Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 §§ 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
33130 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 §§ 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 § 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 § 27.610, which is 

intended to address the ‘‘direct effects of 

lightning.’’ 

The FAA acknowledges the 

commenter’s point that the terms 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 §§ 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 § 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 § 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
33132 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 caseby-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 

(§§ 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 

§ 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 systems mfr Parts 23 & 25 ............................ No cost ...................................... ‘‘NA.’’ 

F ........ Electrical/electronic systems mfr Parts 23, 25, 27, & 29 .............. No cost ...................................... ‘‘None.’’ 

G ....... Electrical/electronic systems mfr Parts 23, 25, 27, & 29 .............. No cost ......................................


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
33134 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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-forprofit 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 23 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44704. 

■ 2. Add new § 23.1306 to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44704. 

■ 4. Revise § 25.1316 to read as follows: 

§ 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 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 27 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44704. 

■ 6. Amend § 27.610 by revising 

paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

§ 27.1309 [Amended] 

■ 7. Amend § 27.1309 by removing 

paragraph (d). 

■ 8. Add a new § 27.1316 to read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 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 § 27.1316. 

PART 29—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT 

CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT 

■ 10. The authority citation for part 29 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44704. 

■ 11. Amend § 29.610 by revising 

paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
33136 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 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. 

§ 29.1309 [Amended] 

■ 12. Amend § 29.1309 by removing 

paragraph (h). 

■ 13. Add new § 29.1316 to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 95 

[Docket No. 30787; Amdt. No. 494] 

IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous 

Amendments 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts 

miscellaneous amendments to the 

required IFR (instrument flight rules) 

altitudes and changeover points for 

certain Federal airways, jet routes, or 

direct routes for which a minimum or 

maximum en route authorized IFR 

altitude is prescribed. This regulatory 

action is needed because of changes 

occurring in the National Airspace 

System. These changes are designed to 

provide for the safe and efficient use of 

the navigable airspace under instrument 

conditions in the affected areas. 

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, June 

30, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Harry Hodges, Flight Procedure 

Standards Branch (AMCAFS–420), 

Flight Technologies and Programs 

Division, Flight Standards Service, 

Federal Aviation Administration, Mike 

Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 

South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, 

OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 

25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) 

telephone: (405) 954–4164. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

amendment to part 95 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) 

amends, suspends, or revokes IFR 

altitudes governing the operation of all 

aircraft in flight over a specified route 

or any portion of that route, as well as 

the changeover points (COPs) for 

Federal airways, jet routes, or direct 

routes as prescribed in part 95. 

The Rule 

The specified IFR altitudes, when 

used in conjunction with the prescribed 

changeover points for those routes, 

ensure navigation aid coverage that is 

adequate for safe flight operations and 

free of frequency interference. The 

reasons and circumstances that create 

the need for this amendment involve 

matters of flight safety and operational 

efficiency in the National Airspace 

System, are related to published 

aeronautical charts that are essential to 

the user, and provide for the safe and 

efficient use of the navigable airspace. 

In addition, those various reasons or 

circumstances require making this 

amendment effective before the next 

scheduled charting and publication date 

of the flight information to assure its 

timely availability to the user. The 

effective date of this amendment reflects 

those considerations. In view of the 

close and immediate relationship 

between these regulatory changes and 

safety in air commerce, I find that notice 

and public procedure before adopting 

this amendment are impracticable and 

contrary to the public interest and that 

good cause exists for making the 

amendment effective in less than 30 

days. 

Conclusion 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979); and (3) does not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation as the anticipated impact is 

so minimal. For the same reason, the 

FAA certifies that this amendment will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 95 

Airspace, Navigation (air). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 27, 

2011. 

John M. Allen, 

Director, Flight Standards Service. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me by the 

Administrator, part 95 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is 

amended as follows effective at 0901 

UTC, June 30, 2011. 

PART 95 [AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 95 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 

40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44719, 

44721. 

■ 2. Part 95 is amended to read as 

follows: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES