[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74655-74664]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30945]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

[Docket No.: FAA-2009-0660; Amdt. Nos. 27-47, 29-54]
RIN 2120-AJ52

Damage Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Composite Rotorcraft
Structures

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule revises airworthiness standards for type
certification requirements of normal and transport category rotorcraft.
The amendment requires evaluation of fatigue and residual static
strength of composite rotorcraft structures using a damage tolerance
evaluation, or a fatigue evaluation if the applicant establishes that a
damage tolerance evaluation is impractical. The amendment addresses
advances in composite structures technology and provides
internationally harmonized standards.

DATES: Effective January 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How
To Obtain Additional Information'' at the end of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Sharon Y. Miles, Regulations and Policy Group,
Rotorcraft Directorate, ASW-111, Federal Aviation Administration, 2601
Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth, Texas 76137-0111; telephone (817) 222-
5122; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal
questions concerning this action, contact Steve C. Harold, Directorate
Counsel, ASW-7G1, Federal Aviation Administration, 2601 Meacham
Boulevard Fort Worth, Texas 76137-0007, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, ``General
Requirements,'' Section 44702, ``Issuance of Certificates,'' and
Section 44704, ``Type Certificates, Production Certificates, and
Airworthiness Certificates.'' Under Section 44701, the FAA is charged
with prescribing regulations and minimum standards for practices,
methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in
air commerce. Under Section 44702, the Administrator may issue various
certificates including type certificates, production certificates, air
agency certificates, and airworthiness certificates. Under Section
44704, the Administrator must issue type certificates for aircraft,
aircraft engines, propellers, and specified appliances when the
Administrator finds the product is properly designed and manufactured,
performs properly, and meets the regulations and minimum standards
prescribed under section 44701(a). This regulation is within the scope
of these authorities because it will promote safety of composite
structures by updating the existing minimum prescribed standards, used
during the type certification process, to address advances in composite
structural fatigue substantiation technology. It will also harmonize
this standard with international standards for evaluating the fatigue
strength of normal and transport category rotorcraft composite primary
structural elements.

I. Overview of Final Rule

    Composite structures present unique material behaviors and react
differently from metallic structures to damage and loading conditions.
This rule addresses the unique characteristics of composite materials
and requires applicants to evaluate these materials in a different
manner from traditional metallic materials. This rulemaking addresses
the type certification requirements for substantiating and certifying
composite rotorcraft structures, including different aspects of the
evaluation for the most critical issues for each class of materials.
    This rule changes the certification standards in areas of frequent
non-standardization and misinterpretation by applicants for
certification of rotorcraft composite structures. This rule is intended
to require damage tolerance and fatigue evaluation of composite
structures in order to prevent reduction of structural strength of
rotorcraft. In composite structures, low cycle fatigue often yields
minimal damage growth, whereas accidental damage from impact can
immediately reduce residual structural strength. This is different in
metals, where any critical damage to the structure is sensitive to
cyclic fatigue loads.
    These rule changes also address material and process variability
and environmental effects. A strength requirement for ultimate loads
will be applied when maximum acceptable manufacturing defects and
service damage are present. However, these rule changes provide an
exception to the requirement for a damage tolerance evaluation if the
applicant can establish that the damage tolerance evaluation is
impractical within the limits of geometry, inspectability, and good
design practice. In that instance, the

applicant may be allowed to perform a fatigue evaluation for some
rotorcraft structures and damage scenarios based on supplemental
procedures, such as establishing a retirement time. Under this
exception, an applicant could demonstrate that certain damage will not
grow or does not grow beyond a certain threshold or size, and that the
damaged structure could still carry ultimate loads. In this case, an
inspection may not be necessary and the structure could be assigned a
retirement life instead of a required inspection program. Further, this
rule will require an applicant to conduct a threat assessment, which is
associated with the service history of composite structures.
    The rule requires that applicants consider varying types of damage,
loading conditions, threat assessments, manufacturing defects, and the
residual strength associated with composite structures. In developing
these requirements, the FAA recognized that it may be impractical
within the limits of geometry, inspectability, or good design practice
to evaluate all the composite structures of a rotorcraft using a damage
tolerance evaluation. Therefore, the rule allows for a fatigue
evaluation of particular rotorcraft composite structures under
Sec. Sec.  27.573(e) and 29.573(e), where appropriate, if the applicant
can establish that performing a damage tolerance evaluation is
impractical within the limits of geometry, inspectability, and good
design practice for those principal structural elements (PSEs). As part
of the approval process for fatigue evaluation of a particular
rotorcraft composite structure, the applicant will be required to
identify the PSEs and the types of damage considered, establish
supplemental procedures to minimize the risk of catastrophic failure
associated with those types of damage, and include procedures in the
Airworthiness Limitation section of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness. These requirements minimize the risk of catastrophic
failure of composite structures used on rotorcraft certificated in
accordance with part 27 and part 29 standards.

A. Key Provisions in the New Rule

    Some of the requirements for evaluating composite structures came
from the current Sec.  29.571 standards. These requirements in the
evaluation process include certain steps, such as identification of the
PSEs, the in-flight measurements of loads, and the use of loading
spectra, as severe as those expected in-service. These rule changes add
more detailed steps and do not refer to the current flaw tolerant safe-
life and fail-safe evaluations because there are more suitable ways of
describing each approach under damage tolerance. Further, this rule
does not refer to the traditional safe-life method because composites
have sensitivities to defects and damage that must be considered in
design and certification testing that makes the traditional safe-life
method inappropriate.
    These rule changes revise the standards for determining inspection
intervals and retirement times based on results of damage tolerance and
fatigue evaluation. Currently, the minimum residual structural strength
requirement for any damage or defect that can be found by inspection is
tied to limit loads (maximum loads to be expected in service). These
rule changes link the required residual structural strength to the
probability of a given damage type, inspection interval, and damage
detectability. This link is necessary for at least two reasons. First,
one of the more critical threats--impact damage--could immediately
lower residual structural strength to well below ultimate loads (limit
loads multiplied by prescribed factors of safety) if it occurs. These
requirements will help ensure that, as the residual structural strength
is lowered, the earlier damage will be detected and repaired.
Inspections will be required that will be frequent and comprehensive
enough to reveal any damage or defect growth to minimize the time that
the rotorcraft might be operated at less than an ultimate load
capability. Second, the requirements address rare damage (such as a
high-energy, blunt impact) that is not detectable with the currently
prescribed inspection schemes for aircraft in operational service.
Although such damage may have a low probability of occurring, the rules
require that sufficient residual structural strength exists to
compensate for such damage.
    These rule changes require that all PSEs, the failure of which
could result in catastrophic failure of the rotorcraft, meet ultimate
load residual structural strength requirements or require a retirement
time if there could be any damage that may not be found by a
maintenance inspection. Under this rule, an applicant will establish a
retirement time to address the damage that may not be found by
inspection or to eliminate the burden of the repeated inspection by the
rotorcraft owners. For damage detectable by inspection, the rule
establishes a limit load requirement to repair and restore the
structure to its ultimate strength capability.
    These rule changes add all PSE assessments for damage threats,
residual strength, and fatigue characteristics to the list of
requirements for inspection intervals or require replacement times as
stated in Sec. Sec.  27.573(d)(2) and 29.573(d)(2). The fatigue
evaluation will include the PSEs of the airframe, main and tail rotor
drive systems, main and tail rotor blades and hubs, rotor controls,
fixed and movable control surfaces, engine and transmission mountings,
landing gear, and other parts. In addition, performing damage tolerance
evaluations of the strength of composite detail design points and
fabrication techniques is considered critical by the FAA to avoid
catastrophic failure due to static or fatigue loads.
    The rule requires consideration of the effects of fatigue damage on
stiffness, dynamic behavior, loads, and functional performance of
composite structures. These characteristics are not considered to be a
serious threat to residual structural strength. Currently, such
requirements are limited to fail-safe evaluations.
    The FAA recognizes there may be limited cases in which a damage
tolerance evaluation may be impractical. In these rare cases, the
applicant is required to identify the nature of the evaluation and
provide a justification to the FAA for the impracticality
determination. The justification must support the specific types of
damage to the PSE to qualify for a fatigue evaluation. Finally, the
rule requires the applicant to establish replacement times, structural
inspection intervals, and related structural inspection procedures to
minimize the risk of catastrophic failure because of PSE damage. The
required replacement times, inspection intervals, and structural
inspections will be included in the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness as required by Sec. Sec.  27.1529 and 29.1529.
    Additionally, the FAA recognizes that rare types of damage, such as
high-energy, blunt impacts may not be uncovered as part of a base field
inspection during scheduled maintenance inspection intervals.
Therefore, this rule requires that the applicant substantiate
sufficient residual structural strength to maintain an adequate level
of safety in the event of an occurrence of rare damage. Supplemental
procedures may be required to adequately address rare impact damage.

B. Airworthiness Limitations Section (Appendix A to Parts 27 and 29)

    These sections require the mandatory replacement times, structural
inspection intervals, and related structural inspection procedures
produced under

the requirements of Sec. Sec.  27.571 and 29.571, the new Sec. Sec.
27.573 and 29.573, and any other similar requirement for type
certification be included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of
the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

C. Benefit-Cost Comparison

    This final rule adopts as regulatory requirements past FAA and
industry practice regarding the use of composites on rotorcraft,
including special conditions and advisory circulars. Although we
anticipate both cost savings and improved safety as a consequence of
the requirement for testing, inspection, and replacement schedules, we
are unable to quantify these benefits. Nevertheless, based on industry-
provided data, we believe that this final rule will yield benefits
exceeding the estimated costs.

II. Background and Statement of the Issues

    The evolution of composite technology used in rotorcraft structures
is advancing rapidly. These rapid changes, along with the increased use
of composites in rotorcraft structures, issues discovered during
certification of composite structures, and service experiences of
composite rotorcraft structures over the last 25 years, have caused us
to reconsider the current regulations and guidance materials for damage
tolerance and fatigue evaluation and to address the state of technology
in composite structures. The current certification process is based on
a broad interpretation of metallic fatigue substantiation and the
design and construction airworthiness standards. However, composite and
metal structures are different. Composites are complex materials that
have unique advantages in fatigue strength, weight, and tolerance to
damage. The methodologies for evaluating metallic structures are not
necessarily suitable for composite structures. Because composite
structures differ from metallic structures, the current regulations,
Sec. Sec.  27.571 and 29.571, do not adequately provide the fatigue
certification requirements for composite rotorcraft structures.
    This may lead to inconsistent interpretations from one rotorcraft
certification project to another, resulting in different burdens on
applicants to substantiate their composite rotorcraft structures. It
has also caused confusion for some certification applicants. These
applicants state there is no clear, complete guidance for certification
of composite rotorcraft structures.
    To address these concerns, the FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (ARAC) \1\ through its Composite Rotorcraft
Structure working group to provide advice and recommendations as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Published in the Federal Register, April 5, 2000 (65 FR
17936).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Recommend revisions to FAA Regulations/Joint Aviation
Regulations (JAR) parts 27 and 29 for composite structures that are
harmonized.
     Evaluate and recommend, as appropriate, regulations,
advisory material, and related guidance to achieve the goal of improved
tolerance to flaws and defects in composite structure with methodology
and procedures that are practical and appropriate to rotorcraft.
    This rule is based on ARAC's recommendations to the FAA. The
recommendations have been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.

A. Related Activity

    At the same time ARAC was tasked with providing advice and
recommendations for composite rotorcraft structures, they were also
tasked with providing advice and recommendations for metallic
rotorcraft structures. However, because of the unique characteristics
and structural capabilities of composite structures, the FAA
established a separate rule for the damage tolerance and fatigue
evaluations of rotorcraft composite structures. In response to the ARAC
recommendations for improved standards for metallic structures, the FAA
has developed a separate rule entitled ``Fatigue Tolerance Evaluation
of Metallic Structures.''

B. Summary of the NPRM

    The FAA published the NPRM for this composite structures rule in
the Federal Register on January 6, 2010 (75 FR 793). The comment period
for the NPRM closed on April 6, 2010. However, in response to a
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) request, the FAA subsequently
reopened the comment period to July 16, 2010 (published in the Federal
Register on May 5, 2010, 75 FR 24502). The FAA received 12 comments to
the docket on the NPRM. Commenters included two manufacturers, a
government agency, and an engineering company.

C. General Overview of Comments

    The FAA received various comments from four commenters--Adhesion
Associates, Eurocopter France, Sikorsky Aircraft, and Transport Canada.
All of the commenters generally supported the proposed changes;
however, some suggested changes and clarifications to the rule, as
discussed more fully in the next section of this document. The FAA
received comments on the following general areas of the proposal.
     Definition of the term ``composites.''
     Reconciling differences related to compliance methodology
approval authority between Sec.  29.571 (metallics) and Sec.  29.573
(composites).
     Reevaluating the economic impact of the rule.
     The manner of the application of ``safe life evaluation''
as established in the Advisory Circular (AC) 27-1B or 29-2C,
Miscellaneous Guidance-08 and its relationship to these new rule
changes.
     Rewording To clarify that the application of the changes
to the Appendix A required by this rule applies to structures only.
     Requesting further rulemaking to address the potential for
subsequent service adhesion failures and the effect of micro-voiding on
bonding strength.

III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

Definition of the Term ``Composites''

    Sikorsky Aircraft recommended a further definition of
``composites,'' beyond that contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 21-26,
because it believes this is a necessary part of compliance for
determining, for a given structure, whether to use Sec.  29.571 or
Sec.  29.573.
    The term ``composites'' is widely understood throughout the
aviation industry to be different materials that are bonded or composed
to create a structural component material. It has been defined in AC
21-26 as a material containing two or more distinct materials (fillers,
reinforcing materials, and compatible plastic resin) designed to
exhibit specific performance properties. A further definition is
unnecessary. This definition is consistent with the FAA intent when it
uses the term ``composites'' in both Sec. Sec.  27.573 and 29.573.
Therefore, the FAA is adopting the rule as proposed.

Reconciling Difference Between This Rule and the Sec.  29.571
(Metallics) Rule, in the Approval Authority of Compliance Methodology
and Methodology Results

    Sikorsky Aircraft identified the difference between Sec. Sec.
27.573 and 29.573, which refer to FAA approval, and Sec.  29.571
(metallics), which refers to the Administrator's approval. It states
that the language used in the approval process should be similar for
Sec.  29.571 (metallics) and Sec.  29.573 (composites).

    The FAA agrees that this could cause confusion. The wording is
changed in this rule to make it consistent with the wording in Sec.
29.571 (metallics). The intent of Sec. Sec.  29.571, 27.573, and 29.573
is that the approval of the methodology for the evaluation remains with
the FAA (Administrator).

Re-Wording To Clarify That Changes to the Appendix Apply to Structures
Only

    Eurocopter France recommended rewording the proposed amended
language to part 29, Appendix A, from ``required for type
certification'' to ``required for type certification of structures'' to
eliminate addressing non-structural elements. It further recommended
implementation of the policy statement ASW-100-09-003 (Subj: Policy
Statement Concerning Life Limits and Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness for Rotorcraft), and for the FAA to address mandatory
Instruction for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) for non-structural
elements through a new rulemaking task, in coordination with the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
    The intent of the policy statement and this rule is to require that
any life limit or required inspection interval for type certification
is included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. This is the same wording used
in the current 14 CFR part 23, Appendix G23.4. This is also consistent
with the intent of the airworthiness limitations section of the
Appendix to highlight certification limitations regardless of whether
they are structural or non-structural.
    The FAA does not anticipate further rulemaking to implement the
policy statement because it does not differentiate between structural
or non-structural elements. Therefore, the FAA is adopting the
provision as proposed.

Cost Estimates to the Economic Impact of the Rules

    Sikorsky Aircraft believes the cost estimates for this rule should
be calculated based on 12,000 hours per certification project.
    Based on this commenter's cost estimate of 12,000 hours, at $86 per
hour, the total nominal dollar estimate will be $1,032,000 ($567,000 in
present value). The original hours provided in the ARAC recommendation
were 8290 hours at $86 per hour. Taking into account the intervening 27
years, the present value difference between these estimates is
$175,000. Based on this information, we estimate the nominal total
compliance costs of this final rule to be between our original estimate
of $713,000 and the commenter based estimate of $1,032,000.

Acceptability of ``Traditional Safe Life'' Approach in the Context of
Flaw Tolerance Requirements, and the Application of ACs 27-1B and 29-
2C, Miscellaneous Guidance (MG) 8, Paragraph g(6)(iii)(C)) (Safe Life
Evaluation)

    Transport Canada requested confirmation of the FAA's position
concerning the acceptability of the ``traditional safe life'' approach
for flaw tolerance requirements, and asks that the FAA consider
amending MG 8 to clarify that the ``traditional safe life'' is not
appropriate for composites, if that is the case. Transport Canada
further suggested that the FAA amend Sec. Sec.  27.573 and 29.573 to
include clarification to this effect, since the flaw tolerance concept
is applicable to both static and fatigue strength, and to consider
incorporating into the new rule requirements for environmental
conditions, maximum manufacturing defects and service damages, and the
effect of repeat loading (after fatigue).
    Intentionally, the proposed rule did not address flaw tolerance or
safe life. This was only addressed in MG 8 based on the requirements of
the current Sec.  29.571. The requirement is for evaluating damage
tolerance as addressed in paragraphs (d) of Sec. Sec.  27.573 and
29.573. If impractical, paragraph (e) will require a fatigue
evaluation. The proposed rule did not specifically address static
requirements because they are covered in the current requirements of
Sec. Sec.  27.305 and 29.305. The draft AC for this rule is similar in
format to the current MG 8, but has been updated to address the damage
tolerance fatigue requirements of composite structures. All of these
damage tolerance concerns must be considered under the requirements of
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this rule. The miscellaneous guidance
referred to in the comment is the applicable guidance for compliance
until Sec. Sec.  27.573 and 29.573 become effective; it is not the
guidance for this new rule. Therefore, the FAA is adopting the rule as
proposed.

Request for Further Rulemaking To Address Subsequent Service Adhesion
Failures

    Adhesion Associates Proprietary, Limited, recommended that the FAA
address the in-service degradation of the chemical bonds in a new
regulation (Sec.  2x.605 for parts 27 and 29); and that information on
the significance, causes, and management procedures for micro-voids be
incorporated into AC 20-107B.
    The recommendation for a new regulation is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. However, it will be considered in future rulemaking.
Likewise, the recommended changes to AC 20-107B will be considered in
future AC revisions.
Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule
    Sections Sec. Sec.  27.573(b) and 29.573(b) are reworded to be
consistent with the wording in Sec.  29.571 for metallic structures.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    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) 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, this 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 proposed rule. We suggest
readers seeking greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a
copy of which we have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final
rule:
    (1) Has benefits that justify its costs;
    (2) Is not an economically ``significant regulatory action'' as
defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866;
    (3) Is ``non-significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures;
    (4) Would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities;

    (5) Would not have a significant effect on international trade; and
    (6) Would 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.

Total Benefits and Costs of This Rulemaking
    The estimated total cost of this final rule is between $713,000
($392,000 in present value at 7%) and $1,032,000 ($567,000 in present
value at 7%). The final rule systematizes past FAA and industry
practice regarding the use of composites on rotorcraft, including
special conditions and advisory circulars. Although we anticipate both
cost savings and improved safety as a result of required inspection and
replacement schedules, we are unable to quantify these benefits.
Nevertheless, we believe that the qualitatively estimated benefits are
real and significant and exceed the final rule's costs.
    Who is Potentially Affected by this Rulemaking?
     Manufacturers of U.S.-registered part 27 and part 29
rotorcraft.
    Our Cost Assumptions and Sources of Information.
     Discount rate--7%.
     Period of analysis of 27 years equals the 27 years of
National Transportation Safety Board accident history. During this
period, manufacturers will seek new certifications for 10.5 part 27
rotorcraft and six part 29 rotorcraft.
Benefits of This Rule
    The final rule adopts as regulatory requirements past FAA and
industry practice regarding the use of composites on rotorcraft,
including special conditions and advisory circulars. Although we
anticipate both cost savings and improved safety as a result of
required inspection and replacement schedules, we are unable to
quantify these benefits. Nevertheless, we believe that the
qualitatively estimated benefits are real and significant and exceed
the final rule's costs. We did not receive any comments regarding our
conclusion that the benefits exceed the costs.
Cost of This Rule
    Based upon the ARAC recommendation, we estimated the costs of this
final rule to be about $713,000 ($392,000 in present value) over the
27-year analysis period. Manufacturers of 14 CFR part 27 rotorcraft
would incur costs of about $101,000 ($55,000 in present value) and
manufacturers of 14 CFR part 29 helicopters would incur costs of about
$612,000 ($337,000 in present value).
    One commenter provided a cost estimate of 12,000 hours as the cost
of the rule. Converting the hours to dollars results in a nominal cost
of $1,032,000 ($567,000 in present value); therefore, we estimate that
the nominal cost of the final rule will have a range of $713,000 to
$1,032,000.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (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. 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 proposed or
final 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 proposed or final 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 directly affects rotorcraft manufacturers.
Part 27 Helicopter Manufacturers
Size Standards
    Size standards for small entities are published by the Small
Business Administration (SBA) on their Web site at http://www.sba.gov/size. The size standards used herein are from ``SBA U.S. Small Business
Administration, Table of Small Business Size Standards, Matched to
North American Industry Classification System Codes.'' The table is
effective August 22, 2008 and uses the NAICS 2007 NAICS codes.
    Helicopter manufacturers are listed in the referenced table under
Sector 31-33--Manufacturing; Subsector 336--Transportation Equipment
Manufacturing; NAICS Code 336411--Aircraft Manufacturing. The small
entity size standard is 1,500 employees.
    Table R1 shows there are six U.S. part 27 helicopter manufacturers
that produce composite helicopters. MD Helicopters, with 400 employees,
is the only part 27 helicopter manufacturer to qualify as a small
entity. It is estimated that MD Helicopters has annual revenues of
$175,000,000. The cost of this rule for one part 27 helicopter
certification for a part 27 manufacturer is estimated to be $9,600.
This is less than 0.01 percent of MD Helicopters annual revenue. We do
not believe that is a significant cost. Therefore, it is not
anticipated that this final rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of part 27 helicopter manufacturers.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE11.295

Part 29 Helicopter Manufacturers
Size Standards
    Size standards for part 29 manufacturers are the same as the size
standards for part 27 manufacturers.
    Table R2 shows there are four U.S. part 29 helicopter manufacturers
currently producing helicopters. None of these manufacturers qualify as
a small entity. Therefore, this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of part 29 helicopter
manufacturers.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE11.296

    For the initial regulatory flexibility analysis we made the same
determination that this rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities and we did not receive
any comments regarding our analysis or determination regarding small
entities. Consequently, the FAA Administrator certifies that this final
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of part 27 or part 29 rotorcraft manufacturers.

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, establishing 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 proposed rule and
determined that it would impose the same costs on domestic and
international entities and thus has a neutral trade impact.

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
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 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 $140.8 million in lieu of
$100 million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires that the FAA consider
the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens
imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the
Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not
collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose any
information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    This final rule will impose the following new information
collection requirements. As required by 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the FAA has submitted requirements
associated with this rule to OMB for its review. Notice of OMB approval
for this information collection will be published in a future Federal
Register document.
    Summary: This rule adds new certification standards for normal and
transport category rotorcraft to address advances in structural damage
tolerance and fatigue substantiation technology for composite
rotorcraft structures. The rule increases the current minimum safety
standards to require compliance with certain current industry practices
and FAA policies that would result in higher safety standards, and
result in harmonized international standards. The rule helps ensure
that if damage occurs to composite structures during manufacturing or
within the operational life of the rotorcraft, the remaining structure
can withstand fatigue loads that are likely to occur, without failure,
until the damage is detected. The damaged structure must be repaired or
the part must be replaced to restore ultimate load capability. Sections
27.573 and 29.573 require that applicants get FAA approval of their
proposed methods for complying with the certification requirements for
damage tolerance and fatigue evaluation of composite structures.
    Public comments: No public comments were received on the
information collection requirements discussed in the NPRM.
    Use: The required damage tolerance and fatigue evaluation
information will be determined for principal composite structural
elements or components,

detail design points, and fabrication techniques and will be collected
from rotorcraft certification applicants. The FAA will use the approval
process for the applicant's submitted compliance methodology to
determine whether the proposed methods are sufficient to comply with
the certification requirements for damage tolerance and fatigue
evaluation of composite structures. The FAA also will use the approval
process for the applicant's submitted compliance methodology to
determine if the rotorcraft has any unsafe features in the composite
structures.
    Respondents (including number of): The likely respondents to this
damage tolerance and fatigue evaluation information are applicants
requesting type certification of composite structures. We anticipate
about 16.5 normal and transport category rotorcraft certification
applicants (including supplemental type certificate applicants) over
the 27 year analysis period or about 0.6 per year.
    Frequency: The frequency of determining the damage tolerance and
fatigue evaluation methodologies will depend on how often an applicant
seeks certification of a composite structure. This compliance
methodology will be provided during each certification. We anticipate
16.5 certifications over the 27 year analysis period or about 0.6 per
year.
    Annual Burden Estimate: The compliance methodology will be required
to be submitted and approved during each certification of a composite
rotorcraft structure. We anticipate there will be 0.6 certifications
each year and it will take 182 hours to submit and approve the
compliance methodology for each certification, for a total annual time
burden of 109 hours. We anticipate that submitting and approving the
compliance methodology for each certification will cost $100 per hour.
Therefore, the estimated total annual cost burden will be $10,900.

F. International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform our
regulations to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable.
The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended
Practices and has identified no ``differences'' with these regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

H. Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the FAA, when modifying its regulations in a manner
affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent to
which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation,
and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions. In the NPRM, the
FAA requested comments on whether the proposed rule should apply
differently to intrastate operations in Alaska. The agency did not
receive any comments, and has determined, based on the administrative
record of this rulemaking, that there is no need to make any regulatory
distinctions applicable to intrastate aviation in Alaska.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency 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 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.

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by
using the Internet--
    1. Search the Federal Docket Management System (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
notice, 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>.

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 (SBREFA) of
1996 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 heading at the beginning of the preamble.
To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 27

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I, parts 27 and 29 of Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

0
1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Add Sec.  27.573 to read as follows:

Sec.  27.573  Damage Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Composite
Rotorcraft Structures.

    (a) Each applicant must evaluate the composite rotorcraft structure
under the damage tolerance standards of paragraph (d) of this section
unless the applicant establishes that a damage tolerance evaluation is
impractical within the limits of geometry, inspectability, and good
design practice. If an applicant establishes that it is impractical
within the limits of geometry, inspectability, and good design
practice, the applicant must do a fatigue evaluation in accordance with
paragraph (e) of this section.
    (b) The methodology used to establish compliance with this section
must be submitted to and approved by the Administrator.
    (c) Definitions:
    (1) Catastrophic failure is an event that could prevent continued
safe flight and landing.
    (2) Principal Structural Elements (PSEs) are structural elements
that contribute significantly to the carrying of flight or ground
loads, the failure of which could result in catastrophic failure of the
rotorcraft.
    (3) Threat Assessment is an assessment that specifies the
locations, types, and sizes of damage, considering fatigue,
environmental effects, intrinsic and discrete flaws, and impact or
other accidental damage (including the discrete source of the
accidental damage) that may occur during manufacture or operation.
    (d) Damage Tolerance Evaluation:
    (1) Each applicant must show that catastrophic failure due to
static and fatigue loads, considering the intrinsic or discrete
manufacturing defects or accidental damage, is avoided throughout the
operational life or prescribed inspection intervals of the rotorcraft
by performing damage tolerance evaluations of the strength of composite
PSEs and other parts, detail design points, and fabrication techniques.
Each applicant must account for the effects of material and process
variability along with environmental conditions in the strength and
fatigue evaluations. Each applicant must evaluate parts that include
PSEs of the airframe, main and tail rotor drive systems, main and tail
rotor blades and hubs, rotor controls, fixed and movable control
surfaces, engine and transmission mountings, landing gear, other parts,
detail design points, and fabrication techniques deemed critical by the
FAA. Each damage tolerance evaluation must include:
    (i) The identification of all PSEs;
    (ii) In-flight and ground measurements for determining the loads or
stresses for all PSEs for all critical conditions throughout the range
of limits in Sec.  27.309 (including altitude effects), except that
maneuvering load factors need not exceed the maximum values expected in
service;
    (iii) The loading spectra as severe as those expected in service
based on loads or stresses determined under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of
this section, including external load operations, if applicable, and
other operations including high-torque events;
    (iv) A threat assessment for all PSEs that specifies the locations,
types, and sizes of damage, considering fatigue, environmental effects,
intrinsic and discrete flaws, and impact or other accidental damage
(including the discrete source of the accidental damage) that may occur
during manufacture or operation; and
    (v) An assessment of the residual strength and fatigue
characteristics of all PSEs that supports the replacement times and
inspection intervals established under paragraph (d)(2) of this
section.
    (2) Each applicant must establish replacement times, inspections,
or other procedures for all PSEs to require the repair or replacement
of damaged parts before a catastrophic failure. These replacement
times, inspections, or other procedures must be included in the
Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness required by Sec.  27.1529.
    (i) Replacement times for PSEs must be determined by tests, or by
analysis supported by tests, and must show that the structure is able
to withstand the repeated loads of variable magnitude expected in-
service. In establishing these replacement times, the following items
must be considered:
    (A) Damage identified in the threat assessment required by
paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section;
    (B) Maximum acceptable manufacturing defects and in-service damage
(i.e., those that do not lower the residual strength below ultimate
design loads and those that can be repaired to restore ultimate
strength); and
    (C) Ultimate load strength capability after applying repeated
loads.
    (ii) Inspection intervals for PSEs must be established to reveal
any damage identified in the threat assessment required by paragraph
(d)(1)(iv) of this section that may occur from fatigue or other in-
service causes before such damage has grown to the extent that the
component cannot sustain the required residual strength capability. In
establishing these inspection intervals, the following items must be
considered:
    (A) The growth rate, including no-growth, of the damage under the
repeated loads expected in-service determined by tests or analysis
supported by tests;
    (B) The required residual strength for the assumed damage
established after considering the damage type, inspection interval,
detectability of damage, and the techniques adopted for damage
detection. The minimum required residual strength is limit load; and
    (C) Whether the inspection will detect the damage growth before the
minimum residual strength is reached and restored to ultimate load
capability, or whether the component will require replacement.
    (3) Each applicant must consider the effects of damage on
stiffness, dynamic behavior, loads, and functional performance on all
PSEs when substantiating the maximum assumed damage size and inspection
interval.
    (e) Fatigue Evaluation: If an applicant establishes that the damage
tolerance evaluation described in paragraph (d) of this section is
impractical within the limits of geometry, inspectability, or good
design practice, the applicant must do a fatigue evaluation of the
particular composite rotorcraft structure and:
    (1) Identify all PSEs considered in the fatigue evaluation;
    (2) Identify the types of damage for all PSEs considered in the
fatigue evaluation;
    (3) Establish supplemental procedures to minimize the risk of
catastrophic failure associated with the damages identified in
paragraph (d) of this section; and
    (4) Include these supplemental procedures in the Airworthiness
Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
required by Sec.  27.1529.

Appendix A to Part 27 [Amended]

0
3. Amend the second sentence of section A.27.4 of Appendix A to Part 27
by removing the phrase ``approved under Sec.  27.571'' and adding the
phrase ``required for type certification'' in its place.

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

0
4. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:

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

0
5. Add Sec.  29.573 to read as follows:

Sec.  29.573  Damage Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Composite
Rotorcraft Structures.

    (a) Each applicant must evaluate the composite rotorcraft structure
under the damage tolerance standards of paragraph (d) of this section
unless the applicant establishes that a damage tolerance evaluation is
impractical within the limits of geometry, inspectability, and good
design practice. If an applicant establishes that it is impractical
within the limits of geometry, inspectability, and good design
practice, the applicant must do a fatigue evaluation in accordance with
paragraph (e) of this section.
    (b) The methodology used to establish compliance with this section
must be submitted to and approved by the Administrator.
    (c) Definitions:
    (1) Catastrophic failure is an event that could prevent continued
safe flight and landing.
    (2) Principal Structural Elements (PSEs) are structural elements
that contribute significantly to the carrying of flight or ground
loads, the failure of which could result in catastrophic failure of the
rotorcraft.
    (3) Threat Assessment is an assessment that specifies the
locations, types, and sizes of damage, considering fatigue,
environmental effects, intrinsic and discrete flaws, and impact or
other accidental damage (including the discrete source of the
accidental damage) that may occur during manufacture or operation.
    (d) Damage Tolerance Evaluation:
    (1) Each applicant must show that catastrophic failure due to
static and fatigue loads, considering the intrinsic or discrete
manufacturing defects or accidental damage, is avoided throughout the
operational life or prescribed inspection intervals of the rotorcraft
by performing damage tolerance evaluations of the strength of composite
PSEs and other parts, detail design points, and fabrication techniques.
Each applicant must account for the effects of material and process
variability along with environmental conditions in the strength and
fatigue evaluations. Each applicant must evaluate parts that include
PSEs of the airframe, main and tail rotor drive systems, main and tail
rotor blades and hubs, rotor controls, fixed and movable control
surfaces, engine and transmission mountings, landing gear, other parts,
detail design points, and fabrication techniques deemed critical by the
FAA. Each damage tolerance evaluation must include:
    (i) The identification of all PSEs;
    (ii) In-flight and ground measurements for determining the loads or
stresses for all PSEs for all critical conditions throughout the range
of limits in Sec.  29.309 (including altitude effects), except that
maneuvering load factors need not exceed the maximum values expected in
service;
    (iii) The loading spectra as severe as those expected in service
based on loads or stresses determined under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of
this section, including external load operations, if applicable, and
other operations including high-torque events;
    (iv) A threat assessment for all PSEs that specifies the locations,
types, and sizes of damage, considering fatigue, environmental effects,
intrinsic and discrete flaws, and impact or other accidental damage
(including the discrete source of the accidental damage) that may occur
during manufacture or operation; and
    (v) An assessment of the residual strength and fatigue
characteristics of all PSEs that supports the replacement times and
inspection intervals established under paragraph (d)(2) of this
section.
    (2) Each applicant must establish replacement times, inspections,
or other procedures for all PSEs to require the repair or replacement
of damaged parts before a catastrophic failure. These replacement
times, inspections, or other procedures must be included in the
Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness required by Sec.  29.1529.
    (i) Replacement times for PSEs must be determined by tests, or by
analysis supported by tests, and must show that the structure is able
to withstand the repeated loads of variable magnitude expected in-
service. In establishing these replacement times, the following items
must be considered:
    (A) Damage identified in the threat assessment required by
paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section;
    (B) Maximum acceptable manufacturing defects and in-service damage
(i.e., those that do not lower the residual strength below ultimate
design loads and those that can be repaired to restore ultimate
strength); and
    (C) Ultimate load strength capability after applying repeated
loads.
    (ii) Inspection intervals for PSEs must be established to reveal
any damage identified in the threat assessment required by paragraph
(d)(1)(iv) of this section that may occur from fatigue or other in-
service causes before such damage has grown to the extent that the
component cannot sustain the required residual strength capability. In
establishing these inspection intervals, the following items must be
considered:
    (A) The growth rate, including no-growth, of the damage under the
repeated loads expected in-service determined by tests or analysis
supported by tests;
    (B) The required residual strength for the assumed damage
established after considering the damage type, inspection interval,
detectability of damage, and the techniques adopted for damage
detection. The minimum required residual strength is limit load; and
    (C) Whether the inspection will detect the damage growth before the
minimum residual strength is reached and restored to ultimate load
capability, or whether the component will require replacement.
    (3) Each applicant must consider the effects of damage on
stiffness, dynamic behavior, loads, and functional performance on all
PSEs when substantiating the maximum assumed damage size and inspection
interval.
    (e) Fatigue Evaluation: If an applicant establishes that the damage
tolerance evaluation described in paragraph (d) of this section is
impractical within the limits of geometry, inspectability, or good
design practice, the applicant must do a fatigue evaluation of the
particular composite rotorcraft structure and:
    (1) Identify all PSEs considered in the fatigue evaluation;
    (2) Identify the types of damage for all PSEs considered in the
fatigue evaluation;
    (3) Establish supplemental procedures to minimize the risk of
catastrophic failure associated with the damages identified in
paragraph (d) of this section; and
    (4) Include these supplemental procedures in the Airworthiness
Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
required by Sec.  29.1529.

Appendix A to Part 29 [Amended]

0
6. Amend the second sentence of section A.29.4 of Appendix A to Part 29
by removing the phrase ``approved under Sec.  29.571'' and adding the
phrase ``required for type certification'' in its place.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 4, 2011.
J. Randolph Babbitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-30945 Filed 11-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 71 (Monday, April 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20769-20770]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08243]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0951; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASW-22]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of Area Navigation (RNAV) Route Q-20, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies RNAV route Q-20 by relocating the FUSCO
waypoint (WP) southwest to match the intersection of Jet routes J-15
and J-183. This action enhances the safe and efficient management of
aircraft within the National Airspace System.

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: Colby Abbott, 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 amend Q-20 by moving the FUSCO WP to match the
intersection of Jet Routes J-15 and J-183, and re-designate the WP as a
fix (78 FR 70900, November 27, 2013). Interested parties were invited
to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments
on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Differences From the NPRM

    Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, a refined geographic
latitude/longitude position was calculated for the FUSCO WP in the
description of RNAV route Q-20. In the NPRM, the FUSCO waypoint
geographic position was proposed at ``lat. 31[deg]10'38'' N., long.
101[deg]19'47'' W.'' It has been determined that a more accurate
alignment of the WP position is ``lat. 31[deg]10'37'' N., long.
101[deg]19'45'' W.'' This rule changes the FUSCO WP geographic position
in the RNAV route Q-20 description to ``lat. 31[deg]10'37'' N., long.
101[deg]19'45'' W.'' to more accurately reflect the WP location and
match the information contained in the FAA's aeronautical database.
    This is a minor change to more accurately reflect the position of
the FUSCO WP in the descriptions of RNAV route Q-20; therefore, notice
and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying Q-20 in support of the Houston Metroplex project
to improve air traffic flows, increase capacity and fuel efficiency,
and reduced track distances. Q-20 extends between the Corona, NM, VHF
Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid
and the Junction, TX, VORTAC navigation aid. This action amends Q-20 by
relocating the FUSCO WP 0.48 nautical miles southwest to match the
intersection of J-15 and J-183. Additionally, this action re-designates
FUSCO as a fix. This modification enables aircraft flying eastbound via
J-15, J-183, or Q-20, to file direct, after FUSCO, to a published
transition to any of the Houston Standard Terminal Arrival Routes. This
rule simplifies flight plan filing and flight management computer
entries; thus, reducing the potential for routing errors in addition to
the benefits mentioned previously.
    High altitude RNAV routes are published in paragraph 2006 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 RNAV route
listed in this rule will be subsequently published 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, when
promulgated, does 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 modifies the route structure as required to enhance the safe and
efficient flow of air traffic in the United States.

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 airspace action consists of a
modification of an existing airway and 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 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, dated August 7, 2013, and
effective September 15, 2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2006 United States Area Navigation Routes

* * * * *

Q-20 CNX, NM to JCT, TX [Amended]

Corona (CNX), NM              VORTAC              (Lat. 34[deg]22''01' N., long. 105[deg]40''41' W.)
HONDS, NM                     FIX                 (Lat. 33[deg]34''00' N., long. 104[deg]51''12' W.)
UNNOS, NM                     WP                  (Lat. 32[deg]57''00' N., long. 103[deg]56''00' W.)
FUSCO, TX                     FIX                 (Lat. 31[deg]10''37' N., long. 101[deg]19''45' W.)
Junction (JCT), TX            VORTAC              (Lat. 30[deg]35''53' N., long. 99[deg]49''03' W.)

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 7, 2014.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2014-08243 Filed 4-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14414-14415]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6081]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0002]

Microbiology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory
Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Microbiology Devices Panel of the Medical
Devices Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on June 29, 2011, from 8
a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Location: Holiday Inn, Ballroom, 2 Montgomery Village Ave.,
Gaithersburg, MD.
    Contact Person: Shanika Craig, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
66, rm. 1613, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or FDA
Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in
the Washington, DC area), and follow the prompts to the desired center
or product area. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date
information on this meeting.

A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that
impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always
be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On June 29, 2011, the committee will discuss and make
recommendations regarding the possible reclassification of molecular
diagnostics for the rapid detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis
complex and the detection of genetic mutations which confer antibiotic
resistance in M. tuberculosis complex. Discussion would include the
appropriate information and acceptable performance characteristics that
would be required to assess the safety and effectiveness of rapid
diagnostic tests for M. tuberculosis complex, and whether these can be
sufficiently specified to support possible reclassification.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before June
20, 2011. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 10:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. on June 29, 2011. Those
individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before June
9, 2011. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the
number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by June 10, 2011.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams,
Committee Management Staff,<PHONE_NUMBER>, at least 7 days in advance of
the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: March 11, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-6081 Filed 3-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4395-4396]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01675]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent of Waiver With Respect to Land; Cable Union
Airport, Cable, Wisconsin

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a proposal to change parcel 41 (15.144
acres) and parcel 45 (1.704 acres) of airport land from aeronautical
use to non-aeronautical use and to authorize the sale of airport
property located at Cable Union Airport, Cable, WI. The aforementioned
land is not needed for aeronautical use.
    The Cable Union Airport is owned by the Towns of Cable, Drummond
and Namakagon, WI, and operated by the Cable Union Airport Commission.
The airport is located off Telemark Road approximately 2.5 miles east
of the Town of Cable. The parcels of airport property that this notice
is addressing are described as parcel 41 and 45. The parcels are
located near the west end of turf runway 8/26 at the Airport.
    Parcels 41 and 45 are not serving aeronautical purposes for the
airport. Pending the release from aeronautical obligations of parcels
41 and 45 the sponsor anticipates disposing of the land and using the
proceeds for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA
Chicago Airports District Office, Robert Lee, Program Manager, 2300
East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>/Fax:
(847)294-7046.
    Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or
mailed to: Robert Lee, Program Manager, Federal Aviation
Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 East Devon
Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018,

Telephone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>/FAX Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Lee, Program Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 East
Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018. Telephone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>/
FAX Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title
49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
Federal Register 30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that
requires the property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.
    Parcel 41 is currently in use as a shooting range, operated by the
Cable Rod and Gun Club. Parcel 45 is currently in use as McNaught Road,
maintained by the Town of Cable. Parcel 41 and 45 were acquired as
airport Parcel 15 by the Sponsors on March 18, 1971, as recorded in
Volume 235, Page 285 of the official records of the Bayfield County,
Wisconsin Register of Deeds.
    The Sponsors proposed plan is to convey Parcel 41, currently not in
use or needed for aeronautical purposes, to the Cable Rod and Gun Club
for continued use as a shooting range. The plan for Parcel 45,
currently not in use or needed for aeronautical purposes, is to convey
it to the Town of Cable for continued use as a public roadway.
    Prior to disposal there will be avigation easements established
over Parcel 41 and 45. These easements will lie under the existing Part
77 surfaces for Runway 8, and will preserve the right of free and
unobstructed flight for aircraft maneuvering about the Airport. It will
restrict objects from penetrating into the Part 77 surface.
    A full narrative appraisal for Parcel 41 has been established and
has provided evidence the sponsor will be obtaining fair market value
for this parcel. Parcel 45 was not appraised since its current use is
roadway and is considered substandard for appraisal purposes. The
sponsor considers the value of this parcel to be offset by the Town of
Cables 50 plus years of maintenance and improvements at no cost to the
airport.
    The disposition of proceeds from the sale of the airport property
will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the
Use of Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February
16, 1999 (64 FR 7696).
    This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of
the subject airport property at the Cable Union Airport, Cable, WI from
federal land covenants, subject to a reservation for continuing right
of flight as well as restrictions on the released property as required
in FAA Order 5190.6B section 22.16. Approval does not constitute a
commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the disposal of the
subject airport property nor a determination of eligibility for grant-
in-aid funding from the FAA.

Parcel 41

    A part of the Southeast \1/4\ of the Northeast \1/4\ of Section 20,
Township 43 North, Range 7 West, Town of Cable, Bayfield County,
Wisconsin, described as follows:
    Commencing at the East \1/4\ corner of said Section 20; Thence
North 85[deg]50'13'' West along the monumented South line of said
Northeast \1/4\, 1317.25 feet to the monumented West line of said
Southeast \1/4\ of the Northeast \1/4\; Thence North 0[deg]08'21'' West
along said monumented West Line, 224.91 feet to the monumented North
line of the south 225 feet of said Southeast \1/4\ of the Northeast \1/
4\; Thence South 85[deg]50'26'' East along said monumented North line,
66.19 feet to the point of beginning; Thence North 0[deg]08'21'' West,
1124.70 feet to the monumented North line of said Southeast \1/4\ of
the Northeast \1/4\; Thence South 85[deg]42'07'' East along said
monumented North line of the Southeast \1/4\ of Northeast \1/4\, 728.00
feet; Thence South 0[deg]00'58'' East, 616.02 feet; Thence South
83[deg]57'40'' West, 326.35 feet; Thence South 0[deg]08'21'' East,
448.87 feet to said North line of the South 225 feet of the Southeast
\1/4\ of the Northeast \1/4\; Thence North 85[deg]50'26'' West along
said North line, 401.00 feet to the point of beginning.

Parcel 45

    A part of the Southeast \1/4\ of the Northeast \1/4\ of Section 20,
Township 43 North, Range 7 West, Town of Cable, Bayfield County,
Wisconsin, described as follows:
    Commencing at the East \1/4\ corner of said Section 20; Thence
North 85[deg]50'13'' West along the monumented South line of the
Southeast \1/4\ of the Northeast \1/4\, 1317.25 feet to the monumented
West line of said southeast \1/4\ of the Northeast \1/4\; Thence North
0[deg]08'21'' West along said monumented West line, 224.91 feet to the
monumented North line of the south 225 feet of the Southeast \1/4\ of
the Northeast \1/4\ and the point of beginning; Thence continuing North
0[deg]08'21'' West along the East line of Certified Survey Map No.
1095, recorded in the Bayfield County Register of Deeds, Bayfield
County, Wisconsin, 1124.86 feet to the monumented North line of the
Southeast \1/4\ of the Northeast \1/4\ of said Section 20; Thence South
85[deg]42'07'' East along said monumented North line of the southeast
\1/4\ of the Northeast \1/4\, 66.20 feet; Thence South 0[deg]08'21''
East, 1124.70 feet to said monumented North line of the South 225 feet
of the Southeast \1/4\ of the Northeast \1/4\; Thence North
85[deg]50'26'' West along said monumented North line of the South 225
feet of the Southeast \1/4\ of the Northeast \1/4\, 66.19 feet to the
point of beginning.

    Issued in Des Plaines, IL, on January 11, 2018.
Deb Bartell,
Manager, Chicago Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. 2018-01675 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17182-17183]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08182]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2019-0005; OMB No. 1660-0024]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Federal Assistance for Offsite Radiological Emergency
Preparedness and Planning

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension,
without change, of a currently approved information collection. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks
comments concerning extension of a currently approved information
collection in use without change representing all information
collections related to FEMA Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program
requirements described in 44 CFR parts 350 and 352.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 24, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2019-0005. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW, 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-
3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Renae Connell, Emergency Management
Specialist, FEMA/NPD/THD, [email protected] or Darrell Givens,
Emergency Management Specialist, FEMA/NPD/THD,
[email protected]. You may contact the Information Management
Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA's Radiological Emergency Preparedness
(REP) Program coordinates the national effort to provide State, Tribal
and local governments with relevant and executable planning, training,
and exercise guidance and policies necessary to ensure that adequate
capabilities exist to prevent, protect against, mitigate the effects
of, respond to, and recover from incidents involving commercial nuclear
power plants (NPPs).
    The REP Program assists State, Tribal and local governments in the
development and conduct of off-site REP emergency planning and
preparedness activities within the emergency planning zones (EPZs) of
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-licensed commercial nuclear power
facilities. Sec. 109 of the NRC Authorization Act of 1980 (Public Law
96-295) directed the NRC to establish emergency preparedness as a
criterion for licensing commercial NPPs. Specifically, section 109 of
Public Law 96-295 directed the NRC to establish through rulemaking, (a)
standards, developed with FEMA, for the evaluation of State and local
government radiological emergency planning and preparedness; and (b) a
requirement that the NRC will issue operating licenses. Before issuing
a license the NRC must determine that there is (i) a State or local
emergency response plan compliant with the standards developed with
FEMA or (ii) in the absence of such a plan, a State, local, or utility
emergency response plan that provides reasonable assurance that public
health and safety is not endangered by the NPP's operation. See Public
Law 96-295, 109(b)(1)(A)-(B)). The NRC revised its regulations in Part

50 of Title 10 of the CFR to incorporate additional emergency
preparedness requirements, including 16 planning standards for onsite
and offsite emergency plans as required by PL 96-295. FEMA mirrors
these 16 planning standards in part 350, specifically at 44 CFR 350.5.
In the communities surrounding commercial NPPs, 44 CFR 350.5(b) directs
FEMA's REP Program to review offsite radiological emergency plans and
preparedness. Approved plans and preparedness ``must be determined to
adequately protect the public health and safety by providing reasonable
assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in
the event of a radiological emergency.'' FEMA defines reasonable
assurance as a determination that State, Tribal, local, and utility
offsite plans and preparedness are adequate to protect public health
and safety in the emergency planning areas of commercial NPPs. FEMA
will consider plans, procedures, personnel, training, facilities,
equipment, drills, and exercises, which in its professional judgment
are important to the effective implementation of protective measures
offsite in the event or any incident at a commercial NPP. FEMA will
make its adequacy determination, supported by other Federal agencies,
as necessary, by conducting inspections, providing Staff Assistance
Visits (SAVs), organizing, conducting and reviewing training,
participating in, observing and evaluating drills and exercises, and by
being an engaged partner with Federal, State, Tribal, and local
government officials and industry stakeholders. State, Tribal, or local
government participation in offsite radiological emergency planning and
preparedness is voluntary. However, participation in the REP planning
and preparedness process necessitates adherence to the program
requirements as set forth in 44 CFR part 350, the joint NRC/FEMA
document NUREG-0645/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, ``Criteria for Preparation and
Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in
Support of Nuclear Power Plants'' (and supplements), and the REP
Program Manual (RPM). If State, Tribal, or local governments choose not
to participate in REP planning, 44 CFR part 352 outlines the licensee's
obligation to develop offsite plans/procedures to protect the public
health and safety in accordance with the requirements in Executive
Order 12657, as amended.
    Title: Federal Assistance for Offsite Radiological Emergency
Preparedness and Planning.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0024.
    FEMA Forms: There are no forms for this collection; rather the
regulatory text details the content in which information is transmitted
to FEMA.
    Abstract: The intent of this request is the collection of comments
on an extension, without change, of a currently approved information
collection an OMB control number representing all information
collections related to FEMA REP Program requirements described in 44
CFR parts 350 and 352.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government; and business
and other for profits.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 153.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 153.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,360.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $311,458.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $566,163.
    Comments: Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES
caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the
proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the
agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Tammi Hines,
Acting Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2019-08182 Filed 4-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-46-P