```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33129-33136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14142]

[[Page 33129]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 23, 25, 27, and 29

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0224; Amendment Nos. 23-61, 25-134, 27-46, and 29-
53]
RIN 2120-AJ57

Airworthiness Standards; Electrical and Electronic System 
Lightning Protection

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends the lightning 
protection airworthiness standards by establishing new lightning 
protection regulations for electrical and electronic systems installed 
on aircraft certificated under parts 23, 27, and 29, and revises 
lightning protection regulations for electrical and electronic systems 
installed on airplanes certificated under part 25. This rule 
establishes two levels of lightning protection for aircraft systems 
based on consequences of system function failure: Catastrophic 
consequences which would prevent continued safe flight and landing; and 
hazardous or major consequences which would reduce the capability of 
the aircraft or the ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse 
operating condition. This rule also establishes lightning protection 
for aircraft systems according to the aircraft's potential for 
lightning exposure. The airworthiness standards establish consistent 
lightning protection requirements for aircraft electrical and 
electronic systems.

DATES: These amendments become effective August 8, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Nguyen, AIR-130, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Suite 4102, 470 L'Enfant Plaza, Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone (202) 385-4676; facsimile (202) 385-4651, e-mail 
lee.nguyen@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes 
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701(a)(1). Under that 
section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to promote 
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum 
standards in the interest of safety for appliances and for the design, 
material, construction, quality of work, and performance of aircraft, 
aircraft engines, and propellers. This regulation is within the scope 
of that authority by prescribing standards to protect aircraft 
electrical and electronic systems from the effects of lightning.

I. Background and History

    Existing regulations for the lightning protection of electrical and 
electronic systems installed on aircraft certificated under parts 23, 
27 and 29 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) require the 
type certification applicant only to ``consider'' the effects of 
lightning. Unlike system lightning protection regulations for part 25 
airplanes, these regulations have not been significantly amended since 
they were first adopted, and do not reflect current advances in 
technology. Adopted in the 1960s, these regulations require that the 
aircraft be protected against catastrophic effects of lightning, but do 
not have specific requirements for electrical and electronic system 
lightning protection. At the time, most aircraft contained mechanical 
systems, or simple electrical and electronic systems. Airframe 
components were made from aluminum materials, with high electrical 
conductivity, and offered good protection against lightning.
    The early 1980s ushered in part 25 transport airplane designs that 
routinely included more complex electrical and electronic systems. In 
addition, there has been a trend for increased use of composite 
aircraft materials with less inherent lightning protection than 
aluminum. As electrical and electronic systems became more common on 
part 25 airplanes, the FAA issued Sec.  25.1316 on April 28, 1994 (59 
FR 22112), specifically requiring protection for electrical and 
electronic systems on part 25 transport category airplanes.

A. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

    The NPRM, Notice No. 10-05, published in the Federal Register on 
April 2, 2010 (75 FR 16676), is the basis for this final rule. In the 
NPRM, the FAA proposed to establish type certification standards for 
lightning protection of electrical and electronic systems for aircraft 
certificated under parts 23, 27 and 29, equivalent to those found in 
part 25. At the same time, the NPRM proposed to revise Sec.  25.1316 
for transport category airplanes to be consistent in format with the 
proposed regulatory text for parts 23, 27 and 29. Overall, the NPRM 
proposed to establish lightning protection standards for aircraft 
systems according to the consequences of the failure of the functions 
they provide, and according to the aircraft's potential for lightning 
exposure.
    The NPRM proposed the establishment of consistent performance 
standards for lightning protection of aircraft electrical and 
electronic systems against the catastrophic, hazardous or major 
failures of the functions these systems provide. The standards for 
protection against catastrophic failure would require an applicant to 
show that the function that the system performs would not be adversely 
affected during or after the time the aircraft is exposed to lightning, 
and that the system that was affected would automatically recover 
normal operation of that function in a timely manner after the aircraft 
is exposed to lightning. The standards for protection against hazardous 
or major failure would require the applicant to show that the affected 
function would recover normal operation in a timely manner after the 
aircraft is exposed to lightning.
    The performance standards would also be imposed according to the 
aircraft's potential for exposure to lightning. The standards for all 
aircraft operated under instrument flight rules would meet more 
stringent requirements than aircraft certificated to part 23 and part 
27 standards approved solely for operations under visual flight rules. 
This proposal ensured that protection would be applied to aircraft 
according to their potential for exposure to lightning.
    The comment period for the NPRM ended on July 1, 2010.

B. Summary of the Final Rule

    The final rule adopts all the standards proposed in the NPRM, with 
one exception. We chose not to adopt proposed paragraph (b)(1) to 
Sec. Sec.  23.1306, 25.1316, 27.1316 and 29.1316, which required that 
the system must not be damaged after exposure to lightning for systems 
with hazardous or major failure conditions. We discuss the reasons for 
this decision later in this document.

C. Summary of Comments

    The FAA received 17 comments from 8 commenters, including 
manufacturers, international aviation standards associations, and the 
European Aviation Safety Agency. All the commenters generally supported 
the proposed changes to parts 23, 25, 27 and 29. We discuss the 
comments in more detail below.

[[Page 33130]]

II. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The FAA received comments on the following general areas of the 
proposal:
     Requirement that ``the system must not be damaged'' for 
systems with hazardous or major failure conditions;
     ``Indirect'' and ``direct'' effects of lightning;
     Requirement for automatic system recovery of the function 
with catastrophic failure conditions;
     Automatic system recovery of the function with hazardous 
failure conditions;
     Provide more guidance on ``in a timely manner'';
     Resolve conflict regarding systems providing multiple 
functions;
     Guidance on acceptable means of compliance;
     Definition of ``catastrophic'', ``hazardous'', and ``major 
failure conditions''.
    Below is a more detailed discussion of the rule, as it relates to 
the substantive comments the FAA received to the NPRM.

Requirement That ``The System Must Not be Damaged'' for Systems With 
Hazardous or Major Failure Conditions

    The FAA proposed for Sec. Sec.  23.1306, 25.1316, 27.1316 and 
29.1316, in paragraph (b)(1), that each electrical and electronic 
system that performs a function, for which failure would reduce the 
capability of the aircraft or the ability of the flightcrew to respond 
to an adverse operating condition, must be designed and installed so 
that the system is not damaged after the aircraft is exposed to 
lightning.
    The SAE International AE-2 Lightning Committee, Cessna Aircraft 
Company, Garmin International, and an individual commenter asked that 
the FAA delete paragraph (b)(1). The SAE AE-2 Lightning Committee and 
Cessna expressed concern that the proposal would not reflect a 
codification of current industry practices as characterized by the FAA. 
The SAE AE-2 Committee and the individual commenter also expressed 
concern that the proposal would: (1) Have a significant economic impact 
on the production of aircraft that use multiple redundant antennas for 
radio systems performing functions required to comply with paragraph 
(b)(1); and (2) reflect a significant change to the existing system 
lightning protection regulations.
    The commenters explained that although lightning commonly attaches 
to antennas, these systems use redundant, spatially separated antennas 
so that a single lightning strike will not damage more than a single 
antenna and its associated radio system. If paragraph (b)(1) were 
adopted, significant changes would be required for radio and antenna 
installation design. Specifically, aircraft designers and installers 
would have to install external sensors (e.g., antennas, air data 
probes) that will not be damaged by lightning strikes, and thus enable 
the system to remain recoverable after the lightning event. Such 
sensors are generally heavier, more complex, and more costly than 
current sensor systems. The commenters stated that such sensors are 
unnecessary, since using redundant and spatially separated antennas for 
radio systems provide effective lightning protection for these systems. 
The SAE AE-2 Committee pointed out that the FAA did not properly 
consider the economic impact of paragraph (b)(1) in its analysis.
    After careful consideration of the points raised by the commenters, 
we have concluded that proposed paragraph (b)(1) should not be adopted. 
When we originally developed paragraph (b)(1), we did so in response to 
a recommendation from the Electromagnetic Effects Harmonization Working 
Group (EEHWG) of the Transport Airplane and Engines Issues Group under 
the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, which assumed that a 
lightning strike to these systems would cause damage resulting in the 
unrecoverable loss of the function, even if the system included 
redundant elements to maintain system integrity and availability. Under 
this assumption, the systems could no longer perform their intended 
functions, which would reduce the capability of the aircraft or the 
ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition.
    The commenters showed that the EEHWG incorrectly assumed that loss 
of a function (caused by lightning damage) performed by a system 
equipped with external sensors such as radio antennas and air data 
probes--which are occasionally damaged by lightning--would be 
unrecoverable. If the proposed rule had been adopted, designers and 
manufacturers would no longer be able to use sensor separation as a 
means of compliance. Thus the rule change would have eliminated a means 
of compliance that is acceptable under the current regulatory scheme.
    Garmin further commented that, if adopted, the proposed paragraph 
(b)(1) would have the unintended effect of requiring excessive 
lightning protection. Garmin explained that systems performing 
functions with hazardous or major failure consequences may include 
systems that perform other functions for which the failure would have 
minor consequences or even no safety effect. Garmin suggested that the 
proposed standard should be required for only those functions having 
hazardous or major failure consequences similar to that provided in 
proposed paragraph (b)(2), which requires each electrical and 
electronic system that performs a function, for which failure would 
reduce the capability of the aircraft or the ability of the flightcrew 
to respond to an adverse operating condition, be designed and installed 
so that the function recovers normal operation in a timely manner after 
the aircraft is exposed to lightning. The FAA acknowledges Garmin's 
point that paragraph (b)(1) may be subject to this kind of unintended 
interpretation.
    For these reasons, we have determined that the proposed paragraph 
(b)(1) would not serve the purpose that we had intended and should not 
be adopted. Further, this requirement would limit the approaches that 
aircraft system designers may use to show that the design and 
installation meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(2). As proposed, 
this provision will have no impact on safety because paragraph (b)(2) 
will require that the ``function'' must recover in a timely manner 
after lightning exposure. Garmin's concern over unintended 
interpretations, as well as the individual commenter's concern for 
additional cost impact are resolved by our decision not to adopt this 
proposal.
    Finally, Cessna recommended that the FAA revise the proposed 
requirement of ``system must not be damaged after the airplane is 
exposed to lightning'' to ``system is installed such that damage to the 
system is minimized as a result of the airplane being exposed to 
lightning.''
    The FAA disagrees. The term ``minimized'' would require a 
subjective evaluation of the damage, and defeat our purpose to provide 
an objective measure of system lightning protection effectiveness.

Indirect Effects and Direct Effects of Lightning

    The SAE AE-2 Lightning Committee commented that the proposed 
regulatory text did not use the phrase ``indirect effects of 
lightning,'' although the phrase is used in current Sec.  23.1309(e) 
and AC 20-136A, ``Protection of Aircraft Electrical/Electronic Systems 
Against the Indirect Effects of Lightning.'' The commenter stated that 
this omission may cause confusion when considering regulations such as 
Sec.  27.610, which is intended to address the ``direct effects of 
lightning.''
    The FAA acknowledges the commenter's point that the terms

[[Page 33131]]

``indirect'' and ``direct'' were not used in the regulatory text, 
although they are often used to classify the specific effects of 
lightning. The phrases ``direct effects of lightning'' and ``indirect 
effects of lightning'' generally refer to the mechanism in which 
lightning affects electrical and electronic systems or functions. 
Direct effects are typically associated with the actual lightning 
attachment to the airframe or electrical and electronic system external 
sensors which can cause damage in the form of burning, blasting, or 
deformation. Conversely, indirect effects are those caused by lightning 
energy that is electrically coupled into electrical and electronic 
equipment and its associated wiring. The performance standards address 
protection of aircraft electrical and electronic systems when exposed 
to lightning based on the consequences of failure of the functions that 
the systems perform. The regulations, as adopted, are not intended to 
differentiate between how the effects of lightning are caused, but are 
instead directed at the continued performance of the system or 
function.
    The commenter also asserted that the performance standards do not 
reflect current industry practices or regulatory requirements. The FAA 
disagrees; these performance standards are consistent with the existing 
Sec. Sec.  23.1309(e), 25.1316, 27.1309(d), and 29.1309(h). These 
regulations refer to the effects of lightning in general, not to 
``indirect effects'' of lightning exclusively. The existing Sec.  
23.1309(e), specifically states that both direct and indirect effects 
of lightning must be considered. Section 25.1316 addresses protection 
of the electrical and electronic systems against lightning. Sections 
27.1309(d) and 29.1309(h) require that the effects of lightning strikes 
on the rotorcraft must be considered. Accordingly, the performance 
standards established by this rulemaking are consistent with existing 
regulations and industry practice.
    The commenter also stated that the proposed rules should specify 
that the requirement refers to ``indirect effects of lightning'' to be 
consistent with AC 20-136A. In fact, the AC addresses both indirect and 
direct effects of lightning. The AC does not, however, describe the 
methods for showing compliance if an electrical or electronic system is 
subject to direct lightning attachment (direct effects). It refers to 
other documents, such as SAE Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) 5416, 
Aircraft Lightning Test Methods, for methods to show compliance for 
direct effects. Nonetheless, the AC does speak to the need for the 
applicant to address the direct effects of lightning on electrical and 
electronic systems.
    Finally, the commenter stated that the proposed rules would require 
a change in approach if they apply to the direct effects of lightning, 
as the proposed rules stated that essential systems must not be damaged 
after the aircraft is exposed to lightning. As discussed previously, 
the FAA has decided not to adopt the proposed requirement of paragraph 
(b)(1). This decision resolves this commenter's concern.

Requirement for Automatic System Recovery of the Function With 
Catastrophic Failure Conditions

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed paragraph (a)(2), which required that 
each electrical and electronic system that performs a function for 
which failure would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of 
the aircraft must be designed and installed so that the system 
automatically recovers normal operation of that function in a timely 
manner after the aircraft is exposed to lightning. In part, this 
proposal was based on EEHWG recommendation submitted to the FAA. That 
recommendation also contained a relieving clause which allowed the 
requirement for ``automatic and timely recovery'' to be disregarded if 
the automatic and timely recover would interfere with continued 
performance of other operational or functional requirements of the 
system.
    We omitted the relieving clause in the proposal published in the 
NPRM, which in effect made automatic and timely recovery compulsory. 
After careful review of the EEHWG's recommendation for an exception to 
the ``automatic and timely recovery'' requirement, we could not justify 
its inclusion because we could not find any real-world example where 
this provision would apply. Also, the phrase ``unless this conflicts 
with other operational or functional requirements of that system'' 
provides no objective definition of operational or functional 
requirements for the system. Finally, we were unable to develop 
standards that would ensure an equivalent level of safety should the 
exception be adopted.
    The SAE AE-2 Lightning Committee commented on the FAA's decision to 
eliminate the relieving clause. It stated that (1) this clause would 
not decrease safety as long as the function is maintained, and (2) some 
systems do exist that, due to other functional or operational 
requirements, cannot recover automatically without flightcrew action: 
Such as attitude and heading reference systems, fly-by-wire flight 
controls, and brake-by-wire systems. The committee submitted, as an 
example of a system mode change that requires flightcrew action, the 
Falcon 7X fly-by-wire control system for which the flightcrew has to 
trigger normal mode recovery from a backup mode after the aircraft is 
exposed to lightning.
    The FAA has considered the reasons and examples provided and has 
concluded that they do not present scenarios that adequately justify 
the need for including the recommended exception. Paragraph (a)(1) 
requires that functions with catastrophic failure conditions are ``not 
adversely affected'' by lightning. A system mode change caused by 
lightning, that requires flightcrew action, would be evaluated 
according to existing guidance and practices to determine whether it is 
an adverse effect. As such, the examples provided would be evaluated to 
determine if the function was ``adversely effected'' under paragraph 
(a)(1), and do not justify an exception clause to paragraph (a)(2).
    Further, the commenters did not suggest any objective standard for 
what should occur in the event of an exception, should we adopt the 
exception clause. Therefore, we will not change the regulatory text 
based on the comment.

Automatic System Recovery of the Function With Hazardous Failure 
Conditions

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require that systems having the 
potential for hazardous failure consequences must recover normal 
operation of the function in a timely manner after the aircraft is 
exposed to lightning.
    Airbus commented that the FAA should require the higher standard of 
automatic recovery for hazardous failure conditions because it would 
help to avoid situations where the pilot has to manually recover from 
multiple failures with hazardous classification.
    After consideration, the FAA has decided against the Airbus 
suggestion. The standard gives certification applicants the flexibility 
to choose automatic or pilot-initiated recovery for functions with 
hazardous failure conditions. This standard is consistent with the 
existing Sec.  25.1316(b) and with prior special conditions, both of 
which have provided a satisfactory level of safety.

Guidance on ``In a Timely Manner''

    Garmin asked that the FAA provide more guidance on what constitutes 
``in a timely manner.'' It suggested the

[[Page 33132]]

following paragraph should have been inserted into the NPRM preamble:

    ``The term `in a timely manner,' when used for recovery of 
catastrophic, hazardous, and major functions, is referring to the 
length of time the function(s) may be lost before it would be 
considered catastrophic, hazardous, or major. For major and 
hazardous functions, crew interaction is allowed in the recovery of 
the function. The FAA would determine what constitutes `timely' 
automatic recovery on a case-by-case evaluation for failure of any 
specific function and its failure effect on the aircraft, pilot 
workload, and safety margins.''

    The FAA has determined that the phrase ``in a timely manner'' does 
not lend itself to a generic description since it is dependent upon 
various factors such as the function performed by the system being 
evaluated, the specific system design, interaction between systems, and 
interaction between the system and the flight crew. The FAA agrees that 
we will determine what constitutes ``timely recovery'' on a case-by-
case evaluation based on engineering and flight crew assessment of the 
specific function and its failure effects. Should consideration of 
additional factors be appropriate, the FAA would consider those as 
well. Since the Garmin's comment addresses the preamble to the NPRM, no 
change to the final regulations is required.

Resolve Conflict Regarding Systems Providing Multiple Functions

    Garmin commented that there is a conflict between the two following 
paragraphs in the NPRM preamble:

    ``For systems that provide one or more functions, the proposal 
would require the system to automatically recover normal operations 
of those functions for which failure could be catastrophic. Other 
functions would not be required to return to normal operation* * *'' 
and ``The proposed requirements for protection against hazardous or 
major failure would require the applicant to show that the system 
would not be damaged, and the function would recover normal 
operation in a timely manner after the aircraft is exposed to 
lightning.''

    The FAA agrees with Garmin, and clarifies that the other functions 
would not be required to ``automatically'' return to normal operation.

Guidance on Acceptable Means of Compliance

    Garmin, in their comment, was concerned with the means of 
compliance for these proposed regulations. Garmin proposed that the 
following paragraph should be added to the preamble of the NPRM:

    ``The term `after the airplane is exposed to lightning' is not 
intended to mean that all systems regardless of criticality are 
required to meet the transient levels resulting from the most severe 
lightning strike to the aircraft (200kA). When the rule or text in 
the preamble refers to systems or functions needing to meet 
requirements `after the airplane is exposed to lightning,' the 
development of the transient levels at the system/equipment 
interfaces can take into account the criticality of the system/
equipment. Further guidance is provided in AC 20-136A.''

    Since this comment addresses the preamble of the NPRM, there is no 
need for a change in the regulatory text. However, the NPRM preamble 
wording cited by Garmin is not about lightning induced transient 
characteristics, but focuses on lightning protection requirements for 
systems and functions. These regulations do not define a specific means 
of compliance. AC 20-136A provides guidance on an acceptable means of 
compliance for lightning induced transient characteristics at the 
system interfaces, which addresses Garmin's concerns.

Definitions of Catastrophic, Hazardous, and Major Failure Conditions

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) generally concurred with 
the FAA's proposed requirements, but suggested new wording that 
combined existing EASA regulation requirements for electrical and 
electronic system lightning protection with the FAA's wording.
    The FAA has decided not to adopt EASA's proposed revision because 
the FAA's regulatory text more clearly emphasizes that lightning 
protection must ensure the continued performance of the system 
functions. Adopting the regulatory text proposed by EASA would not 
further the FAA's intent to place the emphasis on protecting the 
function. In addition, the FAA's adopted regulatory text is consistent 
with that used in the High-Intensity Radio Frequency regulations 
(Sec. Sec.  23.1307, 25.1317, 27.1317, and 29.1317), which clearly 
emphasizes the need to protect the functions performed by the systems 
more than the systems themselves.

Miscellaneous Issues

    The SAE AE-2 Committee commented that in the proposed Sec.  
29.1316(b), the term ``airplane'' should be ``rotorcraft''. The FAA 
agrees and adopts this change.
    One individual recommended that the FAA mandate the calibration of 
precision tools that are used to return an aircraft to service, because 
it is important to ensure that a positive crimp, torque or connection 
is made. This comment does not address any requirements that were 
proposed in the NPRM and is outside the scope of the proposed rules. 
Therefore, we do not make any regulatory changes based on the comment.

III. Regulatory Notices and Analysis

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that 
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with 
this final rule.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
    costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory 
changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-
39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing 
U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of 
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that 
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with 
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's 
analysis of the economic impact of the final rule.

[[Page 33133]]

    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble. Such a 
determination has been made for this final rule.
    The reasoning for this determination follows: In a cost survey of 
industry conducted by the FAA, six of the seven replying firms reported 
no incremental cost from the provisions included in this final rule. 
One firm reported ``little or no cost.'' The reason for little or no 
incremental cost is that these firms (six out of seven) reported usage 
of Advisory Circular AC 20-136A, ``Protection of Aircraft Electrical/
Electronic Systems Against the Indirect Effects of Lightning,'' as 
guidance for complying with lightning requirements. Consequently, these 
firms are already in compliance with the final rule as it represents a 
codification of current practices. For manufacturers of Part 25 
airplanes, cost changes should be minimal in any case, as the changes 
in the final rule are clarifying only. Moreover, four of the seven 
respondents reported at least some expected benefits from the 
provisions included in this final rule (See ``Benefits'' section 
below). We did receive comments that one requirement would raise costs. 
The FAA removed this requirement. The FAA therefore has determined that 
this final rule will have minimal costs with positive net benefits and 
does not warrant a full regulatory evaluation. Our analysis follows 
below.
    The FAA has also determined that this final rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
Total Costs and Benefits of This Rulemaking
    As noted above, there are little or no expected costs for this 
final rule and some benefits. The benefits result in increased safety. 
The benefits therefore justify the costs. See details in the separate 
costs and benefits sections below.
Who is potentially affected by this rulemaking?
    Manufacturers of parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 aircraft and 
manufacturers of electrical and electronic systems for those aircraft.
Assumptions and Sources of Information
     We use a ten-year period of analysis, 2009-2018.
     Data on costs of compliance and benefits of this rule were 
obtained from an FAA survey of industry.
     Firms are defined as ``small'' or ``large'' using Small 
Business Administration (SBA) size standards (U.S. SBA. Table of Small 
Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry 
Classification System Codes, July 21, 2006).
Costs of This Rulemaking
    On February 9, 2009, we sent a detailed cost survey to six 
manufacturers of Parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 aircraft and three 
manufacturers of electrical and electronic systems for those aircraft. 
In addition to several detailed cost questions, the survey also asked 
one question about potential benefits from the provisions included in 
this final rule. We received four responses to this initial survey. On 
March 17, 2009, we resurveyed the five non-respondents and, after 
additional follow-up requests, received three additional replies, 
although the last response came only on August 8, 2009. The seven 
responses we received were from manufacturers ranging from a small 
aircraft manufacturer (less than 1,500 employees) to the largest U.S. 
aircraft manufacturer. Despite repeated requests, we received no survey 
responses from the two part 27/part 29 manufacturers to whom we sent 
questionnaires, one never replying and the other eventually replying 
that management had ``decided not to respond.''
    We did receive comments that the proposed paragraph (b)(1) would 
create costs. The FAA agrees and removes this requirement.
    As shown in the table below, the respondents indicated little or no 
cost from the provisions included in this final rule.

                                         Summary of Cost Survey Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firm                 Type            Products certified to           Costs                 Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...............  Airplane manufacturer.  Part 23...............  No cost...............  ``The certification
                                                                                           process will be less
                                                                                           ambiguous and
                                                                                           slightly streamlined
                                                                                           by writing some of
                                                                                           the AC 20-136A
                                                                                           requirements directly
                                                                                           into the
                                                                                           regulations.''
B...............  Airplane manufacturer.  Parts 23 & 25.........  No cost...............  ``The commonality
                                                                                           between parts and the
                                                                                           ability to use the
                                                                                           same substantiation
                                                                                           across product lines
                                                                                           is a very large
                                                                                           benefit.''
C...............  Airplane manufacturer.  Parts 23 & 25.........  No cost...............  ``Harmonization of
                                                                                           Part 23 and Part 25
                                                                                           rules will simplify
                                                                                           our certification
                                                                                           process as our
                                                                                           internal procedures
                                                                                           benefit from any
                                                                                           similarity of the two
                                                                                           Parts.''
D...............  Airplane manufacturer.  Part 25...............  Little or no cost.....  No response to
                                                                                           benefits question.
E...............  Electrical/electronic   Parts 23 & 25.........  No cost...............  ``NA.''
                   systems mfr.
F...............  Electrical/electronic   Parts 23, 25, 27, & 29  No cost...............  ``None.''
                   systems mfr.
G...............  Electrical/electronic   Parts 23, 25, 27, & 29  No cost...............  ......................
                   systems mfr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 33134]]

Benefits of This Rulemaking
    As supported by the responses to the benefits question, shown in 
the table, the final rule and the standardization of rule language 
across parts will reduce firm costs by simplifying and clarifying the 
certification process.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. 
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so 
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The 
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for 
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    As noted above, in a cost survey of industry, the FAA found little 
or no expected costs from this final rule. The reason for this finding 
is that all but one respondent reported usage of AC 20-136A, 
``Protection of Aircraft Electrical/Electronic Systems Against the 
Indirect Effects of Lightning,'' as guidance for complying with system 
lightning requirements. We agree that the requirements of proposed 
paragraph (b)(1) would have an unintended effect and raise costs. The 
FAA removed this paragraph. Accordingly, this final rule represents 
current practice and imposes no more requirements than those previously 
voluntarily adopted by industry by following AC 20-136A. Consequently, 
these firms are already in compliance with the final rule as it 
represents a codification of AC 20-136A. For manufacturers of Part 25 
airplanes, cost changes should, in any case, be minimal as the changes 
in the final rule are clarifying only. Therefore as the FAA 
Administrator, I certify that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related 
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are 
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires 
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that 
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has reviewed the 
potential effect of this final rule and determined that the standards 
adopted by this rulemaking are based on internationally harmonized 
recommended regulations and compliance means and, thus, they do not 
create an obstacle to foreign commerce. For this reason, the FAA has 
determined that the standards adopted by this final rulemaking will 
comply with the Trade Agreements Act.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) 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 $140.8 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, or the 
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, and, therefore, 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, we 
requested comments on whether the proposed rule should apply 
differently to intrastate operations in Alaska. We did not receive any 
comments, and we have determined, based on the administrative record of 
this rulemaking, that there is no need to make any regulatory 
distinctions applicable to intrastate aviation in Alaska.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 308 (c)(1) and involves no 
extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

    The FAA analyzed this final 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 energy action'' under the executive order and it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations--policies/or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the amendment or docket number of this rulemaking.

[[Page 33135]]

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question 
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or 
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at 
the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on 
the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

14 CFR Part 27

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

The Amendments

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 of Title 14, Code of 
Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 23--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND 
COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
1. The authority citation for part 23 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

0
2. Add new Sec.  23.1306 to read as follows:

Sec.  23.1306  Electrical and electronic system lightning protection.

    (a) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function, 
for which failure would prevent the continued safe flight and landing 
of the airplane, must be designed and installed so that--
    (1) The function is not adversely affected during and after the 
time the airplane is exposed to lightning; and
    (2) The system automatically recovers normal operation of that 
function in a timely manner after the airplane is exposed to lightning.
    (b) For airplanes approved for instrument flight rules operation, 
each electrical and electronic system that performs a function, for 
which failure would reduce the capability of the airplane or the 
ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition, 
must be designed and installed so that the function recovers normal 
operation in a timely manner after the airplane is exposed to 
lightning.

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
3. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

0
4. Revise Sec.  25.1316 to read as follows:

Sec.  25.1316  Electrical and electronic system lightning protection.

    (a) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function, 
for which failure would prevent the continued safe flight and landing 
of the airplane, must be designed and installed so that--
    (1) The function is not adversely affected during and after the 
time the airplane is exposed to lightning; and
    (2) The system automatically recovers normal operation of that 
function in a timely manner after the airplane is exposed to lightning.
    (b) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function, 
for which failure would reduce the capability of the airplane or the 
ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition, 
must be designed and installed so that the function recovers normal 
operation in a timely manner after the airplane is exposed to 
lightning.

PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

0
5. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

0
6. Amend Sec.  27.610 by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  27.610   Lightning and static electricity protection.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) Reduce to an acceptable level the effects of static electricity 
on the functioning of essential electrical and electronic equipment.

Sec.  27.1309  [Amended]

0
7. Amend Sec.  27.1309 by removing paragraph (d).

0
8. Add a new Sec.  27.1316 to read as follows:

Sec.  27.1316  Electrical and electronic system lightning protection.

    (a) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function, 
for which failure would prevent the continued safe flight and landing 
of the rotorcraft, must be designed and installed so that--
    (1) The function is not adversely affected during and after the 
time the rotorcraft is exposed to lightning; and
    (2) The system automatically recovers normal operation of that 
function in a timely manner after the rotorcraft is exposed to 
lightning.
    (b) For rotorcraft approved for instrument flight rules operation, 
each electrical and electronic system that performs a function, for 
which failure would reduce the capability of the rotorcraft or the 
ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition, 
must be designed and installed so that the function recovers normal 
operation in a timely manner after the rotorcraft is exposed to 
lightning.
0
9. Add paragraph X. to Appendix B of part 27 to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 27--Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument 
Flight

* * * * *
    X. Electrical and electronic system lightning protection. For 
regulations concerning lightning protection for electrical and 
electronic systems, see Sec.  27.1316.

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

0
10. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

0
11. Amend Sec.  29.610 by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:

[[Page 33136]]

Sec.  29.610  Lightning and static electricity protection.

    (d) * * *
    (4) Reduce to an acceptable level the effects of static electricity 
on the functioning of essential electrical and electronic equipment.

Sec.  29.1309  [Amended]

0
12. Amend Sec.  29.1309 by removing paragraph (h).

0
13. Add new Sec.  29.1316 to read as follows:

Sec.  29.1316  Electrical and electronic system lightning protection.

    (a) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function, 
for which failure would prevent the continued safe flight and landing 
of the rotorcraft, must be designed and installed so that--
    (1) The function is not adversely affected during and after the 
time the rotorcraft is exposed to lightning; and
    (2) The system automatically recovers normal operation of that 
function in a timely manner after the rotorcraft is exposed to 
lightning.
    (b) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function, 
for which failure would reduce the capability of the rotorcraft or the 
ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition, 
must be designed and installed so that the function recovers normal 
operation in a timely manner after the rotorcraft is exposed to 
lightning.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 20, 2011.
J. Randolph Babbitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-14142 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```