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

11799 

Vol. 75, No. 48 

Friday, March 12, 2010 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 29 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0413; Notice No. 10– 

04] 

RIN 2120–AJ51 

Fatigue Tolerance Evaluation of 

Metallic Structures 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

amend the airworthiness standards for 

fatigue tolerance evaluation (FTE) of 

transport category rotorcraft metallic 

structures. This proposal would revise 

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 

catastrophic fatigue failures of metallic 

structures. These increased safety 

requirements would 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 proposed amendment would 

be harmonized with international 

standards. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before June 10, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2009–0413 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking 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, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring 

comments to 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 we receive, without change, 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of the docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of the dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

sending the comment (or signing the 

comment for an association, business, 

labor union, etc.). You may review 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement 

in the Federal Register published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: To read documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

online instructions for accessing the 

docket. Or, go to 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: For 

technical questions concerning this 

proposed rule contact Sharon Y. Miles, 

Regulations and Policy Group, 

Rotorcraft Directorate, ASW–111, 

Federal Aviation Administration, Fort 

Worth, Texas 76137–0111; telephone 

number (817) 222–5122; facsimile (817) 

222–5961; e-mail 

sharon.y.miles@faa.gov. For legal 

questions concerning this proposed rule 

contact Steve C. Harold, Directorate 

Counsel, ASW–7GI, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Fort Worth, Texas 

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

facsimile (817) 222–5945; e-mail 

steve.c.harold@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in 

this preamble under the Additional 

Information section, there is a 

discussion of how you can comment on 

this proposal and how the FAA will 

handle your comments. Included in this 

discussion is related information about 

the docket handling. There is a 

discussion on how you can get a copy 

of related rulemaking documents. 

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 

would promote safety by updating the 

existing minimum prescribed standards, 

used during the type certification 

process, to address advances in metallic 

structural fatigue substantiation 

technology. It would also harmonize 

this standard with international 

standards for evaluating the fatigue 

strength of transport category rotorcraft 

metallic primary structural elements. 

Background 

Rotorcraft fatigue strength reduction 

or failure may occur because of 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 

perform fatigue tolerance evaluations. 

Fatigue tolerance evaluation provides 

a strength assessment of primary 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11800 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

structural elements (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. 

Fatigue tolerance evaluations of PSEs 

are performed to determine appropriate 

retirement lives and inspections to 

avoid catastrophic failure during the 

operational life of the rotorcraft. 

Advances in structural fatigue 

substantiation technology for metallic 

structures are not addressed in current 

regulations. The current regulations do 

not consider the advances in the safelife methodology, and developments in 

crack growth methodology to address 

rotorcraft unique characteristics. This 

proposed rule would address those 

advances and amend the airworthiness 

standards for fatigue tolerance 

evaluation (FTE) of transport category 

rotorcraft metallic structures. This 

would increase the level of safety by 

avoiding or reducing catastrophic 

fatigue failures of metallic structures. 

Fatigue Evaluation Techniques and 

Requirements 

In the 1950s, safe-life methodology to 

establish retirement lives, such as that 

described in AC 27–1B, MG 11, was 

used to evaluate the occurrence of 

fatigue conditions in rotorcraft dynamic 

components. Historically, application of 

this methodology has been successful in 

providing satisfactory reliability for 

transport category rotorcraft. In 

addition, manufacturers would include 

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 might 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 accepted 

industry practices. 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 

successfully used for solving short-term 

airworthiness issues in metallic 

structures of rotorcraft and as the 

certification basis for civil and military 

transport aircraft applications. 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). 

While many years have passed since 

the introduction of these regulatory 

requirements, Amendment 29–28 has 

rarely been used for certification of 

completely new rotorcraft designs, 

because there have been only a limited 

number of new rotorcraft designs since 

1989, when that amendment became 

effective. Even though there have been 

a limited number of new rotorcraft 

designs, the rotorcraft community’s 

general understanding of rotorcraft 

fatigue tolerance evaluation 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 

industry’s position concerning rotorcraft 

fatigue and damage tolerance were 

documented in a White Paper, 

‘‘Rotorcraft Fatigue and Damage 

Tolerance,’’ which is located in the 

docket (FAA–2009–0413). 

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 

the flaw tolerant safe-life method be 

removed from the regulations. Since 

both groups recommended changes, 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 advancements in 

technology and operational procedures 

and to develop regulatory 

recommendations. 

History of Aviation Rulemaking 

Advisory Committee (ARAC) 

The ARAC was established on 

February 5, 1991 by notice in the 

Federal Register (56 FR 2190, January 

22, 1991), to assist the FAA in the 

rulemaking process by providing advice 

from the private sector on major 

regulatory issues affecting aviation 

safety. The ARAC includes 

representatives of manufacturers, air 

carriers, general aviation, industry 

associations, labor groups, universities, 

and the general public. The ARAC’s 

formation has given the FAA added 

opportunities to seek information 

directly from significantly affected 

parties who meet and exchange ideas 

about proposed and existing rules that 

should be created, revised, or 

eliminated. 

Following an announcement in the 

Federal Register (65 FR 17936, April 5, 

2000), the FAA chartered an ARAC 

Working Group to study and make 

appropriate recommendations on 

whether the FAA should issue new or 

revised airworthiness standards on 

fatigue evaluation of transport category 

rotorcraft metallic structures. 

The working group, co-chaired by 

representatives from a U.S. 

manufacturer and a European 

manufacturer, included technical 

specialists knowledgeable of fatigue 

evaluation of rotorcraft structures. This 

broad participation is consistent with 

FAA policy to have all known interested 

parties involved as early as practicable 

in the rulemaking process. 

The working group 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. The ARAC 

accepted those recommendations and 

presented them to the FAA. This 

proposed rule is consistent with the 

ARAC’s recommendations. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11801 

Statement of the Issues 

Before 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 required consideration of damage 

when performing fatigue evaluations 

unless it is established that for a 

particular structure damage 

consideration cannot be achieved 

within the limitations of geometry, 

inspectability, or good design practice. 

Amendment 29–28 also prescribed two 

new methods to account for damage 

(‘‘flaw tolerant safe-life’’ and ‘‘fail-safe’’). 

These are referred to as flaw tolerant 

methods. Amendment 29–28 also 

retained the original (‘‘safe-life’’) method 

to be used if either of the two new 

methods requiring damage 

consideration was 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’’ principal structural elements 

(PSEs) and results in a determination of 

retirement life. The flaw tolerant ‘‘failsafe’’ method is based on a crack growth 

life in a purposely ‘‘flawed’’ PSE and 

results in inspection requirements. 

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

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

PSE and results in 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 addressed 

by the working group was the 

equivalency of the two flaw tolerant 

methods. While both can be used to 

address 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, an evaluation of 

the effectiveness is not possible without 

considering the details of a specific 

application. Additionally, while using 

the flaw tolerant safe-life method for 

establishing an inspection interval is 

clearly not within the intent of the 

Amendment 29–28, the fail-safe method 

for establishing retirement times has 

been accepted as meeting its intent. 

Reference Material 

1. Industry White Paper ‘‘Rotorcraft Fatigue 

and Damage Tolerance,’’ prepared for the 

TOGAA, January 1999. 

2. TOGAA memo to the FAA, dated 15 

March 1999. 

These reference materials are located in the 

regulatory docket. 

Related Activity 

The FAA has initiated a separate 

proposal to address fatigue tolerance 

evaluation of composite structure. With 

the use of advanced composite materials 

for 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. 

General Discussion of Proposals 

The proposed rule for rotorcraft 

metallic structure would revise and 

clarify fatigue evaluation requirements 

to facilitate an improved level of safety 

and reduce the occurrence of 

catastrophic fatigue failures of metallic 

structures. Some of the more significant 

proposed revisions to the current rule 

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 propose to delete all 

references to specific fatigue tolerance 

evaluation methods (i.e., flaw tolerant 

safe-life, fail-safe, and safe-life). The 

words ‘‘flaw tolerant and fail-safe’’ also 

have different meanings depending on 

usage. Rather, we propose a descriptive 

phrase that makes general reference to 

the entire fatigue evaluation process 

(including crack initiation, crack 

growth, and final failure) with or 

without the influence of damage. 

Consistent with the current rule, the 

phrase ‘‘fatigue tolerance’’ is proposed 

for this purpose. 

There are various fatigue tolerance 

evaluation methods used by industry. 

All of these methods have merit and 

could potentially be effective, 

depending on the specifics of the 

damage being addressed. The proposed 

rule requires a specific result, but does 

not specify the method to achieve the 

result. However, the proposed rule does 

require that all methods be validated by 

testing, and the Administrator must 

approve the methodology used for 

compliance. 

We have determined that, in general, 

standards for the safest metallic 

structures use both retirement times and 

inspections together to mitigate the risk 

of catastrophic failure due to fatigue. 

Consequently, we propose a 

requirement in § 29.571(h) to establish 

inspection and retirement times or an 

approved equivalent means that 

establish an increased level of safety for 

metallic structures. 

Also, we have determined that a key 

element that must be included in the 

evaluation is identification of all threats 

that need to be considered so damage to 

metallic structures can be quantified. 

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 they 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. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposal contains 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 requirements associated 

with this proposal to the Office of 

Management and Budget for its review. 

Title: Fatigue Tolerance Evaluation 

(FTE) of Metallic Structures. 

Summary: This proposal would revise 

the FTE safety requirements to address 

advances in structural fatigue 

substantiation technology for metallic 

structures. An increased level of safety 

would be provided by avoiding or 

reducing catastrophic fatigue failures of 

metallic structures. These increased 

safety requirements would help ensure 

that should accidental damage occur 

during manufacturing or within the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11802 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

proposed amendment would lead to a 

harmonized international standard. 

Use of: 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 would 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 rule 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 recordkeeping hours. The 

corresponding annual inspection hours 

are 197.1 (see table 12–1). 

The total annual certification 

reporting and recordkeeping 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 

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 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 

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 

The agency is soliciting comments 

to— 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

information requirement is necessary for 

the proper performance of the functions 

of the agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden; 

(3) enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including using 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

Individuals and organizations may 

send comments on the information 

collection requirement by May 11, 2010, 

and should direct them to the address 

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble. Comments also should be 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk 

Officer for FAA, New Executive 

Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20053. 

According to the 1995 amendments to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(3)(vi), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11803 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

number for this information collection 

will be published in the Federal 

Register after the Office of Management 

and Budget approves it. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA’s policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

to the maximum extent practicable. The 

FAA has determined that the proposed 

rule is consistent with the ICAO 

standard in ICAO Annex 8, Part IV. 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) was established by the 

European Community to develop 

standards to ensure safety and 

environmental protection, oversee 

uniform application of those standards, 

and promote them internationally. 

EASA formally became responsible for 

certification of aircraft, engines, parts, 

and appliances on September 28, 2003. 

The FAA and EASA are coordinating 

their rulemaking efforts to facilitate 

harmonized standards for fatigue 

tolerance evaluation. 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 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 proposed 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, FAA 

has determined that this proposed 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, however 

the Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that this NPRM is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because it 

harmonizes U.S. aviation standards with 

those of other civil aviation authorities; 

(3) is ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; 

(4) would have a non-significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities; 

(5) would not have a significant effect 

on international trade; and 

(6) would 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 

proposed 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 proposed rule 

consist of the value of lives and 

property that would be saved due to 

avoiding accidents involving part 29 

rotorcraft. Nine Transport Category 

rotorcraft accidents occurred over the 

past 27-year historical period. If this 

rule would have been in effect, it is 

expected that these nine accidents 

would have been averted. In the future, 

without this rule, it is expected that 

there would be another nine transport 

category helicopter accidents. The 

benefit of this proposed rule would be 

to avert some or all of these accidents. 

Even if only two of these accidents were 

to be prevented, the benefit would be 

approximately $12.9 million ($5.6 

million in present value). 

Cost of This Rule 

We estimate the costs of this proposed 

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 would incur 

costs of $532,000 ($293,000 in present 

value) and operators of 14 CFR part 29 

helicopters would incur costs of $8.5 

million ($2.6 million in present value). 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11804 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

determination, and the reasoning should 

be clear. 

This proposed rule would 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 

NAICS 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 proposed rule 

would 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 of annual revenue if the 

passenger or freight air transportation is 

off-shore marine air transportation. 

Finally, the small entity size standard 

for other—non-scheduled air 

transportation is $7.0 million of annual 

revenue. 

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 would meet the SBA 

definition. Thus, this proposed rule 

would affect a substantial number of 

transport category helicopter operators. 

Based on the information received 

from industry representatives, the cost 

of this proposed rule to a part 29 

helicopter operator would be $1,600 for 

an inspection that must be performed 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALSEP12MR10.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11805 

every three years on each part 29 

helicopter that is certificated under this 

proposed rule. This would 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 proposed rule 

would add less than one direct hour of 

operating costs per year to a typical part 

29 helicopter. Although this would be 

an increase in costs, it is not considered 

that this would be a substantial increase 

in costs. 

Consequently, the FAA certifies that 

this proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of part 29 rotorcraft 

manufacturers or operators. 

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, the 

establishment of 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 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 proposed rule and 

determined that it would impose the 

same costs on domestic and 

international entities and thus has a 

neutral trade impact. 

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 $136.1 

million in lieu of $100 million. This 

proposed rule does not contain such a 

mandate. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

have determined that this action would 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

would not have federalism implications. 

Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (49 U.S.C. 

40113(f)) requires the Administrator, 

when modifying regulations in Title 14 

of the CFR in any manner affecting 

interstate aviation in Alaska, to consider 

the extent to which Alaska is not served 

by transportation modes other than 

aviation, and to establish any 

appropriate regulatory distinctions. 

Because this proposed rule would apply 

to the certification of future designs of 

transport category rotorcraft and their 

subsequent operation, it could, if 

adopted, affect intrastate aviation in 

Alaska. The FAA therefore specifically 

requests comments on whether there is 

justification for applying the proposed 

rule differently in intrastate operations 

in Alaska. 

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 proposed 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this NPRM 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order because while it is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

Additional Information 

Comments Invited: 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. We also invite comments relating 

to the economic, environmental, energy, 

or federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

please send only one copy of written 

comments, or if you are filing comments 

electronically, please submit your 

comments only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

Before acting on this proposal, we will 

consider all comments we receive on or 

before the closing date for comments. 

We will consider comments filed after 

the comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

additional expense or delay. The FAA 

may change this proposal in light of the 

comments we receive. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You may obtain an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

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

You may also obtain a copy by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the docket number or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

You may access all documents the 

FAA considered in developing this 

proposed rule, including economic 

analyses and technical reports, from the 

internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in 

paragraph 1. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 29 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11806 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

in 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— 

Catastrophic failure means an event 

that could prevent continued safe flight 

and landing. 

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 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 in § 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 to establish the allowable 

damage size. 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 

within its operational life. 

(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 March 7, 

2010. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5486 Filed 3–11–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 575 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0018] 

Notice of Public Meeting; Tire Fuel 

Efficiency 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: On June 22, 2009, NHTSA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) proposing a new 

consumer information program for 

replacement tires (74 FR 29542). The 

new consumer information program 

responded to a requirement in the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 (EISA), which directed NHTSA 

to develop a national tire fuel efficiency 

rating system and consumer education 

program for replacement tires. The 

program would inform consumers about 

the effect of tires on fuel efficiency, 

safety and durability. 

Prior to the NPRM, NHTSA 

conducted focus group studies in which 

it presented several labels using 

different graphics and scales to relay the 

ratings proposed in the NPRM. After the 

NPRM was issued, NHTSA conducted 

an internet survey to further explore 

what influences consumers’ tire 

purchasing decisions and how best to 

convey the information in this new 

program to consumers. 

To further refine the consumer 

education portion of this new program, 

NHTSA intends to conduct further 

consumer research. NHTSA invites 

interested parties to submit written 

comments and participate in a public 

meeting on the research plan using the 

instructions set forth in this notice. As 

described in the Procedural Matters 

section of this notice, each speaker 

should anticipate speaking for 

approximately ten minutes, although we 

may need to adjust the time for each 

speaker if there is a large turnout. To 

facilitate discussion, NHTSA has placed 

documents concerning early research, 

and the draft research plan for the future 

in the docket. NHTSA will consider the 

public comments received in 

developing a research plan to aid in the 

development of consumer information 

requirements and NHTSA’s consumer 

education plan regarding tire fuel 

efficiency. 

DATES: Public Meeting: The public 

meeting will be held on Friday, March 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS