32807

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 83, No. 136

Monday, July 16, 2018

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER • Mail: Send comments to Docket air commerce by prescribing regulations contains notices to the public of the proposed Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of and minimum standards for the design issuance of rules and regulations. The Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey and performance of that the purpose of these notices is to give interested Avenue SE, Room W12–140, West Administrator finds necessary for safety persons an opportunity to participate in the Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC in air commerce. This regulation is rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. 20590–0001. within the scope of that authority. It • Hand Delivery or Courier: Take prescribes new safety standards for the comments to Docket Operations in design of transport category . Room W12–140 of the West Building DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I. Overview of Proposed Rule Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Federal Aviation Administration Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 The FAA proposes to add a new load a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through condition to the design standards in title 14 CFR Part 25 Friday, except Federal holidays. 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 • Fax: Fax comments to Docket CFR) part 25. The new load condition, [Docket No.: FAA–2018–0653–; Notice No. Operations at 202–493–2251. to be located in new proposed § 25.353, 18–04] Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. would require that the be designed to withstand the loads caused RIN 2120–AK89 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking by rapid reversals of the pedals. Yaw Maneuver Conditions—Rudder process. DOT posts these comments, Specifically, applicants would have to Reversals without edit, including any personal show that their proposed airplane information the commenter provides, to design can withstand an initial full AGENCY: Federal Aviation www.regulations.gov, as described in rudder pedal input, followed by three Administration (FAA), DOT. the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– rudder reversals at the maximum ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at sideslip angle, followed by return of the (NPRM). www.dot.gov/privacy. rudder to neutral. Due to the rarity of Docket: Background documents or such multiple reversals, the proposed SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to add a comments received may be read at rule would specify the new load new load condition to the design http://www.regulations.gov at any time. condition is an ultimate load condition standards for transport category Follow the online instructions for rather than a limit load condition. airplanes. The new load condition accessing the docket or go to the Docket Consequently, the applicant would not would require the airplane be designed Operations in Room W12–140 of the have to apply an additional factor of 1 to withstand the loads caused by rapid West Building Ground Floor at 1200 safety to the calculated load levels. reversals of the rudder pedals and New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, The proposed rule would affect would apply to transport category DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday manufacturers of transport category airplanes that have a powered rudder through Friday, except Federal holidays. airplanes applying for a new type certificate after the effective date of the control surface or surfaces. This rule is FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For necessary because accident and incident final rule. The proposed rule may also technical questions concerning this affect applicants applying for an data show that pilots sometimes make action, contact Robert C. Jones, rudder reversals during flight, even amended or supplemental type Propulsion & Mechanical Systems certificate as determined under 14 CFR though such reversals are unnecessary Section, AIR–672, Transport Standards and discouraged by flightcrew training 21.101 after the effective date of the Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, final rule. Proposed § 25.353 would programs. The current design standards Aircraft Certification Service, Federal do not require the airplane structure to apply to transport category airplanes Aviation Administration, 2200 South that have a powered rudder control withstand the loads that may result from 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; such reversals. If the airplane loads surface or surfaces, as explained in the telephone and fax (206) 231–3182; email ‘‘Discussion of the Proposal.’’ exceed those for which it is designed, [email protected]. the airplane structure may fail, resulting SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: II. Background in catastrophic loss of control of the airplane. This proposal aims to prevent Authority for This Rulemaking A. Statement of the Problem structural failure of the rudder and The FAA’s authority to issue rules on Accident and incident data from the vertical that may result from is found in Title 49 of the events described in section II.B.1 show these rudder reversals. United States Code. Subtitle I, Section pilots sometimes make multiple and DATES: Send comments on or before 106 describes the authority of the FAA unnecessary rudder reversals during October 15, 2018. Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation flight. In addition, FAA-sponsored ADDRESSES: Send comments identified Programs, describes in more detail the 1 The terms ‘‘limit,’’ ‘‘ultimate,’’ and ‘‘factor of by docket number [Insert docket number scope of the agency’s authority. safety’’ are specified in § 25.301, ‘‘Loads,’’ § 25.303, from heading] using any of the This rulemaking is promulgated ‘‘Factor of safety,’’ and § 25.305, ‘‘Strength and following methods: under the authority described in deformation.’’ To summarize, design loads are • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section typically expressed in terms of limit loads, which are then multiplied by a factor of safety, usually 1.5, http://www.regulations.gov and follow 44701, ‘‘General Requirements.’’ Under to determine ultimate loads. In this proposal, the the online instructions for sending your that section, the FAA is charged with design loads would be expressed as ultimate loads, comments electronically. promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in and no additional safety factor would be applied.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM 16JYP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 32808 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules

research 2 indicates that pilots use the design that were created by the first along with NTSB accredited rudder more often than previously officer’s unnecessary and excessive representatives, and classified it as an thought and often in ways not rudder pedal inputs. The NTSB also accident. Analysis by the TSB showed recommended by manufacturers. noted that contributing to these rudder that the pilot’s actions resulted in a load Section 25.1583(a)(3)(ii) requires pedal inputs were characteristics of the on the vertical stabilizer that exceeded manufacturers to provide –600 rudder system design its limit load by approximately 29 documentation that warns pilots against and elements of the American Airlines percent. The TSB found that the making large and rapid control reversals Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering flightcrew was startled by wake as they may result in structural failures Program.5 turbulence at that altitude, erroneously at any speed, including below the In two additional events—commonly believed that the airplane had 6 design maneuvering speed (VA). Despite known as the Interflug incident and malfunctioned, and therefore responded the requirement, and though such Miami Flight 903 accident (AA903) 7— with erroneous actions. The pilot had rudder reversals are unnecessary and the vertical stabilizer of each airplane received training to avoid rudder discouraged by flightcrew training experienced loads above the ultimate reversals. programs, these events continue to load level due to pedal reversals On May 27, 2005, a Bombardier DHC– occur (see section II.B.1, ‘‘History— commanded by the pilot after the 8–100 series airplane, operated by Accidents and Incidents’’ below). airplane stalled.8 While none of the Provincial Airlines Limited for Section 25.351, the standard for passengers and crew were injured in the passenger service, experienced a protecting the airplane’s vertical Interflug incident, a passenger was and uncontrolled descent over stabilizer from pilot-commanded seriously injured and a crewmember Canada.11 During climb-out, the maneuver loads, only addresses single, sustained minor injuries in the AA903 indicated airspeed gradually decreased, full rudder inputs at airspeeds up to the accident. The AA903 airplane also due to the flightcrew’s inadvertent 3 design diving speed (VD). This design sustained sheared fasteners, deformed selection of an incorrect mode. standard does not protect the airplane , and engine component The airplane stalled at an unexpectedly from the loads imposed by repeated damage, but landed safely. A high airspeed, likely due to the inputs in opposing directions, or rudder catastrophe similar to AA587 was formation of ice. The flightcrew’s failure reversals.4 If the loads on the vertical averted in each of these events because to recognize the stall resulted in stabilizer exceed those for which it is the vertical stabilizer was stronger than incorrect control inputs and the loss of designed, the vertical stabilizer may fail, required by the design standards.9 4,200 feet of altitude in approximately resulting in the catastrophic loss of Other rudder reversal events have 40 seconds before recovery. There were airplane control. occurred more recently. On January 10, no injuries and the airplane was not Incidents and accidents related to 2008, an Airbus Model 319–114 series damaged. During this event, the pilot rudder reversals have occurred in the airplane, operated as Air Canada Flight commanded a rudder reversal. past, and the FAA believes that another 190 (AC190), encountered a wake vortex such event could occur, resulting in while at cruise altitude over Washington 2. New Transport Airplane Programs injuries to occupants or a structural State.10 The pilot responded with inputs Since the AA587 accident, the FAA failure that jeopardizes continued safe that included six rudder reversals. The has responded to the risk posed by flight and landing of the airplane. flightcrew eventually stabilized the rudder reversals, in part, by requesting airplane and diverted to an airport that applicants for new type certificates B. History capable of handling the injured show that their designs are capable of 1. Accidents and Incidents passengers. continued safe flight and landing after The Transportation Safety Board of experiencing repeated rudder reversals. Rudder reversals have caused a Canada (TSB) investigated this event, number of accidents and incidents. On Applicants have been able to show this capability through rudder control laws November 12, 2001, American Airlines 5 Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR–04/04, Flight 587 (AA587), an Airbus Model ‘‘In-flight Separation of Vertical Stabilizer, in flight control systems. Applicants A300–600 series airplane, crashed at American Airlines Flight 587, Airbus Industrie have incorporated these control laws Belle Harbor, New York, resulting in A300–605R, N14053, Belle Harbor, New York, through software and, therefore, added November 12, 2001,’’ dated October 26, 2004, is no weight or maintenance cost to the 265 deaths and the loss of the airplane. available in the Docket and on the internet at The National Transportation Safety https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Accident airplanes. Board (NTSB) found that the probable Reports/Reports/AAR0404.pdf. In 2016, the European Aviation Safety cause of this accident was the in-flight 6 On February 11, 1991, an Airbus Model A310 Agency (EASA) began applying special separation of the vertical stabilizer as a series airplane experienced in-flight loss of control conditions to new airplane certification over Moscow, Russia. programs. EASA mandated these special result of the loads beyond ultimate 7 On May 12, 1997, an Airbus Model A300–600 series airplane experienced in-flight loss of control conditions to address the exact risk of 2 Report No. DOT/FAA/AM–10/14, ‘‘An near West Palm Beach, Florida, after the flightcrew rudder reversals explained in this International Survey of Transport Airplane Pilots’ failed to recognize that the airplane had entered a NPRM. The requirements in the EASA Experiences and Perspectives of Lateral/Directional stall. special conditions are identical to the Control Events and Rudder Issues in Transport 8 The Interflug and Miami Flight 903 events are requirements proposed in this NPRM. Airplanes (Rudder Survey),’’ dated October 2010, is discussed in NTSB Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/ available in the Docket and on the internet at http:// AAR–04/04, pp. 103–110. See footnote 5 on p. 6. 3. FAA Survey of Pilots’ Rudder Use www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_ 9 FCHWG Recommendation Report, ‘‘Rudder humanfacs/oamtechreports/2010s/media/ Pedal Sensitivity/Rudder Reversal,’’ dated In 2006, the FAA sponsored a 201014.pdf. November 7, 2013, is available in the Docket and survey 12 to better comprehend transport 3 _ VD is the design diving speed: The maximum on the internet at https://www.faa.gov/regulations category pilots’ understanding and use speed at which the airplane is certified to fly. See policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/ 14 CFR 1.2. Advisory Circular 25–7C provides TAEfch-rpsrr-3282011.pdf. See p. 5 of the report. of the rudder. This survey included additional information related to VD. 10 TSB Aviation Investigation Report A08W0007, 4 A rudder reversal is a continuous, pilot- ‘‘Encounter with Wake Turbulence,’’ is available in 11 TSB Aviation Investigation Report A05A0059. commanded pedal movement starting from pedal the Docket and on the internet at http://tsb.gc.ca/ See footnote 10 on p. 7. displacement in one direction followed by pedal eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2008/a08w0007/ 12 Report No. DOT/FAA/AM–10/14 (see footnote displacement in the opposite direction. a08w0007.pdf. 2 on p. 5), OMB Control No. 2120–0712.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM 16JYP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32809

transport pilots from all over the world. findings and recommendations guided multiple, full control inputs in one axis, The FAA’s analysis of the survey data the formation of this proposal. or full control inputs in more than one found that— While multiple rudder reversals are a axis at the same time.16 After making its • Pilots use the rudder more than very low probability event, they have own assessment, the FAA agreed, and previously thought and often in ways occurred in service and cannot be ruled revised § 25.1583(a)(3) at Amendment not recommended by manufacturers. out in the future. The FCHWG found 25–130, effective October 15, 2010. • Pilots make erroneous rudder pedal that a load condition was the optimal Section 25.1583(a)(3) was revised to inputs, and some erroneous rudder way to protect the airplane from the change the information that applicants pedal inputs include rudder reversals. excessive loads that can result from must furnish in the AFM explaining the • Even after specific training, many multiple rudder reversals. The FCHWG use of VA to pilots. The amendment pilots are not aware that they should not recommended a load condition over the clarified that, depending on the make rudder reversals, even below VA. other options because it would be a particular airplane design, flying at or Over the last several years, training and performance-based requirement. The below VA does not allow a pilot to make changes to the airplane flight manual FCHWG noted that this would provide multiple large control inputs in one (AFM) have directed the pilot to avoid applicants for design approval with the airplane axis or full control inputs in making cyclic control inputs. The flexibility to determine the best way to more than one airplane axis at a time rudder reversals that caused the AC190 meet a load condition. without endangering the airplane’s structure. However, the AC190 accident incident in 2008, and the Provincial D. NTSB Safety Recommendation Airlines Limited incident in 2005, shows that even a properly trained pilot occurred despite this effort. Following the AA587 accident might make rudder reversals when • The survey indicated that pilots in described in section II.B.1 of this NPRM, startled or responding to a perceived airplane upset situations (e.g., wake the NTSB provided safety failure. recommendations to the FAA. The vortex encounters) may revert to prior 2. Airworthiness Directives training and make sequential rudder NTSB stated, ‘‘For airplanes with reversals. variable stop rudder travel limiter In 2012, the FAA adopted an systems, protection from dangerous airworthiness directive (AD) applicable C. Aviation Rulemaking Advisory structural loads resulting from sustained to all Airbus Model A300–600 and Committee (ARAC) Activity alternating large rudder pedal inputs Model A310 series airplanes.17 The AD In 2011, the FAA tasked ARAC to can be achieved by reducing the was prompted by the excessive rudder consider the need to add a new flight sensitivity of the rudder control system pedal inputs and consequent high loads maneuver load condition to part 25, (for example, by increasing the pedal on the vertical stabilizer in the events subpart C, that would ensure airplane forces), which would make it harder for described previously, including AA587. structural capability in the presence of pilots to quickly perform alternating full The AD required operators to either rudder reversals and increasing sideslip rudder inputs.’’ In Safety incorporate a design change to the angles (yaw angles) at airspeeds up to Recommendation A–04–056,15 the rudder control system or other systems, or install a modification that alerts the VD. The FAA also tasked ARAC to NTSB recommended that the FAA consider if other airworthiness modify part 25 to include a certification pilot to stop making rudder inputs. standards would more appropriately standard that will ensure safe handling In 2015, the FAA adopted an AD address this concern, such as pedal qualities in the yaw axis throughout the applicable to all Airbus Model A318, characteristics that would discourage flight envelope, including limits for A319, A320, and A321 series 18 pilots from making rudder reversals.13 rudder pedal sensitivity. airplanes. That AD was prompted by ARAC delegated this task to the This proposed rule would address a determination that, in specific flight Transport Airplane and Engine this recommendation and, if conditions, the allowable load limits on subcommittee, which assigned it to the incorporated on new airplane designs, the vertical stabilizer could be reached Flight Controls Harmonization Working would reduce the risk of an event and possibly exceeded. Exceeding Group (FCHWG). similar to AA587. The proposed rule allowable load could result in The FCHWG was tasked to examine would also respond to the NTSB’s detachment of the vertical stabilizer. several options to protect the airplane concern about rudder pedal sensitivity. The AD also required a modification that alerts the pilot to stop making from pilot-commanded rudder reversals. E. Other Regulatory Actions These options included developing new rudder inputs. standards for— 1. 2010 Revisions to § 25.1583 F. Advisory Material • Loads, During its investigation of the AA587 • The FAA has developed proposed Maneuverability, accident, the NTSB found that many Advisory Circular (AC) 25.353–X, • System design, pilots of transport category airplanes ‘‘Design Load Conditions for Rudder • Control sensitivity, mistakenly believed that, as long as the Control Reversal,’’ to be published • Alerting, and airplane’s speed is below VA, they can concurrently with this NPRM. This • Pilot training. make any control input they desire proposed AC would provide guidance The FCHWG completed its report in without risking structural damage to the November 2013.14 ARAC and the FAA airplane. AA587 exposed the fact that 16 NTSB Safety Recommendation A–04–60 is accepted the report. The report’s this assumption is incorrect. As a result, available in the Docket and on the internet at http:// the NTSB recommended that the FAA www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A04_56_ 13 This notice of ARAC tasking was published in amend its regulations to clarify that 62.pdf. the Federal Register on March 28, 2011 (76 FR operating at or below V does not 17 AD 2012–21–15 was published in the Federal 17183). A Register on November 9, 2012 (77 FR 67526). For 14 FCHWG Recommendation Report, ‘‘Rudder provide structural protection against more information, see Docket No. FAA–2011–0518 Pedal Sensitivity/Rudder Reversal,’’ dated on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. November 7, 2013, is available in the Docket and 15 NTSB Safety Recommendation A–04–056 is 18 AD 2015–23–13 was published in the Federal on the internet at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_ available in the Docket and on the internet at http:// Register on December 29, 2015 (77 FR 67526). For policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/ www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/RecLetters/A04_ more information, see Docket No. FAA–2011–0518 TAEfch-rpsrr-3282011.pdf. See footnote 9 on p. 7. 56_62.pdf. on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM 16JYP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 32810 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules

material on acceptable means, but not because a new rule that only includes a • The proposed § 25.353 condition the only means, of showing compliance single rudder reversal, with a safety would require only that the applicant with proposed § 25.353. The FAA will factor of 1.0, would not materially account for the rudder reversals at post the proposed AC on the ‘‘Aviation increase the design load level from speeds up to the design cruising speed Safety Draft Documents Open for current design loads criteria and would (VC). In contrast, § 25.351 requires Comment’’ web page at http:// not be effective in preventing accidents applicants to account for speeds up to 19 www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/. The such as the AA587 accident. VD. The reason for this difference is that FAA requests that you submit One member, The Boeing Company VC represents the majority of the flight comments on the proposed AC through (Boeing), took the position that no new envelope, and compliance to VD is not that web page. rulemaking or design standards are necessary due to the infrequency of exposure to such speeds and the low III. Discussion of the Proposal required, and that the risk from rudder reversals should be addressed by probability that a rudder reversal will The FAA proposes to revise 14 CFR flightcrew training. Boeing stated that occur at speeds above VC. • by adding new § 25.353 to add a design rudder reversals are always Section 25.351 requires a pilot force load condition. It would apply to inappropriate and that pilots should of up to 300 pounds, depending on the transport category airplanes that have a never make such commands. Boeing airplane’s speed. In contrast, the pilot powered rudder control surface or argued it is inappropriate to issue an force specified in § 25.353 would be surfaces, as explained later in this airworthiness standard to mitigate a limited to 200 pounds because it would section. The load condition would situation caused by actions that pilots be difficult, and therefore very unlikely, require that the airplane be able to should avoid. The FAA rejects this for a pilot to maintain 300 pounds of withstand three full reversals of the alternative because, while multiple force while performing rapid alternating rudder pedals at the most critical points inputs. rudder reversals are a very low • in the flight envelope. From a neutral probability event, they have been seen The proposed § 25.353 condition position, the pedal input would be in service, despite training, and cannot would be evaluated only with the sudden and to one side and held; then, be ruled out in the future. retracted and speed brakes as the maximum sideslip angle is As indicated previously, yaw (and spoilers when used as speed reached, the pedals would be suddenly maneuver loads are currently specified brakes) retracted. This is because flight displaced in the opposite direction and in § 25.351, ‘‘Yaw maneuver loads would be more severe with the held until the opposite angle is reached; conditions.’’ The FAA used this gear and speed brakes retracted. then again to the first side; then again requirement as a template to develop to the second side; then suddenly A. Expected Methods of Compliance moved back to the neutral position. the proposed new rudder reversal The proposed rule is performance- The reason for this proposal is that design load condition. Therefore, the based. For example, an applicant could pilots make inadvertent and erroneous proposed load condition would be choose to comply with the proposed rudder pedal inputs, and the accident similar to the load condition required by standard by using control system and incident data show that the loads § 25.351, except as follows: • architecture and control laws to limit caused by rudder reversals can surpass Section 25.351 specifies a single, the airplane response to rudder the airplane’s structural limit load and full-pedal command followed by a reversals, and thereby reduce structural sometimes its ultimate load. sudden pedal release after the airplane loads on the airplane. An applicant Compliance with the proposed rule has reached the steady-state sideslip could also choose to comply by would require a showing that the angle. Proposed § 25.353 would specify increasing the capability of the airplane airplane’s vertical stabilizer and other a single, full-pedal command followed to withstand the maximum expected airplane structure are strong enough to by three rudder reversals, and return to structural loads that could result from withstand the rudder reversals. neutral. the proposed load condition. Ten of the eleven members of the • In the proposed rule, the rudder FCHWG recommended proposing some reversals must be performed at the B. Proposed Applicability form of a new load condition to protect maximum sideslip angle, which is After examining all the data and the airplane against rudder reversals. referred to as the ‘‘overswing sideslip considering stakeholder opinions, the During discussions, five members of the angle.’’ This term is also used in FAA has determined that the proposed FCHWG 20 recommended requiring a § 25.351 and would have the same rule should apply to new type load condition that would protect the meaning. The overswing sideslip angle certification programs of transport airplane from three, sequential, full is the maximum sideslip angle that category airplane designs and to rudder reversals. This notice puts forth occurs following full rudder pedal input amended or supplemental type those proposals. and includes the additional sideslip that certificate programs as determined Five members of the FCHWG 21 may occur beyond the steady-state under § 21.101. The proposed rule recommended a similar load condition, sideslip angle. would affect manufacturers of transport which would only protect against a • The § 25.353 load requirement category airplanes. In the future, single reversal of the rudder pedals. The would be an ultimate design load applicants who want to certify new FAA is not proposing this alternative condition, instead of a limit load airplanes under part 25 would have to condition as in § 25.351. This means comply with proposed § 25.353. 19 The proposed AC is also available in the that applicants would apply a safety As noted previously, this proposed Docket. To ensure the FAA receives your comments on the proposed AC, please submit them via the factor of 1.0, rather than 1.5. The rule would apply only to airplanes that instructions found on the ‘‘Aviation Safety Draft proposed rudder reversal maneuver use powered rudder control surfaces. In Documents Open for Comment’’ web page. would cover the worst-case rudder this proposed rule, a powered rudder 20 The Air Line Pilots Association, International maneuver expected to occur in service. control surface is one in which the force (ALPA), EASA, National Civil Aviation Agency— Because service history has shown that required to deflect the surface against Brazil (ANAC), and Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), and FAA representatives. three full rudder reversals are unusual, the airstream is generated or augmented 21 Airbus, Bombardier, Cessna, Dassault Aviation, the FAA proposes that a safety factor of by hydraulic or electric systems. An and Embraer. 1.0 is appropriate. unpowered rudder control surface is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM 16JYP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32811

one for which the force required to from rudder reversals. Further, the FAA benefits of the intended regulation deflect the surface against the airstream considers it unlikely that many of these justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory is transmitted from the pilot’s rudder airplanes would fly for extended Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354), pedal directly through mechanical periods without an operable yaw as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603 et seq., means, without any augmentation from damper that provides acceptable ride requires agencies to analyze the hydraulic or electrical systems. Powered quality. Therefore, most of these economic impact of regulatory changes rudder control systems include fly-by- airplanes have protection against yaw on small entities. Third, the Trade wire (FBW) and hydro-mechanical overshoot loads, even if they are not Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96–39), systems. Unpowered rudder control required to demonstrate this protection 19 U.S.C. Chapter 13, prohibits agencies systems are also referred to as during certification. from setting standards that create mechanical systems. Incorporation of a 3. The use of unpowered rudder unnecessary obstacles to the foreign powered into an otherwise control surfaces is diminishing in the commerce of the United States. In unpowered rudder control system does transport category airplane fleet. The developing U.S. standards, the Trade not constitute a powered rudder control FAA expects that most, if not all, new Agreements Act requires agencies to surface, for the purpose of this proposed type certificate applications to which consider international standards and, rule. The reasons that the FAA proposes this proposed rule would apply will where appropriate, that they be the basis to exclude airplanes with unpowered employ powered rudder control of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded (mechanical) rudder control surfaces are surfaces. Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. as follows, and the FAA seeks comment 4. The FAA has reviewed the accident 104–4), as codified in 2 U.S.C. Chapter on these reasons: and incident records and has found no 25, requires agencies to prepare a 1. The only U.S. transport category events in which pilots commanded written assessment of the costs, benefits, airplane models, currently in inappropriate rudder reversals on and other effects of proposed or final production, that use unpowered rudder airplanes with unpowered rudder rules that include a Federal mandate control surfaces are small business jets. control surfaces. This alone does not likely to result in the expenditure by Small airplanes typically have a mean such systems cannot be affected State, local, or tribal governments, in the minimal delay between pilot yaw by pilot-commanded inappropriate aggregate, or by the private sector, of control inputs and airplane response. rudder reversals. However, the absence $100 million or more annually (adjusted The pilots of these airplanes receive of any previous incidents indicates that for inflation with base year of 1995). more immediate feedback of airplane excluding these designs would not This portion of the preamble response to their yaw control inputs appreciably increase the future risk of summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the and, therefore, are less likely to execute such events above acceptable levels. economic impacts of this proposed rule. In conducting these analyses, FAA inappropriate pedal movements C. Summary resulting in rudder reversals. has determined that this proposed rule 2. The only U.S. transport category The proposed design criteria would has benefits that justify its costs and is airplane models, currently in provide a practical, relatively low-cost not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as production, that use an unpowered solution that would be achievable on defined in section 3(f) of Executive rudder control surface are also equipped future designs without the requirement Order 12866. The rule is also not with a yaw damper. The FAA has to significantly strengthen the vertical ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s assessed the design of this yaw damper stabilizer, or make significant changes to Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The and determined its normal operation system design. In fact, some current proposed rule will not have a significant would be adequate to reduce yaw airplanes would be able to meet the economic impact on a substantial overshoot loads resulting from rudder proposed criteria with no changes number of small entities, will not create reversals to acceptable levels. However, whatsoever. This proposal should unnecessary obstacles to the foreign the yaw damper system on these require a minimal increment of commerce of the United States, and will airplanes is not required to be applicant resources to show not impose an unfunded mandate on operational on any given flight. The yaw compliance. While an applicant might State, local, or tribal governments, or on damper is included in these airplanes choose to comply with this the private sector by exceeding the primarily to improve ride quality for performance-based standard by threshold identified previously. strengthening the airplane structure, the passenger comfort (as opposed to A. Regulatory Evaluation providing adequate stability about the FAA believes that most applicants yaw axis to ensure airplane safety). would use control laws to comply with Department of Transportation Order Since the yaw damper may not be this proposed rule. These control laws 2100.5 prescribes policies and available on a given flight, the are a part of the flight control computer, procedures for simplification, analysis, manufacturer of these airplanes has and they adjust control surface and review of regulations. If the stated it might need to add structure or deflections based on pilot input and expected cost impact is so minimal that an improved yaw damper to any new other factors like airspeed. Since control a proposed or final rule does not type certificated airplanes to comply laws are typically implemented through warrant a full evaluation, this order with the proposed rule.22 This would systems and software, there would be permits a statement to that effect and significantly increase design, little to no incremental cost in the form the basis for it to be included in the production, and operation costs. The of weight, equipment, maintenance, or preamble if a full regulatory evaluation FAA considers that, for these airplanes, training. of the costs and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for the cost to comply with the proposed, IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses new load condition through structural this proposed rule. The reasoning for Changes to Federal regulations must modification is not justified by the this determination follows. undergo several economic analyses. relatively low risk these airplanes face First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 1. Background 22 A record of this conversation between the FAA direct that each Federal agency shall The genesis of this proposed rule is and airplane manufacturer is available in the propose or adopt a regulation only upon the crash of American Airlines Flight Docket. a reasoned determination that the 587 (AA587), near Queens, New York,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM 16JYP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 32812 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules

on November 12, 2001, resulting in the with four rudder reversals, the limit rudder reversals, the FCHWG found death of all 260 passengers and crew load was exceed by 29 percent. little increase in vertical stabilizer loads. aboard, and the death of five persons on In transport category airplanes, rudder 2. Costs and Benefits of This Proposed the ground. The airplane was destroyed inputs are generally limited to aligning Rule by impact forces and a post-crash fire. the airplane with the runway during The National Transportation Safety crosswind landings and controlling Since the catastrophic AA587 Board (NTSB) found that the probable engine-out situations, which occur accident, the FAA has responded to the cause of the accident was ‘‘the in-flight predominately at low speeds. At high risk posed by rudder reversals by separation of the vertical stabilizer speeds, the pilot normally directly rolls requesting, through the issue paper [airplane fin] as a result of loads above the airplane using the .30 If the process, that applicants for new type ultimate design created by the first pilot does use the rudder to control the certificates show that their designs are officer’s unnecessary and excessive airplane at high speeds, there will be a capable of continued safe flight and rudder pedal inputs.’’ 23 Ultimate loads significant phase lag between the rudder landing after experiencing repeated on the airplane structure are the limit input and the roll response because the rudder reversals. For airplanes with loads (1.0) multiplied by a safety factor, roll response is a secondary effect of the FBW systems, manufacturers have been usually 1.5 (as for the vertical yawing moment generated by the able to show capability by means of stabilizer). An airplane is expected to rudder.31 The roll does not result from control laws, incorporated through experience a limit load once in its the rudder input directly. Even if the software changes and, therefore, adding lifetime and is never expected to rudder is subsequently deflected in the no weight and imposing no additional experience an ultimate load.24 For the opposite direction (rudder reversal), the maintenance cost to the airplanes. Many AA587 accident, loads exceeding airplane can continue to roll and yaw in if not all of these designs have ultimate loads ranged from 1.83 to 2.14 one direction before reversing because demonstrated tolerance to three or more times the limit load on the vertical of the phase lag. The relationship rudder reversals. Aside from converting to an FBW system, alternatives available stabilizer,25 as a result of four, full, between rudder inputs and the roll and to manufacturers specializing in alternating rudder inputs known as yaw response of the airplane can airplane designs with mechanical or ‘‘rudder reversals.’’ become confusing to pilots, particularly hydro-mechanical include Significant rudder reversals events are with the large yaw and roll rates that increasing the reliability of the yaw unusual in the history of commercial would result from large rudder inputs, causing the pilots to input multiple damper and strengthening the airplane airplane flight, having occurred during vertical stabilizer. just five notable accidents and rudder reversals. Following the AA587 accident, in To estimate the cost of the proposed incidents, with AA587 being the only November 2004 the NTSB released rule, the FAA solicited unit cost catastrophic accident resulting from Safety Recommendation A–04–56 estimates from U.S. industry and rudder reversals.26 Ultimate loads were recommending that the FAA modify incorporated these estimates into an exceeded in two of the other notable part 25 ‘‘to include a certification airplane life cycle model. The FAA rudder reversal accidents, the Interflug standard that will ensure safe handling received one estimate for large part 25 incident (Moscow, February 11, 1991) qualities in the yaw axis throughout the airplanes and two estimates for small and American Airlines Flight 903 flight envelope....’’32 part 25 airplanes (business jets). (AA903) (near West Palm Beach, In 2011, the FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking One of the business jet estimates was Florida, May 12, 1997).27 For the Advisory Committee (ARAC) to provided by a manufacturer specializing Interflug incident, with multiple rudder consider the need for rulemaking to in mechanical rather than FBW rudder reversals, loads of 1.55 and 1.35 times address the rudder reversal issue. ARAC systems; therefore, that estimate reflects the limit load were recorded; and for delegated this task to the Transport significantly higher compliance costs. AA903 (eight rudder reversals), a load of Airplane and Engine subcommittee, This manufacturer’s most cost-efficient 1.53 times the limit load was which assigned it to the Flight Controls approach to addressing the proposed recorded.28 A catastrophe similar to Harmonization Working Group requirement—although high in AA587 was averted in these two events (FCHWG). One of the recommendations comparison to manufacturers who use only because the vertical stabilizer was of the ARAC Rudder Reversal Report, FBW systems exclusively—is to comply stronger than required by design issued on November 7, 2013, was to with a strengthened vertical stabilizer. standards.29 In a fourth event—Air require transport category airplanes to The cost of complying with a more Canada Flight 190 (AC190) (over the be able to safely withstand the loads reliable yaw damper was higher than state of Washington, January 10, 2008)— imposed by three rudder reversals. This strengthening the vertical stabilizer, and proposed rule adopts that higher yet if complying by converting to 23 NTSB Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR– recommendation. The ARAC report a FBW rudder system for new models. 04/04, p. 160. See footnote 5 on p. 6. As a result of these high costs and 24 indicates that requiring transport NTSB Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR– other reasons set forth in the preamble, 04/04, p. 31, n. 53. category airplanes to safely operate with the FAA has decided that the proposed 25 NTSB Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR– the vertical stabilizer loads imposed by rule would not apply to airplanes with 04/04, p. 104. three full-stroke rudder reversals 26 ‘‘unpowered’’ (mechanical) rudder FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory accounts for most of the attainable Committee. Flight Controls Harmonization Working control surfaces. An ‘‘unpowered’’ safety benefits. With more than three Group. Rudder Pedal Sensitivity/Rudder Reversal rudder control surface is one whose Recommendation Report, Nov. 7, 2013. (ARAC Rudder Reversal Report). This Report identifies four 30 An is a hinged control service on the movement is affected through notable rudder events to which we add the Interflug of the wing of a fixed-wing aircraft, mechanical means, without any incident discussed in the NTSB AA587 Report. one aileron per wing. augmentation from hydraulic or 27 NTSB Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR– 31 The yaw axis is defined to be perpendicular to electrical systems. Accordingly, the 04/04, pp. 106–109. the wings and to the normal line of flight. A yaw proposed rule would not apply to 28 NTSB Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR– movement is a change in the direction of the aircraft 04/04, pp. 104. to the left or right around the yaw axis. models with mechanical rudder control 29 NTSB Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR– 32 NTSB Safety Recommendation A–04–56, Nov. systems, but would apply only to 04/04, pp. 38–39. 10, 2004. models with FBW or hydro-mechanical

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM 16JYP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32813

rudder systems. The FAA solicits The FAA estimates the costs of the in the ten years after the effective date comments on the exclusion of airplanes proposed rule using unit cost per model of the proposed rule. These estimates with unpowered rudder control surfaces estimates from industry for FBW models are shown in table 1. The FAA solicits from the proposed rule and the and our estimates of the number of new comments, with detailed cost estimates, corresponding inclusion of FBW and large airplane and business jet on our estimates. hydro-mechanical models. certifications with FBW rudder systems

TABLE 1—COST ESTIMATED FOR PROPOSED RULE [$ 2016]

Number of Cost per new FBW model models Costs (10 yrs)

Large Airplanes ...... $300,000 2 $600,000 Business Jets ...... 235,000 2 470,000

Total Costs ...... 1,070,000

With these cost estimates, the FAA through software changes, the FAA uses an inflation-adjusted value of finds the proposed rule to be minimal estimates the costs of this proposed rule $155.0 million in lieu of $100 million. cost, with expected net safety benefits to be minimal. Therefore, as provided in This proposed rule does not contain from the reduced risk of rudder reversal section 605(b), the head of the FAA such a mandate. Therefore, the accidents. certifies that this proposed rule will not requirements of Title II of the Act do not have a significant economic impact on apply. B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination a substantial number of small entities. E. Paperwork Reduction Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 C. International Trade Impact The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a Assessment principle of regulatory issuance that (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the agencies shall endeavor, consistent with The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 FAA consider the impact of paperwork the objectives of the rule and of (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits Federal and other information collection applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and agencies from establishing standards or burdens imposed on the public. The informational requirements to the scale engaging in related activities that create FAA has determined that there would of the businesses, organizations, and unnecessary obstacles to the foreign be no new requirement for information governmental jurisdictions subject to commerce of the United States. collection associated with this proposed regulation. To achieve this principle, Pursuant to this Act, the establishment rule. of standards is not considered an agencies are required to solicit and F. International Compatibility and consider flexible regulatory proposals unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long Cooperation and to explain the rationale for their (1) In keeping with U.S. obligations actions to assure that such proposals are as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the under the Convention on International given serious consideration.’’ The RFA protection of safety, and does not Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to covers a wide range of small entities, operate in a manner that excludes conform to International Civil Aviation including small businesses, not-for- imports that meet this objective. The Organization (ICAO) Standards and profit organizations, and small statute also requires consideration of Recommended Practices to the governmental jurisdictions. international standards and, where maximum extent practicable. The FAA Agencies must perform a review to appropriate, that they be the basis for has determined that there are no ICAO determine whether a rule will have a U.S. standards. Standards and Recommended Practices significant economic impact on a The FAA has assessed the effect of that correspond to these proposed substantial number of small entities. If this proposed rule and determined that regulations. the agency determines that it will, the its purpose is to protect the safety of (2) Executive Order 13609, agency must prepare a regulatory U.S. civil aviation. Therefore, the ‘‘Promoting International Regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the proposed rule is in compliance with the Cooperation,’’ promotes international RFA. However, if an agency determines Trade Agreements Act. regulatory cooperation to meet shared that a rule is not expected to have a challenges involving health, safety, D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment significant economic impact on a labor, security, environmental, and substantial number of small entities, Title II of the Unfunded Mandates other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or section 605(b) of the RFA provides that Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) prevent unnecessary differences in the head of the agency may so certify requires each Federal agency to prepare regulatory requirements. The FAA has and a regulatory flexibility analysis is a written statement assessing the effects analyzed this action under the policies not required. The certification must of any Federal mandate in a proposed or and agency responsibilities of Executive include a statement providing the final agency rule that may result in an Order 13609, and has determined that factual basis for this determination, and expenditure of $100 million or more (in this action would have no effect on the reasoning should be clear. As noted 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, international regulatory cooperation. above, because manufacturers with FBW local, and tribal governments, in the rudder systems have been able to show aggregate, or by the private sector; such G. Environmental Analysis compliance by means of low-cost a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA changes to control laws incorporated regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently actions that are categorically excluded

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM 16JYP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 32814 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules

from preparation of an environmental comments, or if comments are filed including economic analyses and assessment or environmental impact electronically, commenters should technical reports, may be accessed from statement under the National submit only one time. the internet through the Federal Environmental Policy Act in the The FAA will file in the docket all eRulemaking Portal referenced in item absence of extraordinary circumstances. comments it receives, as well as a report (1) above. The FAA has determined this summarizing each substantive public List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 rulemaking action qualifies for the contact with FAA personnel concerning categorical exclusion identified in this proposed rulemaking. Before acting Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting paragraph 312f of Order 1050.1E and on this proposal, the FAA will consider and recordkeeping requirements. all comments it receives on or before the involves no extraordinary The Proposed Amendment circumstances. closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the In consideration of the foregoing, the V. Executive Order Determinations comment period has closed if it is Federal Aviation Administration A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism possible to do so without incurring proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, The FAA has analyzed this proposed expense or delay. The agency may Code of Federal Regulations as follows: change this proposal in light of the rule under the principles and criteria of PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism.’’ comments it receives. Proprietary or Confidential Business STANDARDS: TRANSPORT The agency has determined that this CATEGORY AIRPLANES action would not have a substantial Information: Commenters should not file proprietary or confidential business direct effect on the States, or the ■ information in the docket. Such 1. The authority citation for part 25 relationship between the Federal continues to read as follows: Government and the States, or on the information must be sent or delivered Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, distribution of power and directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 44701, 44702 and 44704. responsibilities among the various section of this document, and marked as levels of government, and, therefore, ■ 2. Add § 25.353 to read as follows: would not have Federalism proprietary or confidential. If submitting implications. information on a disk or CD–ROM, mark § 25.353 Rudder control reversal the outside of the disk or CD–ROM, and conditions. B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations identify electronically within the disk or For airplanes with a powered rudder That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, CD–ROM the specific information that control surface or surfaces, the airplane Distribution, or Use is proprietary or confidential. must be designed to withstand the The FAA analyzed this proposed rule Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is ultimate loads that result from the yaw under Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions aware of proprietary information filed maneuver conditions specified in Concerning Regulations that with a comment, the agency does not paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section place it in the docket. It is held in a Significantly Affect Energy Supply, at speeds from VMC or the highest Distribution, or Use’’ (May 18, 2001). separate file to which the public does airspeed for which it is possible to The agency has determined that it not have access, and the FAA places a achieve maximum rudder deflection at would not be a ‘‘significant energy note in the docket that it has received zero sideslip, whichever is greater, up to it. If the FAA receives a request to action’’ under the executive order and VC/MC. The applicant must evaluate would not be likely to have a significant examine or copy this information, it these conditions with the landing gear adverse effect on the supply, treats it as any other request under the retracted and speed brakes (and spoilers distribution, or use of energy. Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. when used as speed brakes) retracted. In 552). The FAA processes such a request computing the loads on the airplane, the C. Executive Order 13771, Reducing under Department of Transportation applicant may assume yawing velocity Regulation and Controlling Regulatory procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. to be zero. The applicant must assume Costs B. Availability of Rulemaking a pilot force of 200 pounds when This proposed rule is not expected to Documents evaluating each of these conditions: be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action (a) With the airplane in unaccelerated An electronic copy of rulemaking because this proposed rule is not flight at zero yaw, the flight deck rudder documents may be obtained from the significant under E.O. 12866. control is displaced as specified in internet by— VI. Additional Information 1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking § 25.351(a) and (b). (b) With the airplane yawed to the A. Comments Invited Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and overswing sideslip angle, the flight deck The FAA invites interested persons to Policies web page at http:// rudder control is suddenly displaced in participate in this rulemaking by www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or the opposite direction. submitting written comments, data, or 3. Accessing the Government Printing (c) With the airplane yawed to the views. The agency also invites Office’s web page at http:// opposite overswing sideslip angle, the comments relating to the economic, www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. flight deck rudder control is suddenly environmental, energy, or federalism Copies may also be obtained by displaced in the opposite direction. impacts that might result from adopting sending a request to the Federal (d) With the airplane yawed to the the proposals in this document. The Aviation Administration, Office of subsequent overswing sideslip angle, most helpful comments reference a Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence the flight deck rudder control is specific portion of the proposal, explain Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or suddenly displaced in the opposite the reason for any recommended by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters direction. change, and include supporting data. To must identify the docket or notice (e) With the airplane yawed to the ensure the docket does not contain number of this rulemaking. opposite overswing sideslip angle, the duplicate comments, commenters All documents the FAA considered in flight deck rudder control is suddenly should send only one copy of written developing this proposed rule, returned to neutral.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM 16JYP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 136 / Monday, July 16, 2018 / Proposed Rules 32815

Issued under authority provided by 49 calling 202–326–4040 during normal present value of the plan’s U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701(a) in Washington, business hours. (TTY users may call the nonforfeitable benefits is $50 million or DC, on July 2, 2018. Federal relay service toll-free at 800– less. The proposed rule would add a Dorenda D. Baker, 877–8339 and ask to be connected to new requirement for plan sponsors of Executive Director, Aircraft Certification 202–326–4040.) certain terminated or insolvent plans to Service. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: file actuarial valuations with PBGC. [FR Doc. 2018–15154 Filed 7–13–18; 8:45 am] Hilary Duke ([email protected]), Where the present value of the plan’s BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Assistant General Counsel for nonforfeitable benefits is $50 million or Regulatory Affairs, Office of the General less, a plan receiving financial Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty assistance from PBGC would be able to PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY Corporation, 1200 K Street NW, file alternative valuation information. CORPORATION Washington, DC 20005–4026; 202–326– The plan sponsor of a multiemployer 4400, extension 3839. (TTY users may plan also is responsible for determining, 29 CFR Parts 4041A, 4245, and 4281 call the Federal relay service toll-free at giving notice of, and collecting withdrawal liability. The proposal RIN 1212–AB38 800–877–8339 and ask to be connected to 202–326–4400, extension 3839.) would require plan sponsors of certain terminated or insolvent plans to file Terminated and Insolvent SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: with PBGC information about Multiemployer Plans and Duties of Executive Summary—Purpose of the withdrawal liability payments and Plan Sponsors Regulatory Action whether any employers have withdrawn AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty This proposed rule would make but have not yet been assessed Corporation. certain reporting and disclosure of withdrawal liability. ACTION: Proposed rule. multiemployer information to PBGC and Insolvency Notices and Updates interested parties more efficient and A multiemployer plan terminated by SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty reflect the repeal of the multiemployer mass withdrawal that is insolvent or is Corporation proposes to amend its plan reorganization rules. The proposal expected to be insolvent for a plan year multiemployer reporting, disclosure, would reduce costs by allowing smaller must provide certain notices to PBGC and valuation regulations to reduce the plans terminated by mass withdrawal to and participants and beneficiaries. number of actuarial valuations required perform actuarial valuations less Similarly, a multiemployer plan that is for smaller plans terminated by mass frequently and by removing certain certified by the plan’s actuary to be in withdrawal, add a valuation filing notice requirements for insolvent plans. critical status and that is expected to requirement and a withdrawal liability This would reduce plan administrative become insolvent under section 4245 of reporting requirement for certain costs and, in turn, may reduce financial ERISA must provide certain notices to terminated plans and insolvent plans, assistance provided by PBGC. remove certain insolvency notice and PBGC’s legal authority for this action PBGC and interested parties. Notices update requirements, and reflect the is based on section 4002(b)(3) of the include a notice of insolvency and a repeal of the multiemployer plan Employee Retirement Income Security notice of insolvency benefit level. The reorganization rules. Act of 1974 (ERISA), which authorizes proposed rule would eliminate outdated information included in the notices. The DATES: Comments must be submitted on PBGC to issue regulations to carry out proposal would require a plan to or before September 14, 2018 to be the purposes of title IV of ERISA; provide notices of insolvency if the plan assured of consideration. section 4041A(f)(2) of ERISA, which gives PBGC authority to prescribe sponsor determines the plan is insolvent ADDRESSES: Comments may be in the current plan year or is expected submitted by any of the following reporting requirements for terminated plans; section 4245(e) of ERISA, which to be insolvent in the next plan year. methods: The proposal also would eliminate the • directs PBGC to prescribe requirements Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// requirement to provide most annual www.regulations.gov. (Follow the online for notices regarding multiemployer plan insolvency; section 4261 of ERISA, updates to the notices of insolvency instructions for submitting comments.) benefit level. • Email: [email protected]. which authorizes PBGC to provide Refer to RIN 1212–AB38 in the subject financial assistance to insolvent plans, Background line. and section 4281(d)(3) of ERISA, which The Pension Benefit Guaranty • Mail or Hand Delivery: Regulatory directs PBGC to prescribe requirements Corporation (PBGC) administers two Affairs Division, Office of the General for notices to plan participants and insurance programs for private-sector Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty beneficiaries in the event of a benefit defined benefit pension plans under Corporation, 1200 K Street NW, suspension by an insolvent plan. title IV of the Employee Retirement Washington, DC 20005–4026. Executive Summary—Major Provisions Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA): A All submissions must include the of the Regulatory Action single-employer plan termination agency’s name (Pension Benefit insurance program and a multiemployer Guaranty Corporation, or PBGC) and the Plan Sponsor Duties—Annual Valuation plan insolvency insurance program. In RIN for this rulemaking (RIN 1212– and Withdrawal Liability general, a multiemployer pension plan AB38). All comments received will be The plan sponsor of a multiemployer is a collectively bargained plan posted without change to PBGC’s plan terminated by mass withdrawal is involving two or more unrelated website, www.pbgc.gov, including any responsible for specific duties, employers. This proposed rule deals personal information provided. Copies including an annual actuarial valuation with multiemployer plans. of comments may also be obtained by of the plan’s assets and benefits. This Under section 4041A of ERISA, a writing to Disclosure Division, Office of proposed rule would reduce mass withdrawal termination of a plan the General Counsel, Pension Benefit administrative burden by allowing the occurs when all employers withdraw or Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street plan sponsor to perform an actuarial cease to be obligated to contribute to the NW, Washington, DC 20005–4026, or valuation only every 5 years if the plan. A plan terminated by mass

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:54 Jul 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM 16JYP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS