18134 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

a regularly scheduled daily tour of duty 

when any part of that daily tour of duty 

is on a Sunday. For any such tour of 

duty, not more than 8 hours of work are 

Sunday work, unless the employee is on 

a compressed work schedule, in which 

case the entire regularly scheduled daily 

tour of duty constitutes Sunday work. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 550.171, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 550.171 Authorization of pay for Sunday 

work. 

(a) An employee is entitled to pay at 

his or her rate of basic pay plus 

premium pay at a rate equal to 25 

percent of his or her rate of basic pay 

for each hour of Sunday work (as 

defined in § 550.103). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–8154 Filed 4–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 21 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0218; Notice No. 10– 

03] 

RIN 2120–AJ56 

Function and Reliability Flight Testing 

for Turbine-Powered Airplanes 

Weighing 6,000 Pounds or Less 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise 

the applicability for function and 

reliability flight testing to include all 

turbine-powered airplanes weighing 

6,000 pounds or less. Revising the 

applicability is necessary because 

advancements in aviation technology 

have invalidated the reasons for 

excluding these airplanes. The proposed 

revision would improve aviation safety 

for these airplanes. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before July 8, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2010–0218 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to 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. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at (202) 493–2251. 

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 

electronic form of all 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. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

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

and follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket, or go to 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: 

Victor Powell, Aircraft Certification 

Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, 

Certification Procedures Branch, AIR– 

110, Federal Aviation Administration, 

800 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

385–6312; facsimile (202) 385–6475; 

e-mail victor.powell@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (FAA) 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 the scope of the FAA 

Administrator’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart III, chapter 447, 

section 44701. Under that section, 

Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting the safe flight of civil aircraft 

in air commerce by prescribing 

regulations for practices, methods, and 

procedures the FAA Administrator finds 

necessary for safety in air commerce. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

that authority because it will prescribe 

new safety procedures for turbinepowered airplanes. 

Discussion of the Proposal 

I. Statement of the Problem 

For part 23, function and reliability (F 

& R) flight testing is required by Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR) 21.35(b)(2) for all airplanes 

weighing more than 6,000 pounds 

maximum certified weight. Function 

and reliability flight testing is not 

required for gliders, nor for part 23 

airplanes weighing 6,000 pounds or 

less. Because of advancements in 

airplane structures, propulsion 

methods, and systems technologies, the 

6,000 pound break point may no longer 

be justified. Turbine-powered airplanes 

that weigh 6,000 pounds or less are not 

required to undergo F & R flight testing 

regardless of the airplane’s systems 

complexity or level of automation. After 

reviewing several recent TC projects for 

small turbojet-powered airplanes 

(turbojets)—involving airplanes 

expected to weigh 6,000 pounds or 

less—the FAA has determined that 

most, if not all, of these airplane designs 

would benefit from the F & R flight 

testing requirement. This determination 

is based on new lightweight, turbinepowered airplanes having design 

features and performance consistent 

with larger airplanes that are required to 

undergo F & R flight testing. 

II. Background 

A. What Is Function and Reliability 

Flight Testing? 

Function and reliability flight testing 

simulates typical aircraft, in-service 

flight operations for a new aircraft 

design. This flight testing is done prior 

to the aircraft’s final design approval 

leading to the issuance of a TC. The F 

& R flight testing requirement in 

§ 21.35(b)(2) gives the FAA and the 

public a reasonable assurance that an 

aircraft, its components, and its 

equipment are reliable and function 

properly. 

Function and reliability flight testing 

covers a wide variety of operations that 

an aircraft will likely undertake in 

service. Typically, F & R flight testing 

plans specify the type and number of 

each task to be completed (i.e., takeoffs, 

landings, Instrument Landing Systems 

approaches, high altitude, hot/cold/ 

humid air operations, stalls, in-flight 

engine restarts, engine starts using 

different power sources, flight in rain, 

and night flights). 

In addition, F & R flight testing 

involves simulated in-service operations 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18135 

1 Id. 2 Id. 

3A Subcommittee of the United States Congress 

held hearings on problems related to the 

introduction of the Eclipse VLJ (Refer to House of 

Representatives Subcommittee on Aviation, Hearing 

No. 110–169, September 17, 2008). 

4Special Certification Review (SCR) of the 

Eclipse 500 certification program. 

5 Id. 

using a mature aircraft configuration. 

Mature in this sense means the aircraft 

configuration that represents the type 

design that has been shown to meet the 

airworthiness standards of the aircraft’s 

certification basis in accordance with 

applicable requirements of §§ 21.33 and 

21.35(a). The regulatory sequencing 

prescribed by §§ 21.35(a) and (b) results 

in the aircraft configuration selected for 

F & R flight testing having successfully 

completed much, if not most, of the 

individual certification requirements for 

the issuance of a TC. 

B. Historical Overview of Function and 

Reliability Flight Testing 

The requirement for F & R flight 

testing originated with the Civil 

Aeronautics Board (CAB) imposing a 

‘‘service test’’ requirement for aircraft in 

1947. The purpose of these service tests 

was to ‘‘ascertain whether there is 

reasonable assurance that the airplane, 

its components, and equipment are 

reliable and function properly’’ (see 12 

FR 2086, March 29, 1947). A related 

rulemaking included a reference to a 

study of accidents and maintenance 

issues of then relatively new model 

aircraft (see 12 FR 1028, February 13, 

1947). That study showed extensive 

difficulties can occur in the initial 

stages of operating new aircraft. 

The operation of new aircraft had a 

greater chance for accidents caused by 

mechanical malfunctioning of 

troublesome components or equipment. 

The CAB determined that accidents 

likely would be prevented if an aircraft 

were required to undergo tests 

specifically designed to ascertain the 

reliability and proper functioning of the 

aircraft and its systems and equipment 

before type certification. 

In 1950, the CAB amended the 

airworthiness standards to exclude 

‘‘* * * smaller airplanes, specifically 

those of 6,000 pounds maximum weight 

or less * * *’’ from the service test 

requirement (see 15 FR 8899, December 

15, 1950). The introductory material 

published in the revision of the service 

test requirement explained that most of 

the significant changes in the 

amendment stemmed from ‘‘the desire 

for simplification of the rules in this 

part with respect to the smaller 

airplanes, specifically those of 6,000 

pounds maximum weight or less, which 

would be expected to be used mainly as 

personal airplanes.’’ 1 The introductory 

material also stated the service test 

requirement was removed for airplanes 

of 6,000 pounds or less maximum 

weight because ‘‘experience seems to 

indicate that this rule imposes a burden 

upon the manufacturers not 

commensurate with the safety gained.’’ 2

With the recodification of 

airworthiness standards in 1964 and 

1965, the requirement for F & R flight 

testing was placed in § 21.35(b)(2). The 

exclusion of smaller airplanes weighing 

6,000 pounds or less maximum 

certificated weight was described in 

terms of aircraft type certificated in 

accordance with part 23. 

III. The Need for This Proposal 

A. Evolution of Aviation Technology 

The decision to exclude certain 

airplanes of 6,000 pounds or less 

maximum weight from F & R flight 

testing was based on the state of 

technology existing in 1950. At that 

time, airplanes of 6,000 pounds or less 

maximum weight were expected to be 

used mainly as personal airplanes. Such 

civil aircraft developed between the 

years of 1945 and 1955 were typically 

single, reciprocating-engine powered 

airplanes weighing less than 3,000 

pounds with engine output of less than 

300 horsepower. Technological 

advancements now allow airplanes that 

weigh 6,000 pounds or less to be more 

complex and integrated than some 

transport category airplanes of the 1960s 

and earlier. 

B. Purpose of Function and Reliability 

Flight Testing 

The safety goal of F & R flight testing 

is to identify and reduce aircraft system 

malfunctions or failures that would be 

more than inconvenient nuisances 

routinely accommodated in normal 

operations. By minimizing flight crew 

distractions from system malfunctions, 

new aircraft entering service are 

protected from the flight crew workload 

consequences of aircraft system 

deficiencies. Function and reliability 

flight testing will target deficiencies that 

may not have been apparent during 

aircraft engineering ground and flight 

test programs. 

C. Very Light Jet Certification 

Experience 

Recent FAA TC program experience 

with the new very light jets (VLJ) has 

led to reconsideration of the existing 

exclusion of airplanes weighing 6,000 

pounds or less in § 21.35(b)(2). This 

reconsideration was driven in part by 

difficulties encountered with the 

voluntary application of the 

requirement during the FAA type 

certification of the Eclipse Aviation 

Corporation’s (Eclipse) EA–500 VLJ and 

the subsequent problems experienced 

during that airplane’s entry into service. 

The FAA assembled a team of 

technical staff to conduct a Special 

Certification Review (SCR) of the EA– 

500 certification program. A copy of the 

Eclipse SCR has been placed in the 

Rules Docket for this rulemaking.3 That 

team’s report reviewed the FAA’s TC 

program and focused on four service 

problems encountered during the EA– 

500’s entry into service. That team also 

reviewed Service Difficulty Report 

(SDR) experience concerning airplane 

system deficiencies and malfunctions 

encountered subsequent to the EA–500’s 

entry into service. The team developed 

eight findings and six 

recommendations. One of the SCR 

findings (Finding No. 8) stated: ‘‘The 

newly designed VLJs have modern and 

integrated complex avionics. The 

traditional approach of defining 

certification requirements for part 23 

airplanes based solely on maximum 

certificated weight is no longer valid.’’ 4

The FAA has issued a separate 

rulemaking proposal to address Finding 

No. 8 (see ‘‘Certification of Turbojets,’’ 

74 FR 41522, August 17, 2009). A 

corresponding recommendation 

(Recommendation No. 6) in the Eclipse 

SCR stated: ‘‘The FAA should reevaluate 

the criteria for applicability of F & R 

testing.’’ 5 The Eclipse SCR further found 

that the EA–500 complied with the 

requirements of its certification basis 

and noted that the airplane was not 

required by existing regulations to 

include the F & R flight testing 

requirements of § 21.35(b)(2). This 

rulemaking proposal addresses 

Recommendation No. 6, which called 

for a revision of the applicability of the 

existing F & R flight testing 

requirements. 

After reviewing the Eclipse SCR and 

the EA–500 certification program, the 

FAA reviewed the likelihood that F & R 

flight testing requirements might have 

preventatively identified problems 

encountered by the EA–500 when it 

entered into service. Function and 

reliability flight testing might have 

discovered five of the problems 

identified in the SCR (pitch and rudder 

trim problems; pitot system moisture 

trap; engine surges caused by hard 

carbon build-up on the static vanes; 

brake problems; and tire problems) 

while two of the cited problems 

(autopilot turbulence sensitivity; and 

problems with the software logic 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
18136 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

6See the separate cost section below for the 

reason we increased the number of hours from 150 

hours, the minimum required by § 21.35(f), to 165 

hours. 

dealing with the throttle position) 

would less likely have been detected, 

based on the chances of duplicating 

causal conditions and other risk factors. 

These conclusions were based on the 

likelihood that the root causes for the 

reported problems would be identified 

by the additional effective flight testing 

that would be accomplished by a 

mandatory F & R flight testing program 

(150 or 300 additional hours of 

simulated in-service operations 

accomplished in various environments 

and locations). Section 21.35(f) has the 

criteria for selection of 150 or 300 hours, 

a provision that is not changed in this 

proposal. 

This proposal would expand the 

applicability of F & R flight testing 

requirements to all turbine-powered 

airplanes that weigh 6,000 pounds or 

less, while retaining the exception for 

gliders and reciprocating-engine 

powered airplanes type certificated 

under 14 CFR part 23. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

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. We have determined that there 

is no information collection burden 

associated with this proposed rule. 

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 reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these proposed regulations. 

Initial 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 impacts of this proposed rule. 

We suggest readers seeking greater 

detail read the full initial regulatory 

evaluation, a copy of which we have 

placed in the docket for this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this proposed rule: 

(1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) 

is not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in the DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) would not create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States; and (6) 

would not impose an unfunded 

mandate on state, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector by 

exceeding the threshold identified 

above. These analyses are summarized 

below. 

Total Costs and Benefits of This 

Proposed Rule 

We expect that the typical 

certification project for an airplane 

subject to the proposed rule would be 

for a new airplane design with a turbine 

engine previously used in a typecertificated aircraft requiring 165 hours 6

of F & R flight testing at a total cost of 

$317,000. In the case of a new airplane 

design and an engine not previously 

used on a certificated airplane, we 

estimate that double the hours (330 

hours) would be required, so the total 

cost would double to $634,000. 

We expect that adoption of this 

proposed rule would enhance safety and 

reduce costs by substantially reducing 

the number of safety incidents and postcertification Airworthiness Directives 

(AD). A partial estimate of the expected 

costs that would be avoided for a single 

new airplane design amounts to $1.8 

million, with a present value of $1.6 

million. These avoided costs are 

approximately six times the costs of our 

165-hour estimate ($317,000) and 

approximately three times the higher 

330-hour estimate ($634,000). 

Consequently, the benefits of this 

proposed rule greatly exceed its modest 

costs. For additional detail, see the 

separate sections on costs and benefits 

below. 

The FAA solicits comments on our 

determination of costs and benefits and 

our expectation that this proposed rule 

would enhance safety and reduce costs. 

Who Is Potentially Affected by This 

Rule? 

Manufacturers of part 23 turbinepowered airplanes weighing 6,000 

pounds or less are potentially affected. 

Assumptions and Sources of 

Information 

• We use a two-year period of 

analysis, as we find this period 

sufficient to show the cost-beneficial 

nature of this proposed rule. We use the 

period from the beginning of 2007 to the 

end of 2008, as the data used in the 

analysis are from this period. The short 

period of analysis reflects the inherent 

nature of F & R flight testing, designed 

as it is to uncover design flaws that 

otherwise would reveal themselves in 

the very early life of an airplane. 

• Discount rate is 7% (Office of 

Management and Budget, Circular A–94, 

‘‘Guidelines and Discount Rates for 

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal 

Programs,’’ October 29, 1992, p. 8). 

• Data on costs of compliance with 

this proposal were obtained from a part 

23 airplane manufacturer and FAA 

estimates. 

Costs of This Proposed Rule 

Aircraft subject to F & R flight testing 

under 14 CFR 21.35(b)(2), § 21.35(f) 

require at least 300 hours of F & R flight 

testing for aircraft ‘‘incorporating turbine 

engines of a type not previously used in 

a type certificated aircraft’’ and at least 

150 hours for all other aircraft. Unless 

a totally new engine is used, it is rare 

that the applicant is required to run a 

full 300-hour program. Generally, an 

applicant with a new aircraft design, but 

with an engine previously used in a 

type-certificated aircraft, would be 

required to conduct at least 150 hours 

of F & R flight testing. As most VLJ 

projects appear to be based on 

derivatives of the Williams FJ–33 engine 

or other previously-certificated engines, 

we expect this requirement to hold for 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18137 

7Special Certification Review: Eclipse Aviation 

Corporation Model EA–500 Airplane. Prepared for 

the Federal Aviation Administration Associate 

Administrator for Aviation Safety, September 12, 

2008. 

the typical project subject to this 

proposed rule. Failures during F & R 

flight testing, however, occasionally 

lead to extension of the required hours. 

We estimate that the average extension 

is 10%, or 15 hours, so our ‘‘typical’’ 

estimate assumes 165 hours of F & R 

flight testing. We double that estimate to 

also provide an estimate for a new 

airplane design with a new engine 

design. 

Our final figures are $317,066 for a 

165-hour program and $634,132 for a 

330-hour program. 

Benefits of This Proposed Rule 

We expect that adoption of this 

proposed rule would enhance safety and 

reduce costs by substantially reducing 

the number of service difficulties 

experienced post-certification. This 

expectation is supported by evidence 

from the service experience of the EA– 

500. The Eclipse SCR7 team looked at 

85 Eclipse SDRs submitted between July 

29, 2007 and May 13, 2008. The Eclipse 

SCR team ‘‘concluded the majority of the 

SDRs resulted from reliability issues 

separate from compliance with the 

minimum FAA standards’’ (see SCR, 

Executive Summary). There also were 6 

Eclipse-related ADs issued in the oneyear period between November 2007 

and November 2008. In any case, the 

pitot/angle of attack (AOA) issue (SCR, 

p. 25; AD 2008–02–04) is the one most 

likely to have been uncovered by a 

mandatory F & R flight testing program. 

Extending the AD estimate to the entire 

U.S.-registered Eclipse EA–500 fleet 

(264 airplanes), we estimate the total 

cost of the pitot/AOA problem to be 

$2.5 million. As discussed above, 

however, we assess the probability of F 

& R flight testing uncovering the pitot/ 

AOA problem to be approximately 0.7 

to 0.75. Using the lower figure, we 

accordingly calculate the expected 

benefit as the total cost avoided of $2.5 

million times 0.7, or $1.8 million. Since 

the FAA issued a type certificate on 

September 30, 2006, approximately 1.5 

years prior to the compliance date for 

this AD, we discount the expected 

benefit 1.5 years to find present value 

benefit of $1.6 million. 

Thus, the $1.6 million benefit from 

avoiding just this one problem greatly 

exceeds our $317,066 estimated typical 

cost of F & R flight testing. 

Initial 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. 

The FAA believes that this proposed 

rule would not have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of entities for 

the following reason: The cost of 

requiring F & R flight testing is small 

and a very small percentage of 

development, certification, and 

production costs. Consequently, 

requiring F & R flight testing for turbinepowered airplanes weighing 6,000 

pounds or less would have a minimal 

cost impact on manufacturers of 

airplanes in this category. Therefore the 

FAA certifies that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The FAA solicits comments 

regarding this determination. 

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 proposed rule 

and determined the purpose is to 

promote safety and is thus not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

foreign commerce of the United States. 

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 

$136.1 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate. The requirements of 

Title II do not apply to this proposal. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action would 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, and, therefore, 

would not have federalism implications. 

Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the Administrator, when 

modifying regulations in Title 14 of the 

CFR 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. The proposed 

rule would apply to the certification of 

airplanes that may be used for air 

transportation in Alaska. In light of air 

transportation needs, and terrain and 

aviation environment conditions unique 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
18138 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

to that state, we anticipate that safety 

benefits of the proposal would be 

correspondingly higher than expected 

for aviation operations in the 

continental National Airspace System 

(NAS). 

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(f) and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this proposal 

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 regulatory action’’ under the 

executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

Additional Information 

Comments Invited: 

The FAA invites 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 the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, 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 proposed rulemaking. 

Before acting on this proposal, 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 

proposal in light of the comments we 

receive. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information: 

Do not file in the docket information 

that you consider to be proprietary or 

confidential business information. Send 

or deliver this information directly to 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. You must mark the 

information that you consider 

proprietary or confidential. If you send 

the information on a disk or CD–ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM 

and also identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is proprietary or 

confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, we do not place it in 

the docket. We hold it in a separate file 

to which the public does not have 

access, and we place a note in the 

docket that we have received it. If we 

receive a request to examine or copy 

this information, we treat it as any other 

request under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We 

process such a request under the DOT 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

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 docket number or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

You may access all documents the 

FAA considered in developing this 

proposed rule, including economic 

analyses and technical reports, from the 

Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in 

paragraph (1). 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 21 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Exports, 

Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 21—CERTIFICATION 

PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS, 

ARTICLES, AND PARTS 

1. The authority citation for part 21 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 

106(g), 40105, 40113, 44701–44702, 44704, 

44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303. 

2. Amend § 21.35 by revising 

paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 21.35 Flight tests. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) For aircraft to be certificated under 

this subchapter, except gliders and 

except reciprocating engine powered 

airplanes of 6,000 lbs. or less maximum 

certificated weight that are to be 

certificated under part 23 of this 

chapter, to determine whether there is 

reasonable assurance that the aircraft, its 

components, and its equipment are 

reliable and function properly. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 2, 

2010. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8130 Filed 4–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 108 

[Docket ID: DOD–2009–OS–0036; RIN 0790– 

AI52] 

Health Care Eligibility Under the 

Secretarial Designee Program and 

Related Special Authorities 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This proposed action would 

establish policies and assign 

responsibilities for health care eligibility 

under the Secretarial Designee Program. 

It would also implement the 

requirement where the United States 

would receive reimbursement for 

inpatient health care provided in the 

United States to foreign military or 

diplomatic personnel or their 

dependents, except in certain cases 

covered by Reciprocal Health Care 

Agreements (RHCAs) between the 

Department of Defense and a foreign 

country. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS