# Federal Aviation Administration 

# Memorandum

Date: To:

From: Subject: October 20 , 2015 FAA-2015-1621 Part 23 Reorganization Rulemaking Project 

### Lirio Liu , Director, Office of Rulemaking , ARM-Ic&- Ex Parte meeting with EASA on the Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, Acrobat i c, and Commuter Category Airplanes (Part 23) rulemaking project On June I 0, 2015, a meeting was he l d between representative s of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on the harmonization efforts of the reorganization of the FAA's Title 14 ofthe United States Code (14 CFR) Part 23 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and EASA's Certification Spec ificat ion (CS)- 23 Advance Notice ofProposed Amendment (A-NPA). Attending the meeting for EASA were Patrick Ky , Executive Director, and Lu Tygat , Director of Strategy and Safety Manag e me nt. Attending the meeting for the FAA were Peggy Gilligan, Assoc iate Adm inistrator for Av iation Safety, Dorenda Baker, Director ofthe Aircraft Certification Service and Lirio Liu , Director of the Office ofRu l emak ing. On March 27,2015, EASA released the Advance Notice of Proposed Amendment (A

- NPA) 20 1 5

- 06, title d " Reorganisation of Part 23 and CS

- 23". On May 27 , 2015, the FAA submitted comments on the A-NPA

. At the Jun e meeting , the FAA made a general reference to those comments and a copy of those comments is attached. The FAA stated that there was genera l alignment with the philosophy expressed in the A-NPA and the FAA NPRM being drafted. The FAA stated that the anticipated pub lication date for the NPRM was in December 2015 , and a Fina l Rule to be published in December 2017. These dates are consistent with the schedule posted on the U.S

. Department ofTransportati on's (DOT) Report on DOT Sign ificant Rulemakings: http: //www . tran s po rt ati o n. gov/ r eg ul ati o ns/r e po rt- o n-s i gniti cant-rul e makin gs . The FAA conveyed that the NPRM regulatory text contained in Subparts D and E was edited from the last version of the proposed regulations reviewed by EASA in November 2014, however the intent of the rule was not changed. The FAA and EASA agreed to discuss the changes proposed to the text to assure harmonization when the NPRM pub lishes for comment.2 ATTACHMENT: FAA Comments to EASA A-NPA The FAA has some concerns with adding former guidance into the rule language spec ifically that is propos e d CS 23.605 System and Equipment failure specifications. The goal of the FAA rewr ite is " to stream line and simplify the approval proces s as we ll as provide for future flexibi li ty" due to nev v tec h nology and societies acceptab le ri sk. Adding the m inor , major , hazardous , and catastrophic tab l e as well as codifYing the definitions of probab ili ty terms may be d e trime ntal over the long term. The FAA suggested rewrit i ng CS 23.605 as: 

### CS 23.6 05 Sys tem a nd Eq ui p men t fa ilu re specificat io n s (a) Each equipment and system identified in 23.600(b), considered separately and in re lation to other aeroplane systems , is designed and insta ll ed so that there is a logica l and acceptable inverse relationship between the average probab ili ty and the sever ity of fai lure condition effects

. (b) Design eac h item of equ ipment, system , and installation , examined separately and in relation to other airplane systems such that

-

( 1) The occur rence of any failure condit ion that would prevent th e continued safe flight and landing of th e airp lane is extreme ly improbable; (2) The occunence of any failure condition that would significant ly reduce the capability of the airplane or the ability of the crew to cope with adverse operating conditions is extremely remote ; and (3) The occunence of any failure condit ion that would reduce th e capabi lity of the a irplane or the ability of the crewmember to cope with the adverse operating conditions to the extent there would be a significant reduction in safety margin or functional capability is remote. (c) The severity of a failure condition is determined by the highest effect on aeroplane , occupants or crew