[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 205 (Monday, October 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65769-65772]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27364]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Airport Improvement Program: Modifications to Benefit Cost
Analysis (BCA) Threshold

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); DOT.

ACTION: Notice of changes; comments and responses.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the publication of the final policy
changes to the Federal Aviation Administration's policy requiring a
benefit cost analysis (BCA) for capacity projects funded by Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) discretionary funds. On December 16, 2010,
the FAA issued a Notice of Availability of Draft Guidance and Request
for Comments with regard to the modification of its policy requiring
benefit cost analyses (BCA) for capacity projects, which was published
in the Federal Register. (78 FR 78798-02, December 16, 2010). The FAA
now is (1) Issuing the final policy modifying the threshold at which
BCAs are required from $5 million to $10 million in Airport Improvement
Program (AIP) Discretionary funds, and (2) responding to comments
requested in the Notice on December 16, 2010.

DATES: Effective date of the modified policy October 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final guidance to begin the implementation of
the policy for conducting BCAs can be obtained from the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Planning and Programming,
Airports Financial Assistance Division (APP-500), 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. An electronic copy of the guidance
will be posted on the FAA's Airport's Division Web site at http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/bc_analysis within 7 days of publication of
this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank San Martin, Manager, Financial
Assistance Division (APP-500), Office of Airport Planning and
Programming, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Policy History

    In 1994, the FAA established its policy on Benefit Cost Analysis
(BCA) requirements for airport capacity projects. Factors leading to
these requirements included:
    1. The need to improve the effectiveness of federal airport
infrastructure investments in light of a decline in federal AIP
budgets;
    2. Issuance of Executive Order No. 12893, ``Principles for Federal
Infrastructure Investments,'' 59 FR 4233, Jan. 26, 1994;
    3. Guidance from Congress citing the need for economic airport
investment criteria; and
    4. Statutory language from 1994 included in Title 49 U.S.C. 47115
(d) specifying that, in selecting projects for discretionary grants to
preserve and enhance capacity at airports, the Secretary shall consider
the benefits and costs of the projects.
    The FAA implemented BCA requirements for capacity projects at all
categories of airports in order to limit the FAA's risks when investing
large amounts of discretionary funds. The FAA uses the conclusions
reached in the BCA review to make policy and funding decisions on
possible future federal investments.
    In 1997, a new FAA policy transferred responsibility for preparing
BCAs from the FAA to the sponsor. In addition, the policy lowered the
projected cost threshold from $10 million in AIP discretionary funds
(established in 1994) to $5 million.
    The $5 million threshold change was made policy in 1997 and
formalized in a 1999 Federal Register notice, Federal Aviation
Administration Policy and Final Guidance Regarding Benefit Cost
Analysis (BCA) on Airport Capacity Projects for FAA Decisions on
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Discretionary Grants and Letters of
Intent (LOI), 64 FR 70107 (Dec. 15, 1999).
    Since 1997, sponsors have been required to conduct BCAs for
capacity projects for which more than $5 million in AIP discretionary
funding will be requested. In developing the new draft guidance
increasing the threshold, the FAA reviewed the reasons for lowering the
BCA threshold amount in 1997 and concluded that those reasons do not
present sufficient basis to warrant maintaining the $5 million level
threshold today.
    The FAA has gained valuable experience assessing the implementation
of the policy and the need to further clarify the threshold

requirements for BCA. The $5 million threshold has remained unchanged
for over 13 years while costs of construction have risen significantly.
Using a construction cost index that approximates heavy civil
infrastructure costs and is maintained by the Bureau of Labor and
Statistics, construction costs of $5 million in 1997 are equivalent to
costs of $9.6 million in July 2011. FAA's use of BLS construction cost
data is explained later in Section C. b. ``Setting of the New Threshold
Level.''
    Based on the increase in construction costs, the FAA has concluded
that $10 million in AIP Discretionary funds is the appropriate
threshold for Fiscal Year 2012 and beyond. Though the BCA threshold is
being increased, the FAA retains the right to require a BCA for any
capacity project in order to evaluate the reasonableness of project
costs relative to project benefits.

Procedural History

    On December 16, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
Notice of Availability of Draft Guidance and Request for Comments
regarding the modification of its policy requiring benefit cost
analyses (BCA) for capacity projects (78 FR 78798-02, December 16,
2010). This Notice requested comments on AIP grant and LOI cost
threshold, above which BCAs must be performed; a total of three
commenters responded to this request. Two commenters, the Airports
Council International (ACI) and Mr. Joseph M. Polk of the Memphis-
Shelby County Airport Authority, expressed support for the draft
guidance, stating that it will reduce the need for potentially costly
and time-consuming BCAs where limited AIP discretionary funds are
involved. A third commenter, the Air Transport Association (ATA),
expressed a series of questions and concerns about the draft guidance.
The FAA has reviewed and addressed these comments below, consolidating
and arranging them in a manner that enables us to best respond.

B. Modifications to Policy

    The previous AIP grant policy, issued June 24, 1997 and commencing
in Fiscal Year 1998, stated that airport sponsors seeking $5 million or
more in AIP discretionary funds for capacity projects were required to
provide a completed BCA with the grant application. The Letters Of
Intent (LOI) policy stated that a BCA was required for any LOI request
to be issued in Fiscal Year 1997 or thereafter. In 1999, federal policy
exempted certain reconstruction projects from the BCA requirement.
    The FAA will be issuing a companion Program Guidance Letter (PGL)
12-01 titled ``Revised BCA Guidance'' on the date of publication in the
Federal Register which incorporates the BCA requirement threshold
modification from $5 million to $10 million in requested AIP
Discretionary funds. This revised guidance is based on the report
titled ``Benefit Cost Analysis Threshold Evaluation'' which assessed
the technical feasibility for raising the threshold to $10 million. A
discussion of the evaluation and results is included in the PGL to
inform FAA staff, airport sponsors, consultants and the public about
the basis for this decision.

C. Discussion of Comments and Responses

    On December 16, 2010, the FAA established a docket and invited
airport sponsors and other interested parties to comment on the BCA
requirement cost threshold for AIP grants and LOIs. The docket was open
for about six weeks and closed on January 31, 2011. As stated above,
this summary and discussion of comments reflects the major issues
raised.

Comments From ACI and Mr. Polk

    Both the Airports Council International (ACI) and Mr. Joseph Polk
of the Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority expressed support for
the draft guidance. Mr. Polk cited economic inflation as resulting in
grants below the $10 million mark being ``relatively small'' for ``most
commercial airports.'' Mr. Polk also stated that this change ``reduces
bureaucracy and returns funding applications to a level that worked in
the mid-90s.'' Similarly, ACI expressed support and stated that the new
policy will reduce the need for ``potentially costly and time-consuming
BCAs when limited AIP discretionary funds are involved.'' The FAA
agrees with these commenters as to the advantages of offsetting cost
inflation and the resource conservation advantages of this new policy
for all involved in the grant making process.

Comments From ATA

a. Cost/Benefit Statutory Requirement
    ATA Comments: ATA stated that ``FAA fails to recognize or give
effect to the statutory requirement that the Secretary of
Transportation must consider the benefits and costs of projects
selected for discretionary grants. FAA does not even attempt to
demonstrate that raising the threshold will not compromise the
Secretary's ability to do so.''
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with the comment. The FAA does not
require BCAs for all AIP projects, though the benefits and costs of all
projects are thoroughly considered. The authorizing statute exempts
certain projects from the BCA process where the underlying value of the
type of project has already been subject to economic evaluations
through regulation, advisory circulars, or an amendment process. In
addition, to be eligible for federal funds AIP projects must comply
with applicable federal regulations, including 14 CFR part 139, 49 CFR
part 1542, and related FAA standards and policies. While the FAA relies
on the BCA results, among other considerations, in making discretionary
funding decisions for certain capacity projects, the BCA requirement is
not imposed on all projects and BCA results are not the ultimate
arbiter in determining grant decisions. Rather, the FAA pursues a
balanced approach in applying the BCA policy to evaluate more expensive
projects in order to protect the federal investment. The increase of
the threshold amount from $5 million to $10 million does not change any
other provisions related to the Secretary of Transportation's
consideration of benefit and cost.
    The FAA believes that the balancing of the benefits and costs of
projects evaluated for analysis under this approach does not compromise
but rather assists the Secretary in exercising this consideration. It
is particularly important to note that the revised guidance still
allows the FAA to require BCAs where the project costs fall below the
threshold when such review is warranted by specific circumstances in
consideration of all relevant factors.
b. Setting of the New Threshold Level
    ATA Comments: ATA stated, ``[t]he Notice first points out that a
construction cost of $5 million in 1997 was equivalent to $9.8 million
in July 2008, and then asserts that `[t]he $5 million threshold has
required both FAA and sponsors of non-primary and non-hub airports to
devote substantial financial and staff resources in preparing and
evaluating BCAs for relatively small projects with readily apparent
capacity benefits.' However, the connection between the two statements
is not supported by either the Notice or the draft [PGL] cited therein,
and the conclusion that $10 million is the appropriate threshold for
determining whether a BCA is required is arbitrary.''
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with the comment. The FAA's
decision to raise the BCA threshold to $10

million in 2011 is based mainly on increases in construction costs from
1997 to present. When the original BCA threshold of $10 million was
established in 1994, FAA policy exempted projects undertaken solely or
principally with the objectives of safety, security, conformance with
FAA standards, or environmental mitigation. In addition, the FAA
considered the potential expenses and time needed to assess individual
capacity projects. At that time, the threshold was based on applying
the policy to cover a select number of more expensive and higher risk
projects, and this reasoning still applies. In reevaluating this
balance, the FAA compared current construction costs with costs from
1997, when the threshold was lowered to $5 million.
    The FAA was most interested in the value of construction costs,
especially costs for material such as steel, concrete, and asphalt,
because those costs have risen faster than the general rate of
inflation. Since we were unable to locate construction cost data
specific to airport construction, we relied upon highway and street
construction data collected by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics
(BLS). These data were collected through 2010 and have since been
replaced by the new BONS index, which measures material and supply
inputs for new nonresidential construction. For more information about
the BONS Index, see U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor and
Statistics, PPI Detailed Report Data for July 2010, Vol. 14 No. 7, 6-7
(2010). These data provide a reasonable approximation of heavy civil
infrastructure costs in general, and therefore best capture the
dynamics of construction cost increases.
    Based on the latest BLS data from July 2011, construction costs of
$5 million in 1997 are equivalent to $9.6 million today. As calculated,
the costs of construction have risen significantly over the last 13
years, but there has not been a corresponding increase in the BCA
threshold. The FAA does note that construction costs that were
previously at the $5 million level have not fully escalated to the $10
million level; nevertheless, a threshold increase to $10 million should
negate the need to revisit the threshold issue again for a number of
years.
c. Airport Project Construction Costs
    ATA Comments: ATA stated ``While construction costs in general have
indeed increased since 1997, FAA has not relied on actual costs of
airport projects funded with AIP discretionary grants during that time
period, despite the potential benefit of reviewing that data. (FAA
notes in the PGL that `we were unable to locate construction cost data
specific to airport construction,' but does not explain why that data
would not be readily available to the grant-maker.). Instead FAA has
chosen to rely on highway and street construction data, which indicates
that a $5 million project would cost about $8.6 million today, a
decrease from the $9.8 million in 2008 cited in the Notice. As the
table appended to the PGL illustrates, construction costs, while
exhibiting an overall upward trend, fluctuate both seasonally and from
year to year. To suggest, as FAA does by increasing the threshold for
BCAs from $5 to $10 million, that project construction costs have
doubled since 1997 is simply not accurate.''
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the comment that it has access to
FAA grant funding data, but these data have limited application since
they are focused on federal grant program administration requirements.
The grant data make up only a percentage of the project costs and the
percentages vary by airport size and project type. The data are not
meant to provide detailed cost statistics for airport construction
projects and are not available in a way that allows tracking of the
unit costs of construction items over time. More importantly, the
funding amounts are based on general project descriptions, which make
it difficult to assess changes in costs per work unit. The FAA lacks
the resources to compile and analyze bid tabulations from the several
thousand projects funded annually through AIP.
    The FAA currently uses, and will continue to use, the readily
available construction cost data from the Bureau of Labor and
Statistics because these cost indices are objective, accepted, and used
industry wide. In addition, the BLS data allows for a comparison
between a set of construction unit costs from 1997 to that same set of
costs in the current time period, data that the FAA does not collect as
part of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant making process. The
FAA collects data on total eligible AIP costs, but the level of detail
is not sufficient to provide a statistical comparison of airport
construction unit costs between 1997 and 2010. Collection of such
information by the FAA would require significant resources, would take
years to compile, and would create a new index of construction costs
that is duplicative of the data provided by the BLS.
    The FAA notes that the comment is correct that the most recent data
indicate that construction costs have not fully doubled.\1\ The FAA
would like to stress, however, that construction costs have risen
significantly over the last 13 years and there has not been any
corresponding increase in the BCA threshold. It is important that the
FAA provides a well-justified threshold level that does not fluctuate
at short intervals in order for airport sponsors to plan and develop
projects in an efficient manner. Accordingly, as previously stated,
although the escalation of costs has not yet reached the $10 million
level, a threshold increase to $10 million should negate the need to
revisit the threshold issue again for a number of years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The most current data (through July 2011) indicate a $5
million project would cost about $9.6 million today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Capacity Benefits of Small Projects
    ATA Comments: ATA stated ``Even if the highway construction cost
index is relevant, and even if one accepts FAA's `rounding up' of the
numbers to support a threshold of $10 million, it does not follow that
raising the threshold would merely exempt `relatively small projects
with readily apparent capacity benefits' at non-primary and non-hub
primary airports, as the Notice implies. Again, FAA has access to data
that could support--or refute--this point. How many of the BCAs
prepared or reviewed by FAA in the past five or ten years fall into
this category? How many of those projects would come under $10 million
when adjusted for inflation? Are there any examples of projects in the
$5-10 million range where the capacity benefits were not ``readily
apparent''? And even if some capacity benefits are apparent, is it
always the case that those benefits exceed the $5-10 million cost?''
    FAA response: The FAA disagrees with the comment. The FAA is not
proposing to exempt ``'relatively small projects with readily apparent
capacity benefits' at non-primary and non-hub primary airports'' from a
thorough planning process, including an assessment of project benefits,
by increasing the threshold to $10 million. Rather, in these instances
the FAA will rely on the traditional master planning, regional
metropolitan planning, or statewide planning processes to sufficiently
study and analyze the capacity benefits of a project instead of
requiring a separate BCA for such projects.
    In addressing this comment, the FAA reviewed 117 BCAs for capacity
projects since the year 2000. Of those, only 12 projects had
construction costs totaling less than $10 million. If the threshold had
increased to keep up with construction cost inflation, only one of

the 12 projects with costs under $10 million would have avoided the BCA
requirement. Based on the data in FAA's National Plan of Integrated
Airport Systems, retaining the $5 million threshold is likely to create
an unnecessary resource burden in coming years. In the next five years
alone there are more than 150 projects with capacity codes and/or
project descriptions that appear to be capacity-related. Of these, 79
have total eligible project costs greater than $10 million which
typically coincide with discretionary requests in excess of $5 million.
This would likely result in project delays and corresponding increases
in capital costs. By raising the threshold to $10 million, the number
of projects that may require a BCA will increase at a significantly
slower rate. The FAA believes this would preserve a prudent balance
between analysis and expenditure of AIP funds, particularly since the
planning process itself requires an assessment of the capacity benefits
of such projects.
e. Staff and Sponsor Resource Conservation
    ATA Comments: ATA stated, ``FAA cites staff and sponsor resources
as a motivating factor in raising the threshold, but once again offers
no evidence to support the conclusion that doing so will conserve these
resources. It would be helpful to know how many projects FAA expects
will be newly exempt from the BCA requirement in coming years, based on
past experience with grant requests. Furthermore, when the threshold
was lowered from $10 million to $5 million in 1997, it was done in
conjunction with a shift of the responsibility for preparing a BCA from
the FAA to the project sponsor. How much of the anticipated savings in
staff resources will accrue to FAA, and how much to airport sponsors?
ATA has a direct interest in this, since costs attributable to
preparing BCAs are considered allowable airport planning costs, and, to
the extent not covered by an AIP grant, may get passed back to airline
tenants through inclusion in the rate base.''
    FAA Response: The FAA's main justification in increasing the
threshold from $5 million to $10 million is to keep pace with the
impact of inflation on construction costs. Consistent with the original
BCA policy, in increasing this threshold the FAA seeks to balance
oversight of expensive, high risk projects with limited time and
monetary resources. Based on the data presented above there is strong
evidence to suggest that retaining the existing threshold would
significantly increase the number of small capacity projects requiring
formal BCA reviews. This would create additional project costs,
lengthen the time required to implement a project, and create
additional and duplicative levels of review by the FAA, airport staff,
and airport users. Instead, the FAA will rely on existing master
planning, metropolitan area planning, and statewide system planning to
adequately address the capacity benefits of such projects. Anticipated
savings will accrue to sponsors, airline tenants and the FAA, though
the FAA is not currently able to directly quantify these savings.
g. Full Justification of Projects
    ATA Comments: ATA stated ``ATA recognizes that FAA's constrained
resources may make the prospect of fewer BCAs to prepare or review
appealing, but we must point out that in an era of limited funding it
is all the more important that projects be fully justified in terms of
benefits relative to costs. While BCAs may not be the only means to do
this, FAA should ensure that it will not lose sight of this principle
before it raises the threshold.''
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the comment that all projects
must be fully justified in terms of benefits to the traveling public,
aviation system users, and neighboring communities. However, not all
projects that compete for limited AIP discretionary funds are subject
to the BCA requirement. Instead, the BCA process is one of many tools
the FAA uses to determine the capacity benefits of potential projects.
The FAA relies on existing master planning, metropolitan area planning,
and statewide system planning processes to adequately analyze and
address the capacity benefits of such projects. As circumstances
warrant, the FAA also requests BCAs or other economic evaluations be
done for projects under the threshold.
    Accordingly, after review of the public comments, the FAA has
determined that the policy proposing to increase the BCA threshold from
$5 million to $10 million in AIP Discretionary funds should be adopted
now.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 17, 2011.
Benito DeLeon,
Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2011-27364 Filed 10-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 85118-85121]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28059]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5041; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-102-AD;
Amendment 39-18719; AD 2016-24-02]
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 certain
The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a report that static strength analysis has shown that the
aluminum transmission aft bearing plate assemblies have inadequate
structural strength for one or more of the required load cases. This AD
requires removing aluminum transmission aft bearing plate assemblies
from the flap track and installing titanium transmission aft bearing
plate assemblies to the flap track. We are issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 30, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 30,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this 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<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5041.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5041; 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: 800-647-
5527) is Docket 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: Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6432; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19514) (``the NPRM''). The
NPRM was prompted by a report that static strength analysis has shown
that the aluminum transmission aft bearing plate assemblies have
inadequate structural strength for one or more of the required load
cases, including cases for drive system jam, flap skew, and structural
damage tolerance. Inadequate structural strength can result in damage
to the transmission aft bearing plate assemblies. The NPRM proposed to
require removing aluminum transmission aft bearing plate assemblies
from the flap track and installing titanium transmission aft bearing
plate assemblies to the flap track. We are issuing this AD to prevent
inadequate structural strength of transmission aft bearing plate
assemblies. This condition could result in damaged transmission aft
bearing plate assemblies, which could result in incorrect operation and
departure of the flap from the airplane and consequent loss of
controllability of the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Use the Latest Service Information

    Boeing requested that we revise the NPRM to refer to Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-57A2348, Revision 1, dated February 26, 2016.
Boeing stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2348, dated
June 12, 2015, erroneously included three airplanes, line numbers 1435,
1506, and 1509, which were delivered with the terminating action
already incorporated. Boeing stated that the airplane effectivity in
paragraph 1.A.1. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2348, Revision
1, dated February 26, 2016, is listed correctly; however, airplane line
numbers 1435, 1506, and 1509 were still erroneously included in the
table that lists the airplane groups by line numbers. Boeing noted that
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2348, Revision 1, dated February
26, 2016, also contains corrections to the access requirements, part
quantities, and part numbers.
    We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided. We
have updated this final rule accordingly. Since the table in paragraph
1.A.1. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2348, Revision 1, dated
February 26, 2016, is not accurate, we have also revised paragraph (c)
of this AD to state that the AD is applicable to Model 747-8 and 747-8F
series airplanes, except for line numbers 1435, 1506, and 1509, which
were delivered with the terminating action already incorporated. We
have also added a new paragraph (h) to this AD, which provides credit
for actions completed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2348, dated June 12, 2015. We have
redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Request To Revise the Costs of Compliance

    Boeing requested that we update the Costs of Compliance section of
the NPRM with the latest information in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-57A2348, Revision 1, dated February 26, 2016. Boeing stated that
the work hours and parts costs have been updated with the new service
information.
    We agree with the commenter's request for the reason provided. We
have updated this final rule accordingly.

Request for Credit for Previous Actions

    Boeing requested that we add a statement to the NPRM to indicate
that no further work is required on airplanes that have completed the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2348, dated June 12, 2015. Boeing stated that Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-57A2348, Revision 1, dated February 26, 2016, has no
effect on airplanes that have incorporated Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-57A2348, dated June 12, 2015.
    We agree with the commenter's request for the reason provided. As
stated previously, we have revised this AD to provide credit for
actions completed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2348, dated June 12, 2015.

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 for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2348, Revision 1,
dated February 26, 2016. The service information describes procedures
for removing the aluminum transmission aft bearing plate assembly from
the flap

track and installing a new titanium transmission aft bearing plate
assembly to the flap track. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 11 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement............................  136 work-hours x $85 per hour = $11,560........................         $43,787         $55,347        $608,817
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

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):

2016-24-02 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18719; Docket No. FAA-
2016-5041; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-102-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 30, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F
series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2348, Revision 1, dated
February 26, 2016; except for line numbers 1435, 1506, and 1509,
which were delivered with the terminating action already
incorporated and are not affected by this AD.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that static strength analysis
has shown that the aluminum transmission aft bearing plate
assemblies have inadequate structural strength for one or more of
the required load cases, including cases for drive system jam, flap
skew, and structural damage tolerance. Inadequate structural
strength can result in damage to the transmission aft bearing plate
assemblies. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadequate structural
strength of transmission aft bearing plate assemblies. This
condition could result in damaged transmission aft bearing plate
assemblies, which could result in incorrect operation and departure
of the flap from the airplane and consequent loss of controllability
of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement

    Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD: Remove
aluminum transmission aft bearing plate assemblies from the flap
track and install new titanium transmission aft bearing plate
assemblies to the flap track, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2348, Revision
1, dated February 26, 2016.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2348, dated June 12, 2015.

(i) 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 paragraph (j)(1) 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, modification, or alteration 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. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.

(k) 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) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2348, Revision 1, dated
February 26, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (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, WA 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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 November 10, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-28059 Filed 11-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3669-3673]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00765]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 48

[Docket No. FAA-2018-1084, Amdt. No. 48-2]
RIN 2120-AL32

External Marking Requirement for Small Unmanned Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This interim final rule requires small unmanned aircraft
owners to display the unique identifier assigned by the FAA upon
completion of the registration process (registration number) on an
external surface of the aircraft. Small unmanned aircraft owners are no
longer permitted to enclose the FAA-issued registration number in a
compartment.

DATES: This rule is effective February 25, 2019.
    Comments must be received on or before March 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-1084
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Natalie Wilkowske, Aircraft
Registration Branch, Civil Aviation Registry, Flight Standards Service,
Registry Bldg., Room 118, 6425 S Denning Ave., Oklahoma City, OK 73169-
6937; telephone 1-844-FLY-MYUA; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

    In the interim final rule titled ``Registration and Marking
Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft'' (Registration IFR), the FAA
provided a web-based aircraft registration process for the registration
of small unmanned aircraft to facilitate compliance with the statutory
requirement that all aircraft register prior to operation. See 80 FR
78593 (December 16, 2015). The Registration IFR also required that the
FAA-issued number assigned during the registration process be affixed
or marked on the small unmanned aircraft. To grant flexibility to the
diverse types of small unmanned aircraft commercially available, the
FAA required that the registration number marking be readily accessible
and maintained in a condition that is readable and legible upon close
visual inspection. The IFR further explained that markings in an
enclosed compartment, such as a battery compartment, will be considered
readily accessible if they can be accessed without the use of tools.
See id at 78627-28.
    This interim final rule revises the small unmanned aircraft marking
requirement by requiring the registration number to be marked on the
exterior of the aircraft. The FAA is taking this action to address
concerns expressed by the law enforcement community and the FAA's
interagency security partners regarding the risk a concealed explosive
device poses to first responders who must open a compartment to find
the small unmanned aircraft's registration number.

II. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment
procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds that
those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the
rulemaking.
    Members of the law enforcement and security communities have
expressed concern that the current rule, which allows registration
numbers to be marked in an enclosed compartment, presents an imminent
risk of harm to first responders. When responding to a security
incident involving an unmanned aircraft, first responders seek to
identify the owner or operator.\1\ One way to do that is to obtain the
registration number of the unmanned aircraft. Requiring first
responders to physically handle a small unmanned aircraft to obtain the
registration number poses an unnecessary safety and security risk to
those individuals, as well as to others in the immediate proximity to
the aircraft, because of the potential for the unmanned aircraft to
conceal an explosive device in an enclosed compartment (such as the
battery compartment), designed to detonate upon opening. Requiring
small unmanned aircraft owners to place the registration number on an
external surface of the aircraft helps to mitigate this risk because a
first responder can view the number without handling the aircraft, or
by using other technologies that allow for remote viewing of the
aircraft's external surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ During an interagency meeting on December 2, 2016, regarding
unmanned aircraft systems policy, several elements of the law
enforcement community and the FAA's interagency security partners
raised concerns regarding the part 48 provision that allows the
small unmanned aircraft registration number to be placed in an
enclosed compartment, such as a battery compartment. Additionally,
the National Protection and Programs Directorate of the Federal
Protective Service sent a letter to the FAA Administrator on May 5,
2017, to highlight its specific concerns about this provision and to
request that the FAA amend it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA had intended to make this change shortly after various
members of the law enforcement and security communities communicated
their concerns in late 2016 and early 2017. The FAA was not able to act
immediately, however, due to litigation challenging the applicability
of the Registration IFR to model aircraft as defined in section 336 of
Public Law 112-95.\2\ The FAA was reluctant to act during the pendency
of the litigation because model aircraft comprise the largest segment
of registered unmanned aircraft that would be subject to the revised
marking requirement.\3\ The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018 (NDAA) \4\ resolved the uncertainty when it was signed
into law on December 12, 2017 by restoring the applicability of the
Registration IFR to model aircraft. Having resolved the applicability
issue, the FAA finds that notice and comment would be contrary to the
public interest. After highlighting this vulnerability in a proposed
rule, first responders could be exposed to additional risk during the
notice and comment period as a result of the attention drawn to the
vulnerability. Given that the vulnerability would remain unmitigated
while the proposed rule is being finalized, the agency has determined
there is good cause to issue the rule without seeking prior notice and
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Taylor v. Huerta, Case No. 15-1495, (D.C. Cir. May 19,
2017).
    \3\ As of May 31, 2018, 936,957 model aircraft owners completed
the registration process and 218,033 non-model aircraft were
registered. Model aircraft owners may apply a single registration
number to multiple small unmanned aircraft. See 14 CFR 48.115 and
48.200.
    \4\ Public Law 115-91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the APA requires agencies to delay the effective date
of regulations for 30 days after publication, unless the agency finds
good cause to make the regulations effective sooner. See 5 U.S.C.
553(d). Good cause exists for making this regulation effective 10 days
from the date of publication based on the same rationale in the
previous discussion regarding forgoing notice and comment in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

III. Comments Invited

    Consistent with the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the
Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979),
which provide that to the maximum extent possible, operating
administrations for the DOT should provide an opportunity for public
comment on regulations issued without prior notice, the Department
requests comment on this interim final rule. The Department encourages
persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments
containing relevant information, data, or views. The Department will
consider comments received on or before the closing date for comments.
The Department will consider late filed comments to the extent
practicable. This interim final rule may be amended based on comments
received.

IV. Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49
U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the authority of the Administrator to
promulgate regulations and rules; and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which
requires the Administrator to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations and setting minimum standards
for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in
air commerce and national security.
    This rule is also promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44101-44106 and
44110-44113, which require aircraft to

be registered as a condition of operation and establish the
requirements for registration and registration processes.

V. Discussion of the Interim Final Rule

    The Registration IFR established a web-based aircraft registration
process for the registration of small unmanned aircraft to facilitate
compliance with the statutory requirement that all aircraft register
prior to operation. See 80 FR 78593 (December 16, 2015). The
Registration IFR required that the FAA-issued registration number be
affixed or marked on the small unmanned aircraft. To grant flexibility
to the diverse types of small unmanned aircraft commercially available,
the FAA required that the registration number marking be readily
accessible and maintained in a condition that is readable and legible
upon close visual inspection. 14 CFR 48.205(c). The IFR further
explained that markings in an enclosed compartment, such as a battery
compartment, will be considered readily accessible if they can be
accessed without the use of tools. See 80 FR at 78628. The FAA included
this provision in the Registration IFR to accommodate the television
and motion picture industry, which did not want markings to show in
theatrical and television productions, and hobbyists who wanted to
preserve the authenticity of model aircraft that replicate other
aircraft. The FAA also included this provision to allow future
consideration of the use of a serial number as a unique identifier for
purposes of registration. See 80 FR at 78628.
    As discussed previously, after the Registration IFR became
effective, the law enforcement community and FAA's interagency security
partners highlighted the risk to first responders when registration
numbers are permitted to be concealed. To address this safety and
security risk, the FAA is amending 14 CFR 48.205(c) to require the
registration number be displayed and visible on an external surface of
the small unmanned aircraft. The FAA has determined that the importance
of mitigating the risk to first responders outweighs the previously
discussed aesthetic interests and justifies the minimal burden and
inconvenience this change could impose on small unmanned aircraft
owners.
    This interim final rule does not change the acceptable methods of
external marking provided in Sec.  48.205(a) and (b). Additionally, the
FAA does not specify a particular external surface upon which the
registration number must be placed. The requirement is that it can be
seen upon visual inspection of the aircraft's exterior. This interim
final rule is effective February 25, 2019. Owners must ensure each
aircraft meets this requirement for any operation that occurs after
February 25, 2019.

VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires agencies to
analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39, as amended, 19 U.S.C.
chapter 13) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies
to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they
be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble
summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this interim
final rule.

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule revises the requirements regarding the placement of the
registration number assigned to a small unmanned aircraft. Under the
Registration IFR, the FAA allowed the registration number to be placed
in an enclosed compartment (e.g., the battery compartment) on the small
unmanned aircraft, but the FAA now requires the number to be placed on
the exterior of the aircraft. While this rule changes one possible
location where the registration number may be displayed, the cost to
operators/owners is minimal as they will continue to use the same
methods to mark the aircraft. The FAA acknowledges that there may be
some minimal costs associated with reduced aesthetic freedom for UAS
designed to look a particular way.
    As previously discussed, if the registration number is not readily
visible on the exterior of the small unmanned aircraft, first
responders or other persons seeking to identify the small unmanned
aircraft owner must open such enclosed compartments to view the unique
identifier. Requiring first responders to physically handle a small
unmanned aircraft to obtain a registration number adds an unnecessary
safety and security risk to those individuals, as well as to others in
the immediate proximity to the aircraft. This rule helps to mitigate
those risks.
    The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined
that this interim final rule is a significant regulatory action
pursuant to Executive Order 12866. It requires that owners of small
unmanned aircraft mark the registration number on an external surface
of the aircraft, which poses a minimal burden and inconvenience if an
owner must re-mark the aircraft to comply with this rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an agency
to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing
impacts on small entities whenever an agency is required by 5 U.S.C.
553, or any other law, to publish a general notice of proposed
rulemaking for any proposed rule. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 604 requires an
agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when an
agency issues a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being required by
that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed
rulemaking. The FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment and
any delay in the effective date for this rule. As notice and comment
under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required in this situation, the regulatory
flexibility analyses described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 are not
required.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where

appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this interim final rule and determined
that it has a legitimate domestic objective--the protection of safety--
and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this
objective.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100
million.
    This interim final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this interim final rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. As stated in
the Registration IFR, the registration and marking requirements for
small unmanned aircraft apply only to operations within the United
States and there are no ICAO standards for marking small unmanned
aircraft.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Standard Practice for UAS Registration and Marking
(Excluding Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems), ASTM F2851-10 (2018),
available at https://www.astm.org/Standards/F2851.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f of this order and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.
    The FAA has reviewed the implementation of the rule and determined
it is categorically excluded from further environmental review
according to FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.6f. The FAA has examined possible
extraordinary circumstances and determined that no such circumstances
exist. After careful and thorough consideration of the action, the FAA
finds that this Federal action does not require preparation of an
Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement in
accordance with the requirements of NEPA, Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations, and FAA Order 1050.1F.

VII. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''

    The FAA has analyzed this interim final rule under the principles
and criteria of Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism.'' The agency has
determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have
Federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this interim final rule under Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (May 18, 2001). The agency has
determined that it is not a ``significant energy action'' under the
executive order, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health,
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined
that this action would have no effect on international regulatory
cooperation.

D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order
13771 (82 FR 9339, Feb. 3, 2017) because the costs associated with the
rule are considered de minimis.

VIII. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by
using the internet--
     Search the Federal Document Management System (FDMS)
Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
     Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
     Access the Government Publishing Office's web page at:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
amendment or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including
economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the
internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced above.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name
of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121) (set forth as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601), as
amended, requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this
document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section at the beginning of the
preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on the internet at: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 48

    Aircraft, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Signs and
symbols, Small unmanned aircraft, Unmanned aircraft.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:

PART 48--REGISTRATION AND MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL UNMANNED
AIRCRAFT

0
1. The authority citation for part 48 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40113-40114,
41703, 44101-44103, 44105-44106, 44110-44113, 45302, 45305, 46104,
46301, 46306.

0
2. In Sec.  48.205, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  48.205  Display and location of unique identifier.

* * * * *
    (c) The unique identifier must be legibly displayed on an external
surface of the small unmanned aircraft.

    Issued under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 41703,
44101-44103, in Washington, DC, on December 21, 2018.
Daniel K. Elwell,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-00765 Filed 2-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P