1 | Page U.S. Department of Transportation

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

FINA L RULEMAKING REGULATORY EVALUATION

Revision of Airworthiness Standards for
Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes

14 CFR Part 23

OFFICE OF AVIATION POLICY AND PLANS ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DIVISION

Nicole Bartolucci George Thurston September 12, 201 62 | Page Table of Contents

I. List of Abbreviations

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 4

II. Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 6

III. Introduction/Background

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 10

IV. Assumptions and Data Sources

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 16

V. Fleet Discussion

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 19
Table 2. Part 23 New U.S. Certifications and Delivered 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 per Aircraft*

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

................................ ................. 28 Table 5. Averted Benefit for Fatalities and Aircraft Damage from Stall Accidents*

................................ ............... 29 VI.2.b. Icing

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 30
Table 6.

– Historical Events Applicable to SLD

................................ ................................ ................................ 31 VI.3 Cost Savings

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 33
Table 9. S avings from Equivalent Level of Safety Findings (ELOS)*

................................ ................................ .. 36 Table 10. Total Cost for Special Conditions, Exemptions, and ELOS*

................................ ................................ 37 VI.4. Qualitative Benefits

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 38

VII. Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 40

VII.1. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 40
VII.2. Discussion of Minimal to No Costs Part 23 Sections

................................ ................................ ....... 41

VI I.3. Discussion of Sections That Will Add Costs

................................ ................................ ................... 45 VII.3.a. Annual and Hourly Wages and Benefits

................................ ................................ ...................... 45 VII.3.b. Estimated Costs for §23.2150(b)

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 46 Table 11. Estimate Costs for § 23.2150(b) (2015 $)

................................ ................................ ............................ 49 VII.3.c. Estimated Costs for § 23.2150(c)

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 50 Table 12. Estimate Costs for § 23.2150(c) (2015 $)

................................ ................................ ............................ 52 VII.3.d. Additional Training Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 52 Table 13. Training Costs (2015 $)

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 54 VII.3.e. Type Certification Manual Update Costs

................................ ................................ ..................... 55 Table 14. Estimate Costs for Updating Engineering Manuals (2015 $)

................................ ................................ 55 VII.3.f. Type Certification Database Update Costs

................................ ................................ .................... 563 | Page Table 15. Estimate Costs for Creating a Certification Database (2015 $)

................................ .............................. 58 VII.3.g. Summary of Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 58 Table 16. Total Cost Summary by Category

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 59 Table 17. Average Additional Cost per Type Certificate by Engine Category (2015$)

................................ ............ 59

VIII. Benefit

- Cost Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 59
Table 18. Estimated Benefits and Costs from 2017 to 2036 (2015 $ Millions)

................................ ....................... 60

IX. Sensitivity Discussion

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 61
Table 19. Part 23 New U.S. Certifications and Delivered Airplanes

................................ ................................ .... 63

X. Appendix I

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 65

XI. Appendix II

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 66

XII. Appendi x III

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 71

XIII. Appendix IV

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 72

XIV. Appendix V

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 744 | 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 Reg ulations

CO

- Carbon Monoxide

CPS

- Certification Process Study

CS

- VLA

- Certification Specification for Very Light Aeroplanes

DOT

- Department of Transportation

EASA

- European Aviation Safety Agency

ELOS

- Equivalent Level of Safety Findings

FAA

- Federa l Aviation Administration

FAR

- Federal Aviation Regulations

FAMRA

- F ederal Aviation Modernization and Reform Act

GA

- G eneral Aviation

GAMA

- General Aviation Manufacturers Association

LSA

- Light

- Sport Aircraft

LOC

- Loss of Control

MOC

- Means of Compliance

NAV/COM

- Navigation and Communication5 | Page NORSEE

- Non

- Required Safety Enhancing Equipment

NPRM

- Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

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 Airplane6 | Page 

### II. **Executive Summary**

The current issue with part 23 is the prescriptive regulatory framework does not readily
allow the adoption of new and innovative technology. This rulemaking will address this issue by
putting in place a performance

- based regulatory structure that will res ult in the FAA accepting
new means of compliance based upon industry consensus standards. The FAA believes this
action will provide a set of requirements that will allow more flexibility in part 23 airplane
designs and faster adoption of safety enhancing t echnology while also maintaining a higher level
of safety with new safety requirements

. Two examples of new and innovative technology that will be certified more quickly
under this final rule are electric propulsion and computer aided flight control system s.
Additionally, this rulemaking amends parts 21, 43, 91, 121, and 135 to maintain consistency with
the new part 23.
This rulemaking project will:

• Comply with Congressional mandates. 1 Congress passed the Federal Aviation

Modernization and Reform Act of 201 2, which requires the Administrator, in
consultation with the aviation industry, to assess the aircraft certification and approval
process. In response, the FAA initiated this rulemaking on September 24, 2013 and
published the proposal on March 14, 2016. S ubsequently, on November 27, 2013,
Congress passed the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013, which requires the

FAA to issue a final rule that revises the certification requirements for small airplanes
by:

1 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).7 | Page o Creating a regulatory regime that will improv e safety and decrease

certification costs;

o Setting safety objectives that will spur innovation and technology adoption;

o Replacing prescriptive rules with performance

- based regulations; and

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

• Reorganize part 23 into performance

- based requirements by removing most of the
prescriptive language from the regulatory text of part 23 . The detailed design
provisions will be identified in means of compliance (MOC) documents, accepted by
the Administrator, to support this effort. 2 The rule will also allow for greater use of

consensus standards, consistent with guidance set forth in OMB Circular A

- 119,
Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntar y Consensus Standards
and in Conformity Assessment Activities. Applicants will still have the option to
propose their own means of compliance as they do today. The process for reviewing
new means of compliance will not change substantially from the proces s in place
today.

• 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 Exe cutive
Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation. These civil aviation
authorities include Europe, Brazil, Canada, China and New Zealand. In addition, this

2 Means of compliance is a documented procedure used by an applicant to show compliance with part 23 airworthiness standards, and accepted by the Administrator. 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.8 | Page project has been designated a pilot cooperative rulemaking project by the FAA and
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

• Amend part 23 regulatory text to harmonize requirements for the development of

entry

- level airplanes with those certified under the European Certification
Specification for Very Light Aeroplanes (CS

- VLA).

• Increase th e FAA’s ability to more readily address the newest technology.

• A mend the stall, stall warning, and spin requirements to reduce fatal accidents.

• Improve crashworthiness by allowing new methods for occupant protection.

• Address icing conditions that are curre ntly not included in part 23 regulations.
The goal of this rulemaking is to create a cost effective approach to certification in
an adaptive regulatory environment that addresses new safety enhancing technologies and

allows for alternative means of compliance.

The FAA has analyzed the benefits and the costs associated with this final
rulemaking. The factors driving the $3.9 million expected costs of this final rule are the
controllability, stall and spin, additional training tasks, database development, and manual
upgrade. Benefits consist of $ 1 7

. 9 million in safety benefits from preventing stall and spin

accidents and $ 9

. 9 million in cost savings from reducing the number of special conditions,
exemptions, and equivalent levels of safety fin dings (ELOS) for total benefits of $ 2 7

. 8

million. Another way to consider the expected net benefit to the society is if the rule saves
only one human life by improving stall characteristics and stall warnings, this al one w ould

result in benefits which sub stantially outweigh the costs. The following table shows the
quantified benefits and costs.9 | Page **Table 1.**  **Estimated Benefits**  **and Costs**  **from 2017**  **to 2036**  **(201 5**  **$ in**  **Millions) Stall and Spin +** 

**Other Costs**  **=**

**Total Costs Safety Benefits + Cost Savings**  **= Total Benefits** 

Total $0.8 + $3.1 = $3.9 $ 17.9 + $ 9.9 = $ 2 7

. 8 Present Value at 7 percent $0.8 + $3.1 = $3.9 $ 6

. 1 + $ 4.9 = $ 1 1

. 0 Present Value at 3 percent $0.8 + $3.1 = $3.9 $1 1

. 1 + $ 7

. 1 = $ 18

. 3 *These numbers are subject to rounding error.

As a result, we determined that this final rule will: have benefits that justify its costs; not
be an economically “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866; be “significant” as defined 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 governments, or on the private sector

.10 | Page 

### III. **Introduction/ Background** 

In 2012, Congress passed the Federal Aviation Modernization and Reform Act (FAMRA)

of 2012
, 3 which requires the Administrator, in consultation with the aviation industry, to conduct

an assessment of the aircraft certification and approval process. While this 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 performance

- based regulations and provide for th e
use of consensus standards to allow flexibility in the certification of new technology. This is
different from what is currently done in certification. The current rules were developed to
address issues with technologies existing when the rules were issu ed. They impose different
requirements based on the weight and means of propulsion. They are prescriptive, detailed, and
include many “how

- to” paragraphs that are more appropriate for guidance in developing means
of compliance. This is acceptable for lon g

- standing, traditional configurations; however, this
approach may limit innovation and new technology. Applicants incorporating new technology or
innovative features are forced to use special conditions, exemptions, or ELOS for certification
and these pro cesses are time consuming. The text of the SARA also mentions several
motivations for the changes including: improving safety, reducing regulatory compliance costs,
spurring innovation and technology adoption. Further, as the title of the law suggests, it is hoped
that these changes will revitalize the part 23 aircraft manufacturing industry.

The FAA believes that this final rule complies with the FAMRA and the SARA by
improving safety, reducing regulatory compliance costs, spurring innovation, and more qui ckly
adopting new technology. This final rule also is consistent with OMB Circular A

- 119, in
promoting use of consensus standards to satisfy regulatory requirements. In addition, this final

3 Public Law 112

- 95; 49 USC 40101 note 4 Public Law 113

- 53; 49 USC 44704 note11 | Page rule satisfies Executive Orders 13563, 13609, and 13610, by protec ting public health, welfare,
safety while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation, and
promoting international regulatory cooperation.

The FAA’s strategic initiatives communicate FAA goals to increase safety throughout

gene ral aviation by enabling and facilitating innovation and the development of safety enhancing
products. This rulemaking provide s an appropriate regulatory structure that w ill also allow part
23 airplanes to achieve FAA safety goals through innovation and th e use of performance

- based
industry consensus safety standard that will be accepted by the Administrator.

One focus area of this rulemaking ’s increased safety goal is loss of control (LOC)
accidents, which continues to be the largest source of fatal general aviation accidents. To address

LOC accidents, the FAA is pro mulgating new rule language that is performance and risk

- based

and w ill allow industry to develop multiple approaches through means of compliance that satisfy

the new standard. These means of compliance w ill be based on a safety continuum that balances
the level of certitude, appropriate level of safety, and acceptable risk. This means that airplanes
carrying few passengers who would be endangered in the event of an accident will be subject to

different requirements than airplanes that carry more passengers . This risk

- based approach to
certification allows for alternative means of compliance to the same rule and has already served
the FAA and public well in the certification of electronic eq uipment . An example application of

this risk

- based approach is former § 23.1309 for avionics equipment in part 23 airplanes. Former

§ 23.1309 tailors specific regulatory requirements to the level of risk posed by the aircraft, and

led to the successful int roduction of glass cockpits in small general aviation airplanes. 5

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 situationa l awareness and other systems that promote the overall airplane level of safety.12 | Page 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 finalized the Part 23 Certification

Proc ess Study (CPS). This team reviewed the life cycle of part 23 airplanes to determine what
provisions needed improvement. A key recommendation 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 that applicants be allowed to use consensus standards to
satisfy performance

- based standards, thus permitting alternative approaches to certification not

available today.

In 2010, with the CPS as a foundation, the FAA initiated a part 23 regulatory review. As
part of this review, the FAA held meetings with the public and industry to gain input on the
future of part 23. These meetings confirmed that the public and industry supported the

recommendatio ns 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 aviation rulemaking committee ( ARC ) . The committee’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 propulsion divisions.

The ARC was also tasked to investigate the use of consensus standards.

After considering the A RC’s recommendation, the FAA published the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for this rule on March 14, 2016. After the publication of the

NPRM, the FAA held meetings with the public and industry from May 3, 2016 to May 4, 2016

to discuss each of the s ubparts of the NPRM. On May 13, 2016, the comment period for the

NPRM closed.13 | Page The ARC included participants from several foreign Civil Aviation Authorities 6 and
domestic and international members from almost every G eneral Aviation ( 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 airworthiness standards
contained in part 23. These manufacturers shared their insights from the GA manufacturer
perspective. This perspective was focused on the need 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

te chnology from the outset. The ARC noted that certification costs resulting from uncertainty
create project risk and prevent introduction of this new technology. The ARC further noted the
FAA’s rules are based on historical design concepts. The ARC’s observ ation 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 will address the new design. The certification of new and
innovative products today frequently requires the use of ELOS, special conditions, and
exemptions, resulting in uncertainty and high project costs. The ARC recommendations to revise
part 23 echo the 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 over that of today’ s aging fleet, the FAA believes
that industry needs to build new part 23 certificated airplanes that incorporate today’s current
safety enhancing technologies. Although a number of new part 23 airplanes are being built,

6 The international regulatory agencies included participants from Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, and New Zealand.14 | Page many were originally certified to t he 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 experimental airplanes are incorporating modern

aer odynamics and crashworthiness technologies that employ lessons from the automotive
industry. Aerodynamic designs that improve low speed control, improve stall characteristics and
provide warning to the pilot when operating close to the airplane’s limits h elp avoid loss of
control accidents. Improved occupant restraints including better seat belts and air bags provide
protection for occupants during a crash. Automobile experience shows that vehicles designed
with a strong cabin surrounded by “crumple zones” also help to improve survivability in a crash.

The FAA believes these advances will reduce accidents and improve crash survivability and we
would like to see these technologies used to improve the safety of the smaller part 23 airplanes.

Aircraft owners and manufacturers have demonstrated in the past several years that they
are willing to purchase and install 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 into terrain accidents and weather related accidents

that coincide with the increased use of some of this equipment. NTSB accident data for general
aviation shows a 50 percent decline in fatal CFIT (Controlled Fl ight into Terrain) accidents from
2002 through 2012. This coincides with large scale increased use of GPS

- based electronic maps
including terrain displays in small airplanes. The GA fatal accident data also shows more than a
35 percent reduction in weath er related accidents from 2009 to 2013 that is at least partially
attributable to the increased use of weather displays in the cockpit.

Examples of this equipment include:15 | Page • GPS navigation with moving maps

• Terrain displays

• Real

- time weather displays 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 (airplane 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

• C arbon Monoxide (C O ) detectors
,
• S econdary radio navigation and communication ( NAV/COM ) with flip

- flop

• Amphibious Gear Advisory Systems

Few GA owners or operators can afford the high cost of a new part 23 airplane that
incorporates the latest safety enhancing features. Instead, pilots 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
part 23 piston fleet has decreased by about 11 percent in the last 10 years. 7 In other words,

aircraft owners believe they can get an acceptable level of safety for less cost in experimental

aircraft and light sport aircraft ( LSA ) than in certified Civil Air Regul ations part 3 ( CAR 3 )
and part 23 airplanes. The FAA believes that revising the standards for entry

- level part 23
airplanes will reduce 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 market is too high. The two new U.S.

manufactured 4

- place airplanes, the Cessna Corvalis and Cirrus SR

- 20/22, are certified to

7 http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/16 | Page more recent amendment levels of part 23 and are often perceived as too expensive for typical

GA u ses such as primary flight training or rental and are not considered entry

- level airplanes.

These airplanes are priced in the $400,000 to $800,000 range . In contrast, the European

Diamond DA

- 40 typically sell s for $300,000

- $400,000. A U.S. manufacturer told the FAA it
spent about $30 million to type certificate a high performance single engine airplane, and,

according to an other aircraft manufacturer, a more recent 2

- seat part 23 airplane cost the
company about $55 million to certificate. The FAA’s goal with this final rule is for a new
part 23 type certificate for a similar airplane of this size will greatly reduce the certification

costs. Th e problem of high certification cost has also been recognized by EASA, which is
actively working with several app licants to get the right oversight and cost balance for them
to develop and certify new 4

- place, entry

- level part 23 airplanes.
To summarize, the purpose of this rule is to revise Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 23 as a set of requirements that focus on the safety intent of historic part 23 and
allow alternative approaches to type certificate new part 23 airplanes through consensus
standards. This rulemaking effort also follows from the part 23 ARC recommendations along

with sat isfying the intent of the FAMRA, the SARA, and Executive Orders 13609 and 13610

.



### IV. **Assumptions and Data Sources** 

The benefit and cost analysis for the regulatory evaluation is based on the
following factors/assumptions:

• The analysis is conducted in constant dollars with 2015 as the base year.

• The final rule will 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 s teady state by 2036.17 | Page • Future part 23 type certifications and deliveries are estimated from historical part

23 type certifications and deliveries. 8

• Costs for the new part 23 type certifications forecasted in the “Fleet Discussion”

section will all occur in y ear 1 of the analysis interval.

• Airplane deliveries from the forecasted part 23 type certificates will start in year

5 of the analysis interval. Therefore, accident reduction benefits will begin five
years after the rule is in effect.

• The FAA uses a three and seven percent discount rate for the benefits and

costs as prescribed by OMB in Circular A

- 4.

• The baseline for estimating the costs and benefits of the rule will be part 23,
through the current amendment level.

• Based on FAA Sma ll Aircraft Directorate e xpert judgment, the FAA estimates

335 FAA part 23 certification engineers will require additional training as a result

of this final rule. The FAA assumes that the same number of industry part 23
certification engineers will also require additional trainin g as a result of this final

rule.

• The FAA calculated its training needs to be 16 hours for its staff. The FAA would
anticipate that industry part 23 certification engineers also would need 16 hours
of training

.

• Since this training program will be on

- line, we estimate no travel costs for the
engineers.

• FAA pay

- band tables and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) determines the
hourly wages used to estimate the costs to the FAA and applicants.

8 See the “Sensitivity Discussion” chapter for further details.18 | Page • Using the U.S. Department of Transportation guidance, the wage mu ltiplier for
employee benefits is 1.17. 9

9 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**

As in the initial regulatory evaluation, i n order to estimate the costs and benefits of this

final 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, turboprop,
and turbojet airplane deliverie s , which will be affected by this rulemaking

. The life cycle of an
airplane begins with a part 23 type certific ation
, then production, delivery, active service, and

ends with retirement. This section will discuss how we forecasted ea ch component for the length

of the life cycle f or future part 23 airplane s by using historical database s of part 23 airplane s

.
Th ese historical database s provides the FAA with data to calculate the average 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 air plane is in production and in

service

. We then use these calculations in our forecast of future delivered airplanes from new
part 23 certifications that are affected by this final rule

. In section III above, FAA stated that it

believes that this rulemakin g will lead to a reversal in the declining rate of certificated part 23
aircraft. Accordingly, FAA explores this potential trend l ater, in the “Sensitivity Discussion”
chapter , the FAA discusses a sensitivity analysis by using historical deliveries betwee n 2008
through 201 5 , instead of 1998 through 201 5, in order to determine if a shorter analysis interval
affects the cost/benefit analysis.
The FAA obtained a database of historical part 23 airplane 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 in20 | Page production prior to 1947
, after 201 5
, or had less than 10 years of delivery history after 1947 or

before 201 5

. 10

We used the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheets (TCDS) database 11 from the FAA
website, in conjunction with the GAMA delivery database, to calculate the average historical
part 23 airplane’s production life. The TCDS contains information relevant to the certifi cation of
a particular airplane, such as when the airplane was initially certificated, while the GAMA
database shows, for each part 23 type certificated airplane, how many years the airplanes were

delivered

. 12 For the NPRM, w e calculated the average histor ical part 23 airplane’s production

life to be approximately 26 years. With the additional two years of data, and EXCEL rounding
off to the nearest whole number, for the final rulemaking, w e calculated the average historical
part 23 airplane’s production l ife to be approximately 2 5 years.
We estimated the active service time, and retirement age, of a part 23 airplane by
analyzing the ages of all US

- operated airplanes from Table 7.3 of the FAA 201 4 General
Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey. Table 7.3 shows 184,388 airplanes in 5

- year age
groupings from 0 to over 60 years old. On average, these airplanes were in service for 34 years.

10 The following are examples of aircraft we deleted from the GAMA database in order to have a more accurate weighted average reflecting a full pr oduction 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, A T

- 600, and A T

- 800 series turboprop of agricultural aircraft starting in 2011 with only three years of delivery history. Also, Air Tractor aircraft were removed from this analysis becau se the aircraft are type certificated to a restricted category, which may endorse parts of FAR 23 but not FAR23 in its entirety. All American Aircraft 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 pro duction 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. 11 http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/ MainFrame?OpenFrameSet 12 Appendix 1 shows airplane manufacturers and type certification numbers we used to estimate the average production life

.21 | Page Thus the estimated active service time, and retirement age, of a part 23 airplane is 34 years. 13

The FAA notes that this is the same part 23 airplane average age we calculated for the NPRM.
Since the life cycle equals the production life (2 5 years), plus the active service life which
ends in the airplane’s retirement (34 years), we calculated the life cycle of a historical part 23
airplane to be 59 years (2 5 + 34 = 59 ) . Therefore, for this analysis, we use 59 years as the life
cycle of a part 23 airplane in our forecast of future type certificates and deliveries affected by

this rule making

. For an estimate of the total number of affected airplanes over the 59 year life
cycle
, w e now forecast the number of new type certificat ions and their deliveries

.
N ew type certifications
, and the type certification’s air plane deliveries , are estimated by

calculat ing the historical average number of type certificates and the average number of

deliver ie s u sing the GAMA and TCDS database . W e calculate the average number of historical
type certificates from the 1940’s to today
, by reciprocating engine, turboprop, and tur bojet
airplane, for each U.S. manufacturer
, in Appendix 2
, over decade ( 10

- year ) period s

. The decade
period s consist of the years in the following decade groups: 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s,
1990s, 2000s, and 2010s. Appendix 2 shows the number of n ew certifications, by manufacturer,
by reciproca ting 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

decade s; therefore the average annual number of type certificate s in a 10

- year period for this

manufacture r is 0.5 (1 certification / 2 decades )

. The number of future affected airplanes equals the forecasted number of new type
certificates multiplied by the average number of new deliveries per future type certificate. We

13 Although the FAA believes that in practice retirement ages may decline under the system of certification as new designs become available, we are limited to the data provided in the FAA 2013 General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey report and have no basis to decide by how much we sh ould adjust our estimate . In the NPRM we requested comments, with supportin g data, on our retirement age estimate and received no comments therefore we use the same retirement age for the final rule analysis as we did with the analysis for the NPRM.22 | Page base the forecast for future type certificates and deliveries of new part 23 U.S. manufactured
airplanes upon the average number of new type certifications, and their deliveries, over the 1998
through 201 5 time period. We use the 1998 through 201 5 analysis interval as a baseline for
forecasting future part 23 type certifications and deliveries
, . For each airplane manufacturer and for each of their part 23 type certifications, we
calculate the average ann ual number of airplanes delivered from 1998 through 201 5 by summing
the number of deliveries by the number of years the deliveries occurred and then dividing this
sum by the number of years the deliveries occurred

. We then calculated the weighted average
number of airplanes per type certificate and the number of forecasted new type certificates and

rounded the result to the nearest whole number.
Appendix 2 shows the details we used to derive the forecast for the number of future new
part 23 certification s and airplane deliver y results and provides examples, from the tables, how

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

manufacturers will certificate 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 63 4 6 3 3 New Part 23 Certifications in a 10

- year Period 2 1 2 New Part 23 Certificated Airplanes deliveries per year 1 2 6 4 6 66

Based on this forecast of part 23 type certificates and their deliveries from Table 2, U.S.

manufacturers will produce 1 2 6 reciprocating engine, 4 6 turboprop, and 66 turbojet airplanes
annually, with deliveries beginning five years after the effective date of the rule and continuing

for 2 5 years. From the second through the twenty

- fifth delivery year the cumulative part 23

fleet will grow by a total of 2 38 ( 1 2 6 + 4 6 + 66 ) airplanes annually. From the twenty

- s ix th
through the thirty

- fourth delivery year, the newly certificated cumulative part 23 fleet will23 | Page remain constant. In the thirty

- fifth delivery year, the airplane models that are 34 years old will
retire. By the fifty

- nin th delivery year, all airplanes produced from the forecasted part 23

certificates will be retired. Appendix 3 shows our forecast of the cumulative number of newly
certificated part 23 airplanes delivered and affected by this 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 (or the effective date of the final rule) by five years. Similarly accident

reduction benefits will begin five years after the rule is in effect.



### VI. **Benefits**

VI.1. Introduction

Part 23 standards are largely based on experience with airplanes designed in the 1950’s

and 1960’s. Over the past five decades part 23 certification regulations have become prescriptive

as a result of codifying specific, detailed design requirements to address and respond to the
introduction of new technologies
, specific problems encountered during various certification
projects , and specific recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
While the intent of the prescriptive rules was to increase safety and prevent confusion or
certification 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

- engine airplane) of the continuum. The safety continuum refers to higher level of
safety as the air plane that carry more people have a higher level of risk

. Recent part 23
amendments have increasingly focused on high

- performance, complex airplanes. These
requirements have been applied acro ss the board and may not be necessary or appropriate for24 | Page low

- performance airplanes. This has created an unintended barrier to new safety enhancing
technology in low

- performance airplanes.

In 2012, Congress passed the F AMRA 14 , which require d the Administrator, in
consultation with the aviation industry to conduct an assessment of the aircraft certificati on and
approval process. A year later , Congress passed the SARA 15

, 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) set ting
safety objectives that will spur innovation and technology adoption; (3) replacing prescriptive
rules with perform ance

- based regulations; and (4) using consensus standards to clarify how
safety objectives may be met by specific designs and technologies.

These standards begin with the safety intent of current part 23 requirements and add

enhanced standards for icing conditions, resistance to departure from controlled flight , and loss
of control for multiengine airplanes as current 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 loss of control,
including stalls and spins. LOC accidents are typically initiated by an inadvertent departure from
controlled flight. In the case of a stall, LOC occurs when the pilot allows the airplane to slow
down to a speed wh ere the wing cannot continue to maintain lift. The prevention of this event
can be designed into the airplane’s flight characteristics, or the airplane can use a systems

- based
approach such as a stick pusher or envelope protection. A pilot’s lack of awaren ess of the state of

14 Public Law 112

- 95; 49 USC 40101 note 15 Public Law 113

- 53: 49 USC 44704 note25 | Page the airplane and the airplane’s low speed handling characteristics are the main causes of these
accidents. Stall and other LOC accidents are generally fatal if the airplane is too low for the pilot
to recover before impact with the grou nd. Furthermore, inadvertent stalls generally occur close to
the ground because that is where the airplane is slowed for takeoff and landing. The new rule,
section 23.2150, “Stalls characteristics, stall warning, and spins,” improves safety by requiring a
combination of better stall warning, better natural stall characteristics, and system

- based
protection that will reduce stall and LOC accidents.
The FAA recognizes that the means of compliance will be very important in the success
of this requirement to improve safety. The FAA adopts a general performance

- based requirement

in § 23.2150(b) to enable numerous alternative approaches to meet the requir ement. For this
reason, it is impossible to specify a single set of flight test requirements. The flight test
requirements will depend on the applicant’s approach to complying with this rule and the means
of compliance it uses. It would have been impossibl e to adopt requirements for all combinations
of safety features and characteristics that reduce the tendency to inadvertently depart controlled
flight in the requirements themselves. However, applicants can still use the spin resistance
requirements from f ormer § 23.221 for spins, and a stick pusher compliant with former § 23.691
for artificial stall barrier systems. Additionally, ASTM is developing an expandable matrix
concept that will allow credit for combinations of stall warning, stall/envelope protect ion, and
flight characteristics. This matrix should result in not only encouraging manufacturers to install
more safety enhancing equipment, but more importantly, it will also encourage the development
of innovative approaches to preventing inadvertent dep arture because of the speed at which new
technology can be incorporated into the certification process. To address the wide range of
airplane characteristics and solutions, the FAA is adopting a standard that the airplane may not
have tendency to inadverte ntly depart controlled flight.26 | Page The NPRM identified 7 4 stall or loss of control related accidents investigated by NTSB

from January 2008 to December 2013. For the final rule, to remain consistent with the NPRM in
analyzing the most recent 6 year accident hi story, the FAA removed all 28 stall or loss of control

accident s investigated in 2008 and added 20 new accidents that took place in 2013 and 19

accidents from 2014. The FAA also removed 7 accidents with level 1 and level 2 multiengine
airplanes as the fina l rule narrows the requirement to only single engine airplanes

. There are a

total of 78 accidents listed in Appendix IV from 2009 to 2014 . These accidents represent the type
of accidents that could be prevented by the stall and LOC requirements in the rule

. An

assessment is made by the FAA’s Office of Accident Investigation and Prevention (AVP

- 210)

for each accident to estimate how effective the rule w ill be in preventing a similar accident.

AVP

- 210 assessed the probability that the rule is effective for each of the accidents using the
applicable portions of the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) methodology. 16 The

assessment effectiveness results in a classification of low, medium, or high effectiveness rate . Of

the 78 NTSB stall and LOC accidents the re are 36 accidents with a high effectiveness
, which had

61 fatalities, 18 medium effectiveness accidents with 35 fatalities, and 2 4 low effectiveness

accidents with 4 3 fatalities over 6 years. All of these accidents resulted in a destroyed or

subs tantiall y damaged aircraft. As in the initial regulatory evaluation, g iven the high level of
damage, to estimate the benefit of preventing such aircraft damage in the future, the FAA
assumes full replacement cost for all 78 aircraft.
To predict accidents among future type certificated aircraft that w ill be prevented by the

final rule, the FAA estimates an accident, fatality, and destroyed aircraft rate for part 23 aircraft
using these historic accidents. Rates are estimated by dividing the average number of fata lities

16 JIMDA T Process Handbook 6

- 28

- 04 http://cfapp.icao.int/fsix/cast/JIMDAT%20Process%20Handbook%206

- 28

- 04%20Draft.pdf27 | Page and destroyed aircraft in each effectiveness category by the average active number of airplanes. 17

Table 3 shows the results of these calculations. 18

**Table 3 . Fatality and Aircraft Damage Rate**  **per Aircraft** *****

Effective A Avg. Yearly

Accident (200 9

– 201 4 ) B Avg. Yearly

Fatalities (200 9

– 201 4 ) C Avg. Yearly Destroyed Aircraft

(200 9

– 201 4 ) D Avg. Number of

GA Aircraft (200 9

– 201 4 ) A / D

Accident

Rate B / D

Fatalities

Rate C / D

Destroyed Aircraft Rate High 6 10 6 168 , 830 0.0000 4 0.0000 6 0.0000 4 Medium 3 6 3 168,830 0.00002 0.0000 3 0.00002

Low 4 7 4 168,830 0.0000 2 0.0000 4 0.0000 2

*These numbers are subject to rounding error. The fatality and aircr aft damage rate from T able 3 is then applied to the yearly number of

future newly certificated part 23 airplanes (reciproca ting engine, turboprop, and turbojet) shown

in Appendix III . The FAA projects that the final rule w ill 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 years to account for the 5 year manufacture production cycle and
delivery of new aircraft.
Based on the above methodology and the effectiveness of this rule in preventing a similar

accident , the following approximate number of accidents will be averted for newly certificated
part 23 airplanes:

• 1. 01 accidents with high effectiveness

• 0.5 1 accidents with medium effectiveness

• 0. 68 accidents with low effectiveness

Th is rule is expected to result in averting a combined total of 4 fatalities and 2 destroyed

aircraft as shown in Table 4

. Averted accidents and fatalities increase over time as the fleet

17 Table 3.1, (Fix Wing Piston, Turboprop, Turbojet) 20 09

- 20 14 G eneral Aviation and Air Taxi Number of Active Aircraft by Primary Use by Aircraft Type ; https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/CY2014/ 18 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.28 | Page increases. The estimated future accidents, fatalities, and destroyed aircraft are calculated by
summing the rows for each category in Table 4, and the n summing the high, medium, and low

columns. By summing the results of the low, middle, and high effectiveness rates for averted

accidents from Table 4, approximately 3 accidents are averted on newly certificated part 23
airplanes

.

**Table 4 . Projected Futu**  **re 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 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 2023 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 2024 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 2025 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 2026 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.03 2027 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.03 2028 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.04 2029 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.05 2030 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.13 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.04 0.05 2031 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.14 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.06 2032 0.09 0.05 0.06 0.16 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.05 0.06 2033 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.17 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.05 0.07 2034 0.11 0.05 0.07 0.19 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.05 0.07 2035 0.12 0.06 0.08 0.20 0.12 0.14 0.12 0.06 0.08 2036 0.13 0.06 0.08 0.21 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.06 0.08 Total 1.01 0.51 0.68 1.72 0.99 1.21 1.01 0.51 0.68 *These numbers are subject to rounding error.
The FAA used the Department of Transportation ’s value of a statistical saved life that is

$9. 6 million 19 in 201 5 dollars

. As in the initial regulatory evaluation, t he FAA uses 3 aircraft
values based on projected newly certificated airc raft types : a 1967 model Cessna 172 for
recipr ocating engine aircraft at $3 3
, 366 ; a 1982 model Beechcraft King Air C90 at $6 67
, 322 for
turboprop ; and a 1999 model Cessna Citation Jet 525 $1, 608,722 for turbojet. The se 2013

19 Memorandum: TREATMENT OF THE VALUES OF LIFE AND INJURY IN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/benefit_cost/media/econ

- value

- section

- 2

- tx

- values.pdf29 | Page average retail value s for destroyed aircraft came from the Aircraft Bluebook Price Digest
Summer 2013 Edition and they are adjusted to 201 5 using Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 20

Multiplying the individual future part 23 certifications with the corresponding aircraft values
provides a weighted average value for destroyed aircraft. For example, out of the 2 38 aircraft

p rojected for 2022, 1 2 6 are reciproca ting engine , 4 6 are turboprop, and 66 are turbojet. These
aircraft are projected to grow in the same proportion every year for a blended average retail price

of $5 92
, 759 for a destroyed aircraft.

Accidents labeled low ef fectiveness are assigned a .2 accident effectivene ss rate , .5 fo r a

medium accident effectiveness rate , and .8 for high accident effectiveness rate

. 21 Table 5
quantifies the benefits of averted fatalities by calculating the projected future averted fatalities

from Table 4 times the VSL times the accident effectiveness rates above for 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 abo ve times the accident effectiveness rates. Table 5 below shows these results

. As the
fleet increases each year with additional deliveries, potential accidents increase, and so do the
benefits of reducing such accidents.

**Table 5**

**. Averted**  **Benefit for Fatalit**  **ies and Aircraft Damage from Stall Accidents*** **( $**  **in thousands)**

**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** $27.5 $39.5 $77.6 $1.0 $1.3 $2.7 $149.5 $93.1 $121.6 **2023** $55.0 $78.9 $155.2 $2.0 $2.5 $5.3 $299.0 $174.0 $236.0

20 http://www.whit ehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/; Table 10.1

— GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT AND DEFLATORS USED IN THE HISTORICAL TABLES: 1940

– 2021 21 JIMDA T Process Handbook 6

- 28

- 04 http://cfapp.icao.int/fsix/cast/JIMDAT%20Process%20Handbook%206

- 28

- 04%20Draft.pdf30 | Page **2024** $82.6 $118.4 $232.8 $3.0 $3.8 $8.0 $448.5 $244.0 $343.8 **2025** $110.1 $157.9 $310.4 $4.0 $5.0 $10.7 $598.0 $304.0 $445.0 **2026** $137.6 $197.4 $388.0 $5.0 $6.3 $13.4 $747.5 $355.2 $540.0 **2027** $165.1 $236.8 $465.5 $6.0 $7.5 $16.0 $897.1 $398.3 $629.2 **2028** $192.6 $276.3 $543.1 $7.0 $8.8 $18.7 $1,046.6 $434.3 $712.7 **2029** $220.1 $315.8 $620.7 $8.0 $10.0 $21.4 $1,196.1 $463.9 $790.7 **2030** $247.7 $355.2 $698.3 $9.0 $11.3 $24.1 $1,345.6 $487.7 $863.7 **2031** $275.2 $394.7 $775.9 $10.0 $12.5 $26.7 $1,495.1 $506.4 $931.7 **2032** $302.7 $434.2 $853.5 $11.0 $13.8 $29.4 $1,644.6 $520.6 $995.0 **2033** $330.2 $473.7 $931.1 $12.0 $15.0 $32.1 $1,794.1 $530.8 $1,053.9 **2034** $357.7 $513.1 $1,008.7 $13.0 $16.3 $34.8 $1,943.6 $537.4 $1,108.4 **2035** $385.2 $552.6 $1,086.3 $14.0 $17.5 $37.4 $2,093.1 $540.9 $1,158.9 **2036** $412.8 $592.1 $1,163.9 $15.0 $18.8 $40.1 $2,242.6 $541.6 $1,205.5 Total $3,302.1 $4,736.6 $9,310.8 $120.3 $150.4 $320.9 $17,941.2 $6,132.3 $11,136.1 *These numbers are subject to rounding error. Estimated safety benefits of avoiding roughly 2 accidents on newly certificat ed part 23
airplanes over a 20

- year period sums to about $ 1 7

. 9 million ($ 6

. 1 million at a seven percent
present value rate and $ 11. 1 million at a three percent present value rate ) , however benefits w ill
continue indefinitely into the future.

VI.2.b. Icing
Currently, part 23 regulations define airplane performance, flight characteristics, power
plant
, and systems requirements for a part 23 applicant seeking optional certification for flight in
icing conditions. Part 23 references Appendix C to part 25 as the icing conditions for which the
above requirements must 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 consid ered during the certification of airplanes and turbine aircraft engines needed to
be expanded to increase the level of safety during flight in icing conditions

. The NTSB issued
safety recommendation A

- 96

- 054 to r evise the icing criteria published in 14 Cod e of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 23 and 25

. 22 The FAA determined that the revised icing certification
standards should include supercooled large drops (SLD , which consist of freezing drizzle and
freezing rain ), mixed phase, and ice crystals. In the part B of the Background section of the part

22 http://www.n tsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/Recommendation.aspx?Rec=A

- 96

- 05431 | Page 23 NPRM, 23 references icing events in which research related to operations in severe icing

conditions was conducted by the Part 23 ARAC. These systems are designed for the icing
conditions defined in Appendix C of part 25, which is the current standard for part 23 airplanes.
This ice accretion can cause large aerodynamic penalties not accounted for in the type design.
Additionally, accident and incide nt investigations, along with FAA sponsored research,
discussed in the below paragraph, ha ve shown that high altitude ice crystal conditions can cause
erroneous airspeed indications and unacceptable engine operation. Initially, only transport
category airplanes were addressed

. The FAA published amendments 25

- 140 and 33

- 34,
Airplane and Engine Certification Requirements in Supercooled Large Drop (SLD), Mixed
Phase, and Ice Crystal Icing Conditions, on Nov ember 4, 2014 (79 FR 65508) that expanded
icing requ irements for transport category airplanes and engines. H owever on February 19, 2010

an ARC was chartered to review and modify proposed part 23 icing regulations and provide

associated guidance for part 23.

T he part 23 icing ARC examined incidents and accidents from t hree data sources

— NTSB
data, the FAA Accident/Incident Data System, and the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting
System. Table 6 lists the U.S. accidents for part 23 airplanes, from 2005 to 2010, in which SLD
was a prob able cause or factor. For a fuller discussion see their February 2012 Part 23 Icing
Aviation Rulemaking Committee Report. 24

**Table 6**

**. –**  **Historical Events Applicable to SLD** 
DATE A C TY PE LOCATION FATAL INJURY HULL LOSS 01/03/2 0 09 BE

- 58 Brain e rd
, MN 0 0 S ubstantial Damage 02/16/2 0 07 CE

- 3 40A Co u n ci l Bluffs
, IA 4 0 Yes

23 See the notice of proposed rulemaking (NRPM), Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes , March 2016, p. 13457 , Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 1 621 , accessi ble at www.regulations.gov

. 24 PART 23 ICING AVIATION RULEMAKING COMMITTEE REPORT (FEB 2012

- Revision B) http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/SLD%20ARC%20Report.RevB. Feb%2010%202012.pdf32 | Page 03/20/2 0 06 PA

- 23

- 250 Emporia
, KS 0 1 S ubstantial Damage 01/25/2 0 06 CE

- 4 2 1 C Cars o n, WA 1 0 Yes 01/11/2 0 05 BE

- 65

- E 9 0 R a wli n s, WY 3 1 Yes

A ccidents listed in Table 6 prompted the part 23 icing ARC to recommend adopting most
of the part 25 proposed rules, including the requirement to either show an airplane could safely
fly in SLD conditions or show it can detect and safely exit those conditions. T his rule require s

manufacture r s tha t choose to certify for flight in SLD must show that the airplane can operate
safely in SLD. For those manufacture r s who choose to prohibit flight in SLD and only certify to
the icing conditions of part 25, appendix C, the rule require s a means for detecti ng SLD and
showing the airplane can safely exit icing conditions (detect and exit)

. 25 Current FAA guidance
in Advisory Circular 23.1419

- 2D is an acceptable means of compliance for detect and exit

. Based on the service history of part 23 airplanes certified to the current icing standards, t he

accidents listed in Table 6 could possibly have been prevented by the rules requirements

. T he

FAA reached out to i ndustry about costs associated with meeting the se icing requirement s

.

I ndustry responded that these requirements w ill not impose additional costs because many
manufacturers have already equipped their aircraft to meet these standards for detecting and
exiting SLD in accordance with current FAA guidance

. The rule does allow for manufacturers to
voluntarily certify that the airplane can operate safely in SLD, which would increase
functionality over the former regulations. When complianc e is voluntary, or no change in
industry practice will occur from a new regulation, the FAA determines both costs and benefits

to be zero

.

25 The FAA published Airplane and Engine Certification Requirements in Supercooled Large Drop, Mixed Phase, and Ice Crystal Icing Conditions , on Nov ember 4, 2014 (79 FR 65508) that expanded 14 CFR parts 25 and 33 icing requirements.33 | Page VI.3 Cost Savings
The current part 23 aircraft certification and approval process is prescriptive with specific
performance and design requirements that impact the industry’s abili ty to introduce new
technology or to modify aircraft. T he FAA currently accommodates the introduction of new and
innovative technology or modifications by requiring an applicant to provid e additional

information that explains the deviation from the existing rule . This process typically results in
the issuance of special conditions, exemptions, and ELOS

. 26 Instead of the prescriptive
requirements found currently in part 23, this rule will streamline the certification process and
encourage the installation of new technology , thus obviating the need for many of the
exemptions, special conditions, and ELOS

.
The revis ions to part 23 air worthiness standards will replac e current prescriptive desi gn
requirements with risk based and performance

- based regulatory standards. To comply with the
new performance

- based standards, manufacturers could continue to use the existing design
standards as a means of compliance, but could also use industry consensus standards, such as the
ones currently being developed by ASTM, as well as any other means the manufacturer develops
to demonstrate compliance with the standard. This use of consensus standards is not a new
practice . Industry standards bodies like the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics

( RTCA ) , Inc. , SAE International (SAE ), ASTM International (ASTM), and the European
Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE) have provided consensus standards that
the FAA has accepted as a means of compliance with the certification standards. . The rule w ill
provide a broad set of requirements that allow s more flexibility in airplane designs and faster

26 Special Conditions give the manufacturer p ermission 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 regulation . ELOS are made when literal compliance with a certification regulation cannot be shown and compensating factors exist which can be shown to provide an ELOS

. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgWebcomponents.nsf/HomeFrame?OpenFrameset34 | Page adoption of safety enhancing technology and significantly reduce the need and cost incurred for
special conditions, exemptions and ELOS

. A reduction in the number of special conditions, ELOS , and exemptions reduce s
paperwork and processing time for both the FAA and industry. It also maintain s the fundamental
safety requirements from the current part 23 regulations and allow s more flexibilit y in airplane
designs, faster adoption of safety enhancing technology, and reduce s the regulatory cost burden.
To estimate savings driven by this change, t he FAA counted the special condition s , ELOS, and
exemption applications submitted to the FAA for part 23 aircraft between 2012 and 201 4 and

divided the number by t hree years for an average of 3 7 applications per year. 27 The ARC report

also offered a n average of 37 applications per year. 28 Additionally, the FAA counted the number
of pages per application 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. The FAA estimates 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 responding to FAA questions for SC, exemption, or ELOS.” 29

The number of applications is multiplied by the number of pages and by the hourly wage
for the applicant and different FAA offices to account for the cost to the FAA and the applicant.

27 https:// my.faa.gov/org/linebusiness/avs/offices/air/tools/cert.html 28 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 Conditions, Exemptions, ELOS , Page 55

. 29 Ibid, 54.35 | Page The estimated hourly wage is $74. 84 for a Small Airplane Directorate em ployee 30 , $5 1

. 26 for an

Aircraft Certificate Office employee 31 , and $6 2

. 20 for an engineer 32 employed by the applicant.
Annual cost equals the sum of the associated costs of special conditions, exemptions, plus ELOS

.

Y early cost totals roughly $ 391
, 984 for the Small A irplane Directorate, $ 268,493 for Aircraft

Certificate Office s , and $ 325,771 for the applicant s

. Tables 7, 8, and 9 show cost by office and
applicant as well as by special condition, exemption, and ELOS.

Table 7. Savings from Special Conditions (SC)*

Part 23 Section Avg. Number of SC (2012

- 201 4 ) Avg. Number of Pages FAA SAD FAA ACO Applicant Man

hours Savings Man

hours Savings Man

hours Savings

143 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450 171 0.67 20.8 111 $8,344 111 $5,715 111 $6,934 173 0.67 20.8 111 $8,344 111 $5,715 111 $6,934 175 0.67 20.8 111 $8,344 111 $5,715 111 $6,934 177 0.67 20.8 111 $8,344 111 $5,715 111 $6,934 251 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450 361 0.67 20.8 111 $8,302 111 $5,687 111 $6,900 562 0.67 20.8 111 $8,302 111 $5,687 111 $6,900 572 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450 573 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450 574 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450 613 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450 627 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450 629 1.00 20.8 166 $12,453 166 $8,530 166 $10,350 901 0.67 20.8 111 $8,302 111 $5,687 111 $6,900 939 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450 951 0.67 20.8 111 $8,302 111 $5,687 111 $6,900 961 0.67 20.8 111 $8,302 111 $5,687 111 $6,900 973 0.67 20.8 111 $8,302 111 $5,687 111 $6,900 977 1.00 20.8 166 $12,453 166 $8,530 166 $10,350 1141 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450 1301 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450 1305 0.67 20.8 111 $8,302 111 $5,687 111 $6,900 1308 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450 1309 0.67 20.8 111 $8,302 111 $5,687 111 $6,900 1329 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450 1337 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450 1521 0.67 20.8 111 $8,302 111 $5,687 111 $6,900 1557 0.67 20.8 111 $8,302 111 $5,687 111 $6,900 3Pt Restraint with Airbag 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450 Inflatable Restraint 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450 Electronic Engine Controls 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450

30 201 5 FAA P ay Band, Average K Band Salary (Rest of the U.S. ) plus wage multiplier for benefits https://employees.faa.gov/org/staffoffice s/ahr/program_policies/policy_guidance/hr_policies/hrpm/comp/comp_ref/ 2015payadjustment/ 31 201 5 FAA P ay Band, Average I Band Salary (Rest of the U.S.) plus wage multiplier for benefits https://employees.faa.gov/org/staffoffices/ahr/program_policies/policy_guidance/hr_policies/hrpm/comp/comp_ref/ 2015payadjustment/
32 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States, May 201 5 ; Aerospace Engineer mean hou rly 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.36 | Page Fuel Jettisoning 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450 Load Alleviation System 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450 Side Facing Seat with Airbag 0.33 20.8 55 $4,151 55 $2,843 55 $3,450 Totals 2942 $220,172 2942 $150,809 2942 $182,981

*These numbers are subject to rounding error.
Table 8. Savings from Exemptions*

Part 23 Section Avg. Number Exemptions (2012

- 201 4 ) Avg. Number of

Pages FAA SAD FAA ACO Applicant
Man

hours Savings Man

hours Savings Man

hours Savings

1359 0.33 15.6 42 $3,113 42 $2,132 42 $2,587 1549 0.33 15.6 42 $3,113 42 $2,132 42 $2,587 177 1.33 15.6 166 $12,422 166 $8,509 166 $10,324 49 0.67 15.6 83 $6,227 83 $4,265 83 $5,175 562 0.67 15.6 83 $6,227 83 $4,265 83 $5,175 1419 0.33 15.6 42 $3,113 42 $2,132 42 $2,587 629 0.33 15.6 41 $3,082 41 $2,111 41 $2,562 181 0.33 15.6 41 $3,082 41 $2,111 41 $2,562 Totals 540 $40,379 540 $27,658 540 $33,559 *These numbers are subject to rounding error.

**Table 9. Savings from Equivalent Level of Safety**  **Findings (ELOS)**  *****

Part 23 Section Avg. Number ELOS (2012

- 201 4 ) Avg. Number of Pages FAA SAD FAA ACO Applicant

Man

- hours Savings Man

- hours Savings Man

- hours Savings
145 0.67 14.9 79 $5,947 79 $4,074 79 $4,943 207 0.67 14.9 79 $5,947 79 $4,074 79 $4,943 672 0.33 14.9 40 $2,974 40 $2,037 40 $2,471 777 1.6 14.9 191 $14,273 191 $9,777 191 $11,862 779 0.33 14.9 40 $2,974 40 $2,037 40 $2,471 781 1.4 14.9 167 $12,489 167 $8,555 167 $10,379 807 0.33 14.9 40 $2,974 40 $2,037 40 $2,471 815 0.6 14.9 72 $5,352 72 $3,666 72 $4,448 841 0.67 14.9 79 $5,947 79 $4,074 79 $4,943 973 0.33 14.9 40 $2,974 40 $2,037 40 $2,471 1092 0.33 14.9 40 $2,974 40 $2,037 40 $2,471 1145 0.67 14.9 79 $5,947 79 $4,074 79 $4,943 1305 1.6 14.9 191 $14,273 191 $9,777 191 $11,862 1311 0.33 14.9 40 $2,974 40 $2,037 40 $2,471 1325 0.2 14.9 24 $1,784 24 $1,222 24 $1,483 1353 0.33 14.9 40 $2,974 40 $2,037 40 $2,471 1357 0.33 14.9 40 $2,974 40 $2,037 40 $2,471 1397 0.33 14.9 40 $2,974 40 $2,037 40 $2,471 1401 0.33 14.9 40 $2,974 40 $2,037 40 $2,471 1419 0.33 14.9 40 $2,974 40 $2,037 40 $2,471 1443 0.33 14.9 40 $2,974 40 $2,037 40 $2,471 1505 0.33 14.9 40 $2,974 40 $2,037 40 $2,471 1545 0.33 14.9 40 $2,974 40 $2,037 40 $2,471 1549 2 14.9 238 $17,842 238 $12,221 238 $14,828 Totals 1756 $131,433 1756 $90,026 1756 $109,232 *These numbers are subject to rounding error.
Using these yearly cost estimates
, over 20 yea rs $ 19

. 7 million in man

- hours w ill be spent
on applying for and processing special conditions, exemptions, and ELOS. H owever under the

rule, the need to demonstrate compliance through special conditions, exemptions, or ELOS w ill
largely be eliminate d

. Instead new products will simply need to demonstrate compliance by37 | Page following consensus standards a cceptable to the Administrator, or by submitting their own
proposed means of compliance using the process outlined in AC 23.10

. 33 As a conser vative

estimate, the FAA estimates that special conditions, exemptions, and ELOS w ill be reduced by

half for a savings to the FAA and applicant of roughly $ 9

. 9 million ($ 4

. 9 million present value).
Savings by year is shown in the chart below.

**Table 10**

**. Total Cost for Special Conditions, Exemptions, and ELOS** *
Year FAA SAD FAA ACO Applicant Total 2017 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2018 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2019 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2020 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2021 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2022 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2023 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2024 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2025 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2026 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2027 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2028 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2029 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2030 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2031 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2032 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2033 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2034 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2035 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 2036 $195,992 $134,247 $162,886 $493,124 Total $3,919,840 $2,684,932 $3,257,714 $9,862,485 *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 low risk articles suitable for installation on type

- certificated
aircraft in the existing fleet. To encourage and enable the installation of voluntary safety

enhancements on these aircraft, the FAA will provide applicants with an alternative means to
obtain FAA approval to produce replacement and modification articles. This change w ill provide
a means that could be used to streamline the approval of thes e articles
, which w ill facilitate the
retrofit of safety enhancing equipment in the existing fleet. Examples of such articles include

33 See Section VI. Discussion of the Regulatory Amendments of the preamble for a discussion o f the process.38 | Page carbon monoxide detectors, weather display systems, clocks, small hand

- held fire extinguishers,
and flashlights. In many c ases, these articles are “off

- the

- shelf products.” It is frequently difficult
for a person to install these articles on a type certificated aircraft because the level of design and
production details necessary for these articles to meet the provisions of c urrent § 21.9, as
expected for more critical articles, is frequently unavailable.

Therefore, the FAA will revise § 21.9, Replacement and Modification Articles, to provide
applicants with an alternative method to obtain FAA approval to produce replacement and
modification articles. The FAA intends to use the flexibility provided by this change to

streamline th e approval process for non

- required safety enhancing equipment and other articles
that pose little or no risk exposure to aircraft occupants and the public.

Moreover, an applicant for supplemental type certificate 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 certificates. As such, a certain number of STCs submitted
yearly w ill benefit from this requirement.

V I

. 4. Qualitative Benefits
The FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Plans (APO) asked the Volpe Center 34 to
investigate whether performance

- based regulation or streamlining of regulatory approval us ing
industry consensus standards in other sectors resulted in the positive outc omes anticipated in
relation to the part 23 reorganization and to provide a report to the FAA

. Regarding the use of performance

- based regulation , the Volpe research found the
following:

34 https://www.volpe.dot.gov/39 | Page • The available literature is practically unanimous in the assertion that performance

- based
regulation would result in lower costs for industry, i.e. higher efficiency.

• Performance

- based standards will not by themselves spur innovation and progress toward

n ew safety features.

• If the regulating agency wishes to promote diffusion of certain technologies,
performance

- based regulation is capable of serving that function.

• To the extent that design standards inhibit competition in a market, moving to
performance standards may increase competition and foster growth in the market. In

addition, the use of performance

- based regulation 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 certification process has resulted in lower costs of

certification and facilitated the introduction of new and innovative designs.
Based on the Volpe findings, it appears likely that adopting performance

- based regulation
as a method of safety regulation for part 23 small general aviation aircraft could result in many
of the positive impacts mentioned as objectives of the SARA. However, the magnitude of the
positive impacts would be determined by how much freedom and flexibility the new
performance standards actually provide. Providing guidance on “means of compliance” through

consensus stan dards would assist manufacturers in developing methods for meeting the
performance st andards. However, Volpe warns that those consensus standards may turn out to be
de facto design standards and erode the potential benefits of adopting performance

- based

re gulation

. The FAA notes that the final rule preamble and the AC indicate that the FAA will
consider means of compliance other than consensus standards.40 | Page For more details, see “The Economic and Safety Impacts of Performance

- Based
Regulation and Consensus Standards ” Volpe document in the docket. 35



### VII. **Costs**

VII.1. Introduction
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is revising the airworthiness standards for
normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category part 23 airplanes by removing current weight
and pr opulsion based 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 rules are expect ed to be incorporated
into means of compliance documents

. I ndustry may continue to use the existing part 23
requirements as a means of compliance , at no additional costs, to type certificate new part 23

aircraft, without having to purchase standards docume nts from industry organizations that set

consensus standards and avoiding the general delay and confusion associated with any change.

The FAA believes this final rule will provide a set of requirements that will allow more
flexibility in airplane designs and faster adoption of safety enhancing technology while
maintaining a high level of safety.

The FAA is also reorganizing part 23. In t he final rule , the FAA provides a conversion

table from the former part 23 sections to the final rule sections

. 36 The FAA expects that m any of
the current part 23 requirements will not change but will be transferred to other documents ; use

of these standards cost/safety neutral. The se other documents include MOC, AC, Airworthiness
Design Standards (ADS), and ASTM documents. In the following section, w e discuss this in

more detail.

35 The Volpe document can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/ with a docket number FAA

- 2015

- 1621 36 The final rule can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/ with a docket number FAA

- 2015

- 1621.41 | Page In December 2014, the FAA met and discussed the proposed part 23 requirements with
the part 23 Reorganization ARC. We then provided the ARC with a dra ft document, which

included the revisions we intended to propose. The costs estimated in this section are based on
the discussions and documents FAA provided the ARC in the December 2014 meeting and

comments submitted to the docket for the NPRM

.
This cha pter also discuss es the FAA’s estimate of costs for the rule’s changes that w ill

add requirements to the part 23 certification process for new applicants

. O ther costs include
additional training costs for engineers to familiarize themselves with the new rule, type
certification manual update costs, and type certification database update costs

.
VII.2. Discussion of Minimal to No Costs Part 23 Sections
Currently, the ASTM standards organization is developing a set of consensus standards
based on the current part 23 regulations for FAA acceptance

. The ASTM standards will be one
way, but not the only way, to demonstrate compliance to the part 23 performance standards

. 37

At this time, the FAA has no t accepted any consensus standards a s a me ans of
compliance. The FAA will still conduct an assessment to make sure that the airplane design and

the consensus standards meet the performance standards in the current regulations. In addition,

once the FAA has accepted a design feature in a consensus standard, other designers and

manufacturers that wish to include that feature could reference t he standard

. The assumption of

minimal cost to most of the rule ’s changes assumes these consensus standards become available
for use as a means of compliance

. 38

37 If a manufacturer chose to use its own means of compliance, we will use the same process used today to evaluate alternatives. 38 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 comp liance review will be offset by the reduced number 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.42 | Page T he FAA will continue to accept compliance with current part 23 as a means of
compliance for new type certifications with the exception of the new provisions, which will need

to be included in the certification

. The new part 23 regulations will make the retrofit of new
technology more straightforward without the need for as many special conditions, ELOS, or
exemptions

. The FAA believes the se regulations will also remove barriers to bringing new, safer
airplane designs to market with similar benefits. The final rule will decrease the time and
expense to the FAA and the industry of working in the current prescriptive regulatory

environment while concurrently improv i ng the safety and health of GA. The international
aviation industry, including representatives from the world’s leading aviation authorities not only
agree with this approach , but are currently working with us to meet this goal . This final rule will

clear paths to compliance for a multitude of technologies, which will be available through the
consensus standards approach. For the majority of this rule , the means of compliance with the
FAA’s performance regulations w ill be cost and safety neutral because the means of compliance

in the ASTM or other documents w ill be no more burdensome than today’s prescriptive part 23
requirements established through the current amendment level

. After the final rule is effective,

we believe that manufacturers will choose the least costly means of compliance since the current
part requirements would still be available.

Current s ection 23. 200 5 will require that airplanes approved for spins be certificated to

aerobatic standards. An airplane designed with traditional handlin g qualities and designed to
allow spin training is more susceptible to inadvertent departure from controlled flight. The FAA
believes that maintaining the current utility category for airplanes approved for spin ning and

limited aerobatic maneuver s w ill negate the single largest safety gain expected from this
rulemaking action

— this change will result in a significant reduction in inadvertent stall

- related
departures from controlled flight.43 | Page The FAA believes this new requirement w ill have little effect o n the industry

. Manufacturers will be able to certificate new airplanes that are approved for spins and meet the
aerobatic requirements. In fact, m any flight schools us e acrobatic airplanes for spin training
today

. Also, spin training was removed from the required private pilot training curriculum
decades ago and t he only FAA require d spin training is during training for flight instructor s

. The

schools that use utility category airplanes for spin training now can continue to use their existing
fleet for spi n training and any utility airplanes in current production can continue to be produced.
For these reasons the FAA does not believe the elimination of utility category for newly
certificated models will have a significant negative impact on flight schools a nd spin training

.
The final rule eliminates the current stall characteristics and spin testing approach to
address the largest cause of fatal accidents in small airplanes. Section 23.215 0 in subpart B w ill
omit the one turn/three second spin requirement for normal category airplanes, but it w ill
increase the stall handling characteristics and stall warning requirements so the airplane will be
substantially more resistant to stall

- based departures than the c urrent rules require. Flight school
representatives on the ARC stated that because they have not had problems we should not
change the rule from what we have today. The FAA notes that an air plane that meets the stall
characteristics can be used for spin training if designed to allow a maintenance change to a n

alternative configuration. The final rule changes are discussed in the p reamble and the

additional cost are discussed below in the “Discussion of Sections That Could Add Costs”

section.

This final rule is also adding regulations to improve the safety of part 23 airplanes
certified for flight in icing by addressing icing conditions that are not currently included in part44 | Page 23

. Th e rule incorporat es recommendations from the part 23 Icing ARC. 39 Prior to the Part 23
Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), the Part 23 Icing ARC recommended
revising part 23 to incorporate supercooled large drop ( SLD ) icing requirements into subparts B
, E, and F . The final rule’s icing regulations w ill 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 certify to the icing conditions in appendix C to part 25, the se regulations

w ill require a means for detecting SLD and showing the airplane can safely exit the icing

conditions. The FAA determined that the service history of part 23 ai rplanes certified 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 Icing ARC’s proposed icing

recommendations with the part 23 Reorganization ARC. The icing recommendations dis cussed

with the ARC do not differ from those set forth in this rule . Since this meeting, industry has
reviewed the icing requirements we provided along with the draft ASTM icing standards. Based

on this information, industry believes the icing requirements are cost and safety neutral as the

rule reflects current industry practices for detecting and safely exiting SLD conditions. Industry
has informed us that they do not believe they will certify a part 23 airplane for flight in SLD

conditions.
Additionally, this final rule will amend parts 21, 43, 91, 121, and 135 to maintain
consistency and alignment with the new part 23. These will be conforming changes and are not
expected to add costs.

39 The Part 23 Icing ARC report can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/ with a docket number FAA

- 2015

- 1621

.45 | Page VII.3. Discussion of Sections That Will Add Costs

When t he FAA and members from the p art 23 Reorganization ARC met in December

2014
, the FAA provided the ARC with a draft document
, which included provisions we intended

to propose

. The costs estimated in this s ection 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 costs of the rule would be part 23, through the current amendment level and

comments submitted to the docket for the NPRM

. The FAA analyzed the expected costs of the final rule over the analysis interval. The
major factor s driving the expected costs of this final rule are the additional training tasks
,
database development
, and documentation that must be submitted to the FAA and industry part
23 certification engineers. The following sections discuss the FAA estimate of the number of
part 23 certification and industry engineers who w ill have to receive training because of th is
rulemaking. We also discuss the FAA estimate of their salaries in order to estimate training

costs. We the n discuss the provisions that add costs
, and the methodology the FAA employed
, to

estimate the total incremental costs of this final rule, over w hat is currently required, based upon

FAA and industr y unit cost estimates.

VII.3.a. Annual and Hourly Wages and Benefits
In this section, we discuss the part 23 certification engineering wages the FAA use s in
this analysis. This section also discusses the source we used for the wages

. We received no

comments on this section in the NPRM , hence we will use the same methodology in the final

rule

.
The new part 23 requires engineers to p erform additional engineering duties in designing,
constructing, training, and testing air planes from what is currently required . These engineers may
conduct basic and applied research to evaluate adaptability of materials and equipment to46 | Page air plane design and manufacture an d may recommend improvements in testing equipment and
techniques.
In May 201 5 , BLS published the National Industry

- Specific Occupational Employment
and Wage Estimates for Support Activities for Air Transportation. The May 2015 Occupational

Profile code for Architecture and Engineering Occupations is 17

- 0000

. 40 The major group for
Aerospace Engineers under the 17

- 0000 code is 17

- 2011. 41 The FAA believes that the 17

- 2011
survey is the appropriate wage to estimate the salary of the part 23 certification engineers
affected by the rule. The BLS survey lists the mean hourly wage for aerospace engineer a s
$5 3

. 16 . The cost analysis use s the mean hourly wage of $5 3

. 16 for part 23 certification
engineers to estimate the additional costs the rule adds for training tasks. The FAA notes that the

survey does not included overhead and lists the annual mean salary range for aerospace
engineers, by area in the continental United States, from $6 7
, 850 to $15 8
, 70 0
, which is

consistent with the mean hourly wage of $53.16

. In addition, aerospace engineer benefits (such as health benefits, vacation, sick time, etc.)

must be added to estimate the costs for this analysis

. U sing the guidance from the “Employer
Costs for Employee Compensation

– December 2014” study of employee benefits
, 42 the FAA
uses the wage multiplier for benefits equaling 1.17. Therefore, t he FAA calculated the mean
hourly wage, plus b enefits, for a part 23 certification engineer to be $ 6 2

. 20 ($5 3.16 + $ 9 .0 4 ).

VII.3.b. Estimated Costs for §23.215 0 (b) Stall characteristics, stall warning, and spins

There is a detailed discussion in the p reamble on the FAA eliminat ing commuter, utility,
and acrobatic airplane categories from part 23, retaining only normal category for all new part 23

40 http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm 41 http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172011.htm 42 On January 30, 2014, the DOT published a memo o n “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 employ er provided benefits increase with additional hours worked by an individual employee

.47 | Page type certificated airplane design approvals and instead using the following airplane certification

levels:

• Level 1

– for airplanes with a maximum seating configuration of 0 to 1 passengers.

• Level 2

– for airplanes with a maximum seating configuration of 2 to 6 passengers.

• Level 3

– for airplanes with a maximum seating configuration of 7 to 9 passengers.

• Level 4

– for airplanes with a maximum seating configuration of 10 to 19 passengers.

In order to estimate costs for § 23.2 15 0 (b) in this section, and 23.215 0 (c) in the following

section , we also discuss the methodology the FAA used to map the reciprocatin g, turboprop, and
turbojet airplanes presented in the “Fleet Discussion” section into the airplane certification levels

above.

The FAA is increas ing the stall requirements for single engine airplanes, to provide some
level of spin resistance or protection from inadvertently departing controlled flight. The FAA
and industry believes that the majority of the changes to § 23.215 0 are not significantly different
than what is currently required today and therefore the testing costs for this new requirement

woul d not be significant.
Additionally, FAA did not estimate any increases in manufacturing costs as a result of
this requirement. Manufacture r s have already indicated that the changes to § 23.215 0 will not
require a great deal of complexity and therefore would result in minor costs increases

. This final
rule allows manufacturers flexibility to comply with new part 23 stall and spin type certification
requirements. Applicants can design aerodynamic configurations that do not have a tendency to

de part controlled flight
, and in fact some already exist . There are existing airplanes that have
been designed successfully with these aerodynamic characteristics. Applicants can also choose
to include control system designs that prevent the tendency to dep art controlled flight by
avoiding aerodynamic stall. There are existing airplanes that have been designed using such48 | Page systems. Innovative applicants can also develop new methods to prevent the tendency to depart
controlled flight and propose a new method of compliance for FAA acceptance.

Section 23.215 0 (b) is a new requirement that w ill likely increase the burden for all newly
certificated, single engine reciprocating , turboprop, and turbojet airplanes not certified for

aerobatics . Section 23.215 0 (b) requires these airplanes must not have a tendency to inadvertently
depart controlled flight

. In the NPRM, we proposed to require level 1 and level 2 multiengine
airplanes to meet the same § 23.215 0 (b) requirement as the level 1 and level 2 single

- engine

a irplanes, but the FAA has eliminated th is requirement to level 1 and level 2 multiengine
airplanes in the final rule. In both the NPRM and this final rule, § 23.215 0 (b) requires only
single engine level 3 airplanes to comply; therefore
, there has been no change for these airplanes.
With the changes between the NPRM and final rule for § 23.215 0 (b), there now is a requirement

for level 4 airplanes to comply. Although the § 23.215 0 (b) in the final rule imposes a new
requirement to level 4 airplanes, since currently, commuter airplanes are required to have two
engines, and level 4 airplanes are commuter airplanes, the final rule is relieving by allowing level
4 airplanes to be certificated with only one engine. Since the FAA has no informat ion on part 23
manufacture’s plans to type certificate a new level 4 single airplane, we were unable to cost this
new requirement or estimate the costs of the final rule now enabling level 4 single engine
airplanes.
From Appendix 2 and the “Fleet Discussio n” section, 100 percent of the historical
reciprocating engine airplanes had six or fewer seats and would fall under either a level 1 or level
2 airplane classification. Also from Appendix 2 and the “Fleet Discussion” section , 100 percent
of level 1 and 93 percent of level 2 reciprocating engine airplanes were single engine aircraft.

Therefore , since the overwhelming majority of historically delivered level 1 and level 2 airplanes49 | Page are single engine, the two new future part 23 reciprocating engine type certificates, calculated in
the “Fleet Discussion” section, will have to comply with this section

. In addition, 97 percent of the historical turboprop airplanes, analyzed in Appendix 2 and

the “Fleet Discussion” section, had 10 o r more seats. Also from Appendix 2 and the “Fleet

Discussion” section , all level 1 turboprop airplanes were multiengine aircraft and 96 percent of
level 2 turboprop airplanes were multiengine aircraft. Therefore, we assume that any new part 23
turboprop ai rplane certifications will be a level 4 multiengine airplane and would already meet

the new requirements for this section and therefore have no additional costs.
Lastly, 61% 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 , all level 1 turbojet airplanes were multiengine aircraft and ove r three quarters of the
level 2 turbojet airplanes were multiengine aircraft. From Appendix 2 and the “Fleet Discussion”

section, we also estimated that there will be two new future part 23 turbojet type certificates.

Therefore, these two new part 23 turb ojet engine U.S. type certificates will have to comply with

this section.

For the NPRM, the FAA consulted with ARC members from industry and they bel ieve

th e § 23.215 0(b) change could cost somewhere in the range of $100, 000 to $150, 000 in 2014

dollars for a new type certificated airplane

. For this final rule, t he FAA adjusted the 2014 dollars
to 2015 dollars to obtain a range of $100, 119 to $150, 179 for a new type certificated airplane.

Therefore, the FAA uses $125, 149 (($100, 119 + $150, 179 )/2) as an average cost to demonstrate
and test for this change. This w ill be a one

- time cost per new type certification.

Table 11 shows the total costs for the changes to the controllability section.

**Table 1 1**  **. Estimate Costs for §**  **23.215 0**  **(b) (201**  **5 $)** 

Airplane Number of Estimated New Type Certificates Costs Total50 | Page Recip 2 $125,149 $250,298

Turboprop 0 $125,149 $0

Turbojet 2 $125,149 $250,298
Total $500, 595

VII.3. c. Estimated Costs for § 23. 215 0 (c) Stall characteristics, stall warning, and spins

Section 23.2 15 0 (c) should prevent level 1 and 2 multiengine airplanes from losing directional

control after a critical loss of thrust. The FAA and industry believe that § 23.2 15 0 (c) will

increase the burden for certain multiengine airplanes because it may require additional testing
costs and include a cost for a change to a limitation or performance number in the flight manual.

We note that the final rule requirements for § 23.215 0 (c) were originally in proposed §

23.200 of the NPRM. We received no c omments on the cost estimates for proposed § 23.200 in

the NPRM , hence we will use the same methodology to estimate the costs for § 23.215 0 (c) as we

did in the NPRM for 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. ARC

members from industry believe that this is a simple test to comply with the rule’s change s and
has provided the FAA with estimated costs of $100,000 to $200,000 in 2014 dollars

. Using the
CPI inflator provided from B L S, the FAA converted these 2014 dollar costs to 2015 dollars. 43

Therefore, the FAA uses $150, 179 (($100, 119 + $200, 238 )/2) as an average cost to demonstrate
and test for this more prescriptive requirement. This will be a one

- time cost per new type

certification.

In addition, § 23.2 15 0 (c) could result in a change to a n operator limitation or a set of
airplane performance number s in the flight manual. ARC members from industry believe that

43 http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm51 | Page making this change could cost from $100,000 to $150,000 in 2014 dollars

. As these estimates

were used in the NPRM, the FAA continues to use them. Again, for this final rule, the FAA

co nverted the 2014 dollars to 2015 dollars using a CPI inflator. Therefore, the FAA uses

$125, 149 (($100, 119 + $ 150
, 179 )/2) as an average cost for this change.

There will also be additional paperwork associated with this requirement that is not part

of the costs discussed above. The FAA estimate s the paperwork costs for these provisions by
multiplying the number of hours the FAA estimates for each page of paperwork, by th e number
of pages for the training courseware, or flight manual, by the hourly rate of the person
responsible for the update. The Small Airplane Directorate of the FAA provided average hourly
times and the number of additional pages of paperwork the final rule will add. The FAA

estimates that this section w ill add a total of four pages to the training courseware and flight

manual. The FAA also estimates that it will take a part 23 certification engineer eight hours to
complete the one page required for each new type certification.

Therefore, t he FAA estimates the total paperwork costs for § 23.215 0 (c) will be about

$ 1,99 0 (8 hours * 4 pages * $6 2.20 per hour).

From Appendix 2 and the “Fleet Discussion” section above, we calculated there would be
two part 23 reciprocating engine future type certificates. From Appendix 2 and the “Fleet

Discussion” section
, 9 6 % of all historical reciprocating engine airplanes delivered had one

engine ; therefore
, § 23. 215 0 (c) will not add costs to future type certificated part 23 reciprocating
engine airplane.

Also from the Appendix 2 and the “Fleet Discussion” section, 100 percent of the
historical turbojet airplanes delivered had two engine s , but about 46 percent could be produced
with only six seats. T herefore the FAA assumes that §23.2 15 0 (c) w ill add costs to one of the

new part 23 turbo jet airplane type certificates estimated in the “Fleet Discussion” section above

.52 | Page Again , from Appendix 2 and the “Fleet Discussion” section, 5 5 percent of the historical
turboprop airplanes delivered ha d two engine s , but 9 6 percent have greater than six seats

.

T he refore the FAA assumes that § 23.2 15 0 (c) w il l not add costs to future type certificated
multiengine turboprop airplane s

. The FAA and industry believe that for the rest of th e changes in th e controllability

section , there is no significant cost impact because there is no differen ce than what is required
today , although in the future, there may be some cost savings once consensus standards have
been developed.

Table 1 2 shows the total costs for the changes to the controllability section

.

**Table 1 2** 

**. Estimate Costs for**  **§ 23.215**  **0 (c)**  **(201 5**  **$)**

Airplane Number of Estimated New Type Certificates Affected by §

23. 2 15 0 (c) Training Costs Changes to Flight Manual Paper Work Total Recip 0 $150,179 $125,149 $1,990 $0
Turboprop 0 $150,179 $125,149 $1,990 $0
Turbojet 1 $150,179 $125,149 $1,990 $277,318

**Total $277,318**  *These numbers are subject to rounding error.

The FAA notes that a multiengine part 23 aircraft manufacturer could choose to comply

with § 23.2 15 0( c ) by making the airplane capable of climbing after a critical loss by installing
larger engines. Both the FAA and industry believe that this option w ill reduce the practicality of
the airplane so much it would not be a marketable product. We stated this in the NPRM and
received no comments on this position

.
VII.3. d

. Additional Training Costs
FAA and industry certification engineers will need training on how to implement the new
requirements. A significant portion of the training is expected to involve explaining the new
process and how to relate the accepted means of compliance to the new regulations. In this53 | Page section, we first discuss our estimate of the number of part 23 FAA and industry certification
engineers that will require additional training because of this rulemaking. Next
, we describe the
costs to develop the training programs necessary to implement the rule

. We then estimate the
training costs for this final rule to both FAA and industry.

The Planning and Program Management Division of the FAA Aircraft Certification

Service (AIR

- 500) pr ovided the number of engineers who currently support the part 23
certification requirements. O nce the rule is published, there will be an initial effort on both the
part of the FAA and industry to train their engineers.
There are currently 669 part 23 FAA certification engineers and we expect the number of
engineers will stay reasonably flat. As in the NPRM, t he FAA estimates that 50 percent of these
part 23 FAA certification engineers, or 335, will require additional tr aining to implement this

rule

. 44 The FAA estimates that the same number of industry part 23 certification engineers will
also require additional training necessary to implement the rule ; therefore
, we assume that there
are 335 industry certification engine ers who w ill also require training

. Due to retirement or attrition, the FAA and industry will have to hire new part 23
certification engineers. The initial training program for new engineers w ill include the training
necessary to implement the rule when they are hired, and therefore we believe that there w ill not
be any recurrent costs from this final rule to newly hired part 23 FAA and industry certification
engineers.

The FAA estimates that it will cost $250, 298 in 2015 dollars to develop the stru ctured
training on part 23 for the FAA certification engineer staff. The cost to deliver the training is
dependent on the 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 st aff. The FAA estimates that it w ill take

44 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

.54 | Page most engineers two days (16 hours) to take the on

- line trainin g. This w ill be a one

- time cost per
new type certification. The FAA is anticipating the two days of training w ill encompass the
following topics:

1. Background/history

– addressing why we are making this change to part 23,

2. Rule language

– go over the specific new language, how it relates to amendment

62 languages , and the intent of the new language,

3. Means of Compliance

– go over the means of comp liance 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 w ill cost the same for industry to develop their structured tra ining

class and that the same number of industry part 23 certification engineers w ill also require
additional training from this rule

.
The FAA notes that any paperwork costs associated with this section w ill be part of the

initial $250, 298 cost to develop the training materials

. Therefore, the FAA estimates the total training costs to FAA and industry part 23
certification engineers will be about $500, 595 (2 * $250, 298 ) to develop the on

- line training

material and about $6 67 ,000 (2 * (1 6 hours * 335 engineers * $62.20 per hour)) to train the
engineers

. Table 13 shows the calculation of these training costs to both the FAA and industry

.

**Table 13** 

**. Training Costs (201**  **5 $)**  Development of

on - line training Training Hours Number of Engineers Hourly W age Total
FAA $250, 298 16 335 $ 62.20 $ 583 690
Indust r y $250, 298 16 335 $6 2.20 $5 83 , 6 9 0
Total $1,1 67 , 379 *These numbers are subject to rounding error.55 | Page VII.3. e

. Type Certification Manual Update Costs
The FAA is expecting part 23 airplane manufacturers to update their engineering
procedure s manuals to reflect the changes from this rulemaking. However, m ost of the
engineering procedures manuals are not written around the requirement s of part 23, but around
the requirements of part 21. Part 21 covers c ertification p rocedures for p roducts, a rticles, and

p arts

. Since the part 23 changes w ill have minimal impact on the part 21 requirements, there
should be little change in the e ngineeri ng procedures manuals.
Conversations with industry indicate that there may need to be some changes to the
engineering manuals to describe how the accepted means of compliance must be related to the
regulations. Depending on the complexity of each company’s manual, ARC members from
industry estimates that these changes could run from about $50,0 6 0 up to $200, 238 in 2015

dollars

. This will be a one

- time cost per new type certification. This approach was used in t he
initial regulatory evaluation. Since we received no comments, the FAA continues to use to same
approach for the final rule.
Since the FAA is unable to determine the complexity of each company’s manual, we
assume that the manufacturers of the two new pa rt 23 reciprocating engine airplane type

certifications, discussed in the “Fleet Discussion” section, w ill spend $50,0 6 0 to make the
changes to the engineering manual. We also assume that the one new part 23 turboprop airplane
certification and the two new part 23 turbojet airplane certifications, discussed in the “Fleet

Discussion” section
, w ill use the more complex and costly approach of $200, 238

.
Table 14 shows the total costs for the changes to the controllability section.

**Table 14** 

**. Estimate Costs for Updating Engineering Manuals (201**  **5 $)** 

Air plane Number of Estimated New Type Certificates Simple Approach Complex App roach Total Recip 2 $50,0 6 0 $0 $100, 119 Turboprop 1 $0 $200, 238 $200, 23856 | Page Turbojet 2 $0 $200, 238 $400, 476
Total $700, 833 *These numbers are subject to rounding error.

VII.3. f

. Type Certification Database Update Costs
Currently
, manufacturers have certification compliance databases that are used to create a
compliance checklist that is used to identify who in the organization is show ing compliance to
each regulation, how they are show ing compliance, (i.e. analysis, test, etc.), a nd where the
substantiation is documented such as a report number, revision, title, etc. The manufacturers
may also tie a schedule or other facts pertaining to the regulation in the compliance checklist

database. This may be one of the more significant on e

- time costs to revise the programs to
accommodate the new regulation because this database has to reference the methods of
compliance associated with the regulation, or this could be a cross

- reference between the various
old regulation s and the regulation s , or this could contain the testing or analysis necessary to
comply with the rule

.
The FAA understands from discussions with ARC members from industry that part 23
airplane manufacturers plan to use a product similar to Microsoft EXCEL to create this
certification database in a spreadsheet with cross reference tables. This approach may not be
acceptable for large companies with large production capacity , more complicated airplanes, and
multiple certification processes. As we received no cost estimates from the comments on the
approach used for the NPRM, we continue to use the same approach for the final rule.

For a company that is using an EXCEL spreadsheet to perform this tracking, ARC

members from industry estimate that the total cost t o make the necessary changes to a
spreadsheet database to range from $100, 119 to $200, 238, in 2015 dollars
, per certification.

Therefore
, the FAA uses $150, 179 (($100, 119 + $200, 238 )/2) as an average cost to make the
necessary changes to a spreadsheet database for a small manufacturer. Since the FAA is unable57 | Page to determine whether a manufacturer w ill be using a simple EXCEL spreadsheet to create this

certification database, as in the initial regulatory evaluation, we assume that the manufacturers of
the two new part 23 reciprocating engine airplane type certifications, estimated in the “Fleet

Discussion” section, w ill use the simple approach. 45

For manufacture r s that have a productio n capacity and multiple certification processes,

ARC members from industry estimates that a programmer could spend up to six month s of full
time programing to make this change to a simple compliance database. A more complex
program may take between one to one and a half years for a programmer to make the necessary
programming changes. ARC members from industry estimate that the cost for the programm ing
changes to the certification database will range from $100, 119 to $300, 357 in 2015 dollars

.
Therefore
, the FAA uses $200, 238 (($100, 119 + $300, 357 )/2) as an average cost to make the

necessary programming changes to a more complex certification database.

In addition, this task w ill also require some engineering support effort that ARC members
from industry estimate could be about 25 percent to 50 percent of the time that a programmer

takes. AR C members f rom i ndustry estimate that the cost for engineer support c ould range from

$37,5 45 to $225, 268 , depending on the complexity of the aircraft, to assist in making the
programming changes to the certification database. 46 Therefore
, the FAA uses $ 131
, 406
(($37,5 45 + $225, 268 )/2) as an average cost for engineering support to make the necessary
changes to a more complex certification database. This will be a one

- time cost per new type

certification.

45 We received no comments on this assumption in the NPRM , hence we will use the same methodology as in the final rule

. 46 Part 23 aircraft range from simple reversible control, low technology aircraft to complex irreversib le control, high technology aircraft which affects the amount of programming necessary for a certification database.58 | Page The FAA notes that either the simple EXCEL approach or th e more complex approach to
creating this certification database could also either take place in house or could be c ontracted

out to a consultant.

S ince the FAA is unable to determine whether a manufacturer w ill have a more complex
production capacity and multiple certification processes involved with creating this certification

database, we assume d, in the initial regulatory evaluation, that the manufacturers of the one new
part 23 turboprop airplane certificati ons, and two new part 23 turbojet airplane certifications,

estimated in the “Fleet Discussion” section w ill use the more complex and costly approach. We
continue to use the same methodology as in the initial regulatory evaluation since we received no

comm ents.

Table 15 shows the total costs for the changes to the controllability section.

**Table 15** 

**. Estimate Costs for Creating a Certification Database (201**  **5 $)** 

Air plane Number of Estimated New Type Certificates EXCEL approach Programming support Engineering support Total Recip 2 $150, 179 $0 $0 $300, 357 Turboprop 1 $0 $200, 238 $131, 406 $331, 644 Turbojet 2 $0 $200, 238 $131, 406 $66 3 , 288
Total $1,29 5 , 290 *These numbers are subject to rounding error.

VII.3. g

. Summary of Costs

The final rules ’ major costs are the engineer training costs and the certification database

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

In Table 16 , we summarize the total estimated compliance costs by category. The FAA
notes that since we assumed that all costs occurred in Year 1 of the analysis interval , for the
purposes of this analysis , the 201 5 dollar costs equal the present value costs.59 | Page **Table 16** 

**. Total Cost Summary by**  **Category**

Type of Cost Total Costs (201 5 $) and P.V. §23. 2150(c) Controllability $277,318
§23.215 0(b) Stall characteristics, stall warning, and spins $500,595 Engineer Training Costs $1,167,379
Certification Database Costs $1,295,290 Manual Upgrade Costs $700,833

Total Costs $3,941,414 *These numbers are subject to rounding error.

The FAA estimated the average additional cost from this rule
, per reciprocating engine
airplane, turboprop airplane, and turbojet airplane type certification by dividing the total costs by
category the number of estimated new certifications from the “Fleet Discussion” section. We

then summed these average costs by c ategory. The results are shown in Table 17 below.

**Table 17** 

**. Average**  **Additional Cost per Type Certificate by Engine Category**  **(2015$)** Engine §23. 2 150(c) §23.215 0(b) Training Database Manual Total **Recip** $0 $125,149 $233,476 $150,179 $50,060 $558,863

**TP** $0 $0 $233,476 $331,644 $200,238 $765,358
**TJ** $277,318 $125,149 $233,476 $331,644 $200,238 $1,167,824

*These numbers are subject to rounding error.



### VIII. **Benefit**

**- Cost Summary** 

The major safety benefit of this final rule is to add stall characteristics and stall warnings

that w ill result in airplane designs that are more resistant to inadvertently depart controlled flight.
The largest number of accidents for part 23 airplanes involve s a stall or departure

- based LOC in
flight. Additional benefits are that the current part 23 regulations are prescriptive and hinder the
industry’s ability to introduce new technology ; t his final rule will result in cost savings by
streamlining the certification process and encourag ing n ew and innovative technology.
Streamlining the certification process will reduce the issuance of special conditions, exemptions,

and ELOS

.60 | Page The final rule ’s major costs are the engineer training costs and the certification database

creation costs. Additional costs w ill also accrue from the controllability and stall sections that

increase requirements over former standards and the manual upgrade costs.

Anoth er way to consider the expected net benefit to the society is if the revisions adopted

in the final rule save only one human li f e by improving stall characteristics and stall warnings

that alone w ill result in benefits which substantially outweigh the costs

. A ccordingly
, the FAA

has determined that the final rule w ill be net beneficial.
The FAA has analyzed the benefits and the costs associated with this final rule . The
following table shows these results.

**Table 18. Estimated Benefits and Costs from 2017 to 2036 (201**  **5 $ Millions)**  **Stall and Spin +**

**Other Costs =**

**Total Costs**  **Safety Benefits + Cost Savings = Total Benefits** 

Total $0.8 + $3.1 = $3.9 $ 17

. 9 + $ 9

. 9 = $ 2 7

. 8 Present Value at 7 percent $0.8 + $3.1 = $3.9 $ 6. 1 + $ 4

. 9 = $ 1 1

. 0 Present Value at 3 percent $0.8 + $3.1 = $3.9 $1 1

. 1 + $ 7

. 1 = $ 18

. 3 *These numbers are subject to rounding error.61 | Page 

### IX. **Sensitivity Discussion**

Earlier in this analysis the FAA discussed both the t he Small Airplane Revitalization Act

of 2013 and how performance

- based regulations, or streamlining of regulatory approval via use
of industry consensus standards, could result in decreasing certification costs

. The use of

consensus standards as a means of co mpliance to the performance based regulations review

could reduce the cost of introducing new designs and increase the number of future part 23 type

certificates

.
ASTM International has develop ed light sport aircraft ( LSA ) consensus standards. In a
paper available on the ASTM website, ASTM cites the success of its LSA consensus standards
resulting in numerous new aircraft designs ha s been developed. ASTM believe s the LSA

consensus standard s substantially reduce the cost to certify a new LSA aircraft model relative to

the traditional part 21 requirements

. 47 In 2008, ASTM reported that 76 new aircraft designs
were developed as a result of the ASTM design standards. 48 Currently there are over 130 new
LSA designs suggesting that over the last six years, on average nine new designs per year have

been introduced

. This is an example of how industry has taken advantage of consensus standards

to increase the number of new airplane designs.

The FAA believes t hat once prom ulgated, this rule could enable new part 23

manufacturers to both enter the marketplace and permit current part 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 quantify the outcome, we believe that through the

flexibilities offered in this rule , the general aviation community could reverse the trend of

47 Stephenson, James and Deborah Stephenson, “Light Sport Aircraft Industry Takes Flight on ASTM International Standards,” ASTM Standardizat ion News November/December 2008. 48 Ibid.62 | Page decreasing part 23 certified fleet ( 1 1 percent in the last 10 years as d etermined from the 2013
FAA General Aviation Survey ) and could increase deliveries.

A fter this rule becomes effective, part 23 manufacturers may seek certification for at least
one or two new recipro cating engine airplanes in addition to what we estimated in the “Fleet

Discussion” section

. As a result of this rule
, every additional part 23 type certification could

increase the total cost of the rule, but the benefits would also increase in proportion to the costs

.

Sensitivity Analysis Using Historical Deliveries between 2008 through 201 5

As a check of how the number of deliveries affects the costs and benefits, t he FAA
conducted a sensitivity analysis using historical deliveries between 2008 through 201 5 instead of
1998 through 201 5 to forecast future deliveries to determine the effect on the cost benefits of this
rulemaking.
Utilizing the same methodology from the “Fleet Discussion” section to calculate the
growth of the expected affected future part 23 fleet, we analyzed the annual airplane deliveries

from U.S. manufacturers in the years 2008 through 201 5 . For each airplane manufacturer and for
each of their type certifications, we calculated the average annual number of airplanes delivered

from 2008 thr ough 201 5

. While the turboprop and the turbojet market is essentially the same in
this shorter period of analysis, the reciprocating airplane market has less than half the airplanes
produced over the longer 1998 through 201 5 analysis period. The sensitivi ty analysis resulted in
one less type certification and a significant drop in deliveries for reciprocating airplanes over the
base case forecast. For the sensitivity analysis
, the base case forecast of the number of type

certifications remained constant f or turboprop and turbojet aircraft. For the sensitivity analysis,

d eliveries slightly increased for turboprop and slightly decreased for turbojet airplanes

. Table 1963 | Page summarizes our estimate of part 23 U.S. airplanes that manufacturers will certificate and produce
for this sensitivity analysis.

**Table 19. Part 23 New U.S. Certifications and Delivered Airplanes** Recip TurboProp Turbojet Weighted Average Number of AC per TC per Year 4 6 50 3 2 New Part 23 Certifications in a 10

- year Period 1 1 2 New Part 23 Certificated Airplanes deliveries per year 4 6 50 64

Using the values from Table 19
, and following the same methodology from the “Fleet
Discussion” section for this sensitivity analysis, with no change in the average production life

and the 34 years airplane service life
, we forecasted 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 flow ing the adjust ed
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, t he 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 methodology, 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 sa me t raining time from the “Costs” section

. Shortening the period of analysis leads to a 30 percent decline in the number of
reciprocating airplane deliveries as compared to the base case. Consequently, there is a decline in
safety benefits of 22 percent over the base case. The re was only a slight drop in costs for the64 | Page sensitivity analysis because of the reduction in type certificates for reciprocating airplanes and no
change in the type certifications for turboprop and turbojet airplanes.

Table 20 shows for this sensitivity analysis
, the benefits also exceed the costs.

**Table 20. Sensitivity Analysis** Using Historical Deliveries between 2008 through 201 5 to **Estimate Benefits and Costs from 2017 to 2036 (201 5**  **$ Millions)** *****

**Costs Safety Benefits + Cost**  **Savings = Total Benefits**  Total $3.6 $ 12

. 2 + $ 9.9 = $ 2 2

. 1 Present Value at 7 percent $3.6 $ 4.2 + $ 4

. 9 = $ 9 .1 Present Value at 3 percent $3.6 $ 7. 6 + $ 7

. 1 = $1 4

. 7 *These numbers are subject to rounding error.65 | Page 

### X. **Appendix I** 66 | Page 

### XI. **Appendix II** 

For an example of how we calculate d the average annual number of airplanes delivered per manufacturer, the following table shows that for the manufacturer Adam/AAI/Triton, since they only delivered aircraft for the three years 2005, 2006 and 2007, the average ann ual number of airplanes deli vered is 3 ((2+4+3) / 3).67 | Page *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 weighted average number of airplanes per type certificate, the following t able shows that for turboprops, we used the formula ( ( (0.25*8 7.9 )+ (0.5*1 8.2 ) + (0.29*58. 8 ) ) / (0.25+0.5+0.29) )and then rounded the result to the nearest whole number 4 6 . 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.

*These numbers are subject to rounding error.

This table shows how we calculated the number of new certifications, by manufacturer, by reciprocating engine, turboprop, and turbojet airplane, for each decade group.

*These numbers are subject to rounding error.70 | Page This table is used in the cost section to calculate the percentages for the historical airplanes delivered with one or two engines and various seat groupings.
Type Certificate Type Engines # of a/c Seats 3A12 R 1 4,986 4 3A13 R 1 3,423 4 3A15 R 1 934 6 3A16 R 2 609 4

- 6 3A23 R 1 369 4

- 5 A00003SE R 1 810 4 A00009DE R 1 9 6 A21CE R 1 557 2 A4CE R 1 1,556 6 A

- 759 R 1 428 2 3A20 T 2 618 10 A00007SE T 1 164 4 A24CE T 2 1,500 13 A37CE T 1 1,583 10 A00001AC J 2 4 7 A00010WI J 2 292 6

- 7 A00014WI J 2 462 6 A1WI J 2 1,279 6

- 1071 | Page 

### XII. **Appendix III**72 | Page 

### XIII. **Appendix IV**

NTSB Stall and Spin Loss of Control Accidents

NTSB_no Date Fatalities acft_make acft_model Damage Applicability to Rule
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 DESIGN CORP 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 CEN09FA340 6/7/2009 2 Gulfstream American Corp AA

- 5B SUBS Medium CEN09FA363 6/16/2009 1 Cirrus Design Corporation 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 ERA10LA233 4/16/2010 1 CESSNA 172H SUBS Low CEN10FA233 5/2/2010 2 JetProp DLX Piper PA46 SUBS High ERA10FA259 5/10/2010 2 CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22 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 DESIGN CORP SR22 SUBS High
CEN11FA075 11/17/2010 1 Hawker

- Beechcraft Corporation A36 SUBS High

WPR11FA050 11/17/2010 2 DIAMOND AIRCRAFT IND INC DA20

- C1 SUBS High
CEN11LA194 2/15/2011 1 TAYLORCRAFT DCO

- 65 SUBS Low CEN11FA267 4/4/2011 1 CIRRUS DESIGN CORP 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 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 DESIGN CORP SR22 SUBS Medium CEN12FA617 9/9/2012 1 BEECH A36 SUBS Medium CEN13FA002 10/3/2012 2 CIRRUS DESIGN CORP SR22 SUBS Medium
CEN13FA060 11/18/2012 2 GRUMMAN AMERICAN AVN. CORP. 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 WPR13FA086 1/6/2013 2 BEECH V35A DEST High ERA13FA115 1/16/2013 1 PILATUS PC

- 12/45 SUBS High CEN13FA214 3/29/2013 1 CESSNA 152 SUBS High ERA13FA227 5/4/2013 2 NEWGENT, BARRY S6S DEST High

WPR13FA244 5/28/2013 2 RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY A36 DEST Low

ERA13FA259 5/31/2013 1 DIAMOND AIRCRAFT IND INC DA 20

- C1 SUBS Low
ERA13LA270 6/5/2013 1 MAULE BEE DEE M

- 4

- 210 SUBS Low CEN13FA327 6/8/2013 2 PIPER PA

- 28

- 140 SUBS Medium CEN13FA351 6/15/2013 2 PIPER PA

- 24

- 260 DEST High WPR13FA288 6/24/2013 1 BEECH J35 SUBS High73 | Page NTSB_no Date Fatalities acft_make acft_model Damage Applicability to Rule ERA13FA309 6/30/2013 2 NANCHANG CHINA CJ

- 6A DEST Low CEN13FA416 7/17/2013 2 TAYLORCRAFT BC12

- 65 DEST High WPR13FA368 8/12/2013 1 BEECH E35 SUBS High WPR13FA370 8/13/2013 2 CHAMPION 7GCAA DEST High WPR13FA376 8/16/2013 2 URBAN AIR SRO SAMBA XXL SUBS High ANC13FA084 8/24/2013 2 CESSNA 150L SUBS Medium WPR13FA388 8/26/2013 2 AMERICAN AVIATION AA

- 1A SUBS High ANC13FA090 8/29/2013 2 CHAMPION 7ECA SUBS Low ERA13FA385 8/29/2013 1 PIPER PA

- 28

- 161 DEST High CEN14FA057 11/17/2013 2 CESSNA 152 SUBS Medium WPR14LA119 2/23/2014 1 SABRENA DRAGONFLY SUBS Low WPR14FA132 3/8/2014 1 CESSNA 120 DEST Medium CEN14FA167 3/22/2014 5 SOCATA TBM 700 SUBS High CEN14FA265 5/31/2014 2 CESSNA 150 SUBS High CEN14FA266 6/1/2014 1 YAKOVLEV YAK

- 55M SUBS Low WPR14FA234 6/7/2014 2 PIPER J3C SUBS High WPR14FA239 6/9/2014 2 AMERICAN AVIATION AA

- 1A DEST Low
ERA14FA282 6/9/2014 2 LIBERTY AEROSPACE INCORPORATED XL

- 2 DEST Medium
WPR14FA252 6/18/2014 1 CESSNA 175 DEST High CEN14FA328 6/30/2014 3 PIPER PA 28

- 235 DEST Medium ERA14LA329 7/5/2014 1 FLIGHT DESIGN GMBH CT

- SW 2006 SUBS Low ERA14FA328 7/6/2014 2 CESSNA 150J SUBS High ERA14FA337 7/12/2014 1 CULVER LFA SUBS High ERA14FA345 7/19/2014 3 MOONEY M20F DEST High WPR14FA320 7/30/2014 1 MOONEY M20L

- NO SERIES SUBS High CEN14FA453 8/25/2014 4 CESSNA 172R DEST Low ERA14FA416 8/31/2014 1 PIPER PA

- 25

- 260 SUBS High CEN15FA060 11/30/2014 1 BELLANCA 17

- 30A SUBS High CEN15FA083 12/22/2014 1 CESSNA 172M DEST High74 | Page 

### XIV. **Appendix V**