[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10805-10813]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04041]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2019-0018]
RIN 1660-ZA23

Hazard Mitigation Assistance: Building Resilient Infrastructure
and Communities

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is issuing the
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Policy. This policy
describes a new hazard mitigation grant program to assist States,
territories, Tribes, and local governments with mitigating the impacts
of natural hazards, including those created, aggravated, or amplified
by climate change. The new program is funded by a FEMA 6 percent set
aside of estimated disaster expenses for each major disaster,
supersedes the Pre-Disaster Mitigation grant program, and promotes a
national culture of preparedness through encouraging investments to
protect communities and infrastructure by increasing pre-disaster
hazard mitigation and strengthening national resilience.

DATES: This policy is effective April 26, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this policy is available for inspection using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov and can be
viewed by following that website's instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Janda, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]. Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may
access this number through TTY by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Proposed Policy

    On October 5, 2018, the President signed into law the Disaster
Recovery Reform Act \1\ (DRRA). The DRRA contains fifty-six provisions
that, among other things, (1) emphasize the shared responsibility for
disaster response and recovery, (2) stress the importance of building
the nation's capacity to deal with coming disasters and catastrophic
events, and (3) recognize the need to reduce the complexity of, and
administrative burdens in, FEMA's programs. Some of the highlights of
the DRRA include new and additional authorities to reduce risk from
future damage after a fire, increase State capacity to manage disaster
recovery, provide greater flexibility to survivors with disabilities,
and retain skilled response and recovery personnel. DRRA also contains
provisions directing FEMA to produce plans, guidance, and reports to
clarify terms and requirements, to identify best practices, and to
simplify information collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 115-254, 132 stat. 3438.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 10, 2020, FEMA published a proposed policy entitled
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) (85 FR 20291).
The BRIC policy addresses Section 1234 of the DRRA, titled ``National
Public Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation,'' which amended
section 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. Section 1234 of
the DRRA authorizes FEMA to set aside 6 percent of estimated disaster
expenses for each major disaster to fund the new BRIC grant program.
BRIC supersedes the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program \2\ and
promotes a national culture of preparedness through encouraging
investments to protect our communities and infrastructure,
strengthening pre-disaster mitigation capabilities, and fostering
national resilience. The following principles guide the BRIC program:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On September 9, 2019, FEMA posted a PDM notice of funding
opportunity (NOFO) at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=320395. The NOFO clarified that fiscal year
(FY) 2019 would be the last year that FEMA offered the PDM program,
and that the PDM program would be superseded by BRIC in FY 2020. As
the NOFO explains, the 2015 Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA)
Guidance applies to the FY 2019 PDM grant program application cycle.

 Support communities through capability- and capacity-building
 Encourage and enable innovation
 Promote partnerships
 Enable large projects
 Maintain flexibility
 Provide consistency and equal treatment
 Promote equity (including by eliminating unnecessary
complexity and administrative burdens)
 Adapt to the various and growing hazards associated with
climate change

    The BRIC Policy provides a consistent framework and standing
requirements for the program. FEMA will calculate the 6 percent set
aside within 180 days after each major disaster and may set aside that
amount from the Disaster Relief Fund into the National Public
Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund.\3\ The total amount will
vary year to year based on the estimated amount of disaster assistance
for each major Presidentially-declared disaster, and the number of
Presidentially-declared disasters in each year. On an annual basis,
FEMA will assess the amount available in the National Public
Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund and determine what portion
of it will be available for the next year's grant cycle. FEMA will
announce this determination in the annual Notice of Funding Opportunity
(NOFO),\4\ which it will post for a period of time on its website prior
to opening the application period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 42 U.S.C. 5133(i).
    \4\ 2 CFR 200.203 sets forth the requirement to post a NOFO and
the required contents of a NOFO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 203 of the Stafford Act limits eligible applicants to
States and territories that have had a major disaster declaration in
the 7 years prior to the annual application period start date, and
federally-recognized Tribes entirely or partially located in a State
that has had a major disaster declaration in the 7 years prior to the
application period start date.\5\ Subapplicants include local
governments and non-federally recognized Tribes,\6\ who may apply to
States and territories for funding. (Note that federally-recognized
Tribes may apply as either applicants or subapplicants).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 42 U.S.C. 5133(g).
    \6\ 42 U.S.C. 5122(8).
    \7\ 42 U.S.C. 5123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to determining annually the total amount to be made
available for BRIC, FEMA may allocate from that amount to eligible
States and territorial applicants, with a specific set-aside for
Tribes, an allocation for mitigation capability- and capacity-building
activities and mitigation projects, and make the remainder of the
funding available competitively for mitigation projects. FEMA may also
make a portion of funding available for management costs (costs to
manage the grant) and non-financial technical assistance to all
eligible entities. Funding for capability- and capacity-building
activities and mitigation projects will generally be subject to a
Federal cost share of up to 75 percent, and up to 90 percent for small
impoverished communities.\8\ Management costs may be funded up to 100
percent Federal share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 42 U.S.C. 5133(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEMA provides stakeholders with more detailed information about the
program requirements through an annual NOFO process.\9\ The NOFO
addresses a variety of topics, including but not limited to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 2 CFR 200.203.

 Important application dates
 Specific funding amounts and allowances
 Provision of technical assistance
 Codes and standards activities
 Application review process, including competition structure
and merit criteria
 Method for determining cost-effectiveness
 Award administration information
 Additional requirements and guidelines

    The guidance does not have the force or effect of law.

II. Discussion of Public Comments on the Proposed Policy

    FEMA received 147 distinct public comments to the proposed policy.
These included two mass mailings comprised of 11,068 comments from
members of the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund and 19,665
comments from members of the National Audubon Society. Many of the
public comments included several unique topic areas, each of which FEMA
analyzed separately. In total, the comments addressed 902 unique
topics. Commenters included Tribes, Tribal consortiums, non-profit
organizations, private citizens, municipalities, state agencies and
offices, professional

networks and associations, businesses, a school district and a public
official.
    FEMA reviewed and discussed each unique comment and considered
whether to change the policy in response to the comment. Stakeholder
feedback was taken into account in the design of the policy and in the
updates to the policy. Because many commenters had similar comments
about the same topics, FEMA organized the response to comments by
topic. Some comments related to more than one topic and were therefore
considered and counted under all applicable topics. A summary of these
comments and FEMA's response is provided below.

Favorable Comments

    FEMA received 108 favorable comments that noted direct support for
the BRIC policy or program. These are summarized below.
    Commenters wrote favorably about the stakeholder engagement process
for the proposed policy. Many commenters expressed appreciation for the
opportunity to provide comments on the proposed policy. Commenters also
expressed appreciation for the stakeholder engagement process
throughout the development of the proposed policy, including the
comprehensive stakeholder engagement effort that occurred in the summer
of 2019. FEMA is grateful to stakeholders for their engagement
throughout the development of the proposed policy; they have provided
meaningful input into the development of the BRIC program.
    Many commenters provided favorable comments about the BRIC program.
Commenters supported the principles of the BRIC program as follows:
    Principle 1. Support State and local governments, Tribes, and
Territories through capability- and capacity-building to enable them to
identify mitigation actions and implement projects that reduce risks
posed by natural hazards. Commenters were encouraged to see the
importance of capability- and capacity-building as highlighted in the
proposed policy. Commenters recognized that the continual funding for
these activities will allow communities to use these funds to build and
maintain capacity over time. FEMA notes the continual growth of
community capacity is an intent of the BRIC program. FEMA is
prioritizing that continual growth. FEMA further recognizes that the
Nation's capability- and capacity-building needs will far exceed
amounts available through BRIC, and intends for the allocation to
support an applicant's highest priority requirements.
    Principle 2. Encourage and enable innovation while allowing
flexibility, consistency, and effectiveness. Commenters expressed
support for the flexibility of the BRIC program, which allows not only
for traditional mitigation projects, but also encourages and supports
innovation. Commenters were energized and excited by the focus on
innovation as a cornerstone of the proposed policy, but also stressed
that traditional mitigation projects should always be eligible. FEMA
notes its intent to maintain a wide variety of project type eligibility
in the BRIC program.
    Principle 3. Promote partnerships and enable high-impact
investments to reduce risk from natural hazards with a focus on
critical services and facilities, public infrastructure, public safety,
public health, and communities. Commenters across all sectors expressed
support for Principle 3. FEMA recognizes that many non-profits and
other organizations have the capacity to assist communities in meeting
non-Federal cost-share requirements and developing mitigation projects.
For this reason, FEMA encourages communities to look for opportunities
to partner with other organizations. Communities are best positioned to
identify and develop mitigation projects for their citizens, and the
communities' effort can be supported by non-profits and other
organizations.
    Principle 4. Provide a significant opportunity to reduce future
losses and minimize impacts on the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).
Commenters expressed support for FEMA's forward-thinking approach of
looking to reduce future losses. FEMA recognizes that adequately
addressing future loss requires the consideration of the climate crisis
and changing future conditions. FEMA will provide information on how
future risk will be considered in the implementation of the BRIC
program within the NOFO and program support materials.
    Principle 5. Promote equity, including by helping members of
disadvantaged groups and prioritizing 40 percent of the benefits to
disadvantaged as referenced in Executive Order (E.O.) 14008 in line
with the Administration's Justice40 initiative. This principle was
added after the public comment period, so FEMA did not have an
opportunity to receive comments on it.
    Principle 6. Support the adoption and enforcement of building
codes, standards, and policies that will protect the health, safety,
and general welfare of the public, taking into account future
conditions, prominently including the effects of climate change, and
have long-lasting impacts on community risk-reduction, including for
critical services and facilities and for future disaster costs. Many
commenters noted the importance of utilizing modern building codes in
ensuring the resiliency of community infrastructure. FEMA strongly
concurs, and encourages adoption and enforcement of, as well as require
compliance with, all relevant consensus codes and standards for all
projects in the BRIC program.
    Commenters also expressed support for the 90 percent cost share for
small impoverished communities and for the new definition of ``small
impoverished,'' which no longer includes an unemployment metric. FEMA
agrees that these changes will support small impoverished communities
in need of assistance.

Information for Notice of Funding Opportunity and Program Support
Materials

    FEMA received 409 comments related to the NOFO and program support
materials. These are summarized below.
    Additional Information and Assistance. Many commenters requested
additional information in the policy such as example projects, details
about scoring criteria, technical assistance information, and an
explanation of how funds will be allocated. FEMA appreciates the
request and notes that the purpose of the policy is to provide the
high-level requirements that will remain consistent in the BRIC
program. Other information, such as annual allocations and scoring
criteria, is more suitable for the annual NOFO as these matters relate
to implementation and may change annually in the BRIC program. With the
request in mind, FEMA will provide additional guidance, such as
eligible project examples and information about technical assistance,
in program support materials. Program support materials will include a
variety of example projects ranging widely in scale and in geographic
location. A central goal of those materials will be to decrease
complexity and to make the various goals and requirements simpler and
easier to navigate.
    Types of Projects. Many commenters provided recommendations for the
types of projects that FEMA should prioritize within the BRIC program.
The most frequent recommendations included: Projects that incorporate
nature-based solutions and green infrastructure; traditional,
nonstructural flood reduction measures (such as acquisitions and
buyouts); and projects that leverage existing projects, plans, and
partnerships. The mass mailings received from the National Wildlife

Federation Action Fund and National Audubon Society promoted
prioritization of nature-based solutions: The National Wildlife
Federation Action Fund urged FEMA to prioritize community-wide, nature-
based mitigation with pre-disaster funds, and the National Audubon
Society urged FEMA to promote natural infrastructure solutions with
BRIC funding. FEMA is strongly supportive of nature-based solutions and
has released a Guide for Local Communities, ``Building Community
Resilience With Nature-Based Solutions,'' on that topic. Additionally,
FEMA is strongly supportive of nature-based solutions because FEMA
considers these solutions to be consistent with the Federal Flood Risk
Management Standard (FFRMS) under the reinstated Executive Order 13690
(Jan. 30, 2015).\10\ FEMA will address priorities through the NOFO, as
priorities are identified on an annual basis to allow for the
development and flexibility of the BRIC program over time as new
priorities are identified. FEMA will provide additional information
about nature-based solutions in program support materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ On May 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order
(E.O.) 14030, Climate-Related Financial Risk, reinstating E.O.
13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a
Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input
(Jan. 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions

    Some commenters asked FEMA to define the terms used in the proposed
policy. Commenters requested definitions, or changes to existing
definitions, for the following terms: ``Critical facilities'', ``small
impoverished communities'', ``resiliency'', ``large-scale public
infrastructure'', ``non-construction'', and ``innovative''. FEMA
appreciates the request and will provide definitions of new terms used
in the policy in an ``Additional Information'' section of the policy.
FEMA provides the following information to address comments:
     FEMA defines ``critical facilities'' in the glossary of
the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Guidance (2015) \11\ to include
structures and institutions necessary, in the community's judgment, for
response to and recovery from emergencies. Critical facilities must
continue to operate during and following a disaster to reduce the
severity of impacts and accelerate recovery. This definition is for HMA
program use and clarification and is not meant to provide a definition
for use under other programs or supersede any FEMA regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, Hazard Mitigation
Assistance Guidance, Feb. 27, 2015, available at https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1424983165449-38f5dfc69c0bd4ea8a161e8bb7b79553/HMA_Guidance_022715_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The term ``small impoverished communities'' is statutorily
defined at 42 U.S.C. 5133(a) to mean a community of 3,000 or fewer
individuals that is economically disadvantaged, as determined by the
state in which the community is located and based on criteria
established by the President. As the term is statutorily defined, the
maximum number of community members of 3,000 cannot be exceeded.
     FEMA will use the longstanding National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) definition of ``community resilience''
\12\ to define ``resiliency'', which is the ability to prepare for
anticipated hazards, adapt to changing conditions, and withstand and
recover rapidly from disruptions. This definition of resilience is
similar to the definition of ``resilience'' used in the Presidential
Policy Directive 21 (2013).\13\ FEMA provides the definition of
``resilience'' in policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ https://www.nist.gov/topics/community-resilience.
    \13\ https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ISC-PPD-21-Implementation-White-Paper-2015-508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     FEMA understands the concerns of small communities that
public infrastructure size will differ for different size communities,
and that small communities and large communities have different
understandings of ``large-scale public infrastructure'' in the context
of their communities. FEMA deleted the phrase ``large-scale'' before
``public infrastructure'' in the policy to avoid ambiguity or
implication of a size requirement for public infrastructure.
     FEMA removed the sentence referencing ``non-construction''
from the policy and added a sentence to explain capability- and
capacity-building activities that have already been initiated or
completed are not eligible for funding. The term ``non-construction''
was intended to mean capability- and capacity-building activities.
     The term ``innovative'' should be defined by the
community. FEMA will encourage communities to describe how their
projects represent innovative actions.

Capability- and Capacity-Building

    FEMA received 188 comments related to capability- and capacity-
building. These are summarized below. FEMA will provide more
information related to capability- and capacity-building in the NOFO
and additional program support materials.
    Activity Types. Commenters asked how applicants may use funds for
capability- and capacity-building activities. FEMA notes that eligible
capability- and capacity-building activities are listed in 42 U.S.C.
5133(e)(1)(B). Capability- and capacity-building activities enable
communities to identify mitigation actions and implement projects that
reduce risks posed by natural hazards. These activities are broad and
flexible so communities may use funds to address specific community
needs, but they must clearly contribute to the capability- and
capacity-building of the applicant or subapplicant to mitigate hazards.
FEMA offers the following clarifications in response to questions about
capability and capacity building activities:
     Eligible planning activities may include creating or
updating a community's hazard mitigation plan, building codes, zoning
or land use plans.
     Capability- and capacity-building funds can be used for
development or updates to mitigation priorities and plans. FEMA has
edited the policy to make clear that updates may also be funded.
     Non-FEMA technical assistance providers and other
educational expenses for staff are eligible capability- and capacity-
building activities when consistent with program requirements.
     Capability- and capacity-building funds cannot be used to
simply hire staff. If capability- and capacity-building funds
contribute to a salary, there must be a deliverable that is tied to
that position, such as updating a community's hazard mitigation plan.
     Capability- and capacity-building funds cannot be
allocated toward the administration of approved projects. Management
Costs can be applied for and funded to administer approved projects.
    Technical Assistance (financial). FEMA received many requests for
technical assistance to implement the proposed policy, including
requests for technical assistance for specific project types including
microgrids, coastal zone projects, and large-scale retrofits.
Commenters also asked for clarity about the types of technical
assistance that will be offered and who would receive it. FEMA
appreciates these comments, because they fit with FEMA's general goal
of increasing clarity and reducing complexity. To that end, FEMA will
provide technical assistance through program support materials and
webinars that will be available to all

communities, including Tribes. While FEMA does not have capacity to
provide individual technical assistance to each and every community
assembling an application to the BRIC program, applicants may receive
individual technical assistance from their FEMA regional offices. The
level of technical assistance from FEMA regional offices might vary by
region. FEMA will continue to provide benefit-cost analysis (BCA)
technical assistance through the BCA Helpdesk, as well as helplines for
the application system, FEMA GO, Environmental and Historic
Preservation, and the HMA Program. FEMA will continue to pursue and
prioritize additional opportunities to provide technical assistance in
response to stakeholder feedback in future years. FEMA will also
welcome continued feedback about how to improve technical assistance
and make it as useful and available as possible.

Eligibility

    FEMA received 564 comments relating to eligibility. These are
summarized below with FEMA responses. FEMA will provide more
information related to eligibility in the NOFO.
    Applicant Eligibility. Commenters requested that eligibility be
expanded to include other entities beyond States, territories and
Tribes that have had a major disaster declaration under the Stafford
Act in the seven years prior to the annual application period start
date. Commenters also noted a gap in assistance available to homeowners
and businesses to improve resiliency of properties. FEMA notes that 42
U.S.C. 5133(b) defines eligible applicants as State and local
governments. FEMA also notes that 42 U.S.C. 5133(g) requires that the
State or territory must have had a major disaster declaration under the
Stafford Act in the seven years prior to the annual application period
start date in order to be eligible. Consistent with other HMA programs,
local governments are eligible as subapplicants within the BRIC
program, but the award is made directly to the State or Territory.
    Section 5133(g) also addresses an Indian Tribal government's
eligibility. An Indian Tribal government (federally-recognized Tribe)
that has received a major Federal disaster declaration under the
Stafford Act in the seven years prior to the annual application period
start date, or is entirely or partially located in a state that
received a major Federal disaster declaration under the Stafford Act in
the seven years prior to the annual application period start date, is
eligible to apply under BRIC.\14\ A federally recognized Tribe may
apply as an applicant or subapplicant. If the Indian Tribal government
chooses to apply as a subapplicant through the State, the State must
have had a major disaster declaration under the Stafford Act in the
seven years prior to the annual application period start date. FEMA has
edited the policy to clarify that only federally recognized Tribes are
eligible as applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 42 U.S.C. 5123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 5133 does not authorize private non-profits and other
private sector entities such as businesses, industry associations,
native corporations, and individuals to apply as applicants or
subapplicants. However, FEMA edited the policy to highlight that
applicants and subapplicants may apply for funding on behalf of
individuals, and businesses, and non-profit organizations.
    Hazard Mitigation Plans. Many commenters suggested eliminating the
requirement of having a FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan (HMP) at
the time of application, citing this as a barrier to many communities
applying to the BRIC program. Commenters recommended only requiring a
FEMA-approved HMP at the time of award obligation, as this is all that
is required under 44 CFR part 201. FEMA is maintaining the current
requirement for an HMP at the time of application. Since an approved
HMP is a condition of receiving assistance under 44 CFR part 201, FEMA
checks for compliance with this condition at the time of application
and obligation to ensure that the applicant meets the eligibility
requirements. Requiring the HMP to be in the place at the time of
application reduces the likelihood that applicants or subapplicants
will not have a FEMA-approved HMP at the time of the award, and be
ineligible for funding. If an HMP lapses after a BRIC award has been
made, funding will not be stopped. FEMA will, however, encourage the
HMP to be made effective as soon as possible, as a lapsed HMP could
jeopardize the applicant's receipt of funds under other FEMA programs.
    Discrimination and Social Equity. A number of commenters requested
that FEMA distribute BRIC funding in a non-discriminatory manner and
give priority to historically marginalized and disadvantaged groups to
promote social equity. Commenters also asked FEMA to use a tiered
approach where under-resourced or otherwise disadvantaged communities
are considered separately from the larger competitive applicant pool.
On January 20, 2021, the President issued Executive Order 13985,
``Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities
Through the Federal Government,'' \15\ which is designed to pursue a
comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of
color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized,
and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality. The
Executive Order required each agency to assess whether, and to what
extent, its programs and policies create or perpetuate systemic
barriers to opportunities and benefits for people of color and other
underserved groups with the goal of developing policies and programs
that deliver resources and benefits equitably to all. The policy
already includes three items that contribute toward equity: 1.
Inclusion of equity promotion in the Principles of the policy; 2. An
increased Federal cost share for small impoverished communities; and 3.
A requirement that recipients and subrecipients ensure that the program
is accomplished in an equitable and impartial manner. In addition, FEMA
is committed to equity and is continuing to assess through the NOFO
process how to prioritize funding to deliver resources and benefits
equitably. As OMB has emphasized,\16\ one approach is to reduce
paperwork and administrative burdens, which might cause serious
problems in terms of equity. Regarding a tiered approach, FEMA is
researching this topic for future program design considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 86 FR 7009 (Jan. 25, 2021).
    \16\ The White House, Meeting a Milestone of President Biden's
Whole-of-Government Equity Agenda, (Aug. 6, 2021), available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2021/08/06/meeting-a-milestone-of-president-bidens-whole-of-government-equity-agenda/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, recipients of FEMA funding are required to comply with
federal statutes that prohibit discrimination in federally funded
programs and activities. FEMA will vigorously enforce these
nondiscrimination statutes and require recipients to sign assurances of
compliance with these laws.
    Project Eligibility. Commenters asked if specific project types
would be eligible for BRIC funding. The policy allows for traditionally
eligible mitigation projects, and also encourages applicants to be
innovative with their proposed projects. FEMA will provide more
information about eligible project types in the program support
materials and webinars. Clarity on some of the project types in
response to comments received is provided below:
     Phased projects are eligible.

     Project-scoping activities (formerly known as Advance
Assistance) are eligible as a capability- and capacity-building
activity and will be limited by the allocation amount.
     Project monitoring is the responsibility of the applicant
as stated in 2 CFR part 200 and will be stated in the NOFO. All work
funded by the BRIC program must be completed within the period of
performance of the grant, which does not allow costs for long-term
monitoring after the end of the period of performance.
     Pre-award work that begins construction prior to award or
prior to completion of compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act and other applicable environmental laws such as the
Endangered Species Act and the National Historical Preservation Act
cannot be funded. This requirement applies to the project as a whole
regardless of what the Federal share of the project will fund. However,
FEMA may approve and fund development of the mitigation application as
pre-award costs in a subapplication. FEMA has edited the policy to
clarify this point.
     For other Federal agencies' large projects, FEMA will not
provide financial assistance if FEMA determines another Federal agency
has more specific authority to support the project. FEMA understands
commenters' concerns that the BRIC program could potentially fund very
large, expensive projects (such as levee systems and dams), leaving
less funding for smaller scale projects that are quicker to implement.
However, there is no minimum on the amount of funding requested in the
national competition. Additionally, there is a State and Territory
allocation that could be used to fund smaller scale projects. Further,
consistent with appropriation law principles, BRIC mitigation funds
cannot be used as the non-federal cost-share for other federal agency
grants.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ General Accounting Office Redbook, GAO-06-382SP, Vol. II
(3rd ed. Feb. 2006), p. 10-93. https://www.gao.gov/assets/210/202819.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Managed Retreat and Relocation. Commenters asked about the
eligibility of managed retreat and relocation projects. Managed retreat
and relocation projects are eligible for BRIC funding. Managed retreat
and relocation of entire communities are extensive projects with many
different components. Applicants that seek funding for retreat and
relocation activities should try to align the project components that
the BRIC program will be funding with the annual priorities established
each year in the NOFO.
    Flood Insurance Requirements. Some commenters asked FEMA to waive
flood insurance purchase requirements, and others asked FEMA to clarify
when flood insurance requirements apply. Commenters also asked how
flood insurance requirements are enforced. The purchase of flood
insurance for federally-funded acquisition or construction projects in
a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is a statutory requirement under 42
U.S.C. 4012a of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA). Community
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is
required under 42 U.S.C. 4106 of the NFIA in order to receive Federal
assistance for projects in a SFHA. FEMA does not have discretion to
waive flood insurance requirements for federally-funded acquisition or
construction projects in an SFHA. This requirement is only applicable
to NFIP insurable structures. This requirement does not apply to non-
building infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, or acquisition or
demolition projects. Maintaining private flood insurance as an
alternative to NFIP insurance is allowable as long as it is
functionally equivalent to a standard NFIP flood insurance policy as
stated in 42 U.S.C. 4012(a). Flood insurance requirements are enforced
through deed restrictions that ensure flood insurance is maintained for
the life of the property.
    Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Commenters requested edits to the
proposed policy to address the threat of disease outbreaks directly and
to allow for eligibility of projects that contribute directly to
pandemic-resiliency activities. The statute that establishes the BRIC
program, Section 1234 of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act, includes an
instruction by Congress to focus mitigation projects on making
infrastructure more resilient to natural hazards. Thus, FEMA declines
to make any changes to the policy based on these comments. However, due
to the nature of the BRIC program, there is an opportunity to use BRIC
funds to support critical infrastructure that will also support the
COVID-19 response efforts. For example, mitigating the risks to
hospitals from hurricanes so that they can remain operational during a
disaster. FEMA encourages projects that provide multiple benefits to
society.
    Code Requirements. FEMA received comments seeking clarity on the
code requirements of the BRIC program and requesting that additional,
stronger language around codes be added to the policy. FEMA received
many suggestions to call out additional codes in the policy, such as
plumbing, fire, mechanical, solar, hydronics and geothermal codes. The
policy requires that a project must conform with the latest published
editions (meaning either of the two most recently published editions)
of relevant consensus-based codes, specifications, and standards, even
if the State, Indian Tribal government, or community the project is
located in has not adopted the required code(s). A State or Indian
Tribal government does not need to have adopted current codes to be an
eligible applicant. A project can always go beyond the minimum
requirements, and States are encouraged to require subapplicants to
meet stronger codes. As there are a plethora of codes that exist, and
BRIC is a multi-hazard program, FEMA intentionally did not list all
applicable codes for all the different project types. FEMA is in strong
support of modern, disaster-resistant codes and encourages projects to
implement the most recent codes applicable. The NOFO and program
support materials will provide additional information.
    Scoring Criteria. Many commenters provided recommendations for
project attributes to score higher in FEMA review of projects. The
following suggestions were the most frequently requested to receive a
higher score: States or Indian Tribal governments with approved
enhanced mitigation plans, small impoverished communities, historically
disadvantaged communities, critical infrastructure, projects that
utilize partnerships, use of best available climate science,
communities on frontlines of climate threats, nature-based solution
projects, and non-monetary benefits. There were also additional
requests for other project attributes to receive higher scores. FEMA is
taking these considerations into account as it develops the NOFO,
particularly to the extent that the recommendations are consistent with
the objectives of Executive Orders 14008,\18\ 13990 \19\ and 13985.
Scoring criteria are identified on an annual basis through the NOFO to
allow the program to remain flexible and evolve over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ E.O. 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,
86 FR 7619 (Jan. 27, 2021).
    \19\ E.O. 13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment
and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis, 86 FR 7037 (Jan.
20, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small Impoverished Communities

    FEMA received 64 comments relating to small impoverished
communities. These are summarized below with FEMA responses.
    Ten Percent Cost Share. Commenters asked FEMA to eliminate the
minimum ten percent non-Federal cost share requirement for small
impoverished

communities, noting that even a ten percent non-Federal cost share can
serve as an impediment to funding. FEMA understands these concerns, but
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5133(h)(2) FEMA's contribution is limited to 90
percent of project costs. Contributions of cash, third-party in-kind
services, materials, or any combination thereof, may be accepted as
part of the non-Federal cost share.
    Eligible Communities. FEMA received requests to allow more types of
communities, such as States and Tribes with enhanced mitigation plans,
to be eligible for a 90 percent Federal cost share. Pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 5133(h)(2), however, FEMA may contribute up to 90 percent only
to small impoverished communities. Otherwise, the maximum cost share
authorized is 75 percent per 42 U.S.C. 5133(h)(1).
    Meeting the Needs of Small Impoverished Communities. Commenters
requested that more be done to respond to the needs of small
impoverished communities beyond the increased allowable Federal cost
share. FEMA appreciates this concern and has removed the unemployment
metric from ``small impoverished communities'' to be more inclusive and
is also taking all comments into consideration as it develops the
scoring criteria in the NOFO, technical assistance and program support
materials.
    Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) process. Commenters noted the BCA
process makes it more difficult for smaller, less densely populated
communities to show cost effectiveness compared to urban communities.
FEMA notes that 42 U.S.C. 5133(f) requires all financial assistance
awarded on a competitive basis for BRIC to be used for mitigation
activities that are cost effective. FEMA is evaluating ways to better
capture the value of critical facilities, including specific
implications for small impoverished communities.

Funding

    FEMA received 135 comments relating to funding. These are
summarized below with FEMA responses.
    DRRA Funding Requirements. Commenters expressed concerns about the
methodology of determining the amount of funding available for the BRIC
program annually. Commenters thought the phrasing that FEMA ``may'' set
aside 6 percent indicates uncertainty as to the amount of funding
available. FEMA notes the funding source and related provisions,
including the 6 percent set aside, and the 180-day requirement to
estimate the aggregate amount of grants following major disasters, are
set forth at 42 U.S.C. 5133. FEMA is required to perform the 6 percent
calculation within 180 days of the disaster and is authorized to set it
aside to fund the BRIC program. Funding amounts will be announced in
the NOFO for each grant cycle.
    Competitiveness. Commenters requested clarification and changes to
the competitive and non-competitive aspects of the BRIC program. FEMA
offers the following clarifications:
     State and territory allocations (set asides) are non-
competitive.
     The Tribal set aside is non-competitive, unless the
submitted applications exceed the allocated amount.
     The remaining funding will be competitive at the national
level for mitigation projects.
    Commenters also asked for BRIC funding to be structured as a block
grant or revolving loan fund (RLF) program. FEMA notes that the BRIC
program is statutorily defined as a categorical project-based grant
program, which does not allow for a block grant or RLF structure.
Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 5133(f) requires that the majority of the
funding be awarded competitively.
    Other Funding Clarifications. Commenters asked for clarity about
cost share and management costs. FEMA offers the following
clarifications:
     The policy permits applicant and third party in-kind
contributions.
     Private funding is eligible for the non-Federal cost
share. More information about the cost share will be provided in the
NOFO.
    Additionally, FEMA agrees with commenters requesting support for
management costs and has changed the policy to provide 100 percent
Federal funding for management costs. This approach is also consistent
with FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).

Benefit Cost Analysis

    FEMA received 49 comments relating to benefit-cost analysis (BCA).
These are summarized below with FEMA responses.
    Discount Rate. Commenters inquired about the discount rate of 7.0
percent used for BCA for HMA grant programs. They believe the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-94, ``Guidelines and
Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs'' (rev.
October 29, 1992) \20\ is ``outdated'' and discount rates listed in the
circular do not accurately reflect current economic conditions nor do
they address the non-stationarity of changing natural hazard conditions
that many BRIC projects will likely address. Pre-disaster hazard
mitigation measures must be cost-effective under 42 U.S.C. 5133(b). OMB
Circular A-94 applies to Federal programs and sets the requirements for
conducting benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness analyses. FEMA cannot
revise OMB Circular A-94 and is required to follow it. Thus, FEMA
declines to make any changes to the policy based on these comments.
Commenters who believe OMB Circular A-94 is outdated should reach out
directly to OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/assets/OMB/circulars/a094/a094.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changing Frequency and Magnitude of Future Natural Hazard Events.
Commenters indicated that accounting for non-stationarity of future
natural hazard events, including the impacts of the climate crisis,
will be necessary and should be mandatory, and inquired how to account
for changing frequency and magnitude of natural hazard events over the
life of a project in a benefit-cost analysis. While FEMA's BCA tool
does have a sea level rise component, the commenters stated the current
tool does not account for changes in precipitation, stream flow, snow
melt, or severe storm frequency. FEMA appreciates the comment. In order
to bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change, FEMA is
currently looking into how to incorporate the full range of benefits
that address changing hazard risk and mitigate the risk of climate
change into its hazard mitigation project BCAs. For example, FEMA is
working with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to leverage their research into
the quantification of benefits from nature-based solutions and green
infrastructure which will help FEMA fund these project types. If the
jurisdiction or community has studies or other information from
authoritative sources that model future risks, that information can be
incorporated into the BCA by the applicant or subapplicant. The data
used to adjust the default data in the BCA tool must be provided to
FEMA to ensure that the data source is reliable and that the adjustment
to the default data was correct and meets the requirements of OMB
Circular A-94.
    Streamlining the BCA Process. Commenters inquired about
opportunities to streamline the benefit-cost analysis process. They
find the current process to be quite challenging, particularly the
amount of time and effort to assemble the backup documentation. Many
subapplicants have limited staff and do not have the resources
available to compile this

documentation. Commenters suggested various solutions, including using
other Federal agencies' BCA tools, conducting analyses at the
neighborhood or watershed scale, accepting reasonable assumptions by
applicants and subapplicants, and allowing small impoverished
communities to have projects with benefit-cost ratios less than 1.0.
FEMA appreciates the concern and allows the use of alternate BCA tools.
At the same time, FEMA must approve the use of such tools in writing
prior to the applicant/subapplicant submitting the grant application.
FEMA intends to make this process as simple as possible. Applicants and
subapplicants are allowed to use reasonable assumptions and supporting
data in applications. FEMA is required to comply with the requirements
of OMB Circular A-94 to demonstrate cost-effectiveness.
    Pre-Calculated Benefits. FEMA received multiple inquiries about
pre-calculated benefits. Commenters asked when updates to currently
used standard values will occur to reflect current market conditions
and if adjustment factors can be applied to reflect differences in
local market conditions. They also inquired about developing pre-
calculated environmental, social, and cultural benefits and/or
incorporating these elements into existing pre-calculated benefits.
Lastly, some comments about generators and flood risk reduction
projects requested more pre-calculated benefits related to these types
of projects. FEMA is constantly working to improve the BCA process,
including regularly updating current values and developing additional
pre-calculated benefits. FEMA does allow applicants and subapplicants
to adjust pre-calculated benefit amounts using the most current
locality multipliers included in industry accepted construction cost
guides. If a multiplier is used, a copy of the source document must be
included as part of the grant application. FEMA already has developed
some pre-calculated ecosystem services benefits. Their use previously
was restricted to specific project types but now can be applied more
broadly.
    Co-Benefits. In addition to ecosystem and environmental benefits,
commenters want to be able to include other co-benefits in their BCAs.
These co-benefits generally center around disadvantaged communities;
cultural, historic, and sacred sites; and subsistence-related resources
and activities. Some of these types of benefits are not easily
quantified and captured in a traditional BCA. Even if they cannot be
quantified, they can and should be mentioned as relevant benefits. (OMB
Circular A-4, and OMB's Regulatory Impact Analysis: A Primer, contains
helpful guidance on how to deal with benefits that are difficult or
impossible to quantify.) FEMA recognizes that culturally significant
resources are unique, and allows the applicant or subapplicant to refer
to cultural, historic, and sacred resources, and to the extent
feasible, to assign a monetary value to them. Established methods may
be available to allow such assignments. See George Alexandrakis et al.,
Economic and Societal Impacts on Cultural Heritage Sites, Resulting
from Natural Effects and Climate Change, 2 Heritage 279 (2019). The
applicant or subapplicant must provide documentation from reliable
sources that substantiates how the value of the resource was
determined. FEMA encourages applicants and subapplicants to include
additional relevant information in their project narrative, such as
those associated with co-benefits that may not be easily quantified, to
provide FEMA with a more comprehensive understanding of the project
that could help to inform award decisions. This approach is consistent
with Executive Order 13563, which recognizes that some costs may not be
quantifiable, and also Executive Order 13990, which acknowledges that
``accurate social cost is essential for agencies to accurately
determine the social benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions when
conducting cost-benefit analyses of regulatory and other actions.''
\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ E.O. 13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment
and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis, 86 FR 7037 (Jan.
20, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grant Administration and Management

    FEMA received 86 comments relating to grant administration and
management. These are summarized below with FEMA responses.
    Period of Performance. FEMA received comments to clarify the period
of performance (POP). Commenters requested a longer POP than the 36
months currently defined. FEMA changed the policy to clarify when the
start of the POP occurs and when a longer POP may be requested. The
beginning of the POP remains linked to the date of Federal award. FEMA
removed the reference to ``highly complex projects'' in the policy to
allow broader flexibility for FEMA to grant a longer POP on a case-by-
case basis.
    Monitoring. Commenters asked if FEMA will be monitoring the BRIC
program and projects. FEMA will monitor as required by 2 CFR part 200
and will be stated in the NOFO. FEMA continuously assesses processes
and the success of its programs to identify opportunities for
improvement.

III. Final Policy

    FEMA is finalizing the policy as follows. Line numbers refer to
numbering from the final policy.
     In response to concerns of small communities that public
infrastructure size will differ for differently sized communities, FEMA
removed ``large-scale'' before ``public infrastructure'' in line 42.
     In lines 46-48, FEMA added the following principle:
``Promote equity, including by helping members of disadvantaged groups
and prioritizing 40 percent of the benefits to disadvantaged
communities as referenced in Executive Order (E.O.) 14008 in line with
the Administration's Justice40 Initiative.''
     To address requests from commenters to support
consideration of future conditions, FEMA edited lines 49-53 to read:
``Support the adoption and enforcement of building codes, standards,
and policies that will protect the health, safety, and general welfare
of the public, taking into account future conditions, prominently
including the effects of climate change, and have long-lasting impacts
on community risk-reduction, including for critical services and
facilities and for future disaster costs.''
     In lines 107-108, FEMA added: ``FEMA may identify
additional criteria in the annual NOFO to allocate available funding.''
     To address requests from commenters to support management
costs, FEMA added a new sub-bullet in line 113: ``FEMA will provide 100
percent Federal funding for management costs.''
     For commenters who noted that the Funding section has
numerous references to eligible entities and applicants that would be
better understood if the eligibility section came before it, FEMA
reordered the ``Requirements'' section so that ``Applicant and
Subapplicant Eligibility'' comes before ``Funding'' in lines 54 to 128.
     To address comments asking for clarification of
eligibility for different types of entities:
    [cir] FEMA added ``Federally recognized'' to predicate ``Indian
Tribal governments'' in line 61 in order to clarify that the Tribal-set
aside is limited to federally-recognized Tribes.
    [cir] FEMA added ``Individuals, businesses, and non-profit
organizations

are not eligible to apply for HMA funds; however, an eligible Applicant
or subapplicant may apply for funding on behalf of individuals,
businesses, and non-profit organizations'' to lines 69 to 72. This text
clarifies how individual homeowners and businesses may receive further
assistance.
     To address commenters' requests to clarify that updates to
mitigation plans are eligible for capability- and capacity-building
funds, FEMA edited line 138 to read: ``. . . develop or update
mitigation priorities and plans.''
     To address commenters' request for a sentence structure
edit in lines 1596 to 162, FEMA reordered the sentence to end with the
citation in order to emphasize that the requirement is to comply with
environmental and historic preservation regulations.
     To address commenters' request for a sentence structure
edit in lines 163 to 164, FEMA reordered the sentence to end with the
citation in order to clarify the intent is to require compliance with
floodplain and other applicable land use laws and regulations.
     In lines 165-166, FEMA added: ``Any FEMA directive or
policy implementing the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard
(FFRMS).''
     For commenters who asked FEMA to define the term ``non-
construction,'' FEMA intended to mean capability- and capacity-building
activities. FEMA replaced the term ``non-construction'' with
``Capability- and capacity-building activities,'' and moved the
sentence to line 174. FEMA also added on lines 178-179 the sentence,
``Already initiated or completed capability- and capacity-building
activities are not eligible for funding.'' FEMA also added a new
sentence on lines 194-195 to completely address limits on eligibility:
``Projects for which ground disturbance has already been initiated or
completed are not eligible for funding.''
     For editorial purposes, FEMA edited lines 196-199 to read:
``It must be cost-effective and designed to increase resilience and
reduce risk of injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of
property, including critical services and facilities.''
     In line 202, FEMA removed the phrase: ``. . . through
completion of a benefit cost analysis conducted in compliance with OMB
Circular A-94.''
     To address commenters' requests, lines 207-211 were edited
to clarify that if a project is located in the Special Flood Hazard
Area (SFHA), the jurisdiction in which the project is located must be
participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and not on
probation, suspension, or withdrawn. FEMA also added in lines 215-218
the following clarification: ``If there is a transfer of ownership of
the structure, the requirement of obtaining and maintaining flood
insurance for the life of the structure applies to the new owner and
any successive owners.''
     In lines 219-220, FEMA added, ``The project must comply
with any FEMA directive or policy implementing the Federal Flood Risk
Management Standard (FFRMS).''
     In response to commenters' notes to clarify that eligible
pre-award costs should be limited to development of the mitigation
application, FEMA edited line 234 to add the words ``the application
for'' after the words ``the development of.''
     In order to address commenters' requests to clarify the
POP, and requests to allow for a longer POP, FEMA edited text in lines
249 to 253. FEMA deleted ``effective'' and ``generally'' as the
beginning of the POP remains linked to the date of Federal award. FEMA
also deleted ``for highly complex projects'' and changed language on
lines 250-252 to: ``The applicant may submit a request for a longer POP
in the application for FEMA to review and approve.'' This change gives
FEMA broader flexibility to grant a request for a longer POP.
     In answer to commenters' questions, FEMA edited lines 312
to 313 to confirm that the policy will remain intact after it is
incorporated into guidance. FEMA deleted the following language: ``at
which point this policy will be superseded.''
     To add clarity, FEMA added subsections titled
``Definitions'' and ``Monitoring and Evaluation'' to the Additional
Information section.
     FEMA also made minor, nonsubstantive corrections for
grammar and clarity. FEMA is now issuing the final BRIC policy, which
is available at http://www.regulations.gov and on the FEMA website at
https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/building-resilient-infrastructure-communities. The final policy will not have the force
and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way. The
guidance document is intended only to provide clarity to the public
regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
    Under the Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act (CRA),
before guidance can take effect, the Federal agency promulgating the
guidance must submit to Congress and to the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) a copy of the guidance; a concise general statement
describing the guidance, including whether it is ``major'' within the
meaning of the CRA; and the proposed effective date of the
guidance.\22\ A ``major'' guidance document is one that has an annual
effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; results in a major
increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or
has significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and
export markets. Pursuant to the CRA, the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs designated this guidance as ``major'' within the
meaning of the CRA as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), as the annual effect
on the economy will be over $100,000,000 in transfers. As such FEMA has
sent the final BRIC policy to the Congress and to GAO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 5 U.S.C. 801-808. Although the statutory language only
discusses rules, Congress has made it clear that the CRA covers
guidance documents as well. See, e.g., ``The Congressional Review
Act (CRA): Frequently Asked Questions,'' Congressional Research
Service, at 7 (Jan. 14, 2020), available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43992 (last accessed Aug. 31,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Authority: Sec. 1234, Pub. L. 115-254, 132 Stat. 3438.

Deanne B. Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-04041 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-47-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9363-9365]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02741]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 33 / Wednesday, February 19, 2020 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 27

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0546; Notice No. 27-048-SC]

Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, Model
Bell 505, Visual Flight Rules Autopilot and Stability Augmentation
System (AP/SAS System)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Bell Helicopter
Textron Canada Limited (BHTCL) Bell Model 505 helicopter. This
helicopter as modified by S-TEC will have a novel or unusual design
feature associated with installation of the autopilot and stability
augmentation system (AP/SAS system). The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: These special conditions are effective February 19, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Shaw, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Rotorcraft Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 21, 2019, S-TEC applied for a supplemental type
certificate (STC) to install an AP/SAS system on the Bell Model 505
helicopter. The Bell Model 505 helicopter is a 14 CFR part 27 normal
category, single turbine engine, conventional helicopter designed for
civil operation. This helicopter model is capable of carrying up to
four passengers with one pilot and has a maximum gross weight of up to
4,475 pounds (external loading). The major design features include a 2-
blade main rotor, an anti-torque tail rotor system, a skid landing
gear, and a visual flight rule basic avionics configuration. S-TEC
proposes to modify this model helicopter by installing an AP/SAS
system.
    The AP/SAS system provides attitude stabilization in two or three
axes (pitch and roll with optional yaw) as well as higher-level
autopilot functions such as altitude hold, heading command and
navigation tracking. However, the possible failure conditions for this
system, and their effect on the continued safe flight and landing of
the helicopter, are more severe than those envisioned by the present
rules.
    The effect on safety is not adequately covered under 14 CFR 27.1309
for the application of new technology and new application of standard
technology. Specifically, the present provisions of Sec.  27.1309(c) do
not adequately address the safety requirements for systems whose
failures could result in catastrophic or hazardous/severe-major failure
conditions, or for complex systems whose failures could result in major
failure conditions. The current regulations are inadequate because when
Sec.  27.1309(c) was promulgated, it was not envisioned that a normal
category rotorcraft would use systems that are complex or whose failure
could result in ``catastrophic'' or ``hazardous/severe-major'' effects
on the rotorcraft. This is particularly true with the application of
new technology, new application of standard technology, or other
applications not envisioned by the rule that affect safety. Possible
failure modes exhibited by the S-TEC AP/SAS system could result in a
catastrophic event.

Type Certification Basis

    Under 14 CFR 21.101, S-TEC must show that the Bell Model 505
helicopter, as modified by the installed AP/SAS, continues to meet the
applicable regulations incorporated by reference in the Type
Certificate Number R00008RD. The regulations incorporated by reference
in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the ``original type
certification basis.'' The regulations incorporated by reference in
Type Certificate Number R00008RD are as follows:

14 CFR part 27, dated October 2, 1964, amendment 27-1 through 27-47
14 CFR part 36, amendment 36-1 through 36-30

    In addition, the certification basis includes certain equivalent
level of safety findings that are not relevant to these special
conditions.
    The Administrator has determined the applicable airworthiness
regulations (that is, 14 CFR part 27), as they pertain to this STC, do
not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Bell Model
505 helicopter because of a novel or unusual design feature. Therefore,
special conditions are prescribed under Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should S-TEC apply for an STC to modify any other
model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in Sec.  11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38 and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101(d).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Bell Model 505 helicopter will incorporate the following novel
or unusual design features: AP/SAS. An autopilot (AP) is a system used
to control the trajectory of an aircraft without constant input from
the pilot. This allows the pilot to focus on other aspects of
operations such as weather and systems. A stability augmentation system
(SAS) is another type of automatic flight control system; however,
instead of maintaining the aircraft on a predetermined attitude or
flight path, the SAS will reduce pilot workload by dampening aircraft
buffeting regardless of the attitude or flight path.

Discussion

    To comply with the provisions of the special conditions, the FAA
requires that S-TEC provide the FAA with a systems safety assessment
(SSA) for the final AP/SAS installation configuration that will
adequately address the safety objectives established by a functional

hazard assessment (FHA). This process will ensure that all failure
conditions and their resulting effects are adequately addressed for the
installed AP/SAS. The SSA process is part of the overall safety
assessment process discussed in FAA Advisory Circular 27-1B,
Certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft, and Society of Automotive
Engineers document Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) 4761,
Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment Process on
Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment.
    These special conditions require that the AP/SAS installed on a
Bell Model 505 helicopter meet the requirements to adequately address
the failure effects identified by the FHA, and subsequently verified by
the SSA, within the defined design integrity requirements.
    Failure conditions are classified according to the severity of
their effects on the rotorcraft. Radio Technical Commission for
Aeronautics, Inc. (RTCA) Document DO-178C, Software Considerations in
Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification, provides software design
assurance levels most commonly used for the major, hazardous/severe-
major, and catastrophic failure condition categories. The AP/SAS system
equipment must be qualified for the expected installation environment.
The test procedures prescribed in RTCA Document DO-160G, Environmental
Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment, are recognized
by the FAA as acceptable methodologies for finding compliance with the
environmental requirements. Equivalent environment test standards may
also be acceptable. Environmental qualification provides data to show
that the AP/SAS system can perform its intended function under the
expected operating condition. Some of the main considerations for
environmental concerns are installation locations and the resulting
exposure to environmental conditions for the AP/SAS system equipment,
including considerations for other equipment that may also be affected
environmentally by the AP/SAS equipment installation. The level of
environmental qualification must be related to the severity of the
considered failure conditions and effects on the rotorcraft.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of proposed special conditions No. 27-048-SC for the Bell
Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (BHTCL) Bell Model 505 helicopter was
published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2019 (84 FR 64233).
Comments were received from two commenters.
    One commenter requested generally that the FAA broaden the scope of
the safety standards to allow for expanded technological improvements.
This commenter did not request specific changes to the proposed
document.
    The FAA disagrees. The proposed special condition is not a rule of
general applicability. It affects only the model aircraft for which it
is issued. The FAA did not make any changes in response to this
comment.
    Bell Textron, Inc. stated that autopilot and stability augmentation
systems are not ``novel or unusual'' design features because these
types of systems are common and have been used in helicopters for many
years.
    The FAA disagrees. As explained under ``Type Certification Basis,''
the FAA issues special conditions when the conditions in Sec.  21.16
are met. Under that rule, whether a design feature is ``novel or
unusual'' is not determined by how long it has existed or how commonly
it is used. Rather, a feature is novel or usual if the applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards to address it. For the reasons explained under
``Background,'' current Sec.  27.1309 does not adequately address the
safety requirements for the S-TEC AP/SAS. Accordingly, this system is a
novel or unusual design feature under Sec.  21.16. The FAA did not make
any changes in response to this comment.
    Bell Textron, Inc. also requested the FAA clarify the maximum gross
weight stated in the notice of proposed special conditions.
    The FAA agrees and has made the requested change. These final
special conditions state that the maximum gross weight of 4,475 lbs is
for external loading.
    Bell Textron, Inc. requested that the FAA add language to the
references to ARP 4754 and DO-178C stating that these documents are
acceptable methodologies for finding compliance with the applicable
requirements and equivalent methodologies may be acceptable.
    The FAA agrees to clarify. The notice of proposed special condition
does not contain any reference to ARP 4754 and does not require that S-
TEC comply with RTCA DO-178C. Rather, the reference to RTCA DO-178C for
software design assurance levels is informational. S-TEC may use ARP
4754A and DO-178C or any other equivalent methodology that the FAA
finds acceptable to show compliance. The FAA did not make any changes
in response to this comment.
    Lastly, Bell Textron, Inc. requested the FAA clarify whether Policy
Statement PS-ASW-27-15 can be applied in this application.
    The FAA agrees to clarify. FAA Policy Statement PS-ASE-27-15 may be
used by S-TEC in showing compliance with this special condition. The
FAA did not make any changes in response to this comment.

Applicability

    These special conditions are applicable to the S-TEC AP/SAS
installed as an STC approval in Bell Model 505 helicopters, Type
Certificate Number R00008RD.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
for an S-TEC AP/SAS STC installed on one model helicopter. It is not a
rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who
applied to the FAA for approval of these features.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 27

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are part of the S-TEC
supplemental type certification basis for installation of an autopilot/
stabilization augmentation system (AP/SAS) system on Bell Model 505
helicopters.
    Instead of the requirements of 14 CFR 27.1309(b) and (c), the
following must be met for certification of the AP/SAS system installed
on Bell Model 505 helicopters:
    a. The equipment and systems must be designed and installed so that
any equipment and systems do not adversely affect the safety of the
rotorcraft or its occupants.
    b. The rotorcraft systems and associated components considered
separately and in relation to others systems, must be designed and
installed so that:
    (1) The occurrence of any catastrophic failure condition is
extremely improbable;
    (2) The occurrence of any hazardous failure condition is extremely
remote; and
    (3) The occurrence of any major failure condition is remote.
    c. Information concerning an unsafe system operating condition must
be provided in a timely manner to the crew to enable them to take
appropriate

corrective action. An appropriate alert must be provided if immediate
pilot awareness and immediate or subsequent corrective action is
required. Systems and controls, including indications and
annunciations, must be designed to minimize crew errors which could
create additional hazards.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 30, 2020.
Stephen Barbini,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-02741 Filed 2-18-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52419-52422]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19460]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0931; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-128-AD;
Amendment 39-17555; AD 2013-16-17]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
Boeing Company Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-100C, 727-200, and 727-
200F series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a structural re-
evaluation by the manufacturer, which identified elements within the
wing trailing edge flap area that qualify as structural significant
items (SSIs). This AD requires revising the maintenance inspection
program to include inspections that will give no less than the required
damage tolerance rating (DTR) for certain SSIs, and repairing any
cracked structure. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue
cracking of the wing trailing edge structure, which could result in
compromised structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective September 27, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of September 27,
2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.
O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221.

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 address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-
917-6577; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2012 (77 FR
54856). That NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance
inspection program to include inspections that will give no less than
the required damage tolerance rating for certain SSIs, and repairing
cracked structure.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(77 FR 54856, September 6, 2012) and the FAA's response to each
comment.

Request To Add Compliance Time Allowance

    Boeing requested that we add a compliance time allowance to
paragraph (c)(2) of the NPRM (77 FR 54856, September 6, 2012) for the
determination of the alternative inspection requirements for each SSI
affected by a repair or alteration that prohibits the ability to
accomplish the inspections required by paragraph (g) of the NPRM.
Boeing requested that we add to paragraph (c) of this AD a compliance
period of 12 months and associated language similar to that in
paragraph (j) of AD 2008-11-03, Amendment 39-15525 (73 FR 29407, May
21, 2008). Boeing justified its request by stating that the following
ADs allow up to 12 months to determine the alternative inspection
requirements should a repair or alteration prohibit the required
inspection, and that including similar language in the NPRM will assist
the operator.
     Paragraph (e) of AD 98-11-03 Rl, Amendment 39-10983 (64 FR
989, January 7, 1999).
     Paragraph (j) of AD 2008-11-03, Amendment 39-15525 (73 FR
29407, May 21, 2008).
     Paragraph (i) of AD 2008-09-13, Amendment 39-15494 (73 FR
24164, May 2, 2008).
    We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree with
adding an allowance similar to that requested by the commenter because
operators might have existing repairs that affect the ability to
accomplish the SSI inspections. We disagree with adding that allowance
to paragraph (c)(2) of this AD. That paragraph is an applicability
provision. We have added a new paragraph (h) to this AD to address SSIs
that have been repaired or altered before the effective date of this AD
such that the repair or design change affects the ability to accomplish
the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD. We have reidentified
subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Request To Add Repetitive Inspection Wording

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM (77 FR
54856, September 6, 2012) to add the following wording:

    Repeat the applicable inspection thereafter at the intervals
necessary to obtain the required DTR specified in Boeing Document
D6-48040-2, Supplemental Structural Inspection Document For Model
727 Airplanes, Appendix A, dated December 2010.

    Boeing stated that the NPRM does not address the repetitive
inspection requirements after the initial inspections are accomplished.
Boeing requested the wording revision in order to maintain consistency
with the wording contained in paragraph (i) of AD 2008-11-03, Amendment
39-15525 (73 FR 29407, May 21, 2008); and paragraph (h) of AD 2008-09-
13, Amendment 39-15494 (73 FR 24164, May 2, 2008).
    We do not agree with the commenter's request because the repetitive
inspection and methodology requirements are specified in the DTR forms
of Boeing Document D6-48040-2, Supplemental Structural Inspection
Document for Model 727 Airplanes, Appendix A, dated December 2010. By

requiring incorporation of inspections into the maintenance program
that provide no less than the required DTR, we are ensuring that the
appropriate repetitive inspections will be accomplished. We have not
changed this final rule in this regard.

Request To Address Transferred Airplanes

    Boeing requested that we add a new section to the NPRM (77 FR
54856, September 6, 2012) titled ``Inspection Program for Transferred
Airplanes,'' and the associated language similar to that in paragraph
(l) of AD 2008-11-03, Amendment 39-15525 (73 FR 29407, May 21, 2008);
and paragraph (k) of AD 2008-09-13, Amendment 39-15494 (73 FR 24164,
May 2, 2008); in order to maintain consistent language throughout these
ADs.
    The AD paragraphs referenced by the commenter refer to the
establishment of a maintenance program for accomplishing the required
inspections before a transferred airplane can be added to an air
carrier's operation. We disagree with the commenter's request because
this is not necessary. This AD is a threshold-based program for all
airplanes referenced in the AD applicability. This AD mandates a
maintenance program, and new operators would be required to comply with
paragraph (g) of this AD, which requires revising the maintenance
program. Operators may request approval of an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) for transferred airplanes under the provisions of
paragraph (k) of this AD. We have not changed this final rule in this
regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 54856, September 6, 2012) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 54856, September 6, 2012).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 206 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise maintenance program.............  1 work-hour x $85 per hour =            $0           $85       $17,510
                                          $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compliance with this AD is a method of compliance with the FAA
aging airplane safety final rule (AASFR) (70 FR 5518, February 2, 2005)
(http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/transport/Aging_Aircraft/media/AgingAirplaneSafetyFinalRule.pdf) for certain
baseline structure of Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-100C, 727-200, and
727-200F series airplanes. The AASFR requires certain operators to
incorporate damage tolerance inspections into their maintenance
inspection programs. These requirements are described in paragraph
(c)(1) of section 121.1109 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
121.1109 (c)(1)) and paragraph (b)(1) of section 129.109 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 129.109(b)(1)). Accomplishment of the
actions required by this AD will meet the requirements of these
regulations for certain baseline structure. The costs for accomplishing
the inspection portion of this AD were accounted for in the regulatory
evaluation of the AASFR.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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):

2013-16-17 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17555 ; Docket No.

FAA-2012-0931; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-128-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 27, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 727, 727C,
727-100, 727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes,
certificated in any category.
    (2) This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance
documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections, methods, and
compliance times). Compliance with these actions is required by 14
CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified,
altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections,
the operator may not be able to accomplish the inspections described
in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR
91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) according to paragraph (k) of this AD.
The request should include a description of changes to the required
actions that will ensure the continued operational safety of the
airplane.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a structural re-evaluation by the
manufacturer, which identified elements within the wing trailing
edge flap area that qualify as structural significant items (SSI).
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the
wing trailing edge structure, which could result in compromised
structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance Program Revision

    (1) Before the accumulation of 55,000 total flight cycles, or
within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later: Revise the maintenance program to incorporate
inspections that provide no less than the required damage tolerance
rating (DTR) for each SSI listed in Boeing Document D6-48040-2,
Supplemental Structural Inspection Document For Model 727 Airplanes,
Appendix A, dated December 2010. The required DTR value for each SSI
is identified in Boeing Document D6-48040-2, Supplemental Structural
Inspection Document For Model 727 Airplanes, Appendix A, dated
December 2010. The revision to the maintenance inspection program
must include and must be implemented in accordance with the
procedures in Section 3.0, ``Flap and Support Structure (Flap
Structure) SSI Information,'' of Boeing Document D6-48040-2,
Supplemental Structural Inspection Document For Model 727 Airplanes,
Appendix A, dated December 2010; and in accordance with the
procedures in Section 5.0, ``Damage Tolerance Rating (DTR) System
Application,'' and Section 6.0, ``SSI Discrepancy Reporting,'' of
Boeing Document D6-48040-1, Supplemental Structural Inspection
Document (SSID), Volume 1, Revision H, dated June 1994.
    (2) The initial compliance time for the inspections is before
the accumulation of 55,000 total flight cycles, or within 3,000
flight cycles after 12 months from the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.

(h) Actions for SSI Items Repaired or Altered Before the Effective Date
of This AD

    For any SSI that has been repaired or altered before the
effective date of this AD such that the repair or design change
affects the ability to accomplish the actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD: Before further flight, obtain FAA approval of an
alternate inspection, in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (k) of this AD, or do the actions specified in paragraphs
(h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD as an approved method of compliance for
the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (1) At the initial compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of
this AD, identify each repair or design change to that SSI.
    (2) Within 12 months after the identification of a repair or
design change required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, assess the
damage tolerance characteristics of each SSI affected by each repair
or design change to determine the effectiveness of the applicable
SSID inspection for that SSI and, if not effective, incorporate a
revision into the maintenance inspection program to include a
damage-tolerance-based alternative inspection program for each
affected SSI. Thereafter, inspect the affected structure in
accordance with the alternative inspection program. The inspection
method and compliance times (i.e., threshold and repetitive
intervals) of the alternative inspection program must be approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this
AD.

(i) Repair

    If any cracked structure is found during any inspection
specified in Boeing Document D6-48040-2, Supplemental Structural
Inspection Document For Model 727 Airplanes, Appendix A, dated
December 2010, before further flight, repair the cracked structure
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (k) of this AD.

(j) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may
be used other than those specified in Boeing Document D6-48040-2,
Supplemental Structural Inspection Document For Model 727 Airplanes,
Appendix A, dated December 2010, unless the actions or intervals are
approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (k) of this AD.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 emailed 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Berhane Alazar,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Section 5.0, ``Damage Tolerance Rating (DTR) System
Application,'' of Boeing Document D6-48040-1, Supplemental
Structural Inspection Document for Model 727 Airplanes, Volume 1,
Revision H, dated June 1994. The revision date of this document is
identified on only the title page of this document.
    (ii) Section 6.0, ``SSI Discrepancy Reporting,'' of Boeing
Document D6-48040-1, Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for
Model 727 Airplanes, Volume 1, Revision H, dated June 1994. The
revision date of this document is identified on only the title page
of this document.
    (iii) Boeing Document D6-48040-2, Supplemental Structural
Inspection Document For Model 727 Airplanes, Appendix A, dated
December 2010. The date appears only on the title page of this
document.
    (3) For Boeing 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;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax

206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 1, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-19460 Filed 8-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P