Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 72087 

553. Sections 110.2 and 110.42(a)(9) also 

issued under sec. 903, Pub. L. 102–496 (42 

U.S.C. 2151 et seq.). 

■ 31. Section 110.7, paragraph (b), is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 110.7 Information collection 

requirements: OMB approval. 

* * * * * 

(b) The approved information 

requirements contained in this part 

appear in §§ 110.7a, 110.27, 110.32, 

110.50, 110.52, 110.53, and 110.54. 

* * * * * 

PART 170—FEES FOR FACILITIES, 

MATERIALS IMPORT AND EXPORT 

LICENSES AND OTHER REGULATORY 

SERVICES UNDER THE ATOMIC 

ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED 

■ 32. The authority citation for part 170 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 9701, Pub. L. 97–258, 96 

Stat. 1051 (31 U.S.C. 9701); sec. 301, Pub. L. 

92–314, 86 Stat. 227 (42 U.S.C. 2201(w)); sec. 

201, Pub. L. 93–438, 88 Stat. 1242, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); sec. 205a, Pub. L. 

101–576, 104 Stat. 2842, as amended (31 

U.S.C. 901, 902); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 

U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 623, Pub. L. 109–58, 

119 Stat. 783 (42 U.S.C. 2201(w)); sec. 651(e), 

Pub. L. 109–58, 119 Stat. 806–810 (42 U.S.C. 

2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111). 

§ 170.31 [Amended] 

■ 33. In § 170.31, remove footnote 6 and 

the corresponding reference to footnote 

6 in 15.M, 15.N, 15.O, 15.P, and 15.Q. 

PART 171—ANNUAL FEES FOR 

REACTOR LICENSES AND FUEL 

CYCLE LICENSES AND MATERIAL 

LICENSES, INCLUDING HOLDERS OF 

CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE, 

REGISTRATIONS, AND QUALITY 

ASSURANCE PROGRAM APPROVALS 

AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 

LICENSED BY NRC 

■ 34. The authority citation for part 171 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 7601, Pub. L. 99–272, 100 

Stat. 146, as amended by sec. 5601, Pub. L. 

100–203, 101 Stat. 1330 as amended by sec. 

3201, Pub. L. 101–239, 103 Stat. 2132, as 

amended by sec. 6101, Pub. L. 101–508, 104 

Stat. 1388, as amended by sec. 2903a, Pub. 

L. 102–486, 106 Stat. 3125 (42 U.S.C. 2213, 

2214), and as amended by Title IV, Pub. L. 

109–103, 119 Stat. 2283 (42 U.S.C. 2214); sec. 

301, Pub. L. 92–314, 86 Stat. 227 (42 U.S.C. 

2201w); sec. 201, Pub. L. 93–438, 88 Stat. 

1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); sec. 1704, 

112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); sec. 

651(e), Pub. L. 109–58, 119 Stat. 806–810 (42 

U.S.C. 2014, 2021, 2021b, 2111). 

■ 35. In § 171.16, paragraph (c), the 

table is revised to read as follows: 

§ 171.16 Annual fees: Materials licensees, 

holders of certificates of compliance, 

holders of sealed source and device 

registrations, holders of quality assurance 

program approvals, and government 

agencies licensed by the NRC. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

Maximum annual 

fee per licensed 

category 

Small Businesses Not Engaged in Manufacturing (Average gross receipts over last 3 completed fiscal years): 

$450,000 to $6.5 million ........................................................................................................................................................... $2,300 

Less than $450,000 .................................................................................................................................................................. 500 

Small Not-For-Profit Organizations (Annual Gross Receipts): 

$450,000 to $6.5 million ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,300 

Less than $450,000 .................................................................................................................................................................. 500 

Manufacturing entities that have an average of 500 employees or fewer: 

35 to 500 employees ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,300 

Fewer than 35 employees ........................................................................................................................................................ 500 

Small Governmental Jurisdictions (Including publicly supported educational institutions) (Population): 

20,000 to 50,000 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2,300 

Fewer than 20,000 ................................................................................................................................................................... 500 

Educational Institutions that are not State or Publicly Supported, and have 500 Employees or Fewer: 

35 to 500 employees ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,300 

Fewer than 35 employees ........................................................................................................................................................ 500 

* * * * * 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day 

of November 2011. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Cindy Bladey, 

Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives 

Branch, Division of Administrative Services, 

Office of Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–29669 Filed 11–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 23 

[Docket No. CE313; Special Conditions No. 

23–253–SC] 

Special Conditions: Diamond Aircraft 

Industries, Model DA–40NG; Electronic 

Engine Control (EEC) System 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final special conditions. 

SUMMARY: These special conditions are 

issued for the Diamond Aircraft 

Industries, Model DA–40NG airplane. 

This airplane will have a novel or 

unusual design feature(s) associated 

with an electronic engine control (EEC) 

also known as a Full authority Digital 

Engine Control (FADEC). The applicable 

airworthiness regulations do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards 

for this design feature. These special 

conditions contain the additional safety 

standards that the Administrator 

considers necessary to establish a level 

of safety equivalent to that established 

by the existing airworthiness standards. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 28, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter L. Rouse, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Aircraft Certification 

Service, Small Airplane Directorate, 

ACE–111, 901 Locust, Kansas City, 

Missouri, (816) 329–4135, fax (816) 

329–4090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 11, 2010, Diamond Aircraft 

Industry GmbH applied for an 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
72088 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

amendment to Type Certificate No. 

A47CE to include the new model DA– 

40NG with the Austro Engine GmbH 

model E4 Aircraft Diesel Engine (ADE). 

The model DA–40NG, which is a 

derivative of the model DA–40 currently 

approved under Type Certificate No. 

A47CE, is a fully composite, four place, 

single-engine airplane with a cantilever 

low wing, T-tail airplane with the 

Austro Engine GmbH model E4 diesel 

engine and an increased maximum 

takeoff gross weight from 1150 

kilograms (kg) to 1280 kg (2535 pounds 

(lbs) to 2816 lbs). 

DAI will use an EEC instead of a 

traditional mechanical control system 

on the model DA–40NG airplane. The 

EEC is certified as part of the engine 

design certification, and the certification 

requirements for engine control systems 

are driven by 14 CFR part 33 

certification requirements. The guidance 

for the part 33 EEC certification 

requirement is contained in two 

advisory circulars: Advisory Circular 

(AC) 33.28–1 and AC 33.28–2. The EEC 

certification, as part of the engine, 

addresses those aspects of the engine 

specifically addressed by part 33 and is 

not intended to address 14 CFR part 23 

installation requirements. However, the 

guidance does highlight some of the 

aspects of installation that the engine 

applicant should consider during engine 

certification. The installation of an 

engine with an EEC system requires 

evaluation of environmental effects and 

possible effects on or by other airplane 

systems, including the part 23 

installation aspects of the EEC 

functions. For example, the indirect 

effects of lightning, radio interference 

with other airplane electronic systems, 

and shared engine and airplane data and 

power sources. 

The regulatory requirements in part 

23 for evaluating the installation of 

complex electronic systems are 

contained in § 23.1309. However, when 

§ 23.1309 was developed, the 

requirements of the rule were 

specifically excluded from applying to 

powerplant systems provided as part of 

the engine (reference § 23.1309(f)(1)). 

Although the parts of the system that are 

not certificated with the engine could be 

evaluated using the criteria of § 23.1309, 

the analysis would not be useful and not 

be complete because it would not 

include the effects of the aircraft 

supplied power and data failures on the 

engine control system, and the resulting 

effects on engine power/thrust. The 

integral nature of EEC installations 

require review of EEC functionality at 

the airplane level, as behavior 

acceptable for part 33 certification may 

not be acceptable for part 23 

certification. 

For over a decade, the Small Airplane 

Directorate has applied a special 

condition that required all EEC 

installations to comply with the 

requirements of § 23.1309(a) through (e). 

The rationale for applying § 23.1309 was 

that it was an existing rule that 

contained the best available 

requirements to apply to the installation 

of a complex electronic system; in this 

case, an EEC with aircraft interfaces. 

Additionally, special conditions for 

High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) 

were also applied prior to the 

codification of § 23.1308. 

There are several difficulties for 

propulsion systems directly complying 

with the requirements of § 23.1309. 

There are conflicts between the 

guidance material for § 23.1309 and 

propulsion system capabilities and 

failure susceptibilities. The following 

figure is an excerpt from AC 23.1309– 

1D. 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 72089 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 

There is a conflict between the EEC 

system loss-of-thrust-control (LOTC), or 

loss-of-power-control (LOPC), 

probability per hour requirements given 

in part 33 guidance material and the 

failure rate requirements associated 

with the hazard created by a total loss 

of power/thrust as given in part 23 AC 

23.1309–1D guidance. The part 33 

requirements for engine control LOTC/ 

LOPC probabilities are shown below: 

Engine type Average LOTC/LOPC 

Events per million hours 

Maximum LOTC/LOPC 

Events per million hours 

Turbine Engine .................................................. 10 (1 × 10–05 per hour) ................................... 100 (1 × 10–04 per hour). 

Reciprocating Engine ......................................... 45 (4.5 × 10–05 per hour) ................................ 450 (4.5 × 10–04 per hour). 

Note: See AC 33.28–1, AC 33.28–2 and ANE–1993–33.28TLD–R1 for further guidance. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULESER22NO11.003</GPH>
72090 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

The classification of the failure 

condition for LOTC/LOPC event on a 

single engine airplane ranges from 

Hazardous to Catastrophic. The 

classification of the failure condition for 

a single engine LOTC/LOPC event on a 

multi-engine airplane ranges from Major 

to Catastrophic. The classification of the 

failure condition for a multi-engine 

LOTC/LOPC event on a multi-engine 

airplane is Catastrophic. From the AC 

23.1309–1D failure probability values, it 

is obvious that a single engine airplane 

EEC system will not be able to meet the 

failure probabilities as shown in the 

guidance material for § 23.1309. As a 

result, applicants have elected to 

declare a reduced hazard severity for a 

failure of the EEC system. This is not the 

intent of § 23.1309. The greater hazard 

severity should be associated with lower 

probabilities of failure, and higher 

probabilities of failure should not 

establish the lower hazard severities. 

There is also a conflict between the 

classification of the failure condition for 

a failure of an EEC system and the 

required test levels for the effects of 

lightning and high intensity radiated 

frequency (HIRF). Testing to a level 

lower than required for a catastrophic 

failure results in a lower level of safety 

than the mechanical system it replaces. 

This is contrary to the intent of 

certification requirements. 

The advent of EEC also created/ 

established the ability to dispatch with 

certain allowable loss of functionality 

and/or redundancy. This is known as 

Time-Limited Dispatch (TLD). The TLD 

allowable configurations must meet the 

specific risk LOTC/LOPC failure 

probabilities. FAA policy statement, 

ANE–1993–33.28TLD–R1, defines the 

full up and TLD allowable failure 

probabilities for turbine engines. The 

ability to use TLD is a risk management 

endeavor that uses a limited time period 

between inspection/maintenance 

intervals to mitigate the hazard. As 

such, the FAA has issued specific 

guidance for part 23 airplanes in 

addition to policy statement, ANE– 

1993–33.28TLD–R1, in order to 

adequately capture the necessary time 

limits between maintenance intervals. A 

means of compliance issue paper giving 

specific guidance can be generated, if 

desired, for the applicant. 

The advent of EEC also led to 

incorporation of functions that, while 

not required by the CFRs, also introduce 

potentially catastrophic failure(s) and 

malfunction(s). Consequently, 

incorporation of these additional 

functions must be shown to retain part 

23 levels of safety. These additional 

functions have included thrust 

management, portions of engine 

indication otherwise provided as part of 

the engine installation, engine speed 

synchronization, ignition control, autofeather, etc. 

The certification of an airplane to the 

standards of 14 CFR part 25 does not 

require the application of § 25.1309 via 

special condition to the EEC 

installation. In part 25, § 25.1309 is 

applicable to the powerplant 

installations in general and as a whole. 

The part 25 consequences differ from 

part 23 due to the required multi-engine 

configuration of part 25 airplanes. 

Additional applicable part 25, Subpart E 

requirements are those contained within 

§ 25.901(b)(2) and (c). 

There is language similar to part 25, 

§ 25.901(c) contained in part 23, 

§ 23.1141(e).The requirements 

contained within § 23.1141(e) were 

originally intended for the mechanical 

control interfaces on turbine engines. 

The rule was first promulgated at 

Amendment 23–7, effective on 

September 14, 1969. The preamble 

justifying the rule change states: 

‘‘This proposal would, in effect require that 

the need for system redundancy, alternate 

devices, and duplication of functions be 

determined in the design of turbine 

powerplant control systems.’’ 

The overall intent of the above cited 

rules is to provide a robust and fault 

tolerant engine control installation that 

ensures that no single failure or 

malfunction or probable combination of 

failures will jeopardize the safe 

operation of the airplane. 

Given the unique requirements of an 

EEC installation, and the lack of specific 

regulatory requirements, a special 

condition will be applied to all EEC 

installations in part 23 airplanes. This 

special condition is not applicable to 

the part 33 engine certification 

requirements, and it specifically 

excludes any part 33 references. 

Compliance with this special condition 

may necessitate changes to the EEC, and 

may require additional part 33 

compliance showings. In like manner, 

changes to the EEC at the part 33 level 

may require additional compliance 

showings to this special condition. The 

overall intent of this special condition is 

to leverage off of the part 33 compliance 

as much as possible and address the 

airplane level effects of an EEC 

installation. 

The EEC system includes all of the 

subsystems on the aircraft that interface 

with the EEC and provide aircraft data 

and electrical power. This special 

condition is applicable to and includes 

all functions of the EEC system that 

have an effect at the airplane level. An 

example of this is control of the turbine 

engine compressor variable geometry 

(VG): the VG function in itself is not an 

airplane function, but changes to the VG 

scheduling will require re-substantiating 

compliance to part 23 requirements, 

such as § 23.939. 

The components that should be 

considered part of the EEC system are 

defined in Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) document, Aerospace 

Recommended Practice (ARP) 5107B, 

Guidelines for Time-Limited-Dispatch 

(TLD) Analysis for Electronic Engine 

Control Systems, section 6.4. This 

guidance is intended for turbine engine 

installations; however, the intent is 

applicable to piston engine installations. 

A means of compliance issue paper 

giving specific guidance can be 

generated, if desired, for the applicant. 

Part 33 certification data, if 

applicable, may be used to show 

compliance with the requirements of 

part 23 installation requirements; 

however, compliance with the part 33 

requirements does not constitute 

compliance with the requirements of 

part 23, nor automatically imply that the 

engine is installable on a part 23 

airplane. The part 23 applicant is 

required to show compliance in 

accordance with part 21. If part 33 data 

is to be used, then the part 23 applicant 

must be able to provide this data for 

their showing of compliance to the part 

23 requirements. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under the provisions of § 21.101, DAI 

must show that the model DA–40NG 

meets the applicable provisions of the 

regulations incorporated by reference in 

Type Certificate No. A47CE or the 

applicable regulations in effect on the 

date of application for the change to the 

model DA–40. The regulations 

incorporated by reference in the type 

certificate are commonly referred to as 

the ‘‘original type certification basis.’’ 

If the Administrator finds that the 

applicable airworthiness regulations 

(i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards 

for the model DA–40NG because of a 

novel or unusual design feature, special 

conditions are prescribed under the 

provisions of § 21.16. 

In addition to the applicable 

airworthiness regulations and special 

conditions, the model DA–40NG must 

comply with the fuel vent and exhaust 

emission requirements of 14 CFR part 

34 and the noise certification 

requirements of 14 CFR part 36. 

The FAA issues special conditions, as 

appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, under 

§ 11.38, and they become part of the 

type certification basis under 

§ 21.101(b)(2). 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 72091 

Special conditions are initially 

applicable to the model for which they 

are issued. Should the type certificate 

for that model be amended later to 

include any other model that 

incorporates the same novel or unusual 

design feature, or should any other 

model already included on the same 

type certificate be modified to 

incorporate the same novel or unusual 

design feature, the special conditions 

would also apply to the other model 

under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1). 

Novel or Unusual Design Features 

The model DA–40NG will incorporate 

the following novel or unusual design 

features: Electronic engine control 

system. 

Discussion 

As discussed above, these special 

conditions are applicable to the model 

DA–40NG. Should DAI apply at a later 

date for a change to the type certificate 

to include another model incorporating 

the same novel or unusual design 

feature, the special conditions would 

apply to that model. 

Discussion of Comments 

Notice of proposed special conditions 

No. 23–10–03–SC for the Diamond 

Aircraft Industries, model DA–40NG, 

airplane was published on September 7, 

2011 (76FR 55293). No comments were 

received, and the special conditions are 

adopted as proposed. 

Applicability 

As discussed above, these special 

conditions are applicable to the model 

DA–40NG. Should DAI apply at a later 

date for a change to the type certificate 

to include another model incorporating 

the same novel or unusual design 

feature, the special conditions would 

apply to that model. 

Under standard practice, the effective 

date of final special conditions would 

be 30 days after the date of publication 

in the Federal Register; however, as the 

certification date for the Diamond 

Aircraft Industries (DAI), model DA– 

40NG airplane is imminent, the FAA 

finds that good cause exists to make 

these special conditions effective upon 

issuance. 

Conclusion 

This action affects only certain novel 

or unusual design features on one model 

of airplane. It is not a rule of general 

applicability, and it affects only the 

applicant who applied to the FAA for 

approval of these features on the 

airplane. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and 

symbols. 

Citation 

The authority citation for these 

special conditions is as follows: 

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

44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.17; and 14 CFR 

11.38 and 11.19. 

The Special Conditions 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me by the 

Administrator, the following special 

conditions are issued as part of the type 

certification basis for the Diamond 

Aircraft Industry GmbH model DA– 

40NG with the installation of the Austro 

Engine GmbH model E4 aircraft diesel 

engine. 

1. Electronic Engine Control 

a. For electronic engine control 

system installations, it must be 

established that no single failure or 

malfunction or probable combinations 

of failures of Electronic Engine Control 

(EEC) system components will have an 

effect on the system, as installed in the 

airplane, that causes the loss-of-thrustcontrol (LOTC), or loss-of-power-control 

(LOPC) probability of the system to 

exceed those allowed in part 33 

certification. 

b. Electronic engine control system 

installations must be evaluated for 

environmental and atmospheric 

conditions, including lightning. The 

EEC system lightning and High-Intensity 

Radiated Fields (HIRF) effects that result 

in LOTC/LOPC should be considered 

catastrophic. 

c. The components of the installation 

must be constructed, arranged, and 

installed so as to ensure their continued 

safe operation between normal 

inspections or overhauls. 

d. Functions incorporated into any 

electronic engine control that make it 

part of any equipment, systems or 

installation whose functions are beyond 

that of basic engine control, and which 

may also introduce system failures and 

malfunctions, are not exempt from 

§ 23.1309 and must be shown to meet 

part 23 levels of safety as derived from 

§ 23.1309. Part 33 certification data, if 

applicable, may be used to show 

compliance with any part 23 

requirements. If part 33 data is to be 

used to substantiate compliance with 

part 23 requirements, then the part 23 

applicant must be able to provide this 

data for their showing of compliance. 

Note: The term ‘‘probable’’ in the context 

of ‘‘probable combination of failures’’ does 

not have the same meaning as in AC 

23.1309–1D. The term ‘‘probable’’ in 

‘‘probable combination of failures’’ means 

‘‘foreseeable,’’ or (in AC 23.1309–1D terms), 

‘‘not extremely improbable.’’ 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on October 

28, 2011. 

John Colomy, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28616 Filed 11–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–1037; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NE–30–AD; Amendment 39– 

16872; AD 2011–24–08] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca 

S.A. Makila 1A2 Turboshaft Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This AD results 

from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

issued by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

A helicopter experienced an inadvertent 

activation of the 65% N1 (gas generator 

speed) back up control mode. 

The subsequent technical investigations 

carried by Turbomeca revealed that an N2 

(power turbine speed) sensor harness wire 

crimping discrepancy was at the origin of 

this event. Further quality investigations 

performed with the supplier led to the 

conclusion that N2 sensor Part Number (P/N) 

0 301 52 001 0 whose Serial Numbers (S/N) 

are between S/N 242 and S/N 339 inclusive 

are potentially concerned by the same 

manufacturing discrepancy. 

This condition, if not corrected, could lead 

to the inadvertent activation of the 65% N1 

back up mode and consequently to 

significant power loss on one or more or both 

engines installed on the same helicopter, 

potentially resulting in an emergency landing 

of the helicopter. 

We are issuing this AD to prevent 

inadvertent activation of the backup 

control mode, which could result in 

engine power loss and emergency 

landing of the helicopter. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

December 7, 2011. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES