This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

59873 

Vol. 77, No. 190 

Monday, October 1, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0562; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–CE–015–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna 

Aircraft Company Airplanes; Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Availability of an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

availability of and request for comments 

on the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis for the previously published 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

on Cessna Aircraft Company 310, 320, 

340, 401, 402, 411, 414, and 421 

airplanes regarding the installation of 

placards requiring flight limitations in 

icing conditions. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 15, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jason Brys, Flight Test Engineer, FAA, 

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 

1801 S. Airport Road, Room 100, 

Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 

946–4100; fax: (316) 946–4107; email: 

jason.brys@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on June 3, 2011 (76 FR 32103). 

That NPRM proposed to require you to 

install a placard that prohibits flight 

into known icing conditions and install 

a placard that increases published speed 

on approach 17 miles per hour (mph) 

(15 knots) in case of an inadvertent 

encounter with icing. 

Reason for This Action 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (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 businesses, 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. In accordance with Section 608 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an 

agency head may waive or delay 

completion of some or all of the 

requirements of Section 603 by 

providing a written finding that this 

final rule is being promulgated in 

response to an emergency that makes 

compliance or timely compliance with 

the provisions of Section 603 

impracticable. 

Based on the comments received 

following publication of the NPRM, we 

have re-evaluated our certification 

under the RFA that the proposed rule 

will not, if promulgated, have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Based on our 

re-evaluation, we have determined that 

the proposed rule will, if promulgated, 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Consequently, we have completed an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(IRFA) and request comments from 

affected small entities. The purpose of 

this analysis is to identify the number 

of small entities affected, assess the 

economic impact of the proposed 

regulation on them, and consider less 

burdensome alternatives and still meet 

the agency’s statutory objectives. 

Section 603(a) of the RFA requires that 

each initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis contain: 

1. A description of the reasons action 

by the agency is being considered; 

2. A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule; 

3. A description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the proposed 

rule will apply; 

4. A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of 

the classes of small entities that will be 

subject to the requirement and the type 

of professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; 

5. To the extent practicable, an 

identification of all relevant Federal 

rules that may duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the proposed rule; and 

6. A description of any significant 

alternatives to the proposed rule that 

accomplish the stated objectives of 

applicable statues and that minimize 

any significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities. 

A brief description of each of these 

criteria is discussed below. A full 

discussion, footnote references, tables, 

and appendix included in the full IRFA 

can be found in the docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=FAA2011–0562. 

1. A Description of the Reasons Action 

by the Agency Is Being Considered 

For the airplanes listed in Cessna 

Aircraft Company (Cessna) Service 

Bulletin MEB97–4, the actions required 

by the proposed rule will prohibit flight 

into known icing conditions. An 

investigation of the airplanes affected by 

the proposed rule showed 52 icingmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

59874 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

related incidents and accidents over the 

last 30 years resulting in 36 fatalities. 

The non-fatal accidents have usually 

resulted in injuries and substantial 

aircraft damage. 

Although many of these airplanes are 

equipped with optional deicing boots 

and other deicing (or icing prevention) 

equipment, the manufacturer never 

intended that they should be flown into 

known icing. However, the original 

certification basis for these airplanes did 

not incorporate Amendment 7 (May 3, 

1962) of CAR 3, requiring manufacturers 

to provide a placard specifying the types 

of operations and meteorological 

conditions (e.g. icing conditions) to 

which the operation of the aircraft is 

limited by the equipment installed (CAR 

3 § 3.772). As a result, with operational 

deicing equipment these airplanes may 

be qualified to fly into known light or 

moderate icing condition under 14 CFR 

135.227(c)(1) and may even be allowed 

to fly into known icing conditions under 

14 CFR 91.9. In 1973, new part 23 

certification rules became effective. 

Some of the later production of the 

affected Cessna models added new and 

improved equipment in order to 

recertify under the new requirements. 

However, production under previous 

type certificates continued as late as 

1976. 

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the 

Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule would require 

owners or operators to install a placard 

prohibiting flight into known icing 

conditions. With the limited deicing 

equipment of the affected airplanes, 

flight into known icing conditions could 

result in unusual flight characteristics 

leading to loss of control with 

consequent accidents. The proposed 

rule would also require owners or 

operators to install a second placard that 

increases published speed on approach 

by 17 mph (15 knots) in case of an 

inadvertent encounter with icing. Many 

of the Cessna accidents were the result 

of high sink speeds, which may have 

been related to icing, resulting in hard 

landings. Failure to mandate an 

increased published speed may result in 

continuing occurrences of this unusual 

flight characteristic with consequent 

accidents. 

Title 49 of the U.S. Code specifies the 

FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, 

describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the FAA’s authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in subtitle VII, 

part A, subpart III, section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on the 

airplanes identified in the NPRM. 

3. A Description of and an Estimate of 

the Number of Small Entities to Which 

the Proposed Rule Will Apply 

The airplanes affected by the 

proposed AD are the 4,206 U.S.- 

registered Cessna twin-engine airplanes 

with certain serial numbers among 

Models 310, 320, 340, 401, 402, 411, 

414, and 421 specified in Cessna Service 

Bulletin MEB97–4. 

To obtain information on small 

entities affected by the AD, we emailed 

a questionnaire directly to seven firms 

with the largest number of airplanes 

listed in Cessna Service Bulletin 

MEB97–4 and received responses from 

six of these firms—the Small Sample. 

Separately, the Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association (AOPA) conducted an 

online survey and received 198 

responses from owners with affected 

airplanes. This sample was reduced to 

104 entities—the Large Sample—by 

eliminating 94 responses from 

individuals who used their airplanes for 

personal use only. 

Employment size in the Small Sample 

ranges from 6 to 48, with a median of 

16.75. For the Large Sample 84 out of 

104 respondents reported employment 

size, ranging from 1 to 1,000, with a 

median of 6. Since, as noted, personal 

use appears to account for about half of 

the airplanes listed in Cessna Service 

Bulletin MEB97–4, we estimate the 

number of small entity airplanes 

affected by the AD to be half of 1,608 

or 804. 

As to type of operations, the Large 

Sample indicates only if the owner’s 

airplane(s) are for ‘‘Corporate’’ or 

‘‘Charter’’ use. All of the firms in the 

Small Sample engage in part 135 

operations of one kind or another—on 

demand air charter, cargo and/or 

passenger, or scheduled freight. The 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

classifies part 135 operations into 

NAICS industries 481111, Scheduled 

Passenger Air Transportation; 481112, 

Scheduled Freight Air Transportation, 

481211, Nonscheduled Passenger Air 

Transportation; and 481212, 

Nonscheduled Freight Air 

Transportation. 

For all of these industries, the SBA 

maximum small business size is 1,500 

employees. All of the entities in both 

samples are well below 1,500 

employees. Accordingly, we conclude 

that the proposed rule would affect a 

substantial number of small entities. 

4. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the 

Proposed Rule 

Small entities will incur no new 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements as a result of this rule. 

An Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis was not undertaken prior to 

issuance of the NPRM (76 FR 32105), 

June 3, 2011, as the FAA initially 

determined that the cost of the proposed 

rule was minimal, being just the cost of 

placard installation. However, as a 

result of comments to the NPRM docket, 

it became apparent to the FAA that 

there may be significant additional costs 

for the subset of the affected airplanes 

with optional deicing equipment. 

Several commenters to the NPRM 

docket argue that affected airplanes with 

deicing equipment can be safely 

operated in light or moderate icing 

conditions. They further argue that to be 

prohibited from doing so would 

severely restrict their operations and 

impose significant costs. 

As a result of these comments, we 

surveyed Cessna Twin operators and 

independently estimated the cost on 

operators by the proposed prohibition 

on flight into known icing. We 

approximated this cost by estimating the 

cost to operators of substituting 

airplanes certificated for flight into 

known icing for their current airplanes. 

In response to a request from the FAA, 

Cessna undertook a sample survey and 

estimated that 38.23 percent of the 

airplanes listed in Cessna Service 

Bulletin MEB97–4 were equipped with 

deicing boots. Most of these airplanes 

also have deicing propellers. Applying 

that percentage to our airplane count of 

4,206, we obtain an estimate of 1,608 

AD-affected airplanes whose operators 

would be affected by the prohibition on 

flight into known icing, half of which, 

804, are entities (commercial operators). 

Our estimate per airplane of the 

present value cost of the proposed rule 

is $60,277, with an annualized cost 

estimate to be $8,582. The IRFA 

provides further cost information, 

which can be found in the docket. 

5. Duplicative, Overlapping or 

Conflicting Federal Rules 

The FAA is unaware of any Federal 

rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with this proposed rule. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 59875 

6. Significant Alternatives to the 

Proposed Rule 

Owing to the existing unsafe 

conditions, however, there is no feasible 

significant alternative to prohibiting the 

affected airplanes from flying into 

known icing conditions. And there is no 

significant alternative to mandating an 

increase in published speed on 

approach. 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this rulemaking. Send your comments to 

an address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2011–0562; Directorate Identifier 2011– 

CE–015–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this rulemaking action. The 

most helpful comments will reference a 

specific portion of the IRFA or related 

rulemaking document, explain the 

reason for any recommended change, 

and include supporting data. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will address all comments in the final 

rule including those already in the 

docket from the NPRM. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

September 24, 2012. 

Earl Lawrence, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–24129 Filed 9–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

23 CFR Part 771 

FHWA RIN 2125–AF46 

Federal Transit Administration 

49 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. FHWA–2012–0092] 

FTA RIN 2132–AB04 

Environmental Impact and Related 

Procedures 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Transit 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM); request for comments. 

SUMMARY: This NPRM provides 

interested parties with the opportunity 

to comment on proposed changes to the 

Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) and the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) joint procedures 

that implement the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 

revisions are prompted by enactment of 

Public Law 112–141, 126 Stat. 405, the 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act (MAP–21). This NPRM 

proposes to modify an existing 

categorical exclusion (CE) for emergency 

repair projects under 23 U.S.C. 125 to 

include emergency projects as described 

in Section 1315 of MAP–21. This NPRM 

also requests comments on whether 

additional activities ought to be 

expressly included in the CE, consistent 

with the principles underlying 

emergency projects and sound 

transportation asset management. The 

FHWA and the FTA seek comments on 

the proposals contained in this notice. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 30, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not 

duplicate your docket submissions, 

please submit them by only one of the 

following means: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave. SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001; 

• Hand Delivery: West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Ave. SE., between 9 a.m. 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is (202) 366–9329; 

• Instructions: You must include the 

agency name and docket number DOT– 

FHWA– or the Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for the rulemaking at the 

beginning of your comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

the Federal Highway Administration: 

Adam Alexander, Office of Project 

Delivery and Environmental Review, 

HEPE–10, (202) 366–1473, or Jomar 

Maldonado, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

(202) 366–1373, Federal Highway 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. 

SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001. For 

the Federal Transit Administration: 

Megan Blum at (202) 366–0463, Office 

of Planning and Environment (TPE); or 

Dana Nifosi at (202) 366–4011, Office of 

Chief Counsel (TCC), Federal Transit 

Administration. Office hours are from 8 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m. e.t., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 6, 2012, President Obama 

signed into law MAP–21, which 

contains new requirements that the 

FHWA and the FTA must meet in 

complying with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321– 

4347). One of these requirements, in 

Section 1315(a), is that the FHWA and 

the FTA, acting on behalf of the 

Secretary, must publish an NPRM to 

categorically exclude the repair or 

reconstruction of any road, highway, or 

bridge damaged by an emergency that is 

either (1) declared by the Governor of 

the State and concurred in by the 

Secretary of Transportation; or (2) 

declared by the President under the 

Stafford Act if such repair or 

reconstruction activity is in the same 

location with the same capacity, 

dimensions, and design as the original 

road, highway, or bridge as before the 

declaration; and is commenced within a 

2-year period beginning on the date of 

the declaration. Currently, 23 CFR 

771.117(c)(9) categorically excludes 

emergency repairs made during and 

immediately following a disaster to 

restore essential traffic, minimize the 

extent of the damage, or to protect the 

remaining facilities if the work is 

eligible under 23 U.S.C. 125. 

In addition, pursuant to Section 

1315(b) of MAP–21, the FHWA and the 

FTA must ensure that the rulemaking 

helps to conserve Federal resources and 

protects public safety and health by 

providing for periodic evaluations to 

determine whether reasonable 

alternatives exist to roads, highways, or 

bridges that repeatedly require repair 

and reconstruction activities. 

‘‘Reasonable alternatives’’ is defined in 

Section 1315(b)(2) as including actions 

that could reduce the need for Federal 

funds to be expended on such repair 

and reconstruction activities, better 

protect public safety and health and the 

environment, and meet transportation 

needs as described in relevant and 

applicable Federal, State, local, and 

tribal plans. There are no equivalent 

requirements in the FHWA/FTA 

environmental regulation to perform 

periodic review or a consideration of 

alternatives as outlined in Section 

1315(b). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS