[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13275-13277]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06191]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC18-3-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725F); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection FERC-725F (Mandatory Reliability Standard for
Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination) and submitting the information
collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any
interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should
address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.
The Commission published a Notice in the Federal Register in Docket No.
IC18-3-000 (82 FR 60980, December 26, 2017) requesting public comments.
FERC received no comments in response to the Notice and is indicating
that in its submittal to the OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due April 27,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by OMB Control No. 1902-
0249, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs: [email protected]. Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC18-3-000, by either of the following methods:

     eFiling at Commission's website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support
by email at [email protected], or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ellen Brown may be reached by email
at [email protected], telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC 725F, Mandatory Reliability Standard for Nuclear Plant
Interface Coordination.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0249.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-725F information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The Commission requires the information collected by the
FERC-725F to implement the statutory provisions of section 215 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824o). On August 8, 2005, the
Electricity Modernization Act of 2005, which is Title XII, Subtitle A,
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), was enacted into law.\1\
EPAct 2005 added a new section 215 to the FPA, which required a
Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop
mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are subject to
Commission review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability
Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight,
or the Commission can independently enforce Reliability Standards.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, Title XII,
Subtitle A, 119 Stat. 594, 941 (2005), 16 U.S.C. 824o.
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672,
implementing section 215 of the FPA.\3\ Pursuant to Order No. 672, the
Commission certified one organization, North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), as the ERO. The Reliability Standards
developed by the ERO and approved by the Commission apply to users,
owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System as set forth in each
Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, FERC
Stats. & Regs. 31,212 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 19, 2007, NERC filed its petition for Commission
approval of the Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination Reliability
Standard, designated NUC-001-1. In Order No. 716, issued October 16,
2008, the Commission approved the standard while also directing certain
revisions.\4\ Revised Reliability Standard, NUC-001-2, was filed with
the Commission by NERC in August 2009 and subsequently approved by the
Commission January 21, 2010.\5\ On November 4, 2014, in Docket No.
RD14-13, the Commission approved revised Reliability Standard NUC-001-
3.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Mandatory Reliability Standard for Nuclear Plant Interface
Coordination, Order No. 716, 125 FERC 61,065, at P 189 & n.90
(2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 716-A, 126 FERC 61,122 (2009).
    \5\ North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 130 FERC
61,051 (2010). When the revised Reliability Standard was approved,
the Commission did not go to OMB for approval. It is assumed that
the changes made did not substantively affect the information
collection and therefore a formal submission to OMB was not needed.
    The most recent OMB approval for FERC-725F was issued on 6/15/
2015.
    \6\ The Letter Order is posted at https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=13675845.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of Reliability Standard NUC -001-3 is to require
coordination between Nuclear Plant Generator Operators and Transmission
Entities for the purpose of ensuring nuclear plant safe operation and
shutdown.\7\ The Nuclear Reliability Standard applies to nuclear plant
generator operators (generally nuclear power plant owners and
operators, including licensees) and transmission entities, defined in
the Reliability Standard as including a nuclear plant's suppliers of
off-site power and related transmission and distribution services. To
account for the variations in nuclear plant design and grid
interconnection characteristics, the Reliability Standard defines
transmission entities as all entities that are responsible for
providing services related to Nuclear Plant Interface Requirements
(NPIRs), and lists eleven types of functional entities (heretofore
described as transmission entities) that could provide services related
to NPIRs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Reliability Standard NUC-001-3 at http://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability%20Standards/NUC-001-3.pdf.
    \8\ The list of functional entities consists of transmission
operators, transmission owners, transmission planners, transmission
service providers, balancing authorities, reliability coordinators,
planning coordinators, distribution providers, load-serving
entities, generator owners and generator operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC-725F information collection requirements include establishing
and maintaining interface agreements, including record retention
requirements. These agreements are not filed with FERC, but with the
appropriate entities as established by the Reliability Standard.
    Type of Respondents: Nuclear operators, nuclear plants,
transmission entities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \9\ The Commission estimates the average
annual burden and cost \10\ for this information collection as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. Refer to
5 CFR 1320.3 for additional information.
    \10\ The wage and benefit figures are based on the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) data (at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) for May 2016 for Sector 22, Utilities. (The benefits
figure is based on BLS data as of September 8, 2017, which indicates
that wages are 69.6% and benefits are 30.4% of total salary (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm).)
    The estimated hourly cost (for wages plus benefits) for
reporting requirements is $84.23/hour, based on the average for an
electrical engineer (occupation code 17-2071, $68.12/hour), legal
(occupation code 23-0000, $143.68/hour), and office and
administrative support (occupation code 43-0000, $40.89/hour).
    The estimated hourly cost (wages plus benefits) for record
keeping is $32.74/hour for a file clerk (occupation code 43-4071).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Annual number                                          Total annual burden      Cost per
                                     Number of respondents   of responses    Total number    Average burden hours   hours & total annual  respondent ($)
             FERC-725F                        (1)           per respondent   of responses    & cost per response     cost ($) (rounded)   (rounded) (5)/
                                                                  (2)         (1)*(2)=(3)     ($) (rounded) (4)         (3)*(4)=(5)             (1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New or Modifications to Existing     60 nuclear plants +                 2             360  66.67 hrs.; $5,616...  24,001 hrs.;                  $11,231
 Agreements (Reporting).              120 transmission                                                              $2,021,621.
                                      entities\11\.
New or Modifications to Existing     60 nuclear plants +                 2             360  6.67 hrs.; $218......  2,401 hrs.; $78,615..            $437
 Agreements (Record Keeping).         120 transmission
                                      entities.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total..........................  .....................  ..............        \12\ 360  .....................  26,402 hrs.;\13\       ..............
                                                                                $2,100,236.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This figure of 120 transmission entities is based on the
assumption that each agreement will be between 1 nuclear plant and 2
transmission entities (60 x 2 = 120). However, there is some double
counting in this figure because some transmission entities may be
party to multiple agreements with multiple nuclear plants. The
double counting does not affect the burden estimate, and the correct
number of unique respondents will be reported to OMB.
    \12\ The 180 respondents affected by the reporting requirements
are also affected by the recordkeeping requirements.
    \13\ The reporting requirements have not changed. The decrease
in the number of respondents is due to: a) normal fluctuations in
industry (e.g., companies merging and splitting, and coming into and
going out of business), and b) no new agreements being issued due to
the lack of new nuclear plants being developed.

    Dated: March 20, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-06191 Filed 3-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4222-4225]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00286]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9118; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-3]

Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace for the Following
North Dakota Towns; Wahpeton, ND; Hettinger, ND; Fargo, ND; Grand Fork,
ND; Carrington, ND; Cooperstown, ND; Pembina, ND; Rugby, ND; Devils
Lake, ND; Bottineau, ND; Valley City, ND and Gwinner, ND

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Wahpeton/Harry Stern Airport,
Wahpeton, ND; Hettinger Municipal Airport, Hettinger, ND; Gwinner-Roger
Melroe Field, Gwinner, ND; and Rugby Municipal Airport, Rugby, ND.
Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDBs), cancellation
of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV)
procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and
management of Instrument

Flight Rules (IFR) operations at these airports. This action would also
update the geographic coordinates and airport names for certain
airports listed also under these airports in the Class D and E airspace
areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 27, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2016-9118; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-3 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Laster, Contract Support, Federal
Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service
Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817)
222-5879.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend controlled airspace in the respective Class D and E
airspace areas at Wahpeton/Harry Stern Airport, Wahpeton, ND; Hettinger
Municipal Airport, Hettinger, ND; Gwinner-Roger Melroe Field, Gwinner,
ND; Rugby Municipal Airport, Rugby, ND; Hector International Airport,
Fargo, ND; Grand Forks Air Force Base, Grand Forks, ND; Carrington
Municipal Airport, Carrington, ND; Pembina Municipal Airport, Pembina,
ND; Bottineau Municipal Airport, Bottineau, ND; Cooperstown Municipal
Airport, ND; Devils Lake Regional Airport, Devils Lake, ND, and Barnes
County Municipal Airport, Valley City, ND.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-9118/
Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-3.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective
September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying:
    Geographic coordinates in Class D airspace for Hector International
Airport, Fargo, ND; Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface:
    Within a 6.4-mile radius (previously a 7-mile radius) of Harry
Stern Airport, Wahpeton, ND, and updating the geographic coordinates of
the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
    Within a 6.4-mile radius (previously a 7-mile radius) of Hettinger
Municipal Airport, Hettinger, ND, and updating the geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database;
    Within a 6.5-mile radius (previously a 7-mile radius) of Gwinner-
Roger Melroe Field, Gwinner, ND; and updating the geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database;
    Within a 6.3-mile radius (previously a 7-mile radius) of Rugby
Municipal Airport, Rugby, ND; and updating the geographic coordinates
of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of
NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, and

implementation of RNAV procedures that would enhance the safety and
management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR
operations at these airports. The geographic coordinates would be
adjusted for Hector International Airport, Fargo, ND; Grand Forks Air
Force Base, Grand Forks, ND; Barnes County Municipal Airport, Valley
City, ND; Pembina Municipal Airport, Pembina, ND; Devils Lake VOR/DME;
Devils Lake Regional Airport, Devils Lake, ND; Carrington Municipal
Airport, Carrington, ND; Bottineau Municipal Airport, Bottineau, ND;
Cooperstown Municipal Airport, ND, as well as the airport names for
Barnes County Municipal Airport (formerly Valley City/Barnes County
Municipal), Valley City, ND, and Devils Lake Regional Airport (formerly
Devils Lake Municipal Airport), Devils Lake, ND, to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000, 6002, 6004 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated
August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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(f), 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 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AGL ND D Fargo, ND [Amended]

Hector International Airport, ND
    (Lat. 46[deg]55'14'' N., long. 96[deg]48'57'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,400 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of Hector International
Airport.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AGL ND E2 Devils Lake, ND [Amended]

Devils Lake Regional Airport, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]06'53'' N., long. 98[deg]54'30'' W.)
Devils Lake VOR/DME
    (Lat. 48[deg]06'55'' N., long. 98[deg]54'45'' W.)

    Within a 4-mile radius of Devils Lake Regional Airport, and
within 3 miles each side of the Devils Lake VOR/DME 134[deg] radial
extending from the 4-mile radius to 8.7 miles southeast of the VOR/
DME and within 2.3 miles each side of the Devils Lake VOR/DME
324[deg] radial extending from the 4-mile radius to 8.7 miles
northwest of the VOR/DME. This Class E airspace area is effective
during the specific dates and times established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be
continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a
Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

AGL ND E4 Fargo, ND [Amended]

Fargo, Hector International Airport, ND
    (Lat. 46[deg]55'14'' N., long. 96[deg]48'57'' W.)
Fargo VORTAC
    (Lat. 46[deg]45'12'' N., long. 96[deg]51'05'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.7 miles
each side of the Fargo VORTAC 009[deg] radial, extending from the
4.5-mile radius of Hector International Airport to 7.8 miles south
of the airport.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Bottineau, ND [Amended]

Bottineau Municipal Airport, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]49'50'' N., long. 100[deg]25'02'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Bottineau Municipal Airport, and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within
an area bounded on the north by lat. 49[deg]00'00'' N., on the east
by long. 99[deg]49'00'' W., on the south by the 10.5-mile radius of
Rugby, ND, Class E airspace area, and on the west by the 47-mile
radius of the Minot, ND, Class E airspace area.

AGL ND E5 Carrington, ND [Amended]

Carrington Municipal Airport, ND
    (Lat. 47[deg]27'04'' N., long. 99[deg]09'05'' W.)
Devils Lake VOR/DME
    (Lat. 48[deg]06'55'' N., long. 98[deg]54'45'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Carrington Municipal Airport; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded
on the north by the 22-mile arc south of Devils Lake VOR/DME, on the
east by V-170, on the south by V-55, on the west by long.
99[deg]30'00'' W., and on the northwest by V-169.
* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Cooperstown, ND [Amended]

Cooperstown Municipal Airport, ND
    (Lat. 47[deg]25'22'' N., long. 98[deg]06'21'' W.)
Devils Lake VOR/DME
    (Lat. 48[deg]06'55'' N., long. 98[deg]54'45'' W.)
Fargo, Hector International Airport, ND
    (Lat. 46[deg]55'14'' N., long. 96[deg]48'57'' W.)
Grand Forks AFB, ND
    (Lat. 47[deg]57'41'' N., long. 97[deg]24'04'' W.)
Jamestown VOR/DME
    (Lat. 46[deg]55'58'' N., long. 98[deg]40'44'' W.)
Valley City, Barnes County Municipal Airport, ND
    (Lat. 46[deg]56'28'' N., long. 98[deg]01'05'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Cooperstown Municipal Airport and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within
an area bounded on the north by V-430; on the northeast by the 34-
mile radius of Grand Forks AFB; on the southeast by the 40-mile
radius of Fargo, Hector International Airport; on the south by V-2/
V-510 east of Valley City, ND, the 7.9-mile radius of Barnes County
Municipal Airport, and V-2/V-510 west of Valley City, ND; on the
southwest by the 16.5-mile radius of Jamestown VOR/DME; on the west
by V-170; and on the

northwest by the 22-mile radius of Devils Lake VOR/DME.
* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Devils Lake, ND [Amended]

Devils Lake Regional Airport, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]06'53'' N., long. 98[deg]54'30'' W.)
Devils Lake VOR/DME
    (Lat. 48[deg]06'55'' N., long. 98[deg]54'45'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8.7-mile radius of Devils Lake Regional Airport and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a
22-mile radius of Devils Lake VOR/DME.
* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Gwinner, ND [Amended]

Gwinner-Roger Melroe Field, ND
    (Lat. 46[deg]13'06'' N., long. 97[deg]38'36'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Gwinner-Roger Melroe Field Airport.
* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Hettinger, ND [Amended]

Hettinger Municipal Airport, ND
    (Lat. 46[deg]00'54'' N., long. 102[deg]39'22'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Hettinger Municipal Airport; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded
by a line beginning at lat. 46[deg]20'00'' N., long. 102[deg]58'00''
W., to lat. 46[deg]20'00'' N., long. 102[deg]44'00'' W., to lat.
45[deg]45'00'' N., long. 102[deg]09'00'' W., to lat. 45[deg]45'00''
N., long. 102[deg]58'00'' W., to the point of beginning, excluding
that airspace within V-491.
* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Pembina, ND [Amended]

Pembina Municipal Airport, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]56'33'' N., long. 97[deg]14'27'' W.)
Humboldt VORTAC
    (Lat. 48[deg]52'09'' N., long. 97[deg]07'02'' W.)
Grand Forks AFB, ND
    (Lat. 47[deg]57'41'' N., long. 97[deg]24'03'' W.)
Devils Lake VOR/DME
    (Lat. 48[deg]06'55'' N., long. 98[deg]54'45'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.2-mile radius of Pembina Municipal Airport, and within
1.8 miles each side of Humboldt VORTAC 132/312[deg] radials
extending from the 6.2-mile radius to 7 miles southeast of the
airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above
the surface beginning at lat. 49[deg]00'00'' N., long.
97[deg]30'01'' W.; to lat. 48[deg]48'00'' N., long. 97[deg]30'01''
W.; to lat. 48[deg]18'34'' N., long. 98[deg]39'53'' W.; thence
clockwise around a 15.3-mile radius of Devils Lake VOR/DME to V-430;
thence east along V-430 to the intersection of a 34-mile radius of
Grand Forks AFB; thence clockwise along the 34-mile radius of Grand
Forks AFB to the North Dakota/Minnesota state boundary; thence north
along the state boundary to the United States/Canada border; thence
west along the United States/Canada border to the point of
beginning, excluding that airspace within all Federal airways.
* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Rugby, ND [Amended]

Rugby Municipal Airport, ND
    (Lat. 48[deg]23'25'' N., long. 100[deg]01'27'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Rugby Municipal Airport; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a
13-mile radius of Rugby Municipal Airport, and within 8.1 miles
north and 4.2 miles south of the 115[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 13-mile radius to 16.1 miles east of the airport,
and within 8.5 miles south and 3.8 miles north of the 314[deg]
bearing from the airport extending from the 13-mile radius to 16.1
miles northwest of the airport, excluding that airspace within
Minot, ND, and Rolla, ND, Class E airspace areas, and excluding all
Federal airways.
* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Valley City, ND [Amended]

Barnes County Municipal Airport, ND
    (Lat. 46[deg]56'28'' N., long. 98[deg]01'05'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4 mile radius of Barnes County Municipal Airport; and
that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within a 7.9-mile radius of the airport, and within 4 miles
southwest and 8.3 miles northeast of the 133[deg] bearing from the
airport extending from the 7.9-mile radius to 21.8 miles southeast
of the airport.
* * * * *

AGL ND E5 Wahpeton, ND [Amended]

Harry Stern Airport, ND
    (Lat. 46[deg]14'40'' N., long. 96[deg]36'26'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Harry Stern Airport and that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 25-mile
radius of Harry Stern Airport bounded on the east by the Minnesota
border and on the west by V-181.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 15, 2016.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-00286 Filed 1-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 13 (Friday, January 18, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4038-4042]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01041]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 35

[Docket No.: FAA-2010-0940-0001; Amdt. No. 35-9]
RIN 2120-AJ88

Critical Parts for Airplane Propellers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is amending the
airworthiness standards for airplane propellers. This action would
require a safety analysis to identify a propeller critical part.
Manufacturers would identify propeller critical parts, and establish
engineering, manufacturing, and maintenance processes for propeller
critical parts. These new requirements provide an added margin of
safety for the continued airworthiness of propeller critical parts by
requiring a system of processes to identify and manage these parts
throughout their service life. This rule would eliminate regulatory
differences between part 35 and European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
propeller critical parts requirements, thereby simplifying
airworthiness approvals for exports.

DATES: Effective March 19, 2013.
    Affected parties, however, are not required to comply with the
information collection requirement[s] in Sec.  35.16 until the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) approves the collection and assigns a
control number under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The FAA will
publish in the Federal Register a notice of the control number[s]
assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for this [these]
information collection requirement[s].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Jay Turnberg, Engine and Propeller Directorate
Standards Staff, ANE-111, Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts, 01803-5299;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions concerning this action,
contact Vincent Bennett, FAA Office of the Regional Counsel, ANE-7,
Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, Massachusetts, 01803-5299; 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.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations 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, including
minimum safety standards for airplane propellers. This regulation is
within the scope of that authority because it updates the existing
regulations for airplane propellers.

I. Overview of Final Rule

    Part 35 does not specifically define the term propeller critical
part. Consequently, there are no requirements for design, manufacture,
maintenance, or management of propeller critical parts. This rule
defines and requires the identification of propeller critical parts,
and establishes requirements to ensure the integrity of those parts.

II. Background

    On December 20, 2006, the FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (ARAC) to develop recommendations that would address
the integrity of propeller critical parts, as well as be in harmony
with similar European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) regulations. This
rule addresses those recommendations, a copy of which can be found in
the docket of this rulemaking.

A. Statement of the Problem

    Propeller critical parts are not adequately addressed by current
regulations. Presently, the FAA does not--
    [rtarr8] Have a specific definition for a propeller critical part,
or
    [rtarr8] Require type certificate holders to identify propeller
critical parts.
    Consequently, propeller manufacturers are not required to provide
information concerning propeller critical part design, manufacture, or
maintenance.

B. Summary of the NPRM

    Primary failure of certain single propeller elements (for example,
blades) can result in a hazardous propeller effect. Part 35 does not
specifically identify these elements as propeller critical parts.
Consequently, there are no requirements for design, manufacture,
maintenance, or management of propeller critical parts. EASA, however,
has regulations that identify a specific definition for propeller
critical part, and regulations to reduce the likelihood of propeller
critical part failures. These regulations, EASA Certification
Specifications for Propellers (CS-P), are CS-P 150, Propeller Safety
Analysis and CS-P 160 Propeller Critical Parts Integrity. The EASA
regulations specifically require propeller manufacturers to identify
propeller critical parts and provide adequate information for the
design, manufacture, and maintenance of those parts to ensure their
integrity throughout their service life. This FAA action establishes
standards equivalent to the EASA regulations, thereby simplifying
airworthiness approvals for export of these parts.
Safety Analysis (Sec.  35.15)
    We proposed to revise Sec.  35.15(c) to require the identification
of propeller critical parts, and that applicants establish the
integrity of these parts using the standards in proposed Sec.  35.16.
Section 35.15(c) refers to the failure of

these parts as primary failures of ``certain single elements''. We
recognize that a meaningful numerical estimate of the reliability of
these parts is not possible, since over 100 million hours of service
history on a part design would be needed to directly meet the
probability requirements of the regulation. Current regulations
accommodate this inability to provide a meaningful estimate by stating
that these failures cannot be ``sensibly'' estimated in numerical
terms.
Propeller Critical Parts (New Sec.  35.16)
    Our proposed Sec.  35.16 would require the development and
execution of an engineering process, a manufacturing process, and a
service management process for propeller critical parts. These three
processes form a closed loop system that links the design intent, as
defined by the engineering process, to how the part is manufactured and
to how the part is maintained in service. Engineering, manufacturing,
and service management function as an integrated system. This
integrated systems approach recognizes that the effects of an action in
one area would have an impact on the entire system. The proposed Sec.
35.16 clarifies the wording of the EASA propeller critical parts
requirement. Since the CS-P 160 use of the term ``plan'' might imply a
requirement that a ``part-specific'' document would be required, the
term ``process'' is used instead of ``plan''. In this context
compliance will consist of a procedures manual that describes the
manufacturer's method(s) to control propeller critical parts.
    The engineering, manufacturing, and service management processes
should provide clear information for propeller critical part
management. ``Process'' in the context of the proposed requirement does
not mean that all the required technical information is within a single
document. When relevant information exists elsewhere, the process
documents may reference, for example, drawings, material
specifications, and process specifications, as appropriate. These
references should be clear enough to sufficiently identify the
referenced document so as to allow the design history of an individual
part to be traced.
    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking on December 1,
2011, requesting pubic comments [76 FR 74749]. The comment period
closed on January 30, 2012.

C. General Overview of Comments

    The FAA received three comments. One was from a repair station,
Sensenich Propeller Service, and the others were from propeller
manufacturers, Hamilton Sundstrand and Hartzell Propeller. The comments
requested clarification on how the rule would be applied to propeller
parts being serviced, old (legacy) propellers and part 45
Identification and Registration and Marking requirements. The comments
did not suggest changes to the proposal.

III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

    Sensenich Propeller Service asked would this rule require the
replacement of airworthy parts that were found to have no defects. This
rule would not. Nor does it require propeller manufacturers to revise
manuals for existing certified propellers. This rule will result in
manuals that are more informative with respect to propeller critical
parts, when manuals are revised or developed for amended or new
propeller certification programs.
    Hamilton Sundstrand wanted to know if some sort of grandfather
clause for legacy propellers was contemplated. This rule is applicable
to propellers based on the propeller certification basis. Therefore,
the rule will be applicable to new propellers, and may be applicable to
propellers certified to earlier amendments, if the type design is
changed sufficiently. See 14 CFR Sec.  21.101 Designation of applicable
regulations. The current regulations accommodate older propellers as
needed.
    Hartzell Propeller, Inc., requested clarification on the
applicability of paragraph (c) of Sec.  45.15 Identification and
registration marking for a propeller critical part. The propeller
critical parts rule does address part marking. Propellers, propeller
blades, and hubs are subject to the marking requirements of Sec. Sec.
45.11 and 45.13. Section 45.15 (c) is not applicable to critical
propeller parts that do not have a replacement time, inspection
interval, or related procedure specified in the Airworthiness
Limitations Section of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

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, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, 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 proposed or 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.
    Presently, airplane propeller part manufacturers must satisfy both
the code of federal regulations (CFR) and the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) certification requirements to market their products in
both the United States and Europe. Meeting two sets of certification
requirements raises the cost of developing new airplane propeller
parts, often with no increase in safety. In the interest of fostering
international trade, lowering the cost of airplane propeller parts
development, and making the certification process more efficient, the
FAA, EASA, and airplane propeller part manufacturers worked to create
to the maximum extent possible a single set of certification
requirements accepted in both the United States and Europe. These
efforts are referred to as harmonization.
    Propellers contain critical parts whose primary failure can result
in a hazardous propeller effect. 14 CFR part 35 does not currently
identify what a propeller critical part is, and consequently, has no
specific requirement(s) for their design, manufacture, maintenance, or

management. EASA however, has regulations that identify what propeller
critical parts are, and regulations to reduce the likelihood of
propeller critical part failures.
    This rule will revise Sec.  35.15 and add a new Sec.  35.16 to part
35 with EASA's ``more stringent'' CS-P 150 Propeller Safety Analysis
and CS-P 160 Propeller Critical Parts Integrity requirements. The FAA
has concluded for the reasons previously discussed in the preamble, the
adoption of these EASA requirements into the CFR is the most efficient
way to harmonize these sections, and in so doing, enhance the existing
level of safety.
    A review of current manufacturers of airplane propeller parts
certificated under part 35 has revealed that all manufacturers of such
future airplane propeller parts are expected to continue their current
practice of compliance under part 35 of the CFR and the EASA
certification requirements. Since future certificated airplane
propeller parts are expected to meet EASA's existing CS-P 150 Propeller
Safety Analysis and CS-P 160 Propeller Critical Parts Integrity
requirements, and this rule simply adopts the same EASA requirement,
manufacturers will incur no additional cost resulting from this rule.
Therefore, the FAA estimates that there are no more than minimal costs
associated with this final rule.
    The FAA, however, has not attempted to quantify the cost savings
that may accrue from this rule, beyond noting that while it may be
minimal, it contributes to a potential harmonization savings.
Furthermore, we did not receive comments regarding this determination
that this rule will have minimal cost with a possible cost savings to
the industry.
    The FAA has therefore determined this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

B. 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 objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
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
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.
    The FAA believes that this rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reason. The net effect of the rule is minimum regulatory cost
relief. The rule requires that new propeller manufacturers meet the
``more stringent'' European certification requirement, CS-P 150,
Propeller Safety Analysis and CS-P 160, Propeller Critical Parts,
rather than both the U.S. and European standards. Propeller
manufacturers already meet or expect to meet this standard as well as
the existing CFR requirement.
    Given that this rule has minimal to no costs, could be cost-
relieving, and as we received no comments on this determination for the
NPRM, as the Administrator, I certify that this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such 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, be the basis for U. S. standards. The FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this final rule and determined that it is in accord
with the Trade Agreements Act as the rule uses European standards as
the basis for United States regulation.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 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.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. 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 an 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 the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these information
collection amendments to OMB for its review. Notice of OMB approval for
this information collection will be published in a future Federal
Register document.
    Summary: On December 1, 2011, FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking titled ``Critical Parts for Airplane Propellers'' (76 FR
74749). This activity contains new Paperwork Reduction Act
recordkeeping requirements that were not addressed in that notice of
proposed rulemaking, and which are addressed here. The rule will
require that U.S. companies who manufacture critical parts for airplane
propellers update their manuals to record engineering, manufacture, and
maintenance processes for propeller critical parts. There are currently
three U.S. companies who will be required to create or revise their
manuals to include these processes.

    Public comments: We received no comments on information collection
    Use: This information will be used by the propeller manufacturer to
show compliance with the propeller critical parts requirements. This
action would define what a propeller critical part is, require the
identification of propeller critical parts by the manufacturer, and
establish engineering, manufacture, and maintenance processes for those
parts. The need and use of the information is to ensure the continued
airworthiness of propeller critical parts by requiring a system of
processes to identify and manage these parts throughout their service
life.
    Respondents: There are five propeller manufacturers that will be
affected by the new requirement. Responses were provided by two of the
manufacturers who have already prepared propeller critical parts
manuals and are compliant with the final rule. The information provided
by the two manufacturers was used to establish the paperwork required
to show compliance with the propeller critical parts requirements for
the remaining three propeller manufacturers.
    Frequency: The information will only need to be collected once to
show compliance with the FAA propeller critical part rule Sec.  35.16.
If the information is not collected, the propeller manufacturer will
not be able to obtain a type certificate for the propeller.
    Annual Burden Estimate: There will be no annualized cost to the
Federal Government. Industry has informed the FAA that the one-time
paperwork requirement will take approximately 40 hours and consist of
18 pages per manufacturer. The FAA estimated 120 hours as the total
hourly burden by taking the product of the number of affected U.S.
manufacturers with the hourly burden. There will be a one-time cost of
$3,555.60 per respondent which will occur on the effective date of the
rule. The total cost for the three respondents is $10,666.80.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    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 to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined
that there are no ICAO Standards that correspond to these regulations.
    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609 and has determined that this action would have no
effect on international regulatory cooperation.

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 Chapter 3, paragraph 312f and
involves no extraordinary circumstances.

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 my be obtained by using
the Internet--
    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (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.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    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 35

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Amendment

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

PART 35--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: PROPELLERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  35.15 by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  35.15  Safety Analysis.

* * * * *
    (c) The primary failures of certain single propeller elements (for
example, blades) cannot be sensibly estimated in numerical terms. If
the failure of such elements is likely to result in hazardous propeller
effects, those elements must be identified as propeller critical parts.

    (d) For propeller critical parts, applicants must meet the
prescribed integrity specifications of Sec.  35.16. These instances
must be stated in the safety analysis.
* * * * *

0
3. Add Sec.  35.16 to subpart B to read as follows:

Sec.  35.16  Propeller Critical Parts.

    The integrity of each propeller critical part identified by the
safety analysis required by Sec.  35.15 must be established by:
    (a) A defined engineering process for ensuring the integrity of the
propeller critical part throughout its service life,
    (b) A defined manufacturing process that identifies the
requirements to consistently produce the propeller critical part as
required by the engineering process, and
    (c) A defined service management process that identifies the
continued airworthiness requirements of the propeller critical part as
required by the engineering process.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 8, 2013.
Michael P. Huerta,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-01041 Filed 1-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P