59423

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 79, No. 191

Thursday, October 2, 2014

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER compartments located below or forward Specifications and Acceptable Means of contains regulatory documents having general of all occupants in the airplane. Compliance for Large Aeroplanes (CS– applicability and legal effect, most of which DATES: Effective December 1, 2014. 25). are keyed to and codified in the Code of ADDRESSES: For information on where to 1. Section 25.307(a), ‘‘Proof of Federal Regulations, which is published under structure,’’ currently requires structural 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. obtain copies of rulemaking documents and other information related to this strength testing, unless the applicant The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by final rule, see ‘‘How to Obtain has demonstrated that analysis alone is the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of Additional Information’’ in the reliable. Paragraph (a) is revised to new books are listed in the first FEDERAL SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of clarify the load levels to which testing REGISTER issue of each week. this document. is required, when such testing is FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For required. technical questions concerning this 2. Section 25.621, ‘‘Casting factors,’’ is DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION action, contact Todd Martin, Airframe revised to clarify the quality control, inspection, and testing requirements for Federal Aviation Administration and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM–115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft critical and non-critical castings. 3. Section 25.683, ‘‘Operation tests,’’ Certification Service, Federal Aviation 14 CFR Part 25 is revised to add a requirement that— Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., • The control system must remain Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone [Docket No.: FAA–2013–0109; Amdt. No. free from jamming, friction, (425) 227–1178; facsimile (425) 227– 25–139] disconnection, and permanent damage 1232; email [email protected]. in the presence of structural deflection For legal questions concerning this RIN 2120–AK13 and action, contact Sean Howe, Office of the • Under vibration loads, no hazard Regional Counsel, ANM–7, Federal Harmonization of Airworthiness may result from interference or contact Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Standards—Miscellaneous Structures of the control system with adjacent Avenue SW., Renton, Washington Requirements elements. 98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2591; 4. Section 25.721, ‘‘Landing Gear— AGENCY: Federal Aviation facsimile (425) 227–1007; email General,’’ is revised to— Administration (FAA), DOT. [email protected]. • Expand the landing gear failure ACTION: Final rule. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: conditions to include side loads, in addition to up and aft loads, and expand SUMMARY: This final rule amends certain Authority for This Rulemaking this requirement to include nose airworthiness regulations for transport The FAA’s authority to issue rules on landing gear in addition to the main category airplanes, based on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the landing gear, recommendations from the FAA- United States Code. Subtitle I, Section • Specify that the wheels-up landing sponsored Aviation Rulemaking 106 describes the authority of the FAA conditions are assumed to occur at a Advisory Committee (ARAC). This Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation descent rate of 5 feet per second, amendment eliminates regulatory Programs, describes in more detail the • Add a sliding-on-ground condition, differences between the airworthiness scope of the agency’s authority. and standards of the FAA and the European This rulemaking is promulgated • Require the engine mount be Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). This under the authority described in designed so that, when it fails due to final rule does not add new Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section overload, this failure does not cause the requirements beyond what 44701, ‘‘General Requirements.’’ Under spillage of enough fuel to constitute a manufacturers currently meet for EASA that section, the FAA is charged with fire hazard. certification and does not affect current promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 5. Section 25.787, ‘‘Stowage industry design practices. This final rule air commerce by prescribing regulations compartments,’’ is revised to expand the revises the structural test requirements and minimum standards for the design inertia forces requirements for cargo necessary when analysis has not been and performance of aircraft that the compartments by removing the found reliable; clarifies the quality Administrator finds necessary for safety exclusion of compartments located control, inspection, and testing in air commerce. This regulation is below or forward of all occupants in the requirements for critical and non- within the scope of that authority. It airplane. critical castings; adds control system prescribes new safety standards for the 6. Section 25.963, ‘‘Fuel tanks: requirements that consider structural design of transport category airplanes. general,’’ is revised to— deflection and vibration loads; expands • Require that fuel tanks be designed the fuel tank structural and system I. Overview of Final Rule so that no fuel is released in or near the requirements regarding emergency The FAA is amending Title 14, Code fuselage, or near the engines, in landing conditions and landing gear of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) quantities that would constitute a fire failure conditions; adds a requirement 25.307(a), 25.621, 25.683, 25.721, hazard in otherwise survivable that engine mount failure due to 25.787(a), 25.963(d), and 25.994 as emergency landing conditions, overload must not cause hazardous fuel described below. This action • Define fuel tank pressure loads for spillage; and revises the inertia forces harmonizes part 25 requirements with fuel tanks located within and outside requirements for cargo compartments by the corresponding requirements in Book the fuselage pressure boundary and near removing the exclusion of 1 of the EASA Certification the fuselage or near the engines, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:56 Oct 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES 59424 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

• Specify the wheels-up landing the inertial forces requirements for cargo Circular (AC) 25.307–1, ‘‘Proof of conditions and landing gear and engine compartments by removing the Structure,’’ which the FAA is issuing mount failure conditions that must be exclusion of compartments located concurrently with the final rule, considered when evaluating fuel tank below or forward of all occupants in the provides detailed guidance on means of structural integrity. airplane. The FAA proposed these compliance with the rule. 7. Section 25.994, ‘‘Fuel system changes to eliminate regulatory Another commenter recommended components,’’ is revised to specify the differences between the airworthiness changing the word ‘‘reliable’’ in the wheels-up landing conditions to be standards of the FAA and EASA. The proposed rule to ‘‘dependable and considered when evaluating fuel system NPRM comment period closed on May conservative.’’ The term ‘‘reliable’’ has components. 30, 2013. been in place since this rule was II. Background C. General Overview of Comments originally published in 1965. As stated in the NPRM, while the rule has A. Statement of the Problem The FAA received 16 comments from changed, the rule intent remains the Part 25 of 14 CFR prescribes 5 commenters. All commenters same. We believe ‘‘reliable’’ is airworthiness standards for type generally support the proposal, but they appropriate and clear, and no change is certification of transport category suggested changes discussed more fully necessary. airplanes, for products certified in the below. The FAA received comments on The same commenter also United States. EASA CS–25 Book 1 each of the sections being changed, as recommended noting that, where prescribes the corresponding follows: justified, test load levels may be less • Section 25.307(a)—four comments airworthiness standards for products than ultimate. We do not believe this • Section 25.621—four comments certified in Europe. While part 25 and change is necessary because it is already • Section 25.683—one comment CS–25 Book 1 are similar, they differ in expressed in the rule that substantiating • Section 25.721—one comment several respects. To resolve those tests must be made to load levels that • Section 25.787(a)—two comments differences, the FAA tasked ARAC are sufficient to verify structural • Section 25.963(d)—three comments through the Loads and Dynamics behavior up to loads specified in • Section 25.994—one comment Harmonization Working Group § 25.305. (LDHWG) and the General Structures III. Discussion of Public Comments and The same commenter also Harmonization Working Group Final Rule recommended the FAA add further (GSHWG) to review existing structures explanation about the absolute need to A. Section 25.307, Proof of Structure regulations and recommend changes validate models and when lack of that would eliminate differences In the NPRM, the FAA proposed validation might be acceptable. We do between the U.S. and European revising paragraph (a) of § 25.307 to not believe it is necessary to revise the airworthiness standards. The LDHWG require that, when structural analysis rule to address validation, since that and GSHWG developed has not been shown to be reliable, subject relates to the acceptability of an recommendations, which EASA has substantiating tests must be made to applicant’s showing of compliance incorporated into CS–25 with some load levels that are sufficient to verify rather than to the airworthiness changes. The FAA agrees with the structural behavior up to limit and standard itself. This subject is ARAC recommendations as adopted by ultimate loads of § 25.305. thoroughly addressed in the EASA, and this final rule amends part One commenter stated that § 25.305 accompanying AC 25.307–1. We have 25 accordingly. includes both limit and ultimate loads, not revised the final rule in this regard. so it is unclear which ‘‘loads’’ were B. Section 25.621, Casting Factors B. Summary of the NPRM intended by this change. More On February 14, 2013, the FAA issued importantly, ‘‘up to’’ could mean any With this rulemaking, the FAA a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking load level below limit or below ultimate clarifies ‘‘critical castings’’ as each (NPRM), Notice No. 25–137, Docket No. and as such is indefinite. For example, casting whose failure could preclude FAA–2013–0109, to amend §§ 25.307(a), an applicant could choose a load level continued safe flight and landing of the 25.621, 25.683, 25.721, 25.787(a), of 10 percent of limit load and be in airplane or could result in serious injury 25.963(d), and 25.994. That NPRM was compliance with the proposed rule. The to occupants. One commenter agreed published in the Federal Register on commenter proposed changing ‘‘up to that improved foundry methods have March 1, 2013 (78 FR 13835). (The loads specified in § 25.305’’ to ‘‘at least resulted in higher quality castings but NPRM Notice No. was corrected to ‘‘13– limit load as specified in § 25.305.’’ not to the point where a casting factor 03’’ in the Federal Register on April 16, The FAA believes the wording less than 1.25 is justified. The 2014 (79 FR 21413)). In the NPRM, the proposed in the NPRM is correct, and commenter recommended to either (1) FAA proposed to (1) revise the no change is necessary. The phrase ‘‘up eliminate the option for casting factors structural test requirements necessary to’’ does not apply to the test load level; of 1.0 for critical castings, or (2) ensure when analysis has not been found it applies to the design load level—the that the characterization of material reliable; (2) clarify the quality control, loads specified in § 25.305, including properties that are equivalent to those of inspection, and testing requirements for ultimate loads—which must be verified. wrought alloy products of similar critical and non-critical castings; (3) add The intent of the rule is that, when composition includes the effect of control system requirements that analysis has not been shown to be defects in the static strength, fatigue, consider structural deflection and reliable, tests must be conducted to and damage tolerance requirements. The vibration loads; (4) expand the fuel tank ‘‘sufficient’’ load levels. Normally, commenter provided the following structural and system requirements testing to ultimate load levels is examples of defects that could affect regarding emergency landing conditions required, but when previous relevant material properties: shell defects, hard- and landing gear failure conditions; (5) test evidence can be used to support the alpha contamination, shrink, porosity, add a requirement that engine mount analysis, a lower level of testing may be weld defects, grain size, hot tears, failure due to overload must not cause accepted. The rule allows this incomplete densifications, and prior hazardous fuel spillage; and (6) revise intermediate level of testing. Advisory particle boundaries, among others.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:56 Oct 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 59425

The FAA does not agree with the 25.621–1, which the FAA is issuing recommended including information to commenter’s first recommendation to concurrently with the final rule, remind manufacturers of this eliminate the option for using a casting provides detailed guidance on the requirement. The FAA agrees with the factor of 1.0 for critical castings. The premium casting process necessary to commenter that § 25.571 applies to criteria specified in the final rule will allow a casting factor of 1.0. The AC critical castings. We believe the current ensure product quality that is sufficient includes reference to and addresses wording in § 25.571 and the new to justify using a casting factor of 1.0. defects as proposed by the commenter. wording in § 25.621 is sufficiently clear According to the rule, to qualify for a We do not, however, agree that the on this point, and no changes to these casting factor of 1.0, the applicant must characterization of material properties requirements are necessary. to determine the appropriate casting demonstrate, through process No other public comments were qualification, proof of product, and factor should include the effect of defects on fatigue and damage tolerance received on § 25.621. However, after process monitoring, that the casting has further FAA review, we revised the rule coefficients of variation of the material properties. Since casting factors apply only to strength requirements, rather in several places to specify ‘‘visual properties that are equivalent to those of inspection and liquid penetrant or wrought alloy products of similar than fatigue and damage tolerance requirements, the comparison of cast equivalent inspection methods.’’ This composition. The rule requires process change is to clarify ‘‘equivalent monitoring that includes testing of material to wrought material should inspection methods’’ refers to the liquid coupons and, on a sampling basis, only be based on material strength penetrant inspection, and not the visual coupons cut from critical areas of properties, rather than fatigue and inspection. Although there is some production castings. In addition, the damage tolerance characteristics. textual difference between this and CS applicant must inspect 100 percent of Section 25.621(c)(2)(ii)(B) specifies a 25.621, there is no substantive the casting surface of each casting, as factor of 1.15 be applied to limit load difference between the two harmonized well as structurally significant internal test values to allow an applicant to use rules. areas and areas where defects are likely a casting factor of 1.25. Section 25.621(c)(3)(ii)(B) also specifies a factor to occur. The applicant must also test C. Section 25.683, Operation Tests one casting to limit and ultimate loads. of 1.15 be applied to limit load test The purpose of the minimum casting values to allow a casting factor of 1.5. A commenter noted that the control factor of 1.25 in the current rule is to One commenter recommended that the systems to which § 25.683(b) applies are increase the strength of the casting to 1.15 test factor in § 25.621(c)(3)(ii)(B) be those control systems that obtain the account for variability in the casting scaled up by a factor of 1.2 (1.5/1.25), pitch, roll, and yaw limit maneuver process. In the final rule, the additional so as to align with the corresponding loads of the airplane structure. For ultimate requirement. The 1.15 limit process, inspection, and test example, an applicant must take into load test factor in § 25.621(c)(3)(ii)(B) requirements required to use a casting account the elevator, rudder, and would then be 1.38 (i.e., 1.5/1.25 × 1.15; factor less than 1.25 ensure a more aileron because these control surfaces 1.15 being required already in consistent product and maintain the obtain the referenced maneuver loads, conjunction with the 1.25 casting factor same level of safety as the existing while high lift systems do not need to for ultimate). be considered under § 25.683(b). The standards. AC 25.621–1, ‘‘Casting The FAA does not agree that for commenter suggested that we clarify Factors,’’ provides detailed guidance on critical castings with a casting factor of this in the preamble to the final rule. the premium casting process necessary 1.25 or 1.5, the limit load test factor The FAA agrees and hereby clarifies to allow a casting factor of 1.0, and the should be linked to the ultimate load that § 25.683 only applies to those FAA is issuing that AC concurrently test factor. The ultimate and limit load control systems that are loaded to obtain with this final rule. tests have different purposes. The the specified maneuver loads. No The FAA partially agrees with the ultimate load test confirms ultimate change to the final rule text is necessary. commenter’s second recommendation, load capability, while the limit load test which is to ensure that the confirms that no deformation will occur No other public comments were characterization of material properties up to a much lower load level. received on § 25.683. We would like to that are equivalent to those of wrought Therefore, we see no reason to link the explain what is meant by ‘‘where alloy products of similar composition two test factors, and we believe the 1.15 necessary’’ as used in § 25.683(b). The includes the effect of defects in the factor specified in § 25.621(c)(3)(ii)(B) is rule states: ‘‘It must be shown by static strength, fatigue, and damage appropriate, as recommended by ARAC analysis and, where necessary, by tests, tolerance requirements. The rule and as currently specified in EASA CS that in the presence of deflections of the requires that the characterization of 25.621. airplane structure,’’ the control system material properties includes the effect of The same commenter recommended operates without jamming, excessive defects with regard to static strength. If modifying § 25.621(c) by adding a friction, or permanent damage. The FAA any type of defect is discovered during reference to § 25.305 for clarity—that may accept analysis alone to comply process qualification, proof of product, each critical casting must have a factor with this requirement. However, the or process monitoring, or by any associated with it for showing FAA or the applicant may determine inspection or static strength test, such compliance with the strength and that, in certain cases, some testing is that the coefficients of variation of the deformation requirement ‘‘of § 25.305.’’ necessary to verify the analysis. For material properties are not equivalent to We agree and have revised the final rule example, some testing may be necessary those of wrought alloy products of as recommended. if the structure or control system is similar composition, then that casting The same commenter noted that significantly more complex than a would not qualify for a casting factor of § 25.621 only refers to static testing and previous design, or if the analysis shows 1.0. These defects include each of the does not include any requirements for areas where the control system could be examples identified by the commenter, fatigue testing. The commenter stated susceptible to jamming, friction, as well as any other type of defect that that critical castings should also comply disconnection or damage. Testing may could affect material properties. In with § 25.571 concerning fatigue and include component testing or full-scale addition, as noted previously, AC damage tolerance. The commenter tests.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:56 Oct 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES 59426 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

D. Section 25.721, Landing Gear— change would ensure that, in these Another commenter suggested General compartments, inertia forces in the up modifying § 25.963(d)(5) to reference A commenter proposed to add a and aft direction will not injure landing gear before engine mounts in paragraph (d) to § 25.721 to state that passengers, and inertia forces in any the rule text, since these are referred to the conditions in paragraphs (a) through direction will not cause penetration of respectively in § 25.721(a) and (c). The (c) must be considered regardless of the fuel tanks or lines, or cause other FAA agrees and the recommended corresponding probabilities. The FAA hazards. change has been made. A commenter recommended revising does not believe this addition is the text to clarify that only those EASA CS 25.963(e)(2) provides the necessary. The various failure specific emergency landing conditions fire protection criteria for fuel tank conditions in the rule are stated that would result in one of the three access covers. A commenter directly, and the FAA intended no listed effects need to be considered. The recommended that § 25.963(e)(2) be implication that the probability of these FAA agrees, and we have revised the revised to match CS 25.963(e)(2), which failure conditions may be taken into text to clarify this intent. the commenter believes is clearer. The account. However, because the FAA The same commenter suggested that FAA notes that this paragraph was not proposed that a failure mode not be fires only need to be protected against addressed in the NPRM and so will not likely to cause the spillage of enough if they can result in injury to occupants, be addressed in this final rule. The FAA fuel to constitute a fire hazard, the and the rule text should be revised to might consider harmonizing this proposal may have implied that an clarify that intent. The FAA does not paragraph in the future. applicant should take probability into agree that fires only need to be protected account to determine whether the No other public comments were against if they can result in injury to received on § 25.963. However, after failure conditions would lead to fuel occupants. The FAA believes that the spillage. The FAA did not intend this. further FAA review, we determined that wording proposed in the NPRM is further explanation of the various Probability should not be taken into correct, and no change is necessary. The account to determine whether the requirements in § 25.963(d) would be requirement intends protection against beneficial. Section 25.963(d), as revised failure mode will lead to fuel spillage. any fire or explosion on the airplane. by Amendment 25-**, requires that No other public comments were Although the FAA agrees the objective ‘‘Fuel tanks must, so far as it is received on § 25.721. However, after of the rule is to prevent injuries to practicable, be designed, located, and further FAA review, we revised occupants, the FAA considers any fuel § 25.721(b) to clarify its intent. We tank fire or explosion in an otherwise installed so that no fuel is released in or removed the phrase ‘‘as separate survivable landing as potentially injury- near the fuselage, or near the engines, in conditions,’’ which was proposed in causing. quantities that would constitute a fire § 25.721(b)(1)(i) and (b)(2)(i), because hazard in otherwise survivable we believe that phrase is confusing. In F. Section 25.963, Fuel Tanks: General emergency landing conditions. . . .’’ In § 25.721(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii), we also One commenter suggested that exactly addition to this primary requirement, changed the proposed phrase ‘‘any other the same wording be used in § 25.963(d) § 25.963(d)(1) through (d)(5) provide combination of landing gear legs not and CS 25.963(d). EASA CS 25.963(d) minimum quantitative criteria. extended’’ to ‘‘any one or more landing requires that no fuel be released in Survivable landing conditions may gear legs not extended’’ which is the quantities ‘‘sufficient to start a serious occur that exceed, or are not captured same phrase used in § 25.721(b) at fire’’ in otherwise survivable emergency by, the conditions specified in Amendment 25–32. We made this landing conditions. Proposed § 25.963(d)(1) through (d)(5). Therefore, change to ensure that applicants are § 25.963(d) would have required that no to meet the introductory requirement in required to address every possible fuel be released in quantities ‘‘that § 25.963(d), every practicable combination of landing gear legs not would constitute a fire hazard.’’ The consideration should be made to ensure extended, including single landing gear FAA stated in the NPRM that the two protection of fuel tanks in more severe legs not extended. This is consistent phrases have the same meaning, and crash conditions, especially tanks with the way EASA has applied its rule. that proposed § 25.963(d) was more located in the fuselage below the main Both §§ 25.721(b) and 25.994 final consistent with the wording of the other cabin floor. rules use the phrase ‘‘wheels-up related sections. The fuel tank pressure loads specified The FAA is adopting the wording landing.’’ This phrase has been used in in § 25.963(d) vary depending on proposed in the NPRM as more § 25.994 since that rule was adopted at whether the fuel tank is within or appropriate. As noted in the NPRM, the Amendment 25–23. A ‘‘wheels-up outside the pressure boundary. For two phrases have the same meaning, landing’’ includes every possible certification of unpressurized airplanes, and the latter phrase is consistent with combination of landing gear legs not all fuel tanks should be considered to be the wording in CS 25.721/§ 25.721, CS extended, including single landing gear ‘‘within’’ the fuselage pressure 25.963(d)(4)/§ 25.963(d)(4), and CS legs not extended, and all gears fully boundary, unless a fire resistant barrier retracted. 25.994/§ 25.994. In addition, EASA agrees with and supports the NPRM. In exists between the fuel tank and the E. Section 25.787, Stowage recent special conditions, the FAA has occupied compartments of the airplane. Compartments defined a hazardous fuel leak as ‘‘a Finally, the FAA notes that, for future To date, § 25.787(a) has required that running leak, a dripping leak, or a leak rulemaking, we plan to consider specific cargo compartments be designed to the that, 15 minutes after wiping dry, crashworthiness requirements that emergency landing conditions of results in a wetted airplane surface would exceed the quantitative criteria § 25.561(b), but excluded compartments exceeding 6 inches in length or specified in §§ 25.561, 25.721, and located below or forward of all diameter.’’ We regard this as an 25.963. Also, the FAA has recently occupants in the airplane. The FAA appropriate definition of the amount of applied special conditions on certain now revises § 25.787(a) to include fuel that would ‘‘constitute a fire airplanes that require a crashworthiness compartments located below or forward hazard’’ as specified in §§ 25.721, evaluation at descent rates up to 30 feet of all occupants in the airplane. This 25.963, and 25.994. per second.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:56 Oct 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 59427

G. Section 25.994, Fuel System Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies category airplanes, certificated under Components from setting standards that create part 25 must be in compliance with the To date, § 25.994 has required that unnecessary obstacles to the foreign EASA certification requirements in CS– fuel system components in an engine commerce of the United States. In 25 Book 1. Since future certificated nacelle or in the fuselage be protected developing U.S. standards, the Trade transport airplanes are expected to meet from damage that could result in Act requires agencies to consider CS–25 Book 1, and this rule simply spillage of enough fuel to constitute a international standards and, where adopts the same EASA requirements, fire hazard as a result of a wheels-up appropriate, that they be the basis of manufacturers will incur minimal or no landing on a paved runway. We U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded additional cost resulting from this final proposed to revise § 25.994 to specify Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. rule. Therefore, the FAA estimates that that the wheels-up landing conditions 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a there are no additional costs associated that must be considered are those written assessment of the costs, benefits, with this final rule. prescribed in § 25.721(b). and other effects of proposed or final In fact, manufacturers could receive A commenter proposed two changes rules that include a Federal mandate cost savings because they will not have to what the FAA proposed: (1) Add a likely to result in the expenditure by to build and certificate transport reference to § 25.721(c), and (2) change State, local, or tribal governments, in the category airplanes to two different the order in which the nacelles and the aggregate, or by the private sector, of authorities’ certification specifications fuselage are referenced, based on the $100 million or more annually (adjusted and rules. Further, harmonization of order the fuselage and nacelle are for inflation with base year of 1995). these airworthiness standards, addressed in § 25.721. We do not agree This portion of the preamble specifically § 25.621 may benefit summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the with the proposed changes. Adding a manufacturers by providing another economic impacts of this final rule. reference to § 25.721(c) would not be option in developing aircraft structures. Department of Transportation Order The final rule permits use of a lower correct because wheels-up landing DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and conditions are only listed in § 25.721(b). casting factor for critical castings, procedures for simplification, analysis, provided that tight controls are Since § 25.721(c) is not referenced in and review of regulations. If the § 25.994, and since § 25.721(b) does not established for the casting process, expected cost impact is so minimal that inspection, and testing, which lead to refer to the fuselage or nacelles, there is a proposed or final rule does not no reason to change the order in which cost savings in terms of aircraft weight. warrant a full evaluation, this order These additional controls are expected the fuselage and nacelles are specified permits that a statement to that effect in § 25.994. to at least maintain an equivalent level and the basis for it be included in the of safety as provided by existing H. Advisory Material preamble if a full regulatory evaluation regulations for casting factors. of the cost and benefits is not prepared. On March 13, 2013, the FAA The FAA has not attempted to Such a determination has been made for published and solicited public quantify the cost savings that may this final rule. The reasoning for this comments on three proposed ACs that accrue from this final rule, beyond determination follows. describe acceptable means for showing The FAA is amending certain noting that, while they may be minimal, compliance with the proposed airworthiness standards for transport they contribute overall to a potential regulations in the NPRM. The comment category airplanes. Adopting this final harmonization savings. The agency period for the proposed ACs closed on rule would eliminate regulatory concludes that because the compliance June 14, 2013. Concurrently with this differences between the airworthiness cost for this final rule is minimal and final rule, the FAA is issuing the standards of the FAA and the EASA. there may be harmonization cost following new ACs to provide guidance This final rule does not add new savings, further analysis is not required. material for the regulations adopted by requirements as U.S. manufacturers During the public comment period, this amendment: the Agency received 16 comments from • currently meet EASA requirements. AC 25–30, ‘‘Fuel Tank Strength in Meeting two sets of certification 5 commenters. There were no comments Emergency Landing Conditions.’’ (AC requirements imposes greater costs for regarding costs to this final rule; 25–30 would provide guidance for the developing new transport category however, one commenter raised concern fuel tank structural integrity airplanes with little to no increase in for safety in § 25.621. Details of this requirements of §§ 25.561, 25.721, and safety. In the interest of fostering comment and the FAA’s response can 25.963.) be found in the ‘‘General Overview of • international trade, lowering the cost of AC 25.307–1, ‘‘Proof of Structure.’’ manufacturing new transport category Comments’’ section. These • AC 25.621–1, ‘‘Casting Factors.’’ airplanes, and making the certification harmonization efforts ensure that the IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses process more efficient, the FAA, EASA, current level of safety in transport and several industry working groups category airplanes is maintained while A. Regulatory Evaluation came together to create, to the maximum encouraging the use of modern casting Changes to Federal regulations must extent possible, a single set of process technology. undergo several economic analyses. certification requirements that would be The agency concludes that the First, Executive Order 12866 and accepted in both the United States and changes would eliminate regulatory Executive Order 13563 direct that each Europe. Therefore, as a result of these differences between the airworthiness Federal agency shall propose or adopt a harmonization efforts, the FAA is standards of the FAA and EASA regulation only upon a reasoned amending the airworthiness regulations resulting in potential cost savings and determination that the benefits of the described in section I of this final rule, maintaining current levels of safety. The intended regulation justify its costs. ‘‘Overview of the Final Rule.’’ This FAA has, therefore, determined that this Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act action harmonizes part 25 requirements final rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires with the corresponding requirements in action’’ as defined in section 3(f) of agencies to analyze the economic EASA CS–25 Book 1. Executive Order 12866, and is not impact of regulatory changes on small In order to sell their aircraft in ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Europe, all manufacturers of transport Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:56 Oct 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES 59428 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination C. International Trade Impact Standards and Recommended Practices Assessment and has identified no differences with The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 these regulations. (Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the (2) Executive Order (EO) 13609, principle of regulatory issuance that Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. Promoting International Regulatory agencies shall endeavor, consistent with L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, the objectives of the rule and of from establishing standards or engaging 2012) promotes international regulatory applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and in related activities that create cooperation to meet shared challenges informational requirements to the scale unnecessary obstacles to the foreign involving health, safety, labor, security, of the businesses, organizations, and commerce of the United States. environmental, and other issues and governmental jurisdictions subject to Pursuant to these Acts, the reduce, eliminate, or prevent regulation. To achieve this principle, establishment of standards is not unnecessary differences in regulatory agencies are required to solicit and considered an unnecessary obstacle to requirements. The FAA has analyzed consider flexible regulatory proposals the foreign commerce of the United this action under the policy and agency and to explain the rationale for their States, so long as the standard has a responsibilities of Executive Order actions to assure that such proposals are legitimate domestic objective, such the 13609, Promoting International given serious consideration.’’ The RFA protection of safety, and does not Regulatory Cooperation. The agency has covers a wide-range of small entities, operate in a manner that excludes determined that this action would including small businesses, not-for- imports that meet this objective. The eliminate differences between U.S. profit organizations, and small statute also requires consideration of aviation standards and those of other governmental jurisdictions. international standards and, where civil aviation authorities by creating a Agencies must perform a review to appropriate, that they be the basis for single set of certification requirements for transport category airplanes that determine whether a rule will have a U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed would be acceptable in both the United significant economic impact on a the potential effect of this final rule and States and Europe. substantial number of small entities. If determined that it is in accord with the the agency determines that it will, the Trade Agreements Act as the final rule G. Environmental Analysis uses European standards as the basis for agency must prepare a regulatory United States regulation. FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA flexibility analysis as described in the actions that are categorically excluded RFA. D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment from preparation of an environmental However, if an agency determines that Title II of the Unfunded Mandates assessment or environmental impact a rule is not expected to have a Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) statement under the National significant economic impact on a requires each Federal agency to prepare Environmental Policy Act in the substantial number of small entities, a written statement assessing the effects absence of extraordinary circumstances. section 605(b) of the RFA provides that of any Federal mandate in a proposed or The FAA has determined this the head of the agency may so certify, final agency rule that may result in an rulemaking action qualifies for the and a regulatory flexibility analysis is expenditure of $100 million or more (in categorical exclusion identified in not required. The certification must 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, paragraph 312f of Order 1050.1E and include a statement providing the local, and tribal governments, in the involves no extraordinary factual basis for this determination, and aggregate, or by the private sector; such circumstances. the reasoning should be clear. a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently V. Executive Order Determinations The FAA believes that this final rule uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151 A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism does not have a significant economic million in lieu of $100 million. This impact on a substantial number of small final rule does not contain such a The FAA has analyzed this final rule entities for the following reasons. The mandate; therefore, the requirements of under the principles and criteria of net effect of this final rule is minimum Title II of the Act do not apply. Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The regulatory cost relief, as the rule would agency determined that this action will adopt EASA requirements that the E. Paperwork Reduction Act not have a substantial direct effect on industry already meets. Further, all The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the States, or the relationship between United States transport category aircraft (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the the Federal Government and the States, manufacturers exceed the Small FAA consider the impact of paperwork or on the distribution of power and Business Administration small-entity and other information collection responsibilities among the various criteria of 1,500 employees. The Agency burdens imposed on the public. The levels of government, and, therefore, received no comments regarding the FAA has determined that there would does not have Federalism implications. Regulatory Flexibility Act during the be no new requirement for information B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations public comment period. collection associated with this final That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, rule. If an agency determines that a Distribution, or Use rulemaking will not result in a F. International Compatibility and The FAA analyzed this final rule significant economic impact on a Cooperation under Executive Order 13211, Actions substantial number of small entities, the (1) In keeping with U.S. obligations Concerning Regulations that head of the agency may so certify under under the Convention on International Significantly Affect Energy Supply, section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The provided in section 605(b), the head of conform to International Civil Aviation agency has determined that it is not a the FAA certifies that this rulemaking Organization (ICAO) Standards and ‘‘significant energy action’’ under the will not result in a significant economic Recommended Practices to the executive order and it is not likely to impact on a substantial number of small maximum extent practicable. The FAA have a significant adverse effect on the entities. has reviewed the corresponding ICAO supply, distribution, or use of energy.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:56 Oct 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 59429

VI. How To Obtain Additional PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS if produced from a single pour into a Information STANDARDS: TRANSPORT single mold in a runner system) and, on CATEGORY AIRPLANES a sampling basis, coupons cut from A. Rulemaking Documents critical areas of production castings. The ■ 1. The authority citation for part 25 An electronic copy of a rulemaking acceptance criteria for the process continues to read as follows: document may be obtained by using the monitoring inspections and tests must Internet— Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, be established and included in the 44702, and 44704. process specifications to ensure the 1. Search the Federal eRulemaking ■ 2. Amend § 25.307 by revising properties of the production castings are Portal (http://www.regulations.gov), paragraph (a) to read as follows: controlled to within levels used in 2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and design. Policies Web page at http:// § 25.307 Proof of structure. (ii) Each casting receives: www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/, or (a) Compliance with the strength and (A) Inspection of 100 percent of its deformation requirements of this surface, using visual inspection and 3. Access the Government Printing subpart must be shown for each critical liquid penetrant or equivalent Office’s Web page at http:// loading condition. Structural analysis inspection methods; and www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. may be used only if the structure (B) Inspection of structurally Copies may also be obtained by conforms to that for which experience significant internal areas and areas sending a request (identified by notice, has shown this method to be reliable. In where defects are likely to occur, using amendment, or docket number of this other cases, substantiating tests must be radiographic or equivalent inspection rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation made to load levels that are sufficient to methods. Administration, Office of Rulemaking, verify structural behavior up to loads (iii) One casting undergoes a static ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue specified in § 25.305. test and is shown to meet the strength SW., Washington, DC 20591; or by * * * * * and deformation requirements of calling (202) 267–9680. ■ § 25.305(a) and (b). 3. Amend § 25.621 by revising (2) A casting factor of 1.25 or greater B. Comments Submitted to the Docket paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) to read as may be used, provided that— follows: (i) Each casting receives: Comments received may be viewed by § 25.621 Casting factors. (A) Inspection of 100 percent of its going to http://www.regulations.gov and (a) General. For castings used in surface, using visual inspection and following the online instructions to liquid penetrant or equivalent search the docket number for this structural applications, the factors, tests, and inspections specified in paragraphs inspection methods; and action. Anyone is able to search the (B) Inspection of structurally (b) through (d) of this section must be electronic form of all comments significant internal areas and areas applied in addition to those necessary to received into any of the FAA’s dockets where defects are likely to occur, using establish foundry quality control. The by the name of the individual radiographic or equivalent inspection inspections must meet approved methods. submitting the comment (or signing the specifications. Paragraphs (c) and (d) of (ii) Three castings undergo static tests comment, if submitted on behalf of an this section apply to any structural and are shown to meet: association, business, labor union, etc.). castings, except castings that are (A) The strength requirements of pressure tested as parts of hydraulic or C. Small Business Regulatory § 25.305(b) at an ultimate load other fluid systems and do not support Enforcement Fairness Act corresponding to a casting factor of 1.25; structural loads. and The Small Business Regulatory * * * * * (B) The deformation requirements of Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of (c) Critical castings. Each casting § 25.305(a) at a load of 1.15 times the 1996 requires the FAA to comply with whose failure could preclude continued limit load. small entity requests for information or safe flight and landing of the airplane or (3) A casting factor of 1.50 or greater advice about compliance with statutes could result in serious injury to may be used, provided that— and regulations within its jurisdiction. occupants is a critical casting. Each (i) Each casting receives: A small entity with questions regarding critical casting must have a factor (A) Inspection of 100 percent of its this document, may contact its local associated with it for showing surface, using visual inspection and FAA official, or the person listed under compliance with strength and liquid penetrant or equivalent the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT deformation requirements of § 25.305, inspection methods; and heading at the beginning of the and must comply with the following (B) Inspection of structurally preamble. To find out more about criteria associated with that factor: significant internal areas and areas SBREFA on the Internet, visit http:// (1) A casting factor of 1.0 or greater where defects are likely to occur, using www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ may be used, provided that— radiographic or equivalent inspection rulemaking/sbre_act/. (i) It is demonstrated, in the form of methods. process qualification, proof of product, (ii) One casting undergoes a static test List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 and process monitoring that, for each and is shown to meet: casting design and part number, the (A) The strength requirements of Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting castings produced by each foundry and § 25.305(b) at an ultimate load and recordkeeping requirements. process combination have coefficients of corresponding to a casting factor of 1.50; The Amendment variation of the material properties that and are equivalent to those of wrought alloy (B) The deformation requirements of In consideration of the foregoing, the products of similar composition. § 25.305(a) at a load of 1.15 times the Federal Aviation Administration Process monitoring must include testing limit load. amends chapter I of title 14, Code of of coupons cut from the prolongations (d) Non-critical castings. For each Federal Regulations, as follows: of each casting (or each set of castings, casting other than critical castings, as

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:56 Oct 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES 59430 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

specified in paragraph (c) of this (1) Jamming; ■ 6. Amend § 25.787 by revising section, the following apply: (2) Excessive friction; and paragraph (a) to read as follows: (1) A casting factor of 1.0 or greater (3) Excessive deflection. may be used, provided that the (b) It must be shown by analysis and, § 25.787 Stowage compartments. requirements of (c)(1) of this section are where necessary, by tests, that in the (a) Each compartment for the stowage met, or all of the following conditions presence of deflections of the airplane of cargo, baggage, carry-on articles, and are met: structure due to the separate application equipment (such as life rafts), and any (i) Castings are manufactured to of pitch, roll, and yaw limit maneuver other stowage compartment, must be approved specifications that specify the loads, the control system, when loaded designed for its placarded maximum minimum mechanical properties of the to obtain these limit loads and operated weight of contents and for the critical material in the casting and provides for within its operational range of load distribution at the appropriate demonstration of these properties by deflections, can be exercised about all maximum load factors corresponding to testing of coupons cut from the castings control axes and remain free from— the specified flight and ground load on a sampling basis. (1) Jamming; conditions, and to those emergency (ii) Each casting receives: (2) Excessive friction; landing conditions of § 25.561(b)(3) for (A) Inspection of 100 percent of its (3) Disconnection; and which the breaking loose of the contents surface, using visual inspection and (4) Any form of permanent damage. of such compartments in the specified liquid penetrant or equivalent (c) It must be shown that under direction could— inspection methods; and vibration loads in the normal flight and (1) Cause direct injury to occupants; (B) Inspection of structurally ground operating conditions, no hazard (2) Penetrate fuel tanks or lines or significant internal areas and areas can result from interference or contact cause fire or explosion hazard by where defects are likely to occur, using with adjacent elements. damage to adjacent systems; or radiographic or equivalent inspection ■ 5. Revise § 25.721 to read as follows: (3) Nullify any of the escape facilities methods. provided for use after an emergency (iii) Three sample castings undergo § 25.721 General. landing. static tests and are shown to meet the (a) The landing gear system must be If the airplane has a passenger-seating strength and deformation requirements designed so that when it fails due to configuration, excluding pilot seats, of of § 25.305(a) and (b). overloads during takeoff and landing, 10 seats or more, each stowage (2) A casting factor of 1.25 or greater the failure mode is not likely to cause compartment in the passenger cabin, may be used, provided that each casting spillage of enough fuel to constitute a except for under seat and overhead receives: fire hazard. The overloads must be compartments for passenger (i) Inspection of 100 percent of its assumed to act in the upward and aft convenience, must be completely surface, using visual inspection and directions in combination with side enclosed. liquid penetrant or equivalent loads acting inboard and outboard. In * * * * * inspection methods; and the absence of a more rational analysis, ■ 7. Amend § 25.963 by revising (ii) Inspection of structurally the side loads must be assumed to be up paragraph (d) to read as follows: significant internal areas and areas to 20 percent of the vertical load or 20 where defects are likely to occur, using percent of the drag load, whichever is § 25.963 Fuel tanks: general. radiographic or equivalent inspection greater. * * * * * methods. (b) The airplane must be designed to (d) Fuel tanks must, so far as it is (3) A casting factor of 1.5 or greater avoid any rupture leading to the spillage practicable, be designed, located, and may be used, provided that each casting of enough fuel to constitute a fire hazard installed so that no fuel is released in or receives inspection of 100 percent of its as a result of a wheels-up landing on a near the fuselage, or near the engines, in surface using visual inspection and paved runway, under the following quantities that would constitute a fire liquid penetrant or equivalent minor crash landing conditions: hazard in otherwise survivable inspection methods. (1) Impact at 5 feet-per-second vertical emergency landing conditions, and— (4) A casting factor of 2.0 or greater velocity, with the airplane under (1) Fuel tanks must be able to resist may be used, provided that each casting control, at Maximum Design Landing rupture and retain fuel under ultimate receives inspection of 100 percent of its Weight— hydrostatic design conditions in which surface using visual inspection (i) With the landing gear fully the pressure P within the tank varies in methods. retracted; and accordance with the formula: (5) The number of castings per (ii) With any one or more landing gear P = KrgL production batch to be inspected by legs not extended. non-visual methods in accordance with (2) Sliding on the ground, with— Where— paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section (i) The landing gear fully retracted P = fuel pressure at each point within the may be reduced when an approved and with up to a 20° yaw angle; and tank quality control procedure is established. (ii) Any one or more landing gear legs r = typical fuel density ° g = acceleration due to gravity ■ 4. Revise § 25.683 to read as follows: not extended and with 0 yaw angle. L = a reference distance between the point of (c) For configurations where the pressure and the tank farthest boundary § 25.683 Operation tests. engine nacelle is likely to come into in the direction of loading (a) It must be shown by operation contact with the ground, the engine K = 4.5 for the forward loading condition for tests that when portions of the control pylon or engine mounting must be those parts of fuel tanks outside the system subject to pilot effort loads are designed so that when it fails due to fuselage pressure boundary loaded to 80 percent of the limit load overloads (assuming the overloads to act K = 9 for the forward loading condition for specified for the system and the predominantly in the upward direction those parts of fuel tanks within the fuselage pressure boundary, or that form powered portions of the control system and separately, predominantly in the aft part of the fuselage pressure boundary are loaded to the maximum load direction), the failure mode is not likely K = 1.5 for the aft loading condition expected in normal operation, the to cause the spillage of enough fuel to K = 3.0 for the inboard and outboard loading system is free from— constitute a fire hazard. conditions for those parts of fuel tanks

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:56 Oct 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 191 / Thursday, October 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 59431

within the fuselage pressure boundary, Issued under authority provided by 49 mile 12.8, at Rio Vista, CA. The or that form part of the fuselage pressure U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in deviation is necessary to allow the boundary Washington, DC, on September 24, 2014. bridge owner to make necessary bridge K = 1.5 for the inboard and outboard loading Michael P. Huerta, maintenance repairs. This deviation conditions for those parts of fuel tanks Administrator. allows the bridge to open on four hours outside the fuselage pressure boundary K = 6 for the downward loading condition [FR Doc. 2014–23373 Filed 10–1–14; 8:45 am] advance notice during the deviation K = 3 for the upward loading condition BILLING CODE 4910–13–P period. (2) For those parts of wing fuel tanks DATES: This deviation is effective without actual notice from October 2, near the fuselage or near the engines, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION the greater of the fuel pressures 2014 through 6 a.m. on October 17, 2014. For the purposes of enforcement, resulting from paragraphs (d)(2)(i) or Federal Aviation Administration (d)(2)(ii) of this section must be used: actual notice will be used from 9 p.m. on September 22, 2014, until October 2, (i) The fuel pressures resulting from 14 CFR Part 25 2014. paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and (ii) The lesser of the two following [Docket No. FAA–2014–0366; Special ADDRESSES: The docket for this Conditions No. 25–564–SC] conditions: deviation, [USCG–2014–0848], is available at http://www.regulations.gov. (A) Fuel pressures resulting from the Special Conditions: Embraer S.A.; Type the docket number in the accelerations specified in § 25.561(b)(3) Model EMB–550 Airplane; Flight ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ considering the fuel tank full of fuel at Envelope Protection: High Incidence Click on Open Docket Folder on the line maximum fuel density. Fuel pressures Protection System associated with this deviation. You may based on the 9.0g forward acceleration also visit the Docket Management may be calculated using the fuel static Correction Facility in Room W12–140 on the head equal to the streamwise local In rule document 2014–20893 ground floor of the Department of chord of the tank. For inboard and appearing on pages 52165 through Transportation West Building, 1200 outboard conditions, an acceleration of 52169 in the issue of Wednesday, New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 1.5g may be used in lieu of 3.0g as September 3, 2014, make the following DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., specified in § 25.561(b)(3). corrections: Monday through Friday, except Federal (B) Fuel pressures resulting from the 1. On page 52169, in the first column, holidays. accelerations as specified in the 27th line from the bottom should FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If § 25.561(b)(3) considering a fuel volume read: ‘‘In lieu of § 25.107(c) and (g) we you have questions on this temporary beyond 85 percent of the maximum propose the following requirements, deviation, call or email David H. permissible volume in each tank using with additional sections (c’) and (g’):’’ Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh the static head associated with the 85 2. On page 52169, in the first column, Coast Guard District; telephone 510– percent fuel level. A typical density of the 11th line from the bottom should 437–3516, email David.H.Sulouff@ the appropriate fuel may be used. For read: ‘‘(c’) In icing conditions with the uscg.mil. If you have questions on inboard and outboard conditions, an ‘‘takeoff ice’’ accretion defined in part viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, acceleration of 1.5g may be used in lieu 25, appendix C, V2 may not be less Program Manager, Docket Operations, of 3.0g as specified in § 25.561(b)(3). than—’’ telephone 202–366–9826. (3) Fuel tank internal barriers and 3. On page 52169, in the second SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The baffles may be considered as solid column, the eighth line from the top California Department of Transportation boundaries if shown to be effective in should read: ‘‘(g’) In icing conditions has requested a temporary change to the limiting fuel flow. with the ‘‘final takeoff ice’’ accretion operation of the Rio Vista Drawbridge, (4) For each fuel tank and defined in part 25, appendix C, VFTO, mile 12.8, over Sacramento River, at Rio surrounding airframe structure, the may not be less than—’’ Vista, CA. The drawbridge navigation effects of crushing and scraping actions [FR Doc. C1–2014–20893 Filed 10–1–14; 8:45 am] span provides 18 feet vertical clearance with the ground must not cause the BILLING CODE 1505–01–P above Mean High Water in the closed- spillage of enough fuel, or generate to-navigation position. In accordance temperatures that would constitute a with 33 CFR 117.5, the draw opens on fire hazard under the conditions signal. Navigation on the waterway is specified in § 25.721(b). DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY commercial, search and rescue, law (5) Fuel tank installations must be enforcement, and recreational. such that the tanks will not rupture as Coast Guard A four-hour advance notice for a result of the landing gear or an engine openings is required from 9 p.m. to 6 pylon or engine mount tearing away as 33 CFR Part 117 a.m. daily, from September 22, 2014 to specified in § 25.721(a) and (c). October 17, 2014, to allow the bridge * * * * * [Docket No. USCG–2014–0848] owner to repair the concrete vertical lift ■ 8. Revise § 25.994 to read as follows: Drawbridge Operation Regulation; span deck. This temporary deviation has Sacramento River, Rio Vista, CA been coordinated with the waterway § 25.994 Fuel system components. users. No objections to the temporary Fuel system components in an engine AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. deviation were raised. nacelle or in the fuselage must be ACTION: Notice of deviation from Vessels able to pass through the protected from damage that could result drawbridge regulation. bridge in the closed position may do so in spillage of enough fuel to constitute at any time. The bridge will be able to a fire hazard as a result of a wheels-up SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a open for emergencies with four hour landing on a paved runway under each temporary deviation from the operating advance notice. No alternative route is of the conditions prescribed in schedule that governs the Rio Vista available for navigation. The Coast § 25.721(b). Drawbridge across Sacramento River, Guard will inform waterway users of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:56 Oct 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR1.SGM 02OCR1 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES