### 17182 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2011 / Notices

**ACTION :**  Notice and request for

comments.

**SUMMARY :**  In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The FAA’s Fuel Tank Flammability Safety rulemaking requires manufacturers to provide a report to the FAA every six months for up to 5 years after the flammability reduction system is incorporated into the fleet. The data collection is needed to assure system performance meets that predicted at the time of certification.

**DATES :**  Written comments should be submitted by May 27, 2011.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :** Carla Scott on (202) 267–9895, or by email at: Carla.Scott@faa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

OMB Control Number: 2120–0710. Title: Reduction of Fuel Tank Flammability on Transport Category Airplanes.

Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this collection.

Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.

Background: Design approval holders use flammability analysis documentation to demonstrate to their FAA Oversight Office that they are compliant with the Fuel Tank Flammability Safety rule (73 FR 42443). Semi-annual reports submitted by design approval holders provide listings of component failures discovered during scheduled or unscheduled maintenance so that the reliability of the flammability reduction means can be verified by the
FAA.

Respondents: Approximately 5 design approval holders.

Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.

Estimated Average Burden per Response: 100 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 4,000 hours.

**ADDRESSES :**  Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla Scott, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises Business Services Division, AES–200, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591.

Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA’s performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB’s clearance of this information collection.

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 21,

2011. Carla Scott, FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business Services Division, AES–200.

[FR Doc. 2011–7178 Filed 3–25–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;**  **Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative**  **Feedback on Agency Service Delivery**

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

**ACTION :**  30-Day notice of submission of information collection approval from the Office of Management and Budget and request for comments.

**SUMMARY :**  As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, FAA has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR):

‘‘Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery ’’ to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

**DATES :**  Comments must be submitted by April 27, 2011.

**ADDRESSES :**  Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
oira

_submission@omb.eop.gov, or faxed to (202) 395–6974, or mailed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC

20503.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :** Carla Scott on (202) 267–9895, or by email at: Carla.Scott@faa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

Abstract: The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration’s commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate,methods for assessing potential nonresponse bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

The FAA received no comments in response to the 60-day notice published in the Federal Register of December 22, 2010 (75 FR 80542).


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

1 The 60-day notice included the following estimate of the aggregate burden hours for this generic clearance Federal-wide:

Average Expected Annual Number of activities:
25,000.

Average number of Respondents per Activity:

200.

Annual responses: 5,000,000. Frequency of Response: Once per request. Average minutes per response: 30. Burden hours: 2,500,000. 1 1. DOT/FAA/AM–10/14, The Rudder Survey Technical Report. For a copy, call Sarah Peterson at (405) 954–6840.

2. DOT/FAA/AR–09–5, Pilot Simulations Study to Develop Transport Aircraft Rudder Control System Requirements Phase 1 Simulator Motion System Requirements and Initial Results, Authors Hoh, Desrochers, Niscoll, 18 April 2007.

Note: HAI is about to release another report that has additional and more important results (essentially that pilot tendency to over-control correlates very strongly with pedal travel).

3. DOT/FAA/AR–10/17, Piloted Simulation Study to Develop Transport Aircraft Rudder Control System Requirements Phase 2 Develop Criteria for Rudder Overcontrol, Authors Hoh, Desrochers, Niscoll. Below we provide FAA’s projected average estimates for the next three

years: 1

Current Actions: New collection of information.

Type of Review: New Collection. Affected Public: Individuals and Households, Businesses and Organizations, State, Local or Tribal Government.

Average Expected Annual Number of
activities: 2.

Respondents: 2,813. Annual responses: 2,813. Frequency of Response: Once per request.

Average minutes per response: 15. Burden hours: 704. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA’s performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB’s clearance of this information collection.

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 21,

2011. Carla Scott, FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business Services Division, AES–200.

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

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Transport Airplane and**  **Engine Issues—New Task**

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. **ACTION :**  Notice of new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC).

**SUMMARY :**  The FAA assigned ARAC a new task to consider whether changes to part 25 are necessary to address rudder pedal sensitivity and rudder reversals. This notice is to inform the public of this ARAC activity.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Robert C. Jones, Propulsion/Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM–112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057, telephone (425) 227–1234, facsimile (425) 227–1149; e-mail robert.c.jones@faa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Background

The FAA established the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to provide advice and recommendations to the FAA Administrator on the FAA’s rulemakingactivities with respect to aviationrelated issues. This includes obtaining advice and recommendations on the FAA’s commitments to harmonize Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), with its partners in Europe, Canada, and Brazil; in this instance, on rudder pedal sensitivity and rudder reversals. The committee will address the task under the ARAC’s Transport Airplane and Engine Issues, and will reestablish the Flight Controls Harmonization Working Group, to assist in analysis of this task.

Recent research shows that regardless of training, pilots make inadvertent and erroneous rudder inputs, some of which have resulted in pedal reversals. Accident and incident data show airplanes that have experienced pedal reversals that surpassed the airplane’s structural limit load and sometimes ultimate load. One case resulted in loss of the vertical fin, the airplane and 265 lives.

On November 12, 2001, an Airbus A300–600 crashed at Belle Harbor on climb-out resulting in 265 deaths and an airplane hull loss. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found ‘‘that the probable cause of this accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the first officer’s unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the Airbus A300–600 rudder system design and elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program. ’’ In two additional events, commonly known as the Miami Flight 903 event and the Interflug event, pilot commanded pedal reversals caused A300–600/A310 fins to experience loads greater than their ultimate load level. Both airplanes survived because they possessed greater strength than required by the current standards.

In January 2008, an Airbus 319 encountered a wake vortex. The pilot responded with several pedal reversals. Analysis shows that this caused a fin load exceeding limit load by approximately 29 percent. The pilot eventually stabilized the airplane and safely landed. The Transportation Safety Board (TSB) Canada investigated this event, with the NTSB providing accredited representatives.

On May 27, 2005, a de Havilland DHC–8–100 (Dash 8) airplane (registration C–GZKH, serial number 117) was on a passenger revenue flight from St. John’s to Deer Lake, Newfoundland, with 36 passengers and 3 crew on board. During the climb-out from St. John’s, the indicated airspeed gradually decreased to the point that the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall. The airplane descended rapidly, out of control, losing 4200 feet before recovery was effected approximately 40 seconds later. The incident occurred during daylight hours in instrument meteorological conditions. There were no injuries and the airplane was not damaged. During this event, the pilot commanded a pedal reversal.

The FAA sponsored studies 1 to understand parameters that affect the way pilots use the rudder. These studies included a survey of transport pilots from all over the world and real time piloted flight simulation. One of the studies found that many experienced pilots misused the rudder after wake vortex encounters. A follow-on study showed that the key parameter leading to excessive pedal use is short pedal travel. The analysis of a survey of large airplane pilots found:

1. Pilots use the rudder more than previously thought and often in ways