fleet had complied with the crash resistant fuel system requirements effective 20 years earlier, and only 10% had complied with the emergency landing requirements effective 25 years earlier. A recent fatal accident study has shown these measures would have been effective in saving lives. This notice informs the public of the new ARAC activity and solicits [[Page 68600]] membership for the new Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin R. Crane, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177, [email protected], phone number 817-222-5110, facsimile number 817-222-5961. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ARAC Acceptance of Task As a result of the September 17, 2015, ARAC meeting, the FAA assigned and ARAC accepted this task establishing the Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group. The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group will serve as staff to the ARAC and provide advice and recommendations on the assigned task. The ARAC will review and accept the recommendation report and will submit it to the FAA. Background The FAA established the ARAC to provide information, advice, and recommendations on aviation-related issues that could result in rulemaking to the FAA Administrator, through the Associate Administrator of Aviation Safety. The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group will provide advice and recommendations to the ARAC on occupant protection rulemaking, including both initial certification and continued airworthiness. The basic concept of occupant protection is to give all occupants the greatest possible chance to egress an aircraft without serious injury after a survivable emergency landing or accident. While the number of U.S. helicopter accidents and the corresponding accident rate over the past 10 years have steadily decreased, during that same time period data associated with fatal helicopter accidents and fatalities remains virtually unchanged. A number of regulations were promulgated in the 1980s and 1990s to address and greatly improve occupant protection in a survivable emergency landing or accident. These occupant protection improvements involve seat systems that reduce the likelihood of fatal injuries to the occupant in a crash (14 CFR 27.562, 27.785, 29.562, and 29.785); structural requirements that maintain a survivable volume and restrain large items of mass above and behind the occupant (14 CFR 27.561 and 29.561); and fuel systems that reduce the likelihood of an immediate post-crash fire (14 CFR 27.952 and 29.952). If the occupant protection improvement rules are not incorporated in new production helicopters, there will be no meaningful reduction in the number of fatalities in helicopter accidents. Following a series of accidents involving post-crash fires, the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority asked the FAA for assistance in determining the airworthiness of certain helicopters. This request resulted in a collaborative post-crash fire/blunt force trauma study performed by the FAA's Rotorcraft Directorate and Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI). The data consisted of 97 fatal accidents involving U.S. registered, type-certificated helicopters in a five-year timeframe from 2008 to 2013. Part 27 rotorcraft comprised the largest mass of data (87 of 97 fatal accidents, 90% of the total) in the study. The post-crash fire portion of the study found that post-crash fires occurred in 30 of 76 (39%) of fatal accidents involving part 27 helicopters without fuel systems that meet the full crash resistance requirements of 14 CFR 27.952. The post-crash fire contributed to a fatality in 20% of these fatal accidents. While the data set for part 29 rotorcraft was much smaller (10 of 97 fatal accidents, 10% of the total), the results were comparable. Through the course of the study, the Rotorcraft Directorate further discovered that there were only about 16% of U.S. registered, type-certificated rotorcraft that fully complied with the fuel system crash resistance provisions in Sec. Sec. 27.952 and 29.952, despite those rules having been in effect for 20 years at the time of the study. In the time since increased rotorcraft occupant protection standards became effective as federal regulations, research efforts have studied injury patterns in fatal rotorcraft accidents. In April 2003, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine published Narinder Taneja and Douglas A. Wiegmann's ``Analysis of Injuries Among Pilots Killed in Fatal Helicopter Accidents.'' Using autopsy data from 1993 to 1999, Taneja and Wiegmann analyzed the pattern of specific bony injuries (ribs, skull, and pelvis) and organ/visceral injuries (brain, lung, and heart) documented in 74 fatal rotorcraft accidents. They found blunt trauma as the cause of death in 88% of the cases, with the highest percentages of injuries to the head and core body regions. Among the implications cited in their study was, ``Protection of the occupants exposed to a crash is a realistic objective that can be achieved if crashworthiness becomes a primary element of initial helicopter design and future upgrade programs.'' The second component of the Rotorcraft Directorate/CAMI study involved blunt force trauma. Blunt force trauma accounted for cause of death in 92% of the 2008-2013 fatal accident data. In addition, blunt force trauma also was the cause of death in 80% of the part 27 fatal rotorcraft accidents where a post-crash fire occurred. The Rotorcraft Directorate and CAMI built their study using the framework and methodology previously established by Taneja and Wiegmann's 2003 study. Further, they used the percentages of bony injuries and organ/visceral injuries documented in Taneja and Wiegmann's study as a baseline for comparison. The intent was to see if a statistically significant change occurred in blunt force trauma injury patterns in fatal rotorcraft accidents in the 10 years since the previous study. They concluded there was no statistically significant difference across most categories of bony injuries and across all categories of organ/visceral injuries. The Rotorcraft Directorate further discovered that only 10% of U.S. registered, type-certificated rotorcraft complied with increased occupant protection measures related to blunt force trauma mandated in the Sec. Sec. 27.562 and 29.562 rules, despite the rules being in effect for 25 years at the time of the study. The provisions of Sec. Sec. 27.562 and 29.562 were specifically designed for increased protection of the head and core body regions, the same regions documented with the highest levels of injury in the fatal accident studies conducted by Taneja and Wiegmann and the Rotorcraft Directorate/CAMI. Additional research found that about 9,000 occupants had been involved in U.S. helicopter accidents in the 25 years since Sec. Sec. 27.562 and 29.562 became effective. Only 2% of helicopters in those accidents were compliant with Sec. Sec. 27.562 and 29.562. Over 1,300 occupants were killed in accidents involving the 98% of helicopters that were not compliant with Sec. Sec. 27.562 and 29.562. The Task The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group is tasked to: 1. Perform a cost-benefit analysis for incorporating the existing occupant protection standards 14 CFR 27.561, 27.562, 27.785, 27.952, 29.561, 29.562, 29.785, and 29.952 via Sec. Sec. 27.2 and 29.2 for newly manufactured rotorcraft that addresses the following: a. Estimate what the regulated parties would do differently as a result of the proposed regulation and how much it would cost. b. Estimate the improvement in survivability of future accidents. c. Estimate any other benefits (e.g., reduced administrative burden) or costs [[Page 68601]] that would result from implementation of the occupant protection standards identified above. 2. Develop a cost-benefit analysis report containing the information explained in task 1 above. 3. After the FAA accepts and considers the cost benefit analysis report, the FAA will task the Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group either to make specific written recommendations on how all or part of the existing occupant protection standards 14 CFR 27.561, 27.562, 27.785, 27.952, 29.561, 29.562, 29.785, and 29.952 should be made effective via Sec. Sec. 27.2 and 29.2 for newly manufactured rotorcraft, or to propose new alternative performance-based occupant protection safety regulations for newly manufactured rotorcraft that will be effective via Sec. Sec. 27.2 and 29.2. 4. If new alternative performance-based occupant protection safety regulations effective via Sec. Sec. 27.2 and 29.2 are proposed, perform a cost-benefit analysis that addresses the following: a. Estimate what the regulated parties would do differently as a result of the proposed regulation and how much it would cost. b. Estimate the improvement in survivability of future accidents from the proposed recommendations. c. Estimate any other benefits (e.g., reduced administrative burden) or costs that would result from implementation of the recommendations. 5. Develop an initial report containing recommendations on the findings and results of the tasks explained above. a. The initial recommendation report should document both majority and dissenting positions on the findings and the rationale for each position. b. Any disagreements should be documented, including the rationale for each position and the reasons for the disagreement. 6. Complete the following after the FAA accepts the initial recommendation report identified in task 5: a. Specifically advise and make written recommendations on incorporating rotorcraft occupant protection improvements and standards into the existing rotorcraft fleet. Occupant protection standards include either all or part of 14 CFR 27.561, 27.562, 27.785, 27.952, 29.561, 29.562, 29.785, and 29.952, or new alternative proposed performance-based regulations. b. Develop an addendum report containing recommendations on the findings and results of the tasks explained above. c. Document both majority and dissenting positions on the findings and the rationale for each position. d. Any disagreements should be documented, including the rationale for each position and the reasons for the disagreement. 7. The working group may be reinstated to assist the ARAC in responding to the FAA's questions or concerns after the recommendation report has been submitted. Schedule This tasking notice requires three reports.The task 2 cost-benefit analysis report must be submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance no later than 6 months after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The task 5 initial recommendation report must be submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance no later than 12 months after initiation of task 3 above. The task 6 addendum recommendation report must be submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance no later than 6 months after the initial recommendation report is submitted. Working Group Activity The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group must comply with the procedures adopted by the ARAC as follows: 1. Conduct a review and analysis of the assigned tasks and any other related materials or documents. 2. Draft and submit a work plan for completion of the task, including the rationale supporting such a plan, for consideration by the ARAC. 3. Provide a status report at each ARAC meeting. 4. Draft and submit the recommendation reports based on review and analysis of the assigned tasks. 5. Present the cost-benefit analysis report in task 2 at the ARAC meeting. 6. Present the initial recommendation report at the ARAC meeting. 7. Present the findings from the addendum recommendation report at the ARAC meeting. Participation in the Working Group The Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group will be comprised of technical experts having an interest in the assigned task. A working group member need not be a member representative of the ARAC. The FAA would like a wide range of members (normal category rotorcraft manufacturers, transport category rotorcraft manufacturers, and rotorcraft operators from various segments of the industry such as oil and gas exploration, emergency medical services, and air tour operators) to ensure all aspects of the tasks are considered in development of the recommendations. The provisions of the August 13, 2014, Office of Management and Budget guidance, ``Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyists to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards, and Commissions'' (79 FR 47482), continues the ban on registered lobbyists participating on Agency Boards and Commissions if participating in their ``individual capacity.'' The revised guidance now allows registered lobbyists to participate on Agency Boards and Commissions in a ``representative capacity'' for the ``express purpose of providing a committee with the views of a nongovernmental entity, a recognizable group of persons or nongovernmental entities (an industry, sector, labor unions, or environmental groups, etc.) or state or local government.'' (For further information see Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 as amended, 2 U.S.C 1603, 1604, and 1605.) If you wish to become a member of the Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group, write the person listed under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT expressing that desire. Describe your interest in the task and state the expertise you would bring to the working group. The FAA must receive all requests by December 7, 2015. The ARAC and the FAA will review the requests and advise you whether or not your request is approved. If you are chosen for membership on the working group, you must actively participate in the working group, attend all meetings, and provide written comments when requested. You must devote the resources necessary to support the working group in meeting any assigned deadlines. You must keep your management and those you may represent advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure the proposed technical solutions do not conflict with the position of those you represent. Once the working group has begun deliberations, members will not be added or substituted without the approval of the ARAC Chair, the FAA, including the Designated Federal Officer, and the Working Group Chair. The Secretary of Transportation determined the formation and use of the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law. The ARAC meetings are open to the public. However, meetings of the [[Page 68602]] Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working Group are not open to the public, except to the extent individuals with an interest and expertise are selected to participate. The FAA will make no public announcement of working group meetings. Issued in Washington, DC, on October 30, 2015. Lirio Liu, Designated Federal Officer, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. [FR Doc. 2015-28151 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Notices 68599
time segments does not create an undue temporarily suspend such rule change if office of the Exchange. All comments
burden on competition, rather, it it appears to the Commission that such received will be posted without change;
provides the Market Maker with clarity action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the Commission does not edit personal
as to the manner in which the System the public interest; (ii) for the protection identifying information from
counts quotes and orders and thereby of investors; or (iii) otherwise in submissions. You should submit only
provides NOM Market Makers with an furtherance of the purposes of the Act. information that you wish to make
increased ability to monitor If the Commission takes such action, the available publicly. All submissions
transactions. Commission shall institute proceedings should refer to File Number SR–
to determine whether the proposed rule NASDAQ–2015–122 and should be
Rounding should be approved or disapproved. The submitted on or before November 27,
The Exchange’s amendment to add Exchange has provided the Commission 2015.
that if the Issue Percentage, rounded to written notice of its intent to file the For the Commission, by the Division of
the nearest integer, equals or exceeds proposed rule change, along with a brief Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
the Specified Percentage, the System description and text of the proposed authority.30
automatically removes a Market Maker’s rule change, at least five business days Jill M. Peterson,
quotes and orders in all series of an prior to the date of filing of the Assistant Secretary.
underlying security does not create an proposed rule change.
[FR Doc. 2015–28143 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am]
undue burden on competition because
IV. Solicitation of Comments BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
this amendment also provides the
Market Maker with clarity as to the Interested persons are invited to
manner in which the System will submit written data, views, and
remove quotes and orders and thereby arguments concerning the foregoing, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
provides NOM Market Makers with an including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Federal Aviation Administration
increased ability to monitor transactions
and set risk limits. Comments may be submitted by any of
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
the following methods:
Reset Committee—New Task
Electronic Comments
The amendment to the rule text AGENCY: Federal Aviation
concerning resetting does not create an • Use the Commission’s Internet Administration (FAA), DOT.
undue burden on competition. The comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ ACTION: Notice of a new task assignment
Exchange proposes to amend the rules/sro.shtml); or for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
manner in which a Market Maker may • Send an email to rule-comments@ Committee.
re-enter the System after a removal of sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
quotes and orders. This amendment NASDAQ–2015–122 on the subject line. SUMMARY: The FAA assigned the
provides information to NOM Market Paper Comments Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Makers as to the procedure to re-enter Committee (ARAC) a new task to
• Send paper comments in triplicate provide recommendations regarding
the System after a trigger. This to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities
information is intended to provide NOM occupant protection rulemaking in
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street normal and transport category rotorcraft
Market Makers with access to the NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
market. for older certification basis type designs
All submissions should refer to File that are still in production. The FAA
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Number SR–NASDAQ–2015–122. This amended regulations to incorporate
Statement on Comments on the file number should be included on the occupant protection rules, including
Proposed Rule Change Received From subject line if email is used. To help the those for emergency landing conditions
Members, Participants, or Others Commission process and review your and fuel system crash resistance, for
No written comments were either comments more efficiently, please use new type designs in the 1980s and
solicited or received. only one method. The Commission will 1990s. These rule changes do not apply
post all comments on the Commission’s to newly manufactured rotorcraft with
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ older type designs or to derivative type
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the designs that keep the certification basis
Commission Action submission, all subsequent of the original type design. This
Because the foregoing proposed rule amendments, all written statements approach has resulted in a very low
change does not: (i) Significantly affect with respect to the proposed rule incorporation rate of occupant
the protection of investors or the public change that are filed with the protection features into the rotorcraft
interest; (ii) impose any significant Commission, and all written fleet, and fatal accidents remain
burden on competition; and (iii) become communications relating to the unacceptably high. At the end of 2014,
operative for 30 days from the date on proposed rule change between the only 16% of U.S. fleet had complied
which it was filed, or such shorter time Commission and any person, other than with the crash resistant fuel system
as the Commission may designate, it has those that may be withheld from the requirements effective 20 years earlier,
become effective pursuant to Section public in accordance with the and only 10% had complied with the
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 28 and provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be emergency landing requirements
available for Web site viewing and
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b–4 effective 25 years earlier. A recent fatal
thereunder.29 printing in the Commission’s Public accident study has shown these
At any time within 60 days of the Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., measures would have been effective in
filing of the proposed rule change, the Washington, DC 20549, on official saving lives.
Commission summarily may business days between the hours of This notice informs the public of the
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the new ARAC activity and solicits
28 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii). filing also will be available for
29 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). inspection and copying at the principal 30 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:06 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM 05NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_68813/page/1.svg)
![68602 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Notices
Rotorcraft Occupant Protection Working at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then remedying the recall noncompliance as
Group are not open to the public, except follow the online search instructions to required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be
to the extent individuals with an locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2015– granted.
interest and expertise are selected to 0053.’’
participate. The FAA will make no II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are NHTSA’s Decision
public announcement of working group approximately 4,208 MY 2015 MINI NHTSA’s Analysis: NHTSA believes
meetings. Cooper, Cooper S hardtop 2 door, and that while written information was not
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 30, Cooper S hardtop 4 door passenger cars provided to vehicle owners describing
2015. manufactured from February 25, 2015 to the installed head air bags (side curtain)
Lirio Liu, April 24, 2015. as vehicle occupant ejection mitigation
III. Noncompliance: BMW explains
Designated Federal Officer, Aviation countermeasures that deploy in the
that written information describing the
Rulemaking Advisory Committee. event of a rollover, the owner’s manuals
ejection mitigation countermeasure
[FR Doc. 2015–28151 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am] for the affected vehicles otherwise
installed in the vehicles was not
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P effectively describe, and illustrate the
provided to the vehicle consumers as
location of, the head air bags. NHTSA
required by paragraph S4.2.3(a) of
FMVSS No. 226. also believes that the status of the head
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION air bags is monitored by the vehicle’s air
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.2.3 of
FMVSS No. 226 requires in pertinent bag readiness indicator intended to
National Highway Traffic Safety show operational readiness of the entire
Administration part:
airbag system. Therefore, drivers should
S4.2.3 Written information. be alerted to a malfunction of the head
[Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0053; Notice 2]
(a) Vehicles with an ejection mitigation
countermeasure that deploys in the event of
air bags that are intended to provide
BMW of North America, Inc., Grant of a rollover must be described as such in the ejection countermeasures in the event of
Petition for Decision of vehicle’s owner manual or in other written a rollover event, and occupant
Inconsequential Noncompliance information provided by the vehicle protection in the event of a significant
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic manufacturer to the consumer. . . . side impact event.
Safety Administration (NHTSA), V. Summary of BMW’s Arguments: BMW has also reported that they have
Department of Transportation (DOT). BMW stated its belief that the subject not received any complaints from
ACTION: Grant of Petition. noncompliance in the affected vehicles vehicle owners regarding the subject
is inconsequential to motor vehicle noncompliance and that vehicle
SUMMARY: BMW of North America, Inc. safety. A summary of its reasoning is production was corrected so that the
(BMW) has determined that certain provided as follows. Detailed noncompliance did not occur in
model year (MY) 2015 MINI Cooper, explanations of its reasoning are subsequent vehicles. NHTSA’s Decision:
Cooper S hardtop 2 door, and Cooper S included in its petition: In consideration of the foregoing,
hardtop 4 door passenger cars do not 1. The vehicles are equipped with a NHTSA has decided that BMW has met
fully comply with paragraph S4.2.3(a) of countermeasure that meets the its burden of persuasion that the subject
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard performance requirements of FMVSS FMVSS No. 226 noncompliance in the
(FMVSS) No. 226, Ejection Mitigation. No. 226. affected vehicles is inconsequential to
BMW has filed an appropriate report 2. The owner’s manuals contain a motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
dated May 20, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR description of the ejection mitigation BMW’s petition is hereby granted and
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance countermeasure in the context of side BMW is exempted from the obligation of
Responsibility and Reports. impact. providing notification of, and a remedy
ADDRESSES: For further information on 3. The owner’s manuals contain for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C.
this decision contact Karen Nuschler, precautions related to the [ejection 30118 and 30120.
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the mitigation] system even though not
required by FMVSS No. 226. NHTSA notes that the statutory
National Highway Traffic Safety provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
Administration (NHTSA), telephone 4. The [ejection mitigation] system
uses the FMVSS No. 208 required 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
(202) 366–5829, facsimile (202) 366– file petitions for a determination of
3081. readiness indicator, as allowed by
FMVSS No. 226. inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5. BMW has not received any exempt manufacturers only from the
I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. customer complaints due to this issue. duties found in sections 30118 and
30118(d) and 30120(h) (see 6. BMW is not aware of any accidents 30120, respectively, to notify owners,
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), or injuries due to this issue. purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
BMW submitted a petition for an 7. NHTSA may have granted similar noncompliance and to remedy the
exemption from the notification and manufacturer petitions re owner’s defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. manuals. decision only applies to the subject
Chapter 301 on the basis that this 8. BMW has corrected the vehicles that BMW no longer controlled
noncompliance is inconsequential to noncompliance so that all future at the time it determined that the
motor vehicle safety. production vehicles will comply with noncompliance existed. However, the
Notice of receipt of the petition was FMVSS No. 226. Granting of this petition does not relieve
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
published, with a 30-day public In summation, BMW believes that the vehicle distributors and dealers of the
comment period, on September 1, 2015 described noncompliance of the subject prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale,
in the Federal Register (80 FR 52845). vehicles is inconsequential to motor or introduction or delivery for
No comments were received. To view vehicle safety, and that its petition, to introduction into interstate commerce of
the petition, and all supporting exempt BMW from providing recall the noncompliant vehicles under their
documents log onto the Federal Docket notification of noncompliance as control after BMW notified them that
Management System (FDMS) Web site required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and the subject noncompliance existed.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:06 Nov 04, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05NON1.SGM 05NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_68813/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-14 15:03:39
Document Modified: 2015-12-14 15:03:39
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of a new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. | |
| Contact | Martin R. Crane, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177, [email protected], phone number 817-222-5110, facsimile number 817-222-5961. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 68599 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR