```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64229-64233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26955]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 18, 2011 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 64229]]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 21

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0218; Amdt. No. 21-95]
RIN 2120-AJ56

Function and Reliability Flight Testing for Turbine-Powered 
Airplanes Weighing 6,000 Pounds or Less

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising the applicability of the function and 
reliability flight testing requirements to include all part 23 turbine-
powered airplanes weighing 6,000 pounds or less. Revising the 
applicability is necessary because advancements in aviation technology 
have invalidated the reasons for excluding these airplanes. This 
revision is intended to improve aviation safety for these airplanes.

DATES: This rule becomes effective December 19, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victor Powell, Aircraft Certification 
Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, Certification Procedures 
Branch, AIR-110, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 385-6326; e-mail: 
victor.powell@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) authority to issue 
rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States 
Code. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA 
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes the scope of 
the FAA Administrator's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, chapter 447, section 44701. Under 
that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting the safe flight 
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for 
practices, methods, and procedures the FAA Administrator finds 
necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the 
scope of that authority because it will prescribe new flight test 
requirements for certain turbine-powered airplanes.

I. Background

    This rulemaking will only change the applicability portion of Title 
14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), 21.35(b)(2) by removing the 
6,000 pound weight exclusion for part 23 turbine-powered airplanes 
because of advancements in technology, as discussed in the notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM). This rulemaking does not change existing 
function and reliability (F & R) flight testing requirements in Sec.  
21.35.
    The FAA issued ``Proposed Notification Regarding Function and 
Reliability Testing for Turbofan-Powered Airplanes of 6,000 Pounds or 
Less Maximum Certificated Weight.'' (See 69 FR 5239, February 3, 2004.) 
In that notice, we announced our intention to require F & R flight 
testing by special conditions for future part 23 type certification 
(TC) projects. Eclipse Aviation Corporation (Eclipse) was excluded from 
the proposal as an ongoing TC project. We issued special conditions 
requiring F & R flight testing for the Cirrus Design Corporation Model 
SF50 airplane. (See 75 FR 50853, August 18, 2010.) This final rule will 
eliminate the need for issuing special conditions for F & R flight 
testing.

A. Statement of the Problem

    Function and reliability flight testing is required by Sec.  
21.35(b)(2) for all airplanes weighing more than 6,000 pounds maximum 
certificated weight that are to be certificated under part 23. Function 
and reliability flight testing is not required for gliders, nor for 
part 23 airplanes weighing 6,000 pounds or less. Because of 
advancements in airplane structures, propulsion methods, and systems 
technologies, the 6,000-pound demarcation is no longer justified. Part 
23 turbine-powered airplanes that weigh 6,000 pounds or less currently 
are not required to undergo F & R flight testing regardless of the 
airplane's systems complexity or level of automation.
    After reviewing several recent proposed type certification projects 
for small turbojet-powered airplanes--involving airplanes expected to 
weigh 6,000 pounds or less--the FAA has determined that most, if not 
all, of these airplane designs will benefit from the F & R flight 
testing requirement. This determination is based on new lightweight 
turbine-powered airplanes having design features and performance 
consistent with larger airplanes that are required to undergo F & R 
flight testing.

B. Summary of the NPRM

    The technological advancements in new airplane designs and their 
high-performance potential prompted the FAA to publish in the Federal 
Register the NPRM entitled ``Function and Reliability Flight Testing 
for Turbine-Powered Airplanes Weighing 6,000 Pounds or Less.'' (See 75 
FR 18134, April 9, 2010.) In that NPRM, we proposed changes to the 
applicability of F & R flight testing procedures for part 23 airplanes. 
In general, we proposed to expand the applicability of F & R flight 
testing requirements to all part 23 turbine-powered airplanes that 
weigh 6,000 pounds or less to be certificated under part 23. However, 
the exception for gliders and reciprocating-engine powered airplanes 
weighing 6,000 pounds or less that are type certificated under part 23 
will remain.
    The original decision to exclude certain airplanes weighing 6,000 
pounds or less from F & R flight testing was based on the state of 
technology existing in 1950. At that time, airplanes weighing 6,000 
pounds or less were expected to be used mainly as personal airplanes. 
Such civil airplanes developed between the years of 1945 and 1955 were 
typically single, reciprocating-engine powered airplanes weighing 3,000 
pounds or less with engine output of less than 300 horsepower. 
Technological advancements now allow airplanes that weigh 6,000 pounds 
or less to be more complex and automated than some transport category 
airplanes of the 1960s and earlier. The NPRM contains more of the 
historical background and reasons

[[Page 64230]]

for this final rule. You should refer to the NPRM for that information.

C. Summary of the Comments

    We received nine substantive comments from five commenters. 
Commenters to the NPRM represented manufacturers of airplanes and 
airplane engines, and other individuals. We also received comments from 
an aviation consulting group. The commenters generally had concerns 
about changes to F & R flight testing criteria and supplied alternative 
recommendations as discussed more fully in the Discussion of the Final 
Rule below. The comment period for the NPRM closed on July 8, 2010.
    In general, the FAA received comments on the following areas of the 
proposal:
     Using the experience of the aircraft manufacturer cited in 
the NPRM.
     Basing the applicability of F & R flight testing on 
turbine-powered airplanes instead of other criteria, such as 
complexity.
     The safety benefits versus the costs to perform F & R 
flight testing for part 23 turbine-powered airplanes weighing 6,000 
pounds or less.

II. Discussion of the Final Rule

    Again, this final rule will only change the applicability of Sec.  
21.35(b)(2) by removing the 6,000 pound weight exclusion for part 23 
turbine-powered airplanes because of advancements in technology, as 
discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). This final rule 
does not change existing F & R flight testing requirements.
    Aero-Cert stated that relying on the experience of the aircraft 
manufacturer cited in the NPRM is flawed. Aero-Cert was concerned the 
proposed rule was based on the Eclipse EA-500 certification experience 
and objected to it being referenced in the NPRM. The individual 
commenter suggested that proper oversight during the design approval 
process is the best way to address F & R flight testing. The individual 
commenter also stated that the problems encountered by an inexperienced 
applicant would not happen with an experienced design organization.
    The FAA acknowledges that proper oversight is a primary objective 
in the design approval process. However, we are only changing the 
applicability of Sec.  21.35. Function and reliability flight testing 
is envisioned for the design of new model airplanes and their systems. 
The level of expertise of the applicant is not a factor in the 
requirement.
    The Eclipse certification experience showed that a manufacturer 
could type certificate a very light jet below the 6,000 pound 
threshold. The NPRM addressed the reality that advancements in 
technology since 1950 have led to the manufacture of high-performance, 
part 23 airplanes--those weighing 6,000 pounds or less--with complex 
systems. Therefore, the reliability of in-flight operations for those 
airplanes must be assessed before issuance of the type certificate.
    Aero-Cert and the individual commenter further stated that basing 
the F & R flight testing requirements on the type of powerplant is 
flawed. They believed the issues that should drive the need for F & R 
flight testing are related to performance and the kinds of operations 
in which the airplane will be used, not the type of powerplant.
    The FAA notes that F & R flight testing is required for all covered 
airplanes and should cover the normal operating environment in which an 
airplane will be used. Because of difficulty in choosing the type of 
testing based on the kinds of aircraft operation or the type of 
powerplant, the FAA chose to retain the existing provisions and has 
expanded the requirement to include the newer designs (such as very 
light jets and turbopropeller-driven airplanes) that are, by weight, 
presently excluded from F & R flight testing.
    Cessna and the individual commenter stated the rulemaking would 
impose a cost burden on manufacturers not justified by the benefits. In 
the words of Cessna, ``* * * the proposed NPRM has the potential to 
impose burden upon the manufacturer not commensurate with safety 
gained. For example, if a simple, well-developed airplane were modified 
with a reliable, well-developed turbine engine, it is not likely that F 
& R [flight] testing would discover issues not encountered during 
properly conducted certification testing. In this case, the 150-hour F 
& R [flight] testing proposed by the NPRM would be an undue [cost] 
burden on the manufacturer or the STC [supplemental type certificate] 
holder.'' Also, the individual commenter stated that these costs would 
reduce the competitiveness of American-made aircraft and give foreign 
aircraft manufacturers an unfair advantage.
    The FAA notes that the commenters did not include any analysis or 
data to show that costs imposed by the rule would impose costs not 
equal to safety gained. The FAA has determined that the expected costs 
of the rule are modest in comparison to the expected benefits. We 
estimate that benefits will be at least three to six times the expected 
costs, depending on the engines chosen. (See Sec.  21.35(f).)
    The rule addresses applicability only and does not change the 
minimum number of hours required by Sec.  21.35(f) (that is, 150 or 300 
hours, whichever is appropriate). Some simultaneous flight testing 
performed as part of the certification process may also be counted 
toward F & R flight testing if the conditions of Sec.  21.35(a) are met 
at the time the testing is performed (for example, testing related to 
Type Inspection Authorization). Given the cost-beneficial nature of the 
rule for the case of a newly type-certificated airplane with an engine 
previously used on a type-certificated airplane, we believe the rule 
will remain substantially cost-beneficial.
    The FAA has also found no evidence that American-made aircraft 
would be at a disadvantage in comparison to foreign-made aircraft as a 
result of this rule. Due to global harmonization efforts, the European 
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and other foreign airworthiness 
authorities have similar requirements for certification, including F & 
R flight testing requirements.
    Rolls Royce stated that the use of the word ``turbine,'' which was 
proposed in the NPRM, should be better defined. The commenter asked the 
FAA to revise the proposed rule, so that turbopropeller-driven 
(turboprop) aircraft would not be affected by the final rule, and 
submitted proposed language to that effect. However, we did not revise 
the rule (Sec.  21.35) to limit its applicability to only airplanes 
having turbofan-powered (turbofan) or turbojet-powered (turbojet) 
engines. This decision is consistent with other FAA plans for part 23 
rule changes discussed in the part 23 ``Certification of Turbojets'' 
NPRM. (See 74 FR 41522, August 17, 2009.) Those decisions point out 
that features affecting the complexity of airplane operating systems 
are not limited to powerplant features.
    In addition, Cessna stated that the evaluation of F & R flight 
testing (if needed) should be based on the scope of the project, such 
as the number of complex integrated systems, and that guidance should 
be developed accordingly.
    While the FAA agrees that the use of complexity criteria might be 
an appropriate method to evaluate F & R flight testing, the FAA notes 
that the scope of the project, or the number of complex systems, may 
not be the most efficient measure for requiring this testing. The FAA 
also notes that obtaining agreement on what constitutes a complex 
integrated system that could be placed within part 21 regulations would 
be a difficult and burdensome

[[Page 64231]]

task. It would also delay adding already identified airplanes to the 
safety assessment of F & R flight testing. The FAA has also determined 
that defining complex systems may have implications beyond F & R flight 
testing, such as for pilot training requirements and flight operations.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) 
requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other 
information collection burdens imposed on the public. We have 
determined that there is no information collection burden associated 
with this final rule.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and 
has identified no differences with these regulations.

Final Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small 
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. 
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by state, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of 
the economic impacts of this final rule. We suggest readers seeking 
greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we 
have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final 
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an 
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in 
the DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; 
(5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on 
state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by 
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized 
below.
Total Costs and Benefits of This Final Rule
    We expect that the typical certification project for an airplane 
subject to the final rule will be for a new airplane design with a 
turbine engine type previously used in a type-certificated aircraft 
requiring 165 hours \1\ of F & R flight testing at a total cost of 
about $317,000. In the case of new airplane design and an engine type 
not previously used on a type-certificated airplane, we estimate that 
double the hours (330) will be required, so the total cost will double 
to $634,000. We expect that this final rule will enhance safety and 
reduce costs by substantially reducing the number of safety incidents 
and Airworthiness Directives experienced post-certification. A partial 
estimate of the expected costs that will be avoided for a single new 
airplane design amounts to $1.8 million, with a present value of $1.6 
million. These avoided costs are approximately six times the costs of 
our 165-hour ``typical'' estimate and approximately triple the higher 
330-hour estimate. Consequently, the expected benefits of this final 
rule greatly exceed its modest expected costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the separate cost section below for the reason we 
increased the number of hours from 150 (the minimum required by 
Sec.  21.35(f)) to 165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is affected by this rule?
    Manufacturers of part 23 turbine-powered airplanes weighing 6,000 
pounds or less are affected.
Assumptions and Sources of Information
     We use a two-year period of analysis, as we find this 
period sufficient to show the cost-beneficial nature of this final 
rule. We use the period from the beginning of 2007 to the end of 2008, 
as the data used in the analysis are from this period. The short period 
of analysis reflects the inherent nature of F & R flight testing, 
designed as it is to uncover design or system reliability flaws that 
otherwise would reveal themselves in the very early life of an 
airplane.
     Discount rate is 7% (Office of Management and Budget, 
Circular A-94, ``Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost 
Analysis of Federal Programs,'' October 29, 1992, p. 8).
     Data on costs of compliance with this rule were obtained 
from a part 23 airplane manufacturer and FAA estimates.
Costs of This Final Rule
    We estimate the costs of this final rule based on the F & R costs 
incurred by a part 23 airplane manufacturer for a turbojet-powered 
airplane (turbojet) with a maximum weight greater than 6,000 pounds. 
The turbine-powered Eclipse EA-500, with a maximum weight less than 
6,000 pounds, was recently type certificated under a program in which 
it voluntarily undertook a reduced 200-hour F & R flight testing 
program, 100 hours pre-certification and 100 hours post-
certification.\2\ The F & R flight testing costs for the Eclipse EA-500 
would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain because Eclipse 
Aviation Corporation has been liquidated under Chapter 7 bankruptcy and 
a new firm, Eclipse Aerospace, has been formed to take over its assets. 
We believe our use of more readily obtainable data for a part 23 
turbojet weighing somewhat more than 6,000 pounds is adequate. 
Moreover, as we will see below, the ad hoc nature of Eclipse's 
voluntary F & R flight testing program appears to have limited the 
appropriateness of the Eclipse F & R flight testing cost data, even if 
available. We may overestimate the cost of F & R flight testing by our 
use of costs for an airplane weighing more than airplanes affected by 
this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Pratt & Whitney Canada developed a new PW610F engine for the 
Eclipse EA-500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate F & R flight testing cost per hour in order to more 
easily incorporate different estimates of total F & R flight testing 
hours. Test pilot and flight test engineer costs are FAA estimates. All 
other cost estimates were

[[Page 64232]]

provided by a part 23 airplane manufacturer.
    For aircraft subject to F & R flight testing under 14 CFR 
21.35(b)(2), 21.35(f) requires at least 300 hours of F & R flight 
testing ``with a full complement of engines'' for aircraft 
``incorporating turbine engines of a type not previously used in a type 
certificated aircraft,'' and at least 150 hours for all other aircraft. 
As most proposed very light jet (VLJ) type certification projects 
appear to be based on the type-certificated Williams FJ-33 engine or 
other previously type-certificated engines, we expect this minimum 
requirement to hold for the typical project subject to this final rule.
    Function and reliability flight testing for 150 hours was required 
for the airplane's data we use here, so one of our cost estimates 
assumes 150 hours of F & R flight testing. Sometimes, to fulfill the 
requirements of F & R flight testing, more than the minimum number of 
flight hours is necessary. For the purposes of this cost analysis, we 
used an average extension of 10%, or 15 hours, so our ``typical'' 
estimate assumes 165 hours of F & R flight testing. We double that 
estimate to also provide an estimate for a new airplane design with a 
new engine design.
Benefits of This Final Rule
    We expect that adoption of this final rule will enhance safety and 
reduce costs by substantially reducing the number of service 
difficulties experienced post-certification. This expectation is 
supported by evidence from the service experience of the Eclipse EA-
500. The Eclipse Special Certification Review \3\ (Eclipse SCR) team 
looked at 85 Eclipse Service Difficulty Reports (SDRs) submitted 
between July 29, 2007 and May 13, 2008 and ``concluded the majority of 
the SDRs resulted from reliability issues separate from compliance with 
the minimum FAA standards.'' (See Eclipse SCR, Executive Summary.) 
There also were six Eclipse-related ADs issued in the one-year period 
between November 2007 and November 2008. Eclipse voluntarily conducted 
its own limited F & R flight testing. However, the FAA team did not 
view F & R flight testing as a requirement for Eclipse to receive its 
type certificate. (See Eclipse SCR, p. 28.) This deficiency in 
Eclipse's volunteer F & R flight testing program provides direct 
empirical evidence for the benefits of F & R flight testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Special Certification Review: Eclipse Aviation Corporation 
Model EA-500 Airplane. Prepared for the Federal Aviation 
Administration Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, 
September 12, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates that the pitot/angle of attack (AOA) issue (AD 
2008-02-04; SCR, p. 25) is the one most likely to have been uncovered 
by a mandatory F & R flight testing program. Extending the AD estimate 
to the entire U.S.-registered Eclipse EA-500 fleet (264 airplanes), we 
estimate the total cost of the pitot/AOA problem to be $2.5 million. 
However, we assess the probability of F & R flight testing uncovering 
the pitot/AOA problem to be approximately 0.7 to 0.75. Using the lower 
figure, we accordingly calculate the expected benefit as the total cost 
avoided of $2.5 million times 0.7, or $1.8 million. (We received no 
comment on this same method of calculating rule benefits used in the 
NPRM.) Since the FAA issued a type certificate on September 30, 2006, 
approximately 1.5 years prior to the compliance date for the Eclipse 
pitot/AOA AD, we discount the expected benefit 1.5 years to find 
present value benefit of $1.6 million.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. 
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so 
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The 
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for 
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    The FAA has determined that this final rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of entities for the 
following reason: The cost of requiring F & R flight testing is a small 
one-time cost and a very small percentage of development, 
certification, and production costs. We received no comments on the 
same determination made in the NPRM. Therefore, as the FAA 
Administrator, I certify that this final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related 
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are 
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires 
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that 
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the 
potential effect of this final rule and determined the purpose is to 
promote safety. This final rule is therefore not considered an 
unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce of the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one 
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by 
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant 
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value 
of $143.1 million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements 
of Title II do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria 
of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action 
will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, and, therefore, will not have federalism implications.

[[Page 64233]]

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in Title 
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to 
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation 
modes other than aviation, and to establish appropriate regulatory 
distinctions. The final rule would apply to the certification of all 
airplanes and are not specific to air transportation in Alaska.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this final rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 312(f) of the Order and involves no 
extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not 
a ``significant regulatory action'' under the executive order because 
it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 
12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the notice, amendment, or docket number of this 
rulemaking.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or by signing the comment, if submitted on 
behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review 
DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published 
on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may 
visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question 
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or 
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at 
the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on 
the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 21

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations, as follows:

PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND PARTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40105, 40113, 
44701-44702, 44704, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.

0
2. Amend Sec.  21.35 by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  21.35  Flight tests.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) For aircraft to be certificated under this subchapter, except 
gliders and except reciprocating engine powered airplanes of 6,000 lbs. 
or less maximum certificated weight that are to be certificated under 
part 23 of this chapter, to determine whether there is reasonable 
assurance that the aircraft, its components, and its equipment are 
reliable and function properly.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 19, 2011.
J. Randolph Babbitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-26955 Filed 10-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```