Federal Register, Volume 75, Number 219, November 15, 2010, Pages 69571-69850 Page: 69,781
viii, 69849, iii p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 219/Monday, November 15, 2010 /Rules and Regulations
in related activities that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States.
Pursuant to these Acts, the
establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to
the foreign commerce of the United
States, so long as the standard has a
legitimate domestic objective, such as
the protection of safety, and does not
operate in a manner that excludes
imports that meet this objective. The
statute also requires consideration of
international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for
United States standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this final
rule and determined that it will impose
the same costs on domestic and
international entities and thus has a
neutral trade impact.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4)
requires each Federal agency to prepare
a written statement assessing the effects
of any Federal mandate in a proposed or
final agency rule that may result in an
expenditure of $100 million or more (in
1995 dollars) in any one year by State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector; such
a mandate is deemed to be a "significant
regulatory action." The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of
$136.1 million in lieu of $100 million.
This final rule does not contain such a
mandate. The requirements of Title II do
not apply.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule
under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We
determined that this action will not
have a substantial direct effect on the
States, the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, today's
rule does not have federalism
implications.
Regulations Affecting Intrastate
Aviation in Alaska
Section 1205 of the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the FAA, when
modifying its regulations in a manner
affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to
consider the extent to which Alaska is
not served by transportation modes
other than aviation, and to establish
appropriate regulatory distinctions. In
the NPRM, the FAA requested
comments on whether the proposed ruleshould apply differently to intrastate
operations in Alaska. As discussed
earlier, the FAA received comments on
this subject from the late Senator
Stevens, Senator Murkowski, and Everts
Air Cargo and has determined that there
would not be an adverse effect on
intrastate air transportation in Alaska
and that regulatory distinctions are not
appropriate.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA
actions that are categorically excluded
from preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact
statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act in the
absence of extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has determined this
rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in
paragraph 312f of the order and involves
no extraordinary circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA has analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We
have determined that it is not a
"significant regulatory action" under the
executive order because, while it is a
"significant regulatory action" under
Executive Order 12866 and DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures, it is
not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Continued airworthiness.
14 CFR Part 26
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Continued
airworthiness.
14 CFR Parts 121 and 129
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety,
Continued airworthiness, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
The Amendments
* In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations, parts 25, 26, 121,
and 129, as follows:
PART 25-AIRWORTHINESS
STANDARDS: TRANSPORT
CATEGORY AIRPLANES
a 1. The authority citation for part 25continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701,
44702 and 44704.
* 2. Amend 25.571 by revising
paragraphs (a)(3) introductory text and
(b) introductory text to read as follows:
25.571 Damage-tolerance and fatigue
evaluation of structure.
(a) * * *
(3) Based on the evaluations required
by this section, inspections or other
procedures must be established, as
necessary, to prevent catastrophic
failure, and must be included in the
Airworthiness Limitations section of the
Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness required by 25.1529.
The limit of validity of the engineering
data that supports the structural
maintenance program (hereafter referred
to as LOV), stated as a number of total
accumulated flight cycles or flight hours
or both, established by this section must
also be included in the Airworthiness
Limitations section of the Instructions
for Continued Airworthiness required
by 25.1529. Inspection thresholds for
the following types of structure must be
established based on crack growth
analyses and/or tests, assuming the
structure contains an initial flaw of the
maximum probable size that could exist
as a result of manufacturing or service-
induced damage:
(b) Damage-tolerance evaluation. The
evaluation must include a
determination of the probable locations
and modes of damage due to fatigue,
corrosion, or accidental damage.
Repeated load and static analyses
supported by test evidence and (if
available) service experience must also
be incorporated in the evaluation.
Special consideration for widespread
fatigue damage must be included where
the design is such that this type of
damage could occur. An LOV must be
established that corresponds to the
period of time, stated as a number of
total accumulated flight cycles or flight
hours or both, during which it is
demonstrated that widespread fatigue
damage will not occur in the airplane
structure. This demonstration must be
by full-scale fatigue test evidence. The
type certificate may be issued prior to
completion of full-scale fatigue testing,
provided the Administrator has
approved a plan for completing the
required tests. In that case, the
Airworthiness Limitations section of the
Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness required by 25.1529
must specify that no airplane may be
operated beyond a number of cycles
equal to 1/2 the number of cyclesaccumulated on the fatigue test article,
69781
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
United States. Office of the Federal Register. Federal Register, Volume 75, Number 219, November 15, 2010, Pages 69571-69850, periodical, November 15, 2010; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc52800/m1/218/: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.