This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

37927 

Vol. 74, No. 145 

Thursday, July 30, 2009 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 33 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–28503; Amendment 

No. 33–29] 

RIN 2120–AJ04 

Airworthiness Standards; Fire 

Protection 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA amends the 

airworthiness standards for issuance of 

original and amended aircraft engine 

type certificates for fire protection. The 

new standard will change aircraft 

engine fire protection certification 

standards to update and harmonize 

them with European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA) fire protection 

requirements, thereby simplifying 

airworthiness approvals for import and 

export purposes. 

DATES: This amendment becomes 

effective September 28, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marc Bouthillier, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate Standards Staff, ANE–111, 

Engine and Propeller Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, New 

England Region, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, 

Massachusetts 01803–5299; telephone 

(781) 238–7120; fax (781) 238–7199; email marc.bouthillier@faa.gov. For legal 

questions concerning this final rule 

contact Vincent Bennett, Office of the 

Chief Counsel—Operations, New 

England Regional Counsel, ANE–7, 12 

New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, Massachusetts 01803–5299; 

telephone (781) 238–7044; e-mail 

vincent.bennett@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. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

Agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority as described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 

44701, ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under 

that section, the Administrator is 

charged with promoting safe flight of 

civil aircraft in air commerce by 

prescribing regulations and minimum 

standards for practices, methods, and 

procedures the Administrator finds 

necessary for safety in air commerce, 

including minimum safety standards for 

aircraft engines. This regulation is 

within the scope of that authority 

because it updates the existing 

regulations for aircraft engine fire 

protection. 

Background 

In 1989, the FAA met with the 

European Joint Aviation Authorities, 

United States (U.S.) and European 

aviation industry representatives to 

harmonize U.S. and European 

certification standards. Transport 

Canada subsequently joined this effort. 

The FAA tasked the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) through its Engine 

Harmonization Working Group to 

review existing regulations and 

recommend changes to remove 

differences in U.S. and European engine 

certification fire protection standards. 

Part 33 of Title 14 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 33) 

prescribes airworthiness standards for 

original and amended type certificates 

for aircraft engines certificated in the 

United States. The Certification 

Specifications for Engines (CS–E) 

prescribe corresponding airworthiness 

standards for aircraft engine 

certification in Europe by the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). 

While part 33 and the European 

regulations are similar, they differ in 

several respects. These differences can 

result in additional costs and delays. 

This final rule is based on Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) recommendations to the FAA to 

harmonize the differences. 

Summary of the Rulemaking 

The FAA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on 

February 21, 2008 (73 FR 9494) that 

proposed changes to § 33.17. We 

proposed to change aircraft engine fire 

protection certification standards to 

update and harmonize them with 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) requirements. The comment 

period for the NPRM closed on May 21, 

2008. The new rule will harmonize fire 

protection certification standards for 

engines certificated in the United States 

under 14 CFR part 33 and in European 

countries under EASA Certification 

Specifications for Engines (CS–E) and 

will simplify international type 

certification procedures. The rule will 

also reflect current industry design and 

FAA certification practices. This final 

rule adopts the proposed rule with 

minor changes. 

Summary of Comments and Discussion 

of Final Rule 

Two domestic engine manufacturers, 

General Electric and Pratt & Whitney, 

and two private individuals responded 

to the NPRM request for comments. The 

commenters supported the proposed 

rule, suggested minor changes to 

improve clarity, and requested that 

certain information be included in the 

companion Advisory Circular (AC). 

An individual commenter stated that 

proposed § 33.17(f) should specify drain 

line flow capacity equal to the 

maximum flow rate possible. We believe 

specifying flow rate would be overly 

design restrictive and is unnecessary. 

The rule is clear that no hazardous 

quantity of flammable fluid may 

accumulate unintentionally, and any 

tube or line intended to drain flammable 

fluids must be sized properly to meet 

this requirement. Therefore, the rule as 

proposed already addresses the 

commenter’s concern about flow rate 

capacity. However, the companion AC 

will include guidance for § 33.17(f), and 

will highlight the need for proper drain 

and vent line flow capacity. 

Pratt & Whitney, General Electric and 

an individual commenter suggested a 

specific definition for the term 

‘‘hazardous quantity’’ in § 33.17(c), 

(d)(2), and (f) be included in the 

companion AC. The commenters believe 

this definition would make FAA’s 

guidance ‘‘consistent with EASA AMC 

E–130(1).’’ This comment relates to the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
37928 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

companion AC and not the rule. The 

public will have the opportunity to 

comment on the companion AC, and the 

FAA will consider these comments in 

finalizing the revised AC. 

Pratt & Whitney and General Electric 

commented on the use of the phrase 

‘‘fire resistant and fireproof’’ in the 

revised rule. Pratt & Whitney stated that 

proposed § 33.17(b) would be more clear 

if it did not specify that ‘‘each external 

line, fitting, and other component, 

which contains or conveys flammable 

fluid during normal engine operation 

must be fire resistant or fireproof, as 

applicable.’’ The commenter prefers the 

current language that requires a fire 

resistant standard. The commenter 

stated that while an advisory circular 

could provide clarification on when a 

fire resistant or fireproof standard is 

applicable, maintaining the current 

wording would prevent potential 

confusion. 

We believe the text of § 33.17(b) is 

consistent with FAA, EASA and 

industry accepted standard certification 

practice of testing varying component 

types to fire resistant or fireproof 

standards. However, we have replaced 

the term ‘‘as applicable’’ with ‘‘as 

determined by the Administrator’’ to 

reflect the existing practice of requiring 

the applicant to comply with the 

standard which provides an acceptable 

level of fire protection based on the 

product design. Additionally, the 

existing AC provides guidance on when 

a fire resistant or fireproof 

determination is appropriate. The 

companion AC for this new rule will 

also provide guidance on making fire 

resistant or fireproof determinations, 

and it will be consistent with current 

industry standard certification practices. 

General Electric and an individual 

commented on the requirement for ‘‘fire 

resistant or fireproof’’ protection in 

proposed § 33.17(e); specifically, 

General Electric stated that the phrase, 

‘‘engine control system components that 

are located in a designated fire zone 

must be fire resistant or fireproof, as 

applicable’’ does not state which, if any, 

of the control system components must 

be fireproof. Although this is a new 

requirement within § 33.17, fire 

protection requirements have been 

applied to control system components 

for some time. Historically, engine 

control components have included 

flammable potting materials, and in 

some applications, fluid cooling circuits 

have been considered. This amendment 

provides a regulatory standard for a fire 

resistant or a fireproof demonstration, as 

appropriate for a given engine control 

component design and accommodates 

varying designs as technology evolves 

over time. The companion AC for this 

rule will provide guidance on making 

fire resistant or fireproof determinations 

for control systems components and 

will be consistent with current industry 

standard certification practice. 

One individual suggested that costs 

would be incurred. We believe the 

individual is referring to the cost of 

certification, as this is a certification 

requirement, and not a manufacturing 

requirement. In this final rule, as in the 

NPRM, we have determined there will 

be a decrease in the overall cost of 

certification for manufacturers. By 

codifying standard certification 

practices in the United States and in 

Europe, manufacturers will receive costsavings from eliminating duplicate 

documentation and the need to comply 

with two separate testing and 

certification standards. 

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 there is no current or new 

requirement 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 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, the 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 yearly (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

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 follows: 

Under current regulations, aircraft 

engine manufacturers must satisfy both 

the FAA and EASA engine certification 

standards to market aircraft in the 

United States and Europe. Meeting two 

different sets of certification 

requirements can raise the cost of 

developing a new aircraft engine 

without increasing safety. This final rule 

harmonizes FAA type certification 

standards for fire protection with the 

requirements already in existence in 

Europe, thus simplifying airworthiness 

approvals for import and export. A more 

streamlined and common set of 

certification standards lowers the cost of 

airplane engine development and fosters 

international trade. 

The FAA has not attempted to 

quantify the cost savings that may 

occur, only noting that harmonized 

standards will contribute to cost savings 

for all part 33 engine manufacturers 

who seek certification in both the 

United States and in Europe. There is 

also potential for increased safety by 

having more clear and explicit 

regulations. 

In the NPRM, we used this same 

justification to determine that costs 

were minimal and the benefits justified 

the costs. Although we received a 

comment from an individual 

questioning the cost savings to 

manufacturers, we received no 

comments from manufacturers about 

our determination. As manufacturers 

worked with aviation authorities to 

remove differences in fire protection 

certification standards, we stand by our 

original determination that the costs are 

minimal. 

This final rule incorporates EASA 

certification standards, while 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 37929 

maintaining the existing level of safety. 

The benefits of this rule justify the costs 

and existing level of safety will be 

preserved. The Office of Management 

and Budget has determined that this 

final rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ because it harmonizes U.S. 

aviation standards with those of other 

civil aviation authorities. 

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 large 

number of small entities. If the agency 

determines that it will, the agency must 

prepare an initial 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. 

Our initial determination showed the 

requirements would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, and we 

received no comments about this 

determination. We conclude that this 

final rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities for two reasons. First, as noted 

earlier, the net effect of the rule will 

provide regulatory cost relief in the 

certification process. Second, all United 

States turbine aircraft engine 

manufacturers but one, exceed the 

Small Business Administration smallentity criteria of 1,500 employees for 

aircraft engine manufacturers. United 

States turbine aircraft engine 

manufacturers include: General Electric, 

CFM International, Pratt & Whitney, 

International Aero Engines, Rolls-Royce 

Corporation, Honeywell, and Williams 

International. Williams International is 

the only one of these manufacturers that 

is a U.S. small business. 

Therefore, as the FAA Administrator, 

I certify that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

International Trade Analysis 

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 any 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 standards have a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and do 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 notes the 

purpose is to ensure the safety of the 

American public, and has assessed the 

effects of this rule to ensure it does not 

exclude imports that meet this objective. 

As a result this final rule does not create 

unnecessary obstacles to international 

trade. 

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 the 

spending of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$136.1 million instead of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such 

a mandate; therefore, the requirements 

of Title II of the Act do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA 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. 

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 

Chapter 3, paragraph 312f and involves 

no extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has 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 because while it is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 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 number or 

docket number of this rulemaking. 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
37930 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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/ 

regulationspolicies/rulemaking/ 

sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends part 33 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR part 33) as follows: 

PART 33—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 33 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44704. 

■ 2. Section 33.17 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 33.17 Fire Protection. 

(a) The design and construction of the 

engine and the materials used must 

minimize the probability of the 

occurrence and spread of fire during 

normal operation and failure conditions, 

and must minimize the effect of such a 

fire. In addition, the design and 

construction of turbine engines must 

minimize the probability of the 

occurrence of an internal fire that could 

result in structural failure or other 

hazardous effects. 

(b) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c) of this section, each external line, 

fitting, and other component, which 

contains or conveys flammable fluid 

during normal engine operation, must 

be fire resistant or fireproof, as 

determined by the Administrator. 

Components must be shielded or 

located to safeguard against the ignition 

of leaking flammable fluid. 

(c) A tank, which contains flammable 

fluids and any associated shut-off means 

and supports, which are part of and 

attached to the engine, must be fireproof 

either by construction or by protection 

unless damage by fire will not cause 

leakage or spillage of a hazardous 

quantity of flammable fluid. For a 

reciprocating engine having an integral 

oil sump of less than 23.7 liters 

capacity, the oil sump need not be 

fireproof or enclosed by a fireproof 

shield. 

(d) An engine component designed, 

constructed, and installed to act as a 

firewall must be: 

(1) Fireproof; 

(2) Constructed so that no hazardous 

quantity of air, fluid or flame can pass 

around or through the firewall; and, 

(3) Protected against corrosion; 

(e) In addition to the requirements of 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, 

engine control system components that 

are located in a designated fire zone 

must be fire resistant or fireproof, as 

determined by the Administrator. 

(f) Unintentional accumulation of 

hazardous quantities of flammable fluid 

within the engine must be prevented by 

draining and venting. 

(g) Any components, modules, or 

equipment, which are susceptible to or 

are potential sources of static discharges 

or electrical fault currents must be 

designed and constructed to be properly 

grounded to the engine reference, to 

minimize the risk of ignition in external 

areas where flammable fluids or vapors 

could be present. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 17, 

2009. 

Lynne A. Osmus, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–18192 Filed 7–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0052; Airspace 

Docket No. 09–AGL–1] 

Amendment of Class E Airspace; 

Ironwood, MI 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E 

airspace at Ironwood, MI. Additional 

controlled airspace is necessary to 

accommodate Area Navigation (RNAV) 

Standard Instrument Approach 

Procedures (SIAP) at Gogebic Iron 

County Airport, Ironwood, MI. This 

action also makes a minor change to the 

airspace description, removing the 

reference to the Ironwood ILS. The FAA 

is taking this action to enhance the 

safety and management of Instrument 

Flight Rule (IFR) operations at Gogebic 

Iron County Airport. 

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, 

October 22, 2009. The Director of the 

Federal Register approves this 

incorporation by reference action under 

1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual 

revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and 

publication of conforming amendments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Enander, Central Service Center, 

Operations Support Group, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Southwest 

Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort 

Worth, TX 76193–0530; telephone (817) 

321–7716. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

On February 12, 2009, the FAA 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of proposed rulemaking to amend 

Class E airspace at Ironwood, MI, 

adding additional controlled airspace at 

Gogebic Iron County Airport, Ironwood, 

MI. (74 FR 7011, Docket No. FAA– 

2009–0052). Interested parties were 

invited to participate in this rulemaking 

effort by submitting written comments 

on the proposal to the FAA. No 

comments were received. Subsequent to 

publication the National Aeronautical 

Charting Office notified the FAA that 

the extension defined by the Ironwood 

ILS was not needed. With the exception 

of editorial changes, and the changes 

described above, this rule is the same as 

that proposed in the NPRM. Class E 

airspace designations are published in 

paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9S 

signed October 3, 2008, and effective 

October 31, 2008, which is incorporated 

by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class 

E airspace designations listed in this 

document will be published 

subsequently in the order. 

The Rule 

This action amends Title 14 Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by 

amending Class E airspace at Ironwood, 

MI, adding additional controlled 

airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface at Gogebic Iron 

County Airport, Ironwood, MI, and 

removes reference to the Ironwood ILS 

in the airspace description. This action 

is necessary for the safety and 

management of IFR aircraft operations at 

the airport. 

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. Therefore, this regulation: (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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES