### U.S. Department of Transportation

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING REGULATORY EVALUATION

Revision of Airworth iness Standards for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes 14 CFR Part 23

OFFICE OF AVIATION POLICY AND PLANS ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DIVISION

Nicole Nance George Thurston

October 2015

### 2 | Page Table of Contents

I. List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... ................... 4

II. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. ................ 6

Table 1. Estimated Benefits and Cost s from 2017 to 2036 ( 2014 $ Millions) ............................................ 9 III. Introduction/Background ....................................................................................................... ....... 10

IV. Assumptions and Data Sources .................................................................................................. .... 17

V. Fleet Discussion .............................................................................................................. .................. 19

Table 2. Part 23 New U.S. Certific ations and Delive red Airplanes ....................................................... 22 VI. Benefits ...................................................................................................................... ................... 23

VI.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ ...................... 23 VI.2.Safety Benefits .......................................................................................................... ..................... 24 VI.2.a. Stall ................................................................................................................. .......................... 24 Table 3. Fatality and Aircraft Damage Rate* ................................................................................... ... 26 Table 4. Projected Future Averted Accident s, Fatalities, and Destroyed Aircraft*................................. 27 Table 5. Averted Benefit for Fatalities and Aircraft Damage from Stall Accidents* ............................... 29 VI.2.b. Icing ................................................................................................................. ......................... 29 Table 6. – Events Applicable to SLD ........................................................................................... ....... 30 VI.3 Cost Savings ............................................................................................................. ..................... 32 Table 7. Savings from Sp ecial Conditio ns (SC)* ................................................................................ .. 35 Table 8. Savings from Exemptions* ............................................................................................. ....... 36 Table 9. Savings from Equivalent Level of Safe ty (ELOS)* .................................................................. 36 Table 10. Total Cost for Special Co nditions, Exemptio ns, and ELOS* ................................................. 37 VI.4. Qualitativ e Benefits .................................................................................................... ................... 38 VII. Costs ......................................................................................................................... .................... 41

VII.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... ..................... 41 VII.2. Discussion of Proposed Minima l to No Costs Part 23 Sections ...................................................... 42 VII.3. Discussion of Proposed Se ctions That Could Add Costs ................................................................ 46 VII.3.a. Annual and Hour ly Wages and Benefits ................................................................................. .... 47 VII.3.b. Estimated Costs for Prop osed § 23.200 Controllability ................................................................ 48 Table 11. Estimate Costs for Proposed Controllability Section (2014 $) ................................................ 51 VII.3.c. §23.215 Stall Characterist ics, Stall Warning, and Spins .............................................................. . 51 Table 12. Estimate Costs for Proposed Stall and Spin Sect ion (2014 $) ................................................. 53 VII.3.d. Additional Training Costs ............................................................................................ ............. 53

### 3 | Page Table 13. Training Costs (2014 $) ............................................................................................. .......... 56 VII.3.e. Type Certificat ion Manual Update Costs ............................................................................... .... 56 Table 14. Estimate Costs for Updati ng Engineering Ma nuals (2014 $) .................................................. 57 VII.3.f. Type Certificatio n Database Up date Costs ............................................................................. ..... 57 Table 15. Estimate Costs for Creating a Certification Database (2014 $) ............................................... 59 VII.3.g. Summary of Costs ..................................................................................................... ................ 59 Table 16. Total Cost Summary by Category ...................................................................................... .. 60 Table 17. Average Additional Cost per Type Certificate by Engine Category........................................ 60 VIII. Benefit-Cost Summary .......................................................................................................... ......... 61

Table 18. Estimated Benefits and Cost s from 2017 to 2036 ( 2014 $ Millions) ........................................ 61 IX. Sensitivity Di scussion ........................................................................................................ ............ 62

Table 19. Part 23 New U.S. Certific ations and Delive red Airplanes ..................................................... 64 X. Appendix I .................................................................................................................... .................... 66

XI. Appendix II ................................................................................................................... ................ 67

XII. Appendix III .................................................................................................................. ................ 71

XIII. Appendix IV ................................................................................................................... ............... 72

XIV. Appendix V .................................................................................................................... ............... 74

### 4 | Page 

## I. List of Abbreviations

AC - Advisory Circular

ACO - Aircraft Certification Office APO - Aviation Policy and Plans Office ARC - Aviation Rulemaking Committee

ASTM - ASTM International

CAA - Civil Aviation Authorities CAR 3 - Civil Air Regulations part 3 CFR - Code of Federal Regulations

CO – Carbon Monoxide CPS - Certification Process Study CS-VLA - Certification Specificat ion for Very Light Aeroplanes DOT - Department of Transportation EASA - European Aviation Safety Agency ELOS - Equivalent Level of Safety

FAA - Federal Aviation Administration FAR - Federal Aviation Regulations

FAMRA - Federal Aviation Mode rnization and Reform Act

GA - General Aviation

GAMA - General Aviation Manufacturers Association LSA - Light-Sport Aircraft

LOC - Loss of Control

### 5 | Page MOC - Means of Compliance NAV/COM – Navigation and Communication NORSEE - Non-Required Safety Enhancing Equipment NPRM - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking PBR - Performance Based Regulation

RAD ALT – Radar Altimeter SARA - Small Airplane Revitalization Act SC – Special Condition TCDS - Type Certificate Data Sheet

U.S. - United States

USC - United States Code VLA - Very Light Airplane

### 6 | Page 

## II. Executive Summary

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing to revise the airworthiness standards for normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category part 23 airplanes by removing current weight and propulsion ba sed prescriptive airworthiness requirements and replacing those requirements with performance and risk based regulatory standards. The majority of the prescriptive design requirements and methods of compliance found in current part 23 rules would no longer be regulatory and would be f ound in means of compliance documents that are accepted by the Administrator. 1 

### The FAA believes this action would provide a set of requirements that would allow more flexibility in part 23 airplane designs and faster adoption of safety enhancing technology while mainta ining a higher level of safety. The current issue with part 23 is that th e prescriptive regulatory framework does not readily allow the adoption of new and innovative technology. This proposed rulemaking would solve this issue by putting in place a performance- based regulatory structure that would result in the FAA accepting new means of compliance base d upon industry consensus standards. Two examples of new and innovative technology that could be certif ied more quickly under this proposed rule are electric propul sion and computer aided flight control systems. Additionally, this proposal amends parts 21, 43, 91, 121, and 135 to maintain consistency with the new part 23. This proposed rulemaking project would:

1 Means of compliance is a documente d procedure used by an applicant to show compliance with part 23 airworthiness standards, and accepted by the Administrato r. A means of compliance is one method, but not the only method, to show compliance with a regulatory requirement . Additionally, if a procedure is used as a means of compliance, it must be followed completely to maintain the integrity of the means of compliance.

### 7 | Page  Comply with Congressional mandates. 2 

### Congress passed the Federal Aviation Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which requires the Administrator, in consultation with the aviation industry, to asse ss the aircraft certification and approval process. In response, the FAA initiated this rulemaking on September 24, 2013. Subsequently, on November 27, 2013 , Congress passed the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013, whic h requires the FAA to issue a final rule that revisesthe certification requirements for small airplanes byo Creating a regulatory regime that will improve safety and decrease certification costs;

o Setting safety objectives that will spur innovation and tec hnology adoption;

o Replacing prescriptive rules with pe rformance-based regulations; and

o Using consensus standards to clarify how safety objectives may be met by specific designs and technologies.

 Reorganize part 23 into performance-base d requirements by removing the detailed design requirements. The detailed design provi sions would be identified in means of compliance (MOC) documents, accepted by the Ad ministrator, to support this effort. The rule would also allow for greater use of consensus standards, consistent with guidance set forth in OMB Ci rcular A-119, Federal Particip ation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities. Applicants would still have the option to propose their own means of compliance as they do today. The process for review ing new means of compliance would not change substantially from the process in place today.

2 Federal Aviation Modernization and Reform Act (FAMRA) of 2012 (Public Law 112-95; 49 USC 40101 note) and Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013 (Public Law 113-53; 49 USC 44704 note).

### 8 | Page  Promote harmonization and the adoption of the newly created performance-based airworthiness design standards as an internationally accepted approach by the majority of other civil aviation authorities, consistent with the direction in Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulat ory Cooperation. These civil aviation authorities include Europe, Brazil, Canada, China and New Zealand. In addition, this project has been designated a pilot cooperative rulema king project by the FAA and European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

 Re-align part 23 requirements to promote the development of entry-level airplanes similar to those certified under the Europ ean Certification Specification for Very Light Aeroplanes (CS-VLA).

 Increase the FAA’s ability to address future technology.

 Amend the stall, stall warning, and spin requirements to reduce fatal accidents.

 Improve crashworthiness by allowing new methods for occupant protection.

 Improve part 23 airplane level of safety by allowing new type certificated airplanes to be approved without undue cost.

 Address icing conditions that are currently not include d in part 23 regulations. The goal of this proposal is to create a cost effective approach to certification in an adaptive regulatory environment that addresses new safety enhancing t echnologies and allows for alternative means of compliance. The FAA has analyzed the benefits and the co sts associated with this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The factors driving the $3. 9 million expected costs of this proposal are the controllability, stall and spin, additional tr aining tasks, database development, and manual upgrade. Benefits consist of $19.6 million in safety benefits from preventing stall and spin

### 9 | Page accidents and $12.6 million in cost savings from reducing the number of special conditions, exemptions, and equivalent levels of safety fo r total benefits of $32.2 million. If the proposed rule saves only one human life by improving stall characteristics and stall warnings, that alone would result in benefits outweighing the costs. The following table shows the quantified benefits

and costs.

Table 1. Estimated Benefits and Costs from 2017 to 2036 (2014 $ Millions)

Costs Safety Benefits + Cost Savings

= Total Benefits Total	 $3.9 $19.6 +	$12.6	=	$32.2 7	percent	P.V. $3.9 $6.2 +	$5.8		=	$12.0 3	percent	P.V. $3.9 $11.8	+	$8.8	=	$20.6



### As a result, we determined that this proposed ru le would: have benef its that would justify its costs; not be an economically “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866; be “significant” as define d in Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures ; have a significant positive economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; not create obstacles to international trade; and not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal gov ernments, or on the private sector.

### 10 | Page 

## III. Introduction/Background In 2012, Congress passed the Federal Aviati on Modernization and Reform Act (FAMRA)

of 2012 3 

### , which requires the Administrator, in cons ultation with the aviation industry, to conduct

an assessment of the aircraft cer tification and approval process. While this proposed rulemaking is in response to the FAMRA, it also responds to the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act (SARA)

of 2013. 4 

### The SARA directs the FAA to create pe rformance-based regulations and provide for

the use of consensus standards to allow flexibility in th e certification of new technology. This is different from what is currently done in certification. The curren t rules are product specific and rely on assumptions using weight and propulsio n. They are also prescr iptive, detailed, and include many “how-to” paragraphs that are more appropriate for guidance in developing means of compliance. This is acceptable for long-st anding, traditional configurations; however, this approach is limiting innovation and new technology. Applicants incorporating new technology or

innovative features are forced to use either special conditions, ex emptions, or equivalent safety findings for certification and thes e processes are time consuming. The text of the SARA also mentions several motivations for the changes including: improving safe ty, reducing regulatory compliance costs, spurring innovation and technol ogy adoption. Further, as the title of the law suggests, it is hoped that thes e changes would rev italize the part 23 ai rcraft manufacturing industry. The FAA believes that this proposal complies with the FA MRA and the SARA by improving safety, reducing regulatory compliance co sts, spurring innovation, and the adoption of new technology. This proposal also is consistent with OMB Circular A-119, in promoting use of consensus standards to satisfy regulatory requ irements. In addition, this proposal satisfies

3 Public Law 112-95; 49 USC 40101 note 4 Public Law 113-53; 49 USC 44704 note

### 11 | Page Executive Orders 13563, 13609, and 13610, by protecting public health, welfare, safety while promoting economic growth, innovation, compe titiveness, and job creation, and promoting international regulatory cooperation. The FAA is conducting this rulemaking to reor ganize part 23 of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which contains the airworthin ess standards for normal, utility, acrobatic and commuter category airplanes. The proposal would replace current prescrip tive requirements with performance-based regulations and streamline th e approval of safety advancements by using performance based consensus standards to clarify how the objectives in part 23 can be met using specific designs and technologies. The FAA’s strategic initiatives communicate FAA goals to increase safety throughout general aviation by enabling and f acilitating innovation and the deve lopment of safety enhancing products. This proposed rulemaking would provide an appropriate regulatory structure that would also allow part 23 airpla nes to achieve FAA safety goa ls through innovation and the use of performance-based industry consensus safety standard, which are accepted by the

Administrator. One focus area of this proposal’s increased safe ty goal is loss of control (LOC) accidents, which continues to be the larges t source of fatal general aviation accidents. To address LOC accidents, the FAA is proposing new rule language that is performance and risk-based and would allow industry to develop multiple approaches th rough means of compliance that satisfy the new standard. These means of compliance would be ba sed on a safety continuum that balances the level of certitude, appropriate level of safet y, and acceptable risk. This means that the FAA accepts more risk on a simple 2-place airplane th an one with 10 passengers or more. This riskbased approach to certification allows for alternative means of compliance to the same rule and

### 12 | Page has already served the FAA and public well in el ectronics. An example application of this riskbased approach is current § 23.1309 for avionics equipment in part 23 airplanes. The FAA created classes of part 23 airplanes and this led to the succe ssful introduction of glass cockpits in small general aviation airplanes. 5 

### The FAA has been evaluating the way it sets standards for different types of airplanes certificated under part 23. In 2009, a joint FAA/industry team fina lized the Part 23 Certification Process Study (CPS). This team reviewed the life cycle of part 23 airplanes to determine what provisions needed improvement. A key recommenda tion from this team was reorganizing part 23 based on airplane performance and complexity rather than the existing weight and propulsion divisions. The team also recommended the use of means of compliance to allow for use of consensus standards to satisfy performance- based standards, thus permitting alternative approaches to certificatio n not available today. In 2010, with the CPS as a foundation, the FAA in itiated a part 23 regulatory review. As part of this review, the FAA held meetings wi th the public and industry to gain input on the future of part 23. These meetings confir med that the public a nd industry supported the recommendations of the CPS regarding the future structure of part 23.

In 2011, based on the results of the CPS and the part 23 regulatory reviews, the FAA formed the Part 23 Reorganization ARC. The co mmittee’s chartered tasks included considering the recommendation of the CPS to reorganize part 23 based on airplane performance and complexity versus the existing weight and propu lsion divisions. The ARC was also tasked to investigate the use of consensus standards.

5 Section 23.1309 allows for different acceptable values for likelihood of failures based on the severity of the hazard, airplane weight, and method of propulsion. These different values encourage the incorporation of equipment that improves pilot situational awareness and other systems that promote the overall airplane level of safety.

### 13 | Page The ARC included participants from seve ral foreign Civil Aviation Authorities 6 

### and

domestic and international members from almo st every GA manufacturer of both airplanes and avionics. The ARC also included several Light -Sport Aircraft (LSA) manufacturers who are interested in certificating their products using the airw orthiness standards c ontained in part 23. These manufacturers shared their insights from the GA manufacturer perspective. This perspective was focused on the n eed to certify safer airplanes by taking advantage of new safety enhancing technologies. The ARC emphasized that industry needs to develop airplanes designed to use new technology from the outset. The ARC noted that certification costs resulting from uncertainty create project risk and prevent introduction of this new techno logy. The ARC further noted the

FAA’s rules are based on histor ical design concepts. The A RC’s observation of the part 23 industry was that the only way to reduce risk in the certification process is to design new airplanes just like old airplanes. Any approach to a new airplane design is met with uncertainty with respect to how the FAA would address the new design. The cer tification of new and innovative products today frequently requires the use of equi valent level of safety (ELOS) findings, special conditions, and exemptions, resulti ng in uncertainty and hi gh project costs. The ARC recommendations to revise part 23 echo th e CPS recommendations and target the factors that have kept part 23 airplanes unchanged for four decades. Two additional factors driving the need for this rulemaking are safety and cost. In order to improve the future GA fleet’s safety level ove r that of today’s aging fleet, the FAA believes that industry needs to build new part 23 certificated airplanes th at incorporate today’s current safety enhancing technologies. Although a numbe r of new part 23 airplanes are being built,

6 The international regulatory agencies included participan ts from Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, and New Zealand.

### 14 | Page many are certified to the Civil Air Regulations part 3 (CAR 3), or very early amendment levels of part 23, and reflect the level of safety technology available when they were designed decades

ago. Light-sport aircraft (LSA) and experiment al airplanes are incorporating modern aerodynamics and crashworthiness technologies that sometimes employ lessons from the automotive industry. The FAA woul d like to see these technologies used to improve the safety of the smaller part 23 airplanes.

Aircraft owners and manufacturers have demonstr ated in the past several years that they are willing to purchase and insta ll many types of non-required safety enhancing equipment in part 23 airplanes when the equipment is perceived to be affordable. We have seen positive impacts on reducing both controlled flight in to terrain accidents and weather related accidents that coincide with the increased use of some of this equi pment. Examples of this equipment include:

 GPS navigation with moving maps,

 Terrain displays,

 Real-time weather displa ys in the cockpit,

 Traffic displays in the cockpit,

 Angle of Attack (AoA) displays,

 Autopilot installations,

 Enhanced and Synthetic Vision displays,

 Envelope protection autopilot systems,

 Easy button for auto recovery (airpl ane upset, pilot disorientation, etc....),

 Easy button for auto landing (engine failure, pilot incapacitation, etc....),

 Backup attitude display,

 Simplified radar altimeter (RAD ALT),

 Installations of ballistic parachutes,

 Installations of inflatable restraints,

 Crush zones in structure,

 High visibility lights,

 Carbon Monoxide (CO) detectors,

 Secondary radio navigation and communi cation (NAV/COM) w ith flip-flop, and

 Amphibious Gear Advisory Systems.

### 15 | Page Few GA owners or operators can afford the high cost of a new part 23 airplane that incorporates the latest safety enhancing features. Instead, pilo ts and owners are migrating to experimental aircraft and LSA, in part because of the lower costs. Chapter 1 of the 2013 FAA General Aviation Survey shows the experimental fleet has increased by 30 percent while the piston fleet has decreased by about 11 percent in the last 10 years. 7 

### In other words, pilots believe they can get an acceptable level of sa fety for less cost in experimental aircraft and LSA than in certified CAR 3 and part 23 airplanes. The FAA believes that revising the standards for entry-level part 23 airplanes wo uld achieve a more appropriate level of safety and redu ces certification costs. The part 23 ARC noted that development and certification cost of working with the FAA to get a new part 23 entry-level airplane to mark et is too high. The two new U.S. manufactured 4-place airplanes, the Cessna Corvalis and Cirrus SR-20/22, are certif ied to more recent amendment levels of part 23 and are often percei ved as too expensive for typical GA uses such as primary flight training or re ntal and are not considered entry-level airplanes. These airplanes are priced in the $400,000 to $800,000 range, whil e the European Diamond DA-40, typically sells for $300,000-$400,000. FAA experts estimate th at in early 2000 a U.S. manufacturer spent about $30 million to type certifi cate a high performance single engi ne airplane, and, according to an aircraft manufacturer, a more recent 2-seat part 23 airplane cost the company about $55 million to certificate. The FAA’s goal with this proposal is for a new part 23 type certificate for a similar airplane of this size w ould greatly reduce the certification costs. This problem has also been recognized by EASA, which is actively work ing with several applicants to get the right

7 http://www.faa.gov/data_r esearch/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/

### 16 | Page oversight and cost balance for them to devel op and certify new 4-place, entry-level part 23 airplanes. To summarize, the purpose of this proposed ru le is to revise Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 23, thr ough the current amendment level, as a set of requirements that focus on the safety intent of historic part 23 and allow alternative approach es to type certificate new part 23 airplanes through consen sus standards. This rulemaking effort also follows from the part 23 ARC recommendations along with satisfyi ng the intent of the FAMRA, the SARA, and

Executive Orders 13609 and 13610.

### 17 | Page 

## IV. Assumptions and Data Sources The benefit and cost analys is for the regulatory evalua tion is based on the following factors/assumptions:

 The analysis is conducted in constant dollars with 2014 as the base year.

 The final rule would be effective in 2017.

 The primary analysis period for costs and benefits extends for 20 years, from 2017 through 2036. This period was selected because annual costs and benefits will have reached a steady state by 2036.

 Future part 23 type certificati ons and deliveries are estimated from historical part 23 type

certifications and deliveries.

 Costs for the new part 23 type certifications forecasted in the “Fleet Discussion” section would occur in year 1 of the analysis interval.

 Airplane deliveries from the forecasted part 23 type certificates woul d start in year 5 of the analysis interval.

 The FAA uses a three and seven percent disc ount rate for the benefits and costs as prescribed by OMB in Circular A-4.

 The baseline for estimating the costs and benef its of the proposed rule would be part 23, through the current amendment level.

 Based on FAA Small Aircraft Directorate e xpert judgment, the FAA estimates 335 FAA part 23 certification engineer s would require additional trai ning as a result of this proposal. The FAA assumes that the same number of industry pa rt 23 certification engineers would also require additional training as a result of this proposal.

### 18 | Page  The FAA estimates this proposal would add 16 hours of training to FAA and industry part 23 certification engineers.

 Since this training program would be on-li ne, we estimate no travel costs for the engineers.

 FAA pay band tables and the Bureau of La bor Statistics (BLS) determines the hourly wages used to estimate the costs to the FAA and applicants.

 Using the U.S. Department of Transportation guidance, the wage multiplier for employee

benefits is 1.17. 8

8 On January 30, 2014, the DOT published a memo on “Estimating Total Costs of Compensation Based on Wage Rates or Salaries.” The memo directs the FAA that when a rule requires incremental hours per existing employee, the wage/salary multiplier is of smaller magnitude because not all categories of employer provided benefits increase with additional hours worked by an individual employee.

### 19 | Page 

## V. Fleet Discussion

In order to estimate the costs and benefits of this proposed rule, we need to forecast the life cycle of the affected part 23 airplanes. This analysis discusses the future new part 23 type certifications, and their reciprocating engine, tu rboprop, and turbojet airplane deliveries, which would be affected by this proposed rulemaking. The life cycle of an airplane begins with a part 23 type certification, then producti on, delivery, active service, and ends with retirement. This section will discuss how we forecasted each compone nt for the length of the life cycle for future part 23 airplanes by using historic al databases of part 23 airplane s. These historical databases provides the FAA with data to calculate the av erage number of part 23 type certificates over a specific historical time frame, the average number of annual deliveries per type certificate, and the average number of years a part 23 airplane is in production and in service. We then use these

calculations in our forecast of future de livered airplanes affected by this proposal.

The FAA obtained a database of historical part 23 airpla ne deliveries, manufactured by U.S. owned companies from 1947 to 2013, from the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA). Due to data limitations, we eliminated any airplane that was in production prior to 1947, after 2013, or had less than 10 years of delivery history after 1947 or

before 2013. 9

9 The following are examples of aircraft we deleted from the GAMA database in order to have a more accurate weighted average reflecting a full produc tion cycle. The Navion is a United States single-engine, unpressurized, retractable gear, four-seat aircraft originally designed and built by North American Aviation in the 1940s. GAMA’s last record of the Navion production was in 1947 with no prior history provided. Similarly, Air Tractor produced the AT-400, AT-500, At-600, and At-800 series turboprop of agricultural aircraft starting in 2011 with only three years of delivery history. All American Airc raft Inc. was an aircraft manufacturer established in 1945 at Long Beach, California by Ernest and Gerald Adler and produced aircraft until 1948. The firm built prototypes of a light plane design by Ernest, the Ensign, but was unable to find buyers to make mass production viable. Alon built the A-2 aircraft only in 1966 and 1967. Alon was then purchased and the company redesigned the fuselage from the cockpit back creating a new aircraft.

### 20 | Page We used the FAA Type Certific ate Data Sheets (TCDS) database 10 

### from the FAA website, in conjunction with the GAMA delivery da tabase, to calculate the average historical part 23 airplane’s production life. The TCDS contains information re levant to the certification of a particular airplane, such as when the airpla ne was initially certificated, while the GAMA database shows, for each part 23 type certificat ed airplane, how many years the airplanes were

delivered. 11 

### We calculated the average historical part 23 airplane’s production life is approximately 26 years. We estimated the active service time, and re tirement age, of a part 23 airplane by analyzing the ages of all US-operated ai rplanes from Table 7.3 of the FAA 2013 General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey. Tabl e 7.3 shows 184,388 airpla nes in 5-year age groupings from 0 to over 60 years old. On average, these airplanes were in service for 34 years. Thus the estimated active service time, and retire ment age, of a part 23 airplane is 34 years. 12 

### Since the life cycle equals the production life (26 years), plus the active service life which ends in the airplane’s retirement (34 years), we ca lculated the life cycle of a historical part 23 airplane to be 60 years (26 + 34 = 60). Therefore, we use 60 years as the life cycle of a part 23 airplane in our forecast of future type certificates and deliveries affected by this proposal. For an

estimate of the total number of affected airplanes over 60 year life cycle, we now forecast the number of new type certificati ons and their deliveries. New type certifications, and the type certification’s airplane deliveries, are estimated by calculating the historical average number of type certificates and the average number of

10 http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator y_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet 11 Appendix 1 shows airplane manufacturers and type certification numbers we used to estimate the average production life. 12 Although the FAA believes that in practice retirement ages may decline under the proposed system of certification as new designs become available, we are limited to the da ta provided in the FAA 2013 General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey report and have no basis to decide by how much we should adjust our estimate. We request comments, with supporting data, on our retirement age estimate.

### 21 | Page deliveries using the GAMA and TCDS database. We calculate the average number of historical type certificates from the 1940’s to current, by reciprocating engine, turboprop, and turbojet airplane, for each U.S. manufacturer, in Append ix 2, over decade (10-year) periods. The decade periods consist of the years in the foll owing decade groups: 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s. Appendix 2 shows the numb er of new certifications, by manufacturer, by reciprocating engine, turboprop, or turbojet airplane, for each decade group. For example, Appendix 2 shows that the manufacturer Adam/AAI /Triton only had one type certificate in two decades; therefore the average annual number of type certificates in a 10-year period for this manufacturer is 0.5 (1 ce rtification / 2 decades). The number of future affected airplanes e quals the forecasted number of new type certificates multiplied by the average number of new deliveries per future type certificate. We base the forecast for future type certificates and deliv eries of new part 23 U.S. manufactured airplanes upon the average number of new type cer tifications, and their deliveries, over the 1998 through 2013 time period. We use the 1998 thro ugh 2013 analysis interval as a baseline for forecasting future part 23 type ce rtifications and deliveries, so as to not bias our forecast by the explosive growth the part 23 manufacturing i ndustry experienced dur ing the 1970’s and 1980’s. Later, in the “Sensitivity Discussion” section, the FAA discusses a sensitivity analysis by using historical deliveries between 2008 through 2013, instead of 1998 through 2013 in order to determine if a shorter analysis interv al affects the cost/benefit analysis. For each airplane manufacturer and for each of their part 23 type certifications, we calculate the average annual number of ai rplanes delivered from 1998 through 2013 by summing the number of deliveries by the number of years th e deliveries occurred and then dividing this sum by the number of years the deliveries occurr ed. We then calculated the weighted average

### 22 | Page number of airplanes per type cer tificate and the number of forecas ted new type certificates and

rounded the result to the nearest whole number. Appendix 2 shows the details we used to deri ve the forecast for the number of future new part 23 certifications and airpla ne delivery results and provides examples, from the tables, of

how the results were calculated. Table 2 summarizes our estimate of part 23 U.S. airplanes that

manufacturers would certif icate and produce.

Table 2. Part 23 New U.S. Certifications and Delivered Airplanes Recip TurboProp Turbojet Weighted Average Number of AC per TC per Year 68 44 35 New Part 23 Certifications in a 10

‐ year Period 2 1 2 New Part 23 Certificated Airplanes deliveries per year 136 44 70



### Based on this forecast of part 23 type certificat es and their deliveries from Table 2, U.S. manufacturers would produce 136 reciprocating engine, 44 turbopr op, and 70 turbojet airplanes annually, with deliveries beginning five years after the effective date of th e rule and continuing for 26 years. From the second through the twen ty-sixth delivery year the cumulative part 23 fleet would grow by a total of 250 (136 + 44 + 70) airplanes annuall y. From the twenty-seventh through the thirty-fourth delivery year, the newl y certificated cumulative part 23 fleet would remain constant. In the thirty-fifth delivery ye ar, the model airplanes that are 34 years old would retire. By the sixtieth delivery year, all airplanes produced from the forecasted part 23 certificates would be retired. Appendix 3 show s our forecast of the cumulative number of newly certificated part 23 airplanes de livered and affected by this proposed rule over the 60-year

timeframe. The FAA notes that the column titled “Delivery Year” in Appendix 3 lags the first year of the analysis interval (o r the effective date of the final rule) by five years. Similarly accident reduction benefits would begin five years after the rule is in effect.

### 23 | Page 

## VI. Benefits

VI.1.	Introduction 

### Part 23 standards are largely based on experi ence with airplanes designed in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Over the past five decades part 23 ha s become prescriptive as a result of codifying specific, detailed design requirements to addr ess and respond to the introduction of new technologies, specific problems encountered duri ng various certification projects, and specific recommendations from the National Transportati on Safety Board (NTSB). While the intent of the prescriptive rules was to increase safety a nd prevent confusion or ce rtification ambiguities,

manufacturers felt constrained to use outdated design philosophies, which created a barrier for the introduction of novel safety enhancing technologies. Furthermore, the FAA is concerned that the current part 23 regulatory prescriptive structure does not effectively address the safety continuum, particularly the low performance end (single piston airplane) of the continuum. The safe ty continuum refers to higher level of safety as the airplane carries more people. Recent part23 amendments have increasingly focused on highperformance, complex airplanes. These higher requirements have been applied to the lowperformance airplanes even though th eir risk in the safety continuum is lower. This has created an unintended barrier to new safety enhanci ng technology in low-performance airplanes. In 2012, Congress passed the FAMRA 13 

### , which required the Administrator, in consultation with the aviation industry to conduct an assessment of the ai rcraft certification and approval process. A year late r, Congress passed the SARA, 14 

### which is the basis for this rulemaking effort. This rulemaking addresses th e SARA mandate by (1) creating a regulatory regime for small airplanes that will improve safety and decrease certification costs; (2) setting

13 Public Law 112-95; 49 USC 40101 note 14 Public Law 113-53: 49 USC 44704 note

### 24 | Page safety objectives that will s pur innovation and technology adopti on; (3) replacing prescriptive rules with performance-based re gulations; and (4) us ing consensus standards to clarify how safety objectives may be met by sp ecific designs and technologies. These proposed standards begin w ith the safety intent of cu rrent part 23 requirements and adds enhanced standards for icing conditions, resi stance to departure from controlled flight, and loss of control for multiengine airplanes as curr ent accidents are often associated with these

causal factors. VI.2.Safety	Benefits

VI.2.a.	Stall 

### The largest number of accidents for part 23 airplanes is caused by either a stall or departure-based LOC in flight. LOC accidents are typically initiated by an inadvertent departure from controlled flight. A pilot’s awareness of th e state of the airplane and the airplane’s low speed handling characteristics are the main cau ses of these accidents . Stall and departure accidents are generally fatal if the airplane is t oo low for the pilot to recover before impact with the ground. Improving safety that reduces stall a nd LOC accident would save lives. The FAA is proposing rules for stall characteri stics and stall warnings that w ould result in airplane designs

that are more resistant to inadvert ently departing controlled flight. There is another type of LOC accident that occurs in light twin-engine airplanes. Virtually all twin-engine airplanes fl ying have a minimum control speed, V MC 

### , where the

directional control can be maintained after the fa ilure of one engine. This speed is above the airplane’s stall speed. What is unique about light twin-engine ai rplanes is that many of these airplanes have limited capability to climb on one engine. After the failure of one engine, pilots will instinctively try to keep the airplane flying by trying to maintain or increase altitude even as the airplane slows down to the V MC 

### speed and departs controlled flight. Pilots tend to be more

### 25 | Page aware of the airplane’s stall speed, so the FAA is proposing that level 1 and 2 multiengine airplanes have a V MC 

### speed that would not exceed the st all speed of the airplane for that configuration. After the loss of an engine, pilots would instead look for the best landing site immediately, maintaining control the whole way, rather than tryi ng to climb. FAA believes that

because manufacturers will be ab le to design this feature in to their airframes during the certification process so there shoul d be no additional costs associated with adding this feature to new airplane designs.

The FAA identified 74 accidents investigated by NTSB that were caused by stall or loss of control from January 2008 to December 2013. Th ese accidents are listed in Appendix IV. These accidents represent the type of accidents that could be prevented by the stall and LOC requirements in the proposed rule. An assessm ent is made for each accident to estimate how effective the proposed rule would be in prev enting a similar accident. The effectiveness

assessment results in a classifica tion of low, medium, or high eff ectiveness rate. Of the 74 NTSB

stall and LOC accidents there are 24 accidents with a high effectiven ess, which had 43 fatalities,

24 medium effectiveness accidents with 49 fatalities, and 26 low e ffectiveness accidents with 54 fatalities over 6 years. All of these accidents resulted in a de stroyed or substantially damaged aircraft. Given the high level of damage, to es timate the benefit of pr eventing such aircraft damage in the future, the FAA assumes full replacement cost for all 74 aircraft. To predict accidents among futu re type certificated aircraftthat would be prevented by the proposed rule, the FAA estimates an accident, fa tality, and destroyed airc raft rate for part 23 aircraft using these historic accidents. Rates are estimated by dividing the average number of

### 26 | Page fatalities and destroyed aircraft in each effectiveness category by the average active number of airplanes. 15 

### Table 3 shows the results of these calculations. 16

Table 3. Fatality and Aircraft Damage Rate per Aircraft*

Effective A Avg. Yearly

Accident (2008

– 2013) B Avg. Yearly

Fatalities (2008

– 2013) C Avg. Yearly Destroyed Aircraft

(2008

– 2013) D Avg. Number of

GA Aircraft (2008 ‐ 2013) A / D

Accident

Rate B / D

Fatalities

Rate C / D Destroyed Aircraft Rate High 4 7 4 172,436 0.00002 0.00004 0.00002 Medium 4 8 4 172,436 0.00002 0.00005 0.00002

Low 4 9 4 172,436 0.00003 0.00005 0.00003

*These numbers are subject to rounding error. 

### The fatality and aircraft damage rate from Ta ble 3 is then applied to the yearly number of future newly certificated part 23 airplanes (reciprocating engine , turboprop, and turbojet) shown in Appendix III. The FAA projects that the final rule would take effect in 2017, with the first new type certificated aircraft being delivered in 2022. The analysis period is 20 years, but the accident rate applies to 15 y ears to account for the 5 year manufacture production cycle and delivery of new aircraft. In the absence of th is rule, based on this methodology approximately 0.65 high accidents, 0.65 medium accidents, 0.65 low accidents would occur on newly certificated part 23 airplanes over 20 years. Thes e accidents, by effectiveness, are expected to result in averting a combined total of 4 fatalitie s and 2 destroyed aircraft as shown in Table 4. The estimated future accidents, fatalities, and destroyed aircraft are ca lculated by summing the rows for each category in Table 4, and then su mming the high, medium, and low columns. By summing the results of the low, middle, and high effectiveness rates for averted accidents from Table 4, roughly 2 accidents are averted on newly certificated part 23 airplanes.

15 Table 3.1, (Fix Wing Piston, Turboprop, Turbojet) 2013-2008 General Aviation and Air Taxi Number of Active Aircraft by Primary Use by Aircraft Type ; https://www.faa.gov/data_res earch/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/CY2012/ 16 The FAA is unable to construct a rate per person flying or per person-mile. The FAA is not aware of any reliable estimates of the number of persons who flew in part 23 GA aircraft over the time period.

### 27 | Page Table 4. Projected Future Averted Accidents, Fatalities, and Destroyed Aircraft*

YEAR Averted Accidents Averted Fatalities Aircraft Damage High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low 2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2022 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 2023 0.012 0.012 0.013 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 2024 0.017 0.017 0.019 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 2025 0.023 0.023 0.025 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.03 2026 0.029 0.029 0.031 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.03 2027 0.035 0.035 0.038 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.04 2028 0.041 0.041 0.044 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.04 2029 0.046 0.046 0.050 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.05 2030 0.052 0.052 0.057 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.05 0.05 0.06 2031 0.058 0.058 0.063 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.06 0.06 0.06 2032 0.064 0.064 0.069 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.06 0.06 0.07 2033 0.070 0.070 0.075 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.07 0.07 0.08 2034 0.075 0.075 0.082 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.08 2035 0.081 0.081 0.088 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.08 0.08 0.09 2036 0.087 0.087 0.094 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.09 0.09 0.09 Total 0.696 0.696 0.754 1.25 1.42 1.57 0.70 0.70 0.75 *These numbers are subject to rounding error. 

### The FAA used the Department of Transportati on determined value of a statistical saved life that is $9.4 million 17 

### in 2014. The FAA uses 3 aircraft values based on projected newly certificated aircraft types: a 1967 model Cessna 172 for reciprocating engine aircraft at $30,187; a 1982 model Beechcraft King Air C90 at $603,736 for turboprop; and a 1999 model Cessna Citation Jet 525 $1,455,435 for turbojet . These 2013 average retail valu es for destroyed aircraft came from the Aircraft Bluebook Price Digest Summer 2013 Edition and they are adjusted to 2014 using Gross Domes tic Product (GDP). 18 

### Multiplying the individual future part 23 certifications with the correspond ing aircraft values provides a weighted average value for

17 Guidance of Treatment of the Economic Value of Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S. Department of Transportation Analysis - 2015 Adjustment (June 17, 2015 Memorandum)

18 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

### 28 | Page destroyed aircraft. For example, out of the 250 aircraft projected for 2022, 136 are reciprocating engine, 44 are turboprop, and 70 are turbojet. Thes e aircraft are projected to grow in the same proportion every year for a blen ded average retail price of $ 568,995 for a destroyed aircraft. Additionally, accidents labeled low effectiveness are assigned a .2 accident effectiveness rate, .5

for a medium accident effectiven ess rate, and .8 for high accident effectiveness rate. Table 5 quantifies the benefits of averted fatalities by calc ulating the projected future averted fatalities

from Table 4 times the VSL times the accident eff ectiveness rates above fo r the accidents labeled low, medium, or high. In a similar manner, Table 5 calculates the averted aircraft damage by the projected future averted aircraft damage from Table 4 times the average future aircraft value

discussed above times the accident effectiveness ra tes. Table 5 below shows these results. As the fleet increases each year with additional deliveri es, potential accidents increase, and so do the benefits of reducing such accidents.

### 29 | Page Table 5. Averted Benefit for Fatalities and Aircraft Damage from Stall Accidents*

YEAR Effectiveness Averted Fatalities Effectiveness Aircraft Damage TOTAL 7 Percent P.V. 3 Percent P.V. High Medium Low High Medium Low 2017 $0	 $0	 $0	 $0 $0 $0 $0	 $0 $0 2018 $0	 $0	 $0	 $0 $0 $0 $0	 $0 $0 2019 $0	 $0	 $0	 $0 $0 $0 $0	 $0 $0 2020 $0	 $0	 $0	 $0 $0 $0 $0	 $0 $0 2021 $0	 $0	 $0	 $0 $0 $0 $0	 $0 $0 2022 $78,135 $55,649 $24,531 $2,460 $1,537 $666 $162,978 $94,855 $128,656 2023 $156,270 $111,297 $49,062 $4,920 $3,075 $1,332 $325,956 $177,298 $249,818 2024 $234,406 $166,946 $73,592 $7,379 $4,612 $1,999 $488,934 $248,549 $363,813 2025 $312,541 $222,594 $98,123 $9,839 $6,150 $2,665 $651,912 $309,719 $470,955 2026 $390,676 $278,243 $122,654 $12,299 $7,687 $3,331 $814,890 $361,821 $571,548 2027 $468,811 $333,892 $147,185 $14,759 $9,224 $3,997 $977,868 $405,780 $665,881 2028 $546,946 $389,540 $171,716 $17,219 $10,762 $4,663 $1,140,846 $442,440 $754,234 2029 $625,082 $445,189 $196,247 $19,679 $12,299 $5,330 $1,303,824 $472,566 $836,875 2030 $703,217 $500,837 $220,777 $22,138 $13,836 $5,996 $1,466,802 $496,857 $914,063 2031 $781,352 $556,486 $245,308 $24,598 $15,374 $6,662 $1,629,780 $515,947 $986,044 2032 $859,487 $612,135 $269,839 $27,058 $16,911 $7,328 $1,792,758 $530,412 $1,053,056 2033 $937,622 $667,783 $294,370 $29,518 $18,449 $7,994 $1,955,736 $540,777 $1,115,329 2034 $1,015,758 $723,432 $318,901 $31,978 $19,986 $8,661 $2,118,714 $547,516 $1,173,081 2035 $1,093,893 $779,081 $343,431 $34,437 $21,523 $9,327 $2,281,692 $551,059 $1,226,522 2036 $1,172,028 $834,729 $367,962 $36,897 $23,061 $9,993 $2,444,670 $551,794 $1,275,855 Total $9,376,223 $6,677,833 $2,943,698 $295,178 $184,486 $79,944 $19,557,362 $6,247,390 $11,785,729 *These numbers are subject to rounding error. 

### Estimated safety benefits of avoiding roughl y 2 accidents on newly certificated part 23 airplanes over a 20-year period sums to a bout $19.6 million ($6.2 million at a seven percent present value rate and $11.8 million at a three pe rcent present value rate), however benefits would continue indefinitely into the future.

VI.2.b.	Icing 

### Currently, part 23 regulations define airplane performanc e, flight characteristics, powerplant and systems requirements for a part 23 applicant seeking optional certification for flight in icing conditions. Pa rt 23 defines Appendix C to part 25 as the icing conditions for which the above requirements mu st be shown. Certain icing conditions can be encountered which are not addressed in Appendix C to part 25. In the 1990s, the FAA became aware that the icing conditions considered dur ing the certification of airplane s and turbine aircraft engines

### 30 | Page needed to be expanded to increase the level of safety during flight in icing conditions. The FAA determined that the revised icing certification standards should include supercooled large drops (SLD, which consist of freezing drizzle and fr eezing rain), mixed phase, and ice crystals. Initially, only transport category airplanes were addressed. The FAA published amendments 25- 140 and 33-34, Airplane and Engine Certifica tion Requirements in Supercooled Large Drop (SLD), Mixed Phase, and Ice Crystal Icing C onditions, on November 4, 2014 (79 FR 65508) that expanded icing requirements for tr ansport category airp lanes and engines. However by February 19, 2010 an ARC was chartered to review and m odify proposed part 23 icing regulations and provide associated gui dance for part 23. The part 23 icing ARC examined incidents and accidents to identify those, which may be considered in the benefit analysis of the regulat ory evaluation. Three data sources were used - NTSB data, the FAA Accident/Incident Data System, and the NASA Av iation Safety Reporting System. For a fuller discussion see their Febr uary 2012 Part 23 Icing Aviation Rulemaking Committee Report. 19 

### Table 6 lists the U.S. accidents for part 23 airplanes, from 2005 to 2010, in which SLD was a probabl e cause or factor.

Table 6.

– Historical Events Applicable to SLD 

### DATE AC TYPE LOCATION FATAL INJURY HULL LOSS 01 / 03 / 2009 BE‐58 Brainerd , MN 0 0 SD 02 / 16 / 2007 CE‐340A Council Bluffs , IA 4 0 Yes 03 / 20 / 2006 PA‐23‐250 Em p oria , KS 0 1 SD 01 / 25 / 2006 CE‐421C Carson , W A 1 0 Yes 01 / 11 / 2005 BE‐65‐E90 Rawlins , W Y 3 1 Yes SD – substantial damage

19 PART 23 ICING AVIATION RULEMAKING COMMITTEE REPORT (FEB 2012 - Revision B) http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/co mmittees/documents/media /SLD%20ARC%20R eport.RevB. Feb%2010%202012.pdf

### 31 | Page Accidents listed in Table 6 prompted the pa rt 23 icing ARC to r ecommend adopting most of the part 25 proposed rules, including the requir ement to either show an airplane could safely fly in SLD conditions or show it can detect and safely exit those conditions. This proposed rule would require manufacturers, that choose to certify for flight in SLD, to meet the same safety standards as currently required in part 23 for the icing conditions defined in part 25, appendix C icing conditions. For those manufacturers who c hoose to prohibit flight in SLD and only certify to the icing conditions of part 25, appendix C, 20 

### the proposed rule would require a means for detecting SLD and showing the airplane can sa fely exit icing conditions (detect and exit). Current FAA guidance in Advisory Circular 23.1419-2D would be an acceptable means of compliance for this detect and exit proposed ru le. Based on the service history of part 23 airplanes certified to the current icing standards, the accidents listed in Table 6 could possibly be prevented by the proposed requirements. The FAA r eached out to industry about costs associated with meeting these proposed icing requirement s. Industry responded that these requirements would not impose additional costs because many manufacturers have already equipped their

aircraft to meet these standards for detecti ng and exiting SLD in accordance with current FAA guidance. In addition, industry noted that the standard would be optional since manufacturers are not required to certify their airc raft for flight in all or a portion of SLD conditions. When compliance is voluntary, or no change in industr y practice will occur from a new regulation, the

FAA determines both costs a nd benefits to be zero.

20 The FAA published Airplane and Engine Certification Requirements in Supercooled Large Drop, Mixed Phase, and Ice Crystal Icing Conditions, on November 4, 2014 (79 FR 65508) that expanded 14 CFR parts 25 and 33 icing requirements.

### 32 | Page VI.3	Cost	Savings 

### The current part 23 aircraft cer tification and approval process is prescriptive with specific performance and design requirements that imp act the industry’s ability to introduce new technology or to modify aircraft. The F AA accommodates the introduction of new and innovative technology or modifications by requi ring an applicant to provide additional information that explains the deviation from the existing rule. This process typically results in the issuance of special conditions, exemptions , and equivalent level of safety findings. 21 

### To streamline the certification process and encourag e the installation of new technology, the FAA is proposing a rule that would replace the prescripti ve requirements found currently in part 23, thus obviating the need for many of the exemptions, etc. The FAA proposes revising part 23 airworth iness standards by replacing current prescriptive design requirements with risk a nd performance based regulatory standards. To comply with the new performance-based standard s, manufacturers could continue to use the existing design standards as a means of complia nce, but could also use industry consensus standards, such as the ones currently being de veloped by ASTM, as well as any other means the manufacturer develops to demonstrate complian ce with the standard. This use of consensus standards is not a new practice. Industry standards bodies like RTCA, Inc., SAE International (SAE), ASTM International (ASTM), and th e European Organizati on for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE) have provided consensus st andards that have been accepted as means of compliance for decades. The FAA believes the proposed rule would provide a broad set of

21 Special Conditions give the manufacturer permission to build the aircraft, engine or propeller with additional capabilities not addressed in the regulations. A petition for exemption is a request to the FAA by an individual or entity asking for relief from the requirements of a regula tion. Equivalent level of safety findings are made when literal compliance with a certification regulation cannot be shown and compensating factors exist which can be shown to provide an equivalent level of safety. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library /rgWebcomponents.nsf/HomeFrame?OpenFrameset

### 33 | Page requirements that would allow more flexibility in airplane designs and fast er adoption of safety enhancing technology and significantly reduce the n eed and cost incurred for special conditions, exemptions and equivalent level of safety findings. A reduction in the number of special condi tions, ELOS, and exemptions would reduce paperwork and processing time for both the F AA and industry. It would also maintain the fundamental safety requirements from the current part 23 regulations but allow more flexibility in airplane designs, faster adoption of safety enhancing technology, and reduce the regulatory cost burden. To estimate savings driven by this change, the FAA counted the special conditions, ELOS, and exemption applications submitted to the FAA for part 23 aircraft between 2012 and 2013 and divided the number by two years for an average of 47 app lications per year. 22 

### The ARC report offered a similar average of 37 applications per year. 23 

### Additionally, the FAA counted the number of pages per application for all 47 applications to obtain an average number of pages per application. For special conditions, there were approximately 21 pages, 16 pages for an exemption, and 15 pages per ELOS application. Th e FAA assumes that the applicant and each FAA office that reviews the application spend 8 hours on research, coordination, and review per page. The ARC also noted “an ELOS finding or exemption can take the FAA between 4 to12 months to develop and approve. The applicant spends roughly the same amount of time as the FAA in proposing what they need and respondi ng to FAA questions for SC, exemption, or

ELOS.” 24

22 https://my.faa.gov/org/linebusine ss/avs/offices/air/tools/cert.html 23 A report from the 14 CFR Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Committee to the Federal Aviation Administration; Recommendation for increasing the safety of small general aviation airplanes certificated to 14 CFR part 23, June 5, 2013, Table 7.1 – Special Conditio ns, Exemptions, Equivalent Safety Findings, Page 55 24 Ibid., 54.

### 34 | Page The number of applications is multiplied by the number of pages and by the hourly wage for the applicant and different FAA offices to acc ount for the cost to the FAA and the applicant. The estimated hourly wage is $74.10 for a Small Airplane Directorate employee 25 

### , $50.75 for an Aircraft Certificate Office employee 26 

### , and $60.58 for an engineer 27 

### employed by the applicant. Annual cost equals the sum of the associated costs of special conditions, exemptions, plus equivalent level of safety. Yearly cost totals roughly $502,469 for the Small Airplane Directorate, $344,172 for Ai rcraft Certificate Offices, and $41 0,823 for the applicants. Tables 7, 8, and 9 show cost by office and applicant as well as by special condition, exemption, and ELOS.

25 2014 FAA Bay Band, Average K Band Salary (Res t of the U.S.) plus wage multiplier for benefits https://employees.faa.gov/org/staffoffices/ahr/program_po licies/policy_guidance/hr_policies/hrpm/comp/comp_ref/ 2014payadjustment/ 26 2014 FAA Bay Band, Average I Band Salary (Rest of the U.S.) plus wage multiplier for benefits https://employees.faa.gov/org/staffoffices/ahr/program_po licies/policy_guidance/hr_policies/hrpm/comp/comp_ref/ 2014payadjustment/ 27 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States, May 2014; Aerospace Engineer mean hourly wage, NAIC code 17-2011 plus wage multiplier for benefits http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#17- 0000 . A more detailed discussion is provided in the “Costs” section below.

### 35 | Page Table 7. Savings from Special Conditions (SC)*

Part 23 Section Avg. Number of SC (2012

‐ 2013) Avg. Number of

Pages FAA SAD FAA ACO Applicant

Man

‐ hours Savings Man

‐ hours Savings Man

‐ hours Savings 143 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 171 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 173 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 175 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 177 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 251 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 361 1 20.8 166 $12,330 166 $8,445 166 $10,081 562 1 20.8 166 $12,330 166 $8,445 166 $10,081 572 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 573 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 574 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 613 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 627 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 629 1.5 20.8 250 $18,495 250 $12,668 250 $15,121 901 1 20.8 166 $12,330 166 $8,445 166 $10,081 939 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 951 1 20.8 166 $12,330 166 $8,445 166 $10,081 961 1 20.8 166 $12,330 166 $8,445 166 $10,081 973 1 20.8 166 $12,330 166 $8,445 166 $10,081 977 1.5 20.8 250 $18,495 250 $12,668 250 $15,121 1141 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 1301 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 1305 1 20.8 166 $12,330 166 $8,445 166 $10,081 1308 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 1309 1 20.8 166 $12,330 166 $8,445 166 $10,081 1329 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 1337 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 1521 1 20.8 166 $12,330 166 $8,445 166 $10,081 1557 1 20.8 166 $12,330 166 $8,445 166 $10,081 3Pt Restraint with Airbag 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 Inflatable Restraint 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 Electronic Engine Controls 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 Fuel Jettisoning 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 Load Alleviation System 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 Side Facing Seat with Airbag 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 Totals 24.5 728 4077 $302,080 4077 $206,914 4077 $246,983 *These numbers are subject to rounding error.

### 36| Page Table 8. Savings from Exemptions*

Part 23 Section Avg. Number Exemptions (2012

‐ 2013) Avg. Number of Pages FAA SAD FAA ACO Applicant

Man

‐ hours Savings Man

‐ hours Savings Man

‐ hours Savings 1359 0.5 15.6 62.4 $4,624 62 $3,167 62 $3,780 1549 0.5 15.6 62.4 $4,624 62 $3,167 62 $3,780 177 0.5 15.6 62.4 $4,624 62 $3,167 62 $3,780 49 1 15.6 124.8 $9,247 125 $6,334 125 $7,561 562 1 15.6 124.8 $9,247 125 $6,334 125 $7,561 1419 0.5 15.6 62.4 $4,624 62 $3,167 62 $3,780 Totals 4 94 499 $36,989 499 $25,336 499 $30,243 *These numbers are subject to rounding error. Table 9. Savings from Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS)*

Part 23 Section Avg. Number ELOS (2012

‐ 2013) Avg. Number of Pages FAA SAD FAA ACO Applicant

Man

‐ hours Savings Man

‐ hours Savings Man

‐ hours Savings 145 1 14.9 119.2 $8,832 119 $6,050 119 $7,221 207 1 14.9 119.2 $8,832 119 $6,050 119 $7,221 672 0.5 14.9 59.6 $4,416 60 $3,025 60 $3,611 777 1.5 14.9 178.8 $13,249 179 $9,075 179 $10,832 779 0.5 14.9 59.6 $4,416 60 $3,025 60 $3,611 781 1.5 14.9 178.8 $13,249 179 $9,075 179 $10,832 807 0.5 14.9 59.6 $4,416 60 $3,025 60 $3,611 815 0.5 14.9 59.6 $4,416 60 $3,025 60 $3,611 841 1 14.9 119.2 $8,832 119 $6,050 119 $7,221 973 0.5 14.9 59.6 $4,416 60 $3,025 60 $3,611 1092 0.5 14.9 59.6 $4,416 60 $3,025 60 $3,611 1145 1 14.9 119.2 $8,832 119 $6,050 119 $7,221 1305 1.5 14.9 178.8 $13,249 179 $9,075 179 $10,832 1311 0.5 14.9 59.6 $4,416 60 $3,025 60 $3,611 1353 0.5 14.9 59.6 $4,416 60 $3,025 60 $3,611 1357 0.5 14.9 59.6 $4,416 60 $3,025 60 $3,611 1397 0.5 14.9 59.6 $4,416 60 $3,025 60 $3,611 1401 0.5 14.9 59.6 $4,416 60 $3,025 60 $3,611 1419 0.5 14.9 59.6 $4,416 60 $3,025 60 $3,611 1443 0.5 14.9 59.6 $4,416 60 $3,025 60 $3,611 1505 0.5 14.9 59.6 $4,416 60 $3,025 60 $3,611 1545 0.5 14.9 59.6 $4,416 60 $3,025 60 $3,611 1549 2.5 14.9 298 $22,081 298 $15,125 298 $18,054 Totals 19 343 2205 $163,400 2205 $111,923 2205 $133,597 *These numbers are subject to rounding error. 

### Using these yearly cost estimates, over 20 years $25.1 million in man-hours would be spent on applying for and processing special conditions, exemptions, and ELOS. However under the proposed rule, the FAA believes that the ne ed to demonstrate compliance through special conditions, exemptions, or ELOS would largely be eliminated. Instead new products will simply need to demonstrate compliance by followi ng consensus standards acceptable to the Administrator, or by submitting their own propos ed means of compliance using the process

### 37| Page outlined in proposed AC 23.10. 28 

### As a conservative estimate, the FAA estimates that special conditions, exemptions, and ELOS would be redu ced by half for a savings to the FAA and applicant of roughly $12.6 million ($5.8 million presen t value). Savings by year is shown in the chart below. The FAA asks for comment regardi ng the amount of reduction in the alternative means of compliance.

Table 10. Total Cost for Special Conditions, Exemptions, and ELOS* Year FAA SAD FAA ACO Applicant Total 2017 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2018 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2019 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2020 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2021 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2022 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2023 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2024 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2025 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2026 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2027 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2028 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2029 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2030 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2031 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2032 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2033 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2034 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2035 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 2036 $251,235 $172,086 $205,411 $628,732 Total $5,024,694 $3,441,724 $4,108,227 $12,574,646 *These numbers are subject to rounding error. 

### Additionally, current standards for the production approval can create a barrier for adoption of new, non-required and lo w risk articles suitable for installation on type-certificated aircraft in the existing fleet. To encourage a nd enable the installation of voluntary safety enhancements on these aircraft, the FAA is proposi ng to provide applicants with an alternative means to obtain FAA approval to produce replacem ent and modification articles. This proposed

28 See Section VI. Discussion of the Proposed Regulatory Am endments of the preamble for a discussion of how this might be accomplished.

### 38| Page change would provide a means that could be used to streamline the approval of these articles, which would facilitate the retrofit of safety enha ncing equipment in the existing fleet. Examples

of such articles include carbon monoxide detect ors, weather display syst ems, clocks, small handheld fire extinguishers, and flashlights. In many cases, these articles ar e “off-the-shelf products.” It is frequently difficult for a person to install thes e articles on a type certif icated aircraft because the level of design and production details necessary for these articles to meet the provisions of current § 21.9, as expected for more critic al articles, is frequently unavailable.

Therefore, the FAA is proposing to re vise § 21.9, Replacement and Modification Articles, to provide applicants with an alte rnative method to obtain FAA approval to produce replacement and modification articles. The FAA in tends to use the flexibility provided by this proposed change to streamline the approval proc ess for non-required safety enhancing equipment and other articles that pose li ttle or no risk exposure to ai rcraft occupants and the public.

Moreover, an applicant for supplemental type ce rtificate can elect to comply with the new requirement, instead of the original certification basis for the airplane and could possibly see the same benefits expected for new type certifi cates. The FAA received 211 part 23 STCs in 2012

and 210 in 2013. The FAA asserts that a certain nu mber of STCs submitte d yearly would benefit from this requirement and specifically request s comments regarding whether the proposed change would safely facilit ate retrofit of low risk articles and by how much.

VI.4.	Qualitat ive	Benefits 

### The FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Pl ans (APO) asked the Volpe Center to investigate whether performance- based regulation (PBR) or str eamlining of regulatory approval

### 39| Page via use of industry consensus standards in other sectors has resulted in the positive outcomes anticipated in relation to the part 23 reorganization. Regarding the use of PBR, the Volpe research found the following:

 The available literature is pract ically unanimous in the asser tion that PBR would result in lower costs for industry, i.e. higher efficiency.

 Performance-based standards will not by them selves spur innovation and progress toward new safety features.

 If the regulating agen cy wishes to promote diffusion of certain technologies, PBR is capable of serving that function.

 To the extent that design standards inhibit competition in a market, moving to performance standards may increase competiti on and foster growth in the market. In addition, the use of PBR can facilitate the use of cost saving measures and remove barriers to innovation. In turn, lower prices and innovative product features can spur demand and revitalize an industry.

 Based on the experience of the LSA segment, it appears that using consensus standards as a way of streamlining the aircraft certifica tion process has resulte d in lower costs of

certification and facilitate d the introduction of ne w and innovative designs. Based on the Volpe findings, it appears likely that adopting PBR as a method of safety regulation for part 23 small general aviation aircra ft could result in many of the positive impacts mentioned as objectives of the “Small Aircra ft Revitalization Act of 2013.” However, the magnitude of the positive impacts would be dete rmined by how much free dom and flexibility the new performance standards actually provide. Providing guidance on “means of compliance” through consensus standards would assist manufact urers in developing methods for meeting the

### 40| Page performance standards. However, Volpe warns that those consensus standard s may turn out to be de facto design standards and erode th e potential benefits of adopting PBR

. 

### The FAA would require that manufacturers submit consensus standards for FAA acceptance to avoid this

scenario.

For more details, see “The Economic and Safety Impacts of Performance-Based Regulation and Consensus Standards” Volpe document in the docket.

### 41| Page 

## VII. Costs

VII.1. Introduction

The	Federal	Aviation	Administrat ion	(FAA)	is	proposing	to	revis e	the	airworthiness standards	for	normal,	utility,	a crobatic,	and	co mmuter	category part	23	airplanes	by	removing current	weight	and	propulsion	ba sed	prescriptive	airworthiness requirements	and	replacing	those requirements	with	performance	an d	risk	based	regulatory	standar ds 

### . The majority of the prescriptive design requirements and methods of compliance found in current rules would no longer be regulatory and would be found in mean s of compliance documents after the publication

of the final rule. The FAA believes this action w ould provide a set of requirements that would allow more flexibility in airp lane designs and faster adopti on of safety enhancing technology while maintaining a high level of safety. The FAA is also reorganizing most of the cu rrent part 23 sections . In the NPRM, the FAA provides a table mapping the current CF R sections to the proposed sections. 29 

### The FAA expects that many of the current part 23 requireme nts would not change but will be transferred to other documents, and therefore would be cost/saf ety neutral. These other documents include MOC, AC, Airworthiness Design Standards (ADS ), and ASTM documents. In the following section, we discuss this in more detail. In December 2014, the FAA met and discussed the proposed part 23 requirements with the part 23 Reorganization ARC. We then prov ided the ARC with a draft document, which included the provisions we intended to propose. The costs estimated in this section are based on the discussions and documents FAA provided the ARC in that meeting.

29 The NPRM can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/ at the docket number FAA-2 015-1621. The table also shows the new requirements discussed below that the FAA is proposing in this rulemaking.

### 42| Page This chapter also discusses the FAA’s estimate of costs for the proposed changes that would add requirements to the part 23 certificatio n process for new applicants. The other costs include additional training costs for engineers to familiarize themselves with the new rule, type certification manual update cost s, and type certification database update costs. VII.2.	Discussion	of	Proposed	Mini mal	to	No	Costs	Part	23	Secti ons 

### Currently, the ASTM standards organization is developing a set of consensus standards based on the current part 23 regulations for F AA acceptance. The ASTM standards would be one way, but not the only way, to demonstrate co mpliance to the proposed part 23 performance

standards. 30 

### At this time, the FAA has not accepted any consensus standards as a means of compliance. The FAA would still conduct an asse ssment to make sure that the airplane design and the proposed consensus standa rds meet the performance standard s in the current regulations. In addition, once the FAA has accepted a design feat ure in a consensus sta ndard, other designers

and manufacturers that wish to include that feature could refere nce the standard. The assumption of minimal cost to the proposal ’s changes assumes these consensus standards become available for use as a means of compliance. 31 

### The FAA would continue to accept complian ce with current part 23 as a means of compliance for new type certifications with th e exception of the new provisions, which would need to be included in the certification. The propos ed regulations would ma ke the retrofit of new

30 If a manufacturer chose to use its own means of comp liance, we would use the same process used today to evaluate alternatives. 31 FAA believes that it may experience some workload increase during the transition period to using the new rule along with means of compliance. But this has been accounted for in the transition training effort and we believe that the increased means of compliance revi ew will be offset by the reduced numb er of issue paper related rulemaking (special conditions). We also believe that in the long term, after FAA and industry are comfortable with the new system, the workload on the FAA will be lower than today.

### 43| Page technology more straightforward without the need for as many special conditions, equivalent level of safety findings (ELOS), or exempti ons. The FAA believes the proposed regulations would also remove barriers to bringing new, sa fer airplane designs to market with similar benefits. The proposal would decrease the time and expense to the FAA and the industry of working in the current prescriptive regulatory environment while concurrently improving the safety and health of GA. The in ternational aviation industry, in cluding representatives from the world’s leading aviation au thorities not only agree with this approach, but are currently working with us to meet this goal. This proposal would clear paths to compliance for a multitude of technologies, which would be available through the consensus standard s approach. For the majority of this proposal, the means of compliance with the FAA’s proposed performance regulations would be cost/safety neutral because the means of compliance in the ASTM or other

documents would be no more burdensome than today’s prescriptive part 23 requirements established through the cu rrent amendment level.

The FAA seeks comments from manufacturers on the effect of this proposal’s changes on the part 23 type certification pr ocess. Specifically, the FAA is seeking data on how the costs would change between today’s type certificati on processes, versus the type certification processes proposed in this rulemaking. The FAA is also seeking comments, with supporting documentation, on the flexibility this proposal would offer for the type certification of new part 23 airplanes and what manufacturers would be doing differently because of this proposal. We are also proposing to promote the devel opment of entry-level airplanes similar to

those certified in other countries under the Europ ean certification specific ations for very light aeroplanes (CS-VLA) by expanding the range of ai rplanes that can be cer tificated under part 23. Airplanes that meet the requirements of CS-VLA can be currently certific ated in accordance with

### 44| Page § 21.17 for special classes of aircraft. The propos al would permit a manufacturer to use part 23 to certificate an airplane designed in accordance with the European CS-VLA standards. The FAA believes that this proposal would be cost/saf ety neutral for airplanes that meet CS-VLA. The FAA requests comments on any increase in cost s from permitting a manufacturer to use part 23 to certificate an airplane de signed in accordance with the European CS-VLA standards or §

21.17. Proposed § 23.5 would require th at airplanes approved for spins be certificated to aerobatic standards. An airplane designed with traditional handling qualities and designed to allow spin training is more susceptible to inad vertent departure from controlled flight. The FAA believes that maintaining the current utility ca tegory for airplanes approved for spinning and limited aerobatic maneuvers would negate the singl e largest safety gain expected from this rulemaking action—the significant reduction in in advertent stall-related departures from controlled flight. The FAA believes this new requirement would have little effect on the industry. The only time the FAA requires spin training is for the instructor cer tificate, and that is for only one flight. In addition, many flight schools are already using acroba tic airplanes for spin training because they spin better. And finally, co nsider that it would ta ke a decade or more before the current fleet of utility category airplane s would have to be replaced, we do not see this

as an issue. Also, the FAA proposes moving away from th e current stall characteristics and spin testing approach to address the largest cause of fatal accidents in small airplanes. Proposed § 23.215 in subpart B would omit the one turn/three second spin requirement for normal category airplanes, but it would increase th e stall handling characteristics and stall warning requirements so the airplane would be substant ially more resistant to stall-ba sed departures than the current

### 45| Page rules require. This is a techni cal discussion addressing some of the flight schools concerns about spin training. The argument that the FAA has heard from the flight schools is that because they have not had problems we should not change the proposed rule from what we have today. We compromised in that as long as we can have the sa fer, stall resistant airp lane when a family of three or four flies the airplane, they can have an airplane that with a maintenance change to a different configuration, could be used for spin training. The proposed rule changes behind this topic are discussed in the Preamble and the additional cost are discussed below in the “Discussion of Proposed Sections Th at Could Add Costs” section. This proposal is also adding regulations to improve the sa fety of part 23 airplanes certified for flight in icing by a ddressing icing conditions that are not currently included in part 23. This would be accomplished by incorporating recommendations from the part 23 Icing ARC. Prior to the Part 23 Reorganization Av iation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), the Part 23 Icing ARC recommended revising part 23 to in corporate supercooled large drop (SLD) icing requirements into subparts B, E, and F. The pr oposed icing regulations would require airplanes certificated to fly into known icing conditions to meet the same safety standards in SLD icing conditions as currently required in part 25, if the applicant chooses to certify the airplane for flight in all or a portion of SLD. For those airplanes that only cer tify to the icing conditions in appendix C to part 25, the proposed regulations would require a means for detecting SLDs and showing the airplane can safely exit the icing conditions. The FAA determined that the service history of part 23 airplanes certif ied to the latest icing standards have shown these standards to provide an adequate level of safety for SLD “detect and exit” airplanes. In December 2014, the FAA met and discussed the proposed icing requirements with the part 23 Reorganization ARC. The icing requirem ents discussed with the ARC do not differ from

### 46| Page those set forth in this proposal. Since this meeting, industry has reviewed the icing requirements we provided along with the draft ASTM icing standards. Base d on this information, industry believes the proposed icing requirements are cost and safety neutral as the proposal reflects current industry practices for detecting and sa fely exiting SLD conditions. Industry does not believe they will certify a part 23 airplane for flight in SLD conditions. The FAA requests comments, with supporting documentation, on any incremental costs proposed §§ 23.257 and 23.1419 could add to the new part 23 certification process. Additionally, this proposal would amend parts 21, 43, 91, 121, and 135 to maintain consistency and alignment with the new part 23. These would be conforming changes and are not expected to add costs. VII.3.	Discussion	of	Proposed	Se ctions	That	Could	Add	Costs 

### When the FAA and members from the part 23 Reorganization ARC met in December 2014, the FAA provided the ARC with a draft documen t, which included provisions we intended to propose. The FAA believes this proposal would not have any increase in scope from the draft document we provided. The costs estimated in this section are based on the discussions and documents the FAA provided the ARC in the December 2014 meeting and the assumption that the baseline for estimating the co sts of the proposed rule would be part 23, through the current

amendment level. The FAA analyzed the expected costs of the prop osed rule over the analysis interval. The major factors driving the expect ed costs of this proposal are the additional training tasks, database development, and documentation to FAA and industry part 23 cer tification engineers. The following sections discuss the FAA estimate of the number of part 23 certification and industry engineers who would be have to receive training becaus e of this proposed rulemaking.

### 47| Page We also discuss the FAA estimate of their salaries in order to estimate training costs. We then discuss the provisions that a dd costs, and the methodology the FAA employed, to estimate the

total incremental costs of this proposed rule, over what is currently required, based upon FAA and industry unit cost estimates. VII.3.a.	Annual	and	Hourly	Wages	and	Benefits 

### In this section, we discuss th e part 23 certification engine ering wages the FAA uses in this analysis. This sectio n also discusses the source we used for the wages. The proposed requirements contains provisions for persons to p erform additional engineering duties in designing, constructing, training, and testi ng airplanes from what is currently required in part 23 up through the current amendment level. These engineers may conduct basic and applied research to evaluate adaptability of materi als and equipment to airplane design and manufacture and may recomm end improvements in testing equipment and techniques. In May 2014, BLS published the National I ndustry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for Support Activities for Ai r Transportation. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for Suppor t Activities for Air Tr ansportation is 488100. 32 

### The major group for Aerospace Engineer s under the 488100 NAICS code is 17-2011. 33 

### The FAA believes that the 17-2011 survey is the appropr iate wage to estimate the salary of the part 23 certification engineers affected by the proposed rule. The BLS survey lists the mean hourly wage for aerospace engineer as $51.78. The cost analysis uses the mean hourly wage of $51.78 for part 23 certification engineers to estimate th e additional costs the proposal adds for training

32 http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_488100.htm#17-0000 33 http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172011.htm

### 48| Page tasks. The FAA notes that the survey lists the annual mean salary range for aerospace engineers, by area in the contin ental United States, from $66,110 to $155,240. In addition, aerospace engineer be nefits (such as health benef its, vacation, sick time, etc.) must be added to estimate the costs for this analysis. Using the guidance from the “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation – D ecember 2014” study of employee benefits , 34 

### the FAA uses the wage multiplier for benefits equaling 1.17. Therefore, the FAA calculated the mean hourly wage, plus benefits, for a part 23 cer tification engineer to be $60.58 ($51.78 + $8.80).

VII.3.b.	Estimated	Costs	for	Pro posed	§	23.200	Controllability



### There is a detailed discussion in the Preamble on the FAA proposing to eliminate commuter, utility, and acrobatic airplane categorie s in part 23, retaining only normal category for all new part 23 type certificat ed airplane design approvals an d instead proposing the following airplane certification levels:

 Level 1 – for airplanes with a maximum s eating configuration of 0 to 1 passengers.

 Level 2 – for airplanes with a maximum sea ting configuration of 2 to 6 passengers.

 Level 3 – for airplanes with a maximum sea ting configuration of 7 to 9 passengers.

 Level 4 – for airplanes with a maximum sea ting configuration of 10 to 19 passengers. In order to estimate costs for §§ 23.200 and 23.215, the following two sections discuss the mapping of the reciprocating, turboprop, and turb ojet airplanes presen ted in the “Fleet Discussion” section into the proposed airplane certif ication levels.

34 On January 30, 2014, the DOT published a memo on “Estimating Total Costs of Compensation Based on Wage Rates or Salaries”. The memo direct s the FAA that when a rule requires incremental hours per existing employee, the wage/salary multiplier is of smaller magnitude because not all categories of employer provided benefits increase with additional hours worked by an individual employee.

### 49| Page Proposed § 23.200 should prevent level 1 a nd 2 multiengine airplanes from losing

directional control af ter a critical loss of thrust. The FAA and industry believe that proposed § 23.200 would increase the burden for certain multi-engine airplanes because it may require additional testing costs and include a cost for a change to a lim itation or performance number in the flight manual. At the time of this writing, there was no consensus between the FAA and the ARC on a means to demonstrate compliance with proposed § 23.200. What is currently being discussed is a relatively simple test that could be performed as part of a single test plan doing multiple tests on a flight. Industry believes that this simple test to comply with the proposed change and has provided the FAA with estimated costs of $100,000 to $200,000. Therefore, the FAA uses $150,000 (($100,000 + $200,000)/2) as an average cost to demonstrate and test for this more prescriptive requirement. This would be a one-time cost per new type certification. In addition, proposed § 23.200 could result in a change to a limitation or a performance number in the flight manual. Industry believe s that this proposed ch ange could cost from $100,000 to $150,000. Therefore, the FAA uses $125,000 (($100,000 + $150,000)/2) as an average cost for this proposed change. There would also be additional paperwork asso ciated with this requirement that is not part of the costs discussed above. The FAA es timates the paperwork costs for these proposed provisions by multiplying the number of hours the FAA estimates for each page of paperwork, by the number of pages for the training courseware , or flight manual, by the hourly rate of the person responsible for the update. The Small Airc raft Directorate of the FAA provided average hourly times and the number of additional page s of paperwork the proposal would add. The

FAA estimates that this section would add a total of four pages to the training courseware and

### 50| Page flight manual. The FAA also estimates that it would take a part 23 certifica tion engineer eight hours to complete the one page required for each new type certificati on. The eight hours to complete a page includes the research, coor dination, and review each document requires. Therefore, the FAA estimates the total pa perwork costs for proposed controllability section would be about $1,939 (8 hours * 4 pages * $60.58 per hour) in 2014 dollars. From Appendix 2 and the “Fleet Discussion” section above, we calculated that there would be two part 23 reciprocating engine future type certificates. From Appendix 2 and the

“Fleet Discussion” sectio n, 96% of the historical reciprocat ing engine airplanes delivered had one-engine; therefore, proposed § 23.200 would not a dd costs to future type certificated part 23 reciprocating engi ne airplane. Also from the Appendix 2 and the “Fleet Discussion” secti on, 100 percent of the historical turbojet airplanes de livered had two engines, but ab out 46 percent could be produced with only six seats. Therefore the FAA assu mes that proposed §23.200 would add costs to one of the new turbo jet airplane type certificates calc ulated above. Again, from Appendix 2 and the “Fleet Discus sion” section, 56 percen t of the historical turboprop airplanes delivered had two engines, but 97 percent have greater than six seats. Therefore the FAA assumes that proposed § 23.200 would not add costs to future type certificated multiengine turboprop airplanes. The FAA and industry believe that for the rest of the changes in this proposed controllability section, there is no significant cost impact becau se there is no difference than what is required today, although in the future, there may be some cost savings once consensus standards have been developed. Table 11 shows the total costs for the proposed changes to the controllability section.

### 51| Page Table 11. Estimate Costs for Proposed Controllability Section (2014 $)

Airplane Number of Estimated New Type Certificates Affected by § 23.200 Training Costs Changes to Flight Manual Paper Work Total Recip	 0	 $150,000		 $125,000		 $1,939		 $0 Turboprop	 0	 $150,000		 $125,000		 $1,939		 $0 Turbojet	 1	 $150,000		 $125,000		 $1,939		 $276,939 Total $276,939 *These numbers are subject to rounding error.



### The FAA notes that a multi-engine part 23 airc raft manufacturer could decide it wants to comply with § 23.200(b) by making the airplane ca pable of climbing afte r a critical loss by installing larger engines. Both the FAA and i ndustry believes that this option would reduce the utility of the airplane so much it would not be a marketable product. We request comments, with supporting cost documentation, on the feasibility of part 23 aircraft manufacturer deciding if it wants to make the airplane capable of climbing af ter a critical loss by inst alling larger engines.

VII.3.c.	§23.215	Stall	Characteri stics,	Stall	Warning,	and	Spin s 

### The FAA is proposing to increase the stall re quirements for level 1and level 2 airplanes and level 3 single engine airplane s to provide some le vel of spin resistance or protection from inadvertently departing controlled flight. The F AA and industry believes that the majority of the proposed changes to § 23.215 are not significantly di fferent than what is currently required today and therefore the testing costs fo r this new proposed requirement would not be significant. Section 23.215(b) is a new requirement that would likely increase the burden for all newly certificated, level 1 or level 2, single and multi-engine reciprocating, turboprop, and turbojet airplanes not cer tified for aerobatics. In addition, this section al so applies to all newly certificated level 3 part 23 ai rplanes with one-engine not cert ified for aerobatics. Section

### 52| Page 23.215(b) requires these airplanes mu st not have a tendency to ina dvertently depart controlled flight. Industry was not able to provide an es timate on this provision’s effect on multi-engine airplanes. Since 1980 there have only been two light twin engine (l evel 2) airplanes certified and

the certifications were validations of foreign designs. T hus, we seek comment, with supporting documentation, on the cost of this provision and a ny plans for U.S. manuf acturers to certificate future new light twin engine airplanes. From Appendix 2 and the “Fleet Discussi on” section, 100 percent of the historical reciprocating engine airplanes ha d six or fewer seats and would fall under the level 1 or level 2 airplane classification. Therefor e the two new part 23 reciproca ting engine type certificates,

calculated in the “F leet Discussion” section, would have to comply with this section. In addition, 97 percent of the hi storical turboprop airplanes, analyzed in Appendix 2 and the “Fleet Discussion” section, had 10 or more seat s. Therefore, we assume that any new part 23 turboprop airplane certifications would be a level 4 airplane that would continue to meet the current requirements for this section and therefore have no additional costs. Lastly, 92% of the historical turbojet airplanes, analyzed in Appendix 2 and the “Fleet Discussion” section, have fewer than 10 seats. Also from Appendix 2 and the “Fleet Discussion” section, we estimated that there would be two ne w future part 23 turbojet type certificates. Therefore, two new part 23 turbojet engine U.S. type certificates would have to comply with this

section. The FAA is unaware of any U.S. manufacturer who currently has made an application to type certificate a part 23 multi-engine level 1 or level 2 airplane. Industry has also expressed

there is not sufficient demand for new level 1 or le vel 2 type certificated multi-engine airplanes. Therefore, the FAA assumes there would be no cost s for level 1 or level 2 multi-engine airplanes

### 53| Page and we request comments, with supporting cost documentation and estimates on the time frames

and number of new U.S. manufactured level 1 or level 2 multi-engine type certificates, for this assumption.

According to discussions with industry, th e FAA believes that level 3 multiengine airplanes and level 4 airplanes cont inue to meet current requiremen ts and, therefore, future type certificates of these airplanes would incur no additional costs fr om this proposed requirement. Industry believes that this proposed change could cost somewhere in the range of $100,000 to $150,000 for a new type certificated ai rplane. Therefore, the FAA uses $125,000 (($100,000 + $150,000)/2) as an average cost to demons trate and test for this proposed change.

This would be a one-time cost per new type certification. The FAA and industry believe that for the rest of changes in this section there is no significant cost impact because there is no difference than what is required today. Table 12 shows the total costs for the proposed changes to the controllability section.

Table 12. Estimate Costs for Proposed Stall and Spin Section (2014 $)

Airplane Number of Estimated New Type Certificates Costs Total Recip 2 $125,000 $250,000 Turboprop 0 $125,000 $0 Turbojet 2 $125,000 $250,000 Total $500,000

VII.3.d.	Additional	Training	Costs 

### FAA and industry certification engineers woul d need training on how to implement the new requirements. A good part of the training would be involved in explaining the new process and how to relate the accepted means of complian ce to the new regulations. In this section, we first discuss our estimate of the number of part 23 FAA and industry certif ication engineers that

### 54| Page would require additional training because of this proposed rulemaking. Ne xt, we describe the costs to develop the training programs necessary to implement the rule. We then estimate the training costs for this proposal to both FAA and industry. The Planning and Program Management Divi sion of the FAA Airc raft Certification Service (AIR-500) provided th e number of engineers who s upport the part 23 certification requirements. Once the rule is published, there woul d be an initial effort on both the part of the FAA and industry to trai n their engineers. There are currently 669 part 23 FAA certification engineers a nd we expect the number of engineers will stay reasonably flat until the time a final rule is published. The FAA estimates that 50 percent of these part 23 FAA certificat ion engineers, or 335, would require additional training to implement this proposal. 35 

### The FAA assumes, based on FAA Small Aircraft Directorate expert judgment, that the same number of industry part 23 certific ation engineers would also require additi onal training necessary to implement th e rule; therefore, we assume that there are 335 industry cert ification engineers who w ould also require training. Due to retirement or attrition, the FAA a nd industry would have to hire new part 23 certification engineers. The init ial training program for new engi neers would include the training necessary to implement the rule when they are hired, and therefore we be lieve that there would not be any recurrent costs from this propos al to newly hired pa rt 23 FAA and industry certification engineers. The FAA estimates that it would cost $250,000 to develop the structur ed training on part 23 for the FAA certification engineer staff. The co st to deliver the training is dependent on the

35 Most of the work in the FAA certification offices is part 25 or part 25 based. We believe that engineers who will be needed to focus on part 23 projects and older small airplanes represent about half of our engineering workforce.

### 55| Page type of training developed, but at this time, we plan on providing the course on-line so that the

course could be delivered to FAA staff. The FAA estimates that it would take most engineers two days (16 hours) to take the on-line traini ng. This would be a one- time cost per new type certification. The FAA is anticipating the two days of training would encompass the following topics: 1. Background/history – addressing why we are making this change to part 23, 2. Rule language – go over the specific ne w language, how it relates to amendment 62 languages, and the intent of the new language, 3. ASTM Means of Compliance – go over the means of compliance and how it links to the rule language. This would be interwoven with item #2, and 4. Work through a number of examples focusing on difficult and unusual STC projects.

The FAA assumes it would cost the same for i ndustry to develop thei r structured training class and that the same number of industry part 23 certification engine ers would also require additional training from this proposal. The FAA notes that any paperwor k costs discussed in this se ction would be part of the initial $250,000 cost to develop the training materials. Therefore, the FAA estimates the total tr aining costs to FAA and industry part 23 certification engineers would be about $500,000 (2 * $250,000) to develop the on-line training material and $649,000 (2 * (16 hours * 335 engineers * $60.58 per hour)) to tr ain the engineers.

Table 13 shows the calculation of these trai ning costs to both th e FAA and industry.

### 56| Page Table 13. Training Costs (2014 $) Development of on ‐ line training Training Hours Number of Engineers Hourly Wage Total FAA $250,000 16 335 $60.58 $574,709 Industry $250,000 16 335 $60.58 $574,709 Total $1,149,418 *These numbers are subject to rounding error.

VII.3.e.	Type	Certificatio n	Manual	Update	Costs 

### The FAA is expecting part 23 airplane ma nufacturers to update their engineering procedures manuals to reflect the changes from this proposed rulemaking. However, most of the engineering procedures manuals are not written around the requirements of part 23, but around the requirements of part 21. Since the part 23 changes would have minimal impact on the part 21 requirements, there should be little change in the engineering procedures manuals. Conversations with industry in dicate that there may need to be some changes to the engineering manuals to describe how the accepte d means of compliance must be related to the regulations. Depending on the complexity of eac h company’s manual, industry estimates that these changes could run from about $50,000 up to $200,000. This would be a one-time cost per new type certification. Since the FAA is unable to determine the complexity of each company’s manual, we

assume that the manufacturers of the two new part 23 reciprocating engine airplane type certifications, discussed in the “Fleet Discu ssion” section, would spend $50,000 to make the changes to the engineering manual. We also as sume that the one new part 23 turboprop airplane certification and the two new part 23 turbojet airplane certifications, discussed in the “Fleet Discussion” section, would use the more complex and costly approach of $200,000. The FAA notes that either the simple appro ach or the more complex approach to updating

the manuals could also either take place in-house or could be cont racted out to a consultant.

### 57| Page Table 14 shows the total costs for the proposed changes to the controllability section.

Table 14. Estimate Costs for Updating Engineering Manuals (2014 $)

Airplane Number of Estimated New Type Certificates Simple Approach Complex Approach Total Recip 2 $50,000 $0 $100,000 Turboprop 1 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Turbojet 2 $0 $200,000 $400,000 Total $700,000 *These numbers are subject to rounding error.

VII.3.f.	Type	Certificatio n	Database	Update	Costs 

### Currently, manufacturers have certification complia nce databases that are used to create a compliance checklist that is used to identify who is finding compliance to each regulation, how they are finding compliance, (i.e. analysis, test, et c.), and where the substantiation is documented such as a report number, revision, title, etc. Th e manufacturers may also tie a schedule or other facts pertaining to the regulation in the complia nce checklist database. This may be one of the more significant one-time costs to revise th e programs to accommodate the new proposed regulation because this database has to referen ce the methods of compliance associated with the proposed regulation, or this coul d be a cross-reference between the various old regulations and the proposed regulations, or this could contain the testing or analysis nece ssary to comply with the proposal.

The FAA understands from discussions with in dustry that part 23 ai rplane manufacturers plan to use a product similar to Microsoft EXCE L to create this certification database in a spreadsheet with cross reference tables. Th is approach may not be acceptable for large companies with large production capacity, more co mplicated airplanes, and multiple certification

processes.

### 58| Page For a company that is using an EXCEL spr eadsheet to perform this tracking, industry

estimates that the total cost to make the necessa ry changes to a spreadsheet database to range from $100,000 to $200,000 per certification. Therefore, the FAA uses $150,000 (($100,000 + $200,000)/2) as an average cost to make the necessary changes to a spreadsheet database for a

small manufacturer. Since the FAA is unable to determine whether a manufacturer would be using a simple EXCEL spreadsheet to create th is certification database , we assume that the manufacturers of the two new part 23 reciprocating engine airplane type certifications, estimated in the “Fleet Discussion” section, would use the simple approach. For manufacturers that have a production capac ity and multiple certification processes, industry estimates that a programmer could spen d up to six months of full time programing to make this change to a simple compliance databa se. A more complex program may take between one to one and a half years for a programmer to make the necessary programming changes. Industry estimates that the cost for the programmi ng changes to the certification database would range from $100,000 to $300,000. Therefore, the FAA uses $200,000 (($100,000 + $300,000)/2) as an average cost to make the nece ssary programming changes to a more complex

certification database. In addition, this task would also require so me engineering support effort that industry estimates could be about 25 percent to 50 percent of the time that a programmer takes. Industry estimates that the cost for engineer s upport could range from $37,500 to $225,000, depending on the complexity of the aircraft, to assist in making the programming changes to the certification

database. 36 

### Therefore, the FAA uses $131,250 (($37,500 + $225,000)/2) as an average cost for

36 Part 23 aircraft range from simple reversible control, lo w technology aircraft to complex irreversible control, high technology aircraft which affect s the amount of programming necessa ry for a certification database.

### 59| Page engineering support to make the necessary change s to a more complex certification database.

This would be a one-time cost per new type certification. The FAA notes that either the simple EXCEL approach or the more complex approach to creating this certification database could also either take place in house or could be contracted

out to a consultant.

Since the FAA is unable to determine whether a manufacturer would have a more complex production capacity and multiple certific ation processes involved with creating this certification database, we assume that the ma nufacturers of the one new part 23 turboprop airplane certifications, and two new part 23 turb ojet airplane certifications, estimated in the

“Fleet Discussion” section would use the more complex and costly approach. Table 15 shows the total costs for the proposed changes to the controllability section.

Table 15. Estimate Costs for Creating a Certification Database (2014 $)

Airplane Number of Estimated New Type Certificates EXCEL approach Programming support Engineering support Total Recip 2 $150,000 $0 $0 $300,000 Turboprop 1 $0 $200,000 $131,250 $331,250 Turbojet 2 $0 $200,000 $131,250 $662,500 Total $1,293,750

VII.3.g.	Summary	of	Costs 

### The proposed rules’ major costs are the engi neer training costs and the certification

database creation costs. Additional costs woul d also accrue from the controllability and stall sections that increase scope over current requirements and the manual upgrade costs.

### 60| Page In Table 16, we summarize the total estimat ed compliance costs by category. The FAA

notes that since we assumed that all costs occurred in Year 1 of the analysis interval, the 2014 dollar costs equal the present value costs.

Table 16. Total Cost Summary by Category

Type of Cost Total Costs (2014$) and P.V. §23.200 Controllability $276,939 §23.215 Stall characteristics, stall warning, and spins $500,000 Engineer Training Costs $1,149,418 Certification Database Costs $1,293,750 Manual Upgrade Costs $700,000 Total Costs $3,920,106 *These numbers are subject to rounding error.



### The FAA estimated the averag e additional cost from this proposal, per reciprocating engine airplane, turboprop airpla ne, and turbojet airplane type certification by dividing the total costs by category the number of estimated new certifications from th e “Fleet Discussion” section. We then summed these average costs by category. The results are shown in Table 17

below.

Table 17. Average Additional Cost per Type Certificate by Engine Category Engine §23.200 §23.215 Training Database Manual Total Recip $0		 $125,000		 $229,884		 $150,000	 $50,000 $554,884 TP $0		 $0		 $229,884		 $331,250	 $200,000 $761,134 TJ $276,939		 $125,000		 $229,884		 $331,250	 $200,000 $1,163,072 *These numbers are subject to rounding error.

### 61| Page 

## VIII. Benefit

‐ Cost Summary The major safety benefit of this proposed ru le is to add stall characteristics and stall warnings that would result in ai rplane designs that are more re sistant to inadvertently depart controlled flight. The largest number of accide nts for part 23 airplanes involves a stall or departure-based LOC in flight. Additional benefi ts are that the current part 23 regulations are prescriptive and hinder the indus try’s ability to introduce new te chnology; this proposal would result in cost savings by streamlining the ce rtification process a nd encouraging new and innovative technology. Streamlinin g the certification process would reduce the issuance of special conditions, exemptions, and e quivalent level of safety findings. The proposed rule’s major costs are the engi neer training costs and the certification

database creation costs. Additional costs woul d also accrue from the controllability and stall sections that increase scope over current requirements and the manual upgrade costs. In addition, if the proposed rule would save only one human life by improving stall characteristics and stall warnings that alone w ould result in benefits outweighing the costs. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that the proposed rule would be net beneficial. The FAA has analyzed the benefits and the costs associated with this NPRM. The following table show s these results.

Table 18. Estimated Benefits and Costs from 2017 to 2036 (2014 $ Millions)

Costs Safety Benefits + Cost Savings

= Total Benefits Total	 $3.9 $19.6 +	$12.6	=	$32.2 7	percent	P.V. $3.9 $6.2 +	$5.8		=	$12.0 3	percent	P.V. $3.9 $11.8	+	$8.8	=	$20.6

### 62| Page 

## IX. Sensitivity Discussion

Earlier in this analysis the FAA discussed both the “The Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013” and how performance-based regulati ons, or streamlining of regulatory approval via use of industry consensus standards, could resu lt in decreasing certificat ion costs. The use of consensus standards as a means of compliance to the proposed performa nce based regulations review could reduce the cost of introducing new de signs and increase the nu mber of future part 23 type certificates. ASTM International has developed light sport aircraft (LSA) consensus standards. In a paper available on the ASTM website, ASTM cite s the success of its LSA consensus standards resulting in numerous new aircra ft designs has been developed. The authors of the paper believe the LSA consensus standards substantially reduce the cost to certify a new LSA aircraft model relative to the traditional part 21 requirements. 37 

### In 2008, ASTM reported that 76 new aircraft designs were developed as a result of the ASTM design standards. 38 

### Currently there are over 130 new LSA designs suggesting that over the last six years, on aver age nine new designs per year

have been introduced. The FAA believes that once promulgated, th is proposal could enable new part 23

manufacturers to both enter the marketplace and permit current pa rt 23 manufacturers to develop new cost-effective part 23 airplanes that are cheaper to design and purchase. Although it is difficult for the FAA to quantif y the outcome, we believe that through the flexibilities offered in this pr oposal, the general aviation commun ity could reverse the trend of

37 Stephenson, James and Deborah Stephenson, “Light Sport Aircraft Industry Takes Flight on ASTM International Standards,” ASTM Standardizati on News November/December 2008. 38 Ibid.

### 63| Page decreasing part 23 certified fleet (11 percent in the last 10 ye ars as determined from the 2013 FAA General Aviation Survey) and could increase deliveries. The FAA believes that after this proposal becomes effective, part 23 manufacturers may

seek certification for at least one or two new r eciprocating engine airplanes in addition to what

we estimated in the “Fleet Discussion” section. As a result of this proposal, every new part 23 type certification could add costs but since the benefits for these new type certifications are a function of the aircraft deliveries, the bene fits would also incr ease proportionately. We request comments, with supporting docum entation, on the positive effects of this proposed rulemaking to the marketplace.

Sensitivity Analysis Using Historica l Deliveries between 2008 through 2013

As a check of how the number of deliverie s affects the costs a nd benefits, the FAA conducted a sensitivity analysis using historic al deliveries between 2008 through 2013 instead of 1998 through 2013 to forecast future deliveries to determ ine the effect on the cost benefits of this rulemaking. Utilizing the same methodology from the “Fle et Discussion” section to calculate the growth of the expected affected future part 23 fl eet, we analyzed the annual airplane deliveries from U.S. manufacturers between 2008 through 2013. For each airplane manufacturer and for each of their type certifications , we calculated the average annu al number of airplanes delivered from 2008 through 2013. While the turboprop and the tu rbojet market is essentially the same in this shorter period of analysis, the reciprocating airplane market has well less than half the airplanes produced over the longer 1998 through 2013 analysis period. Table 19 summarizes our estimate of part 23 U.S. airplanes that manuf acturers would certificat e and produce for this

### 64| Page sensitivity analysis. The sensitivity analysis resulted in one less t ype certification and a significant drop in deliveries for reciprocating ai rplanes over the base case forecast. For the sensitivity analysis, the base case forecast of the number of type certifications remained constant and deliveries slightly increased for turboprop an d turbojet airplanes.

Table 19. Part 23 New U.S. Certifications and Delivered Airplanes Recip TurboProp Turbojet Weighted Average Number of AC per TC per Year 49 48 36 New Part 23 Certifications in a 10

‐ year Period 1 1 2 New Part 23 Certificated Airplanes deliveries per year 49 48 72



### Using the values from Table 19, and followi ng the same methodology from the “Fleet Discussion” section for this sensitivity analysis , with no change in th e average production life and the 34 years airplane service life, we forecas ted the cumulative number of newly certificated part 23 airplanes, delivered and retired annually. Appendix 5 shows these results. For this sensitivity analysis, we then estimated benefits by flowing the adjusted forecasted part 23 cumulative deliveries from Appendix 5, through the same benefit methodology, the same fatality and aircraft damage rates, the same projected future averted accidents, fatalities, and destroyed aircraft, the same value of saved life, the same aircraft values, and the same blended average retail price of a destroyed aircraft from the “Safety Benefit”

section. Similarly, for this sensitivity analysis, we estimated costs using forecasted new part 23 certifications from Table 19, with the same me thodology, the same annual and hourly wages and benefits, the same industry provided unit costs, the same FAA estimated hours and pages for paperwork, and the same training ti me from the “Costs” section.

### 65| Page Since the decline in the number of reciprocat ing airplane deliveries for the sensitivity analysis is well less than ha lf the airplanes produced over the longer 1998 through 2013 analysis period, the safety benefits declined by about 20 pe rcent. The was only a s light drop in costs for the sensitivity analysis because of the reduction in type certificates for reciprocating airplanes and no change in the type certifications fo r turboprop and turbojet airplanes. Table 20 shows for this sensitivity analys is, the benefits also exceed the costs.

Table 20. Sensitivity Analysis 

### Using Historical Deliverie s between 2008 through 2013 to Estimate Benefits and Costs from 2017 to 2036 (2014 $ Millions)

Costs Safety Benefits + Cost Savings

= Total Benefits Total	 $3.6 $13.4 +	$12.6	=	$26.0 7	percent	P.V. $3.6 $4.3 +	$5.8		=	$10.1 3	percent	P.V. $3.6 $8.1	+	$8.8	=	$16.9

### 66| Page 

## X. Appendix I67|PageXI.AppendixIIFor an example of how we calculated theaverage annual number of airplanes delivered per manufacturer, the following table shows that forthe manufacturer Adam/AAI/Triton, since they only delivered aircraft for the three years 2005, 2006 and 2007, the average annual number ofairplanes delivered is 3 ((2+4+3) / 3).*These numbers are subject to rounding error.

### 68| Page *These numbers are subject to rounding error.

### 69| Page For an example of how we calculated the wei ghted average number of airplanes per type certificate, the following table shows that for turboprops, we used the formula ( ( (0.25*86.7)+ (0.5*14.6) + (0.29*58.6) ) / (0.25+ 0.5+0.29) )and then rounded the result to the nearest whole number 44. The following table also shows and example of how we calculated the new part 23 certificates for turboprops was (0. 25+0.5+0.29) and then rounded to the nearest whole number 1.

This table shows how we calculated the numbe r of new certifications, by manufacturer, by reciprocating engine, turboprop, and tur bojet airplane, for each decade group.

*These numbers are subject to rounding error.

### 70| Page This table is used in the cost section to calcu late the percentages for the historical airplanes delivered with one or two engi nes and various seat groupings. Type Certificate Type Engines # of a/c Seats 3A12 R 1 4,688 4 3A13 R 1 3,390 4 3A15 R 1 844 6 3A16 R 2 551 4-6 3A23 R 1 346 4-5 A00003SE R 1 764 4 A00009DE R 1 9 6 A21CE R 1 516 2 A4CE R 1 1,462 6 A-759 R 1 420 2 3A20 T 2 582 10 A00007SE T 1 102 4 A24CE T 2 1292 13 A37CE T 1 1,387 10 A00001AC J 2 4 7 A00010WI J 2 292 6-7 A00014WI J 2 446 6 A1WI J 2 1,123 6-10

### 71| Page 

## XII. Appendix III

### 72| Page 

## XIII. Appendix IV

NTSB Stall and Spin Loss of Control Accidents NTSB Number Date Fatalities Acft_Make Acft_Model Damage Applicability to Rule MIA08FA038 1/12/2008 3 CESSNA 172L SUBS Low CHI08FA061 1/12/2008 4 CESSNA 340 SUBS Medium DFW08FA060 2/2/2008 2 CIRRUS SR22 DEST Low LAX08FA068 2/27/2008 3 MOONEY M20C DEST Low ANC08FA037 2/27/2008 1 CESSNA 170B SUBS Medium MIA08FA081 3/20/2008 1 CIRRUS SR22 SUBS Medium NYC08FA148 3/24/2008 1 PIPER PA 28-161 SUBS High MIA08FA091 4/18/2008 1 AeroFab Lake LA-250 SUBS Medium DEN08FA078 4/19/2008 2 CESSNA P206 DEST High CHI08FA133 5/12/2008 2 BEECH V35 DEST Medium NYC08FA189 5/22/2008 2 Grumman AA-1C DEST High LAX08FA152 5/23/2008 4 BEECH V35B DEST Medium DFW08LA161 6/7/2008 1 CESSNA 150M SUBS Medium DFW08FA170 6/29/2008 5 CESSNA U206F DEST Low LAX08LA211 7/2/2008 1 CESSNA 152 DEST High DFW08FA190 7/19/2008 3 PIPER PA-22 DEST High LAX08FA244 7/24/2008 2 CESSNA A185F DEST Medium SEA08FA175 8/9/2008 2 CESSNA 180K SUBS Low CHI08FA248 8/14/2008 1 BEECH 58TC DEST High DEN08FA152 9/7/2008 2 GUL FSTREAM AA-5A DEST High ANC08LA122 9/10/2008 1 PIPER PA-18 SUBS High DFW08FA228 9/14/2008 1 ACAC 7GCBC SUBS Medium DFW08FA233 9/18/2008 2 PIPER PA-60-602P DEST Low DFW08FA237 9/28/2008 2 CESSNA 320D SUBS Low ANC09FA001 10/1/2008 2 CESSNA U206C DEST Low ERA09FA053 11/13/2008 2 CIRRUS SR22 SUBS Low ERA09FA068 11/24/2008 3 BEECH 95-B55 (T4 DEST Medium WPR09FA062 12/20/2008 1 DIAMOND DA 20-C1 SUBS Low ERA09LA131 1/6/2009 1 PIPER PA-25-235 SUBS Low CEN09FA147 2/1/2009 1 MOONEY M20C SUBS High WPR09FA112 2/5/2009 3 BEECH A36 SUBS High ERA09FA169 2/17/2009 2 CIRRUS SR20 SUBS High CEN09FA178 2/27/2009 3 CESSNA 182M SUBS Low WPR09FA150 3/14/2009 2 PIPER PA28-236 DEST High WPR09FA200 4/18/2009 2 CHAMPION 7ECA SUBS Low WPR09FA258 5/22/2009 4 CESSNA 320D SUBS High CEN09FA340 6/7/2009 2 Gulfstream AA-5B SUBS Medium CEN09FA363 6/16/2009 1 CIRRUS SR22 DEST Low WPR09FA398 8/16/2009 2 CESSNA 152 SUBS Medium CEN10LA031 10/27/2009 2 AERONCA 7AC DEST Medium WPR10FA078 12/10/2009 2 PIPER PA-38-112 SUBS Low CEN10FA114 2/6/2010 4 BEECH A36 SUBS Medium ERA10FA154 2/27/2010 1 BEECH P35 SUBS High ERA10FA178 3/18/2010 1 BEECH 95 SUBS High ERA10LA233 4/16/2010 1 CESSNA 172H SUBS Low CEN10FA233 5/2/2010 2 PIPER PA46 SUBS High ERA10FA259 5/10/2010 2 CIRRUS SR22 SUBS Medium CEN10FA324 6/17/2010 5 CESSNA T310R SUBS Medium CEN10FA364 7/1/2010 2 BEECH F33A SUBS Low CEN10FA385 7/11/2010 3 CESSNA 177B SUBS Low WPR10FA383 8/4/2010 1 CIRRUS SR22 SUBS High

### 73| Page ERA10FA404 8/7/2010 2 BEECH 58 SUBS Low CEN10FA493 8/23/2010 2 CESSNA 310C SUBS Low WPR11FA029 10/25/2010 3 CESSNA 340A SUBS High CEN11FA075 11/17/2010 1 Hawker/Beechcraft A36 SUBS High WPR11FA050 11/17/2010 2 DIAMOND DA20-C1 SUBS High CEN11LA194 2/15/2011 1 TAYL ORCRAFT DCO-65 SUBS Low CEN11FA267 4/4/2011 1 CIRRUS SR-22 SUBS Medium WPR11FA248 6/4/2011 1 PIPER PA-24-250 SUBS Low ERA11FA332 6/9/2011 2 CESSNA 152 SUBS Medium ERA11FA354 6/23/2011 2 BEECH C24R SUBS High WPR11FA331 7/17/2011 2 MOONEY M20F SUBS Medium WPR11FA335 7/18/2011 3 MOONEY M20C SUBS Low ERA12FA146 1/16/2012 1 Aerostar PA-60-601P SUBS Medium ERA12FA163 1/29/2012 1 PIPER PA-28-180 SUBS High CEN12FA164 2/20/2012 2 PIPER PA-24-250 SUBS High CEN12FA170 2/26/2012 2 MOONEY M20E SUBS High ERA12FA303 4/27/2012 1 CIRRUS SR22 SUBS Medium CEN12FA617 9/9/2012 1 BEECH A36 SUBS Medium CEN13FA002 10/3/2012 2 CIRRUS SR22 SUBS Medium CEN13FA060 11/18/2012 2 GRUMMAN AA-1B SUBS Medium WPR13FA141 3/9/2013 1 MAULE M5 SUBS Low WPR13FA236 5/18/2013 2 CESSNA 170B SUBS Low CEN14FA084 12/12/2013 3 PIPER PA 24-250 SUBS Low

### 74| Page 

## XIV. Appendix V