Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Notices 17183 

1The 60-day notice included the following 

estimate of the aggregate burden hours for this 

generic clearance Federal-wide: 

Average Expected Annual Number of activities: 

25,000. 

Average number of Respondents per Activity: 

200. 

Annual responses: 5,000,000. 

Frequency of Response: Once per request. 

Average minutes per response: 30. 

Burden hours: 2,500,000. 

1 1. DOT/FAA/AM–10/14, The Rudder Survey 

Technical Report. For a copy, call Sarah Peterson 

at (405) 954–6840. 

2. DOT/FAA/AR–09–5, Pilot Simulations Study 

to Develop Transport Aircraft Rudder Control 

System Requirements Phase 1 Simulator Motion 

System Requirements and Initial Results, Authors 

Hoh, Desrochers, Niscoll, 18 April 2007. 

Note: HAI is about to release another report that 

has additional and more important results 

(essentially that pilot tendency to over-control 

correlates very strongly with pedal travel). 

3. DOT/FAA/AR–10/17, Piloted Simulation 

Study to Develop Transport Aircraft Rudder Control 

System Requirements Phase 2 Develop Criteria for 

Rudder Overcontrol, Authors Hoh, Desrochers, 

Niscoll. 

Below we provide FAA’s projected 

average estimates for the next three 

years: 1

Current Actions: New collection of 

information. 

Type of Review: New Collection. 

Affected Public: Individuals and 

Households, Businesses and 

Organizations, State, Local or Tribal 

Government. 

Average Expected Annual Number of 

activities: 2. 

Respondents: 2,813. 

Annual responses: 2,813. 

Frequency of Response: Once per 

request. 

Average minutes per response: 15. 

Burden hours: 704. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

control number. 

Public Comments Invited: You are 

asked to comment on any aspect of this 

information collection, including (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for FAA’s 

performance; (b) the accuracy of the 

estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to 

enhance the quality, utility and clarity 

of the information collection; and (d) 

ways that the burden could be 

minimized without reducing the quality 

of the collected information. The agency 

will summarize and/or include your 

comments in the request for OMB’s 

clearance of this information collection. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 21, 

2011. 

Carla Scott, 

FAA Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, IT Enterprises Business Services 

Division, AES–200. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7179 Filed 3–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee; Transport Airplane and 

Engine Issues—New Task 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of new task assignment 

for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee (ARAC). 

SUMMARY: The FAA assigned ARAC a 

new task to consider whether changes to 

part 25 are necessary to address rudder 

pedal sensitivity and rudder reversals. 

This notice is to inform the public of 

this ARAC activity. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert C. Jones, Propulsion/Mechanical 

Systems Branch, ANM–112, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, 

SW., Renton, Washington 98057, 

telephone (425) 227–1234, facsimile 

(425) 227–1149; e-mail 

robert.c.jones@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The FAA established the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) to provide advice and 

recommendations to the FAA 

Administrator on the FAA’s rulemaking 

activities with respect to aviationrelated issues. This includes obtaining 

advice and recommendations on the 

FAA’s commitments to harmonize Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR), with its partners in Europe, 

Canada, and Brazil; in this instance, on 

rudder pedal sensitivity and rudder 

reversals. The committee will address 

the task under the ARAC’s Transport 

Airplane and Engine Issues, and will 

reestablish the Flight Controls 

Harmonization Working Group, to assist 

in analysis of this task. 

Recent research shows that regardless 

of training, pilots make inadvertent and 

erroneous rudder inputs, some of which 

have resulted in pedal reversals. 

Accident and incident data show 

airplanes that have experienced pedal 

reversals that surpassed the airplane’s 

structural limit load and sometimes 

ultimate load. One case resulted in loss 

of the vertical fin, the airplane and 265 

lives. 

On November 12, 2001, an Airbus 

A300–600 crashed at Belle Harbor on 

climb-out resulting in 265 deaths and an 

airplane hull loss. The National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

found ‘‘that the probable cause of this 

accident was the in-flight separation of 

the vertical stabilizer as a result of the 

loads beyond ultimate design that were 

created by the first officer’s unnecessary 

and excessive rudder pedal inputs. 

Contributing to these rudder pedal 

inputs were characteristics of the Airbus 

A300–600 rudder system design and 

elements of the American Airlines 

Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering 

Program.’’ 

In two additional events, commonly 

known as the Miami Flight 903 event 

and the Interflug event, pilot 

commanded pedal reversals caused 

A300–600/A310 fins to experience loads 

greater than their ultimate load level. 

Both airplanes survived because they 

possessed greater strength than required 

by the current standards. 

In January 2008, an Airbus 319 

encountered a wake vortex. The pilot 

responded with several pedal reversals. 

Analysis shows that this caused a fin 

load exceeding limit load by 

approximately 29 percent. The pilot 

eventually stabilized the airplane and 

safely landed. The Transportation Safety 

Board (TSB) Canada investigated this 

event, with the NTSB providing 

accredited representatives. 

On May 27, 2005, a de Havilland 

DHC–8–100 (Dash 8) airplane 

(registration C–GZKH, serial number 

117) was on a passenger revenue flight 

from St. John’s to Deer Lake, 

Newfoundland, with 36 passengers and 

3 crew on board. During the climb-out 

from St. John’s, the indicated airspeed 

gradually decreased to the point that the 

airplane entered an aerodynamic stall. 

The airplane descended rapidly, out of 

control, losing 4200 feet before recovery 

was effected approximately 40 seconds 

later. The incident occurred during 

daylight hours in instrument 

meteorological conditions. There were 

no injuries and the airplane was not 

damaged. During this event, the pilot 

commanded a pedal reversal. 

The FAA sponsored studies 1 to 

understand parameters that affect the 

way pilots use the rudder. These studies 

included a survey of transport pilots 

from all over the world and real time 

piloted flight simulation. One of the 

studies found that many experienced 

pilots misused the rudder after wake 

vortex encounters. A follow-on study 

showed that the key parameter leading 

to excessive pedal use is short pedal 

travel. The analysis of a survey of large 

airplane pilots found: 

1. Pilots use the rudder more than 

previously thought and often in ways 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
17184 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Notices 

not recommended by the design 

approval holders (DAHs). 

2. Pilots make erroneous pedal inputs, 

and some erroneous pedal inputs 

include rudder reversals. 

3. After years of training, many pilots 

are not aware that they should not make 

pedal reversals, even below design 

maneuvering speed (VA). Note: Over the 

past 4 years, training and Airplane 

Flight Manual (AFM) changes have 

directed the pilot not to make cyclic 

control inputs, but events occurred 

despite this effort. 

4. Pilots in airplane upset situations 

(e.g., wake vortex encounters) may 

revert to prior training and make 

excessive pedal inputs that they may 

then counter with pedal reversals. 

The current standards in part 25 

address large pedal inputs at airspeeds 

up to the design dive airspeed (VD). This 

ensures safe structural airplane 

characteristics throughout the flight 

envelope from single full rudder inputs. 

However, the standard does not address 

the loads imposed by rudder reversals. 

Additionally, sections of part 25 require 

that controls operate with ease and 

smoothness appropriate to their 

function. However, these standards do 

not address specific control system 

parameters such as inceptor travel 

breakout force or force gradient. 

The FAA is partially addressing this 

condition for new designs by requiring 

under § 25.601 that applicants for new 

type certificates show that the design is 

capable of continued safe flight and 

landing after experiencing rudder pedal 

reversals. The applicants have been able 

to show compliance with this 

requirement by appropriate rudder 

controls. These control schemes have 

been incorporated through software and 

therefore add no weight or maintenance 

cost to the airplanes. However, such 

controls might only be capable of a 

limited number of pedal reversals before 

exceeding airframe ultimate loads, and 

part 25 may need to address this 

situation. 

The Task 

Excessive use of rudder, beyond its 

design capabilities, has been identified 

as a contributing factor in several 

incidents and accidents. The FAA is 

tasking ARAC to consider: 

1. the need to revise 14 CFR part 25, 

subpart C, to ensure airplane structural 

capability in the presence of rudder 

reversals and associated buildup of 

sideslip angles through a defined flight 

envelope (see question 1), or 

2. if other sections of the 

airworthiness standard may more 

appropriately address this concern, such 

as certain pedal characteristics that 

discourage pilots from making pedal 

reversals (reduce pedal sensitivity). 

If ARAC determines new 

requirements are necessary, it must 

recommend performance-based 

standards that allows manufacturers the 

flexibility to design airplanes to meet 

their needs while ensuring airplane 

safety. ARAC would also need to 

recommend methods of compliance 

(criteria), such as background 

simulation or piloted simulation, to 

support the rule change. 

In addition, ARAC must consider the 

need to revise 14 CFR parts 26, 121, 125, 

129, and 135, or to write airworthiness 

directives to address the safety concerns 

posed by rudder reversals in the existing 

transport airplane fleet. Finally, ARAC 

must recommend criteria that can be 

used to determine the need for retrofit. 

ARAC is expected to provide a report 

that addresses the following questions 

regarding new airplane designs, with 

rationale for their responses. Any 

disagreement should be documented, 

including the rationale from each party 

and the reasons for the disagreement. 

Questions 

For New Transport Airplanes: 

1. Define what is meant by pilot 

misuse/use of rudder and rudder pedal 

sensitivity, and determine the 

appropriate flight envelope that should 

be considered. 

2. Consider what types of part 25 

standards can be developed to prevent 

unintended or inappropriate rudder 

usage, or to ensure that unintended 

usage provides a level of safety 

commensurate with part 25. The 

working group should consider the 

following areas of the existing 

airworthiness standard: 

a. Loads. 

b. Maneuverability. 

c. System design. 

d. Control sensitivity. 

e. Warning. 

3. What is the best regulatory 

approach to address rudder usage? For 

example, is it better to assume certain 

inputs and provide mitigation to ensure 

safe flight (envelope protection), or to 

provide certain standards to ensure that 

the pilot will not make (inadvertent or 

inappropriate) inputs? 

4. What changes, if any, to part 25— 

including details for compliance 

demonstration and guidance—are 

recommended for new type certification 

applications to prevent unintended 

improper rudder usage? Some 

considerations include use of analysis, 

desktop or piloted simulation, or actual 

flight testing. 

5. Are there any regulations or 

guidance material that might conflict 

with the proposal? 

6. Does current technology exist to 

support implementation of new 

requirements? 

7. What are the effects and 

implications of any proposed change 

regarding commonly used system 

designs? For example, would a new 

standard cause adverse interaction with 

currently used fly-by-wire flight control 

systems, stability augmentation or autoflight systems, or with current 

operations? 

8. Does the proposed solution present 

any issues relating to specific flight 

phases or environmental conditions? If 

so, what are they, and how should they 

be addressed? 

9. What recommended guidance 

material is needed? 

10. After reviewing airworthiness 

standard, safety, cost, benefit, and other 

relevant factors, including recent 

certification and fleet experience, are 

there any additional considerations that 

should be taken into account? 

11. Is coordination necessary with 

other harmonization working groups 

(e.g., Human Factors, Flight Test)? 

For Existing Transport Airplanes: 

The report must address the following 

questions while considering existing 

transport airplane designs, with 

rationale for the responses. Any 

disagreements should be documented, 

including the rationale from each party 

and the reasons for the disagreement. 

1. What factors should be considered 

to determine if retrofit should be 

required? 

2. For airplanes that require retrofit 

per the criteria, what differences should 

be considered from the requirements 

developed for new transport airplanes? 

3. What are the effects and 

implications of any proposed retrofit 

standards and guidance for current 

system designs? For example, would the 

retrofit cause adverse interaction with 

currently used fly-by-wire flight control 

systems, stability augmentation or autoflight systems, or with current 

operations? 

4. After reviewing airworthiness 

standards, safety, cost, benefit, and 

other relevant factors, including recent 

certification and fleet experience, are 

there any additional considerations that 

should be taken into account? 

5. If improvements are needed to 

ensure safe rudder usage, what is the 

recommended method to mandate 

retrofit? (Ad hoc airworthiness 

directives, part 26 rules, etc.) In 

responding, ARAC should address the 

factors set forth in ‘‘FAA Policy 

Statement: Safety-A Shared 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Notices 17185 

Responsibility-New Direction for 

Addressing Airworthiness Issues for 

Transport Airplanes’’ (70 FR 40166, July 

12, 2005), and the industry’s ability to 

provide the necessary retrofit equipment 

that might be required. 

ARAC should provide information 

that could lead to requirements in 

rudder load conditions, and/or system 

design that can be satisfied with 

practical design approaches. 

The FAA will provide a copy of each 

DOT report mentioned in this tasking 

notice. 

Schedule: The tasks described above 

are to be accomplished within 18 

months of publication of this tasking 

notice in the Federal Register. 

ARAC Acceptance of Task 

ARAC accepted the task and will 

assign it to the reestablished Flight 

Controls Harmonization Working 

Group, under Transport Airplane and 

Engine Issues. This working group will 

use task groups to assist in their 

activities. Nominees should have 

experience in the areas of flight test, 

flight controls, loads, or human factors. 

The working group serves as support to 

ARAC and assists in the analysis of 

assigned tasks. ARAC must review and 

approve the working group’s 

recommendations. If ARAC accepts the 

working group’s recommendations, it 

will forward them to the FAA. 

Working Group Activity 

The Flight Controls Harmonization 

Working Group must comply with the 

procedures adopted by ARAC. As part 

of the procedures, the working group 

must: 

1. Recommend a work plan for 

completion of the task, including the 

rationale supporting such a plan, for 

consideration at the next ARAC meeting 

on Transport Airplane and Engine 

Issues held following publication of this 

notice. 

2. Give a detailed conceptual 

presentation of the proposed 

recommendations before proceeding 

with the work stated in item 3 below. 

3. Draft the appropriate documents 

and required analyses and/or any other 

related materials or documents. 

4. Provide a status report at each 

ARAC meeting held to consider 

Transport Airplane and Engine Issues. 

Participation in the Working Group 

The Flight Controls Harmonization 

Working Group will be composed of 

technical experts having an interest in 

the assigned task. A working group 

member need not be a representative or 

a member of the full committee. 

If you have expertise in the subject 

matter and wish to become a member of 

the working group, write to the person 

listed under the caption FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT expressing that 

desire. Describe your interest in the task 

and state the expertise you would bring 

to the working group. We must receive 

all requests by April 25, 2011. The 

assistant chair and the assistant 

executive director will review the 

requests and advise you whether or not 

your request is approved. 

If you are chosen for membership on 

the working group, you must represent 

your aviation community segment and 

actively participate in the working 

group by attending all meetings, and 

providing written comments when 

requested to do so. You must devote the 

resources necessary to support the 

working group in meeting any assigned 

deadlines. You must keep your 

management chain and those you may 

represent advised of working group 

activities and decisions to ensure that 

the proposed technical solutions don’t 

conflict with your sponsoring 

organization’s position when the subject 

being considered is presented to ARAC 

for approval. Once the working group 

has begun deliberations, members will 

not be added or substituted without the 

approval of the assistant chair, the 

assistant executive director and the 

working group chair. 

The Secretary of Transportation 

determined that the formation and use 

of ARAC is necessary and in the public 

interest in connection with the 

performance of duties imposed on the 

FAA by law. 

ARAC meetings are open to the 

public. Meetings of the Flight Controls 

Harmonization Working Group will not 

be open to the public, except to the 

extent individuals with an interest and 

expertise are selected to participate. The 

FAA will make no public 

announcement of working group 

meetings. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 23, 

2011. 

Pamela Hamilton-Powell, 

Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking 

Advisory Committee. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7180 Filed 3–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement: Cook 

County, IL 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this 

Notice of Intent to advise the public that 

an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) will be prepared for the Grand 

Crossing Rail Project, which involves 

new railroad track work, structural 

work, grading, and signal improvements 

to provide a new direct route for Amtrak 

trains from New Orleans, Louisiana or 

Carbondale, Illinois into Chicago Union 

Station, and to provide sufficient 

mainline capacity to accommodate 

existing and additional Amtrak trains 

along with freight traffic in the City of 

Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Norman R. Stoner, P.E., Division 

Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration, 3250 Executive Park 

Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62703, 

Phone: (217) 492–4600. Steve McClarty, 

Acting Bureau Chief, Bureau of 

Railroads, Illinois Department of 

Transportation, 100 W. Randolph Street, 

Suite 6–600, Chicago, Illinois 

60601–3229, Phone: (312) 793–3940. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

FHWA, in cooperation with the Illinois 

Department of Transportation, Bureau of 

Railroads, will prepare an EIS on a 

proposal to construct a direct rail 

connection between the Canadian 

National (CN) and Norfolk Southern 

(NS) Chicago Line to provide a new, 

more direct route to Chicago’s Union 

Station for Amtrak trains coming from 

New Orleans, Louisiana, and 

Carbondale, Illinois. The proposed 

project is an element of the overall 

Chicago Region Environmental and 

Transportation Efficiency Program 

(CREATE), a joint effort of the Illinois 

Department of Transportation, the 

Chicago Department of Transportation, 

and the Association of American 

Railroads to restructure, modernize, and 

expand freight and passenger rail 

facilities and highway grade separations 

in the Chicago metropolitan area. 

Alternative track configurations will be 

considered and refined. The no-action 

alternative will also be evaluated. A 

preferred alternative and associated 

potential impacts will be presented at a 

public hearing. Preliminary measures to 

minimize harm, construction cost 

estimates, and estimated right-of-way 

and relocation requirements will also be 

developed. 

The proposed action will reduce 

travel time on the Amtrak’s Illini-Saluki 

and City of New Orleans trains by 

eliminating a time-consuming back-up 

move into Union Station that these 

trains currently perform due to the 

existing track configuration. In addition, 

the proposed action will provide 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES