```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5-9]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33082]

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

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 light-sport 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.

[[Page 6]]

    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; e-mail: 
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 Sec.  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 light-sport 
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

[[Page 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 multi-engine 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 Sec.  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 in-flight 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

[[Page 8]]

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,

[[Page 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

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

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

0
2. Amend the definition of ``light-sport aircraft'' in Sec.  1.1 by 
revising paragraph (8) to read as follows:

Sec.  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
```