[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30019-30021]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11995]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0922; Airspace Docket No. 13-AWA-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of the Philadelphia, PA, Class B Airspace Area

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the description of Area G of the
Philadelphia Class B airspace area to correct a design error that
resulted in the Class B airspace boundary being published 2.1 nautical
miles (NM) larger on the southeast side of the area than intended.
There are no other changes to the Philadelphia Class B airspace area.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, July 24, 2014. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Area G of the Philadelphia, PA, Class B
airspace area (78 FR 76779, December 19, 2013). Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 to correct two points used to define the boundaries of Area G
in the description of the Philadelphia Class B airspace area.
Specifically, the point that reads ``. . .the intersection of the PHL
20-mile radius and the 136[deg] bearing from PHL. . .'' is changed to
read ``. . .the intersection of the 17.9-mile radius and the 138[deg]
bearing from PHL. . . .'' This point appears in two places in the Area
G description. In addition, the point that reads ``. . .the
intersection of the PHL 20-mile radius and the 120[deg] bearing from
PHL. . .'' is changed to read ``. . .the intersection of the 20-mile
radius and the 118[deg] bearing from PHL. . . .'' This point appears
once in the Area G description. This change results in a small
reduction in the lateral dimensions of Class B airspace, southeast of
Philadelphia International Airport, near the Cross Keys Airport, NJ
(17N). This action does not modify any other parts of the Philadelphia
Class B airspace area.
    Class B airspace areas are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order
7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class B airspace area
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it makes editorial corrections to an existing Class B
airspace description to maintain accuracy.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    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
(Public Law 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade 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 final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a final rule does not
warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that
effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full
regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a
determination has been made for this

final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows:
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
final rule:
    (1) Imposes minimal incremental costs and provides benefits;
    (2) Is not an economically ``significant regulatory action'' as
defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866;
    (3) Is not significant as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures;
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities;
    (5) Will not have a significant effect on international trade; and
    (6) Will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the monetary
threshold identified.
    These analyses are summarized below.

The Action

    This final rule action modifies the Philadelphia, PA, Class B
airspace area by reducing the size of Area G in the description of the
Philadelphia Class B airspace area.

Benefits of the Final Rule Action

    Reducing the size of the Class B airspace area increases the
airspace available to aircraft that do not need to use Class B
airspace.

Costs of the Action

    The final rule action has no costs.

Outcome of the Final Rule

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
There the FAA has determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action ``as defined in Section 3(f) of
Executive 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
    The FAA received no comments on the regulatory evaluation for the
NPRM.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject
to regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    This final rule is a routine matter that only affects air traffic
procedures and air navigation and has no costs.
    The FAA received no comments on the Initial Regulatory
Determination, accepts the determination of no significant economic
impact. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA
certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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 received no comments on the proposed determination of no
impact. Therefore, the FAA has determined that this final rule will
have no impact on international trade because it reduces Class B
airspace in the Philadelphia area.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law
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 $151.0 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This action is not expected to cause any
potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9X,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 7, 2013, and
effective September 15, 2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B--Class B Airspace.

* * * * *

AEA PA B Philadelphia, PA [Amended]

Philadelphia International Airport, PA (Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 39[deg]52'20'' N., long. 75[deg]14'27'' W.)
Northeast Philadelphia Airport, PA

    (Lat. 40[deg]04'55'' N., long. 75[deg]00'38'' W.)
Cross Keys Airport, NJ
    (Lat. 39[deg]42'20'' N., long. 75[deg]01'59'' W.)

    Boundaries.
    By removing the current description of Area G and adding in its
place:
    Area G. That airspace extending upward from 3,500 feet MSL to
and including 7,000 feet MSL within a 20-mile radius of PHL,
excluding that airspace south of a line beginning at the
intersection of the PHL 20-mile radius and the 158[deg] bearing from
PHL, thence direct to the intersection of the PHL 17.9-mile radius
and the 138[deg] bearing from PHL, and that airspace bounded by a
line beginning at the intersection of the PHL 17.9-mile radius and
the 138[deg] bearing from PHL, thence direct to the intersection of
the PHL 15-mile radius and the 141[deg] bearing from PHL, thence
direct to the intersection of the Cross Keys Airport (17N) 1.5-mile
radius and the 212[deg] bearing from 17N, thence clockwise via the
1.5-mile radius of 17N to the 257[deg] bearing from 17N, thence
direct to the intersection of the 17N 1.5-mile radius and the
341[deg] bearing from 17N, thence clockwise via the 1.5-mile radius
of 17N to the 011[deg] bearing from 17N, thence direct to the
intersection of the PHL 15-mile radius and the 127[deg] bearing from
PHL, thence direct to the intersection of the PHL 20-mile radius and
the 118[deg] bearing from PHL, and Areas A, B, C, D, E and F.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 19, 2014.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2014-11995 Filed 5-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24425-24427]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9794]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0441; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-011-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileria de
Aeron[aacute]utica S.A. (EMBRAER) Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Empresa Brasileria de Aeron[aacute]utica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model
EMB-505 airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as an
inadequate amount of drain holes in the primary control surfaces
(rudder, elevator, and aileron) and their tab surfaces may allow water
to accumulate in the control surfaces. This condition could cause
unbalanced flight control surfaces and reduced flutter margins, which
could result in loss of control of the airplane. We are issuing this
proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 8, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), Phenom Maintenance
Support, Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170, S[atilde]o Jos[eacute] dos
Campos--SP, CEP: 12227-901--P.O. Box 36/2, BRASIL; fax ++55 12 3927-
2619; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.embraer.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0441;
Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-011-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC),
which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian
Airworthiness Directive 2012-03-01, dated March 20, 2012 (referred to
after this as ''the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    It has been found that certain regions of the rudder, elevator,
ailerons, and their tabs surfaces does not present adequate drainage
capacity to avoid water accumulation inside of these control
surfaces. Internal water accumulation may lead to flight control
surfaces unbalancing possibly reducing the flutter margins, which
could result in loss of airplane control.

The MCAI requires visually inspecting the control surfaces (rudder,
elevator, and aileron) and their tab surfaces for the existence of
required drain holes and modifying the control surfaces by drilling
drain holes. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI
in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    EMBRAER has issued Phenom Service Bulletin No. 505-57-0002, dated
February 13, 2012; Phenom Service Bulletin No. 505-57-0003, dated
November 16, 2011; and Phenom Service Bulletin No. 505-57-0004, dated
February 16, 2012. The actions described in this service information
are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this

AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 38 products of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take from .5 work-hour to 2 work-
hours per product for 10 of the affected airplanes to comply with the
basic inspection requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
inspection on U.S. operators to be from $425 to $1,700, or $42.50 to
$170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take from 2 work-hours to 38 work-hours and require parts costing $50,
for a cost from $220 to $3,280 per product. We have no way of
determining the number of products that may need these actions.
    We also estimate that it would take from 19 work-hours to 27 work-
hours per product for 36 of the affected airplanes to comply with basic
modification requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $100 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
modification on U.S. operators to be from $61,740, to $86,220, or
$1,715 to $2,395 per product.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
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

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Empresa Brasileria de Aeron[aacute]utica S.A. (EMBRAER): Docket No.
FAA-2012-0441; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-011-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 8, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following Empresa Brasileria de
Aeron[aacute]utica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-505 airplanes
certificated in any category.
    (1) Group 1: Serial numbers (S/Ns) 50500030, 50500033 thru
50500037, 50500039, 50500040, 50500044, and 50500046.
    (2) Group 2: S/Ns 5050004 thru 50500029, 50500031, 50500032,
50500038, 50500041 thru 50500043, 50500045, 50500047 thru 50500059,
50500061, 50500063, 50500065 thru 50500068, 50500070, 50500074, and
50500075.
    (3) Group 3: S/N 50500072.
    (4) Group 4: S/Ns 50500069, 50500071, and 50500073.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as an inadequate
amount of drain holes in the primary control surfaces (rudder,
elevator, aileron) and their tab surfaces may allow water to
accumulate in the control surfaces. We are issuing this AD to
prevent unbalanced flight control surfaces and reduced flutter
margins, which could result in loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Group 1 airplanes specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD:
    (i) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service after the
effective date of this AD or within the next 3 calendar months after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, visually
inspect the right-hand (RH) and left-hand (LH) ailerons lower skin
for the existence of required drain holes.
    (ii) Before further flight after the inspections required in
paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD, if the required drain holes do not
exist, drill the drain holes.
    (iii) Within the next 24 months after the effective date of this
AD, rework the ailerons, ailerons trim-tabs, ailerons horn cover,
rudder, rudder trim-tab, elevators and elevators auto-tab surfaces
by drilling additional drain holes.
    (iv) Do the actions required in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and
(f)(1)(ii) of this AD following the Accomplishment Instructions in
EMBRAER Phenom Service Bulletin No. 505-57-0003, dated November 16,
2011.
    (v) Do the actions required in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this AD
following Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions in EMBRAER
Phenom Service Bulletin No. 505-57-0002, dated February 13, 2012.
    (2) Group 2 airplanes specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD:
Within the next 24 months after the effective date of this AD,
rework the ailerons, ailerons trim-tabs, ailerons horn cover,
rudder, rudder trim-tab, elevators and elevators auto-tab surfaces
by drilling additional drain holes. Do the modifications following
Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions in EMBRAER Phenom Service
Bulletin No. 505-57-0002, dated February 13, 2012.
    (3) Group 3 airplanes specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD:

    (i) Within the next 24 months after the effective date of this
AD, rework the rudder, rudder trim-tab, elevators and elevators
auto-tab surfaces by drilling additional drain holes.
    (ii) Within the next 24 months after the effective date of this
AD, inspect the ailerons for the existence of required drain holes.
    (iii) Before further flight after the inspections required in
paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of this AD, if the required drain holes do not
exist, drill the drain holes.
    (iv) Do the actions required in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this AD
following Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions in EMBRAER
Phenom Service Bulletin No. 505-57-0002, dated February 13, 2012.
    (v) Do the actions required in paragraphs (f)(3)(ii) and
(f)(3)(iii) of this AD following Part II of the Accomplishment
Instructions in EMBRAER Phenom Service Bulletin No. 505-57-0004,
dated February 16, 2012.
    (4) Group 4 airplanes specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this AD:
    (i) Within the next 24 months after the effective date of this
AD, inspect the ailerons, elevators, and rudder for the existence of
required drain holes.
    (ii) Before further flight after the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this AD, if the required drain holes do not
exist, drill the drain holes.
    (iii) Do the actions required in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) and
(f)(4)(ii) of this AD following Part I of the Accomplishment
Instructions in EMBRAER Phenom Service Bulletin No. 505-57-0004,
dated February 16, 2012.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o
Civil (ANAC) Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2012-03-01, dated
March 20, 2012; EMBRAER Phenom Service Bulletin No. 505-57-0002,
dated February 13, 2012; EMBRAER Phenom Service Bulletin No. 505-57-
0003, dated November 16, 2011; and EMBRAER Phenom Service Bulletin
No. 505-57-0004, dated February 16, 2012, for related information.
For service information related to this AD, contact Empresa
Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), Phenom Maintenance
Support, Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170, S[atilde]o Jos[eacute] dos
Campos--SP, CEP: 12227-901--P.O. Box 36/2, BRASIL; fax ++55 12 3927-
2619; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.embraer.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 18, 2012.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-9794 Filed 4-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 74)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20549-20551]
[DOCID:fr16ap08-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 206

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0003]
RIN 1660-AA59

Disaster Assistance; Change in Federal Share for Alternate
Projects for Public Facilities

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule makes a conforming amendment to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Public Assistance regulations to
reflect two changes to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act) made by the Security and
Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (the SAFE Port Act). The
first change amends the percentage of the Federal contribution for
alternate projects from 75 percent to 90 percent of the Federal share
of the Federal estimate of eligible costs for public facilities. The
second change removes language that provided for Federal funding of 90
percent of the Federal share of the approved Federal estimate of
eligible costs for alternate projects in areas with unstable soil.
These changes are technical and conforming amendments that revise
FEMA's regulations to conform with amendments to the Stafford Act. FEMA
is exercising no discretion in implementing these changes.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 16, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Walke, Director, Public
Assistance Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street
SW., Room 601, Washington, DC 20472, (phone)<PHONE_NUMBER>; (facsimile)
202-646-3304; or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the authority of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford
Act), Public Law 93-288, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides funding to State or local
governments or private nonprofit organizations (PNPs) to repair,
restore, reconstruct or replace public facilities owned or controlled
by the State or local government or PNP. If, however, the State or
local government or PNP determines that the public welfare would not
best be served by repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing
the public facility, it may elect to receive a contribution to use for
alternate projects. Any alternate project must either be ``to repair,
restore, or expand other selected public facilities; to construct new
facilities; or to fund hazard mitigation measures that the State or
local government determines to be necessary to meet a need for
governmental services and functions in the area affected by the major
disaster.'' (42 U.S.C. 5172(c)(1); 44 CFR 206.203(d)(2)).
    Section 609 of the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act
of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), Public Law 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884, October
13, 2006, amended section 406(c)(1) of the Stafford Act by changing the
Federal contribution for alternate projects for State and local
government applicants from ``75 percent of the Federal share'' of the
eligible costs for public facilities to ``90 percent of the Federal
share'' of the eligible costs for public facilities. Accordingly FEMA
is revising 44 CFR 206.203(d)(2)(ii) to reflect this statutorily
mandated percent share increase for public facilities.
    Because Congress made this change for public facilities, but made
no change to the 75 percent contribution for private nonprofit
applicants' alternate projects, FEMA is adding a new paragraph to
separately address the Federal contribution for private nonprofit
facilities, which remains at 75 percent.
    Section 609 of the SAFE Port Act also struck former section 406(B)
of the Stafford Act, which provided for Federal funding of 90 percent
of the Federal share of the approved Federal estimate of eligible costs
of alternate projects in areas with unstable soil. Because Congress
removed this authority from the Stafford Act and because FEMA will
already be providing funding of 90 percent of the Federal share of the
approved Federal estimate to State and local governments regardless of
the stability of the soil through its change to 44 CFR
206.203(d)(2)(ii), FEMA is removing the regulation that implemented
section 406(B) at 44 CFR 206.203(d)(2)(iii).

Administrative Procedure Act

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a notice of a
proposed rulemaking is not necessary to revise a regulation if the
agency finds for good cause that notice and public procedure are
``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' See
5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). This rulemaking conforms with the good cause
exemption under section 553(b)(B) of the APA because notice and comment
is unnecessary and impractical. Public comments would serve no useful
purpose, as the revision to the regulation is mandated by the change to
FEMA's statutory authority, and FEMA has no discretion to alter this
statutory mandate. For these reasons, FEMA also finds that it has good
cause not to delay the effective date of this rule under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3).

Executive Order 12866, as Amended, Regulatory Planning and Review

    FEMA has prepared and reviewed this rulemaking under the provisions
of Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993, and as amended.
Under Executive Order 12866, a significant regulatory action is subject
to the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or may adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    This rule is not a significant regulatory action. This regulation
will revise FEMA's regulations to conform to changes Congress made in
the agency's authorizing statute. Before Congress revised the
contribution amount for alternate projects from 75 percent to 90
percent of the Federal share of the eligible costs for public
facilities, FEMA provided on average $520,000 per year in contributions
for alternate projects. Although the change to the Stafford Act and the
change to FEMA's regulations by this rule will only affect the
contribution amount for public facilities, this figure includes funds
for public facilities as well as private nonprofit facilities, as
independent data is unavailable. This regulatory change is expected,
therefore, to increase that figure by 15 percent (75 to 90), which is
$78,000. Therefore the average amount of FEMA's contribution toward
alternate projects would rise from $520,000 to $598,000 per year.
    There is no effect on the economy by the removal of the language
providing for Federal funding of 90 percent of the Federal share of the
approved Federal estimate of eligible costs of alternate projects in
areas with unstable soil. Since FEMA will already be providing funding
of 90 percent of the Federal share of the approved Federal estimate
regardless of the stability of the soil, those projects that have
unstable soil will see no difference.
    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; therefore, OMB has not reviewed it under that
Order. The annual effect of this rule on the economy is approximately
$78,000. FEMA knows of no other conditions that would qualify this
final rule as a ``significant regulatory action'' within the definition
of section 3(f) of the Executive Order.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') mandates that an agency
conduct an RFA analysis when an agency is ``required by section 553 * *
* to publish general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed
rule * * *.'' 5 U.S.C. 603(a). Accordingly, RFA analysis is not
required when a rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under
5 U.S.C. 553(b). DHS has determined that good cause exists under 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to exempt this rule from the notice and comment
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Therefore no RFA analysis under 5
U.S.C. 603 is required for this rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    FEMA has not issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for this
regulatory action; therefore, the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995, as amended, 2 U.S.C. 658, 1501-1504, 1531-1536,
1571, do not apply to this regulatory action.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This rulemaking contains no new collection of information, or
revision to an existing collection of information, as defined by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), as amended, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

    Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321, 4331-4335, 4344, and 4365, an agency must
prepare an environmental assessment and environmental impact statement
for any rulemaking that significantly affects the quality of the human
environment. FEMA has determined that this rulemaking does not
significantly affect the quality of the human environment and
consequently has not prepared an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement. The rulemaking pertains to the repair,
restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of a public facility. These
actions are categorically excluded from the preparation of
environmental impact statements and environmental assessments pursuant
to 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(xv), pertaining to the repair, reconstruction,
restoration, elevation, retrofitting, upgrading to current codes and
standards, or replacement of any facility in a manner that
substantially conforms to the preexisting design, function, and
location. Under 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(ii), the preparation, revision, and
adoption of regulations related to actions that qualify for categorical
exclusions are also excluded from the preparation of environmental
impact statements and environmental assessments. Since this rulemaking
pertains to actions that qualify for a categorical exclusion, FEMA is
not required to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999,
sets forth principles and criteria that agencies must adhere to in
formulating and implementing policies that have federalism
implications, that is, regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Federal
agencies must closely examine the statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and
to the extent practicable, must consult with State and local officials
before implementing any such action.
    FEMA has reviewed this final rule under Executive Order 13132 and
because this rule merely implements a statutory change in the
percentage of public assistance funding that can be provided for
alternate projects, FEMA has determined that this rule does not have
federalism implications as defined by the Executive Order.

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments, 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000, applies to agency
regulations that have tribal implications, that is, regulations that
have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes. Under this Executive Order, to the extent
practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall promulgate any
regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and that is not
required by statute, unless funds necessary to pay the direct costs

incurred by the Indian tribal government or the tribe in complying with
the regulation are provided by the Federal Government, or the agency
consults with tribal officials.
    This rule implements a statutory change in the percentage of Public
Assistance funding that can be provided for alternate projects. This
rulemaking will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994, as amended by Executive
Order 12948, 60 FR 6381, February 1, 1995, FEMA incorporates
environmental justice into its policies and programs. The Executive
Order requires each Federal agency to conduct its programs, policies,
and activities that substantially affect human health or the
environment in a manner that ensures that those programs, policies, and
activities do not have the effect of excluding persons from
participation in programs, denying persons the benefits of programs, or
subjecting persons to discrimination because of race, color, or
national origin.
    This rulemaking will not have a disproportionately high or adverse
effect on minorities or low-income populations.

Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking

    Under the Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act (CRA), 5
U.S.C. 801-808, before a rule can take effect, the Federal agency
promulgating the rule must submit to Congress and to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) a copy of the rule, a concise general
statement relating to the rule, including whether it is a major rule,
the proposed effective date of the rule, a copy of any cost-benefit
analysis, descriptions of the agency's actions under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and any other
information or statements required by relevant executive orders. FEMA
has sent this rule to the Congress and to GAO pursuant to the CRA.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 206

    Administrative practice and procedure, Coastal zone, Community
facilities, Disaster assistance, Fire prevention, Grant programs--
housing and community development, Housing, Insurance,
Intergovernmental relations, Loan programs--housing and community
development, Natural resources, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FEMA amends part 206 of
title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 206--FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE

0
1. The authority citation for part 206 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 through 5206; Reorganization Plan No.
3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; Homeland Security
Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 101; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979
Comp., p. 376; E.O. 12148, 44 FR 43239, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 412;
E.O. 13286, 68 FR 10619, 3 CFR, 2003 Comp., p. 166.

0
2. Revise paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (d)(2)(iii) of Sec.  206.203 to
read as follows:

Sec.  206.203  Federal grant assistance.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Federal funding for alternate projects for damaged public
facilities will be 90 percent of the Federal share of the Federal
estimate of the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or
replacing the facility and of management expenses.
    (iii) Federal funding for alternate projects for damaged private
nonprofit facilities will be 75 percent of the Federal share of the
Federal estimate of the cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing,
or replacing the facility and of management expenses.
* * * * *

    Dated: April 10, 2008.
R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-8186 Filed 4-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P