Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 75435 

(2) Chattels and crops, other than 

horses, 

(3) Other assets owned by the 

applicant, 

(4) Third party pledges of property 

not owned by the applicant, 

(5) Repayment ability under 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Amend paragraph § 764.356 by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 764.356 Appraisal and valuation 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) In the case of an equine loss loan: 

(1) The applicant’s Federal income tax 

and business records will be the 

primary source of financial information. 

Sales receipts, invoices, or other official 

sales records will document the sales 

price of individual animals. 

(2) If the applicant does not have 3 

complete years of business records, the 

Agency will obtain the most reliable and 

reasonable information available from 

sources such as the Cooperative 

Extension Service, universities, and 

breed associations to document 

production for those years for which the 

applicant does not have a complete year 

of business records. 

Signed on November 23, 2011. 

Bruce Nelson, 

Administrator, Farm Service Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31046 Filed 12–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 29 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0413; Amdt. No. 29– 

55] 

RIN 2120–AJ51 

Fatigue Tolerance Evaluation of 

Metallic Structures 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule amends the 

airworthiness standards for fatigue 

tolerance evaluation (FTE) of transport 

category rotorcraft metallic structures. 

This revises the FTE safety requirements 

to address advances in structural fatigue 

substantiation technology for metallic 

structures. This provides an increased 

level of safety by avoiding or reducing 

the likelihood of the catastrophic fatigue 

failure of a metallic structure. These 

increased safety requirements will help 

ensure that should serious accidental 

damage occur during manufacturing or 

within the operational life of the 

rotorcraft, the remaining structure could 

withstand, without failure, any fatigue 

loads that are likely to occur, until the 

damage is detected or the part is 

replaced. Besides improving the safety 

standards for FTE of all principal 

structural elements (PSEs), the 

amendment is harmonized with 

international standards. 

DATES: Effective January 31, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How To Obtain 

Additional Information’’ at the end of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Sharon Y. Miles, 

Regulations and Policy Group, 

Rotorcraft Directorate, ASW–111, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 2601 

Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 

76137–0111; telephone number (817) 

222–5122; facsimile (817) 222–5961; 

email sharon.y.miles@faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Steve C. Harold, 

Directorate Counsel, ASW–7GI, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 2601 

Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 

76137–0007; telephone (817) 222–5099; 

facsimile (817) 222–5945; email 

steve.c.harold@faa.gov. 

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 issued under the 

authority described in Subtitle VII, Part 

A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ‘‘General 

Requirements,’’ Section 44702, 

‘‘Issuance of Certificates,’’ and Section 

44704, ‘‘Type Certificates, Production 

Certificates, and Airworthiness 

Certificates.’’ Under section 44701, the 

FAA is charged with prescribing 

regulations and minimum standards for 

practices, methods, and procedures the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce. Under section 44702, 

the Administrator may issue various 

certificates including type certificates, 

production certificates, air agency 

certificates, and airworthiness 

certificates. Under section 44704, the 

Administrator must issue type 

certificates for aircraft, aircraft engines, 

propellers, and specified appliances 

when the Administrator finds the 

product is properly designed and 

manufactured, performs properly, and 

meets the regulations and minimum 

standards prescribed under section 

44701(a). This regulation is within the 

scope of these authorities because it will 

promote the safety of transport category 

rotorcraft metallic structures by 

updating the existing minimum 

prescribed standards, used during the 

type certification process, to address 

advances in metallic structural fatigue 

substantiation technology. It will also 

harmonize this standard with 

international standards for evaluating 

the fatigue strength of transport category 

rotorcraft metallic primary structural 

elements. 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

This rule for rotorcraft metallic 

structures revises fatigue evaluation 

requirements to improve safety and 

reduce the occurrence of catastrophic 

fatigue failures of metallic structures. 

Some of the more significant revisions 

are summarized below. 

We have determined that the current 

rule is too prescriptive by directing the 

applicant to use specific methodologies 

to meet the safety objective. This 

approach has had the effect of lessening 

the significance of the basic objective of 

evaluating fatigue tolerance because in 

practice, the primary focus is on means 

of compliance. Thus, the entire rule has 

been rewritten to stress the performance 

objectives and deemphasize specific 

methodologies. We deleted all 

references to specific FTE methods (that 

is, flaw tolerant safe-life, fail-safe, and 

safe-life). The words ‘‘flaw tolerant’’ and 

‘‘fail-safe’’ have different meanings 

depending on usage. Instead, we now 

use ‘‘fatigue tolerance’’ which 

encompasses the entire fatigue 

evaluation process (including crack 

initiation, crack growth, and final 

failure) with or without the influence of 

damage. 

Industry currently uses a variety of 

FTE methods; all of these methods have 

merit and could potentially be effective, 

depending on the specifics of the 

damage being addressed. To reflect this 

flexibility, the amended rule requires a 

specific result (that is, inspection, 

retirement times, or equivalent means to 

avoid catastrophic failure), but does not 

specify the method to achieve this 

result. However, this rule does require 

that all methods be validated by testing, 

and that the Administrator must 

approve the methodology used for 

compliance. 

We have determined that, in general, 

standards for the safest metallic 

structures use both inspections and 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
75436 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

retirement times together to mitigate the 

risk of catastrophic failure due to 

fatigue. Consequently, § 29.571(h) 

requires inspections and retirement 

times or approved equivalent means to 

be established to avoid catastrophic 

failure, resulting in an increased level of 

safety for metallic structures. 

Also, we added a key element to the 

FTE: the identification of all threats that 

need to be considered to quantify 

damage to metallic structures. 

Accordingly, paragraph (e)(4) of 

§ 29.571 requires a threat assessment for 

all identified PSEs. 

We recognize that an inspection 

approach may not be possible for some 

kinds of damage. Thus, we include a 

provision that would not require 

inspections if effective inspections 

cannot be established within the 

limitations of geometry, inspectability, 

or good design practice. In this instance, 

other FAA approved procedures must 

be implemented to minimize the 

probability of the damage occurring or 

contributing to a catastrophic failure. 

The following table contains an 

overview of the costs and benefits 

associated with the rule. 

TABLE 1—PRESENT VALUE BENEFITS AND COSTS—27 YEARS

Benefits (27 years) accidents 

averted Costs 

(millions) 

(27 years) 

Benifits minus 

costs 

(27 years) 

Revised rule 

effectiveness 

(percent) Number $Value 

(millions) 

2 ....................................................................................................... $5.6 $2.9 $2.7 22 

5 ....................................................................................................... 14.1 2.9 11.2 56 

9 ....................................................................................................... 25.4 2.9 22.5 100 

03/16/2011 

II. Background 

Rotorcraft fatigue strength reduction 

or failure may occur due to aging, 

temperature, moisture absorption, 

impact damage, or other factors. Since a 

reduction in strength of any primary 

structural element can lead to a 

catastrophic failure, it is important to 

evaluate fatigue tolerance. 

A FTE provides a strength assessment 

of PSEs. It requires the applicant to 

evaluate the strength of various 

rotorcraft components including—but 

not limited to—rotors, rotor drive 

systems between the engines and the 

main and tail rotor hubs, controls, 

fuselage, fixed and movable control 

surfaces, engine and transmission 

mountings, landing gear, and their 

related primary attachments. A FTE of 

PSEs is performed to determine the 

appropriate required inspections and 

retirement times to avoid catastrophic 

failure during the operational life of the 

rotorcraft. 

The current regulations do not 

address advances in structural fatigue 

substantiation technology for metallic 

structures (for example, advances in the 

safe-life methodology, and 

developments in crack growth 

methodology) required for the unique 

characteristics of a rotorcraft. This rule 

addresses those advances and amends 

the airworthiness standards for FTE of 

transport category rotorcraft metallic 

structures. 

Fatigue Evaluation Techniques and 

Requirements 

In the 1950s, safe-life methodology, 

such as described in AC 27–1B, MG 11, 

was used to evaluate the occurrence of 

fatigue conditions in rotorcraft dynamic 

components to establish retirement 

times. Historically, this methodology 

has provided satisfactory reliability for 

transport category rotorcraft. In 

addition, manufacturers included 

routine inspections in their 

maintenance programs to detect 

damage, such as scratches, corrosion, 

wear, or cracks. These inspections were 

not based on analysis or tests, but rather 

on experience with similar designs, 

engineering judgment, and good design 

practices. The inspections helped 

minimize the effect of damage when the 

rotorcraft was being operated. 

In the 1980s, industry recognized that 

a higher reliability for fatigue critical 

structural components may be achieved 

by considering the strength reducing 

effects of damage that can occur during 

manufacture or operation. About that 

same time, rotorcraft manufacturers 

were introducing advanced composite 

materials for fatigue critical components 

in their rotorcraft. 

The introduction of composites led 

manufacturers and regulatory 

authorities to develop a more robust 

safe-life methodology by considering the 

specific static and fatigue-strength 

reduction effects due to aging, 

temperature, moisture absorption, 

impact damage, and other factors. 

Furthermore, where clearly visible 

damage resulted from impact or other 

sources, inspection programs were 

developed to maintain safety. 

With these developments, crack 

growth methodology has been used 

successfully for solving short-term 

airworthiness issues in metallic 

structures of rotorcraft and in the 

certification of civil and military 

transport aircraft. These advances in 

design, analytical methods, and other 

industry practices have made it feasible 

to address certain types of damage that 

could result in fatigue failure. 

Consistent with these technological 

advancements, the regulatory 

requirements of § 29.571 were 

substantially revised by Amendment 

29–28 (54 FR 43930, October 27, 1989). 

Although Amendment 29–28 became 

effective in 1989, it has rarely been used 

for certification of completely new 

rotorcraft designs because there have 

been only a limited number of new 

rotorcraft designs since it was adopted. 

However, despite the limited 

opportunity for actual application of 

Amendment 29–28, the rotorcraft 

community’s general understanding of 

rotorcraft FTE has developed 

considerably. Also, there has been much 

discussion within the technical 

community about the meaning of 

Amendment 29–28 and the merits of its 

prescribed fatigue tolerance 

methodologies. 

These methodologies, discussed in 

Amendment 29–28, have been the 

subject of a series of meetings between 

the FAA, the rotorcraft industry, and the 

Technical Oversight Group for Aging 

Aircraft (TOGAA). These meetings and 

the industry’s position concerning 

rotorcraft fatigue and damage tolerance 

were documented in a White Paper, 

‘‘Rotorcraft Fatigue and Damage 

Tolerance.’’ 

The rotorcraft industry White Paper 

recommended that safe-life methods 

should be complemented by damage 

tolerance methods, but also 

recommended retention of the flaw 

tolerant safe-life method, introduced in 

Amendment 29–28, as an available 

option. However, in 1999, TOGAA 

recommended that current safe-life 

methods be complemented by damage 

tolerance assessment methods and that 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 75437 

the flaw tolerant safe-life method be 

removed from the regulations. Because 

both groups recommended various 

methods of evaluating fatigue, the FAA 

decided to consider revision of the 

regulations. 

The FAA tasked the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) in 1991 to study the need to 

revise the regulations on fatigue 

evaluation in light of advances in 

technology and operational procedures 

and to develop regulatory 

recommendations. 

The ARAC working group for this rule 

evaluated the industry White Paper, 

TOGAA’s recommendations, and the 

continuing activities and results of 

rotorcraft damage tolerance research and 

development. Consequently, the 

working group recommended changes to 

the fatigue evaluation requirements for 

transport category rotorcraft found in 14 

CFR 29.571 to address advances in 

technology and damage tolerance 

assessment methodologies. ARAC 

accepted those recommendations and 

presented them to the FAA. This rule is 

consistent with ARAC’s 

recommendations. 

The Industry White Paper ‘‘Rotorcraft 

Fatigue and Damage Tolerance,’’ 

prepared for the TOGAA, January 1999, 

and the TOGAA memo to the FAA, 

dated 15 March 1999, are located in the 

docket. 

A. Statement of the Problem 

Before current Amendment 29–28, 

there was no requirement to assess the 

impact of damage on the fatigue 

performance of any rotorcraft structure. 

The strategy used to manage fatigue was 

limited to retirement of the rotorcraft 

part or component before the probability 

of crack initiation became significant, 

and the ‘‘safe-life’’ method was used to 

establish retirement times. 

It was generally agreed, based on inservice experience, that not accounting 

for damage could be a serious 

shortcoming. Therefore, Amendment 

29–28 requires the applicant to consider 

damage when performing fatigue 

evaluations unless it establishes that, for 

a particular structure, damage 

evaluation cannot be achieved within 

the limitations of geometry, 

inspectability, or good design practice. 

Amendment 29–28 prescribes two new 

methods to account for damage (‘‘flaw 

tolerant safe-life’’ and ‘‘fail-safe’’), 

referred to as flaw tolerant methods. The 

original (‘‘safe-life’’) method contained 

in Amendment 29–28 can be used if 

either of the two new methods requiring 

damage evaluation is not achievable 

within the limitations of geometry, 

inspectability, or good design practice. 

Within the context of current 

§ 29.571, the ‘‘flaw tolerant safe-life’’ 

method and the ‘‘fail-safe’’ method are 

considered equivalent options. The 

‘‘flaw tolerant safe-life’’ method is based 

on crack initiation time in purposely 

‘‘flawed’’ PSEs to determine retirement 

time. The flaw tolerant ‘‘fail-safe’’ 

method is based on a crack growth life 

in a purposely ‘‘flawed’’ PSE to 

determine inspection requirements. 

The ‘‘safe-life’’ method is based on a 

crack initiation time in a ‘‘non-flawed’’ 

PSE to determine a retirement life. 

Although the ‘‘safe-life’’ method does 

not explicitly account for any damage, 

under current § 29.571, it is the 

prescribed default fatigue evaluation 

method if the applicant shows that 

neither of the flaw tolerant methods can 

be achieved within the limitations of 

geometry, inspectability, or good design 

practice. 

One of the primary issues the working 

group addressed was the equivalency of 

the two flaw tolerant methods. While 

both can be used to assess damage, their 

equivalency, from a technical 

perspective, is difficult to evaluate 

without specific factual details. To 

address this concern, the working group 

considered two issues: establishing 

inspection requirements using the flaw 

tolerant safe-life method, and 

establishing retirement times using the 

fail-safe method. While both are 

theoretically possible, their 

effectiveness cannot be evaluated 

without considering the details of a 

specific application. Additionally, while 

using the flaw tolerant safe-life method 

for establishing an inspection interval is 

not within the intent of the Amendment 

29–28, the fail-safe method for 

establishing retirement times has been 

accepted as meeting its intent. 

B. Related Actions 

The FAA has a separate rulemaking 

activity to address FTE of a composite 

structure. Because rotorcraft 

manufacturers increased the use of 

advanced composite materials for their 

rotorcraft structural components, we 

determined that a separate requirement 

specific to composite structures is 

required to address the unique 

characteristics and structural capability 

of composite structures. 

C. Summary of the NPRM 

The FAA published the NPRM for this 

rule in the Federal Register on March 

12, 2010 (75 FR 11799). The comment 

period for the NPRM was scheduled to 

close on June 10, 2010. In response to 

a European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) request, the FAA extended the 

comment period closing date to July 30, 

2010 (published in the Federal Register 

May 5, 2010, 75 FR 24501). The FAA 

received 3 comments from Transport 

Canada. 

D. General Overview of Comments 

Although the 3 comments are 

discussed more fully in the discussion 

section of this final rule, in summary, 

they deal with the following two 

subjects: 

• Acceptability in rotorcraft of some 

PSE structures crack growth 

methodology allowed in fixed-wing 

aircraft; and 

• Suggested rewording of paragraph 

(f) for clarification. 

III. Discussion of Public Comments and 

Final Rule 

A. Acceptability in Rotorcraft of Some 

PSE Structures Crack Growth 

Methodology Allowed in Fixed-Wing 

Aircraft 

Transport Canada asked if some PSEs 

on rotorcraft, especially airframe 

structures, may be considered to meet 

the inspection requirement without 

being subjected to a requirement for 

retirement based solely on the crack 

growth methodology. The commenter 

believes that the crack growth 

methodology may be used for fixedwing aircraft to determine inspection 

intervals (and, in the process, inspection 

techniques) without requiring the 

retirement of the PSEs. 

Because of the vastly different 

dynamic characteristics of rotorcraft 

when compared to fixed-wing aircraft, 

we do not concur with the commenter’s 

proposal. The rule requires both 

appropriate inspections and a 

retirement time. If an inspection cannot 

be established within the limits of 

geometry, inspectability, or good design 

practice, then the applicant must 

establish supplemental procedures in 

conjunction with the PSE retirement 

time. This rule does not allow 

inspections only for PSEs. The rule 

requires inspections and retirement 

times. If inspections cannot be 

established within certain conditions, 

then supplemental procedures, in 

conjunction with the PSE retirement 

time, must be established. Therefore, the 

FAA is adopting the rules as proposed 

in the NPRM. 

B. Rewording of Paragraph (f) for 

Clarification 

Transport Canada suggested that 

paragraph (f) needs rewording to avoid 

possible misunderstanding or 

misinterpretation. It comments that: 

• The term ‘‘allowable damage’’ has 

been widely used by some aircraft 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
75438 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

manufacturers to set a limit for the 

damages, below which there is no need 

for repair. The commenter suggested 

this sentence should be reworded to 

clearly indicate that the residual 

strength of the remaining structures is 

required to successfully carry limit 

loads. 

• If the second sentence of paragraph 

(f) is intended to require a 

determination of the critical size of 

damage in order to determine inspection 

intervals, the phrase ‘‘within its 

operational life’’ should be removed. 

However, if it is intended to require 

limit loads to be applied to ensure that, 

within an inspection interval, the 

remaining structures would carry 

successfully the limit loads, the phrase 

‘‘within its operational life’’ should be 

replaced with ‘‘within an inspection 

interval.’’ 

As used in the proposal, the FAA 

intends the ‘‘allowable damage’’ to be 

the maximum damage at which the 

rotorcraft structure is capable of 

carrying the limit load. This ‘‘allowable 

damage’’ would be determined during 

the FTE. Once the rotorcraft is in 

service, any damage detected during an 

inspection interval must be repaired or 

the part must be replaced before further 

flight. 

The residual strength is based on the 

maximum damage determined from the 

threat assessment for which the 

structure retains its limit load 

capability. During the damage growth, 

the damage may be undetected for some 

time between inspection intervals. 

Thus, the applicant must show that the 

structure retains its limit load capability 

for a determined maximum damage 

when evaluating the residual strength in 

order to avoid a catastrophic failure. To 

clarify this requirement, we have 

reworded paragraph (f). 

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 directs that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. We 

suggest readers seeking greater detail 

read the full regulatory evaluation, a 

copy of which we have placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined that this final rule: 

(1) Has benefits that justify its costs; 

(2) Is not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866; 

(3) Is ‘‘non-significant’’ as defined in 

DOT’s Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures; 

(4) Will have a non-significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities; 

(5) Will not have a significant effect 

on international trade; and 

(6) Will not impose an unfunded 

mandate on state, local, or Tribal 

governments, or on the private sector by 

exceeding the monetary threshold 

identified. 

These analyses are summarized 

below. 

Total Benefits and Costs of This 

Rulemaking 

The estimated total cost of this final 

rule is about $9.0 million ($2.9 million 

in present value at 7% for 27 years). The 

estimated potential benefits of avoiding 

at least two of the 9 avoidable historical 

transport category helicopter accidents 

are worth about $12.9 million ($5.6 

million in present value). 

Who is potentially affected by this 

rulemaking? 

• Manufacturers of U.S.-registered 

part 29 rotorcraft, and 

• Operators of part 29 rotorcraft. 

Our Cost Assumptions and Sources of 

Information. 

• Discount rate—7%. 

• Period of analysis of 27 years equals 

the 27 years of National Transportation 

Safety Board accident history. During 

this period manufacturers will seek new 

certifications for six part 29 rotorcraft 

and the total new production 

helicopters are estimated to be about 

1,300. 

• Value of fatality avoided—$5.8 

million (Source: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Treatment of the Value 

of a Statistical Life in Department 

Analyses, February 5, 2008.) 

Benefits of This Rule 

The benefits of this final rule consist 

of the value of lives and property saved 

due to avoiding accidents involving part 

29 rotorcraft. Nine Transport Category 

rotorcraft accidents could have been 

avoided by this rule over the past 27- 

year historical period. The potential 

benefit of this final rule will be to avoid 

at least two of these accidents with a 

value of approximately $12.9 million 

($5.6 million in present value). 

Cost of This Rule 

We estimate the costs of this final rule 

to be about $9.0 million ($2.9 million in 

present value) over the 27-year analysis 

period. Manufacturers of 14 CFR part 29 

rotorcraft will incur costs of $532,000 

($293,000 in present value) and 

operators of 14 CFR part 29 helicopters 

will incur costs of $8.5 million ($2.6 

million in present value). 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of 

regulatory issuance that agencies shall 

endeavor, consistent with the objective 

of the rule and of applicable statutes, to 

fit regulatory and informational 

requirements to the scale of the 

business, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, 

the RFA requires agencies to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of 

small entities, including small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a proposed or final 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. If the agency determines that it 

will, the agency must prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis as 

described in the Act. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a proposed or final rule is not expected 

to have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 75439 

determination, and the reasoning should 

be clear. 

No comments were received on the 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination in 

the NPRM. 

This final rule will affect rotorcraft 

manufacturers and rotorcraft operators. 

Therefore, the effect on potential small 

entities is analyzed separately for 

helicopter manufacturers and operators. 

Part 29 Helicopter Manufacturers 

Size Standards 

Size standards for small entities are 

published by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) on their Web site 

at http://www.sba.gov/size. The size 

standards used herein are from ‘‘SBA 

U.S. Small Business Administration, 

Table of Small Business Size Standards, 

Matched to North American Industry 

Classification System Codes’’. The Table 

is effective August 22, 2008 and uses the 

2007 NAICS codes. 

Helicopter manufacturers are listed in 

the above Table under Sector 31–33— 

Manufacturing; Subsector 336— 

Transportation Equipment 

Manufacturing; NAICS Code 336411— 

Aircraft Manufacturing. The small entity 

size standard is 1,500 employees. 

Table R1 shows the three U.S. part 29 

helicopter manufacturers, Bell, Erickson 

Air Crane and Sikorsky. Erickson Air 

Crane, with 800 employees, is the only 

part 29 helicopter manufacturer to 

qualify as a small entity. In addition, 

Erickson Air Crane currently specializes 

in the production of the S–64 Sky Crane 

and is not expected to obtain new 

helicopter certifications. Therefore, it is 

not anticipated that this final rule will 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of part 29 

helicopter manufacturers. 

Part 29 Helicopter Operators 

Size Standards 

While there are only three part 29 

helicopter manufacturers in the United 

States, there are many operators of part 

29 helicopters. Each of these operators 

may provide only one, or many services. 

These services range from off-shore 

transportation, executive transportation, 

fire-fighting services, Emergency 

Medical Services (EMS), and training to 

maintenance, repair, and modification 

services. 

The SBA lists small entity size 

standards for air transportation under 

Sector 44–45, Retail Trade, Subsector 

481, Air Transportation. The small 

entity size standards are 1,500 

employees for scheduled and 

nonscheduled charter passenger and 

freight transportation. This standard is 

$28.0 million annually if the passenger 

or freight air transportation is offshore 

marine air transportation. Finally, the 

small entity size standard for other— 

non-scheduled air transportation is 

$7.0 million annually. 

PHI, Inc. is one of the largest 

helicopter operators in the world. 

According to PHI’s 2007 Annual Report, 

in 2007 they employed approximately 

2,254 full time employees and had 

annual revenues of $446.4 million. 

We have been unable to obtain the 

number of operators and the number of 

employees per operator. Therefore, we 

take the worst case scenario and assume 

that all operators will meet the SBA 

definition of a small entity. Thus, this 

final rule will affect a substantial 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULESER02DE11.095</GPH>
75440 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

number of transport category helicopter 

operators. 

Based on the information received 

from industry representatives, the cost 

of this final rule to a part 29 helicopter 

operator will be $1,600 for an inspection 

that must be performed every three 

years on each part 29 helicopter that is 

certificated under this final rule. This 

will be approximately $550 per 

helicopter per year. According to Bell 

Helicopter Product Specifications for 

the Bell 430 (a part 29 helicopter), 

January 2005, the direct operating cost 

of one flight hour is $671.44. Therefore, 

the final rule will add less than one 

direct hour of operating costs per year 

to a typical part 29 helicopter. Although 

this will be an increase in costs, this 

will not be a substantial increase in 

costs. 

Consequently, as the FAA 

Administrator, I certify that this final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of part 29 rotorcraft 

manufacturers or operators. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, establishing 

standards is not considered an 

unnecessary obstacle to the foreign 

commerce of the United States, so long 

as the standard has a legitimate 

domestic objective, such as the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

The FAA has assessed the potential 

effect of this final rule and incorporates 

international standards in this 

regulation and therefore is in 

compliance with the Trade Agreements 

Act. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

1 year by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector; such a mandate is 

deemed to be a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action.’’ The FAA currently uses an 

inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 

million in lieu of $100 million. This 

final rule does not contain such a 

mandate. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

requires that the FAA consider the 

impact of paperwork and other 

information collection burdens imposed 

on the public. According to the 1995 

amendments to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), 

an agency may not collect or sponsor 

the collection of information, nor may it 

impose any information collection 

requirement unless it displays a 

currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) control number. 

This final rule will impose the 

following new information collection 

requirements. As required by 44 U.S.C. 

3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, the FAA has submitted the 

information collection requirements 

associated with this rule to OMB for its 

review. Notice of OMB approval for this 

information collection will be published 

in a future Federal Register document. 

Summary: This rule revises the FTE 

safety requirements to address advances 

in structural fatigue substantiation 

technology for metallic structures. An 

increased level of safety will be 

provided by avoiding or reducing 

catastrophic fatigue failures of metallic 

structures. These increased safety 

requirements will help ensure that 

should accidental damage occur during 

manufacturing or within the operational 

life of the rotorcraft, the remaining 

structure could, without failure, 

withstand fatigue loads that are likely to 

occur until the damage is detected and 

repaired or the part is replaced. In 

addition to improving the safety 

standards for FTE of all PSE, the 

amendment would lead to a harmonized 

international standard. 

Public comments: No public 

comments were received on the 

information collection requirements 

discussed in the NPRM. 

Use: To obtain type certification of a 

rotorcraft, an applicant must show that 

the rotorcraft complies with specific 

certification requirements. To show 

compliance, the applicant must submit 

substantiating data. FAA engineers or 

designated engineering representatives 

from industry will review the required 

data submittals to determine if the 

rotorcraft complies with the applicable 

minimum safety requirements for 

fatigue critical rotorcraft metallic 

structures and that the rotorcraft has no 

unsafe features in the metallic 

structures. 

Respondents (including number of): 

The likely respondents to this proposed 

information requirement are applicants 

for certification of fatigue critical 

metallic parts for transport category 

helicopters. A conservative estimate of 

the number of applicants affected by 

this amendment would average 2 

certification applicants every 10 years. 

Frequency: The frequency of 

collection of this information is 

established as needed by the respondent 

to meet their certification schedule. The 

respondent must submit the required 

information prior to type certification, 

which can span a number of years. 

Annual Burden Estimate: There will 

be 71.7 annual certification reporting 

and record keeping hours. The 

corresponding annual inspection hours 

are 197.1 (see table 12–1). The total 

annual certification reporting and 

record keeping hours are $7,167. The 

corresponding annual inspection costs 

are $11,827 (see table 13–1). 

TABLE 12–1—ESTIMATED HOUR BURDEN OF INFORMATION COLLECTION REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING

Item Number of 

hours 

Certification Reporting and Recordkeeping Hours 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hours per Certification ....................................................................................................................... 322.5 

New Certifications ................................................................................................................................................................................ 6.0 

Total Certification Reporting and Recordkeeping Hours ..................................................................................................................... 1,935.0 

Number of Years ................................................................................................................................................................................. 27.0 

Annual Certification Reporting and Recordkeeping Hours 71.7 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 75441 

TABLE 12–1—ESTIMATED HOUR BURDEN OF INFORMATION COLLECTION REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING—Continued 

Item Number of 

hours 

Inspection Reporting and Recordkeeping Hours 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hours per Inspection .......................................................................................................................... 1.0 

Total Aircraft Inspections ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5,322.0 

Total Inspection Reporting and Recordkeeping Hours ....................................................................................................................... 5,322.0 

Number of Years ................................................................................................................................................................................. 27.0 

Annual Inspection Reporting and Recordkeeping Hours 197.1 

TABLE 13–1—ESTIMATED HOUR BURDEN AND COSTS OF INFORMATION COLLECTION REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING

Item Number of 

hours/costs 

Certification Reporting and Recordkeeping Hours and Costs 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hours per Certification ....................................................................................................................... 322.5 

New Certifications ................................................................................................................................................................................ 6.0 

Total Certification Reporting and Recordkeeping Hours ..................................................................................................................... 1,935.0 

Unit Cost (Per Hour) ............................................................................................................................................................................ $100 

Total Certification Reporting and Recordkeeping Costs ..................................................................................................................... $193,500 

Number of Years ................................................................................................................................................................................. 27.0 

Annual Certification Reporting and Recordkeeping Hours ................................................................................................................. 71.7 

Annual Certification Reporting and Recordkeeping Costs $7,167 

Inspection Reporting and Recordkeeping Hours 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hours per Inspection .......................................................................................................................... 1.0 

Total Aircraft Inspections ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5,322.0 

Total Inspection Reporting and Recordkeeping Hours ....................................................................................................................... 5,322.0 

Unit Cost (Per Inspection) ................................................................................................................................................................... $60 

Total Inspection Reporting and Recordkeeping Costs ........................................................................................................................ $319,320 

Number of Years ................................................................................................................................................................................. 27.0 

Annual Inspection Reporting and Recordkeeping Hours .................................................................................................................... 197.1 

Annual Inspection Reporting and Recordkeeping Costs $11,827 

F. International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these regulations. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312F and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

H. Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the FAA, when 

modifying its regulations in a manner 

affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to 

consider the extent to which Alaska is 

not served by transportation modes 

other than aviation, and to establish 

appropriate regulatory distinctions. In 

the NPRM, the FAA requested 

comments on whether the proposed rule 

should apply differently to intrastate 

operations in Alaska. The agency did 

not receive any comments, and has 

determined, based on the administrative 

record of this rulemaking, that there is 

no need to make any regulatory 

distinctions applicable to intrastate 

aviation in Alaska. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency determined that this action will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, or the relationship between 

the Federal Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have Federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

VI. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of this rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

Internet. 

1. Search the Federal Docket 

Management System at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
75442 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/or 

3. Access the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. 

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 in 14 CFR Part 29 

Aircraft, Aviation 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 29—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT 

CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 29 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44704 

■ 2. Revise § 29.571 to read as follows: 

§ 29.571 Fatigue Tolerance Evaluation of 

Metallic Structure. 

(a) A fatigue tolerance evaluation of 

each principal structural element (PSE) 

must be performed, and appropriate 

inspections and retirement time or 

approved equivalent means must be 

established to avoid catastrophic failure 

during the operational life of the 

rotorcraft. The fatigue tolerance 

evaluation must consider the effects of 

both fatigue and the damage determined 

under paragraph (e)(4) of this section. 

Parts to be evaluated include PSEs of 

the rotors, rotor drive systems between 

the engines and rotor hubs, controls, 

fuselage, fixed and movable control 

surfaces, engine and transmission 

mountings, landing gear, and their 

related primary attachments. 

(b) For the purposes of this section, 

the term— 

(1) Catastrophic failure means an 

event that could prevent continued safe 

flight and landing. 

(2) Principal structural element (PSE) 

means a structural element that 

contributes significantly to the carriage 

of flight or ground loads, and the fatigue 

failure of that structural element could 

result in catastrophic failure of the 

aircraft. 

(c) The methodology used to establish 

compliance with this section must be 

submitted to and approved by the 

Administrator. 

(d) Considering all rotorcraft 

structure, structural elements, and 

assemblies, each PSE must be identified. 

(e) Each fatigue tolerance evaluation 

required by this section must include: 

(1) In-flight measurements to 

determine the fatigue loads or stresses 

for the PSEs identified in paragraph (d) 

of this section in all critical conditions 

throughout the range of design 

limitations required by § 29.309 

(including altitude effects), except that 

maneuvering load factors need not 

exceed the maximum values expected in 

operations. 

(2) The loading spectra as severe as 

those expected in operations based on 

loads or stresses determined under 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section, 

including external load operations, if 

applicable, and other high frequency 

power-cycle operations. 

(3) Takeoff, landing, and taxi loads 

when evaluating the landing gear and 

other affected PSEs. 

(4) For each PSE identified in 

paragraph (d) of this section, a threat 

assessment which includes a 

determination of the probable locations, 

types, and sizes of damage, taking into 

account fatigue, environmental effects, 

intrinsic and discrete flaws, or 

accidental damage that may occur 

during manufacture or operation. 

(5) A determination of the fatigue 

tolerance characteristics for the PSE 

with the damage identified in paragraph 

(e)(4) of this section that supports the 

inspection and retirement times, or 

other approved equivalent means. 

(6) Analyses supported by test 

evidence and, if available, service 

experience. 

(f) A residual strength determination 

is required that substantiates the 

maximum damage size assumed in the 

fatigue tolerance evaluation. In 

determining inspection intervals based 

on damage growth, the residual strength 

evaluation must show that the 

remaining structure, after damage 

growth, is able to withstand design limit 

loads without failure. 

(g) The effect of damage on stiffness, 

dynamic behavior, loads, and functional 

performance must be considered. 

(h) Based on the requirements of this 

section, inspections and retirement 

times or approved equivalent means 

must be established to avoid 

catastrophic failure. The inspections 

and retirement times or approved 

equivalent means must be included in 

the Airworthiness Limitations Section 

of the Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness required by Section 

29.1529 and Section A29.4 of Appendix 

A of this part. 

(i) If inspections for any of the damage 

types identified in paragraph (e)(4) of 

this section cannot be established 

within the limitations of geometry, 

inspectability, or good design practice, 

then supplemental procedures, in 

conjunction with the PSE retirement 

time, must be established to minimize 

the risk of occurrence of these types of 

damage that could result in a 

catastrophic failure during the 

operational life of the rotorcraft. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

22, 2011. 

J. Randolph Babbitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–30941 Filed 12–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–1328; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–CE–037–AD; Amendment 

39–16880; AD 2011–25–04] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Quest 

Aircraft Design, LLC Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES