Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 5 

lender’s written request, the Agency 

may exempt a project from this 

requirement if requested by the lender 

and the project meets the following 

criteria: 

(i) Original appraisal—the original 

appraisal that meets the Agency’s 

appraisal requirements with a valuation 

date no older than 36 months; 

(ii) Valuation—the appraisal’s lowest 

valuation, regardless of valuation 

approach and rent restrictions 

considered, is greater than the section 

538 guaranteed loan amount; and 

(iii) Guaranteed loan balance—the 

Agency’s guaranteed loan’s principal 

balance does not exceed 50 percent 

[unless a different percent has been 

announced in a Notice published in the 

Federal Register] of the project’s total 

development costs. 

(5) A certificate of substantial 

completion; 

(6) A certificate of occupancy or 

similar evidence of local approval; 

(7) A final inspection conducted by a 

qualified Agency representative; 

(8) A final cost certification in a form 

acceptable to the Agency; 

(9) A submission to the Agency of the 

complete closing docket; 

(10) A certification by the lender that 

the project has reached an acceptable 

minimum level occupancy; 

(11) An executed regulatory 

agreement; 

(12) The Lender certifies that it has 

approved the borrower’s management 

plan and assures that the borrower is in 

compliance with Agency standards 

regarding property management 

contained in subparts E and F of this 

part; 

(13) Necessary information to 

complete an updated necessary 

assistance review by the Agency under 

§ 3565.204(c); and 

(14) Compliance with all conditions 

contained in the conditional 

commitment for guarantee. 

* * * * * 

(f) Continuous Guarantee 

Compliance. The continuous guarantee 

will remain in effect once construction 

is completed. In order to remain in 

compliance with 7 CFR part 3565, the 

following items must be submitted to 

and approved by the Agency. These 

items will be submitted to the Agency 

by the date stated in the Conditional 

Commitment and any Agency approved 

extension(s). 

(1) Certification from the lender 

stating that the lender or its qualified 

representative inspected the property 

and found that the construction meets 

the Government’s requirements for the 

standards and conditions for housing 

and facilities in 7 CFR part 1924, 

subpart A and the standards for site 

development in 7 CFR part 1924, 

subpart C, or its successor regulations; 

(2) Cash flow certification—the lender 

certifies in writing the project’s cash 

flow assumptions are still valid and 

depict compliance with the section 538 

program’s debt service coverage ratio 

requirement of at least 1.15, based on 

the lender’s analysis of current market 

conditions and comparable properties in 

the project’s market area; 

(3) Documentation that either: 

(i) The project has attained a 

minimum level of acceptable occupancy 

of 90% for 90 continuous days within 

the 120-day period immediately 

preceding the issuance of the permanent 

guarantee, or 

(ii) Additional funds, supplementing 

the funds required under § 3565.303(d), 

have been added to the lease-up reserve 

in an amount the Agency determines is 

necessary to cover projected shortfalls. 

(4) An appraisal of the property; 

(5) A certificate of substantial 

completion; 

(6) A certificate of occupancy or 

similar evidence of local approval; 

(7) A final inspection conducted by a 

qualified Agency representative; 

(8) A final cost certification in a form 

acceptable to the Agency; 

(9) A submission to the Agency of the 

complete closing docket; 

(10) A certification by the lender that 

the project has reached an acceptable 

minimum level occupancy; 

(11) An executed regulatory 

agreement; 

(12) The Lender certifies that it has 

approved the borrower’s management 

plan and assures that the borrower is in 

compliance with Agency standards 

regarding property management 

contained in subparts E and F of this 

part; 

(13) Necessary information to 

complete an updated necessary 

assistance review by the Agency under 

§ 3565.204(c); and 

(14) Compliance with all conditions 

contained in the conditional 

commitment for guarantee. 

Subpart J—Assignment, Conveyance, 

and Claims 

§ 3565.457 [Amended] 

■ 8. Section 3565.457 (c)(1)is amended 

in the first sentence by removing the 

word ’’collectibility’’ and adding 

‘‘collectability’’ in its place. 

Dated: December 3, 2010. 

Tammye Trevinˇ o, 

Administrator, Rural Housing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33042 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 1 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0812; Amendment 

No. 1–66] 

RIN 2120–AJ81 

Feathering Propeller Systems for 

Light-Sport Aircraft Powered Gliders 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This final rule with request 

for comments amends the definition of 

light-sport aircraft by removing ‘‘auto’’ 

from the term ‘‘autofeathering’’ as it 

applies to powered gliders. This 

amendment will allow both manual and 

autofeathering propeller operation for 

powered gliders that qualify as lightsport aircraft. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

March 4, 2011. Submit comments on or 

before February 2, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2010–0812 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to the Docket 

Management Facility; U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Fax: Fax comments to the Docket 

Management Facility at 202–493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For more information on the rulemaking 

process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of our docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

comments received into any of our 

dockets, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78) or you may visit http:// 

DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
6 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

or visit Docket Operations in Room 

W12–140 of the West Building Ground 

Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry Chasteen, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Aircraft Certification 

Service, Small Airplane Directorate, 

ACE–114, 901 Locust, Room 301, 

Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: 

(816) 329–4147; fax: (816) 329–4090; email: terry.chasteen@faa.gov. For legal 

questions concerning this rule, contact 

David Pardo, Office of Chief Counsel, 

AGC–240, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–3073; fax: (202) 

267–7971. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA is adopting this final rule 

without prior notice and prior public 

comment because this amendment is 

relieving in nature, imposes no burden 

on the public, and is responsive to a 

petition for exemption and related 

public comments which sought the 

relief granted by this rule. The 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures of 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

(44 FR 1134, February 26, 1979) provide 

that, to the maximum extent possible, 

operating administrations for the DOT 

should provide an opportunity for 

public comment on regulations issued 

without prior notice. Accordingly, we 

invite interested persons to participate 

in this rulemaking by submitting written 

comments, data, or views. We also 

invite comments relating to the 

economic, environmental, energy, or 

federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting this final rule. The most 

helpful comments reference a specific 

portion of the final rule, explain the 

reason for any recommended change, 

and include supporting data. To ensure 

the docket does not contain duplicate 

comments, please send only one copy of 

written comments, or if you are filing 

comments electronically, please submit 

your comments only one time. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this final rule. Before acting 

on this final rule, we will consider all 

comments we receive on or before the 

closing date for comments. We will 

consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

final rule in light of the comments 

received. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires the FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

Therefore, any small entity that has a 

question regarding this document may 

contact their local FAA official, or the 

persons listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out 

more about SBREFA on the Internet at 

our site, http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations%5Fpolicies/rulemaking/ 

sbre_act/. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding 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. Under that section, the FAA is 

charged with prescribing regulations for 

practices, methods, and procedures the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce. This regulation is 

within the scope of that authority 

because it establishes minimum 

standards required in the interest of 

safety for the design of aircraft. 

Background 

Currently, the definition of light-sport 

aircraft in § 1.1 General Definitions, 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR), specifies that powered gliders 

that are light-sport aircraft have a fixed 

or autofeathering propeller system. The 

restriction to ‘‘autofeathering’’ has 

resulted in varying applications of lightsport aircraft (LSA) design. 

In 2004, the FAA issued the final rule 

‘‘Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for 

the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft’’ 

(Sport Pilot Rule) (69 FR 44772, July 27, 

2004). That rule established a definition 

for the term ‘‘light-sport aircraft.’’ Since 

we adopted that rule, the FAA has been 

working with the LSA industry in 

evaluating the overall LSA program. The 

past five years have seen remarkable 

growth in the overall LSA industry. 

Over 1,200 new factory-built airplanes, 

powered parachutes, and weight-shift 

control aircraft have received special 

airworthiness certificates in the special 

LSA category. One exception to this 

rapid growth is LSA powered gliders. 

The FAA has determined that a 

propeller on a LSA powered glider can 

be safely feathered using either a 

manual or automatic feathering 

propeller system, which justifies 

replacing the term ‘‘autofeathering’’ with 

‘‘feathering.’’ We discuss this 

determination in the following section. 

Feathering Propeller Systems for 

Soaring Flight 

When we published the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled 

Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for 

the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft on 

February 5, 2002 that proposed a 

definition for LSA, we intended that 

LSA be simple in design and operation 

and appropriate for operation by sport 

pilots. For aircraft design, low 

performance within the constraints of 

light weight and structural integrity 

were important. For aircraft operation, 

simple mechanical systems within the 

constraints of sport pilot training 

requirements were important. In that 

NPRM (67 FR 5376), we stated that ‘‘a 

light sport aircraft, if powered, would be 

limited to a fixed or ground adjustable 

propeller.’’ We determined that ‘‘a 

propeller that could not be adjusted in 

pitch during flight was necessary to 

limit the operational complexity of the 

aircraft and would be consistent with 

the skills necessary to hold a sport pilot 

certificate.’’ 

Some commenters requested that 

controllable pitch propellers be 

permitted on LSA. We disagreed that 

the LSA definition should be revised 

accordingly because it would require a 

level of training for sport pilots and 

repairmen that would not be 

commensurate with the privileges of 

their certificates. However, for powered 

gliders, we revised the final rule to 

permit autofeathering propeller systems 

on LSA powered gliders to decrease 

drag while soaring. 

In June 2008, the Light Aircraft 

Manufacturers Association (LAMA) 

petitioned the FAA for an exemption to 

allow manual feathering of a propeller 

in LSA powered gliders. As part of its 

request, LAMA provided information 

concerning the design and operation of 

manual feathering propeller systems. 

This petition can be found in Docket 

No. FAA–2008–0737. 

The FAA received approximately 16 

comments from 13 commenters in 

response to the petition. All the 

commenters supported the petition for 

exemption. Comments on the petition 

highlighted the overall benefits for a 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 7 

LSA powered glider to have the option 

of being equipped with a manual 

feathering propeller system. 

After reviewing LAMA’s petition and 

the comments received in support of it, 

the FAA has determined that a change 

to the definition of LSA for powered 

gliders is appropriate. The FAA agrees 

that autofeathering propeller systems 

are not necessary for the safe operation 

of LSA powered gliders. These systems, 

which are typically found in multiengine aircraft, automatically feather a 

propeller in the event of a power loss 

during takeoff. These systems can be 

complex, heavy, and expensive. 

On the other hand, powered gliders 

typically incorporate a simple, manual 

feathering propeller system. These 

simple, two-position manual feathering 

systems are more consistent with the 

intended use of a LSA powered glider 

and the expected level of complexity for 

LSA operations. For example, these 

systems allow the pilot to feather the 

propeller by toggling a switch or moving 

a lever in the cockpit. This system 

rotates the propeller blades to be aligned 

with the wind—from power 

configuration to soaring configuration— 

so that the glider may maximize gained 

altitude through thermal lift only. The 

ability to feather the propeller is 

desirable when the glider is aloft and 

the engine has been intentionally shut 

off. 

A manual feathering propeller system 

is the lightest, simplest, and most direct 

way to rotate the propeller blades from 

power configuration to soaring 

configuration. This translates to a lower 

glider weight that may result in better 

performance and fewer parts or systems 

that could fail (i.e., better reliability) 

than with autofeathering systems, while 

still maintaining low cockpit workload 

and pilot distraction. 

Design and Standards 

Under the provisions of the Sport 

Pilot rule and the revised Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circular A–119, ‘‘Federal Participation 

in the Development and Use of 

Voluntary Consensus Standards and in 

Conformity Assessment Activities,’’ 

dated February 10, 1998, the LSA 

industry and the FAA have been 

working with the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) 

International to develop consensus 

standards for aircraft issued special 

airworthiness certificates in the LSA 

category under § 21.190 for Special 

Light-Sport Aircraft (S–LSA). These 

consensus standards, once accepted by 

the FAA, satisfy the agency’s goal for 

airworthiness certification and establish 

a verifiable minimum safety level for S– 

LSA. In addition, use of the consensus 

standard process assures government 

and industry that discussion and 

agreement on appropriate standards 

have occurred for the required level of 

safety. 

We believe a simple manually 

operated propeller system for in-flight 

feathering would be an acceptable 

means of compliance with the propeller 

feathering provisions for LSA. 

From the aircraft design perspective, 

we were concerned that malfunction or 

misuse of a manual feathering propeller 

on an LSA powered glider could impose 

a hazard to the aircraft occupants. Since 

publication of the Sport Pilot Rule, the 

FAA has reviewed powered glider 

accident statistics in the electronic 

database of the National Transportation 

Safety Board. The data show 32 

accidents in the years 1962 through 

2009 (October) with no accidents 

attributed to the operation of feathering 

or un-feathering a propeller during 

flight. The data also indicate that inflight feathering of a propeller system in 

powered gliders—many of which are 

permitted to use either manual or 

autofeathering propeller system—does 

not decrease safety. 

We find that a manually operated 

propeller system for in-flight feathering 

is appropriate. Currently, pilots flying 

LSA powered gliders are allowed to use 

a direct-action manual lever to operate 

the landing gear, which typically occurs 

at low altitudes during times of high 

pilot workload. By contrast, feathering 

the propeller takes place at higher 

altitudes when pilot workload is 

minimal. We have determined that this 

revision to the definition of a LSA 

recognizes the operational nature of 

LSA powered gliders and is consistent 

with the stated design and safety 

objectives. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires the FAA to 

consider the impact of paperwork and 

other information collection burdens 

imposed on the public. We have 

determined that there are no current or 

new requirements for information 

collection associated with this 

amendment. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined there are no 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices that 

correspond to this regulation. 

International standards for Light Sport 

Aircraft are being coordinated by ASTM 

International. 

Good Cause for ‘‘No Notice’’ 

Section 4(a) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B)) authorizes agencies to 

dispense with certain notice procedures 

for rules when they find ‘‘good cause’’ to 

do so. Under section 553(b)(B), the 

requirements of prior notice and 

opportunity for comment do not apply 

when the agency for good cause finds 

that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ 

This final rule will change the 

definition of LSA powered glider by 

removing ‘‘auto’’ from ‘‘autofeathering,’’ 

which will eliminate the current 

restriction on manual feathering 

propeller designs. Prior public comment 

is unnecessary because the FAA has 

already obtained public comments 

regarding a petition for exemption 

seeking to eliminate the restriction on 

manual feathering propeller designs 

from the definition of light-sport 

aircraft. This final rule is responsive to 

those comments, all of which were in 

support of the petition for exemption. 

We do not anticipate significant 

public comment on this amendment, 

since it does not impose a requirement. 

Executive Order 12866 and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, directs the FAA 

to assess both the costs and benefits of 

a regulatory change. We are not allowed 

to propose or adopt a regulation unless 

we make a reasoned determination that 

the benefits of the intended regulation 

justify its costs. Our assessment of this 

final rule indicates that its economic 

impact is minimal. 

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 

each Federal agency to 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 (Public Law 96–39) prohibits 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
8 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

agencies from setting standards that 

create unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States. 

In developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act also 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 the base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. 

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 if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination is that the rule is cost 

relieving, as it eliminates the current 

restriction on manual feathering 

propeller designs while maintaining the 

current safety level. 

FAA has therefore 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. 

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 of applicable 

statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

the 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 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. This rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact because it is cost relieving. 

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), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this final rule with 

request for comments and has 

determined that it will have a cost 

relieving impact on domestic and 

international entities and thus has a 

neutral trade impact. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

(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 level equivalent 

of $100 million in CY 1995, adjusted for 

inflation to CY 2010 levels by the 

Consumer Price Index for all Urban 

Consumers (CPI–U) as published by the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $143.1 

million. 

This final rule with request for 

comments does not contain such a 

mandate. Therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this 

regulation. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

with request for comments 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 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, we 

have determined that this final rule with 

request for comments does not have 

federalism implications. 

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 proposed 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312 and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

with request for comments under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, 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 using 

the Internet by: 

(1) Searching the Federal 

eRulemaking portal at 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, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 9 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the docket and amendment 

number of this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 1 

Air transportation. 

The Amendments 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends part 1 of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND 

ABBREVIATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Amend the definition of ‘‘light-sport 

aircraft’’ in § 1.1 by revising paragraph 

(8) to read as follows: 

§ 1.1 General definitions. 

* * * * * 

Light-sport aircraft * * * 

(8) A fixed or feathering propeller 

system if a powered glider. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC on December 22, 

2010. 

J. Randolph Babbit, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33082 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 65 

[Docket No.: FAA–2010–0567; Amendment 

No. 65–55] 

RIN 2120–AJ66 

Modification of the Process for 

Requesting a Waiver of the Mandatory 

Separation Age of 56 for Air Traffic 

Control Specialists 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA amends its 

regulation concerning the process for 

requesting a waiver of the mandatory 

separation age of 56 for Air Traffic 

Control Specialists in flight service 

stations, enroute or terminal facilities, 

and the David J. Hurley Air Traffic 

Control System Command Center. 

Under this final rule, Air Traffic Control 

Specialists will no longer be required to 

certify they have not been involved in 

an operational error (OE), operational 

deviation (OD), or runway incursion in 

the past 5 years. The rule will 

streamline the waiver process and bring 

it into conformance with current FAA 

OE and OD reporting policy. 

DATES: This amendment becomes 

effective March 4, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this final 

rule contact Kelly J. Neubecker, 

Airspace, Regulations, and ATC 

Procedures Group, Office of Airspace 

Services, AJV–11, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–9235; facsimile 

(202) 267–9328, e-mail 

Kelly.Neubecker@faa.gov. For legal 

questions concerning this final rule 

contact Anne Moore, Office of Chief 

Counsel, AGC–240, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–3123; facsimile 

(202) 267–7971, e-mail 

Anne.Moore@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, section 106, describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator to 

issue, rescind, and revise regulations. 

Under this authority, we are amending 

Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 

103 in 14 CFR part 65 (SFAR 103) by 

removing paragraph 5.b.vii. The change 

is within the scope of our authority and 

is a reasonable and necessary exercise of 

our statutory obligations. 

I. Background 

On January 23, 2004, H.R. 2673, 

Consolidated Appropriations 2004, 

became Public Law 108–199. Within the 

appropriations bill, there was a mandate 

that ‘‘not later than March 1, 2004, the 

Secretary of Transportation, in 

consultation with the Administrator of 

the Federal Aviation Administration, 

shall issue final regulations, pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. 8335, establishing an 

exemption process allowing individual 

Air Traffic Controllers to delay 

mandatory retirement until the 

employee reaches no later than 61 years 

of age.’’ On January 7, 2005, the FAA 

published the final rule in the Federal 

Register, 14 CFR part 65 (Docket No. 

FAA–2004–17334; SFAR No. 103, 70 FR 

1634). 

The process for an Air Traffic Control 

Specialist (ATCS) to request a waiver 

from the mandatory separation age of 56 

is currently codified in SFAR 103 and 

reflected in the Human Resources Policy 

Bulletin 35, Waiver Process to 

Mandatory Separation at Age 56. This 

policy applies to all ATCSs and their 

first-level supervisors in flight service, 

enroute and terminal facilities, and at 

the David J. Hurley Air Traffic Control 

System Command Center covered under 

the mandatory separation provisions of 

5 U.S.C. 8335(a) and 8425(a). 

The regulation contains information 

contrary to air traffic policy under 

amended FAA Order JO 7210.56C, 

Change 2, effective July 20, 2009. 

Specifically, paragraph 5.b.vii. of SFAR 

103 requires a controller to provide a 

statement that they have not been 

involved in an operational error (OE), 

operational deviation (OD), or runway 

incursion in the last 5 years while in a 

control position. This requirement is 

inconsistent with current air traffic 

orders developed specifically to foster a 

safety culture that encourages full and 

open reporting of safety information and 

focuses on determining why events 

occur, rather than placing blame. In 

support of this culture, FAA Order JO 

7210.56C, Change 2 removed all 

references to employee identification, 

training record entries, performance 

management, and return-to-duty actions 

that were historically tied to reported 

OE or OD events. Due to this change in 

policy, the reporting requirements of 

SFAR 103 5.b.vii. became unverifiable. 

II. Summary of the NPRM 

The FAA published the NPRM on 

June 2, 2010. (75 FR 30742, Docket No. 

FAA 2010–0567) The proposed rule 

invited comments on the proposal to 

remove paragraph 5.b vii of SFAR 103, 

since current practice made those 

provisions unverifiable. The proposed 

rule would amend only the requirement 

for controllers to provide a statement 

that they have not been involved in an 

operational error (OE), operational 

deviation (OD), or runway incursion in 

the last 5 years while in a control 

position. The proposal did not affect 

any other requirements for Air Traffic 

Controllers who request a waiver. 

III. Summary of Comments 

The comment period for the NPRM 

closed on July 2, 2010. The FAA 

received comments from two 

individuals on the proposal to amend 

the exemption process allowing ATC to 

delay mandatory retirement age. Both 

commenters supported waivers to 

extend the retirement age in general, 

and one commenter was also in favor of 

the specific proposal to remove 

documentation of any occurrences 

within the preceding 5 years. The other 

commenter suggested removing the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES