This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

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

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

64229 

Vol. 76, No. 201 

Tuesday, October 18, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 21 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0218; Amdt. No. 21– 

95] 

RIN 2120–AJ56 

Function and Reliability Flight Testing 

for Turbine-Powered Airplanes 

Weighing 6,000 Pounds or Less 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising the 

applicability of the function and 

reliability flight testing requirements to 

include all part 23 turbine-powered 

airplanes weighing 6,000 pounds or 

less. Revising the applicability is 

necessary because advancements in 

aviation technology have invalidated 

the reasons for excluding these 

airplanes. This revision is intended to 

improve aviation safety for these 

airplanes. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective 

December 19, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Victor Powell, Aircraft Certification 

Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, 

Certification Procedures Branch, AIR– 

110, Federal Aviation Administration, 

800 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 

385–6326; e-mail: 

victor.powell@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (FAA) authority to 

issue rules on aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, section 106, describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes the scope of the FAA 

Administrator’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart III, chapter 447, 

section 44701. Under that section, 

Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting the safe flight of civil aircraft 

in air commerce by prescribing 

regulations for practices, methods, and 

procedures the FAA Administrator finds 

necessary for safety in air commerce. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

that authority because it will prescribe 

new flight test requirements for certain 

turbine-powered airplanes. 

I. Background 

This rulemaking will only change the 

applicability portion of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR), 

21.35(b)(2) by removing the 6,000 

pound weight exclusion for part 23 

turbine-powered airplanes because of 

advancements in technology, as 

discussed in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM). This rulemaking 

does not change existing function and 

reliability (F & R) flight testing 

requirements in § 21.35. 

The FAA issued ‘‘Proposed 

Notification Regarding Function and 

Reliability Testing for TurbofanPowered Airplanes of 6,000 Pounds or 

Less Maximum Certificated Weight.’’ 

(See 69 FR 5239, February 3, 2004.) In 

that notice, we announced our intention 

to require F & R flight testing by special 

conditions for future part 23 type 

certification (TC) projects. Eclipse 

Aviation Corporation (Eclipse) was 

excluded from the proposal as an 

ongoing TC project. We issued special 

conditions requiring F & R flight testing 

for the Cirrus Design Corporation Model 

SF50 airplane. (See 75 FR 50853, 

August 18, 2010.) This final rule will 

eliminate the need for issuing special 

conditions for F & R flight testing. 

A. Statement of the Problem 

Function and reliability flight testing 

is required by § 21.35(b)(2) for all 

airplanes weighing more than 6,000 

pounds maximum certificated weight 

that are to be certificated under part 23. 

Function and reliability flight testing is 

not required for gliders, nor for part 23 

airplanes weighing 6,000 pounds or 

less. Because of advancements in 

airplane structures, propulsion 

methods, and systems technologies, the 

6,000-pound demarcation is no longer 

justified. Part 23 turbine-powered 

airplanes that weigh 6,000 pounds or 

less currently are not required to 

undergo F & R flight testing regardless 

of the airplane’s systems complexity or 

level of automation. 

After reviewing several recent 

proposed type certification projects for 

small turbojet-powered airplanes— 

involving airplanes expected to weigh 

6,000 pounds or less—the FAA has 

determined that most, if not all, of these 

airplane designs will benefit from the F 

& R flight testing requirement. This 

determination is based on new 

lightweight turbine-powered airplanes 

having design features and performance 

consistent with larger airplanes that are 

required to undergo F & R flight testing. 

B. Summary of the NPRM 

The technological advancements in 

new airplane designs and their highperformance potential prompted the 

FAA to publish in the Federal Register 

the NPRM entitled ‘‘Function and 

Reliability Flight Testing for TurbinePowered Airplanes Weighing 6,000 

Pounds or Less.’’ (See 75 FR 18134, 

April 9, 2010.) In that NPRM, we 

proposed changes to the applicability of 

F & R flight testing procedures for part 

23 airplanes. In general, we proposed to 

expand the applicability of F & R flight 

testing requirements to all part 23 

turbine-powered airplanes that weigh 

6,000 pounds or less to be certificated 

under part 23. However, the exception 

for gliders and reciprocating-engine 

powered airplanes weighing 6,000 

pounds or less that are type certificated 

under part 23 will remain. 

The original decision to exclude 

certain airplanes weighing 6,000 pounds 

or less from F & R flight testing was 

based on the state of technology existing 

in 1950. At that time, airplanes 

weighing 6,000 pounds or less were 

expected to be used mainly as personal 

airplanes. Such civil airplanes 

developed between the years of 1945 

and 1955 were typically single, 

reciprocating-engine powered airplanes 

weighing 3,000 pounds or less with 

engine output of less than 300 

horsepower. Technological 

advancements now allow airplanes that 

weigh 6,000 pounds or less to be more 

complex and automated than some 

transport category airplanes of the 1960s 

and earlier. The NPRM contains more of 

the historical background and reasons 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
64230 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

for this final rule. You should refer to 

the NPRM for that information. 

C. Summary of the Comments 

We received nine substantive 

comments from five commenters. 

Commenters to the NPRM represented 

manufacturers of airplanes and airplane 

engines, and other individuals. We also 

received comments from an aviation 

consulting group. The commenters 

generally had concerns about changes to 

F & R flight testing criteria and supplied 

alternative recommendations as 

discussed more fully in the Discussion 

of the Final Rule below. The comment 

period for the NPRM closed on July 8, 

2010. 

In general, the FAA received 

comments on the following areas of the 

proposal: 

• Using the experience of the aircraft 

manufacturer cited in the NPRM. 

• Basing the applicability of F & R 

flight testing on turbine-powered 

airplanes instead of other criteria, such 

as complexity. 

• The safety benefits versus the costs 

to perform F & R flight testing for part 

23 turbine-powered airplanes weighing 

6,000 pounds or less. 

II. Discussion of the Final Rule 

Again, this final rule will only change 

the applicability of § 21.35(b)(2) by 

removing the 6,000 pound weight 

exclusion for part 23 turbine-powered 

airplanes because of advancements in 

technology, as discussed in the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM). This 

final rule does not change existing 

F & R flight testing requirements. 

Aero-Cert stated that relying on the 

experience of the aircraft manufacturer 

cited in the NPRM is flawed. Aero-Cert 

was concerned the proposed rule was 

based on the Eclipse EA–500 

certification experience and objected to 

it being referenced in the NPRM. The 

individual commenter suggested that 

proper oversight during the design 

approval process is the best way to 

address 

F & R flight testing. The individual 

commenter also stated that the problems 

encountered by an inexperienced 

applicant would not happen with an 

experienced design organization. 

The FAA acknowledges that proper 

oversight is a primary objective in the 

design approval process. However, we 

are only changing the applicability of 

§ 21.35. Function and reliability flight 

testing is envisioned for the design of 

new model airplanes and their systems. 

The level of expertise of the applicant 

is not a factor in the requirement. 

The Eclipse certification experience 

showed that a manufacturer could type 

certificate a very light jet below the 

6,000 pound threshold. The NPRM 

addressed the reality that advancements 

in technology since 1950 have led to the 

manufacture of high-performance, part 

23 airplanes—those weighing 6,000 

pounds or less—with complex systems. 

Therefore, the reliability of in-flight 

operations for those airplanes must be 

assessed before issuance of the type 

certificate. 

Aero-Cert and the individual 

commenter further stated that basing the 

F & R flight testing requirements on the 

type of powerplant is flawed. They 

believed the issues that should drive the 

need for F & R flight testing are related 

to performance and the kinds of 

operations in which the airplane will be 

used, not the type of powerplant. 

The FAA notes that F & R flight 

testing is required for all covered 

airplanes and should cover the normal 

operating environment in which an 

airplane will be used. Because of 

difficulty in choosing the type of testing 

based on the kinds of aircraft operation 

or the type of powerplant, the FAA 

chose to retain the existing provisions 

and has expanded the requirement to 

include the newer designs (such as very 

light jets and turbopropeller-driven 

airplanes) that are, by weight, presently 

excluded from F & R flight testing. 

Cessna and the individual commenter 

stated the rulemaking would impose a 

cost burden on manufacturers not 

justified by the benefits. In the words of 

Cessna, ‘‘* * * the proposed NPRM has 

the potential to impose burden upon the 

manufacturer not commensurate with 

safety gained. For example, if a simple, 

well-developed airplane were modified 

with a reliable, well-developed turbine 

engine, it is not likely that F & R [flight] 

testing would discover issues not 

encountered during properly conducted 

certification testing. In this case, the 

150-hour F & R [flight] testing proposed 

by the NPRM would be an undue [cost] 

burden on the manufacturer or the STC 

[supplemental type certificate] holder.’’ 

Also, the individual commenter stated 

that these costs would reduce the 

competitiveness of American-made 

aircraft and give foreign aircraft 

manufacturers an unfair advantage. 

The FAA notes that the commenters 

did not include any analysis or data to 

show that costs imposed by the rule 

would impose costs not equal to safety 

gained. The FAA has determined that 

the expected costs of the rule are modest 

in comparison to the expected benefits. 

We estimate that benefits will be at least 

three to six times the expected costs, 

depending on the engines chosen. (See 

§ 21.35(f).) 

The rule addresses applicability only 

and does not change the minimum 

number of hours required by § 21.35(f) 

(that is, 150 or 300 hours, whichever is 

appropriate). Some simultaneous flight 

testing performed as part of the 

certification process may also be 

counted toward F & R flight testing if 

the conditions of § 21.35(a) are met at 

the time the testing is performed (for 

example, testing related to Type 

Inspection Authorization). Given the 

cost-beneficial nature of the rule for the 

case of a newly type-certificated 

airplane with an engine previously used 

on a type-certificated airplane, we 

believe the rule will remain 

substantially cost-beneficial. 

The FAA has also found no evidence 

that American-made aircraft would be at 

a disadvantage in comparison to foreignmade aircraft as a result of this rule. Due 

to global harmonization efforts, the 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) and other foreign airworthiness 

authorities have similar requirements 

for certification, including F & R flight 

testing requirements. 

Rolls Royce stated that the use of the 

word ‘‘turbine,’’ which was proposed in 

the NPRM, should be better defined. 

The commenter asked the FAA to revise 

the proposed rule, so that 

turbopropeller-driven (turboprop) 

aircraft would not be affected by the 

final rule, and submitted proposed 

language to that effect. However, we did 

not revise the rule (§ 21.35) to limit its 

applicability to only airplanes having 

turbofan-powered (turbofan) or turbojetpowered (turbojet) engines. This 

decision is consistent with other FAA 

plans for part 23 rule changes discussed 

in the part 23 ‘‘Certification of 

Turbojets’’ NPRM. (See 74 FR 41522, 

August 17, 2009.) Those decisions point 

out that features affecting the 

complexity of airplane operating 

systems are not limited to powerplant 

features. 

In addition, Cessna stated that the 

evaluation of F & R flight testing (if 

needed) should be based on the scope 

of the project, such as the number of 

complex integrated systems, and that 

guidance should be developed 

accordingly. 

While the FAA agrees that the use of 

complexity criteria might be an 

appropriate method to evaluate F & R 

flight testing, the FAA notes that the 

scope of the project, or the number of 

complex systems, may not be the most 

efficient measure for requiring this 

testing. The FAA also notes that 

obtaining agreement on what constitutes 

a complex integrated system that could 

be placed within part 21 regulations 

would be a difficult and burdensome 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 64231 

1See the separate cost section below for the 

reason we increased the number of hours from 150 

(the minimum required by § 21.35(f)) to 165. 

2Pratt & Whitney Canada developed a new 

PW610F engine for the Eclipse EA–500. 

task. It would also delay adding already 

identified airplanes to the safety 

assessment of F & R flight testing. The 

FAA has also determined that defining 

complex systems may have implications 

beyond F & R flight testing, such as for 

pilot training requirements and flight 

operations. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that 

the FAA consider the impact of 

paperwork and other information 

collection burdens imposed on the 

public. We have determined that there 

is no information collection burden 

associated with this final rule. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these regulations. 

Final Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

state, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. We 

suggest readers seeking greater detail 

read the full regulatory evaluation, a 

copy of which we have placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this final rule: (1) 

Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is 

not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

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

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

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; (5) will not create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States; and (6) will not impose 

an unfunded mandate on state, local, or 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector by exceeding the threshold 

identified above. These analyses are 

summarized below. 

Total Costs and Benefits of This Final 

Rule 

We expect that the typical 

certification project for an airplane 

subject to the final rule will be for a new 

airplane design with a turbine engine 

type previously used in a typecertificated aircraft requiring 165 hours 1

of F & R flight testing at a total cost of 

about $317,000. In the case of new 

airplane design and an engine type not 

previously used on a type-certificated 

airplane, we estimate that double the 

hours (330) will be required, so the total 

cost will double to $634,000. We expect 

that this final rule will enhance safety 

and reduce costs by substantially 

reducing the number of safety incidents 

and Airworthiness Directives 

experienced post-certification. A partial 

estimate of the expected costs that will 

be avoided for a single new airplane 

design amounts to $1.8 million, with a 

present value of $1.6 million. These 

avoided costs are approximately six 

times the costs of our 165-hour 

‘‘typical’’ estimate and approximately 

triple the higher 330-hour estimate. 

Consequently, the expected benefits of 

this final rule greatly exceed its modest 

expected costs. 

Who is affected by this rule? 

Manufacturers of part 23 turbinepowered airplanes weighing 6,000 

pounds or less are affected. 

Assumptions and Sources of 

Information 

• We use a two-year period of 

analysis, as we find this period 

sufficient to show the cost-beneficial 

nature of this final rule. We use the 

period from the beginning of 2007 to the 

end of 2008, as the data used in the 

analysis are from this period. The short 

period of analysis reflects the inherent 

nature of F & R flight testing, designed 

as it is to uncover design or system 

reliability flaws that otherwise would 

reveal themselves in the very early life 

of an airplane. 

• Discount rate is 7% (Office of 

Management and Budget, Circular A–94, 

‘‘Guidelines and Discount Rates for 

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal 

Programs,’’ October 29, 1992, p. 8). 

• Data on costs of compliance with 

this rule were obtained from a part 23 

airplane manufacturer and FAA 

estimates. 

Costs of This Final Rule 

We estimate the costs of this final rule 

based on the F & R costs incurred by a 

part 23 airplane manufacturer for a 

turbojet-powered airplane (turbojet) 

with a maximum weight greater than 

6,000 pounds. The turbine-powered 

Eclipse EA–500, with a maximum 

weight less than 6,000 pounds, was 

recently type certificated under a 

program in which it voluntarily 

undertook a reduced 200-hour F & R 

flight testing program, 100 hours precertification and 100 hours postcertification.2 The F & R flight testing 

costs for the Eclipse EA–500 would be 

difficult, if not impossible, to obtain 

because Eclipse Aviation Corporation 

has been liquidated under Chapter 7 

bankruptcy and a new firm, Eclipse 

Aerospace, has been formed to take over 

its assets. We believe our use of more 

readily obtainable data for a part 23 

turbojet weighing somewhat more than 

6,000 pounds is adequate. Moreover, as 

we will see below, the ad hoc nature of 

Eclipse’s voluntary F & R flight testing 

program appears to have limited the 

appropriateness of the Eclipse F & R 

flight testing cost data, even if available. 

We may overestimate the cost of F & R 

flight testing by our use of costs for an 

airplane weighing more than airplanes 

affected by this final rule. 

We estimate F & R flight testing cost 

per hour in order to more easily 

incorporate different estimates of total F 

& R flight testing hours. Test pilot and 

flight test engineer costs are FAA 

estimates. All other cost estimates were 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
64232 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

3Special Certification Review: Eclipse Aviation 

Corporation Model EA–500 Airplane. Prepared for 

the Federal Aviation Administration Associate 

Administrator for Aviation Safety, September 12, 

2008. 

provided by a part 23 airplane 

manufacturer. 

For aircraft subject to F & R flight 

testing under 14 CFR 21.35(b)(2), 

21.35(f) requires at least 300 hours of 

F & R flight testing ‘‘with a full 

complement of engines’’ for aircraft 

‘‘incorporating turbine engines of a type 

not previously used in a type 

certificated aircraft,’’ and at least 150 

hours for all other aircraft. As most 

proposed very light jet (VLJ) type 

certification projects appear to be based 

on the type-certificated Williams FJ–33 

engine or other previously typecertificated engines, we expect this 

minimum requirement to hold for the 

typical project subject to this final rule. 

Function and reliability flight testing 

for 150 hours was required for the 

airplane’s data we use here, so one of 

our cost estimates assumes 150 hours of 

F & R flight testing. Sometimes, to fulfill 

the requirements of F & R flight testing, 

more than the minimum number of 

flight hours is necessary. For the 

purposes of this cost analysis, we used 

an average extension of 10%, or 15 

hours, so our ‘‘typical’’ estimate 

assumes 165 hours of F & R flight 

testing. We double that estimate to also 

provide an estimate for a new airplane 

design with a new engine design. 

Benefits of This Final Rule 

We expect that adoption of this final 

rule will enhance safety and reduce 

costs by substantially reducing the 

number of service difficulties 

experienced post-certification. This 

expectation is supported by evidence 

from the service experience of the 

Eclipse EA–500. The Eclipse Special 

Certification Review 3 (Eclipse SCR) 

team looked at 85 Eclipse Service 

Difficulty Reports (SDRs) submitted 

between July 29, 2007 and May 13, 2008 

and ‘‘concluded the majority of the 

SDRs resulted from reliability issues 

separate from compliance with the 

minimum FAA standards.’’ (See Eclipse 

SCR, Executive Summary.) There also 

were six Eclipse-related ADs issued in 

the one-year period between November 

2007 and November 2008. Eclipse 

voluntarily conducted its own limited F 

& R flight testing. However, the FAA 

team did not view F & R flight testing 

as a requirement for Eclipse to receive 

its type certificate. (See Eclipse SCR, 

p. 28.) This deficiency in Eclipse’s 

volunteer F & R flight testing program 

provides direct empirical evidence for 

the benefits of F & R flight testing. 

The FAA estimates that the pitot/ 

angle of attack (AOA) issue (AD 2008– 

02–04; SCR, p. 25) is the one most likely 

to have been uncovered by a mandatory 

F & R flight testing program. Extending 

the AD estimate to the entire U.S.- 

registered Eclipse EA–500 fleet (264 

airplanes), we estimate the total cost of 

the pitot/AOA problem to be $2.5 

million. However, we assess the 

probability of F & R flight testing 

uncovering the pitot/AOA problem to be 

approximately 0.7 to 0.75. Using the 

lower figure, we accordingly calculate 

the expected benefit as the total cost 

avoided of $2.5 million times 0.7, or 

$1.8 million. (We received no comment 

on this same method of calculating rule 

benefits used in the NPRM.) Since the 

FAA issued a type certificate on 

September 30, 2006, approximately 1.5 

years prior to the compliance date for 

the Eclipse pitot/AOA AD, we discount 

the expected benefit 1.5 years to find 

present value benefit of $1.6 million. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. However, if an agency determines 

that a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

The FAA has determined that this 

final rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of 

entities for the following reason: The 

cost of requiring F & R flight testing is 

a small one-time cost and a very small 

percentage of development, 

certification, and production costs. We 

received no comments on the same 

determination made in the NPRM. 

Therefore, as the FAA Administrator, I 

certify that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits Federal 

agencies from establishing any 

standards or engaging in related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. Legitimate domestic 

objectives, such as safety, are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this final rule and 

determined the purpose is to promote 

safety. This final rule is therefore not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

foreign commerce of the United States. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation with the 

base year 1995) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million. 

This final rule does not contain such 

a mandate. The requirements of Title II 

do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

will not have federalism implications. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 64233 

Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the Administrator, when 

modifying regulations in Title 14 of the 

CFR in a manner affecting intrastate 

aviation in Alaska, to consider the 

extent to which Alaska is not served by 

transportation modes other than 

aviation, and to establish appropriate 

regulatory distinctions. The final rule 

would apply to the certification of all 

airplanes and are not specific to air 

transportation in Alaska. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this final 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312(f) of the Order and 

involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We 

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the notice, amendment, or 

docket number of this rulemaking. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or by signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. If 

you are a small entity and you have a 

question regarding this document, you 

may contact your local FAA official, or 

the person listed under the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the 

beginning of the preamble. You can find 

out more about SBREFA on the Internet 

at http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/rulemaking/ 

sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 21 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Exports, 

Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 21—CERTIFICATION 

PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND 

PARTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 21 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

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

■ 2. Amend § 21.35 by revising 

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

§ 21.35 Flight tests. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) For aircraft to be certificated under 

this subchapter, except gliders and 

except reciprocating engine powered 

airplanes of 6,000 lbs. or less maximum 

certificated weight that are to be 

certificated under part 23 of this 

chapter, to determine whether there is 

reasonable assurance that the aircraft, its 

components, and its equipment are 

reliable and function properly. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 19, 

2011. 

J. Randolph Babbitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–26955 Filed 10–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket FAA No. FAA–2011–0439; Airspace 

Docket No. 11–ANM–10] 

Amendment of Class D and Class E 

Airspace and Establishment of Class E 

Airspace; Casper, WY 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This action corrects errors in 

the legal description of a final rule 

published in the Federal Register of 

August 25, 2011 that amends Class D 

and Class E airspace, and establishes 

Class E en route domestic airspace at 

Casper, WY. 

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, 

October 20, 2011. The Director of the 

Federal Register approves this 

incorporation by reference action under 

1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual 

revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and 

publication of conforming amendments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Operations Support 

Group, Western Service Center, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; 

telephone (425) 203–4537. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

Federal Register Docket No. FAA– 

2011–0439, Airspace Docket No. 11– 

ANM–10, published on August 25, 2011 

(76 FR 53048), amends Class D airspace, 

Class E surface airspace, Class E 

designated as an extension, and Class E 

airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface; and establishes 

Class E en route domestic airspace at 

Natrona County International Airport, 

Casper, WY. An error was made 

referencing the Victor airway in the 

regulatory text for Class E airspace 

extending upward from 700 feet above 

the surface. Also, in the Class E en route 

domestic airspace area, the portion 

referencing excluding existing 

controlled airspace 7,100 feet MSL and 

above is replaced with the correct 

wording. Class D and E airspace 

designations are published in paragraph 

6005 and 6006, respectively, of FAA 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES