[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31800-31803]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13532]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0543; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-018-AD;
Amendment 39-16709; AD 2011-12-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited Model DHC-3 (Otter)
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above that are equipped with a Honeywell TPE331-10 or -
12JR turboprop engine installed per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
SA09866SC. This AD requires incorporating revised airspeed limitations
and marking the airspeed indicator accordingly. There is also a
requirement for the installation of a temporary placard until the
airspeed indicator can be modified but not to

exceed a certain period of time. This AD was prompted by analysis that
showed that airspeed limitations for the affected airplanes are not
adjusted for the installation of a turboprop engine as stated in the
regulations. We are issuing this AD to prevent the loss of airplane
structural integrity due to the affected airplanes being able to
operate at speeds that exceed the speeds established in the Federal
aviation regulations for safe operation.

DATES: This AD is effective June 2, 2011.
    We must receive comments on this AD by July 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter W. Hakala, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA Rotorcraft Directorate, Fort Worth Special Certification Office,
ASW-190, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; phone: (817)
222-5145; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    Recent analysis by the FAA on the Viking Air Limited Model DHC-3
(Otter) airplanes equipped with a Honeywell TPE331-10 or -12JR
turboprop engine installed per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
SA09866SC revealed that airspeed limitations for the affected airplanes
are not adjusted for the installation of a turboprop engine as stated
in the regulations. 14 CFR 23.1505 paragraph (c) applies to turbine
engine airplanes and includes the following: ``* * * a maximum
operating limit speed (VMO/MMO-airspeed or Mach number, whichever is
critical at a particular altitude) must be established as a speed that
may not be deliberately exceeded in any regime of flight (climb,
cruise, or descent) unless a higher speed is authorized for flight test
or pilot training operations. VMO/MMO must be established so that it is
not greater than the design cruising speed VC/MC and so that it is
sufficiently below VD/MD and the maximum speed shown under 23.251 to
make it highly improbable that the latter speeds will be inadvertently
exceeded in operations. The speed margin between VMO/MMO and VD/MD or
the maximum speed shown under 23.251 may not be less than the speed
margin established between VC/MC and VD/MD under 23.335(b), or the
speed margin found necessary in the flight test conducted under
23.253.''
    The FAA has discovered that the affected airplanes, as currently
certificated, have airspeed indicators with color band markings that do
not comply with 14 CFR 23.1505(c). This could result in reduced safety
margins that may result in an unsafe condition.
    Based on further analysis with application of the regulations, the
FAA has determined that an airspeed limitation of 134 miles per hour
(mph) for airplanes with floats and 144 mph for basic land airplanes
would address the concern for the unsafe condition.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of airplane
structural integrity due to the affected airplanes being able to
operate at speeds that exceed the speeds established in the Federal
aviation regulations for safe operation.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD 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.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires incorporating revised airspeed limitations and
marking the airspeed indicator accordingly. There is also a requirement
for the installation of a temporary placard until the airspeed
indicator can be modified but not to exceed a certain period of time.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because it
could result in loss of airplane structural integrity due to the
affected airplanes being able to operate at speeds that exceed the
speeds established in the Federal aviation regulations for safe
operation. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making
this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2011-0543 and
Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-018-AD at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD 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 AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 25 airplanes of U.S. registry
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airplane Flight Manual Limitation,    10 work-hours x $85 per             $90             $940          $23,500
 Placard, and Airspeed Indicator       hour = $850.
 Modification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2011-12-02 Viking Aircraft Limited: Amendment 39-16709; Docket No.
FAA-2011-0543; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-018-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD is effective June 2, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Viking Aircraft Limited Model DHC-3
(Otter) airplanes, all serial numbers, that are:
    (1) equipped with a Honeywell TPE331-10 or -12JR turboprop
engine installed per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA09866SC
(Texas Turbines Conversions, Inc.); and
    (2) certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code: 11, Placards and Markings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by analysis that showed that airspeed
limitations for the affected airplanes are not adjusted for the
installation of a turboprop engine as stated in the regulations. We
are issuing this AD to prevent of the loss of airplane structural
integrity due to the affected airplanes being able to operate at
speeds that exceed the speeds established in the Federal aviation
regulations for safe operation.

Compliance

    (f) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

                                  Table 1--Actions, Compliance, and Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Actions                                                 Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Insert the following information into the Limitations section of the airplane  Before further flight after
 flight manual (AFM) or AFM supplement: ``Airspeed limitation: VMO = 144 MPH for    the effective date of this
 land/ski plane and VMO = 134 MPH for seaplane.''                                   AD.
    (i) This can be done by inserting this AD into the Limitations section of the
     AFM or AFM supplement.
    (ii) Inserting the information into the Limitations section of the AFM or AFM
     supplement may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a
     private pilot certificate and must be entered into the aircraft records
     showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR Sec.  Sec.   43.9
     (a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as
     required by 14 CFR Sec.  Sec.   91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
(2) Fabricate a placard using letters of at least \1/8\-inch in height with the    Within the next 10 hours time-
 following words: ``Never exceed airspeed of 144 MPH, VMO speed limit for land/     in-service (TIS) after the
 ski plane and 134 MPH, VMO speed limit for seaplane.'' Install this placard on     effective date of this AD.
 the airplane instrument panel next to the airspeed indicator within the pilot's
 clear view.
(3) Modify the airspeed indicator accordingly to reflect the above limitation.     Within the next 30 days after
 Mark the airspeed indicator with a red radial line at 144 MPH for a land/ski       the effective date of this
 plane and/or with a red radial at 134 MPH for a seaplane. This instrument          AD.
 modification must be done by an appropriately rated repair facility.
    (i) This action eliminates the need for the placard required by paragraph
     (f)(2) above.
    (ii) This action can be done instead of the placard requirement in paragraph
     (f)(2) provided it is done within the next 10 hours TIS after the effective
     date of this AD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g)(1) The Manager, Fort Worth Special Certification Office,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

Related Information

    (h) For more information about this AD, contact Peter W. Hakala,
Aerospace Engineer, FAA Rotorcraft Directorate, Fort Worth Special
Certification Office, ASW-190, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth,
Texas 76137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 25, 2011.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-13532 Filed 6-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21662-21663]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8558]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0099; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-11]

Amendment of Class D Airspace; Cocoa Beach, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D airspace at Cape Canaveral Skid
Strip, Cocoa Beach, FL, by correcting the geographic coordinates of the
airport to aid in the navigation of our National Airspace System and by
removing the

reference of St. Petersburg Automated Flight Service Station from the
descriptor. This action enhances the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for standard instrument
approach procedures at the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, May 31, 2012. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA received notice from the National Aeronautical Navigation
Services (NANS) that St. Petersburg Automated Flight Service Station
has closed and its reference should be updated in the descriptor of
Cape Canaveral Skid Strip, Cocoa Beach, FL. Also, the geographic
coordinates for the airport need correcting to coincide with the FAAs
aeronautical database.
    Class D airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000, of
FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
D airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class D airspace at Cocoa Beach, FL. The geographic
coordinates of the Cape Canaveral Skid Strip are corrected to coincide
with the FAAs aeronautical database and St. Petersburg Automated Flight
Service Station will be removed from the descriptor. Accordingly, since
this is an administrative change, and does not involve a change in the
dimensions or operating requirements of that airspace, notice and
public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553 (b) are unnecessary.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes and amends controlled airspace at Cape Canaveral Skid
Strip, Cocoa Beach FL.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.

* * * * *

ASO FL D Cocoa Beach, FL [Amended]

Cape Canaveral Skid Strip, FL
    (Lat. 28[deg]28'04'' N., long. 80[deg]34'01'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of the Cape Canaveral Skid
Strip. This airspace lies within the confines of R-2932 and is
effective on a random basis. The effective days and times are
continuously available from Miami Automated Flight Service Station.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 30, 2012.
Barry A . Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2012-8558 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30043-30045]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12728]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0475; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-199-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 757 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would
require the installation of new relays adjacent to two of the spoiler
control modules that would prevent the deployment of certain spoiler
pairs when landing flaps are selected. For certain other airplanes,
this proposed AD would require torquing the bracket assembly
installation nuts and ground stud nuts, and doing bond resistance tests
between the bracket assemblies and the terminal lugs on the ground
studs. This proposed AD is prompted by numerous reports of unintended
lateral oscillations during the final approach, just before landing. We
are proposing this AD to reduce the chance of unintended lateral
oscillations near touchdown, which could result in loss of lateral
control of the airplane, and consequent airplane damage or injury to
flight crew and passengers.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; phone: 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marie Hogestad, Aerospace Engineer,
Flight Controls, ANM-130S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-
917-6418; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0475;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-199-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD 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 proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received numerous reports of Boeing 757 events where the
flight crews experienced unintended lateral oscillations during the
final approach, just before landing. One event resulted in a nose gear
collapse after a hard landing and another event resulted in a tail
strike during a landing that was aborted because of the oscillations.
The oscillations are characterized by large

wheel inputs at high rates that are out of phase with the airplane
response and typically occur under certain gusty and turbulent wind
conditions during landing. Unintended lateral oscillations near
touchdown could result in loss of lateral control of the airplane, and
consequent airplane damage or injury to flight crew and passengers.

Related Rulemaking

    On October 31, 2006, we issued AD 2006-23-15, Amendment 39-14827
(71 FR 66657, November 16, 2006). That AD applies to the Boeing Model
757 airplanes affected by this NPRM. That AD requires installing a
control wheel damper assembly at the first officer's drum bracket
assembly and aileron quadrant beneath the flight deck floor in section
41, doing a functional test and adjustment of the new installation, and
doing related investigative/corrective actions if necessary. For
certain airplanes, that AD also requires doing an additional adjustment
test of the re-located control wheel position sensor, and an
operational test of the flight data recorder and the digital flight
data acquisition unit. AD 2006-23-15 also requires installing vortex
generators on the leading edge of the outboard main flap on certain
airplanes. The addition of a wheel damper prevents large abrupt pilot
lateral control wheel inputs and the addition of vortex generators
creates vortices over the flap surface to help mitigate a sudden and
premature airflow separation when spoilers are deployed in response to
large control wheel movements. We issued that AD as interim action to
reduce unintended roll oscillations near touchdown, which could result
in loss of lateral control of the airplane, and consequent airplane
damage or injury to the flight crew and passengers.
    The preamble to AD 2006-23-15 specifies that we consider the
requirements ``interim action'' and that the manufacturer is
investigating an additional modification that might further reduce or
eliminate the unsafe condition. AD 2006-23-15 explains that we might
consider further rulemaking if a modification is developed, approved,
and available. The manufacturer now has developed such a modification
that will further reduce the effects of the unsafe condition, and we
have determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary; this
proposed AD follows from that determination. However, the requirements
of AD 2006-23-15 will continue in effect.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-27A0152, Revision 1,
dated June 30, 2010. This service information identifies two
configurations. Configuration 1 includes airplanes that have not
accomplished Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-27A0152, dated April 29,
2009; and Configuration 2 identifies airplanes on which Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 757-27A0152, dated April 29, 2009, has been
accomplished, but need additional work. For Configuration 1 airplanes,
this service information describes procedures for changing the E3-1
electronics shelf by installing 3 new bracket assemblies and 3 new
relays, changing wire bundle W1265, and changing wire bundle W4471
between the E3-1 electronics shelf and the E5-1 electronics shelf.
Additionally, this service information specifies doing an operational
test of the spoiler/speedbrake control system. These changes will
reduce the lateral control capability by disabling spoiler pairs 1 and
12, and 5 and 8, from responding to control wheel commands when the
flaps are deployed in landing configuration (25 and 30 degrees). The
speedbrake operation will be unaffected in-air and during on-ground
operations. To maintain desired lateral controllability, spoiler pair 1
and 12 will be re-engaged if the right hydraulic system fails.
    For Configuration 2 airplanes, this service information describes
procedures for torquing the bracket assembly installation nuts and
ground stud nuts, and doing bond resistance tests between the bracket
assemblies and the terminal lugs on the ground studs.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD 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 designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 686 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation Group 1, Configuration 1   35 work-hours x $85 per           $4,691          $7,666        $421,630
 (55 airplanes).                         hour = $2,975.
Installation Group 2, Configuration 1   32 work-hours x $85 per            4,610           7,330       4,339,360
 (592 airplanes).                        hour = $2,720.
Installation Group 3, Configuration 1   32 work-hours x $85 per            4,619           7,339          88,068
 (12 airplanes).                         hour = $2,720.
Installation Group 4, Configuration 1   32 work-hours x $85 per            4,610           7,330         183,250
 (25 airplanes).                         hour = $2,720.
Installation Group 5, Configuration 1   35 work-hours x $85 per            4,701           7,676          15,352
 (2 airplanes).                          hour = $2,975.
Torque Bracket Assembly and Bond        12 work-hours x $85 per                0           1,020         699,720
 Tests, Groups 1-5 Configuration 2.      hour = $1,020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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, and
    (4) Will not 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.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2011-0475; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-199-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by July 8, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF,
-200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-27A0152, Revision 1,
dated June 30, 2010.

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight Control System.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by numerous reports of unintended
lateral oscillations during the final approach, just before landing.
We are issuing this AD to reduce the chance of unintended lateral
oscillations near touchdown, which could result in loss of lateral
control of the airplane, and consequent airplane damage or injury to
flight crew and passengers.

Compliance

    (f) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

Installation

    (g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
applicable actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this
AD.
    (1) For Configuration 1 airplanes as defined in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 757-27A0152, Revision 1, dated June 30, 2010,
install three bracket assemblies, three new relays, and make changes
to the wire bundles, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-27A0152, Revision
1, dated June 30, 2010.
    (2) For Configuration 2 airplanes as defined in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 757-27A0152, Revision 1, dated June 30, 2010,
torque the bracket assembly nuts and ground stud nuts, and do bond
resistance tests to verify bonding requirements are met, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 757-27A0152, Revision 1, dated June 30, 2010.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the
person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

Related Information

    (i) For more information about this AD, contact Marie Hogestad,
Aerospace Engineer, Flight Controls, ANM-130S, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (j) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; phone:
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, the FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 16, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-12728 Filed 5-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4029-4032]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01044]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee--New Task

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (ARAC).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA assigned the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(ARAC) a new task to provide recommendations regarding revision of the
damage-tolerance and fatigue requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR), part 25, including subparts C and E of 14 CFR
part 26, and development of associated advisory material for metallic,
composite, and hybrid structures. Past changes to the damage-tolerance
and fatigue airworthiness standards and advisory material have been
more specific to transport airplanes constructed predominantly of
metal, using skin-stringer-frame architecture. Today, the trend in
industry is to use more composite and hybrid structures (i.e.,
structure that includes a combination of composite and metallic parts
and assemblies) to improve the performance of transport airplanes. As a
result, the damage-tolerance and fatigue airworthiness standards and
advisory

material may not be adequate to address this trend. This notice informs
the public of the new ARAC activity and solicits membership for the new
Transport Airplane Metallic and Composite Structures Working Group.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walt Sippel, Federal Aviation
Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number 425-
227-1232.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

ARAC Acceptance of Task

    As a result of the December 18, 2014, ARAC meeting, the FAA has
assigned and ARAC has accepted this task establishing the Transport
Airplane Metallic and Composite Structures Working Group, under the
Transport Airplane and Engine (TAE) Subcommittee. The working group
will serve as staff to the ARAC and provide advice and recommendations
on the assigned task. The ARAC will review and approve 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 Transport Airplane Metallic and Composite Structures Working
Group will provide advice and recommendations to the ARAC on the
damage-tolerance and fatigue requirements of part 25 and any associated
advisory material for metallic, composite, and hybrid structures. This
includes the requirements of and regulatory guidance material for
subparts C and E of part 26 and any associated advisory material.
    The requirements of Sec.  25.571 apply equally to structure
constructed from either metallic or nonmetallic materials. Guidance
material is contained in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Advisory Circulars (AC) 25.571-1D and 20-107B for metallic and
composite structures, respectively. The changes to Sec.  25.571 that
the FAA has adopted over the years have been more specific to the
technical issues primarily associated with metallic structure. In
Amendment 25-132 to Sec.  25.571, the FAA added requirements for
applicants to establish a limit of validity of the engineering data
that supports the structural maintenance program (hereafter referred to
as LOV) and to demonstrate that widespread fatigue damage (WFD) will
not occur in the airplane prior to reaching the LOV. The objective of
this change, along with the development of the related guidance
material, was focused on addressing the normal fatigue wear-out of
metallic structure. Among other things, Sec.  25.571 requires
applicants to establish an LOV based on WFD considerations, and
identify in the structural-maintenance program all maintenance actions
required to address fatigue, environmental damage, and accidental
damage throughout the operational life of the airplane. In a similar
way, subpart C requires certain actions to prevent catastrophic failure
due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing
transport category airplanes. The FAA also adopted subpart E of part 26
to require holders of design approvals to make available to operators
damage tolerance data for repairs and alterations to fatigue critical
airplane structure. In addition to AC 25.571-1D, guidance material for
subparts C and E of part 26 are contained in ACs 120-104 and 120-93,
respectively. Because the adoption of those requirements and Sec.
25.571 were primarily focused on metallic structure, the FAA needs to
evaluate those rules and advisory material to determine whether further
changes are required to address composite structures.

Remaining Rulemaking Recommendations

    In 1995, the FAA tasked the ARAC to recommend appropriate revisions
for harmonization of Sec.  25.571, supporting policy and guidance
material, and corresponding paragraph 25.571 of the Joint Aviation
Requirements (JAR), which is now Certification Specification (CS)
25.571 under the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The ARAC
formed the General Structures Harmonization Working Group (GSHWG) to
carry out that task. In 2003, the GSHWG submitted the Working Group
Report on Sec.  25.571 and JAR 25.571 [CS 25.571] to ARAC. That report
described proposed changes to harmonize the rules and related guidance
material. The GSHWG recommended revising or adding requirements for
inspection thresholds, LOV, and structural damage capability.
    Subpart C of part 26 and Sec.  25.571, Amendment 25-132,
incorporated the recommendation to add requirements for establishing an
LOV. The FAA has not yet addressed the GSHWG recommendations related to
inspection thresholds and structural damage capability, and would
request these be considered in the context of this rulemaking, which
include:
     Replacing the prescriptive requirement of Sec.
25.571(a)(3) for setting damage-tolerance inspection thresholds with a
performance-based requirement.
     Adding a requirement for showing structural capability in
the presence of damage, so that even if the structure fails partially,
there will still be enough structure remaining to be safe.

Increased Use of Composites

    Today, the trend in industry is to use more composite structures
than in the past. The Small Airplane and Rotorcraft Directorates
addressed this trend by creating separate rules for parts 23, 27 and 29
for composite structures (Sec.  2X.573). This tasking will consider the
changes to those rules as part of the evaluation of the damage-
tolerance and fatigue airworthiness standards and associated advisory
material.
    In June of 2009, the FAA Transport Airplane Directorate sought
comments through the Federal Register (74 FR 26919) on a need for
future rulemaking to address extensive use of composite materials in
transport category airplane construction. Several candidate technical
areas were noted in the request, including fire safety,
crashworthiness, lightning protection, fuel tank safety and damage-
tolerance. The response by industry indicated that each area needs
improved guidance and possible rulemaking. We believe the damage-
tolerance requirements would require relatively small changes versus
some of the updates desired in other areas.
    Composite considerations the working group will need to address
include:
     Composite analyses and test protocols as related to
evolving industry practices and the development of regulatory
standards.
     Composite damage threats (e.g., environmental and
accidental damage) and associated maintenance practices.
     Large-scale test demonstration of repeated-load
reliability and a need to use load enhancement factors for composite
structure.
     Thermal stresses generated between metal-composite
interfaces, which are difficult to replicate in structural repeated-
load testing but are required by Sec.  25.571 to be considered.

Future Applicability

    Any future change to Sec.  25.571 should be performance-based to
the extent possible, allowing application to not only current aerospace
materials and material systems, but those yet to be developed (i.e.,
emerging technology). Guidance material, including changes to AC
25.571-1D, or AC 20-107B, should provide complete guidance for

traditional metal structure, composite structure, and hybrid structure
(i.e., structures that include a combination of composite and metallic
parts and assemblies).
    There are other FAA initiatives in the area of transport
crashworthiness, fuel tank lightning protection, and composite
flammability testing, which will lead to further standardization of
requirements related to composite airframes. These initiatives would
not affect Sec.  25.571.

The Task

    The Transport Airplane Metallic and Composite Structures Working
Group is tasked to:
    1. Evaluate Sec.  25.571, subparts C and E of part 26, and
associated regulatory guidance material (e.g., advisory circulars and
policy statements) to determine whether any changes to the
airworthiness standards and/or guidance material are required to
address transport airplanes being constructed of metallic, composite,
and hybrid structures. The working group is also tasked to evaluate
whether any changes to part 25 and the associated regulatory guidance
material are required to provide consistency with the damage-tolerance
and fatigue airworthiness standards and associated guidance material
for parts 23, 27, and 29. The working group is requested to include in
its evaluation a review of the following advisory circulars (AC) and
policy statements (PS):
    a. Advisory Circulars: AC 25.571-1, Damage Tolerance and Fatigue
Evaluation of Structure; AC 20-107, Composite Airframe Structure; AC
120-93, Damage Tolerance Inspections for Repairs and Alterations; AC
120-104, Establishing and Implementing Limit of Validity to Prevent
Widespread Fatigue Damage; AC 27-1, Certification of Normal Category
Rotorcraft (specifically, Subpart C--Strength Requirements); and AC 29-
2, Certification of Transport Category Rotorcraft (specifically,
Subpart C--Strength Requirements).
    b. Policy Statements: PS-ANM100-1989-00048, Policy Regarding Impact
of Modifications and Repairs on the Damage Tolerance Characteristics of
Transport Category Airplanes; PS-ACE100-2001-006, Static Strength
Substantiation of Composite Airplane Structure; PS-AIR-100-120-07,
Guidance for Component Contractor Generated Composite Design Values for
Composite Structure; PS-ACE100-2002-006, Material Qualification and
Equivalency for Polymer Matrix Composite Material Systems; PS-ANM-100-
1991-00049, Policy Regarding Material Strength Properties and Design
Values, Sec.  25.613; PS-ANM100-1993, Compliance with Sec.  25.571(e)
Discrete Source Damage (Uncontained Engine Failure).
    2. Advise and make written recommendations on whether to change 14
CFR part 25, subparts C and E of 14 CFR part 26, and related regulatory
guidance material, such as ACs 25.571-1, 20-107, 120-93, and 120-104,
to address the use of metallic, composite, and hybrid structures in
transport airplanes. In developing the recommendations, the working
group is requested to consider:
    a. The threats associated with fatigue, environmental exposure, and
accidental damage that must be addressed per Sec.  25.571.
    b. Applicability to emerging technology materials.
    c. The recommendations contained in the 2003 General Structures
Harmonization Working Group (GSHWG) report entitled, ``Damage Tolerance
and Fatigue Evaluation of Structures, FAR/JAR Sec.  25.571.'' You can
find the GSHWG report at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/index.cfm/document/information/documentID/384. The working group recommendations should include
whether it is appropriate to:
    i. Require applicants to assume the structure contains an initial
flaw of the maximum probable size that could exist as a result of
manufacturing or service-induced damage.
    ii. Add a requirement for showing structural capability in the
presence of damage, so that even if the structure fails partially,
there will still be enough structure remaining to be safe.
    d. The continued operational safety of composite and hybrid
structures as they age, including any airworthiness limitations in the
structural maintenance program.
    e. The testing of hybrid structure, including, but not limited to,
addressing thermal effects, test duration, load enhancement factors,
and crack-growth retardation.
    f. The bonding or bolting of repairs to metallic, composite, and
hybrid structures.
    g. The certification of large structural modifications on transport
airplanes constructed of composite or hybrid structures.
    h. The EASA rulemaking activity on aging aircraft for harmonization
purposes.
    3. Provide recommendations on appropriate performance-based
requirements to address the results of the evaluations above, with
consideration of applicability not only to metals and known composites,
but also other emerging technology materials.
    4. Provide recommendations on any new guidance or changes to
existing guidance, including AC 25.571-1D, and AC 20-107B to address
the results of the evaluations above.
    5. Provide initial qualitative and quantitative costs and benefits.
Based on the recommendations, perform the following:
    a. Estimate the costs to implement the recommendations;
    b. Estimate the benefits of the recommendations in terms of
potential fatalities averted;
    c. Estimate any other benefits (e.g., reduced administrative
burden) that would result from implementation of the recommendations.
    6. Develop a report containing recommendations on the findings and
results of the tasks explained above.
    a. The 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.
    7. The working group may be reinstated to assist the ARAC by
responding to the FAA's questions or concerns after the recommendation
report has been submitted.

Schedule

    The recommendation report must be submitted to the FAA for review
and acceptance no later than 24 months after publication of this
notice.

Working Group Activity

    The Transport Airplane Metallic and Composite Structures Working
Group must comply with the procedures adopted by the ARAC. As part of
the procedures, the working group must:
    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 Transport Airplane and Engine Subcommittee.
    3. Provide a status report at each Transport Airplane and Engine
Subcommittee meeting.
    4. Draft and submit the recommendation report based on the review
and analysis of the assigned tasks.
    5. Present the recommendation report at the Transport Airplane and
Engine Subcommittee meeting.

    6. Present the findings from the additional tasks at the Transport
Airplane and Engine Subcommittee meeting.
    7. Present the findings in response to the FAA's questions or
concerns about the recommendation report at the Transport Airplane and
Engine Subcommittee meeting.

Participation in the Working Group

    The Transport Airplane Metallic and Composite Structures 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
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 (LDA) as
amended, 2 U.S.C 1603, 1604, and 1605.)
    If you wish to become a member of the Transport Airplane Metallic
and Composite Structures 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
February 25, 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 by attending all meetings,
and providing written comments when requested to do so. You must devote
the resources necessary to support the working group in meeting any
assigned deadlines. You must keep your management chain 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 Transport Airplane and Engine Subcommittee 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.
    ARAC meetings are open to the public. However, meetings of the
Transport Airplane Metallic and Composite Structures 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 January 16, 2015.
Lirio Liu,
Designated Federal Officer, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2015-01044 Filed 1-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 61 (Friday, March 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19363-19364]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07354]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Honda

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

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc.'s (Honda) petition for exemption of the Honda Civic vehicle line
in accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention
Standard. This petition is granted because the agency has determined
that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as standard
equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor
vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard, 49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2014 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Ms. Ballard's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is (202)
493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated December 21, 2012, Honda
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the new MY 2014 Civic vehicle
line. The petition requested an exemption from the parts-marking
requirement pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device
as standard equipment for an entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an
exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Honda
provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design,
and location of the components of the antitheft device for its Civic
vehicle line. Honda will install a transponder-based electronic engine
immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment on its Civic vehicle
line beginning with MY 2014. Key components of the antitheft device
will include a passive immobilizer, transponder ignition key,
powertrain control module (PCM) and an Immobilizer Entry System
(IMOES). Honda stated that the Civic vehicle line will also come
equipped with a steering lock, cabin access, a hood release,
counterfeit resistant VIN plates and secondary VINs as standard
equipment.
    Honda stated that activation of its immobilizer device occurs
automatically when the vehicle is started without any further action by
the driver. Honda also stated that the device will automatically check
for start and validation from the PCM and the IMOES when a valid key
having a correctly matching code is inserted into the ignition switch.
Honda further stated that if the ignition key does not have a correctly
matching code, the PCM will prevent fueling of the engine by allowing
the vehicle to start and run for a few seconds before becoming
completely inoperable and causing the ignition immobilizer telltale on
the meter panel to flash. Honda also stated that the device can be
activated by using the key fob to unlock the vehicle doors or by
unlocking the driver's door with the ignition key. Deactivation of the
immobilizer device occurs when a valid key and matching electronic code
are verified allowing the engine to continue normal operations.
    In order to attract attention to an unauthorized person attempting
to enter its vehicles without the use of a key, Honda stated that it
will equip 99.9% of its Civic vehicle line with an audible and visible
security system that will sound the vehicle's horn and flash the lights
when the doors, hood or trunk is open when a key or key fob is not used
to disarm the system. The security system is armed when all of the
doors are locked and the hood and trunk are closed and locked.
    Honda stated that its Civic vehicle line will also incorporate
additional features to prevent unauthorized entry of its vehicles
without the use of a key. Specifically, the key and key cylinders are
designed with special styling features that help to prohibit theft.
Honda also stated that as an additional security measure, key
duplication of its keys is controlled by its authorized dealers. Honda
further stated that its key cylinders are resistant to tampering and
that its key fob remotes utilize rolling codes for the lock and unlock
functions of its vehicles. Honda's submission is considered a complete
petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general
requirements contained in Sec.  543.5 and the specific content
requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Honda
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Honda
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Honda provided a
detailed list of the tests and stated that it follows a rigorous
development process ensuring that its antitheft device is reliable and
robust for the life of the vehicle. Honda also stated that its
antitheft device has no moving parts and does not require the presence
of a key fob battery to function.
    Honda noted that its immobilizer device was first installed as
standard equipment on the MY 2001 Honda Civic. Honda submitted a report
by the Highway Loss Data Institute showing an overall reduction in
theft rates for the Honda Civic after introduction of the device.
Specifically, the Highway Loss Data Institute's report showed a
significant theft rate reduction from 92 (years 1998-2000) to 59 (years
2001-2003), with the theft rate described as relative to an overall
theft average of 100. Honda also stated that the data shows an
immediate decrease in thefts in 2001 with the immobilizer and also a
sustained lower theft rate in following years.

    In support of its belief that its antitheft device will be as or
more effective in reducing and deterring vehicle theft than the parts-
marking requirement, Honda referenced data showing the effectiveness of
its immobilizer device. Specifically, Honda referenced NHTSA's theft
rate data which showed a decrease in thefts since the installation of
its device. NHTSA's theft rates for the Honda Civic for MYs 2008, 2009
and 2010 are 1.0353, 0.7830 and 0.8349, respectively. Using an average
of 3 MYs' theft data (2008-2010), the theft rate for the Civic vehicle
line is well below the median at 0.8844.
    Based on supporting evidence submitted by Honda on the device, the
agency believes that the antitheft device for the Civic vehicle line is
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). The agency concludes that the
device will provide four of the five types of performance listed in
Sec.  543.6(a)(3): promoting activation; preventing defeat or
circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing
operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device. Honda stated that it will
equip its Honda Civic vehicle line with a security system that will
attract attention to the efforts of an unauthorized person to enter or
move a vehicle by means other than a key on all models within the Civic
line except for its DX trim level vehicles.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency
finds that Honda has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the Honda Civic vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
(49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Honda
provided about its device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Honda's
petition for exemption for the Honda Civic vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 2014 model
year vehicles. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1,
identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention
Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains publication
requirements incident to the disposition of all Part 543 petitions.
Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates,
the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a
general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to
notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the
parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
    If Honda decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR 541.5 and
541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Honda wishes in the future to modify the device
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Section 543.7(d) states that a Part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the anti-theft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, Sec.  543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Sec.
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: March 26, 2013.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-07354 Filed 3-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P