### 47553 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

In addition, the Committee’s meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee
deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the June 5, 2014, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on
small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order’s information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581–0189 Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Texas orange and grapefruit handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically
reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the
use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen
access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this rule.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may
be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at the previously mentioned address in
the **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**
section.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the
information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth,
will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The 2014–15 fiscal period begins on August 1, 2014, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable oranges and grapefruit handled during such fiscal period; (2)

this action decreases the assessment rate for assessable oranges and grapefruit grown in Texas beginning with the 2014–15 fiscal period; (3) handlers are

aware of this action which was recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years; and (4) this interim rule provides a 60-day comment period, and all comments timely received will be considered prior to finalization of this

rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 906

Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 906 is amended as

follows:

**PART 906—ORANGES AND**
**GRAPEFRUIT GROWN IN LOWER RIO**
**GRANDE VALLEY IN TEXAS**

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 906 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

■ 2. Section 906.235 is revised to read

as follows:

**§ 906.235 Assessment rate.**

On and after August 1, 2014, an assessment rate of $0.11 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent is established for oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

Dated: August 11, 2014.

Rex A. Barnes,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.

[FR Doc. 2014–19306 Filed 8–13–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3410–02–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION** 

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 27**

**[Docket No. FAA–2014–0560; Special Conditions No. 27–033–SC]** 

**Special Conditions: Robinson Model R44 and R44 II Helicopters, Installation**  **of HeliSAS Autopilot and Stabilization Augmentation System (AP/SAS)** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Final special conditions; request
for comments.

**SUMMARY :**  These special conditions are
issued for the modification of the Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44 and R44 II helicopters. These model helicopters will have a novel or unusual design feature after installation of the HeliSAS helicopter autopilot/ stabilization augmentation system (AP/ SAS) that has potential failure
conditions with more severe adverse consequences than those envisioned by the existing applicable airworthiness regulations. These special conditions contain the added safety standards the Administrator considers necessary to
ensure the failures and their effects are sufficiently analyzed and contained.

**DATES :**  The effective date of these special conditions is August 4, 2014. We must receive your comments on or before September 29, 2014.

**ADDRESSES :**  Send comments identified by docket number [FAA–2014–0560] using any of the following methods:

• Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

• Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M–30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC

20590–0001.

• Hand Delivery of Courier: Deliver comments to the Docket Operations, in Room W12–140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202–493–2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change,

to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find
and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA


### 47554 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement can be
found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478),
as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12–140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Mark Wiley, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group (ASW–111), 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5134; facsimile (817) 222–5961; or email to mark.wiley@faa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

Reason for No Prior Notice and Comment Before Adoption

The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for public comment are unnecessary because the substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period previously and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. As it is unlikely that we will receive new comments, the FAA finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon

issuance.

Comments Invited

While we did not precede this with a notice of proposed special conditions, we invite interested people to take part in this action by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions
based on the comments we receive.

If you want us to let you know we received your mailed comments onthese special conditions, send us a preaddressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it back to you. Background

On November 1, 2006, the Robinson Helicopter Company applied to amend type certificate (TC) Number H11NM to
install a HeliSAS AP/SAS on the Robinson Helicopter Company model R44 and R44 II helicopters. The Robinson Helicopter Company model R44 and R44 II helicopters are 14 CFR part 27 normal category, single reciprocating engine, conventional helicopters designed for civil operation. These helicopter models are capable of carrying up to four passengers with one pilot, and have a maximum gross weight of up to 2,500 pounds, depending on the model configuration. The major design features include a 2-blade, fully articulated main rotor, an anti-torque tail rotor system, a skid landing gear, and a visual flight rule basic avionics configuration. Robinson Helicopter Company proposes to modify thesemodel helicopters by installing a twoaxis HeliSAS AP/SAS.

Type Certification Basis

Under 14 CFR 21.101, Robinson Helicopter Company must show that the model R44 and R44 II helicopters, as modified by the installed HeliSAS AP/ SAS, continue to meet the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change to the type
certificate. The baseline of the
certification basis for the unmodified Robinson Helicopter Company model R44 and R44 II helicopters is listed in TC Number H11NM. Additionally, compliance must be shown to any applicable equivalent level of safety findings, exemptions, and special conditions prescribed by the Administrator as part of the certification
basis.

The Administrator has determined the applicable airworthiness regulations (that is, 14 CFR part 27), as they pertain to this amended TC, do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Robinson Helicopter Company model R44 and R44 II helicopters because of a novel or unusual design feature. Therefore, special conditions are prescribed under § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Robinson Helicopter Company must show compliance of the
HeliSAS AP/SAS amended TC altered model R44 and R44 II helicopters with the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101(d). Novel or Unusual Design Features
The HeliSAS AP/SAS incorporates novel or unusual design features for installation in a Robinson Helicopter Company model R44 and R44 II helicopter, TC Number H11NM. This HeliSAS AP/SAS performs non-critical control functions, since these model helicopters have been certificated to meet the applicable requirements independent of this system. However, the possible failure conditions for this system, and their effect on the continued safe flight and landing of the helicopters, are more severe than those envisioned by the present rules.

Discussion

The effect on safety is not adequately covered under § 27.1309 for the application of new technology and new application of standard technology. Specifically, the present provisions of § 27.1309(c) do not adequately address the safety requirements for systems
whose failures could result in catastrophic or hazardous/severe-major failure conditions, or for complex systems whose failures could result in major failure conditions. The current regulations are inadequate because when § 27.1309(c) were promulgated, it was not envisioned that this type of rotorcraft would use systems that are complex or whose failure could result in‘‘catastrophic’’ or ‘‘hazardous/severemajor’’ effects on the rotorcraft. This is particularly true with the application of new technology, new application of standard technology, or other applications not envisioned by the rule that affect safety.

To comply with the provisions of the special conditions, we require that Robinson Helicopter Company provide the FAA with a systems safety assessment (SSA) for the final HeliSAS AP/SAS installation configuration that will adequately address the safety objectives established by a functional hazard assessment (FHA) and a preliminary system safety assessment (PSSA), including the fault tree analysis (FTA). This will ensure that all failure conditions and their resulting effects are adequately addressed for the installed HeliSAS AP/SAS. The SSA process, FHA, PSSA, and FTA are all parts of the overall safety assessment process discussed in FAA Advisory Circular 27– 1B (Certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft) and Society of Automotive Engineers document Aerospace
Recommended Practice 4761 (Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment Process on Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment).


### 47555 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

These special conditions require that
the HeliSAS AP/SAS installed on Robinson Helicopter Company model R44 and R44 II helicopter meet the requirements to adequately address the failure effects identified by the FHA, and subsequently verified by the SSA, within the defined design integrity requirements.

Failure Condition Categories. Failure conditions are classified, according to the severity of their effects on the rotorcraft, into one of the following categories:

1. No Effect. Failure conditions that would have no effect on safety. For example, failure conditions that would not affect the operational capability of the rotorcraft or increase crew workload; however, could result in an inconvenience to the occupants, excluding the flight crew.

2. Minor. Failure conditions which would not significantly reduce rotorcraft safety, and which would involve crew
actions that are well within their capabilities. Minor failure conditions would include, for example, a slight reduction in safety margins or functional capabilities, a slight increase in crew workload such as routine flight plan changes or result in some physical discomfort to occupants.

3. Major. Failure conditions which would reduce the capability of the rotorcraft or the ability of the crew to cope with adverse operating conditions to the extent that there would be, for example, a significant reduction in safety margins or functional capabilities, a significant increase in crew workload or result in impairing crew efficiency, physical distress to occupants, including injuries, or physical discomfort to the flight crew.

4. Hazardous/Severe-Major.
a. Failure conditions which would reduce the capability of the rotorcraft or the ability of the crew to cope with adverse operating conditions to the
extent that there would be:

(1) A large reduction in safety margins or functional capabilities;

(2) physical distress or excessive workload that would impair the flight crew’s ability to the extent that they could not be relied on to perform their tasks accurately or completely; or

(3) possible serious or fatal injury to a passenger or a cabin crewmember, excluding the flight crew.

b. ‘‘Hazardous/severe-major’’ failure
conditions can include events that are manageable by the crew by the use of proper procedures, which, if not implemented correctly or in a timely manner, may result in a catastrophic

event. 5. Catastrophic —Failure conditions which would result in multiple fatalities to occupants, fatalities or incapacitation to the flight crew, or result in loss of the
rotorcraft.

Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, Inc. (RTCA) Document DO–178C (Software Considerations in Airborne Systems And Equipment Certification) provides software design assurance levels most commonly used for the major, hazardous/severe-major, and catastrophic failure condition categories. The HeliSAS AP/SAS system equipment must be qualified for the expected installation environment. The test procedures prescribed in RTCA Document DO–160G (Environmental
Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment) are recognized by the FAA as acceptable methodologies for finding compliance with the environmental requirements. Equivalent environment test standards may also be acceptable. This is to show that the HeliSAS AP/SAS system performs its intended function under any foreseeable operating condition, which includes the expected environment in which the HeliSAS AP/SAS is intended to operate.
Some of the main considerations for
environmental concerns are installation locations and the resulting exposure to
environmental conditions for the HeliSAS AP/SAS system equipment, including considerations for other equipment that may be affected environmentally by the HeliSAS AP/ SAS equipment installation. The level of environmental qualification must be related to the severity of the considered
failure conditions and effects on the
rotorcraft.

Applicability

These special conditions are applicable to the HeliSAS AP/SAS installed as an amended TC approval in Robinson Helicopter Company model R44 and R44 II helicopters, TC Number

H11NM.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features for a HeliSAS
AP/SAS amended TC installed on two model helicopters. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 27

Aircraft, Aviation safety. The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572, 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40105, 40113, 44701–44702, 44704,

44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303. The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the Robinson Helicopter Company amended type certificate basis for the installation of a HeliSAS helicopter autopilot/ stabilization augmentation system (AP/ SAS) on model R44 and R44 II helicopters, Type Certificate Number H11NM. In addition to the requirements of § 27.1309(c), HeliSAS AP/SAS installations on Robinson Helicopter company model R44 and R44 II helicopters must be designed and
installed so that the failure conditions
identified in the functional hazard assessment (FHA) and verified by the system safety assessment (SSA), after design completion, are adequately
addressed in accordance with the following requirements.

Requirements

The Robinson Helicopter Company must comply with the existing requirements of § 27.1309 for all applicable design and operational aspects of the HeliSAS AP/SAS with the failure condition categories of ‘‘noeffect,’’ and ‘‘minor,’’ and for noncomplex systems whose failure condition category is classified as ‘‘major.’’ The Robinson Helicopter Company must comply with the requirements of these special conditions for all applicable design and operational aspects of the HeliSAS AP/SAS with the failure condition categories of ‘‘catastrophic’’ and ‘‘hazardous severe/ major,’’ and for complex systems whose failure condition category is classified as ‘‘major.’’ A complex system is a system whose operations, failure conditions, or failure effects are difficult to comprehend without the aid of analytical methods (for example, FTA, Failure Modes and Effect Analysis, FHA).

System Design Integrity Requirements

Each of the failure condition categories defined in these special conditions relate to the corresponding aircraft system integrity requirements. The system design integrity requirements for the HeliSAS AP/SAS, as they relate to the allowed probability
of occurrence for each failure condition category and the proposed software design assurance level, are as follows:

1. ‘‘Major’’—For systems with ‘‘major’’ failure conditions, failures resulting in these major effects must be shown to be remote, a probability of
occurrence on the order of between 1 ×

10

¥ 5 to 1 × 10

¥ 7 failures/hour, and


### 47556 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 157 / Thursday, August 14, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

associated software must be developed, at a minimum, to the Level C software design assurance level.

2. ‘‘Hazardous/Severe-Major’’—For systems with ‘‘hazardous/severe-major’’ failure conditions, failures resulting in these hazardous/severe-major effects must be shown to be extremely remote, a probability of occurrence on the order
of between 1 × 10

¥ 7 to 1 × 10

¥ 9 failures/ hour, and associated software must be developed, at a minimum, to the Level B software design assurance level.

3. ‘‘Catastrophic’’—For systems with ‘‘catastrophic’’ failure conditions, failures resulting in these catastrophic effects must be shown to be extremely improbable, a probability of occurrence
on the order of 1 × 10

¥ 9 failures/hour or less, and associated software must be developed, at a minimum, to the Level A design assurance level.

System Design Environmental Requirements

The HeliSAS AP/SAS system equipment must be qualified to the appropriate environmental level for all relevant aspects to show that it performs its intended function under any foreseeable operating condition, including the expected environment in
which the HeliSAS AP/SAS is intended to operate. Some of the main
considerations for environmental
concerns are installation locations and the resulting exposure to environmental
conditions for the HeliSAS AP/SAS system equipment, including considerations for other equipment that may be affected environmentally by the HeliSAS AP/SAS equipment
installation. The level of environmental qualification must be related to the severity of the considered failure
conditions and effects on the rotorcraft.

Test & Analysis Requirements

Compliance with the requirements of these special conditions may be shown by a variety of methods, which typically consist of analysis, flight tests, ground tests, and simulation, as a minimum. Compliance methodology is related to
the associated failure condition category. If the HeliSAS AP/SAS is a complex system, compliance with the requirements for failure conditions classified as ‘‘major’’ may be shown by analysis, in combination with appropriate testing to validate the analysis. Compliance with the requirements for failure conditions classified as ‘‘hazardous/severe-major’’ may be shown by flight-testing in combination with analysis and simulation, and the appropriate testing to validate the analysis. Flight tests may be limited for ‘‘hazardous/severe-major’’ failure conditions and effects due to safety considerations. Compliance with the requirements for failure conditions classified as ‘‘catastrophic’’ may be shown by analysis, and appropriate testing in combination with simulation to validate the analysis. Very limited flight tests in combination with simulation are used as a part of a showing of compliance for ‘‘catastrophic’’ failure conditions. Flight tests are performed only in circumstances that use operational variations, or extrapolations from other flight performance aspects to address flight safety.

These special conditions require that the HeliSAS AP/SAS system installed on a Robinson Helicopter Company model R44 or R44 II helicopter, Type Certificate Number H11NM, meet these requirements to adequately address the failure effects identified by the FHA, and subsequently verified by the SSA, within the defined design system integrity requirements.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on August 4,

2014.

Lance T. Gant, Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2014–19211 Filed 8–13–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 71**

**[Docket No. FAA–2014–0104; Airspace Docket No. 13–AEA–4]** 

**RIN 2120–AA66**

**Amendment and Revocation of Jet Routes; Northeast United States** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This action modifies jet routes J–64 and J–80, and removes jet route J– 77, in the northeastern United States. The FAA is taking this action to remove segments that are receiving minimal to no usage due to other more efficient
routes in the area. This action
eliminates the unneeded route segments, reduces aeronautical chart clutter and improves chart readability.

**DATES :**  Effective date 0901 UTC, September 18, 2014. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments. **ADDRESSES :**  FAA Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can
be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/

air

_traffic/publications/. The Order is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/ federal

_register/code

_of

_federalregulations/ibr

_locations.html. FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202–

267–8783.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267–8783.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
History

The FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend jet routes J–64 and J–80, and cancel jet route J–77, in the northeastern United States (79 FR 13948, March 12, 2014). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. One comment was received expressing support for the proposal.

The Rule

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying two jet routes and cancelling one jet route in the northeastern United
States to remove inefficient or minimally used route segments. This action makes the following
modifications to the routes:

J–64: J–64 extends between Los Angeles, CA, and Robbinsville, NJ. This
route now terminates at the intersection of the Ravine, PA, 102 ° radial and the
Lancaster, PA, 044 ° radial, instead of Robbinsville, NJ. This new termination point is the charted SARAA fix, which is approximately 65 nautical miles northwest of Robbinsville, NJ.

J–77: J–77 is removed. Numerous other routes are available for navigation between the Baltimore, MD, area and
Boston, MA.

J–80: J–80 extends between Oakland, CA, and Bangor, ME. This route now