Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4841 

necessary, they would be submitted to 

OMB for approval. 

This proposed rule would not impose 

any additional reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements on either 

small or large Far West spearmint oil 

handlers. As with all Federal marketing 

order programs, reports and forms are 

periodically reviewed to reduce 

information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

AMS has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this proposed rule. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.

gov/rules-regulations/moa/smallbusinesses. Any questions about the 

compliance guide should be sent to 

Richard Lower at the previously 

mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, including the 

information and recommendations 

submitted by the Committee and other 

available information, USDA has 

determined that this proposed rule is 

consistent with and would effectuate 

the purposes of the Act. 

A 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposed rule. All written 

comments timely received will be 

considered before a final determination 

is made on this rule. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 985 

Marketing agreements, Oils and fats, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Agriculture Marketing 

Service proposes to amend 7 CFR part 

985 as follows: 

PART 985—MARKETING ORDER 

REGULATING THE HANDLING OF 

SPEARMINT OIL PRODUCED IN THE 

FAR WEST 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 985 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Revise § 985.233 to read as follows: 

§ 985.233 Salable quantities and allotment 

percentages—2023–2024 marketing year. 

The salable quantity and allotment 

percentage for each class of spearmint 

oil during the marketing year beginning 

on June 1, 2023, shall be as follows: 

(a) Class 1 (Scotch) oil—a salable 

quantity of 772,704 pounds and an 

allotment percentage of 34 percent. 

(b) Class 3 (Native) oil—a salable 

quantity of 1,034,492 pounds and an 

allotment percentage of 40 percent. 

■ 3. Revise § 985.234 to read as follows: 

§ 985.234 Salable quantities and allotment 

percentages—2024–2025 marketing year. 

The salable quantity and allotment 

percentage for each class of spearmint 

oil during the marketing year beginning 

on June 1, 2024, shall be as follows: 

(a) Class 1 (Scotch) oil—a salable 

quantity of 663,648 pounds and an 

allotment percentage of 29 percent. 

(b) Class 3 (Native) oil—a salable 

quantity of 678,980 pounds and an 

allotment percentage of 26 percent. 

§§ 985.235 through 985.238 [Removed] 

■ 4. Remove §§ 985.235 through 

985.238. 

Erin Morris, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–01247 Filed 1–24–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 21 

[Docket No.: FAA–2024–0159; Notice No. 

24–10] 

RIN 2120–AL87 

Disclosure of Safety Critical 

Information 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

implement certain mandates in the 

Aircraft Certification, Safety, and 

Accountability Act of 2020 by requiring 

applicants for, and holders of, new and 

amended transport category airplane 

type certificates to submit, and 

subsequently continue to disclose, 

certain safety critical information to the 

FAA. The proposed rule would also 

require all applicants for type 

certificates, including new, amended, 

and supplemental type certificates, to 

submit a proposed certification plan to 

the FAA. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

March 25, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2024–0159 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

• Go to 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 (DOT), 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. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

www.regulations.gov/ at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the 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: 

Susan McCormick, Systems Standards, 

Product Policy Management, Policy and 

Standards Division, Aircraft 

Certification Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 26805 East 68th Ave., 

Denver, CO 80249–6339; telephone 

(206) 231–3242; email 

susan.mccormick@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Background 

A. Congressional Mandate 

B. Regulatory Background (FAA 

Certification and Oversight Processes) 

C. Factual Background (Boeing 737 MAX 

Accidents and Ensuing Investigations) 

D. Legislation Resulting From Reviews of 

the 737 MAX 

III. Authority for This Rulemaking 

IV. Discussion of the Proposal 

A. Submittal of Proposed Certification 

Plans by Applicants 

B. Milestone Component of Applicant’s 

Proposed Certification Plan 

C. Updating Transport Category Airplane 

Certification Plans With Safety Critical 

Information 

D. Continuing Disclosure Requirement for 

New and Amended Transport Category 

Airplane TC Applications 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4842 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1 Division V, title 1 of Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021. Public Law 116–260 

(Dec. 27, 2020). 

2Section 44702(d) of title 49 allows the 

Administrator to delegate certain matters related to 

type certificates and other certificates. 

E. Submittal Requirement for Holders of 

Transport Category Airplane TCs 

Covered Under Part 25 

F. Requirement For Subsequent Continuing 

Disclosure by TC Holders of Transport 

Category Airplanes Covered Under Part 

25 

G. Interaction of This Proposal With 

Current Submittal and Disclosure 

Requirements 

H. Explanations of Five Categories of 

Safety Critical Information 

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. International Trade Impact Assessment 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

F. International Compatibility 

G. Environmental Analysis 

VI. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

VII. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

B. Confidential Business Information 

C. Electronic Access and Filing 

D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

I. Executive Summary 

This proposed rule would implement 

certain mandates of section 105 of the 

Aircraft Certification, Safety, and 

Accountability Act 1 (ACSAA). It 

proposes to require applicants for, and 

holders of, type certificates (TCs), 

including new and amended but not 

including supplemental type certificates 

(STCs), for a transport category airplane 

covered under part 25 of title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to 

submit, and subsequently continue to 

disclose, certain safety critical 

information to the FAA. Applicants 

would be required to submit such 

information as part of a certification 

plan. 

A certification plan would therefore 

be required, by regulation, for all 

applicants for TCs, including STCs, and 

would be required to include proposed 

milestones. After the FAA agrees to the 

certification plan, applicants would be 

required to keep it updated throughout 

the certification process. 

This proposal also includes 

requirements applicable to certain 

holders of TCs. Holders of transport 

category airplane TCs covered under 

part 25 would be required, within 90 

days of the effective date of a final rule, 

to submit certain safety critical 

information, if known and not 

previously submitted. Such holders 

would thereafter be required to continue 

to disclose such information upon 

discovery. While TC holders already 

submit much of this information via 

requirements found in §§ 21.3 and 

183.63, this rule would require specific 

delineation of the safety critical 

information by the holder. 

Because the FAA’s proposal would 

largely align the new submittal and 

disclosure requirements for TC 

applicants and holders with existing 

certification and oversight practices and 

require holders only to submit known 

and previously-undisclosed 

information, the incremental costs of the 

proposal would be minimal. The FAA 

has found potential benefits from the 

proposal due to the projected 

enhancement of the identification, and 

the agency’s receipt of, safety critical 

information. 

II. Background 

A. Congressional Mandate 

On December 21, 2020, Congress 

passed the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act of 2021, which included the Aircraft 

Certification, Safety, and Accountability 

Act (Division V, Title 1). Section 105 of 

the Act was codified in title 49 U.S.C. 

44704(e) (2021). Section 105 instructs 

the FAA to require the submittal, and 

subsequent ongoing disclosure, of 

certain information related to TCs for 

transport category airplanes covered 

under part 25 of title 14. 

Section 105(e)(1), now 49 U.S.C. 

44704(e)(1), prompts the FAA to require 

an applicant for, or holder of, a TC for 

a transport category airplane to submit 

safety critical information to the FAA. 

That section defines five categories of 

required safety critical information, as 

summarized below. It allows the FAA to 

set the form, manner, and time of the 

submittal. 

Section 105(e)(1)’s requirements are 

accompanied by certain caveats. First, 

as noted above, it applies to only those 

TCs for transport category airplanes that 

are ‘‘covered under part 25 of title 14.’’ 

Second, the section states that the 

required submittals are to be made 

‘‘(N)otwithstanding a delegation 

described in section 44702(d).’’ 2 Third, 

section 105 defines the transport 

airplane type certificatess that are 

subject to its requirements as those for 

‘‘new or amended’’ certificates, but 

excludes STCs. 

Section 105 also directs certain 

‘‘Ongoing Communications.’’ 

Specifically, Section 105(e)(2)(A) 

instructs the FAA to require that an 

applicant for, or holder of, a transport 

airplane type certificate disclose to the 

FAA any newly discovered information, 

or any design or analysis change, that 

would materially alter the applicant or 

holder’s prior submission of safety 

critical information to the FAA under 

section 105(e)(1). As with the initial 

disclosure requirement, this section 

allows the FAA to set the form, manner, 

and time of the communication. Section 

105(e)(2)(b) directs the FAA to establish 

milestones throughout the certification 

process at which the systems of a 

proposed transport category airplane 

design will be assessed. These required 

assessments must determine whether a 

change made to a system during the 

certification process should prompt the 

FAA to consider the system as novel or 

unusual. 

Section 105 sets forth five categories 

of safety critical information that 

applicants or holders must submit and 

disclose. These categories generally 

relate to information about the proposed 

design’s potential to affect the 

flightcrew’s ability to control the 

airplane, and about the analysis of 

potential hazards that could be posed by 

the design. The following paragraphs 

summarize the five categories of safety 

critical information. 

(1) Details, functions, and failure 

modes of any system that, without being 

commanded by the flightcrew, could 

command the operation of a function or 

feature that is necessary for control of 

the airplane, or could affect its flight 

path or airspeed. 

(2) Details, functions, failure modes, 

and mode annunciations about the 

transport category airplane’s autopilot 

and autothrottle systems. 

(3) Failures or operating conditions 

that the TC applicant or holder 

anticipates or has concluded would 

result in a hazardous or catastrophic 

outcome. 

(4) Any adverse handling quality that, 

without adding flight control 

augmenting software to the airplane 

design, would result in a failure to meet 

the requirements of FAA regulations. 

(5) A system safety assessment with 

respect to any system described in one 

of the first two categories (i.e., flight 

controls, and autothrottle/autopilot), or 

with respect to a system or component 

whose failure or erroneous operation 

could result in a hazardous or 

catastrophic outcome. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4843 

3 29 FR 18289. 

4AC 25.1309–1A, System Design and Analysis 

(June 21, 1988), page 15, paragraph 10.b.(3), 

available in the docket and at drs.faa.gov. 

5AC 25.1309–1A, page 15, paragraph 10.b.(2), 

available in the docket and at drs.faa.gov. 

6Amendment 25–23, 35 FR 5665. 

7Available in the docket. 

8The ARAC was created under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA), in accordance 

with title 5 of the United States Code (5 U.S.C. App. 

2) to provide advice and recommendations to the 

FAA concerning rulemaking activities, such as 

aircraft operations, airman and air agency 

certification, airworthiness standards and 

certification, airports, maintenance, noise, and 

training. 

9The Arsenal version is a draft revision of AC 

25.1309–1A. It was developed by the ARAC 

Systems Design and Analysis Harmonization 

Working Group (SDAHWG). It is in the docket for 

this rulemaking as part of the SDAHWG 

recommendation, Task 2-System and Analysis 

Harmonization and Technology Update, pp. 61–99. 

10The FAA has proposed to update 14 CFR 

25.1309, including changes seeking to ensure that 

applicants protect the airplane from the effects of 

the combination of two failures, the first of which 

is undetected until a second failure occurs. Docket 

No. FAA–2022–1544, available at regulations.gov. 

11See subpart D of 14 CFR part 183. 

12Per 14 CFR 21.20 and 21.21. 

13 14 CFR 21.17(c) and 21.101(e). 

14Certification plans are submitted by nearly all 

project applicants, because the plans are a useful 

tool for both the FAA and industry. FAA Order 

8110.4C provides information on their use. Also, 

the FAA and industry jointly developed both the 

The FAA and Industry Guide to Product 

Certification (i.e., Certification Process Guide 

Continued 

B. Regulatory Background (FAA 

Certification and Oversight Processes) 

The FAA reviews applicants’ 

proposed designs of products such as 

airplanes and engines, and, if it finds 

that the design meets regulatory 

standards, issues a design approval 

known as a ‘‘type certificate.’’ For 

transport category airplanes, which are 

used by air carriers to transport the 

public in scheduled service, the FAA 

reviews proposed designs primarily 

using the standards in 14 CFR part 25. 

Part 25 replaced part 4b of the Civil Air 

Regulations in 1965.3 The FAA provides 

applicants with suggested, but optional, 

means of compliance with many design 

standards via the publication of 

guidance documents such as advisory 

circulars (AC). 

After obtaining a TC for a transport 

category airplane from the FAA, most 

TC holders obtain (or seek to amend) a 

production certificate, which the FAA 

issues after the manufacturer proves that 

it is capable of repeatedly building the 

product according to its approved 

design. After an individual aircraft is 

built, the FAA issues an airworthiness 

certificate after finding that the aircraft 

conforms to its design and is in a 

condition for safe operation. 

1. Relevant Part 25 Design Standards 

Several part 25 design standards for 

transport category airplanes are relevant 

to the safety critical information that 

Congress has defined, and directed the 

FAA to require from, TC applicants and 

holders. 

a. System Safety Assessment 

To ensure the reliability of proposed 

designs for transport category airplanes, 

the FAA requires applicants to analyze 

the potential effects that failures and 

malfunctions could have on the airplane 

and its flightcrew. Among the FAA’s 

reliability regulations for transport 

category airplanes is § 25.1309, which 

generally requires the likelihood of a 

failure to be inversely proportional to its 

potential effect. Specifically, it requires 

that any failure condition which could 

cause the loss of the airplane (a 

‘‘catastrophic’’ failure condition) to be 

so unlikely as to never occur during the 

expected lifetime of all airplanes of that 

model (i.e., ‘‘extremely improbable’’ 

with an associated per hour failure rate 

of 10¥9, or less likely than one event per 

109 (billion) flight hours).4 Section 

25.1309 also requires that failure 

conditions which are not catastrophic, 

but which nevertheless could reduce the 

capability of the airplane or the ability 

of its flightcrew to cope with adverse 

operating conditions (a ‘‘major’’ failure 

condition), to be no more likely than 

improbable (an associated per-hour 

failure rate between every 10¥9 and 

10¥5 flight hours).5 The requirement to 

analyze these catastrophic and major 

failure conditions, and thus submit that 

information to the FAA, has been in 

place since 1970.6

An FAA-approved means of 

compliance with 14 CFR 25.1309 is AC 

25.1309–1A, System Design and 

Analysis (June 21, 1988).7 This AC 

divides the foregoing failure conditions 

into three categories, aligning their 

severity with their likelihood: (1) 

Catastrophic (which may be no more 

likely than 10¥9, or extremely 

improbable); (2) Major (between 10¥9

and 10¥5, or improbable); and (3) 

Minor, which are unregulated for 

transport category airplanes and may be 

probable (more likely than 10¥5). An 

additional Aviation Rulemaking 

Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) 8-recommended version 9 of this 

guidance, known as the ‘‘Arsenal’’ 

version, divides the ‘‘major’’ category 

into two categories of failures: those that 

are ‘‘hazardous’’ (from 10¥9 to 10¥7) 

and those that are ‘‘major’’ (from 10¥7

to 10¥5).10 Some applicants use the 

guidance in this version when 

developing their system safety 

assessments (SSA), and the FAA 

commonly accepts such assessments as 

a means of showing that the proposed 

design complies with § 25.1309. 

In some cases, the applicant submits 

the SSA to a designee of the FAA. 

Designees of the FAA can be individual 

or organizational. Organizational 

designees are known as ODAs because 

the FAA has granted them ‘‘organization 

designation authorization.’’ 11 Thus, an 

applicant may be submitting its SSA 

and other compliance information to an 

entity other than the FAA itself, if the 

FAA has authorized that entity to make 

a finding of compliance on the FAA’s 

behalf. 

b. Function and Installation of 

Equipment 

The FAA’s reliability standards for 

transport category airplanes certified 

under part 25 also include 

§ 25.1301(a)(4), which requires that each 

item of installed equipment on the 

airplane function properly when 

installed. Implementing policy for 

§ 25.1301 is included in several ACs, 

such as AC 20–174, Development of 

Civil Aircraft and Systems, and AC 

25.1329–1, Approval of Flight Guidance 

Systems. 

c. Other Relevant Part 25 Design 

Standards 

Additional part 25 standards of 

potential relevance to safety critical 

information as defined by Congress, are 

§ 25.143, general flight maneuvers; 

§ 25.672, which governs stability 

augmentation and automatic and poweroperated systems; § 25.1322, for 

flightcrew alerting; and § 25.1329, 

which governs flight guidance systems. 

The foregoing part 25 regulations, which 

current applicants for transport category 

airplane TCs must show that their 

proposed design complies with,12 are 

pertinent to the ACSAA section 105 

requirements for applicants and holders 

of TCs for transport category airplanes 

to submit, and continue to disclose, 

certain safety critical information. 

2. Applicant Certification Plans 

An applicant has 5 years, from the 

date of application, to obtain FAA 

approval of the applicant’s proposed 

transport category airplane TC, or 

change to such certificate.13 To ensure 

that necessary information about an 

applicant’s project is submitted in time 

for the FAA to adequately review, to 

establish an agreed-upon schedule 

including milestones, and to identify 

potential issues, applicants submit a 

proposed certification plan for their 

project,14 at the time of application, to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4844 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(CPG)) and the Enhanced Project Specific 

Certification Plan (ePSCP) Guide (i.e., ePSCP Guide) 

as a means to communicate project information via 

certification plans. 

15Section 2–3 of FAA Order 8110.4C. 

16 Id. at para. 2–3(d). 

17See FAA Order 8110.4C, at para 2–4(g); FAA 

Order 8110.112; and AC 20–166B. 

18 14 CFR 21.16. 

19 34 FR 5441. 

20Within 24 hours, or by the end of the next 

business day. 14 CFR 21.3(e)(1). 

21The exception is Lockheed Martin Corporation. 

The Boeing Company, Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 

Textron Aviation Inc., Piper Aircraft, Inc., and 

LearJet, Inc. are all currently ODA holders. 

22FAA Order 8100.15B at section 3–18. 

23When the term ‘‘737 MAX’’ is used in this 

NPRM, it is referring to the Boeing Model 737–8 

and –9 airplanes. 

24See, e.g., House Report H.R. 8408, H. Rept. 

116–579—AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION REFORM 

AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT | Congress.gov | 

Library of Congress. Available in the docket. 

25Preliminary KNKT.18.10.35.04 Aircraft 

Accident Investigation Report, dated November 

2018, and Final KNKT.18.10.35.04 Aircraft 

Accident Investigation Report, dated October 2019, 

can be found in the docket. 

26Report No. AI 01/19, Interim Investigation 

Report on Accident to the B737–8 (MAX) Registered 

ET–AVJ operated by Ethiopian Airlines on 10 

March 2019, dated March 9, 2020, of the Federal 

Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of 

Transport Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau, 

can be found in the docket. 

the FAA.15 A certification plan includes 

several categories of information.16

Such information includes general 

information about the proposed design, 

but also specific information such as a 

description of how compliance will be 

shown, a list of the documentation that 

the applicant plans to use to show 

compliance, and the applicant’s 

expected certification date. Applicants 

also generally keep this information 

updated throughout the development of 

their project, so that they can show 

compliance with FAA design standards, 

and so that the FAA has correct 

information to make the findings of 

compliance that are necessary to issue 

the requested TC. 

3. Disclosure of Novel or Unusual 

Design Features 

Since each proposal for an original or 

amended TC is different, and the 

designs of modern transport category 

airplanes are complex, proposed designs 

will inevitably present multiple issues, 

whether technical, regulatory, or 

administrative, that require a 

heightened degree of analysis by the 

FAA and engagement with the 

applicant. The FAA analyzes such 

issues via the development of issue 

papers.17

If a proposed design feature is novel 

or unusual (i.e., it was not envisaged by 

FAA design standards) and therefore, 

the FAA’s design standards are 

inadequate or inappropriate for that 

feature, the FAA addresses that feature 

with a rule of particular applicability 

known as a ‘‘special condition.’’ 18

Though the goal is to identify and 

address novel or unusual design 

features early in the certification 

process, regular discussions (e.g., 

familiarization briefings, compliance 

planning meetings, etc.) between the 

applicant and the FAA are necessary to 

plan and execute certification activities. 

4. Existing 14 CFR 21.3 Reporting of 

Failures, Malfunctions, and Defects 

In 1969, the FAA noted that while air 

carriers were required to notify the FAA 

of certain safety issues occurring on 

their airplanes and engines, it is the 

manufacturers of those products who 

have the 

‘‘expertise . . . to evaluate the seriousness of 

the failure, defect, or malfunction, and to 

determine the extent to which (it) may 

present a hazard to flight.’’ 19

The FAA thus proposed, and 

subsequently issued, a rule—14 CFR 

21.3—requiring manufacturers to 

promptly 20 inform the FAA of the 

occurrence of a host of listed failures, 

defects, and malfunctions. The specific 

items to be disclosed have not 

substantively changed in the halfcentury since the rule was issued. 

Thus, after the FAA approves a 

proposed design via the issuance of a 

TC, and the manufacturer builds its 

product according to that approved 

design, and the individual aircraft 

receives a certificate of airworthiness 

and enters service, the manufacturer’s 

obligation to ensure the airworthiness of 

its product continues. The manufacturer 

must report certain information to the 

FAA in accordance with § 21.3. If the 

FAA determines a design change is 

required to correct an unsafe condition 

in a product, the manufacturer is 

required by § 21.99 to submit a 

proposed change to its design, and the 

FAA may mandate this change via part 

39 of 14 CFR by the issuance of an 

airworthiness directive (AD). 

5. Other Ongoing Disclosure 

Requirements Applicable to TC Holders 

Nearly every domestic holder of an 

original or amended TC for a part 25 

transport category airplane in the U.S. is 

also the holder of an ODA.21 ODA 

holders are required by current 

regulations to submit and disclose 

several categories of safety information 

to the FAA. Two categories are of 

particular pertinence to the 

requirements that this NPRM proposes 

to establish. Section 183.63(b)(1) 

requires ODA holders, without 

prompting by the FAA, to notify the 

agency of any ‘‘condition in a product, 

part or appliance that could result in a 

finding of unsafe condition by the 

Administrator.’’ Section 183.63(b)(2) 

requires ODA holders to notify the 

agency of products not meeting 

airworthiness requirements. 

FAA policy provides guidance on the 

details of the provision of such 

information.22 The ODA holder must 

provide continued support for approvals 

or certificates issued under ODA 

procedures in accordance with § 183.63. 

Procedures for monitoring service 

information, investigation, and FAA 

notification must be included in the 

ODA holder’s FAA-approved 

procedures manual, in accordance with 

§ 183.53(c)(13). 

C. Factual Background (Boeing 737 

MAX 23 Accidents and Ensuing 

Investigations) 

The following information, due to its 

inclusion or reference in investigations 

by Congressional committees, was 

pertinent to the development of the 

Congressional requirements that this 

NPRM proposes to implement.24

The FAA approved the amended TC 

for the Boeing Model 737–8 in 2017. On 

October 29, 2018, a Boeing Model 737– 

8 airplane operated by Lion Air (Lion 

Air Flight 610) was involved in an 

accident after takeoff in Indonesia, 

resulting in 189 fatalities. The accident 

was investigated by the Indonesian 

authorities (Komite Nasional 

Keselamatan Transportasi (KNKT)) 25

with assistance from the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the 

FAA, the manufacturer, and the 

operator. 

On March 10, 2019, a Boeing Model 

737–8 airplane operated by Ethiopian 

Airlines (Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302) 

was involved in an accident after takeoff 

in Ethiopia, resulting in 157 fatalities. 

The accident was investigated by the 

Ethiopian Accident Investigation 

Bureau 26 with assistance from the 

NTSB, the FAA, the French Bureau of 

Enquiry and Analysis for Civil Aviation 

Safety, the European Union Aviation 

Safety Agency, the manufacturer, the 

operator, and the Ethiopian Civil 

Aviation Authority. 

The investigations of these accidents 

generally found that erroneous data 

from one of the airplane’s two angle-ofattack sensors could cause the 

maneuvering characteristics 

augmentation system (MCAS), a 

function of the airplane’s flight control 

software, to command repeated airplane 

nose-down trim of the horizontal 

stabilizer, and could result in flightdeck 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4845 

27See, e.g., p. 7 of NTSB ASR–19–01, 

Assumptions Used in the Safety Assessment 

Process and the Effects of Multiple Alerts and 

Indications on Pilot Performance, dated September 

19, 2019, (‘‘ASR–19–01’’), available in the docket. 

28See, e.g., pp. 23–24 of Summary of the FAA’s 

Review of the Boeing 737 MAX (November 20, 

2020), available in the docket. 

29 85 FR 74560. 

30System Safety and Certification Specialist’s 

Report, DCA19RA017, dated August 21, 2019, and 

the aforementioned ASR–19–01, available in the 

docket. 

31Timeline of Activities Leading to the 

Certification of the Boeing 737 MAX 8 Aircraft and 

Actions Taken After the October 2018 Lion Air 

Accident, June 2020, (‘‘OIG I’’), available in the 

docket. 

32Weaknesses in FAA’s Certification and 

Delegation Processes Hindered Its Oversight of the 

737 MAX 8, U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Inspector General, February 2021, (‘‘OIG 

II’’) available in the docket. 

33Boeing 737 MAX Flight Control System Joint 

Authorities Technical Review, October 2019, 

(‘‘JATR’’), available in the docket. 

34The Design, Development, & Certification of the 

Boeing 737 MAX, Majority Staff of the U.S. House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

(‘‘House Committee Report’’), available in the 

docket. 

35Aviation Safety Oversight, U.S. Senate 

Committee on Commerce, Science, & 

Transportation, December 2020, (‘‘Senate 

Committee Report’’), available in the docket. 

36As referenced at footnote 28. 

37See, e.g., JATR at pp. VII, 13, and 24–25; House 

Report at p. 57. 

38See, e.g., House Report at p. 103; OIG I at p. 

20; OIG II at p. 16. 

39See, e.g., JATR at p. 30–31; OIG I at p. 25. 

40See, e.g., House Report at pp. 13 and 29; JATR 

at pp. 31 and 33–34. 

41See, e.g., House Report at pp. 21, 109, and 116; 

JATR at pp. 33–34. 

42Public Law 116–260 (ACSAA). 

effects that collectively could affect the 

ability of the flightcrew to accomplish 

continued safe flight and landing.27

Flightdeck effects common to both 

accidents were differences in the 

altitude and airspeed displayed for each 

pilot and persistent stall warning. In the 

Ethiopian accident, the significant 

difference in airspeeds resulted in the 

autothrottle becoming inoperative, thus 

leaving the thrust levers at the current 

takeoff thrust setting. The throttles 

remained at takeoff power throughout 

the flight, resulting in high airspeed, 

which made it more difficult for the 

flightcrew to control the airplane. 

The Boeing Models 737–8 and 737–9 

were certified via amendment of the 

existing Boeing Model 737 TC and were 

the first of a set of derivative models 

collectively marketed by Boeing as the 

737 MAX. To certify the 737 MAX 

airplanes with larger and relocated 

engines, Boeing added MCAS to the 

airplane’s flight control software so that 

the airplane handling qualities would 

comply with FAA design standards.28

Following the accidents, the FAA 

mandated corrective actions to address 

the unsafe condition related to MCAS 

on the 737 MAX. The actions included 

requiring changes to the airplane’s flight 

control software related to MCAS and 

related flightcrew procedures. These 

changes were developed by Boeing and 

its ODA unit pursuant to §§ 21.3, 21.99 

and 183.63, and, after a public comment 

process, were required by the FAA via 

the issuance of an AD.29

1. Investigations of Certification of 737 

MAX and FAA Certification Processes 

The two accidents also led to 

investigations of how the Boeing 737 

MAX airplane had been certified by the 

FAA; of the FAA’s delegation of certain 

certification functions to the Boeing 

ODA; and of how the FAA certifies 

transport category airplanes in general. 

These investigations included reviews 

by the NTSB 30 and the U.S. Department 

of Transportation’s Office of Inspector 

General (in June 2020 31 and February 

2021 32); a Joint Aviation Technical 

Review conducted by a panel of foreign 

civil aviation authorities; 33 and reviews 

by the Aviation Subcommittee of the 

U.S. House Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 34 and 

the U.S. Senate Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation.35 The FAA also 

performed and published its own 

technical summary when addressing the 

unsafe condition.36

2. Disclosure of Information During 

Certification of 737 MAX 

The investigations of the certification 

of the 737 MAX generally found that 

Boeing, as the applicant for an amended 

TC, inadequately disclosed certain 

information about its proposed design, 

and its potential safety risks, to the FAA 

during the certification process.37 This 

information included the 

manufacturer’s increase of the authority 

(from 0.55 to 2.5 degrees of stabilizer 

movement) and circumstances (from 

high-altitude only, to relatively low 

altitude and airspeed) of the flightcontrol software’s automatic (without 

pilot input) activation of MCAS to move 

the horizontal stabilizer of the 

airplane.38

The investigations also generally 

found that Boeing’s hazard and safety 

assessments of these systems on the 737 

MAX did not adequately account for the 

severity of hazard that MCAS posed.39

According to the investigations, the 

hazard classifications for MCAS 

failures, given that system’s potential 

reliance on a single angle-of-attack 

indicator, should have been catastrophic 

with an SSA that included 

commensurate rigor.40

The investigations found that the 

company’s SSAs that addressed MCAS 

considered the hazard from a single 

activation, but did not address the 

hazard that could be presented by 

repeated activations of MCAS.41

D. Legislation Resulting From Reviews 

of the 737 MAX 

After the foregoing reviews of the 

FAA’s certification of the 737 MAX, in 

December of 2020 Congress passed the 

Aircraft Certification, Safety, and 

Accountability Act (ACSAA).42 ACSAA 

imposed many new requirements on the 

FAA, including those of section 105. 

Section 105’s provisions generally 

seek to ensure that information about 

the potential hazards of a transport 

category airplane’s systems is 

adequately disclosed by applicants for 

design approval, so that such 

information can be adequately evaluated 

by the applicant and the FAA. 

Section 105 does not apply these 

requirements only to ‘‘applicants,’’ as it 

does certain other provisions. Rather, it 

also applies the initial submittal, and 

ongoing disclosure requirement, to the 

‘‘holder of’’ a type certificate for a 

transport category airplane covered 

under part 25. 

III. Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the FAA’s authority. 

This proposed rulemaking is issued 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, 

General Requirements. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations and minimum 

standards for the design and 

performance of aircraft that the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce. This proposed 

regulation is within the scope of that 

authority. 

Authority for this particular 

rulemaking is derived from section 

105(a) of ACSAA. Section 105, 

‘‘Disclosure of Safety Critical 

Information,’’ of ACSAA directs the 

Administrator of the FAA to require an 

applicant for, or holder of, a TC for a 

transport category airplane covered 

under 14 CFR part 25 to submit and 

disclose certain safety critical 

information to the FAA. 

IV. Discussion of the Proposal 

In this rulemaking, the FAA proposes 

to impose, as required by section 105(a), 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4846 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

43Available in the docket and at www.faa.gov/ 

sites/faa.gov/files/aircraft/air_cert/design_

approvals/transport/CPI_guide.pdf. 

44Available in the docket and at www.faa.gov/ 

sites/faa.gov/files/aircraft/air_cert/design_

approvals/dah/ePSCP_guide.pdf. 

45A proposed certification basis includes 

applicable regulation paragraphs with amendment 

levels, and the potential need for the FAA to issue 

exemptions, equivalent level of safety findings 

(ELOSs), and special conditions. See FAA Order 

8110.4C at section 2–3(d). 

46Per current practices, these would include 

items such as test plans, reports, analyses (often 

called ‘‘deliverables’’, ‘‘documents’’, or ‘‘document 

deliverables’’), and inspections that are necessary to 

show compliance with the applicable requirements. 

47 14 CFR 121, subpart N defines operator training 

programs. 

the initial submittal and continuing 

disclosure requirements of that section 

on applicants and holders of TCs, 

including amended TCs, for transport 

category airplanes covered by 14 CFR 

part 25. 

A. Submittal of Proposed Certification 

Plans by Applicants 

In this NPRM, the FAA proposes a 

new § 21.15(d) that would require 

applicants for new or amended TCs to 

submit proposed certification plans to 

the FAA, and that a new § 21.113(c) 

would require the same for applicants 

for new or amended STCs. Consistent 

with current practice, such plans would 

be required to be submitted with the 

application. The proposed certification 

plans would be required to include 

planning information; proposed 

milestones; and, for transport category 

airplane applications, subsequent 

updates to include the safety critical 

information that ACSAA requires the 

FAA to obtain from such applicants. 

Under current practices, applicants 

typically submit a variety of information 

with their proposed certification plans, 

as described in FAA Order 8110.4C, 

Type Certification (for applicants) and 

8100.15B, Organization Designation 

Authorization Procedures (for ODA 

holders) and associated materials such 

as The FAA and Industry Guide to 

Product Certification (i.e., Certification 

Process Guide 43 (CPG)) and Enhanced 

Project Specific Certification Plan 

(ePSCP) Guide (i.e., ePSCP Guide).44

However, to provide transport category 

airplane applicants with a familiar 

vehicle for the initial submittal of safety 

critical information, the FAA proposes 

to establish a performance-based 

regulatory requirement for certification 

plans. 

Thus, proposed certification plans 

would be required, via a regulatory 

performance standard, to contain 

sufficient information for the applicant’s 

showings of compliance, and the FAA’s 

findings, to be timely and accurately 

made. The provided information would 

be substantially the same as described 

in the aforementioned FAA guidance 

documents. The information provided 

in the certification plan would need to 

be sufficiently developed, and detailed, 

to enable the FAA to determine its level 

of involvement for each compliance 

showing and finding, ensure prompt 

submittal of all necessary compliance 

data, and allow all showings and 

findings to be timely and accurately 

made for each project. 

The FAA proposes that applicants 

would be required to submit these 

proposed certification plans in a manner 

consistent with current practices. Thus, 

applicants would be required to submit 

certain preliminary key project 

information, specifically the applicant’s 

proposed certification basis; 45 a 

compliance checklist that identifies the 

means by which the applicant plans to 

show that it complies with FAA 

regulations, and that identifies all 

deliverables 46 that the applicant 

anticipates will be necessary to show 

compliance; and a proposed project 

schedule with milestones. Applicants 

for transport category airplane new or 

amended, but not supplemental, type 

certificates would be required to include 

their expected certification date as part 

of this proposed schedule. The 

certification plan would also be 

required to identify any other 

information that the applicant 

anticipates will be necessary to enable 

the applicant’s showings and certifying 

statement (per § 21.20) and the FAA’s 

findings of compliance (per § 21.21(b)) 

to be timely and accurately made. 

Under current practices, it is common 

for applicants to describe safety critical 

information as deliverables within the 

compliance checklist, and include 

preliminary system safety assessment 

sections and referenced documentation. 

The FAA anticipates that this practice 

would continue, under the new 

standard for the contents of proposed 

certification plans. FAA Order 8110.4C 

and the ePSCP Guide would still 

provide applicants with additional 

information and best practices for 

submittals to meet the new regulatory 

requirements. 

B. Milestone Component of Applicant’s 

Proposed Certification Plan 

TC applicants generally propose a 

project schedule as part of their 

certification plan. This proposed project 

schedule includes key events, called 

milestones. Typical milestones include 

familiarization meetings, submittal of 

issue papers (to develop the resolution 

of issues that may necessitate 

determinations such as special 

conditions, ELOSs, and exemptions), 

type board meetings, first airplane 

flight, data submittal requirements, 

inspection/conformity dates, and 

associated test dates. 

In addition to the typical milestones 

that the applicant and the FAA use to 

plan the development and review of the 

project, the proposed schedule would, 

for applications for new or amended 

TCs for transport category airplanes, 

need to include sufficient milestones to 

enable compliance with requirements of 

the proposed rule. Such milestones 

would be consistent with current 

practices, and would include dates for 

submitting certain compliance 

documents such as safety assessments 

(including functional hazard 

assessments, fault tree analyses, the 

requirements validation plan, software 

development documents, and minimum 

training requirements 47 and other data 

to support the flight standardization 

board report and revisions (as needed). 

Under current practices, an 

applicant’s initial proposed certification 

plan also necessitates subsequent 

updates. These planned updates are, 

and under this proposal would continue 

to be, included as milestones within the 

proposed certification plan. This would 

establish ‘‘gates’’ throughout the 

certification process at which a 

proposed airplane system will be 

assessed for changes and impacts to the 

overall certification approach (e.g., 

certification basis, traceability, 

compliance dependencies, means of 

compliance, etc.) for the project. 

In summary, the foregoing milestones 

would be used to monitor, review, and 

assess the progress of the proposed 

airplane design and systems toward 

compliance, jointly by the FAA and the 

applicant. 

C. Updating Transport Category 

Airplane Certification Plans With Safety 

Critical Information 

This proposal would require 

applicants for new and amended TCs for 

transport category airplanes to submit 

safety critical information as an update 

to the certification plan that proposed 

§ 21.15(d) would require. Proposed 

§ 21.15(e) would require that this update 

to the applicant’s certification plan 

include or describe all of the safety 

critical information set forth in 

proposed § 21.1(c). An explanation of 

each of these five categories of safety 

critical information is set forth later in 

this proposal. 

Regarding the level of detail to be 

provided with the submittal of safety 

critical information with the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4847 

48See footnote 9. 

49 ‘‘Materially alter’’ would mean potentially 

affecting or negating a compliance showing, a 

certification assumption (e.g., design, human 

factors, operational training, etc.), or the FAA’s 

level of involvement (e.g., delegation decisions). 

50As with the requirement for applicants, 

athough a supplemental type certificate is a form of 

type certificate (14 CFR 21.20), per section 105 

there would be no requirement for submittal of 

safety critical information that would be triggered 

by the holding of STCs covered under part 25, only 

by the holding of original and amended type 

certificates. 

51The FAA intends that ‘‘manager’’ would not be 

limited to persons who supervise other persons, 

and would also include other persons with 

managerial duties, including program managers, 

project managers, risk managers, safety managers, 

etc. 

certification plan update under 

§ 21.15(e), the FAA recognizes that the 

type design for a transport category 

airplane project may not be sufficiently 

developed at the time of initial 

submittal to include a thorough 

discussion of all safety critical 

information. 

Applicants would be required to 

describe safety critical information in 

the update required by proposed 

§ 21.15(e). This safety critical 

information would be as described 

elsewhere in this NPRM. The 

certification plan update would also 

include the anticipated relevant 

deliverables that are necessary to 

accomplish the requirements of the 

certification plan. This initial submittal 

of safety critical information with the 

certification plan update would be one 

step in the iterative process that builds 

toward the applicant’s eventual 

compliance showings with certain 

regulations. 

For example, the safety assessment 

process is often used by applicants to 

show compliance with certain 

regulatory design standards that are 

relevant to the section 105 categories of 

safety critical information, such as 

§ 25.1309. Common and FAA -accepted 

means of compliance with that 

regulation are SAE Aerospace 

Recommended Practice (ARP)4761, 

‘‘Guidelines and Methods for 

Conducting the Safety Assessment 

Process on Civil Airborne Systems and 

Equipment,’’ AC 25.1309–1A, and the 

‘‘Arsenal’’ version of AC 25.1309–1A,48

which include safety assessment 

techniques. As previously noted in this 

NPRM, the ‘‘Arsenal’’ version of AC 

25.1309–1A, has been accepted since 

2001 when used in conjunction with an 

equivalent level of safety finding. That 

AC documents an established means for 

an applicant to show compliance to 

regulations, such as § 25.1309, related to 

safety critical information. Thus, the 

deliverables provided by these means of 

compliance are, and under this proposal 

would continue to be, regularly 

reviewed at proposed milestones. 

The FAA proposes that requiring the 

submittal of safety critical information, 

even in preliminary form, at the time of 

application could be unreasonably 

early, given the likely state of the 

proposed design, especially for complex 

projects or new TCs. Thus, to 

implement this requirement to submit 

safety critical information, applicants 

for new or amended transport category 

airplane TCs would be required to 

identify, as part of their initial proposed 

certification plan, their expected 

(requested) certification date. This 

would align with current practice. Then, 

to ensure that the FAA has adequate 

time to review the safety critical 

information, the transport category 

airplane applicant would be required to 

submit that safety critical information 

no later than 6 months prior to the 

applicant’s requested certification date, 

or within one year of submittal of the 

application, whichever is earlier. The 

FAA requests comment on these 

proposed timeframes. 

Section 105 begins with 

‘‘Notwithstanding a delegation 

described in section 44702(d). . .’’ 

Section 44702(d) authorizes the 

Administrator to delegate, to qualified 

private persons, certain matters related 

to the issuance of certificates, including 

type certificates. Therefore, the FAA 

proposes in this NPRM that all new 

submittals, and all ongoing disclosures, 

of safety critical information, by 

applicants be made to the FAA itself, 

not to any individual or organizational 

designee. 

This initial submittal would not end 

the applicant’s obligation to provide 

safety critical information to the FAA. 

Section 105 distinguishes between two 

required obligations: of the initial 

submittal, and then the ongoing 

disclosure, of safety critical information. 

D. Continuing Disclosure Requirement 

for New and Amended Transport 

Category Airplane TC Applications 

Proposed § 21.15(f) would require 

transport category airplane applicants, 

for the remainder of the certification 

process, to inform the FAA, within 3 

business days of discovery, of any 

information or proposed design or 

analysis change that would materially 

alter 49 their previously-submitted safety 

critical information. 

An example of such a proposed 

‘‘design or analysis change’’ would be 

the discovery that a system safety 

analysis that the applicant previously 

submitted pursuant to this proposal, or 

was planned to be used as part of the 

applicant’s showing of compliance with 

§ 25.1309, erroneously misstated the 

likelihood of a hazard. This disclosure 

could be the applicant’s identification of 

an error in a fault tree analysis. 

The FAA proposes that such design or 

analysis change would be required to be 

submitted within 3 days of discovery, 

rather than later, due to the potential 

importance of this information to safety 

and compliance, and to minimize the 

likelihood that the change delays the 

project. 

E. Submittal Requirement for Holders of 

Transport Category Airplane TCs 

Covered Under Part 25 

Proposed § 21.3(g) would require each 

holder (except STC holders) of a 

transport category airplane TC covered 

under part 25, within 90 days of the 

effective date of the final rule, to submit 

categories of safety critical information, 

if known and if not previously 

submitted, to the FAA for each model. 

The categories of required safety critical 

information for holders would be the 

same as for applicants, and would be 

defined in proposed § 21.1(c).50

The FAA does not expect this 

submittal to be voluminous, or its 

preparation burdensome or overly timeconsuming. First, much of the required 

safety critical information will have 

already been submitted to the FAA, 

through the TC application and 

certification process. Safety critical 

information is included in the type 

design, operating limitations, 

substantiation documents, and other 

required information as a part of the TC. 

Also, the FAA proposes that holders 

would be required to submit such 

information if ‘‘known’’ The purpose of 

this proposed limitation is to clarify that 

the new submittal requirement would 

not be intended to prompt all holders of 

transport category airplane TCs covered 

under part 25 to reevaluate all of their 

safety critical information for 

previously-approved designs, or 

interview past employees. Rather, safety 

critical information is ‘‘known’’ to the 

holder if any FAA designee including 

ODA staff (including administrators and 

unit members), any current manager 51

or responsible agent of the TC holder, or 

any employee of the TC holder with 

authority over or involvement in 

certification activities has knowledge of 

the information. 

The FAA also proposes that 

previously-submitted information 

would not need to be resubmitted by TC 

holders or ODA holders to the FAA. As 

noted above, much of this information 

will have been previously submitted by 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4848 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

52The FAA proposes that this allowance would 

only apply to organizational, not individual, 

designees. Only submittals that were previously 

made to Representatives of the Administrator 

authorized in accordance with 14 CFR part 183, 

subpart D would qualify. 

53 ‘‘Materially alter’’ would mean potentially 

affecting or negating a compliance showing, 

impacting a certification assumption (e.g., design, 

human factors, operational training, etc.), or that 

would affect, or would have affected, the FAA’s 

level of involvement (e.g., delegation decisions). 

54The FAA’s proposed definitions of safety 

critical information also include minor, 

nonsubstantive changes to facilitate regulatory 

implementation, such as replacing ‘‘14 CFR’’ with 

‘‘this chapter,’’ etc. 

55Per the ‘‘Arsenal’’ version of AC 25.1309–1A, 

Safety critical for transport category airplanes, 

means a function, component or system whose 

failure could be hazardous or catastrophic. 

the holder, as part of the type 

certification process. While section 

105(a) begins with ‘‘[n]otwithstanding a 

delegation,’’ the FAA does not consider 

that limitation to be retrospective. Thus, 

the previous submittal to a 

representative of the FAA 52 that was 

authorized to make a compliance 

finding on the agency’s behalf, would 

qualify as having been previously 

submitted. 

The FAA further proposes to limit the 

scope of this submittal requirement, and 

the ongoing disclosure requirement 

described in the next section, to just 

those transport category airplane TC 

holders whose airplanes are ‘‘covered 

under part 25 [of title 14].’’ This would 

make the proposal consistent with the 

text of section 105. It would thus 

exclude transport category airplanes 

that do not have 14 CFR part 25 in their 

certification basis. 

F. Requirement for Subsequent 

Continuing Disclosure by TC Holders of 

Transport Category Airplanes Covered 

Under Part 25 

Proposed § 21.3(g), beginning 90 days 

after the effective date of the proposed 

rule, would require TC holders, should 

they become aware of any newly 

discovered safety critical information, or 

a design or analysis change that would 

materially alter 53 any submission to the 

FAA of the information defined under 

§ 21.1(c), to disclose such information to 

the FAA within 3 business days of the 

discovery. Like the mandated submittal 

of safety critical information by holders, 

this ongoing disclosure would be 

required to be made to the FAA itself, 

not to a designee such as an ODA. 

The FAA proposes that the 90-day 

start date for this ongoing disclosure 

would logically follow the proposed 

deadline (within 90 days) for the initial 

submittal of safety critical information 

by TC holders. The FAA also considers 

that 90 days would be sufficient time for 

transport category airplane TC holders 

to review their internal procedures and 

make any necessary revisions in order to 

facilitate the proposed ongoing 

disclosure requirements. 

G. Interaction of This Proposal With 

Current Submittal and Disclosure 

Requirements 

As discussed in section B of this 

NPRM, TC and ODA holders currently 

submit certain information to the FAA, 

under the auspices of regulations such 

as §§ 21.3 and 183.63. Some safety 

critical information is likely to also 

prompt reporting under those two 

regulations. However, under this 

proposal, a TC holder of an airplane 

covered under part 25 would not be 

relieved of any other reporting 

obligation such as those under § 21.3, 

and an ODA holder similarly not 

relieved of any reporting obligation 

under part 183, as a result of the new 

obligation, which Congress required the 

FAA to mandate, to disclose safety 

critical information. Section 21.3 reports 

are, as reflected by their precise topics 

and accelerated timelines, urgent safety 

matters. Existing part 183 reporting may 

not characterize the safety critical 

information as clearly as is needed to 

implement this statutory mandate. 

However, the FAA requests comment on 

how these reporting processes might 

dovetail with this proposal, for greater 

efficiency in implementing the 

Congressional mandate. 

Existing § 21.3(e) establishes 

timeframes for the required submittal of 

information under § 21.3. Those 

timeframes are relatively short, due to 

the likely urgent safety implications of 

the information. Proposed § 21.3(g) 

includes timelines appropriate to the 

submittal of safety critical information. 

Therefore, as part of the implementation 

of proposed § 21.3(g), this NPRM 

proposes a minor revision of § 21.3(e), to 

exclude the information that would be 

submitted as part of § 21.3(g) from the 

requirements of paragraph (e), and to 

change the title of that section. 

H. Explanations of Five Categories of 

Safety Critical Information 

Proposed § 21.1(c) would contain the 

definitions of the five categories of 

safety critical information for the 

purposes of proposed §§ 21.15(e) and (f), 

and 21.3(g). Each category of safety 

critical information that the FAA 

proposes, as required by Congress, to 

require to be submitted and 

subsequently disclosed by applicants in 

proposed § 21.15(e) and (f), and by 

holders in proposed § 21.3(g), is 

explained as follows. 

1. Uncommanded Operation of Safety 

Critical Functions and Features 

The first category of safety critical 

information that the FAA, pursuant to 

Congress’ direction, would require 

applicants and holders to submit and 

disclose would be all design and 

operational details, intended functions, 

and failure modes of any system that, 

without being commanded by the 

flightcrew, commands the operation of 

any safety critical function or feature 

required for control of the airplane 

during flight or that otherwise changes 

the flight path or airspeed of an 

airplane. 

The FAA proposes that the regulatory 

definition of this category of 

information would be the same as the 

statutory definition, except for changing 

the opening ‘‘Any’’ to ‘‘All’’ to ensure 

that all, not just selected, information is 

provided, and making ‘‘flight crew’’ one 

word for consistency with other parts of 

14 CFR.54 The FAA provides the 

following explanation of some of the 

terms in this category of safety critical 

information. 

First, the ‘‘system(s)’’ which the FAA 

proposes would be covered by this 

requirement include, but are not limited 

to, flight control systems and other 

computer (software) controlled systems 

(e.g., autopilot, stability augmentation, 

automatic trim, autothrottle (autothrust), 

envelope protection), whose failure or 

erroneous activation would present a 

risk rated hazardous or catastrophic. 

A ‘‘safety critical function or feature’’ 

would be one whose failure could be 

hazardous or catastrophic. This would 

align with how the FAA has defined 

safety critical in other contexts, 

including transport category airplane 

SSA.55

Regarding ‘‘all design and operational 

details,’’ the FAA proposes that such 

details would be those with relevance to 

a referenced system’s function, failure, 

or operational suitability. Under current 

practice, in order to show compliance 

with §§ 25.1301(a) and 25.1309(a), the 

submitted information would include 

sufficient design and operational detail, 

and description of the intended 

function, to enable the FAA to assess 

whether the equipment is of a kind and 

design appropriate to its intended 

function and performs its intended 

function under any operating condition. 

Section 25.1309(d) requires the 

applicant to submit an analysis of the 

possible modes of failure, probability of 

failures, resulting effects, etc., (i.e., a 

system safety assessment) to show 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4849 

56 14 CFR 25.1309(b) establishes certain reliability 

requirements for airplane systems, equipment, and 

installations. 

57Section 21.20 requires the applicant to show 

compliance with all applicable requirements, 

provide the FAA the means by which such 

compliance has been shown, and to certify such 

compliance. 58Reference AC 25.1329–1C, appendix B. 

59AC 25.1309–1A. 

60For the purpose of performing a safety 

assessment, a ‘‘small number’’ of fatal injuries 

means one such injury. 

61A catastrophic failure condition was defined in 

previous versions of 14 CFR 25.1309, and is 

currently defined in AC 25.1309–1A as a failure 

condition that would prevent continued safe flight 

and landing. Continued safe flight and landing was 

defined in AC 25.1309–1A as: ‘‘The capability for 

continued controlled flight and landing at a suitable 

airport, possibly using emergency procedures, but 

without requiring exceptional pilot skill or 

strength.’’ Some airplane damage may be associated 

with a failure condition, during flight or upon 

landing.’’ For the purpose of performing a safety 

assessment, ‘‘multiple fatalities’’ means two or more 

fatalities. 

compliance to § 25.1309(b).56 Thus, 

applicants for transport category 

airplane TCs covered under part 25 are 

already required to submit this 

information through the certification 

process.57

The FAA notes some overlap between 

this proposed category of information 

and the information that § 21.3(c)(11) 

requires manufacturers to submit to the 

FAA: ‘‘any . . . flight control 

malfunction, defect, or failure which 

causes an interference with normal 

control of the aircraft for which 

derogates the flying qualities.’’ 

However, as previously discussed, any 

such overlap would not obviate the 

initial submittal and subsequent 

disclosure requirements that Congress 

directed the FAA to mandate, not only 

upon applicants, but also upon holders 

of transport category airplane TCs. 

The FAA anticipates that this category 

of safety critical information should not 

be overly difficult or time-consuming 

for holders to submit or continue to 

disclose. As previously noted, part 25 

transport category airplane TC holders 

will have disclosed much, if not all, of 

this information when seeking their 

original or amended TC. For example, 

much ‘‘safety critical’’ information 

would have been disclosed as part of 

showing of compliance with § 25.1309, 

as described above. 

2. Aspects of Autopilot and Autothrottle 

(Autothrust) Systems 

The next category of mandatory safety 

critical information that the FAA would 

require applicants and holders to submit 

and disclose would be all design and 

operational details, intended functions, 

failure modes, and mode annunciations 

of autopilot and autothrottle systems, if 

applicable. 

For purposes of this requirement, the 

term ‘‘autopilot’’ means a function that 

would provide automatic control of the 

airplane, typically in pitch, roll, and 

yaw. The term includes the sensors, 

computers, power supplies, servomotors/actuators and associated wiring, 

necessary for its function. It includes 

any indications and controllers 

necessary for the pilot to manage and 

supervise the system. Any part of the 

autopilot system that remains connected 

to the primary flight controls when the 

autopilot is not in use is regarded as a 

part of the primary flight controls.58

For purposes of this requirement, the 

term ‘‘autothrottle (autothrust)’’ means a 

function that provides automatic control 

of the thrust of the airplane. The term 

includes the sensors, computers, power 

supplies, servo-motors/actuators and 

associated wiring, necessary for its 

function. It includes any indications 

and controllers necessary for the pilot to 

manage and supervise the system. Any 

part of the autothrust that remains 

connected to the engine controls when 

the autothrust is not in use is regarded 

as a part of the engine control system. 

For the purposes of this requirement, 

a ‘‘mode annunciation’’ is a function 

that provides the flightcrew with 

awareness of the current automation 

mode, alerts them of any mode changes 

or failures that could degrade the 

handling or operational characteristics 

of the airplane, and may require the 

flightcrew to alter their primary control 

strategy. The mode annunciation is 

included because it is imperative that 

the flightcrew understand the state of 

the airplane systems so they can interact 

with those systems appropriately as 

they fly the airplane. The FAA posits 

that Congress included mode 

annunciation in this category because it 

is imperative that the flightcrew 

understand the state of the airplane 

systems to minimize flightcrew errors 

and confusion concerning the behavior 

and operation of the flight guidance 

system as they fly the airplane. 

Although paragraph (B) of section 

105(a) did not begin with the term 

‘‘any’’ or ‘‘all,’’ the FAA is proposing 

that ‘‘all’’ such details, failure modes, 

etc., known to the applicant or holder 

would be required to be submitted and 

subsequently disclosed. This is to 

ensure that all, not just selected, 

applicable information is provided. 

Again, while there may be overlap 

with § 21.3(c)(11), as discussed in 

section B of this NPRM, the FAA 

proposes that this would be an 

independent requirement. 

The FAA again anticipates that this 

information would not be overly 

difficult or time-consuming for 

applicants or holders to submit or 

disclose, because the compliance 

document(s) would have been 

submitted by the applicant as part of its 

showings of compliance and the 

company would be highlighting how the 

discovered information affects that prior 

showing of compliance with substantive 

regulations (for example, §§ 25.1301(a) 

and 25.1309(a), (c), and (d) for certain 

equipment, systems, and installations; 

§ 25.1322 for flightcrew alerting; and 

certain paragraphs of § 25.1329 for flight 

guidance systems). 

3. Failures That Could Result in 

Hazardous or Catastrophic Outcomes 

The next category of safety critical 

information that the FAA proposes that 

applicants and holders be required to 

submit and continue to disclose, is all 

failure or operating conditions that the 

TC applicant or holder anticipates or 

has concluded would result in an 

outcome with a severity level of 

hazardous or catastrophic. 

As previously noted, current FAA 

guidance for applicants addresses 

catastrophic failure and operating 

conditions, but does not explicitly 

address ‘‘hazardous’’ conditions.59

However, as previously discussed, the 

‘‘Arsenal’’ version of AC 25.1309–1A 

does so, and therefore applicants 

typically address hazardous failure and 

operating conditions in their SSAs. 

‘‘Hazardous’’ for purposes of this 

proposed rule would be the following: 

A failure condition that would reduce 

the capability of the airplane or the 

ability of the flightcrew to cope with 

adverse operating conditions to the 

extent that there would be— 

• A large reduction in safety margins 

or functional capabilities, 

• Physical distress or excessive 

workload such that the flightcrew 

cannot be relied upon to perform their 

tasks accurately or completely, or 

• Serious or fatal injuries to a 

relatively small number of persons other 

than the flightcrew.60

‘‘Catastrophic’’ for purposes of this 

rule would be a failure condition that 

would result in multiple fatalities, 

usually with the loss of the airplane.61

The FAA anticipates that this category 

of safety critical information would not 

be overly difficult or time-consuming 

for applicants or holders to submit or 

disclose, for several reasons. 

First, applicants will submit, and all 

current TC holders would have 

submitted, during certification of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4850 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

62 35 FR 5665 (April 8, 1970), effective May 8, 

1970. 

63Reference AC 25.1309–1A, dated June 21, 1988. 

64Per AC 25.1329–1C, a ‘‘Stability Augmentation 

System’’ consists of automatic systems that provide 

or enhance stability for specific aerodynamic 

characteristics of an airplane (for example, yaw 

damper, longitudinal stability augmentation system, 

Mach trim). 

transport category airplanes with a 

certification basis after Amendment 25– 

23,62 information about failure 

conditions that would result in 

outcomes with a severity level of major 

and catastrophic. New TC applicants 

include a functional hazard assessment 

as part of their compliance showings. 

The FAA anticipates that most if not all 

of the TC holders whose designs were 

approved using the ‘‘Arsenal’’ version of 

AC 25.1309–1A as a means of 

compliance would not have to submit 

any new information here, unless a 

compliance assumption or 

determination has changed which 

materially alters that assessment. The 

‘‘major’’ hazard category 63 defined by 

AC 25.1309–1A is divided into two 

categories in the ‘‘Arsenal’’ version: 

‘‘hazardous’’ and ‘‘major,’’ with 

corresponding probability requirements 

of ‘‘extremely remote’’ (on the order of 

10¥9 < p ≤ 10¥7) and ‘‘remote’’ (on the 

order of 10¥7 < p ≤ 10¥5), respectively. 

The granular assessment of failure 

conditions in the ‘‘Arsenal’’ version 

allows for more accurate analysis of 

highly integrated systems, which 

perform complex and interrelated 

functions, particularly through the use 

of electronic technology and softwarebased techniques. This more granular 

categorization also allows for better 

differentiation of failure effects on 

flightcrew than the current requirements 

of § 25.1309(b). The ‘‘hazardous’’ 

category in the ‘‘Arsenal’’ version 

corresponds to the more severe end of 

the ‘‘major’’ category in current 

§ 25.1309(b)(2), which is referred to as 

‘‘severe major’’ in AC 25.1309–1A. 

Thus, the FAA is applying the 

‘‘Arsenal’’ version of hazardous for this 

proposed rule. 

The FAA also notes that the 

requirement in section 105(a), and thus 

this NPRM, is intended to prompt the 

submittal, disclosure, and assessment of 

potential failure conditions that could 

have an outcome of hazardous or 

catastrophic. The FAA invites comment 

on this issue. 

4. Software-Dependent Handling 

Qualities 

The fourth category of safety critical 

information that the FAA would require 

applicants and holders to submit and 

disclose would be any adverse handling 

quality that fails to meet the 

requirements of part 25 of this chapter 

without the addition of a software 

system to augment the flight controls of 

the airplane to produce compliant 

handling qualities. 

For purposes of this rulemaking, and 

consistent with FAA policy, an 

‘‘adverse’’ handling quality would be 

one that does not meet the applicable 

regulations on handling qualities in part 

25. Some of the ‘‘applicable regulations’’ 

for purposes of this requirement would 

be the Controllability and 

Maneuverability regulations in subpart 

B of part 25; § 25.672, Stability 

augmentation 64 and automatic and 

power-operated systems; and 

§ 25.1309(d), Equipment, systems, and 

installations. These sections include 

requirements to ensure the airplane is 

aerodynamically stable, and predictable 

in its handling. ‘‘Handling qualities’’ as 

applied here is intended to address pilot 

in the loop control of the aircraft 

trajectory and thus includes assessment 

of those systems which rely, primarily, 

on pilot input to effect changes in that 

trajectory. 

Examples of such ‘‘software 

system(s)’’ include MCAS on the Boeing 

737 MAX, pitch augmentation for the 

Boeing Model 777, and a flight control 

system that controls the yaw damper 

system of an airplane. 

The FAA notes the similarity of this 

provision of the proposed fourth 

category with the requirement of 

§ 21.3(c)(11), but again posits that it is 

sufficiently different that a separate 

requirement is necessary for holders, in 

order to comply with the statute. 

The FAA anticipates that this 

information would not be overly 

difficult or time-consuming for 

applicants or holders to submit or 

disclose, because by definition the 

system was required for the airplane to 

be compliant with FAA stability 

standards, and therefore would have 

been on the airplane’s compliance 

documentation. 

5. SSA for Components and Systems 

With Potentially Hazardous or 

Catastrophic Outcomes 

The fifth and final category of 

mandatory safety critical information 

that the FAA would require applicants 

and holders to submit and disclose 

would be a system safety assessment 

with respect to a system described in 

paragraph (1) or (2) of proposed 

§ 21.1(c), or with respect to any 

component or other system for which 

failure or erroneous operation of such 

component or system could result in an 

outcome with a severity level of 

hazardous or catastrophic. 

The FAA anticipates that previouslyapproved transport category airplane 

designs covered under part 25 will 

likely have this information in their 

SSAs, and that everything from a 

‘‘hazardous’’ to a ‘‘catastrophic’’ failure 

condition would be included, and 

therefore not required to be resubmitted 

by a holder. Section 25.1309(d) requires 

all applicants for transport category 

airplane TCs to submit an analysis of 

the possible modes of failure, 

probability of failures, resulting effects 

(including effects of erroneous 

operation), etc., (i.e., an SSA) to show 

that proposed design’s compliance to 

§ 25.1309(b). 

The definitions of catastrophic and 

hazardous would be as previously 

noted. For purposes of proposed 

§ 21.3(g), applicants and holders could 

use the definitions in the ‘‘Arsenal’’ 

version of AC 25.1309–1A, or in 

relevant FAA regulation or policy 

issued after the effective date of this 

proposed rule. 

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Federal agencies consider impacts of 

regulatory actions under a variety of 

executive orders and other 

requirements. First, Executive Order 

12866 and Executive Order 13563, as 

amended by Executive Order 14094 

(‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review’’), 

direct that each Federal agency shall 

propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that the 

benefits of the intended regulation 

justify the 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. 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 

that may result in the expenditure by 

State, local, and Tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100,000,000 or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any one year. 

The current threshold after adjustment 

for inflation is $177,000,000, using the 

most current (2022) Implicit Price 

Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this rule. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4851 

65See footnote 15. 

66Paragraphs 2–3d.(1) through (11), as applicable 

to the certification project. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined that this rule: would 

result in minimal costs; is not a 

‘significant regulatory action’ as defined 

in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866; 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; will not create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States; and will not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or on the private 

sector. 

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

This rule would implement a 

Congressional mandate by imposing 

new regulatory requirements (proposed 

§ 21.15(d), (e), and (f) for applicants for 

new and amended TCs and proposed 

§ 21.113(c)(1) through (c)(4) for 

applicants for new and amended STCs, 

and new regulatory requirements 

(proposed § 21.3(g)(1) and (2)) for TC 

holders. This proposal would add 

definitions for safety critical 

information, in proposed § 21.1(c). 

The following paragraphs describe the 

proposal, the baseline (current rule or 

current practice or current policy), and 

the costs/benefits. The FAA expects the 

costs to be minimal as described below. 

Benefits are addressed qualitatively. 

1. Applicants and Holders (Section 

21.1(c)(1) Through (5)) 

Proposal: As part of its 

implementation of the Congressional 

mandate related to safety critical 

information, the FAA would define five 

categories of safety critical information 

in proposed § 21.1(c)(1) through (5). 

Baseline: These five specific 

categories of safety critical information 

are not currently defined in FAA 

regulations. 

Costs/Benefits: This provision would 

impose no costs. These definitions of 

safety-critical information would 

facilitate the regulatory implementation 

of five categories of safety critical 

information in the Congressional 

mandate, and would inform applicants 

for, and holders of, TCs for transport 

airplanes covered under part 25 

regarding what must be submitted and 

disclosed under proposed §§ 21.15(e), 

(f), and 21.3(g). 

2. Applicants 

a. Section 21.15(d) 

Proposal: An application for a TC, 

including a new or amended TC, would 

be required to be accompanied by a 

proposed certification plan. 

Baseline: Currently, applicants for 

TCs submit a proposed certification 

plan to the FAA at the time of 

application as indicated in FAA Order 

8110.4C. 

Costs/Benefits: The FAA, as part of its 

implementation of the Congressional 

mandate, would establish a specific 

regulatory requirement for applicants to 

submit a certification plan. This would 

continue longstanding existing practices 

and thus involve minimal cost. 

b. Section 21.15(d)(1) 

Proposal: The certification plan must 

include a proposed certification basis. 

Baseline: The proposed certification 

plan submitted by applicants under 

current practices includes a proposed 

certification basis, as described in FAA 

Order 8110.4C.65

Costs/Benefits: The proposal would 

implement part of the Congressional 

mandate and would incur minimal costs 

as the applicant already includes a 

proposed certification basis under the 

guidance in FAA Order 8110.4C. 

c. Section 21.15(d)(2) 

Proposal: The applicant’s proposed 

certification plan would be required to 

include a proposed compliance 

checklist that contains the means of 

compliance, and that identifies all 

deliverables that the applicant 

anticipates will be necessary to show 

compliance. 

Baseline: The proposed certification 

plan is submitted by applicants under 

current practices as described in FAA 

Order 8110.4C. Applicants submit a list 

of deliverables to show compliance with 

the applicable certification basis and 

how the applicant will ensure all 

showing have been made. This can be 

accomplished using a compliance 

checklist addressing each regulation 

applicable to the product. A description 

of how compliance will be shown (e.g., 

ground test, flight test, analysis, 

similarity, or other acceptable means of 

compliance) is also included in FAA 

Order 8110.4C as part of a certification 

plan. 

Costs/Benefits: The proposal would 

implement part of the Congressional 

mandate and would incur minimal costs 

as the applicant is already including a 

proposed compliance checklist with 

means of compliance identifying all 

known compliance deliverables that the 

applicant anticipates will be necessary 

to show compliance. 

d. Section 21.15(d)(3) 

Proposal: The proposed certification 

plan would be required to include a 

proposed project schedule with 

proposed milestones. 

Baseline: Applicants for TCs include 

a proposed project schedule with 

proposed milestones in their 

certification plans as described in FAA 

Order 8110.4C. 

Costs/Benefits: The proposal would 

implement part of the Congressional 

mandate and incur minimal costs as the 

applicant is already including a 

proposed schedule with proposed 

milestones. 

e. Section 21.15(d)(4) 

Proposal: The applicant’s proposed 

certification plan would be required to 

include any other information necessary 

to allow the applicant’s showings and 

certifying statement, and the FAA’s 

findings, of compliance to be timely and 

accurately made. 

Baseline: Applicants for TCs and 

amended TCs submit proposed 

certification plans under the guidance 

in FAA Order 8110.4C66 that include 

any information necessary to allow the 

applicant’s showings and certifying 

statement, and the FAA’s findings, of 

compliance to be timely and accurately 

made. 

Costs/Benefits: This rule would 

establish specific regulatory 

requirements for the information to be 

submitted in certification plans. These 

specific regulatory standards would be 

consistent with the informational and 

planning purposes of the categories of 

information typically submitted by 

applicants. Applicants could, and the 

FAA expects most applicants still 

would, use those existing categories as 

a means of compliance. 

f. Section 21.15(d)(5) 

Proposal: An application for a new or 

amended, but not supplemental, TC for 

a transport category airplane would be 

required to include a proposed 

milestone that identifies the applicant’s 

requested date for TC issuance. 

Baseline: Applicants for TCs include 

milestones in their certification plans 

that include the applicant’s expected 

certification date as indicated in FAA 

Order 8110.4C. 

Costs/Benefits: Due to the alignment 

of the proposal with current practices, 

the FAA expects minimal costs. 

g. Section 21.15(e) 

Proposal: For applicants for a new or 

amended, but not supplemental, type 

certificate for a transport category 

airplane, the proposed certification plan 

would be required to be updated to 

include or describe all of the safety 

critical information set forth in § 21.1(c). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4852 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

67House Report at pg. 57. 68By quoting this report, the FAA is not taking 

a position on the causes or avoidance of the 

accidents, but simply noting what appears to have 

led to the legislation. 

The applicant would be required to 

submit this update to the FAA within 1 

year of submitting the application, but 

no later than 6 months prior to the 

requested date of issuance of the type 

certificate. 

Baseline: Applicants for transport 

category airplane TCs currently submit 

information describing their proposed 

design and operational details, means of 

showings of compliance and proposals 

for findings of compliance, in order to 

show that their proposed designs 

comply with several relevant 

regulations. Currently, applicants 

submit this compliance information 

throughout the certification process. 

Costs/Benefits: Safety critical 

information about its proposed design 

and operational suitability should 

already be available to the transport 

airplane applicant, even in preliminary 

form, at the time of submittal of the 

required update to the certification plan, 

so there should be no additional costs 

of identifying this information for 

submission. Submission costs should be 

negligible. 

The FAA would be more likely to 

receive safety critical information in a 

timely manner. The agency would also 

be more likely to receive safety critical 

information as the applicant would be 

aware of what information is considered 

safety critical due to the definitions in 

proposed § 21.1(c). 

This could have a safety benefit 

because the agency would be aware of 

this important information relatively 

early in the certification process and 

would be more likely to receive specific 

safety critical information at that point. 

The FAA could then identify and 

provide feedback to the applicant about 

their proposed design and compliance 

information specific to safety critical 

information early. 

h. Section 21.15(f) 

Proposal: Each applicant for a new or 

amended TC for a transport category 

airplane would, within 3 business days 

of discovery, be required to disclose to 

the FAA any information or design or 

analysis change that would materially 

alter any prior submission of the safety 

critical information defined in § 21.1(c). 

The proposed rule would clearly define 

the FAA, not a designee, who would 

receive the safety critical information 

for transport category airplanes from 

applicants. 

Baseline: The transport category 

airplane applicant currently keeps its 

proposed design, operational, and 

compliance information updated 

throughout the project, but there is no 

specific timeframe for them to disclose 

new safety critical information to the 

FAA or for the types of changes that 

require disclosure. Under the current 

practice it can sometimes be a designee, 

or person within an ODA unit, who 

receives the updated information. 

Costs/Benefits: The FAA expects that 

the cost would be minimal because the 

applicant is currently expected to keep 

their information current. However, the 

rule would require the information or 

design or analysis change to be 

disclosed to the FAA within 3 business 

days of discovery. The FAA does not 

expect this prompt submission of the 

information to the FAA to be costly. 

This could have a safety benefit 

because the agency would be aware of 

changes to safety critical information 

earlier (within 3 business days of 

discovery). The FAA could then identify 

and share potential concerns about the 

changes with the applicant earlier, and 

resolve these concerns earlier. 

Also, there might be a benefit of 

submitting directly to the FAA, as it 

would be more likely that the 

appropriate information would get to 

the FAA. When investigating the FAA’s 

certification of the Boeing 737 MAX, a 

Congressional committee found that 

Boeing did not clearly relay important 

safety related information to the FAA 

because there was no requirement to do 

so.67 According to the committee 

report,68 this 

‘‘. . . hinder[ed] a more comprehensive 

FAA review of the 737 MAX which may have 

improved the safety of the airplane . . .’’ 

i. Section 21.113(c) 

Proposal: Applications for new and 

amended STCs would, like applications 

for new and amended TCs, be required 

to be accompanied by a proposed 

certification plan. 

Baseline: Currently, applicants for 

STCs submit a proposed certification 

plan to the FAA at the time of 

application. 

Costs/Benefits: The proposal would 

incur minimal costs as STC applicants 

already submit proposed certification 

plans. The proposal would establish 

consistency in the requirements for TC 

and STC applicants by also adding the 

requirement for STC applicants and 

aligning the process for both certificate 

types. 

j. Section 21.113(c)(1) 

Proposal: The certification plan must 

include a proposed certification basis. 

Baseline: The proposed certification 

plan submitted by applicants under 

current practices includes a proposed 

certification basis as described in FAA 

Order 8110.4C. 

Costs/Benefits: The proposal would 

establish consistency in the 

requirements for TC and STC applicants 

by aligning the process for both 

certificates and would incur minimal 

costs as the applicant is already 

including a proposed certification basis. 

k. Section 21.113(c)(2) 

Proposal: The applicant’s proposed 

certification plan would be required to 

include a proposed compliance 

checklist that contains means of 

compliance, and that identifies all 

deliverables that the applicant 

anticipates will be necessary to show 

compliance. 

Baseline: The proposed certification 

plan is submitted by applicants under 

current practices as described in FAA 

Order 8110.4C. Applicants submit a list 

of deliverables to show compliance with 

the applicable certification basis and to 

show how the applicant will ensure all 

showings have been made. This can be 

accomplished by using a compliance 

checklist that addresses each regulation 

applicable to the product. A description 

of how compliance will be shown (e.g., 

ground test, flight test, analysis, 

similarity, or other acceptable means of 

compliance) is also included in FAA 

Order 8110.4C as part of a certification 

plan. 

Costs/Benefits: The proposal would 

incur minimal costs as the applicant 

already includes a proposed compliance 

checklist that contains means of 

compliance, and that identifies all 

deliverables that the applicant 

anticipates will be necessary to show 

compliance. The proposal would 

establish consistency in the 

requirements for TC and STC applicants 

by also adding the requirement for STC 

applicants. 

l. Section 21.113(c)(3) 

Proposal: The proposed certification 

plan would be required to include a 

proposed project schedule with 

proposed milestones. 

Baseline: Applicants for STCs include 

a proposed project schedule with 

proposed milestones in their 

certification plans as described in FAA 

Order 8110.4C. 

Costs/Benefits: The proposal would 

incur minimal costs as STC applicants 

are already submitting proposed 

milestones with their certification plans. 

The proposal would establish 

consistency in the requirements for TC 

and STC applicants by aligning the 

process for both certificate types. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4853 

m. Section 21.113(c)(4) 

Proposal: The certification plan for an 

STC would be required to include any 

other information necessary to allow the 

applicant’s showings and certifying 

statement, and the FAA’s findings, of 

compliance to be timely and accurately 

made. 

Baseline: Applicants for STCs submit 

proposed certification plans, that 

include under the guidance in FAA 

Order 8110.4C any information 

necessary to allow the applicant’s 

showings, and the FAA’s findings, of 

compliance to be timely and accurately 

made. 

Costs/Benefits: The proposal would 

incur minimal costs as STC applicants 

are already submitting proposed 

certification plans with information 

necessary to allow the applicant’s 

showings, and the FAA’s findings, of 

compliance to be timely and accurately 

made. The proposal would also 

establish consistency in the 

requirements for TC and STC applicants 

by also adding the requirement for STC 

applicants and aligning the process for 

both certificate types. 

3. Holders 

a. Section 21.3(g)(1) 

Proposal: The holder of a TC, 

including an amended TC but not 

including an STC, for a transport 

category airplane covered under part 25 

would, within 90 days of (effective date 

of final rule), be required to submit to 

the FAA, for each model, all safety 

critical information, as defined by 

§ 21.1(c), which is known and which 

has not previously been submitted to 

the FAA. 

Baseline: Holders of transport 

category airplane TCs are currently 

required to submit much of the safety 

critical information defined by § 21.1(c) 

to the FAA. TC holders currently 

submit, or have already submitted, 

much of this information via a variety 

of regulatory and policy mechanisms. 

As an applicant, prior to receiving the 

transport category airplane TC, the 

holder would have had to have shown 

compliance with regulations such as 

§ 25.1309. Such compliance would have 

included compliance data which 

correlates with the five categories of 

safety critical information. Also, holders 

of such certificates have an ongoing 

regulatory obligation to inform the FAA 

of certain failures, malfunctions, and 

defects, including those that would 

affect the flight control system pursuant 

to § 21.3(c)(11). The majority of current 

domestic holders of part 25 transport 

category airplane TCs are also ODA 

holders. Such ODA holders have an 

ongoing obligation to inform the FAA of 

potential safety and compliance issues 

with their approved designs, pursuant 

to § 183.63. 

Cost/Benefits: The FAA expects 

minimal cost. First, the scope of the 

covered information is relatively 

narrow. Second, as described in the 

preceding paragraph, FAA expects that 

much if not all of such information will 

have already been submitted by the 

holder. 

The benefits of this requirement 

would be ensuring that the FAA would 

be aware of safety critical information, 

if any, that it had not previously been 

made aware of. This would be a 

potential safety benefit as the FAA 

would be able to identify and address 

any potential issues. 

b. Section 21.3(g)(2) 

Proposal: The holder of a transport 

category airplane TC covered under part 

25 would be required to disclose to the 

FAA, within 3 business days of 

discovery, any newly discovered 

information or design or analysis change 

that would materially alter any safety 

critical information as defined by 

§ 21.1(c). 

Baseline: As described above, TC 

holders and ODA holders are required 

to submit certain information to the 

FAA on an ongoing basis. Some of this 

information, such as that required by 

§ 21.3, must generally be submitted 

within 24 hours. The timeline for 

submittal of other information is 

dependent on the nature of the 

information and the provisions of the 

ODA holder’s FAA-approved ODA 

procedures manual. However, there is 

not a specific requirement to disclose 

safety critical information, as would be 

defined in proposed § 21.1, within 3 

business days. 

Costs/Benefits: Because, as described 

above, most of this information is 

already being updated (disclosed to the 

FAA) pursuant to existing processes, the 

FAA expects that this requirement, of 

disclosing information to the FAA 

within 3 days, will carry a minimal cost. 

The FAA expects that the provision 

would ensure that the safety critical 

information as specifically defined by 

Congress would be provided to the FAA 

in a timely manner. 

The FAA calls for comment on all the 

preceding determinations. 

4. Conclusion 

Based on the preceding discussion, 

the FAA concludes that the proposed 

rule would impose minimal costs on 

industry, as discussed in the regulatory 

notices and analyses section. The FAA 

has found potential benefits from the 

proposal. The FAA may receive, and 

therefore be aware of, safety critical 

information that it had not previously 

been made aware of, not only from 

transport category airplane TC 

applicants but also from holders. It 

would receive the safety critical 

information earlier in, and more 

definitively throughout, the certification 

process. This could result in a safety 

benefit, as the FAA would be able to 

identify and share concerns with the 

applicant and address any potential 

issues. The proposed rule would codify 

the current practice of submitting a 

proposed certification plan with 

milestones, and thus provide a planning 

benefit, and increased certainty and 

predictability, for applicants. As it 

would follow current practice, this 

requirement would impose minimal 

cost. The regulatory implementation of 

the Congressional requirement that 

applicants and holders submit and 

disclose five categories of safety critical 

information would be another safety 

benefit. The submittal of previously 

undisclosed, and continued disclosure 

of newly discovered, safety critical 

information by transport category 

airplane TC holders may also provide a 

safety benefit. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

of 1980, Public Law 96–354, 94 Stat. 

1164 (5 U.S.C. 601–612), as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. 

L. 104–121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 

1996) and the Small Business Jobs Act 

of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–240, 124 Stat. 2504 

Sept. 27, 2010), requires Federal 

agencies to consider the effects of the 

regulatory action on small business and 

other small entities and to minimize any 

significant economic impact. The term 

‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses and not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The FAA has determined that, based 

on the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) size standard for aircraft 

manufacturing, (Table 1), none of the 

entities that would be subject to the 

proposed rulemaking are small entities. 

Also, as described in the RIA, the 

proposed rule would impose minimal 

costs. Therefore, the FAA proposes to 

certify that the rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The FAA welcomes comments on the 

basis for this certification. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4854 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

69Small Business Administration (SBA). 2019. 

Table of Size Standards. Effective August 12, 2019. 

www.sba.gov/document/support-table-sizestandards. 

70 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000). 

71FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004), 

available at www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/ 

1210.pdf. 

TABLE 1—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD

NAICS code Description Size standard 

336411 ................................................................ Aircraft manufacturing ...................................... 1,500 employees. 

Source: SBA (2019) 69. 

NAICS = North American Industrial Classification System. 

C. 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 as 

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 rule and determined that 

as it results in a minimal cost to U.S. 

manufacturers, it would not create an 

unnecessary obstacle to foreign 

commerce. As a result, the FAA does 

not consider this rule as creating an 

unnecessary obstacle to foreign 

commerce. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs 

the issuance of Federal regulations that 

require unfunded mandates. An 

unfunded mandate is a regulation that 

requires a State, local, or Tribal 

government or the private sector to 

incur direct costs without the Federal 

government having first provided the 

funds to pay those costs. The FAA 

determined that the proposed rule 

would not result in the expenditure of 

$177,000,000 or more by State, local, or 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector, in any one year. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there would 

be no new requirement for information 

collection associated with the proposed 

requirement for transport category 

airplane TC applicants and holders to 

submit and disclose safety critical 

information because this information is 

already submitted under existing 

processes, as described elsewhere in 

this NPRM. Approval to collect such 

information under those processes was 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)) and was assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0018. 

F. International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these proposed 

regulations. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 5–6.6f for regulations and 

involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

VI. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, 

Federalism. The FAA has determined 

that this action would 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, 

would not have federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Consistent with Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments,70 and 

FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian 

and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation 

Policy and Procedures,71 the FAA 

ensures that Federally Recognized 

Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity 

to provide meaningful and timely input 

regarding proposed Federal actions that 

have the potential to affect uniquely or 

significantly their respective Tribes. At 

this point, the FAA has not identified 

any unique or significant effects, 

environmental or otherwise, on Tribes 

resulting from this proposed rule. 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule 

under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning 

Regulations that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

(May 18, 2001). The FAA has 

determined that it would not be a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and would not be likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of E.O. 13609 

and has determined that this action 

would have no effect on international 

regulatory cooperation. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 4855 

VII. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The FAA also invites 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, 

commenters should submit only one 

time if comments are filed 

electronically, or commenters should 

send only one copy of written 

comments if comments are filed in 

writing. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, the FAA will consider 

all comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. The FAA may change 

this proposal in light of the comments 

it receives. 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), 

DOT solicits comments from the public 

to better inform its rulemaking process. 

DOT posts these comments, without 

edit, including any personal information 

the commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

www.dot.gov/privacy. 

B. Confidential Business Information 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) is commercial or financial 

information that is both customarily and 

actually treated as private by its owner. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt 

from public disclosure. If your 

comments responsive to this NPRM 

contain commercial or financial 

information that is customarily treated 

as private, that you actually treat as 

private, and that is relevant or 

responsive to this NPRM, it is important 

that you clearly designate the submitted 

comments as CBI. Please mark each 

page of your submission containing CBI 

as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such 

marked submissions as confidential 

under the FOIA, and they will not be 

placed in the public docket of this 

NPRM. Submissions containing CBI 

should be sent to the person in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this document. Any commentary that 

the FAA receives which is not 

specifically designated as CBI will be 

placed in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. 

C. Electronic Access and Filing 

A copy of this NPRM, all comments 

received, any final rule, and all 

background material may be viewed 

online at www.regulations.gov using the 

docket number listed above. A copy of 

this proposed rule will be placed in the 

docket. Electronic retrieval help and 

guidelines are available on the website. 

It is available 24 hours each day, 365 

days each year. An electronic copy of 

this document may also be downloaded 

from the Office of the Federal Register’s 

website at www.federalregister.gov and 

the Government Publishing Office’s 

website at www.govinfo.gov. A copy 

may also be found at the FAA’s 

Regulations and Policies website at 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies. 

Copies may also be obtained 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) 267–9677. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed in 

the electronic docket for this 

rulemaking. 

D. 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. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the internet, visit 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

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 AND 

ARTICLES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 21 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 

45303. 

■ 2. Amend § 21.1 by adding paragraph 

(c) to read as follows: 

§ 21.1 Applicability and definitions. 

* * * * * 

(c) For purposes of §§ 21.3 and 21.15, 

safety critical information is: 

(1) All design and operational details, 

intended functions, and failure modes 

of any system that, without being 

commanded by the flightcrew, 

commands the operation of any safety 

critical function or feature required for 

control of the airplane during flight or 

that otherwise changes the flight path or 

airspeed of an airplane; 

(2) all design and operational details, 

intended functions, failure modes, and 

mode annunciations of autopilot and 

autothrottle systems, if applicable; 

(3) all failure or operating conditions 

that the type certificate applicant or 

holder anticipates or has concluded 

would result in an outcome with a 

severity level of hazardous or 

catastrophic; 

(4) any adverse handling quality that 

fails to meet the requirements of part 25 

of this chapter without the addition of 

a software system to augment the flight 

controls of the airplane to produce 

compliant handling qualities; and 

(5) a system safety assessment with 

respect to a system described in 

paragraph (1) or (2) of this paragraph, or 

with respect to any component or other 

system for which failure or erroneous 

operation of such component or system 

could result in an outcome with a 

severity level of hazardous or 

catastrophic. 

■ 3. Amend § 21.3 by revising the 

section heading and the introductory 

text of paragraph (e), and adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 21.3 Reporting of failures, malfunctions, 

defects, and safety critical information. 

* * * * * 

(e) Each report required by this 

section, except as provided in 

§ 21.3(g)— 

* * * * * 

(g) The holder of a type certificate, 

including an amended type certificate 

but not including a supplemental type 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
4856 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

certificate, for a transport category 

airplane covered under part 25 of this 

chapter must: 

(1) Within 90 days of [date 60 days 

after publication of final rule in the 

Federal Register], submit to the FAA, 

for each model, all safety critical 

information, as defined by § 21.1(c), 

which is known and which has not 

previously been submitted to the FAA, 

and; 

(2) After 90 days of [date 60 days after 

publication of final rule in the Federal 

Register], disclose to the FAA, within 3 

business days of discovery, any newly 

discovered safety critical information as 

defined by § 21.1(c), or design or 

analysis change that would materially 

alter such information. 

■ 4. Amend § 21.15 by adding 

paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 21.15 Application for type certificate. 

* * * * * 

(d) An application for a type 

certificate, including a new or amended 

type certificate, must be accompanied 

by a proposed certification plan. The 

certification plan must include: 

(1) A proposed certification basis; 

(2) A proposed compliance checklist 

that contains means of compliance, and 

that identifies all deliverables that the 

applicant anticipates will be necessary 

to show compliance; 

(3) A proposed project schedule, with 

milestones; 

(4) Any other information necessary 

to allow the applicant’s showings and 

certifying statement, and the FAA’s 

findings, of compliance to be timely and 

accurately made; and 

(5) For applications for a new or 

amended, but not supplemental, type 

certificate for a transport category 

airplane, a proposed milestone that 

identifies the applicant’s requested date 

for type certificate issuance. 

(e) Within 1 year of submitting the 

application for a new or amended, but 

not supplemental, type certificate for a 

transport category airplane, but no later 

than 6 months prior to the requested 

date of issuance of the type certificate, 

the applicant must update the proposed 

certification plan required by § 21.15(d) 

to include or describe all of the safety 

critical information set forth in § 21.1(c). 

(f) Each applicant for a new or 

amended, but not supplemental, type 

certificate for a transport category 

airplane must, within 3 business days of 

discovery, disclose to the FAA any 

information or design or analysis change 

that would materially alter any prior 

submission of the safety critical 

information set forth in § 21.1(c). 

■ 5. Amend § 21.113 by revising 

paragraph (c) and adding paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 21.113 Requirement for supplemental 

type certificate. 

* * * * * 

(c) The application for an STC must 

be made in the form and manner 

prescribed by the FAA and must be 

accompanied by a proposed certification 

plan. The certification plan must 

include: 

(1) A proposed certification basis; 

(2) A proposed compliance checklist 

that contains means of compliance, and 

that identifies all deliverables that the 

applicant anticipates will be necessary 

to show compliance; 

(3) A proposed project schedule, with 

milestones; and 

(4) Any other information necessary 

to allow the applicant’s showings and 

certifying statement, and the FAA’s 

findings, of compliance to be timely and 

accurately made. 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 44701, and 44704 in 

Washington, DC, on January 22, 2024. 

Lirio Liu, 

Executive Director of Aircraft Certification. 

[FR Doc. 2024–01485 Filed 1–24–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2023–2467; Airspace 

Docket No. 23–ASO–42] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Amendment of Class E Airspace; 

Winder, GA 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

amend Class E airspace for Barrow 

County Airport, Winder, GA, extending 

upward from 700 feet above the surface. 

This action would increase the existing 

radius and update the airport’s name 

and geographic coordinates to coincide 

with the FAA’s database. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 11, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by FAA Docket No. FAA–2023–2467 

and Airspace Docket No. 23–ASO–42 

using any of the following methods: 

* Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

online instructions to send 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 for Federal holidays. 

* Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at (202) 493–2251. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

www.regulations.gov anytime. Follow 

the online instructions for accessing the 

docket or go to the 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 for Federal holidays. 

FAA Order JO 7400.11H Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points and 

subsequent amendments can be viewed 

online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/ 

publications/. You may also contact the 

Rules and Regulations Group, Office of 

Policy, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Stuart, Operations Support Group, 

Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, 

College Park, GA 30337; Telephone: 

(404) 305–5926. 

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 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority, as it would 

amend Class E airspace in Winder, GA. 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS