Vol. 81 Monday, No. 49 March 14, 2016

Part II

Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 21, 23, 35, et al. Revision of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category ; Proposed Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13452 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through B. New Safety Requirements Friday, except Federal holidays. C. Benefits for the Existing Fleet Federal Aviation Administration • Fax: Fax comments to Docket D. Conforming Amendments and Other Operations at 202–493–2251. Minor Amendments 14 CFR Parts 21, 23, 35, 43, 91, 121, Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. E. Public Policy Implementation 1. Regulatory Planning and Review and 135 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 2. Consensus Standards public to better inform its rulemaking [Docket No.: FAA–2015–1621; Notice No. 3. International Cooperation Efforts for 16–01] process. DOT posts these comments, Reorganizing Part 23 without edit, including any personal F. Means of Compliance RIN 2120–AK65 information the commenter provides, to G. FAA Strategic Initiatives www.regulations.gov, as described in IV. Discussion of Proposal Revision of Airworthiness Standards the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– A. Reorganization of Airworthiness for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and 14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at Standards Based on Risk and Commuter Category Airplanes Performance http://www.dot.gov/privacy. B. Introduction of Simple Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Docket: Background documents or C. Establishing Performance-Based Administration (FAA), DOT. comments received may be read at Standards and the Use of Means of http://www.regulations.gov at any time. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking Compliance (NPRM). Follow the online instructions for D. Crashworthiness as an Illustration of the accessing the docket or go to the Docket Benefits of Performance-Based SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend Operations in Room W12–140 of the Regulations its airworthiness standards for normal, West Building Ground Floor at 1200 E. Additional Requirements To Prevent New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, Loss of Control utility, acrobatic, and commuter F. Additional Requirements for in category airplanes by removing current DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Icing Conditions prescriptive design requirements and through Friday, except Federal holidays. G. Production of Replacement and replacing them with performance-based FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Modification Articles airworthiness standards. The proposed technical questions concerning this V. Key Terms and Concepts Used in This standards would also replace the action, contact Lowell Foster, Document current weight and propulsion divisions Regulations and Policy, ACE–111, VI. Discussion of the Proposed Regulatory in small regulations with Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Amendments performance- and risk-based divisions Locust St., Kansas City, MO 64106; A. Part 23, Airworthiness Standards 1. Subpart A—General for airplanes with a maximum seating telephone (816) 329–4125; email 2. Subpart B—Flight capacity of 19 passengers or less and a [email protected]. 3. Subpart C—Structures maximum weight of 19,000 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in 4. Subpart D—Design and Construction pounds or less. The proposed this preamble, under the Additional 5. Subpart E—Powerplant airworthiness standards are based on, Information section, we discuss how 6. Subpart F—Equipment and would maintain, the level of safety you can comment on this proposal and 7. Subpart G—Flightcrew Interface and of the current small airplane how we will handle your comments. Other Information regulations. Finally, the FAA proposes This discussion includes related 8. Appendices to Part 23 to adopt additional airworthiness B. Miscellaneous Amendments information about the docket, privacy, 1. Production of Replacement and standards to address certification for and the handling of proprietary or Modification Articles (§ 21.9) flight in icing conditions, enhanced stall confidential business information. We 2. Designation of Applicable Regulations characteristics, and minimum control also discuss how you can get a copy of (§ 21.17) speed to prevent departure from this proposal and related rulemaking 3. Issuance of Type Certificate: Primary controlled flight for multiengine documents. Category (§ 21.24) airplanes. This notice of proposed All sections of part 23 would contain 4. Flight Tests (§ 21.35) rulemaking addresses the Congressional proposed revisions, except the FAA 5. Instructions for Continued mandate set forth in the Small Airplane would not make any substantive Airworthiness and Manufacturer’s Revitalization Act of 2013. Maintenance Manuals Having changes to the following sections: Airworthiness Limitations Sections DATES: Send comments on or before §§ 23.1457, Cockpit Voice Recorders, (§ 21.50) May 13, 2016. and 23.1459, Flight Data Recorders. The 6. Designation of Applicable Regulations ADDRESSES: Send comments identified only proposed changes to § 23.1459 (§ 21.101) by docket number FAA–2015–1621 would be for the purpose of aligning 7. Applicability (§ 35.1) using any of the following methods: part 23 references. These sections are 8. Fatigue Limits and Evaluation (§ 35.37) • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to nevertheless included in this proposed 9. System Test and Inspection revision for context. (Appendix E to Part 43) http://www.regulations.gov and follow 10. Powered Civil Aircraft With Standard the online instructions for sending your Table of Contents Category U.S. Airworthiness Certificates: comments electronically. Instrument and Equipment Requirements • Mail: Send comments to Docket I. Executive Summary (§ 91.205) Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of A. Purpose and History of the Proposed 11. Restricted Category Civil Aircraft: Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Performance-Based Standards Operating Limitations (§ 91.313) Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West B. Summary of Major Provisions 12. Increased Maximum Certification Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 1. Performance Standards and Airplane Weights for Certain Airplanes Operated 20590–0001. Crashworthiness in Alaska (§ 91.323) • 2. Loss of Control 13. Second In Command Requirements Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 3. Icing Certification Standards (§ 91.531) comments to Docket Operations in C. Cost and Benefits 14. Additional Emergency Equipment Room W12–140 of the West Building II. Authority for This Rulemaking (§ 121.310) Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey III. Background 15. Additional Airworthiness Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 A. Part 23 History Requirements (§ 135.169)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13453

VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses procedures and requirements are costly recommendations,4 published in 2013, A. Regulatory Evaluation Summary to the FAA and industry, act as barriers echo the CPS recommendations. B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility to certification, and discourage On January 7, 2013, Congress passed Determination innovation. Therefore, to encourage the the Federal Aviation Modernization and C. International Trade Impact Assessment installation of new safety-enhancing Reform Act of 2012 5 (Public Law 112– D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment E. Paperwork Reduction Act technology and streamline the 95; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note) (FAMRA), F. International Compatibility and certification process, the FAA proposes which requires the Administrator, in Cooperation replacing the prescriptive requirements consultation with the aviation industry, G. Environmental Analysis found in the current part 23 with to assess the aircraft certification and H. Regulations Affecting Intrastate performance-based standards. approval process. Based on the ARC Aviation in Alaska The FAA believes this proposed recommendations and in response to VIII. Executive Order Determination rulemaking would maintain the level of FAMRA, the FAA began work on this A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism safety associated with current part 23, proposed rulemaking on September 24, B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations while providing greater flexibility to 2013. Subsequently, on November 27, That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, applicants seeking certification of their 2013, Congress passed the Small Distribution, or Use IX. Additional Information airplane designs. By doing so, this Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013 A. Comments Invited proposed rulemaking would hasten the (Public Law 113–53, 49 U.S.C. 44704 B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents adoption of safety enhancing technology note) (SARA), which requires the FAA Appendix 1 to the Preamble—Current to in type-certificated products while to issue a final rule revising the Proposed Regulations Cross-Reference reducing regulatory time and cost certification requirements for small Table burdens for the aviation industry and airplanes by— Appendix 2 to the Preamble—Abbreviations FAA. This proposed rulemaking would • Creating a regulatory regime that and Acronyms Frequently Used In This also reflect the FAA’s safety continuum will improve safety and decrease Document philosophy,2 which balances the need certification costs; • for an acceptable level of safety with the Setting safety objectives that will I. Executive Summary societal burden of achieving that level spur innovation and technology adoption; A. Purpose and History of the Proposed safety, across the broad range of airplane • Performance-Based Standards types certificated under part 23. Replacing prescriptive rules with This proposed rulemaking is the performance-based regulations; and Part 23 of Title 14 of the Code of • Using consensus standards to Federal Regulations (14 CFR) prescribes result of an effort the FAA began in 2008 to re-evaluate the way it sets clarify how safety objectives may be met airworthiness standards for issuance by specific designs and technologies. and amendment of type certificates for standards for different types of airplanes. Through this effort, a joint The FAA believes that the airplanes with a passenger-seating performance-based-standards FAA and industry team produced the configuration of 19 or less and a component of this proposal complies Part 23 Certification Process Study 3 maximum certificated takeoff weight of with the FAMRA and the SARA because (CPS), which reviewed the life cycle of 19,000 pounds or less. Airplanes it would improve safety, reduce part 23 airplanes to evaluate certificated under part 23 are typically regulatory compliance costs, and spur certification processes and develop used for recreation, training, personal innovation and the adoption of new recommendations. Two key travel, and limited commercial technology. This proposal would recommendations were to (1) reorganize applications. replace the weight-and propulsion- part 23 based on airplane performance The current part 23 airworthiness based prescriptive airworthiness standards are largely prescriptive, and complexity rather than the existing standards in part 23 with performance- meaning that they describe detailed weight and propulsion divisions, and and risk-based airworthiness standards design requirements, and are based on (2) permit the use of consensus for airplanes with a maximum seating airplane designs from the 1950’s and standards as a means to keep pace with capacity of 19 passengers or less and a 1960’s. As a result of this prescriptive rapidly increasing design complexity in maximum takeoff weight of 19,000 framework, the FAA often requires a the aviation industry. pounds or less. The proposed standards In 2010, with the CPS as a foundation, design approval applicant seeking to would maintain the level of safety the FAA conducted a Part 23 Regulatory incorporate new or innovative associated with the current part 23, Review and held meetings with the technology to provide additional while also facilitating the adoption of documentation that typically results in public and industry to gain input on new and innovative technology in the FAA’s issuance of special revising part 23. These meetings general aviation (GA) airplanes. conditions, exemptions, or equivalent confirmed strong public and industry B. Summary of Major Provisions level of safety (ELOS) findings.1 The support for the CPS recommendations to FAA recognizes that these additional revise part 23. This proposal to revise part 23 has In 2011, the FAA formed the Part 23 two principal components: Establishing Reorganization ARC to consider further 1 Special conditions give the manufacturer a performance-based regulatory regime permission to build the aircraft, engine or propeller the CPS recommendation to reorganize and adding new certification standards with additional capabilities not addressed in the part 23 based on airplane performance for loss of control (LOC) and icing. regulations. A petition for exemption is a request and complexity and to investigate the Where the FAA proposes to establish to the FAA by an individual or entity asking for use of consensus standards. The ARC relief from the requirements of a regulation. new certification requirements, these Equivalent level of safety findings are made when requirements would be adopted within literal compliance with a certification regulation 2 The FAA’s safety continuum philosophy is that the same performance-based framework cannot be shown and compensating factors exist one level of safety may not be appropriate for all proposed for part 23 as a whole. which can be shown to provide an equivalent level aviation. The FAA accepts higher levels of risk, of safety. 14 CFR parts 11 and 21 provides with correspondingly fewer requirements for the information on special conditions and exemptions. demonstration of compliance, when aircraft are 4 See www.regulations.gov (Docket # FAA–2015– FAA Order 8110–112A provides standard used for personal transportation. 1621). procedures for issue paper and equivalent level of 3 See www.regulations.gov (Docket # FAA–2015– 5 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT- safety memoranda. 1621). 112hrpt381/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt381.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13454 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

1. Performance Standards and Airplane traffic pattern or at low altitudes, where against flight in SLD conditions, this Crashworthiness the airplane is too low for a pilot to proposed rule would require a means Airplane crashworthiness and recover control before impacting the for detecting SLD conditions and occupant safety is an example of how ground. The proposed revisions would showing the airplane can safely exit moving towards performance-based require applicants to use new design such conditions. Industry has indicated standards and providing greater approaches and technologies to improve that these requirements would not flexibility to industry would increase airplane stall characteristics and pilot impose significant additional cost aviation safety. Although the FAA has situational awareness to prevent such burden on industry because many over the years incrementally amended accidents. manufacturers already have equipped recent airplanes with technology to part 23 to enhance occupant safety, 3. Icing Certification Standards these amendments have focused on meet the standards for detecting and individual system components, rather Another proposed revision to part 23 exiting SLD conditions in accordance than the safety of the system as a whole. would improve GA safety by addressing with current FAA guidance. severe icing conditions. In the 1990s, By building greater flexibility into FAA C. Cost and Benefits regulations governing crash testing, this the FAA became aware of the need to proposal would allow the aviation expand the icing conditions considered The goal of this proposal is to create industry to develop and implement during the certification of airplanes and a cost-effective approach to certification novel solutions. turbine aircraft engines. In particular, that facilitates the adoption of new the FAA determined that revised icing safety enhancing technologies and 2. Loss of Control certification standards should include allows for alternative means of One proposed revision to part 23 Supercooled Large Drops (SLD),6 mixed compliance. The FAA has analyzed the would improve general aviation safety phase, and ice crystals. benefits and costs associated with this by creating additional certification This proposed rule would require NPRM. If the proposed rule saves only standards to reduce LOC accidents. manufacturers that choose to certify an one human life, for example, by Inadvertent stalls resulting in airplane airplane for flight in SLD to demonstrate improving stall characteristics and stall LOC are the most common cause of safe operations in SLD conditions. For warnings, that alone would result in small airplane fatal accidents. These those manufacturers who choose instead benefits outweighing the costs. The LOC accidents frequently occur in the to certify an airplane with a prohibition following table shows these results.

ESTIMATED BENEFITS AND COSTS FROM 2017 TO 2036 [2014 $ millions]

Safety benefits + cost Costs savings = total benefits

Total ...... $3.9 $19.6 + $12.6 = $32.2. Present value ...... 3.9 $6.2 + $5.8 = $12.0.

Accordingly, the FAA has determined Additionally, this rulemaking combination of factors, including that the proposed rule would be cost addresses the Congressional mandate set weight, number of passengers, and beneficial. forth in the Small Airplane propulsion type. The resulting divisions Revitalization Act of 2013 (Public Law (i.e., normal, utility, acrobatic, and II. Authority for This Rulemaking 113–53; 49 U.S.C. 44704 note) (SARA). commuter categories) historically were The FAA’s authority to issue rules on Section 3 of SARA requires the appropriate because there was a clear aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the Administrator to issue a final rule to relationship between the propulsion United States Code. Subtitle I, Section advance the safety and continued and weight of the airplane and its 106 describes the authority of the FAA development of small airplanes by associated performance and complexity. Technological developments have Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation reorganizing the certification requirements for such airplanes under altered the dynamics of that Programs, describes in more detail the relationship. For example, high- scope of the agency’s authority. part 23 to streamline the approval of safety advancements. SARA directs that performance and complex airplanes This rulemaking is promulgated the rule address specific now exist within the weight range that under the authority described in recommendations of the 2013 Part 23 historically was occupied by only light Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking and simple airplanes. The introduction 44701. Under that section, the FAA is Committee (ARC). of high-performance, lightweight charged with promoting safe flight of airplanes required subsequent civil airplanes in air commerce by III. Background amendments of part 23 to include more prescribing minimum standards The range of airplanes certificated stringent and demanding standards— required in the interest of safety for the under part 23 is diverse in terms of often based on the part 25 requirements design and performance of airplanes. performance capability, number of for larger transport category airplanes— This regulation is within the scope of passengers, design complexity, to ensure an adequate level of safety for that authority because it prescribes new technology, and intended use. airplanes under part 23. The unintended performance-based safety standards for Currently, each part 23 airplane’s result is that some of the more stringent the design of normal, utility, acrobatic, certification requirements are and demanding standards for high- and commuter category airplanes. determined by reference to a performance airplanes now apply to the

6 SLD conditions include freezing drizzle and specified in appendix C to part 25, and can accrete freezing rain, which contain drops larger than those aft of wing ice protection systems.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13455

certification of simple and low- challenge was to determine the future of Reorganization ARC to consider the performance airplanes. part 23, given today’s current products following CPS recommendations— and anticipated future products. The • Recommendation 1.1.1—Reorganize A. Part 23 History team identified opportunities for part 23 based on airplane performance Part 23 originated from performance- improvements by examining the entire and complexity, rather than the existing based requirements developed by the life cycle of a part 23 airplane. The CPS weight and propulsion divisions; and Bureau of Air Commerce and the Civil recommended reorganizing part 23 • Recommendation 1.1.2— Aeronautics Administration in the using criteria focused on performance Certification requirements for part 23 1930s. These regulations were contained and design complexity. The CPS also airplanes should be written on a broad, in specific Civil Air Regulations (CAR) recommended that the FAA implement general, and progressive level, for the certification of aircraft (i.e., CAR general airworthiness requirements, segmented into tiers based on 3, 4, and 4a). These requirements, along with the means of compliance defined complexity and performance. with various bulletins and related in industry consensus standards The ARC’s recommendations took documents, were subsequently revised standards. In 2010, following the into account the FAMRA, which and first published as 14 CFR part 23 in publication of the Part 23 CPS, the FAA requires the Administrator, in 1964 (29 FR 17955, December 18, 1964). held a series of public meetings to seek consultation with the aviation industry, Over the past five decades and after feedback concerning the findings and to assess the aircraft certification and numerous amendments, part 23 has recommendations. Overall, the feedback approval process. The purpose of the evolved into a body of highly complex was supportive of and in some cases ARC’s assessment was to develop and prescriptive requirements augmented the CPS recommendations. recommendations for streamlining and attempting to codify specific design reengineering the certification process One notable difference between the requirements, address specific problems to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and CPS findings and the public feedback encountered during prior certification ensure that the Administrator can was the public’s request that the FAA projects, and respond to specific conduct certifications and approvals in revise part 23 certification requirements recommendations from the National a manner that supports and enables the Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). for simple, entry-level airplanes. Over development of new products and Although the intent of the the past two decades, part 23 standards technologies and the global prescriptive language contained in have become more complex as industry competitiveness of the United States current part 23 was to increase the level has generally shifted towards aviation industry.7 FAMRA also directs of safety, prevent confusion, and clarify correspondingly complex, high- the Administrator to consider the ambiguities, the current regulations performance airplanes. This transition recommendations from the Part 23 have also restrained manufacturers’ has placed an increased burden on Certification Process Study.8 ability to employ new designs and applicants seeking to certificate smaller, ARC membership represented a broad testing methodologies. The FAA simpler airplanes. Public comments range of of stakeholder perspectives, believes moving towards performance- requested that the FAA focus on including U.S. and international based standards should significantly reducing the costs and time burden manufacturers, trade associations, and reduce or eliminate barriers to associated with certificating small foreign civil aviation authorities. The innovation and facilitate the airplanes by restructuring the ARC was supported by FAA subject introduction of new safety-enhancing requirements based on perceived risk. matter experts from all affected lines of technologies. The safety risk for most simple airplane business, from design and production In 2008, the FAA conducted a review designs is typically low. certification to continued airworthiness of part 23 by initiating the Part 23 CPS. On August 15, 2011, the and alterations. The following table Collaborating with industry, the team’s Administrator chartered the Part 23 identifies ARC participants:

U.S. Manufacturers

Avidyne ...... Bendix-King ...... Cessna. Cirrus ...... Continental Motors ...... Cub Crafters. GAMI ...... Garmin ...... Hawker Beechcraft. Honda ...... Honeywell ...... Kestrel. Lockheed Martin ...... Rockwell-Collins ...... Quest. Sensenich Propellers ...... Tamarack Aero ...... TruTrak.

U.S. Organizations

Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA)...... Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association ASTM. (AOPA). Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) ...... General Aviation Manufacturers Association National Air Traffic Controllers Association (GAMA). (NATCA). RTCA ...... SAE.

International Manufacturers

Dassault Falcon ...... Diamond ...... Flight Design. Rotax ...... Socata.

7 Section 312(c) 8 Section 312 (b)(6)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13456 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

International Civil Aviation Authorities

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) ...... Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) ...... National Civil Aviation Agency of Brazil (ANAC). Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) ... Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand.

Each member or participant on the the means of compliance to ease for spin and limited aerobatic maneuver committee represented an identified acceptance of the means of compliance. capable airplanes would negate the segment of the aviation community, largest, single safety gain expected from B. New Safety Requirements with the authority to speak for that this rulemaking action—the significant segment. The ARC also invited subject The performance-based standards reduction in inadvertent stall-related matter experts to support specialized proposed in this NPRM are designed to departures from controlled flight. working groups and subgroups, as maintain the level of safety provided by Under this proposal, airplanes already necessary. These working groups current part 23 requirements. The certificated in the commuter, utility, developed recommendations and current part 23 weight and propulsion and acrobatic categories would continue briefed the ARC as a whole. The ARC divisions were based on assumptions to fall within those categories. Each new then collectively discussed and voted to that do not reflect the diversity of airplane design, however, would be accept or reject the recommendations. performance capabilities, design subject to varying levels of analysis, All of the recommendations included in complexity, technology, intended use, based on the potential risk and the ARC’s report had overwhelming and seating capacity of today’s new performance of the airplane’s design. A majority agreement. airplane designs, or the future airplane more rigorous standard, such as The ARC noted the prevailing view designs that will become possible as currently applied to commuter category within industry was that the only way technology continues to evolve. The airplanes, would apply to higher risk to reduce the program risk, or business FAA would therefore replace the and higher performance airplanes. risk, associated with the certification of current divisions with certification The proposed requirements would new airplane designs was to avoid novel levels 1 thru 4, low performance, high also include new enhanced standards design approaches and testing performance, and simple. Furthermore, for resistance to departure from methodologies. The certification of new this would replace the current divisions controlled flight. Recognizing that the and innovative products today within the individual sections with largest number of fatal accidents for part frequently requires the FAA’s use of technical and operational capabilities 23 airplanes results from LOC in flight, ELOS findings, special conditions, and focused on the technical drivers (e.g., the FAA proposes to update exemptions. These take time, resulting stall speed, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) certification standards to address these in uncertainty and high project costs. and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) risks. LOC happens when an airplane The ARC emphasized that although operations, pressurization). These types enters a flight regime outside its normal industry needs from the outset to of technical and operational criteria flight envelope or performance develop new airplanes designed to use would apply a more appropriate set of capabilities and develops into a stall or new technology, current certification standards to each airplane, and continue spin, an event that can surprise the costs inhibit the introduction of new to accommodate the wide range of pilot. A pilot’s lack of awareness of the technology. The ARC identified airplane designs within part 23. state of the airplane in flight and the prescriptive certification requirements To begin, the FAA proposes to airplane’s low-speed handling as a major barrier to installing eliminate commuter, utility, and characteristics are the main causal safety-enhancing modifications in the acrobatic airplane categories from part factors of LOC accidents. Furthermore, existing fleet and to producing newer, 23, retaining only a normal category for stall and departure accidents are safer airplanes. all new part 23 type certificated airplane generally fatal because an airplane is The ARC also examined the design approvals. The differences often too low to the ground for the pilot harmonization of certification between normal, utility, and acrobatic to recover. Improving safety that requirements among the FAA and categories are currently very limited and reduces stall and LOC accidents would foreign civil aviation authorities (CAAs), primarily affect structure save lives. The FAA is therefore and the potential for such requirements. Proposed part 23 would proposing new rules for stall harmonization to improve safety while continue to allow a normal category characteristics and stall warnings that reducing costs. Adopting performance- airplane to be approved for aerobatics, would result in airplane designs more based safety regulations that facilitate provided the airplane is certificated for resistant to inadvertently departing international harmonization, coupled the safety factors and defined limits of controlled flight. with internationally accepted means of aerobatic operations. Another type of low-speed LOC compliance, could result in both In addition, the FAA proposes that accident that occurs in significant significant cost savings and the enabling airplanes approved for spins be numbers involves minimum control of safety-enhancing equipment certificated to aerobatic standards. speed (VMC) in light twin-engine installations. The ARC recommended Under the current § 23.3(b), the utility airplanes. Virtually all twin-engine that internationally accepted means of category provides airplanes additional airplanes have a VMC that allows compliance should be reviewed and margin for the more stringent inertial directional control to be maintained voluntarily accepted by the appropriate structural loads resulting from intended after one engine fails. This speed is aviation authorities, in accordance with spins and other maneuvers. An airplane usually above the stall speed of the a process established by those designed with traditional handling airplane. However, light twin-engine authorities. Although each CAA would qualities and designed to allow spin airplanes typically have limited climb be capable of rejecting all or part of any training is more susceptible to capability on one engine. In the particular means of compliance, the inadvertent departure from controlled accidents reviewed by the ARC and intent would be to have full civil flight. The FAA therefore believes that FAA, often in these situations, pilots authority participation in the creation of maintaining the current utility category attempted to maintain a climb or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13457

maintain altitude, which slowed the conditions regulations and guidance for under the proposed part 23 standards airplane down, rather than looking for part 23. In February 2012, the Part 23 would require fewer special conditions the best landing site immediately, Icing ARC formally identified a need to or exemptions, lowering costs and maintaining control the whole way. If improve the part 23 regulations to causing fewer project delays. the airplane’s speed drops below V , ensure safe operation of airplanes and MC D. Conforming Amendments and Other the pilot can lose control. In tying the engines in SLD and ice crystal Minor Amendments minimum control speed to the stall conditions.10 In particular, the Part 23 speed of the airplane, pilots, rather than Icing ARC recommended adopting most References to part 23 appear attempting to maintain climb and lose of the part 25 icing rules, including the throughout the FAA’s current directional control, would instead react requirement to show either that an regulations. Accordingly, the FAA appropriately with stall training airplane can safely fly in SLD proposes to amend the following parts techniques, resulting in a controlled conditions, or that it can detect and for consistency with the proposed descent rather than a loss of directional safely exit SLD. The proposals in this revisions to part 23: Part 21, part 35, control. This requirement will be on NPRM incorporate the part 43, part 91, part 121, and part 135. new airplanes and should add little or recommendations of the Part 23 Icing The FAA also proposes to revise part no cost because it can be designed in ARC. 21 to simplify the approval process for low-risk articles. Specifically, the FAA from the start. C. Benefits for the Existing Fleet The FAA also has identified a need proposes amending § 21.9 to allow FAA- for improved certification standards The proposed revisions would benefit approved production of replacement related to operations in severe icing owners and modifiers of existing part 23 and modification articles using methods conditions. More specifically, in the airplanes, as well as airplane designers not listed in § 21.9(a). This proposed 1990’s, the FAA became aware of the and manufacturers. Both currently and change is intended to reduce constraints need to expand the icing conditions under this proposal, airplanes may be on the use of non-required, low risk considered during the certification of modified by: (1) An alteration to an articles, such as carbon monoxide airplanes and turbine aircraft engines, to individual airplane; (2) a supplemental detectors and weather display systems. type certificate (STC) for multiple increase flight safety during some severe E. Public Policy Implementation icing conditions. The 1994 accident in airplanes, or (3) an amendment to an Roselawn, Indiana, involving an Avions original type design via an amended The intent of this NPRM is to reduce de Transport Regional ATR 72 series type certificate (TC). This proposal regulatory barriers by establishing a airplane in SLD conditions, brought to would streamline each of these methods system based on safety-focused public and governmental attention for modifying airplanes. performance requirements and FAA safety concerns about the adequacy of The proposed change to § 21.9 would acceptance—as a means of the existing icing certification facilitate FAA approval of low-risk compliance—of consensus standards. standards. equipment produced for installation in FAA-accepted consensus standards As a result of the 1994 accident, and type-certificated airplanes, thereby would add clarity to the certification consistent with related NTSB streamlining the process for owners to process and streamline FAA recommendations, in 1997 the upgrade equipment on their individual involvement in the development of Administrator tasked the Aviation airplanes. An example of how this means of compliance. Additionally, Rulemaking Advisory Committee change would facilitate safety adopting performance standards would (ARAC) (62 FR 64621, December 8, improvements is the installation of significantly reduce the complexity of 1997) with defining SLD, mixed phase, inexpensive weather display systems in part 23. Furthermore, the introduction and ice crystal icing environments, and the cockpits of small airplanes. These of airplane certification levels based on designing corresponding safety systems allow a pilot to view current risk (i.e., number of passengers) and requirements for those conditions. In weather conditions along the planned performance (i.e., speed) would advance June 2000, the ARAC’s task was revised flight route and at the destination the FAA’s effort to introduce risk-based to address only transport category airport, avoiding unexpected or decision-making and better align with airplanes. More recent events, such as deteriorating weather conditions. Since the FAA’s safety continuum philosophy. an Air France Airbus model A330–203 these systems are not required and Together, the FAA believes these AF447 9 accident, in 2009, highlighted because they represent low safety risk changes would allow the FAA to the negative effects of ice crystals on from failure, the FAA believes provide appropriate oversight based on airspeed indication systems and turbojet streamlining its approval process to the safety continuum and would restore engines. produce them for use in existing a simple and cost effective certification The FAA ultimately published airplanes could lower costs and increase process based on proven engineering amendments 25–140 (79 FR 65507, availability of these systems. practices. November 4, 2014) and 33–34 (79 FR The proposed changes in the rules 1. Regulatory Planning and Review 65507, November 4, 2014), Airplane and would also streamline the process for In accordance with applicable Engine Certification Requirements in design approval holders applying for a executive orders, the FAA has Supercooled Large Drop, Mixed Phase, type design change, or for a third party determined that the proposed revisions and Ice Crystal Icing Conditions that modifier applying for an STC, to to part 23 are the most cost-beneficial expanded parts 25 and 33 icing incorporate new and improved way of achieving the agency’s regulatory requirements, but did not amend part 23 equipment in a model or several models objectives. This is because the proposal requirements. On February 19, 2010, the of airplanes. Since the revised part 23 would relieve industry of a significant Administrator chartered a Part 23 Icing standards would be much less regulatory burden while maintaining or ARC to review and recommend SLD, prescriptive, the certification process for improving the level of safety under the mixed phase, and ice crystal icing modifications would be simplified. Certification of an amended TC or STC regulations. In particular, Executive 9 See www.regulations.gov (Docket #FAA–2015– Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 1621), Air France A330–203, Flight AF 447 Final 10 See www.regulations.gov (Docket #FAA–2015– Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), Accident Report 1621) and Executive Order 13563, Improving

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13458 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Regulation and Regulatory Review (76 2. Consensus Standards parties to participate in their standards- FR 3821, January 21, 2011), direct each Section 3(c) of SARA requires the development work. In addition to Federal agency to propose or adopt a Administrator, when developing consensus standards and the current regulation only upon a reasoned regulations, to comply with the prescriptive design standards in part 23, determination that the benefits of the requirements of the National any individual or organization may intended regulation justify its costs. Technology Transfer and Advancement develop its own proposed means of This proposal is not an economically Act of 1995 12 (Pub. L. 104–113; 15 compliance that may be submitted to ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as U.S.C. 272 note) (NTTAA) and to use the FAA for acceptance. defined in section 3(f) of Executive consensus standards to the extent 3. International Cooperation Efforts for Order 12866 11 and it satisfies Executive practicable while maintaining Reorganizing Part 23 traditional methods for meeting part 23. Order 13563 by protecting public Executive Order 13609, Promoting Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs health, welfare, safety, while promoting International Regulatory Cooperation Federal agencies to use, either by economic growth, innovation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012), promotes reference or by inclusion, voluntary competitiveness, and job creation. international regulatory cooperation to consensus standards in lieu of Under the above-referenced executive meet shared challenges and reduce, government-mandated standards, except eliminate, or prevent unnecessary orders, when an agency determines that where inconsistent with law or differences in regulatory requirements. a regulation is the best available method otherwise impractical. The Office of Consistent with this Order, the FAA’s of achieving its regulatory objective, the Management and Budget (OMB) proposal would address unnecessary agency must design the regulation or Circular A–119,13 Federal Participation differences in regulatory requirements regulations in the most cost-effective in the Development and Use of between the United States and its major manner. In doing so, each agency must Voluntary Consensus Standards and trading partners. The U.S. GA industry consider incentives for innovation, Conformity Assessment Activities, has repeatedly informed the FAA of the consistency, predictability, enforcement provides guidance to Executive agencies high costs to address differences and compliance costs (to the in implementing the requirements of the between the airworthiness requirements government, regulated entities, and the NTTAA. public), flexibility, distributive impacts, Accordingly, the FAA proposes to of the FAA and foreign CAAs. The FAA believes this proposal has the potential and equity. Each agency must identify accept consensus standards as a means to achieve long-term harmonization at and assess alternative forms of of compliance with the proposed part 23 an unprecedented level, and should regulation and shall specify, to the performance-based regulations. The use result in a significant savings for both extent feasible, performance objectives, of consensus standards would be one U.S. manufacturers exporting products rather than specifying the behavior or means of compliance with the performance-based standards of the abroad and foreign manufacturers manner of compliance that regulated exporting products to the U.S. The FAA entities must adopt. This proposal meets proposed part 23. Compliance with the current prescriptive provisions within requests comments regarding the these requirements because it would potential cost savings. implement performance objectives current part 23 would be yet another means of compliance available under The work of the Part 23 rather than a prescriptive methodology, Reorganization ARC forms the thereby reducing time and cost burdens this proposal. Applicants would still have the option to propose their own foundation of the proposed changes to on industry and increasing means of compliance as they do today. part 23. From the onset, the ARC was a opportunities for innovation. The process for reviewing new means of cooperative, international effort. Executive Order 13610, Identifying compliance would not change Representatives from several foreign 14 and Reducing Regulatory Burdens (77 substantially from the process in place CAAs and international members FR 28469, May 10, 2012) reiterates the today. from almost every GA manufacturer of direction from Executive Order 13563 in Although a consensus standard works airplanes and participated in stating that our regulatory system must in some cases, the Part 23 the Part 23 Reorganization ARC. Several measure, and seek to improve, the Reorganization ARC expressed concerns international light-sport aircraft actual results of regulatory that a consensus standard could be manufacturers, who were interested in requirements. To promote this goal, biased in favor of a few large certificating their products using part 23 agencies are to engage in periodic manufacturers and thereby create an airworthiness standards, also review of existing regulations, and are unfair competitive advantage. OMB participated. In addition to required to develop retrospective review Circular A–119 also cautions regulators recommending changes to part 23, the plans to examine existing regulations in to avoid such potential biases. The FAA ARC developed proposals to help order to determine whether any such notes that industry groups associated reduce certification costs through more regulations should be modified, with the Part 23 Reorganization ARC international standardization of streamlined, expanded, or repealed. The identified ASTM International (ASTM) certification processes and reducing or purpose of this requirement is to make as the appropriate organization to eliminating redundant certification activities associated with foreign the agency’s regulatory program more initiate the development of consensus certification. effective or less burdensome in standards, and that ASTM permits any interested party to participate in the After the ARC issued its report, the achieving the regulatory objectives. In FAA, foreign CAAs, and industry response to Executive Orders13563 and committees developing consensus standards. The FAA expects other continued to work together to refine the 13610, agencies have developed and ARC rule language until the FAA began made available for public comment consensus standards bodies to allow similar opportunities for interested drafting the NPRM in December 2014. retrospective review plans. Both the Part This included formal meetings in July 23 Reorganization ARC and this Part 23 12 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW- and November of 2014. EASA, Rulemaking Project are on the 104publ113/pdf/PLAW-104publ113.pdf. Department of Transportation’s 13 https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_ 14 CAAs included participants from Brazil, retrospective review plans. a119/. Canada, China, Europe, and New Zealand.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13459

Transport Canada, other foreign accepted a means of compliance, it decisions. By establishing performance- authorities, and industry offered could be used in future certification based regulations, coupled with significant contributions to these efforts. applications unless formally rescinded. industry standards, this proposed In addition, the CAAs from Europe, Incorporating the use of consensus rulemaking would provide a calibrated Canada, Brazil, China, and New Zealand standards as a means of compliance and globally competitive regulatory are working to produce rules similar to with performance-based regulations structure. This new approach would those contained in this proposal. EASA, would provide the FAA with the agility increase safety in general aviation by for example, published an Advance to more rapidly accept new technology enabling and facilitating innovation and Notice of Proposed Amendment (A– as it develops, leverage industry the implementation of safety enhancing NPA) 2015–06 on March 27, 2015, experience and expectations to develop designs in newly certificated products. which sets forth EASA’s concept for its of new means of compliance This rulemaking effort also directly proposed reorganization of CS–23, and documents, and encourage the use of supports the FAA’s Global Leadership on which the FAA provided comments. harmonized means of compliance Initiative, by encouraging global Like the FAA’s current proposal, among the FAA, industry, and foreign harmonization and the consistent use of EASA’s A–NPA was also based on the CAAs. Although an applicant would not regulations, standards, and practices for proposed ARC language with the goal of be required to use previously accepted general aviation airplanes. harmonization. Both proposals would means of compliance documents, doing adopt performance-based standards that so would streamline the certification IV. Discussion of Proposal facilitate the use of consensus standards process by eliminating the need for the A. Reorganization of Airworthiness as a means of compliance. FAA to develop an issue paper to Standards Based on Risk and F. Means of Compliance address the certification of new Performance technology. Proposed Advisory Circular The FAA proposes replacing the This proposal would allow type 23.10, Accepted Means of Compliance, current weight and propulsion-based certificate applicants to use FAA- would describe a process for applicants airplane certification divisions with accepted means of compliance to to submit proposed means of airplane certification and performance streamline the certification process. compliance to the FAA for acceptance This proposal, however, is shaped by by the Administrator. levels based on the number of potential two concerns raised in the Part 23 The Part 23 Reorganization ARC was passengers and the performance of the Reorganization ARC. First, the rule also concerned that specialists in the airplane. The FAA believes this needs to clearly state that any applicant industry could argue for complex means proposed regulatory change would must use a means of compliance of compliance when the FAA would better accommodate the wide range of accepted by the Administrator when accept a simpler or more cost effective airplanes certificated under part 23, showing compliance with part 23. The approach. To address these concerns, thereby reducing certification risk, time, FAA emphasizes that any means of the FAA would continue to allow and costs. compliance would require FAA review applicants to propose their own means Historically, turbine-powered and acceptance by the Administrator. of compliance when the larger industry airplanes were assumed to fly at or Second, although a means of standard may be the appropriate level of above 18,000 feet (5,486 meters) and at compliance developed by a consensus safety for one but not all certification high speeds, whereas piston engine standards body (i.e., ASTM, SAE, levels, consistent with the guidance in airplanes were assumed to fly below RTCA, etc.) may be available, any OMB Circular A–119, which reminds 18,000 feet (5,486 meters) and at lower individual or organization would also the regulator that the government is speeds. Today, with advancements in be able to submit its own means of responsible to the public for setting the aviation technology, these general compliance documentation to the appropriate level of safety and avoiding design and performance assumptions Administrator for consideration and any unfair competitive advantage. may not be valid. Furthermore, the potential acceptance. Additionally, the FAA proposes to current regulations do not account for The FAA anticipates that both continue to allow the use of the airplanes equipped with new individuals and organizations would prescriptive means of compliance technologies, such as electric develop acceptable means of complying currently codified in part 23 as yet propulsion systems, which may have with the proposed performance another alternative means of compliance features that are entirely different from standards. The industry groups with proposed part 23. This would not piston and turbine engines. For these associated with the ARC discussed the apply, however, to the proposed new reasons, the FAA is proposing development of consensus-based requirements, such as §§ 23.200, 23.215, regulations based on airplane standards and selected ASTM as the and 23.230. performance and potential risk rather appropriate organization to initiate the than on assumptions about specific effort. A standards organization such as G. FAA Strategic Initiatives technologies. These proposed standards ASTM could, for example, generate a The FAA’s Strategic Initiatives 2014– would be appropriate to each specific series of consensus-based standards for 2018 communicates FAA goals for airplane design. review, acceptance, and public notice of addressing the challenges presented by Certification of airplanes under part acceptance by the FAA. The ASTM the changing aviation industry and how 23 would either be conducted using standards would be one way, but not the the FAA intends to make the U.S. airplane certification levels based on only way, to demonstrate compliance aviation system safer and smarter, and maximum passenger seating with part 23. raise the bar on safety. Specifically, one configuration and airplane performance Using means of compliance strategic initiative is for the FAA to levels based on speed, or occur as so- documents to satisfy compliance with embrace and implement risk-based called ‘‘simple airplanes’’ that are low- the proposed performance-based rules decision making approaches, which speed airplanes with a stalling speed would diminish the need for special build on safety management principles (VSO) ≤ 45 Knots Calibrated Airspeed conditions, ELOS findings, and to address emerging safety risks using (KCAS) approved only for VFR exemptions to address new technology consistent, data-informed approaches to operations. The FAA proposes the advancements. Once the Administrator make smarter, quicker system-level following airplane certification levels:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13460 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

• Level 1—for airplanes with a maximum Proposed § 23.10 would also require an applicant for a type certificate may use seating configuration of 0 to 1 passengers, applicant to show the FAA how it to demonstrate compliance with our including simple airplanes. • would demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements in 14 CFR parts Level 2—for airplanes with a maximum this part using a means of compliance, seating configuration of 2 to 6 passengers. 23, 25, 27, and 29. For decades, the FAA • Level 3—for airplanes with a maximum which may include consensus standards has identified these means of seating configuration of 7 to 9 passengers. accepted by the Administrator. It would compliance documents as an acceptable • Level 4—for airplanes with a maximum further require an applicant requesting means of complying with our regulatory seating configuration of 10 to 19 passengers. acceptance of a means of compliance to requirements. This proposal would provide the means of compliance to the B. Introduction of Simple Airplanes build on and expand this aspect of our FAA in a form and manner specified by regulations by also transitioning part 23 The regulations contained in part 23 the Administrator. In addition, towards a regulatory framework based have gradually become more focused on proposed § 23.10 specifically recognizes on performance standards. high-performance, turbine-powered the use of consensus standards as a airplanes, and this emphasis has means of compliance that could be D. Crashworthiness as an Illustration of become a barrier to the efficient acceptable to the Administrator. If this the Benefits of Performance-Based certification and introduction to market information is proprietary in nature, it Regulations of new entry-level, simple airplanes. would be afforded the same protections The Part 23 Reorganization ARC as are applied today in certification One area where the implications of a specifically noted that current part 23 applications submitted under 14 CFR change from prescriptive to does not have appropriate standards for part 21. performance-based requirements are the certification of entry-level airplanes. The phrase ‘‘means of compliance’’ most evident is in the demonstration of The FAA proposes to define ‘‘simple may have different connotations crashworthiness. The current part 23 airplanes’’ in § 23.5 to recognize the depending on its context. Historically, crashworthiness and occupant safety entry-level airplane. Simple airplanes the FAA has treated an applicant’s requirements are based on seat and would be limited to airplane designs demonstration of compliance as a means restraint technology used in the 1980’s. that allow transport of no more than one of compliance. Alternatively, as Currently, an applicant demonstrates passenger (in addition to the pilot), are indicated by sec. 3(b)(4) of the SARA, crashworthiness by a sled test. Under limited to VFR operations, and have consensus standards may constitute a the proposed standards, an applicant both a low top speed and a low stall means of compliance that can address would not necessarily have to perform speed. These airplanes are similar to new and novel designs and a sled test, but could instead employ a EASA’s Certification Specification— technologies. In other words, as different method accounting for many Very Light Aeroplanes (CS–VLA), which suggested by the SARA, an applicant other factors, several of which are are currently imported to the U.S. and would develop a design to satisfy a described below. The FAA is imposing certificated as special class airplanes in performance-based standard, and the no new requirements, but would, under accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(b). The design is the means of complying with this proposal, provide greater flexibility proposed change would allow these the standard. to adopt new safety-testing airplanes to be certified as normal Currently, an applicant for a type methodologies and, ultimately, more category airplanes under part 23. certificate must show the FAA how it advanced safety technologies. The FAA believes that permitting satisfies the applicable airworthiness certification of simple airplanes would standards. The applicant submits the The FAA proposes to allow greater allow more certified entry-level type design, test reports, and flexibility with respect to the testing and airplanes to enter the marketplace. The computations necessary to show demonstration, similar to advancements FAA expects simple airplanes to be a compliance. The applicant approaches made in the automotive industry over more basic sublevel within proposed the FAA and enters into negotiations the past 30 years. The proposed certification level 1, but recognizes that regarding what constitutes an adequate regulations would facilitate evaluation because of similarities between simple demonstration—testing or analysis. The of the entirety of a crashworthiness and non-simple airplanes within FAA anticipates that, under the system—namely, the interaction of all certification level 1, creating this proposed framework, standards crashworthiness features—rather than category may be unnecessary. For this developed by consensus standards requiring an evaluation of discrete, reason, the FAA is specifically asking bodies would provide a pre-existing individual parameters. A system’s for comments concerning the utility of means by which any applicant may ability to protect occupants can be better creating a separate, simple airplane demonstrate compliance with the understood by evaluating it as a sublevel. corresponding performance-based complete system, and using that greater requirements. For example, the C. Establishing Performance-Based understanding to develop and proposed fuel system requirements implement new technologies. Such an Standards and the Use of Means of would be broad enough to certificate Compliance evaluation could include analyses of airplanes with electric propulsion important survivability factors The Part 23 Reorganization ARC was systems in which batteries and fuel cells identified by the NTSB, including aware the Administrator has accepted as are used as fuel. Airplanes incorporating occupant restraints, survivable volume, evidence of compliance various these systems cannot currently be energy-absorbing seats, and seat manufacturers’ internal design certificated without applying for special retention. These proposed standards in the past, and the ARC conditions or exemptions. crashworthiness standards would not recommended expressly stating that Elements of this proposal are already necessarily prevent accidents, but option in the proposal. Proposed in place today. Industry standards should improve survivability. § 23.10, Accepted Means of Compliance, bodies like RTCA, SAE, ASTM, and the would allow individual persons or European Organization for Civil The NTSB produced a series of companies to submit their internal Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE) have reports in the 1980s that evaluated over standards as means of compliance for already developed detailed means of 21,000 GA airplane crashes between consideration by the Administrator. compliance documents that an 1972 and 1981. The NTSB General

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13461

Aviation Crashworthiness Project 15 protection and restraint of the identified 74 accidents caused by stall evaluated airplane orientation, impact occupants. This is one of the first steps or LOC between January 2008 and magnitudes, and survival rates and in the analysis of airplane December 2013. These accidents, which factors to provide information crashworthiness. are listed in Appendix IV of the Part 23 supporting changes in crashworthiness Data from the NTSB General Aviation Regulatory Evaluation,17 represent the design standards for GA seating and Crashworthiness Project suggested that type of accidents that could be restraint systems. The NTSB reports also energy-absorbing seats that protect the prevented by the proposed new stall established conditions approximating occupant from vertical impact loads and LOC requirements. survivable accidents and identified could enhance occupant survivability The FAA proposes to add factors that would have the largest and prevent serious injury, thereby requirements in §§ 23.200 and 23.215 to impact on safety. Amendment 23–36 (53 enhancing odds for exiting the airplane prevent LOC accidents. Inadvertent FR 30802, August 15, 1988) to part 23 and preventing many debilitating long- stalls resulting in airplane LOC cause a referenced these reports for dynamic term injuries. The FAA established large number of small airplane fatal seats but did not adopt a systems- dynamic seat testing requirements in accidents. These LOC accidents in the evaluation approach. amendment 23–36 for airplanes traffic pattern or at low altitudes often The NTSB reports identified several certificated under part 23. Energy result in fatalities because the airplane factors that, working together as a absorbing seats have a smaller impact is too low to the ground for the pilot to system, should result in a safer airplane. than some other safety factors because recover control. The FAA therefore The assessment also indicated, however, accident impacts with large vertical believes it can improve safety by that shoulder harnesses offer the most components tend to have lower odds of requiring applicants to use new immediate individual improvement for survival. Nevertheless, energy approaches to improve airplane stall safety. The FAA codified the shoulder attenuation from vertical forces, both characteristics to prevent such harnesses requirement in amendments static and dynamic, has been important accidents. 23–19 (42 FR 20601, June 16, 1977) and to crashworthiness regulations for the Another type of low-speed LOC 23–32 (50 FR 46872, November 13, past 25 years. Seats may crush or accident that occurs in significant 1985) for newly manufactured airplanes. collapse, but must remain attached to numbers involves VMC in light twin- The FAA also issued policy statement the body of the airplane. Coupling the engine airplanes. Virtually all twin- ACE–00–23.561–01, Methods of seat performance to the rest of the engine airplanes have a VMC that allows Approval of Retrofit Shoulder Harness airframe response is important to the directional control to be maintained Installations in Small Airplanes,16 dated enhancement and understanding of after one engine fails. This speed is September 19, 2000, to streamline the occupant survivability. The FAA typically above the stall speed of the process for retrofitting older airplanes. believes allowing designers to consider airplane. However, light twin-engine Current part 23 requires occupant airframe deformation would result in airplanes also typically have limited restraints to maintain integrity, stay in more accurate floor impulses, which climb capability on one engine. place on the occupant throughout an relate to simulated crash impact, and Moreover, after the failure of one event, properly distribute loads on the may allow for evaluation for crash engine, pilots often instinctively tend to occupant, and restrain the occupant by impulses in multiple directions. try to maintain a climb or maintain mitigating interaction with other items The NTSB also identified seat altitude, which slows the airplane in the cabin. Newer technologies that retention as another basic building down. If the speed drops below VMC, the enhance or supplement the performance block for airplane crashworthiness. The pilot can lose control of the airplane. of these restraints, such as airbags, are NTSB reports show more than a quarter Because pilots tend to be more aware of now being considered for inclusion in of otherwise-survivable accidents the airplane’s stall speed, the FAA designs. The use of airbags has greatly included instances where the seats proposes in § 23.200 that certification increased passenger safety in broke free at the attachment to the levels 1 and 2 multiengine airplanes automobiles, by offering protection in airplane, resulting in fatalities or serious would be required to have a VMC that much more severe impacts and in injuries. Dynamic seat testing does not exceed the stall speed of the impacts from multiple directions. The requirements address the ability of seat airplane for each configuration. The proposed performance standards would assemblies to remain attached to the FAA believes this proposed requirement enable the use of these technologies. floor, even when the floor shifts during would provide a higher level of safety Survivable volume is another critical impact. Pitching and yawing of the seat than current § 23.149. The FAA requests factor in crashworthiness. Survivable tracks during dynamic seat tests comments on this proposal. volume is the ability of the airframe to demonstrates the gimbaling and The FAA also proposes new protect the occupants from external flexibility of the seat. requirements in § 23.215 for airplane intrusion, or the airplane cabin crushing The FAA believes that, under this stall characteristics and stall warning during and after an accident. There were proposal, all of these crashworthiness that would result in airplane designs several observed accidents in the NTSB factors could be incorporated into future more resistant to inadvertently stalling study where conventional airplane testing methodologies and thereby and departing controlled flight. These construction simply crushed an increase the survivability of accidents in proposed requirements would increase otherwise restrained occupant. part 23 certificated airplanes. This the level of safety over the current Crashworthiness regulations have never proposed part 23 amendment would requirements. At the same time, the included survivable volume as a factor, authorize design approval applicants to FAA proposes to eliminate the spin except in some instances in which an use these technologies and testing recovery requirement in the current airplane turns over. Airplane designs methodologies to enhance occupant rules for normal category airplanes. The should provide the space needed for the safety. FAA believes the spin recovery E. Additional Requirements To Prevent requirement is unnecessary for normal 15 See www.regulations.gov (Docket # FAA–2015– LOC category airplanes because the vast 1621). 16 See www.regulations.gov (Docket # FAA–2015– LOC continues to be the leading cause 17 See www.regulations.gov (Docket # FAA–2015– 1621). of fatal GA accidents. The FAA 1621).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13462 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

majority of inadvertent stalls leading to would be required to meet the same exited. A means of compliance for SLD spin entry occur below a safe altitude safety standards in SLD icing conditions detection and exit may be found in FAA for spin recovery. However, airplanes as currently demonstrated for part 23 Advisory Circular 23.1419–2D, certificated for aerobatics would still airplanes in the icing conditions defined Certification of Part 23 Airplanes for have to meet spin recovery in appendix C to part 25. Flight in Icing Conditions.18 The service requirements. Currently, the FAA does not certify history of airplanes certificated under The FAA also proposes to address part 23 airplanes to operate in SLD icing part 23 and certified to the latest icing pilot stall awareness by requiring conditions, also known as freezing standards has shown that AC 23.1419– warnings that are more effective and by drizzle and freezing rain. Instead, 2D provides an adequate level of safety allowing new approaches to improve current part 23 icing regulations require for detecting and safely exiting SLD pilot awareness of stall margins. These airplane performance, flight icing conditions. Industry has indicated warnings could be as simple as angle of characteristics, systems, and engine that these requirements would not attack or energy awareness operation to be demonstrated in the impose an additional burden because presentations, or sophisticated envelope icing conditions defined in appendix C many manufacturers have already protection systems that add a forward to part 25, which does not contain SLD equipped recent airplanes to meet the force to the pilot’s controls as the icing conditions. In 2012, prior to the airplane speed and attitude approach standards for detecting and exiting SLD Part 23 Reorganization ARC, the Part 23 stall. in accordance with current FAA Icing ARC recommended revising part guidance. Proposed § 23.230, along with F. Additional Requirements for Flight in 23 to include SLD icing requirements in proposed § 23.940, Powerplant ice Icing Conditions subparts B, E, and F (Flight, Powerplant, protection, and § 23.1405, Flight in icing The FAA proposes to implement the and Equipment, respectively). conditions, and their respective means Part 23 Icing ARC’s recommendations in If an applicant chooses not to certify of compliance, address NTSB safety §§ 23.230, 23.940 and 23.1405, to allow an airplane in SLD icing conditions, recommendations A–96–54 and A–96– an applicant the option of certifying an proposed § 23.230 would require the 56. The following table provides a airplane to operate in SLD icing applicant to demonstrate that SLD icing summary of the proposed icing conditions. To do so, an applicant conditions could be detected and safely regulations.

PROPOSED ICING REGULATIONS

Airframe and system protection, performance Part 23 type certificate limitations Engine protection (§ 23.940) and flight characteristics requirements (§§ 23.230, 23.1300, and 23.1405)

Not certified for flight in icing conditions ...... Safe in part 25, App C conditions, ground ice None, except pitot heat required if airplane fog, and falling/blowing snow. certified for flight in instrument meteorolog- ical conditions (IMC). Certified for flight in icing conditions, but prohib- Safe in part 25, App C conditions, ground ice Safe in part 25, App C conditions. Can detect ited for flight in SLD. fog, and falling/blowing snow. SLD and safely exit. Certified for flight in icing conditions and SLD ... Safe in part 25, App C conditions, ground ice Safe in part 25, App C conditions and SLD. fog, and falling/blowing snow, and SLD.

G. Production of Replacement and Current standards for the production production approval applicant to submit Modification Articles approval of these articles can create a production information for a specific barrier for their installation in the article, without requiring the producer The Part 23 Reorganization ARC existing fleet of aircraft. Examples of of the article to obtain approval of the recommended simplifying certification such articles include carbon monoxide article’s design or approval of its quality requirements for non-required systems detectors, weather display systems, system. The FAA intends to use the and equipment, with an emphasis on clocks, small hand-held fire flexibility provided by this proposal to improvement in overall fleet safety from extinguishers, and flashlights. In many streamline the approval process for non- the prevailing level. In the past, the cases, these articles are ‘‘off-the-shelf’’ required safety enhancing equipment FAA has not established different products. It is frequently difficult for a and other articles that pose little or no production requirements for required person to install these articles on a type- risk to aircraft occupants and the public. and non-required equipment that may certificated aircraft because the level of The FAA requests comments on this enhance safety, or for articles whose design and production details necessary proposal, and particularly is interested improper operation or failure would not for these articles to meet the provisions in comments regarding whether the cause a hazard. The current of current § 21.9, as expected for more proposed change would safely facilitate requirements for producing articles and critical articles, are frequently retrofit of low risk articles and whether representing those articles as suitable unavailable. there are alternative methods to address for installation on type-certificated The FAA is therefore proposing to the perceived retrofit barrier. products are well suited for articles revise § 21.9, Replacement and V. Key Terms and Concepts Used in manufactured in accordance with a Modification Articles, to provide This Document product’s TC or STC, as well as for TSO applicants with an alternative method to and PMA parts. However, they may obtain FAA approval to produce The proposal includes a number of unnecessarily constrain the production replacement and modification articles. terms introduced into the regulations for of non-required, low risk articles. This proposed change would allow a the first time. These terms may be used

18 See www.regulations.gov (Docket # FAA–2015– 1621).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13463

to replace existing prescriptive could result in a departure from standard may define the functional requirements or may explain other controlled flight. requirements for an item, operational terms that have had longstanding use in Entry-Level Airplane—A two or four- requirements, or interface and the aircraft certification process, but in place airplane typically used for interchangeability characteristics. context of this rulemaking proposal, the training, rental, and by flying clubs. Pilot or Flightcrew—This is used FAA wants to specify its meaning. Historically, most of these airplanes generically throughout the proposed These terms are intended to set forth have four cylinder engines with less part 23 because part 23 has airplanes than 200 horsepower. These airplanes and clarify the safety intent of the approved for single pilot operations as typically have fixed-gear and fixed-pitch proposed rules. Although certain terms well as and two flightcrew members. propellers, but may also have retractable may differ from those currently in use, For most airplanes certificated under and constant speed these differences are not intended to part 23 that are single pilot, applicants propellers. Entry-level airplanes increase the regulatory burden on an should consider pilot and flightcrew to typically cannot be used to train pilots applicant unless specifically stated. The be interchangeable. FAA’s intent is that the proposed to meet the requirements to operate a requirements incorporating these new complex aircraft, as that term is defined Prescriptive Design Standard— terms not change the intent, for airman certification purposes. Specifies a particular design understanding, or implementation of the Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) requirement, such as materials to be original rule unless that requirement has Finding—A finding made by the used, how to perform a test, or how an been specifically revised in the accountable aircraft certification item is to be fabricated or constructed. proposal, such as is the case for directorate when literal compliance (Cf. OMB Circular A–119 Section 5.f.) requirements governing stall with a certification requirement cannot Safety Continuum—The concept that characteristics. To assist applicants in be shown and compensating factors in one level of safety is not appropriate for understanding the intent of the the design can be shown to provide a all aviation activities. Accordingly, proposal, these terms are discussed level of safety equivalent to that higher levels of risk, with corresponding below: established by the applicable requirements for less rigorous safety airworthiness standard. Airplane Certification Level—A demonstrations for products, are Fuel—Any source used by the division used for the certification of accepted as aircraft are utilized for more powerplant to generate its power. personal forms of transportation. airplanes that is associated directly with Hazard—Any existing or potential the number of passengers on the condition that can lead to injury, illness Survivable Volume—The airplane airplane. Airplane certification levels or death; damage to or loss of a system, cabin’s ability to resist external would be established to implement the equipment, or property; or damage to intrusion or structural collapse during agency’s concept of certificating the environment. A hazard is a and after impact. The ability to resist is airplanes using a process that recognizes condition that is a prerequisite to an usually represented as a stiffer design a safety continuum. accident or an incident. (Cf. Order VS around the cabin (not unlike a racecar Airplane Performance Level— 8000.367, Appendix A) roll cage) that is generally stronger than Maximum airspeed divisions that are Issue Paper—A structured means for the surrounding structure. While the intended, along with airplane describing and tracking the resolution of airframe may deform or disintegrate and certification levels, to replace current significant technical, regulatory, and attenuate impact energy, the cabin of the weight and propulsion divisions used administrative issues that occur during airplane will still maintain its integrity for the certification of airplanes. Current a certification project. The issue paper and protect the occupants restrained propulsion-based divisions assume that process constitutes a formal within. During otherwise survivable piston engine airplanes are slower than communication vehicle for addressing accident scenarios, including rollover, turbine-powered airplanes. Current significant issues among an applicant, this structure should maintain its shape weight-based divisions assume that the FAA, and if applicable, the under static and dynamic loading heavier airplanes are more complex and validating authority (VA) or certificating conditions. would be more likely to be used in authority (CA) for type validation VI. Discussion of the Proposed commercial passenger carriage than programs. An issue paper may also be Regulatory Amendments lighter airplanes. These assumptions are used to address novel or controversial no longer valid. Airplane certification technical issues. A. Part 23, Airworthiness Standards based on performance levels would Means of Compliance—A apply regulatory standards appropriate documented procedure used by an 1. Subpart A—General to airplane’s performance and applicant to demonstrate compliance to a. General Discussion complexity. a performance or outcome-based Departure Resistant—For the standard. Similar to an Advisory The FAA proposes eliminating the purposes of this NPRM, departure Circular (AC), a means of compliance is utility, acrobatic, and commuter resistant refers to stall characteristics one method, but not the only method, categories for future airplanes that make it very difficult for the to show compliance with a regulatory certificated under part 23. The FAA also airplane to depart controlled flight. requirement. Additionally, if a proposes to change from weight and Most fatal stall or spin accidents start procedure is used as a means of propulsion divisions to performance below 1000 feet above ground level and compliance, it must be followed and risk divisions. This would address do not actually spin, but start a yawing completely to maintain the integrity of the wide range of airplanes to be and rolling maneuver to enter the spin the means of compliance. certificated under part 23 and enhance called a post stall gyration. In these low- Performance- or Outcome-Based application of the safety continuum altitude accidents, the airplane typically Standard—A standard that states approach. Appendix 1 of this preamble hits the ground before completing one requirements in terms of required contains a cross-reference table detailing turn. Therefore, the important safety results, but does not prescribe any how the current regulations are criterion is preventing the airplane from specific method for achieving the addressed in the proposed part 23 exhibiting stall characteristics that required results. A performance-based regulations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13464 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

b. Specific Discussion of Changes performance airplanes. This has longer be used in scheduled service i. Proposed § 23.1, Applicability and resulted in the introduction of more under part 121 because § 121.157, Definition stringent and demanding requirements Aircraft certification and equipment in the lower weight airplanes such as requirements, paragraph (h), requires a Proposed § 23.1 would prescribe the use of 14 CFR part 25 based part 25 certification for newly type airworthiness standards for the issuance requirements for simple, single-engine certificated airplanes. The majority of of type certificates, and changes to those turbine airplanes. The result is that airplanes recently certified in the certificates, for airplanes in the normal some of the current requirements have commuter category are multiengine category. Current § 23.3, Airplane become more demanding for simple and business jets. Additionally, the categories, defines normal category as low-performance airplanes. certification category of commuter can airplanes that have a seating The FAA proposes replacing the be confused with the same term in the configuration, excluding pilot seats, of current part 23 weight and propulsion operating rules because the term is nine or less, a maximum certificated divisions because they were based on defined differently in the certification takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less, assumptions that do not always fit the and operation rules. The FAA and intended for nonacrobatic large diversity of airplane performance, recognizes that moving away from operation. Proposed § 23.1 would delete complexity, technology, intended use, weight and propulsion divisions would references to utility, acrobatic, and and seating capacity encompassed in result in changes for the criteria used to commuter category airplanes, and today’s new airplane designs. Also, the determine when to apply the existing paragraph (b) would not include the current divisions may not be commuter category certification current reference to procedural appropriate to address unforeseen requirements using the numbers of requirements for showing compliance. designs of the future. The commuter passenger seats (excluding crewmember The reference to procedural category, originally intended for the seats), performance, and technical requirements for showing compliance is certification of airplanes over 12,500 divisions proposed in this NPRM. The redundant with the requirement in pounds and up to 19 passengers, is FAA proposes the following airplane § 21.21, Issue of type certificate: Normal, currently used for larger business jets certification levels: utility, acrobatic, commuter, and with less than ten passengers. The • transport category aircraft; manned free Level 1—for airplanes with a maximum proposed certification and performance seating configuration of 0 to 1 passengers. balloons; special classes of aircraft; level approach, while different from the • Level 2—for airplanes with a maximum aircraft engines; propellers, to show current divisions, would capture the seating configuration of 2 to 6 passengers. compliance. Proposed § 23.1 would also safety intent of part 23 more • Level 3—for airplanes with a maximum add three definitions specific to part 23: appropriately than the current seating configuration of 7 to 9 passengers. • (1) Continued safe flight and landing, (2) propulsion and weight divisions. Level 4—for airplanes with a maximum designated fire zone, and (3) empty The FAA proposes replacing the seating configuration of 10 to 19 passengers. weight. current divisions with specific technical The differences between normal, ii. Proposed § 23.5, Certification of and operational capabilities by utility, and acrobatic categories are addressing, for example, stall speed, currently very limited and primarily Normal Category Airplanes VFR/IFR operation, pressurization, etc., affect airframe structure requirements. Proposed § 23.5 would apply that represent the actual technical Proposed part 23 would still allow a certification in the normal category to drivers for current prescriptive normal category airplane to be approved airplanes with a passenger-seating requirements. These types of design for aerobatics provided the airplane was configuration of 19 or less and a specific technical and operational certified to address the factors affecting maximum certificated takeoff weight of criteria would be more appropriate for safety for the defined limits for that kind 19,000 pounds or less. Proposed § 23.5 a means of compliance document where of operation. Currently, the utility would also establish certification levels a complete range of airplane designs category provides airplanes additional based on the passenger seating could be addressed. The FAA proposes margin for the more stringent inertial configuration and airplane performance that high-speed, multiengine airplanes structural loads resulting from intended levels based on speed. and multiengine airplanes over 12,500 spins and the additional maneuvers The diversity of airplanes certificated pounds should continue meeting the stated in the requirements of the utility under part 23 is large relative to equivalent commuter category category in § 23.3(b). The FAA proposes performance, numbers of passengers, performance-based requirements. The that airplanes approved for spins be complexity, technology, and intended proposed performance requirements certificated to aerobatic standards. An use. Airplane certification requirements would be based on number of airplane designed with traditional under part 23 are currently determined passengers (certification level) and handling qualities and designed to using a combination of weight, numbers airplane performance (performance allow spin training is more susceptible of passengers, and propulsion type. level); not weight or propulsion type. to inadvertent departure from controlled These divisions historically were The FAA proposes to eliminate flight. The FAA believes that appropriate because there was a clear commuter, utility, and acrobatic maintaining the current utility category relationship between the propulsion airplane categories in part 23, retaining for airplanes approved for spins and and weight of the airplane and its only normal category for all new part 23 limited aerobatic maneuvers would associated performance and complexity. type certificated airplane design negate the single largest safety gain Recent technological developments approvals. The FAA believes this action expected from this rulemaking action— have altered the dynamics of this would not affect the existing fleet of the significant reduction in inadvertent relationship. High-performance and small airplanes. For example, the stall-related departures from controlled complex airplanes now exist within the commuter category was originally flight. weight range that was typical for light introduced into part 23 to apply to a 10 Proposed § 23.5(c) would categorize and simple airplanes. Furthermore, to 19 passenger, multiengine airplane, the performance level of an airplane as current part 23 has evolved to meet the operated in scheduled service under 14 low speed or high speed. The additional regulatory requirements CFR parts 121 and 135. However, new combination of certification levels and resulting from the introduction of high- airplanes certified under part 23 can no performance levels is intended to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13465

provide divisions that address the actual part 23, while allowing innovative Allowing the use of consensus safety concern of occupant numbers and technology in those designs. standards would accomplish this goal. performance, for example, future The FAA considered allowing The Part 23 Reorganization ARC designs using novel propulsion airplanes that meet the consensus recommended creating this proposed methods. The FAA proposes the standards applicable to the certification section to identify specifically the following airplane performance levels: of special light-sport aircraft to be means of compliance documents developed by industry, users such as • Low speed—for airplanes with a design included in proposed part 23. However, large flight schools, the interested cruising speed (V ) or maximum operating the FAA decided that this would not be C public, and the FAA, that an applicant limit speed (VMO) ≤ 250 KCAS (or MMO ≤ in the best interest of the GA 0.6). community because it could result in could use in developing a certification • High speed—for airplanes with a V or the elimination of the special light-sport application. The ARC expressed two C concerns that led to the creation of the VMO > 250 KCAS (or MMO > 0.6). aircraft category. There are advantages in the certification of special light-sport proposed requirement. First, applicants Proposed § 23.5(d) would identify a aircraft, such as self-certification, that need to use a means of compliance simple airplane as one with a would not be available if the aircraft accepted by the Administrator when ≤ certification level 1, a VC or VMO 250 were type certificated under part 23. showing compliance to part 23. Second, ≤ ≤ KCAS (and MMO 0.6), and a VSO 45 This proposal would instead enable a while a consensus standards body (i.e., KCAS, and approved only for VFR simpler path to part 23 certification for ASTM, SAE, RTCA, etc.) developed operations. The FAA proposes a simple airplanes that meet the definition of a means of compliance document may be airplane as equivalent to airplanes light-sport aircraft and wish to pursue a available, individuals or organizations certificated under EASA’s current CS– type of certificate for business reasons. may also submit their own means of VLA. In most cases, EASA’s CS–VLA The FAA expects simple airplanes to compliance documentation to the Administrator for consideration and requirements are identical to the be more basic than the proposed potential acceptance. Additionally, the proposed corresponding part 23 certification level 1, low-speed FAA wants to ensure applicants requirements and have been proposed airplanes. A simple airplane is a understand that an applicant-developed in the requirements for certification certification level 1, low-speed airplane means of compliance document would level 1 airplanes. The FAA considered with a stall speed limit of 45 KCAS that require FAA review and acceptance by using the CS–VLA standards in would be limited to VFR operations. the Administrator. combination with the proposed part 23 The FAA recognizes that a simple certification standards for all The FAA anticipates that individuals airplane level would have or organizations would develop certification level 1, low-speed characteristics very similar to airplanes. However, the FAA believes acceptable means for complying with certification level 1, low-speed the proposed performance standards. A that there are several requirements in airplanes, and that creating this category CS–VLA that are not appropriate for all standards organization such as ASTM, may be unnecessary. For this reason, the for example, could generate a series of certification level 1, low-speed FAA is specifically asking for comments airplanes, such as no requirement for a consensus-based standards for review, concerning the value of creating a acceptance, and public notice of type certified engine in CS–VLA. separate, simple airplane level. Therefore, the FAA proposes creating a acceptance by the FAA. The ASTM limited certification and performance iii. Proposed § 23.10, Accepted Means of standards could be one way, but not the level for simple airplanes. Simple Compliance only way, to demonstrate compliance airplanes would be a subset of with part 23. Other consensus standard Proposed § 23.10 would require an bodies such as RTCA and SAE are certification level 1, low-speed airplanes applicant to show the FAA how it and would have a V ≤ 45 KCAS and currently focused on developing SO would demonstrate compliance with standards for aircraft components and would only be approved for VFR this part using a means of compliance, appliances. operations. which may include consensus The proposed airworthiness standards In accordance with the FAA’s standards, accepted by the would allow airplanes to be certificated objective to remove weight and Administrator. Proposed § 23.10 would at different airplane certification levels. propulsion divisions from the rules and also require an applicant requesting For example, software integrity levels use performance and certification acceptance of a means of compliance to appropriate for a certification level 1 divisions, the proposed requirements provide the means of compliance to the airplane may not be appropriate for a applicable to the certification of simple FAA in a form and manner specified by certification level 4 airplane. airplanes would not completely the Administrator. Additionally, the takeoff performance of conform to the criteria EASA uses to Proposed § 23.10 would create an airplane might be evaluated certificate very light airplanes. The FAA flexibility for applicants in developing differently for an airplane intended to proposes that simple airplanes would means of compliance and also be certificated at different airplane constitute a subset of certification level specifically identify consensus certification levels. An applicant 1, low-speed airplanes that would be standards as a means of compliance the seeking certification of a certification required to have a low stall speed limit Administratory may find acceptable. level 1 airplane with a takeoff distance and a VFR limitation in order to The Part 23 Reorganization ARC of 200 feet, for example, would not need maintain a level of safety appropriate for proposed using consensus standards for to establish the takeoff distance with the these airplanes. The FAA believes that the detailed means of compliance to the same degree of accuracy as would an creating the simple certification level fundamental safety requirements in applicant seeking certification of a would encourage manufacturers of light- proposed part 23. As discussed in the certification level 4 high-speed airplane sport and experimental aircraft kits to International Harmonization Efforts with a takeoff distance of 4,000 feet. pursue type certificates for their section of this NPRM, the intent of this By using means of compliance airplane designs without encountering proposal is to create a regulatory documents to show compliance with the the administrative, procedural or architecture for part 23 that is agile proposed performance-based rules, the regulatory barriers existing in current enough to keep up with innovation. need for special conditions, ELOS

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13466 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

findings, and exemptions to address proposed sections that contain new function rather than controlled by the new technology advancements would requirements, such as §§ 23.200, 23.215, pilot. diminish. Once the Administrator and 23.230. The FAA proposes consolidating the accepted a means of compliance, it may The Part 23 Reorganization ARC also performance requirements for high- be used for future applications for was aware the Administrator has speed multiengine airplanes and certification unless formally rescinded. accepted various manufacturers’ multiengine airplanes that weigh over Allowing the use of consensus internal standards in the past and 12,500 pounds. These airplanes are standards as a means of compliance to recommended having that option stated currently required to meet a series of performance-based regulations would in the proposal. Proposed § 23.10 would one-engine-inoperative climb gradients. provide the FAA with the agility allow applicants to submit their internal These climb gradients were based on necessary to more rapidly accept new standards as means of compliance for part 25 requirements and intended for technology, leverage industry consideration by the Administrator. commuter category airplanes used in expectations in the development of new scheduled air service under parts 135 iv. Removal of Subpart A Current means of compliance documents, and and 121. New airplanes certificated Regulations provide for the use of harmonized under part 23 are not eligible for means of compliance among the FAA, The FAA proposes removing current operation in scheduled service under industry, and foreign CAAs. While an § 23.2, Special retroactive requirements, part 121, diminishing the utility of the applicant would not be required to use from part 23 because the operational commuter category for these airplanes. previously accepted means of rules currently address these More recently, part 23 multiengine compliance documents, their use would requirements. The current retroactive jets intended to be used under parts 91 streamline the certification process by rule is more appropriate in the operating or 135 have been certificated in the eliminating the need to develop an issue rules. The FAA proposes amending 14 commuter category, using part 25 based paper to address the certification of new CFR part 91, as discussed later in the climb gradient requirements. In the technology. Proposed AC 23.10,19 Discussion of the Proposed Regulatory spirit of the proposed rule change, the Accepted Means of Compliance, would Amendments to ensure removing the FAA has decided that the one-engine- provide guidance for applicants on the current § 23.2 requirement would not inoperative climb requirements would process applicants would follow to affect the existing fleet. be independent of the number of submit proposed means of compliance 2. Subpart B—Flight engines and some of the original to the FAA for consideration by the requirements would be consolidated Administrator. a. General Discussion into a single requirement that would The Part 23 Reorganization ARC The FAA proposes moving away from require performance very close to what expressed concerns that a consensus is required today. This action intends to standard could be biased in favor of a the current stall characteristics and spin testing approach to address the largest maintain the performance capabilities few large manufacturers and would expected in 14 CFR part 135 operations. create an unfair competitive advantage. cause of fatal accidents in small airplanes. Proposed § 23.215 in subpart The FAA proposes changes in the The FAA notes that any interested party flight characteristics rules to keep the may participate in the ASTM B would omit the one turn/three second spin requirement for normal category safety intent of the existing committees developing consensus requirements consistent with the other standards thereby, mitigating this airplanes, but it would increase the stall handling characteristics and stall proposed part 23 sections. The current concern. The FAA expects that other part 23 requirements are based on small consensus standards bodies would warning requirements so the airplane would be substantially more resistant to airplanes, designed with reversible allow similar opportunities for controls, which include some interested parties to participate in their stall-based departures than the current rules require. accommodations for stability standards development work. augmentation and . The FAA Additionally, any individual or The FAA also proposes eliminating the utility, acrobatic, and commuter believes the proposed language would organization could develop its own capture the current requirements for means of compliance and submit it to categories in part 23. Accordingly, a flight characteristics and allows for the FAA for acceptance by the new airplane would have to be varying degrees of automated flight Administrator. The other risk identified approved for aerobatic loads as the control systems in the future. by the Part 23 Reorganization ARC was normal category, even if an applicant Finally, the FAA proposes adding a that specialists in the industry could only wanted to spin the airplane. requirement to require certification argue for complex means of compliance Therefore, the FAA proposes to restrict levels 1 and 2 multiengine airplanes, when the FAA would accept a simpler certification of new airplanes for dual not capable of climbing after a critical or more cost effective approach. use, which can be done today using loss of thrust, to stall prior to reaching However, the FAA would continue to both the normal and utility categories. the minimum directional control speed allow applicants to propose their own The FAA believes that if the airplane (V ). means of compliance when the larger can spin for spin training, then the MC industry standard may be the airplane can inadvertently stall and b. Specific Discussion of Changes appropriate level of safety for one, but depart into a spin during normal operations. One of the FAA’s goals is to i. Proposed § 23.100, Weight and Center not all certification levels. Lastly, the of Gravity FAA intends to continue to allow the prevent inadvertent stalls, so allowing use of the current prescriptive means of airplanes that are commonly used as Proposed § 23.100 would require an compliance contained in current part 23 rental airplanes to spin would defeat the applicant to determine weights and requirements as one obvious alternative goal. However, the FAA would consider centers of gravity that provide limits for to showing compliance with proposed accepting a dual-purpose airplane if the the safe operation of the airplane. part 23. This would not apply to the airplane manufacturer provided a Additionally, it would require an system that could be changed applicant to show compliance with each 19 See www.regulations.gov (Docket # FAA–2015– mechanically or electronically from requirement of this subpart at each 1621). normal to aerobatic as a maintenance combination of weight and center of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13467

gravity within the airplane’s range of climb limits as their upper temperature. knot stall speed is a technical division loading conditions using tolerances The level of safety remains the same as rather than a limitation and would be acceptable to the Administrator. the current part 23 because part 23 more appropriate as a means of Proposed § 23.100 would also require airplane pilots only have the limitations compliance. the condition of the airplane at the time identified in the airplane flight manual, The FAA is changing its approach to of determining its empty weight and including engine temperature limits. crashworthiness. Instead of constraining center of gravity to be well defined and Proposed § 23.105(c) would also the connection between stall speed and easily repeatable. capture the safety intent of § 23.45(f). crashworthiness to a single fixed speed, Proposed § 23.100 would capture the The safety intent of the current rule is the FAA proposes allowing alternative safety intent of current §§ 23.21, Proof of to ensure an average pilot can approaches to crashworthiness. The compliance; 23.23, Load distribution consistently get the same results as intent is to encourage incorporation of limits; 23.25, Weight limits; 23.29, published in the Airplane Flight Manual innovations from other industries to Empty weight and corresponding center (AFM). The FAA believes this provide more occupant protection in the of gravity; and 23.31, Removable ballast. requirement would ensure applicants airframe. This approach would base This proposed section would ensure an either perform their performance tests in occupant protection on the actual stall applicant considers the important a conservative manner or add margins speed rather than a single mandated weight and balance configurations that and procedures to the AFM performance stall speed. influence performance, stability, and section so an average pilot can achieve iv. Proposed § 23.115, Takeoff control when showing compliance with the same performance. Performance the flight requirements. The main safety Proposed § 23.105(d) would require requirements of current §§ 23.21–23.31 performance data to account for losses Proposed § 23.115 would require an are located in current §§ 23.21 and due to atmospheric conditions, cooling applicant to determine airplane takeoff 23.23. Current § 23.21 allows for a range needs, and other demands. The current performance, which includes the of loading conditions shown by test or rule specifies the position of cowl flaps determination of ground roll and initial systematic investigation. The proposed or other means for controlling the climb distance to 50 feet, accounting for rule would still allow for this flexibility, engine air supply. The proposed stall speed safety margins, minimum including the tolerances for . language accounts for airplane control speeds; and climb gradients. Sections 23.25–23.31 provide performance, if affected by the cooling Proposed § 23.115 would also require definitions and directions for needs of the propulsion system, which the takeoff performance determination determining weights and centers of is the safety intent of § 23.45, but would to include accelerate-stop, ground roll gravity and provides directions for omit the details because they are more and initial climb to 50 feet, and net informing the pilot. For these reasons, appropriate as a means of compliance. takeoff flight path, after a sudden the information in these sections is Proposed § 23.105(d) would also critical loss of thrust for certification more appropriate as a means of capture the safety intent § 23.45(d) and levels 1, 2, and 3 high-speed compliance. (e). The safety intent of the current rule multiengine airplanes, multiengine is to ensure the airplane performance airplanes with a maximum takeoff ii. Proposed § 23.105, Performance accounts for minimum power available weight greater than 12,500 pounds, and Proposed § 23.105 would require an from the propulsion system, considering certification level 4 multiengine airplane to meet the performance atmospheric and cooling conditions and airplanes. requirements of this subpart in various accessories requiring power. Proposed § 23.115 would capture the conditions based on the airplane’s safety intent of current §§ 23.51, Takeoff certification and performance levels for iii. Proposed § 23.110, Stall Speed speeds; and 23.61, Takeoff flight path. which certification is requested. Proposed § 23.110 would require an Takeoff distance information and the Proposed § 23.105 also would require an applicant to determine the airplane stall associated procedures for achieving applicant to develop the performance speed or the minimum steady flight those distances are necessary for the data required by this subpart for various speed for each flight configuration used safe operation of all airplanes certified conditions, while also accounting for in normal operations, accounting for the under part 23. Proposed § 23.115 would losses due to atmospheric conditions, most adverse conditions for each flight require applicants to determine, cooling needs, and other demands on configuration, with power set at idle or develop, and publish distance and power sources. Finally, proposed zero thrust. procedure data for the pilot to use. The § 23.105 would require the procedures Proposed § 23.110 would capture the effects of airplane weight, field used for determining takeoff and safety intent of current § 23.49, Stalling temperature and elevation, winds, landing distances to be executed speed. Stall speeds are necessary to runway gradient, and runway surface consistently by pilots of average skill in define operating and limiting speeds also need to be available to the pilot atmospheric conditions expected to be used to determine airplane performance. because they affect airplane encountered in service. They also provide a basis for performance. For proposed simple Proposed § 23.105 would capture the determining kinetic energy in entry-level airplanes, conservative safety intent of current § 23.45, emergency landing conditions. analysis may supplement flight test Performance—General. The safety intent Therefore, determining stall speeds is while data for larger, higher of § 23.45(a) is captured in proposed required in the configurations used in performance airplanes are expected to § 23.105(a) and is essentially unchanged the operation of the airplane. provide the level of precision that is from the current rule, except to The FAA proposes removing the 61- accepted today. incorporate the proposed certification knot stall speed division for single- Additionally, proposed § 23.115 levels and speed divisions. engine airplanes from the rules because would require applicants to determine Proposed § 23.105(b) would capture this speed has not been a limitation critical thrust loss cases for multiengine the safety intent of § 23.45(b) by since 1992 with the addition of the airplanes. Today, the loss of one engine retaining § 23.45(b)(1) requirements and options for stall speeds in excess of 61 on a two-engine airplane is the standard combining § 23.45(b)(2) and (b)(3) and knots in § 23.562, Emergency landing model. The future possibilities for the allowing all airplanes to use the cooling dynamic conditions. Therefore, the 61- functions of engines, if different from

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13468 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

thrust, and how the engines are more appropriately addressed by Proposed § 23.120(a) would capture controlled, may determine critical thrust regulations currently used for the the safety intent of current § 23.65. It loss. For example, a large number of certification of turbine-powered would retain the existing climb engines along the leading edge of a wing airplanes. The proposed certification gradients and atmospheric conditions could function as a high-lift device as and performance level approach, while required for pilot planning. well as provide thrust. different from the current divisions, Proposed § 23.120(b) would capture Historically, limited propulsion would capture the safety intent of part the safety intent of current § 23.67, and options and the need for inherent 23 more appropriately than the current consolidates the weight and propulsion stability from reversible, mechanical propulsion and weight divisions. divisions into all engines operating, control systems have restrained airplane critical loss of thrust, and balked configurations. The FAA anticipates v. Proposed § 23.120, Climb landing groups. Furthermore, for high- that new propulsion systems and Requirements speed airplanes, after a critical loss of affordable electronic flight control Proposed § 23.120 would require an thrust, the FAA proposes reducing the systems will challenge these traditional applicant to demonstrate various number of required climb conditions for designs and need alternative means of minimum climb performances out of certification to one gradient at 400 feet compliance. Speed multiples and ground effect, depending on the (122 meters) above the takeoff surface. factors used in current part 23 airplane’s certification level, engines, For the typical part 23 certified twin- prescriptive requirements are based on and performance capability. This new engine airplane, the required climb traditional airplane configurations. Part provision would capture the safety gradient at 400 feet (122 meters) above 23 mandates these details of design for intent of current §§ 23.65, Climb: All the takeoff surface is generally the most compliance. The FAA believes engines operating; 23.67, Climb: One challenging. Airplanes that have the removing these details would provide engine inoperative; and 23.77, Balked performance to meet this one applicants with the agility and landing. Minimum climb performance requirement typically can meet all the flexibility to address these new airplane information is necessary so pilots can current requirements. For certification configurations. The current factors will determine if they have adequate levels 3 and 4, high-speed multiengine still apply for traditional configurations, clearance from obstacles beyond the end airplanes, the FAA proposes but proposed performance-based of the runway. New engine consolidating the configurations requirements should allow rapid technologies, especially electric, would currently prescribed for the second adoption of new means of compliance allow for alternative configurations that segment climb and a discontinued for future airplane configurations. would invalidate many of the detailed approach. The climb gradient difference The FAA proposes removing airplane test configuration and power between these segments is 0.1 percent categories and weight and propulsion assumptions that are in the current and uses the takeoff configuration certification divisions for multiengine requirements. rather than the approach flap jets over 6,000 pounds and replacing configuration. Requiring only one climb them with divisions based on risk and Part 23 currently has a large matrix for gradient at 400 feet (122 meters) above performance. The commuter category, all the climb requirements that includes the takeoff surface with the landing gear originally intended for the certification category, weight, and number of retracted and flaps in the approach of airplanes over 12,500 pounds and up engines, resulting in over 20 different position would maintain the current to 19 passengers, is currently used for climb gradient requirements. This level of safety while reducing the larger business jets with less than ten reflects the growth in the variety of requirements by eliminating initial, passengers. The FAA proposes that different airplane types that has final, and discontinued approach climb high-speed, multiengine and occurred since the certification tests. Because the proposed multiengine airplanes over 12,500 regulations were first adopted in CAR 3. requirements would reduce the amount pounds should continue meeting the Because the FAA proposes simplifying of climb testing for designs intended for equivalent commuter category these divisions using certification levels use under part 91, applicants would performance-based requirements. The and airplane performance levels, it can also need to provide the traditional historical assumption applied to jets eliminate required climb gradients for operational performance data, as is was that they were fast, had high wing three and four engines. The FAA currently done, if the design is intended loadings, and used significant runway proposes basing multiengine climb to be used for commercial operations distances for takeoff and landing. gradients on critical loss for thrust and under part 135 operating rules. Therefore, all jets were required to have using the gradient for the current twin- The FAA also proposes to normalize guaranteed climb performance with one engine airplanes because it has resulted the initial climb height to 50 feet (15 engine inoperative. This requirement in a safe service history. The FAA meters) above the takeoff surface. The does not currently apply to single proposes replacing the term ‘‘failure of regulations for the certification of engine jets. The proposed performance the critical engine’’ (which addresses a commuter category airplanes essentially requirements would be based on twin engine airplane) with ‘‘critical loss adopted many of the part 25 climb number of passengers (certification of thrust’’ for airplanes certificated requirements, including an initial climb level) and airplane performance under those provisions. The reason for height of 35 feet (11 meters) above the (performance level), not weight or replacing this term is that with takeoff surface. When the commuter propulsion type. The proposed configurations utilizing large numbers category was adopted, the expectation certification and performance levels of engines, the failure modes may not was that these airplanes would be used approach would not offer a one-to-one follow the traditional failure modes as in part 121 service. This expectation relationship with the current with the loss of one engine on a two- allowed the FAA to accept the part 25 requirements. A low-speed turbine- engine airplane. Furthermore, the FAA assumption that takeoff distances would powered airplane may be more proposes retaining and consolidating be factored; thus, providing a safety appropriately addressed by regulations the climb gradients from current § 23.67 margin to offset the lower initial climb currently applicable to piston-powered because these gradients are important height. Part 23 requirements provide airplanes, while a piston-powered or a minimum performance requirements for minimum safe operations for part 91, high-speed electric airplane may be maintaining the current level of safety. which does not require factored takeoff

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13469

distances. Therefore, allowing a 35 foot temperatures at each weight and as flap extension and retraction, landing (11 meters) height above the takeoff altitude within the operational limits for gear extension and retraction, and surface is a lower safety margin than landing. extension and retraction, along used for smaller airplanes and, for this Proposed § 23.130 would capture the with probable failures resulting in reason, the FAA proposes to make all safety intent of current § 23.73, asymmetric thrust, would also have to airplanes certificated under part 23 use Reference landing approach speed, and result in safe, controllable, and 50 feet (15 meters) above the takeoff § 23.75, Landing Distance. Landing predictable characteristics. surface. distance information and the associated Proposed § 23.200(a) and (b) would procedures for achieving those distances capture the safety intent of §§ 23.143, vi. Proposed § 23.125, Climb are necessary to prevent runway Controllability and Maneuverability— Information overruns. Applicants would be required General; 23.145, Longitudinal control; Proposed § 23.125 would require an to determine, develop, and publish 23.147, Directional and lateral control; applicant to determine the climb distance and procedures data for use in 23.149, Minimum control speed; 23.151, performance for— pilot planning. Proposed § 23.130 would Acrobatic maneuvers; 23.153, Control • All single engine airplanes; combine the current requirements to during landings; 23.155, • Certification level 3 multiengine determine approach speed and landing control force in maneuvers; and 23.157, airplanes after a critical loss of thrust on distance because a determination of Rate of roll. The FAA proposes limiting takeoff in the initial climb both is required for a landing distance the requirements for practical loadings configuration; and determination. and operating altitudes without the use • All multiengine airplanes during of exceptional piloting skill, alertness, viii. Proposed § 23.200, Controllability the enroute phase of flight with all or strength. engines operating and after a critical Proposed § 23.200 would require the Current part 23 provides prescriptive loss of thrust in the cruise configuration. airplane to be controllable and and detailed test requirements based on Proposed § 23.125 would also require maneuverable, without requiring specific airplane configurations. an applicant to determine the glide exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or Additionally, the current rules include performance of the airplane after a strength, within the operating envelope, flight test procedures that are based on complete loss of thrust for single engine at all loading conditions for which traditional reversible controls and airplanes. certification is requested. This would engine locations that are, in some cases, Proposed § 23.125 would capture the would include during low-speed derived from airplanes designed in the safety intent of current §§ 23.63, Climb: operations, including stalls, with any 1930’s. The FAA proposes performance- General; 23.66, Takeoff climb: One- probable flight control or propulsion based requirements that would remain engine inoperative; 23.69, Enroute system failure, and during configuration applicable to traditionally designed climb/descent; and 23.71, Glide: Single- changes. Proposed § 23.200 would airplanes, but allow alternative engine airplanes. The intent of these require the airplane to be able to approaches to showing compliance requirements is to provide pilots with complete a landing without causing based on new configurations, flight climb and glide performance data that is damage or serious injury, in the landing control systems, engine locations, and important for safety, especially in configuration at a speed of VREF minus number of engines. conditions near the performance limits 5 knots using the approach gradient Proposed § 23.200(c) would require of the airplane. Sections 23.63, 23.66, equal to the steepest used in the landing all certification levels 1 and 2 and 23.69 are not minimum distance determination. Proposed multiengine airplanes that lack the performance sections, but contain § 23.200 would require VMC not to performance to climb after a critical loss information used in the development of exceed VS1 or VS0 for all practical of thrust to stall before loss of the AFM. Proposed § 23.125 would weights and configurations within the directional control. This is a new require an applicant to determine climb operating envelope of the airplane for requirement and it targets the high performance. The performance data certification levels 1 and 2 multiengine number of fatal accidents that occur determination provides a good example airplanes that cannot climb after a after an engine failure in this class of of how the use of certification levels can critical loss of thrust. Proposed § 23.200 airplane. Light multiengine airplanes allow simplified approaches to meet would also require an applicant to that lack the performance to climb after applicable airworthiness requirements demonstrate those aerobatic maneuvers the critical loss of thrust are especially for simple, and levels 1 and 2 airplanes. for which certification is requested and susceptible to this type of accident. The determine entry speeds. Part 23 Reorganization ARC discussed vii. Proposed § 23.130, Landing Proposed § 23.200 would capture the and several members proposed that all Proposed § 23.130 would require an safety intent of §§ 23.141, Flight multiengine airplanes have guaranteed applicant to determine the landing Characteristics—General, 23.143, climb performance after a critical loss of distance for standard temperatures at Controllability and Maneuverability— thrust. Ultimately, this approach was each weight and altitude within the General; 23.145, Longitudinal control; rejected, as it could impose a significant operational limits for landing. The 23.147 Directional and lateral control; cost on the production of training landing distance determination would 23.149, Minimum control speed; 23.151, airplanes. Furthermore, several start from a height of 50 feet (15 meters) Acrobatic maneuvers; 23.153, Control members pointed out that the safety above the landing surface, require the during landing; 23.155, Elevator control concern was not that the airplane could airplane to land and come to a stop (or force in maneuvers; 23.157, Rate of roll; not climb on one engine, but rather that for water operations, reach a speed of 3 23.697(b) and (c), Wing flap controls. the airplane would depart controlled knots) using approach and landing Proposed § 23.200 would ensure the flight at low speeds above stall as a speeds, configurations, and procedures, maneuvering flight characteristics of the result of asymmetric thrust. The FAA which allow a pilot of average skill to airplane are safe and predictable agrees that loss of control caused by meet the landing distance consistently throughout the flight envelope and asymmetric thrust is the critical safety and without causing damage or injury. result in repeatable, smooth transitions issue that should be addressed and the Proposed § 23.130 would require these between turns, climbs, descents, and FAA believes that the proposed rule determinations for standard level flight. Configuration changes, such responds to this concern.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13470 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

The FAA recognizes concerns technology associated with simple accidents, the number one cause in regarding the proposed requirement—if mechanical control systems and what small airplanes is a departure from the airplane is allowed to stall, the was considered acceptable on existing controlled flight following an asymmetric thrust will still cause the airplanes of the time. Although many of inadvertent stall. airplane to lose directional control and these requirements are still appropriate Except for accidental departures from likely depart controlled flight. The FAA for traditional flight control systems, controlled flight during stall training, agrees, but believes that pilots are they do not take into account the most of these inadvertent departures typically more aware of their stall capabilities of new computer-based occur in close proximity to the ground, speeds than minimum control speed, flight control systems. The FAA and because of this, the current especially during turns. Furthermore, recognizes the availability of hybrid requirement to recover from a one-turn these airplanes would be required to reversible and automated flight control or three-second spin may not be the best meet the proposed stall warning and systems and proposes performance- method to assess the safety of the stall characteristic requirements, which based language that would allow their airplane. Even an experienced pilot may the FAA expects would provide installation in part 23 certificated not have enough altitude to recover additional safety margins beyond airplanes without the use of special from the spin before impacting the current requirements. Finally, the conditions, while still maintaining ground. For this reason, the FAA system that provides stall warning could adequate requirements for reversible proposes to delete the one-turn/three- also be designed to provide VMC controls. The intent is to facilitate the second spin recovery requirement for warning. use of systems that may enhance safety normal category airplanes. Instead, the while reducing pilot workload. FAA proposes to increase the stall ix. Proposed § 23.205, Trim characteristics requirements by Proposed § 23.205 would require the xi. Proposed § 23.215, Stall requiring that all certification levels 1 airplane to maintain longitudinal, Characteristics, Stall Warning, and and 2 airplanes and certification level 3 lateral, and directional trim under Spins single-engine airplanes provide various conditions, depending on the Proposed § 23.215 would require an substantial departure resistance to airplane’s certification level, without airplane to have controllable stall prevent inadvertent stalls from resulting allowing residual forces to fatigue or characteristics in straight flight, turning in a departure from controlled flight and distract the pilot during likely flight, and accelerated turning flight becoming fatal accidents. emergency operations, including a with a clear and distinctive stall Accident studies show that even critical loss of thrust on multiengine warning that would provide sufficient hitting the ground as a result of a stall airplanes. margin to prevent inadvertent stalling. can be survivable if the airplane is still Proposed § 23.205 would capture the Proposed § 23.215 would allow for in controlled flight. Conversely, safety intent of current § 23.161, Trim. alternative approaches to meeting this impacting the ground out of control is Section 23.161(a) addresses the safety requirement for certification levels 1 typically fatal. The FAA envisions intent while paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and and 2 airplanes and certification level 3 numerous alternative approaches to (e) provide prescriptive details on how single-engine airplanes, not certified for meeting the proposed requirements, to do flight testing for traditionally aerobatics, in order to avoid a tendency ranging from one extreme of spin configured airplanes and are more to inadvertently depart controlled flight. resistance to the other extreme of a total appropriate for inclusion in means of Proposed § 23.215 would require systems-based approach such as stick compliance. airplanes certified for aerobatics to have pusher. Furthermore, there are envelope controllable stall characteristics and the protection systems and stall warning x. Proposed § 23.210, Stability ability to recover within one and one- concepts that could also be considered Proposed § 23.210 would require half additional turns after initiation of when assessing departure resistance. airplanes not certified for aerobatics to the first control action from any point in The possible approaches to meeting the have static and dynamic longitudinal, a spin. Additionally, the airplane would proposed requirements are so broad that lateral, and directional stability in not be allowed to exceed six turns or these alternatives would be better normal operations, and provide stable any greater number of turns for which addressed in means of compliance. This control force feedback throughout the certification is requested while level of protection may vary based on operating envelope. Proposed § 23.210 remaining within the operating the characteristics of the airplane, but would also preclude any airplane from limitations of the airplane. Proposed the FAA expects this change in design exhibiting any divergent stability § 23.215 would preclude airplanes philosophy would increase the level of characteristic so unstable as to increase certified for aerobatics from having spin protection designed into airplanes the pilot’s workload or otherwise characteristics that would result in under this proposed rule. Certification endanger the airplane and its occupants. unrecoverable spins due to pilot level 3 multiengine airplanes and Proposed § 23.210 would capture the disorientation or incapacitation or any certification level 4 airplanes safety intent of the current §§ 23.171, use of the flight or engine power historically have not had a large number Stability—General; 23.173, Static controls. of departure-related accidents. While longitudinal stability; 23.175, Proposed § 23.215 would capture the the FAA encourages manufacturers to demonstration of static longitudinal safety intent of current §§ 23.201, Wings consider designing departure resistance stability; 23.177, Static directional and level stall; 23.203, Turning flight and into these airplanes, the FAA does not lateral stability; 23.179, Instrumented accelerated turning stalls; 23.207, Stall propose adding a new requirement for stick force measurements; and 23.181, warning; and 23.221, Spinning. certification level 3 multiengine Dynamic stability. The current Historically, the FAA focused its airplanes and certification level 4 requirements have their origins in requirements on the ability of the airplanes. Aeronautics Bulletin 7, amendment 7a, airplane to recover from a one-turn or The FAA also proposes revising stall effective October 1, 1934, which three-second spin more than on the stall warning requirements by removing predates CAR 3. These airplane characteristics of the airplane. From the prescriptive speed based stall warning handling quality and stability first fatal stall accident in the Wright requirements and requiring a clear and requirements were based on the Flyer airplane to today’s fatal stall distinctive warning with sufficient

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13471

warning margin for the pilot to prevent configuration within the operational § 23.230 would require the stall warning a stall. Historically, stall warning envelope and preclude likely for flight in icing conditions and non- systems in part 23 airplanes have been inadvertent excursions beyond this icing conditions to be the same. simple, mechanical vanes that may or boundary from resulting in structural Proposed § 23.230 would require an may not provide reasonable lead-time to damage. Proposed § 23.225 would also applicant requesting certification for prevent a stall. These systems also can require high-speed airplanes to have flight in icing conditions to provide a provide false alerts when they are not recovery characteristics that do not means to detect any icing conditions for needed, creating a nuisance. result in structural damage or loss of which certification is not requested and Furthermore, similar sounding warning control, beginning at any likely speed demonstrate the airplane’s ability to horns that alert the pilot of other up to VMO/MMO, following an avoid or exit those conditions. Proposed situations can result in the pilot either inadvertent speed increase and a high- § 23.230 would also require an applicant becoming used to the warning sounds or speed trim upset. to develop an operating limitation to mistaking the stall warning for another Proposed § 23.225 would capture the prohibit intentional flight, including warning such as the safety intent of current §§ 23.251, takeoff and landing, into icing disconnect horn. The FAA believes Vibration and buffeting; 23.253, High conditions for which the airplane is not removing the current prescriptive speed speed characteristics; and 23.255, Out of certified to operate. Proposed § 23.230 based stall warning from the rules trim characteristics. Proposed would also increase safety by adding would encourage the installation of § 23.225(a), (b), and (c) would capture optional icing conditions a better, more effective low speed the safety of current § 23.251(a), (b), and manufacturer may demonstrate its awareness systems that may use angle of (c). The current safety intent of airplane can either safely operate in, attack, a speed decay rate, or clear voice §§ 23.253 and 23.255 are incorporated detect and safely exit, or avoid. commands to alert the pilot. in proposed § 23.225(d). Proposed § 23.230 would only apply to Proposed § 23.225(d)(1) addresses the applicants seeking certification for flight xii. Proposed § 23.220, Ground and current language in § 23.253, which in icing. Water Handling Characteristics indirectly divides the airplanes by Proposed § 23.230 would capture the Proposed § 23.220 would require engine type rather than performance. safety intent of the performance and airplanes intended for operation on land These requirements have typically been flight characteristics requirements in or water to have controllable applied automatically to turbine- current § 23.1419(a) and along with longitudinal, and directional handling powered airplanes with the assumption proposed §§ 23.940, Powerplant ice characteristics during taxi, takeoff, and that all turbine-powered airplanes flew protection, and 23.1405, Flight in icing landing operations. Proposed § 23.220 fast and high. Piston or electric conditions, and their respective means would also require an applicant to airplanes were not required to meet of compliance would address NTSB establish a maximum wave height these requirements even if they were safety recommendations A–96–54 and shown to provide for controllable faster than many turboprops, because of A–96–56. Section 23.1419 specifies that longitudinal, and directional handling propulsion assumptions in the past. For airplanes must be able to operate safely characteristics and any necessary water this reason, the FAA is amending this in the icing conditions identified in handling procedures for those airplanes requirement to be based on performance appendix C to part 25, which intended for operation on water. instead of propulsion type using the encompass cloud size drops of less than Proposed § 23.220 would capture the same high-speed criteria from other 100 microns in diameter. Freezing safety intent of §§ 23.231, Longitudinal subpart B sections. The existing details drizzle (i.e., drops up to 500 microns in stability and control; 23.233, Directional would be removed from the rules, as diameter) and freezing rain (i.e., drops stability and control; 23.235, Operation they are more appropriate as means of greater than 500 microns in diameter) on unpaved surfaces; 23.237, Operation compliance because it would allow for icing conditions, which can result in ice on water; and 23.239, Spray alternatives for non-traditional accretion aft of leading edge ice characteristics. airplanes, such as very fast piston protection systems, are not included in xiii. Proposed § 23.225, Vibration, airplanes. appendix C to part 25. Amendment 25– Proposed § 23.225(d)(2) would Buffeting, and High-Speed 140 (79 FR 65507, November 4, 2014) address the current safety intent in Characteristics added these icing conditions to § 23.255 by relying on performance and appendix O to part 25 and are not being Proposed § 23.225 would preclude design characteristics without defined in proposed § 23.230. The FAA vibration and buffeting from interfering discriminating based on propulsion believes that the definitions of these with the control of the airplane or type. The specific design details are optional icing conditions would be causing fatigue to the flightcrew, for more appropriate as means of more appropriate as a means of operations up to VD/MD. Proposed compliance. compliance. The standards for ‘‘capable § 23.225 would allow stall warning of operating safely’’ in these conditions xiv. Proposed § 23.230, Performance and buffet within these limits. Proposed would be the same as cloud icing with Flight Characteristics Requirements for § 23.225 would preclude perceptible additional icing conditions in the Flight in Icing Conditions buffeting in cruise configuration at 1g takeoff phase. and at any speed up to VMO/MMO, Proposed § 23.230 would require an If certification for flight in the except stall buffeting for high-speed applicant requesting certification for optional freezing drizzle or freezing rain airplanes and all airplanes with a flight in icing conditions to demonstrate conditions is not sought, proposed maximum operating altitude greater compliance with each requirement of § 23.230 would require these conditions than 25,000 feet (7,620 meters) pressure this subpart. Exceptions to this rule be avoided or detected and exited altitude. Proposed § 23.225 would would be those applicable to spins and safely. The means of compliance for the require an applicant seeking any requirement that would have to be latter, detect and exit the situation, certification of a high-speed airplane to demonstrated at speeds in excess of 250 would be similar to current guidance in determine the positive maneuvering KCAS, VMO or MMO, or a speed that an AC 23.1419–2D, Certification of Part 23 load factors at which the onset of applicant demonstrates the airframe Airplanes for Flight in Icing Conditions, perceptible buffet occurs in the cruise would be free of ice accretion. Proposed and is currently applied during part 23

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13472 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

airplane icing certifications. These Proposed § 23.230(b) would provide guidance in AC 23.1419–2D, which criteria are not as extensive as an option to avoid, in lieu of detecting most manufacturers of new part 23 icing recommended by the Part 23 Icing ARC, and exiting, the freezing drizzle or certified airplanes follow today. A but the FAA did not want to impose an freezing rain icing conditions for which minority of new manufacturers are not additional burden on industry because the airplane is not certified. This option using AC 23.1419–2D guidance and the service history of airplanes certified is not in current guidance and such have inserted AFM limitation language under part 23 and the latest icing technology currently does not exist. The that reflects Airworthiness Directives regulations at amendment 23–43 (58 FR rule would provide an option in the (AD) that were issued globally to 18958, April 9, 1993) show no SLD event the technology is developed. The pneumatic boot-equipped airplanes related accidents. The FAA believes the FAA believes avoiding rather than between 1996 and 1998. The ADs in the safety of the existing fleet can be greatly detecting and exiting would provide for below table require immediate exit from increased by improving the freezing safer airplane operations and reduce severe icing and warn that freezing drizzle and freezing rain capability of certification costs. drizzle and freezing rain may be automated surface weather observation Proposed § 23.230(c) would require an conducive to severe icing. The proposed systems and pilot education and AFM limitation to prohibit flight in new limitation is intended to prohibit training of the limits of icing icing conditions for which the airplane flight in known icing conditions, not certification. is not certified. This reflects current forecast conditions.

Airplane model Docket Final rule

Aerostar Aircraft Corporation Models PA–60–600, PA–60–601, PA–60–601P, PA–60–602P, and PA–60–700P Airplanes ...... 97–CE–56–AD 98–04–23 Pilatus Britten-Norman Ltd., Models BN–2A, BN–2B, and BN–2T Airplanes ...... 97–CE–54–AD 98–04–21 Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Models PC–12 and PC–12/45 Airplanes ...... 97–CE–53–AD 98–20–28 Partenavia Costruzioni Aeronauticas, S.p.A. Model P68, AP68TP 300, AP68TP 600 Airplanes ...... 97–CE–51–AD 98–04–20 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., MU–2B Series Airplanes ...... 96–CE–61–AD 96–25–02 Harbin Aircraft Manufacturing Corp., Model Y12 IV airplanes ...... 97–CE–50–AD 98–04–19 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. Airplanes. (Embraer) Models EMB–110P1 and EMB–110P2 Airplanes 96–CE–02–AD 96–09–12 Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH, 228 Series Airplanes ...... 96–CE–04–AD 96–09–14 De Havilland, Inc., DHC–6 Series Airplanes ...... 96–CE–01–AD 96–09–11 The Cessna Aircraft Company, 208 Series ...... 96–CE–05–AD 96–09–15 The Cessna Aircraft Company, Model T210R airplane ...... 98–CE–19–AD 98–20–33 The Cessna Aircraft Company, Models T210, P210, P210R airplanes ...... 97–CE–62–AD 98–05–14 R1 The Cessna Aircraft Company Models T303, 310R, T310R, 335, 340A, 402B, 402C, 404, F406, 414, 414A, 421B, 421C, 425, and 441 Airplanes ...... 97–CE–63–AD 98–04–28 Jetstream Aircraft Limited Models 3101 and 3201 Airplanes ...... 96–CE–07–AD 96–09–17 The New Piper Aircraft PA–23, PA–30, PA–31, PA–34, PA–39, PA–40, and PA–42 Series Airplanes ...... 98–CE–77–AD 99–14–01 The New Piper Aircraft Corporation Models PA–46–310P and PA–46–350P Airplanes ...... 97–CE–60–AD 98–04–26 Beech Aircraft Corporation Models 99, 99A, A99A, B99, C99, B200, B200C, 1900, 1900C, and 1900D Air- planes ...... 96–CE–03–AD 96–09–13 Raytheon Aircraft Company 200 Series Airplanes ...... 98–CE–17–AD 98–20–38 Raytheon Aircraft Company Models E55, E55A, 58, 58A, 58P, 58PA, 58TC, 58TCA Airplanes, and 60, 65– B80, 65–B90, 90, F90, 100, 300, and B300 Series Airplanes ...... 97–CE–58–AD 98–04–24 Raytheon Aircraft Company Model 2000 Airplanes ...... 97–CE–59–AD 98–04–25 AeroSpace Technologies Of Australia Pty Ltd., Models N22B and N24A ...... 97–CE–49–AD 98–04–18 SIAI Marchetti, S.r.1 Models SF600 and SF600A Airplanes ...... 97–CE–64–AD 98–05–15 SOCATA—Groupe AEROSPATIALE, Model TBM 700 Airplanes ...... 97–CE–55–AD 98–04–22 Twin Commander Aircraft Corporation Models 500, 500–A, 500–B, 500–S, 500–U, 520, 560, 560–A, 560–E, 560–F, 680, 680–E, 680FL(P), 680T, 680V, 680W, 681, 685, 690, 690A, 690B, 690C, 690D, 695, 695A, 695B, and 720 Airplanes ...... 97–CE–57–AD 98–20–34 Fairchild Aircraft Corporation, SA226 and SA227 Series Airplanes ...... 96–CE–06–AD 96–09–16

Recently, manufacturers of airplanes xv. Current Subpart B Regulations requirements. Proposed § 23.230(a) certificated under part 23 have proposed Relocated to Other Proposed Subparts would also include stall warning inhibiting, or optimizing, ice The FAA proposes addressing the requirements. Current guidance protection systems above an altitude of safety intent of § 23.33, Propeller speed contains these stall warning 30,000 feet (9,144 meters) because the and pitch limits, in § 23.900(a) of the recommendations (i.e., margin and type icing conditions defined in the propulsion rules. Additionally, the first of stall) and service history shows them appendix C to part 25 are limited to part of the current § 23.251(a) that to be necessary for safe flight in icing below this altitude. The FAA believes addresses structural damage has been conditions. The exceptions for spin and ice protection design at high altitude relocated and is now addressed under high-speed requirements are consistent should be addressed as a means of ‘‘flutter’’ in proposed subpart C to part with the current rule and industry compliance and not in the proposed 23. practice that have shown to provide an rule due to various acceptable design The FAA proposes adopting the Part adequate level of safety in icing solutions. An industry means of 23 Icing and Part 23 Reorganization conditions. The FAA determined that compliance would negate the need for a ARC’s recommendations to move the evaluations of ice contaminated special condition or means of performance and flight characteristics tailplane stall susceptibility, lateral compliance issue paper currently requirements in icing, currently in control in icing, and autopilot operation required for these projects. § 23.1419, to subpart B, so that proposed in icing, which are included in current § 23.1405 only contains systems guidance for part 23 icing certification,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13473

are more appropriately addressed as a compliance, the FAA proposes in b. Specific Discussion of Changes means of compliance. § 23.600 to emphasize a holistic i. Proposed § 23.300, Structural Design approach to occupant safety, which xvi. Removal of Subpart B Current Envelope would allow certain applicants to omit Regulations current required dynamic seat testing. Proposed § 23.300 would require an applicant to determine the structural The FAA proposes removing It is not the FAA’s intent to reduce the § 23.45(g) that requires takeoff and design envelope, which describes the level of safety in the proposed subpart range and limits of airplane design and landing distances be determined on a C. The FAA based the prescriptive smooth, dry, hard-surfaced runway. The operational parameters for which an requirements in current subparts C and applicant would show compliance with FAA believes that most performance D on service history, historic test data, tests would be done on smooth, dry, the requirements of this subpart. and lessons learned. These requirements Proposed § 23.300 would capture the hard-surfaced runways because these have provided a level of safety where surfaces provide applicants with the safety intent of current §§ 23.321, structural failure is rare and most often Loads—General, paragraphs (b) and (c); best results. Performance attributable to airplane upset or pilot determinations on surfaces other than 23.333, Flight envelope, paragraphs (a), disorientation in instrument (b), and (d); 23.335, Design airspeeds; smooth, dry hard surfaces would meteorological conditions. A means of provide conservative results and be 23.337, Limit maneuvering load factors, compliance to proposed subpart C must paragraphs (a) and (b); and 23.343, acceptable as long as the surface was maintain the level of safety provided by specified in the AFM. Therefore, the Design fuel loads, paragraphs (a) and the current regulations. Applicants (b). FAA believes retaining this requirement would need to substantiate the level of is unnecessary. Proposed § 23.300 would require the safety for proposed means of applicant to determine and document The FAA proposes removing § 23.63, compliance that deviate from the the range of airplane and operational Climb: General, which addresses the prescriptive regulations. parameters for which the applicant will general climb requirements, because the show compliance with the requirements safety intent contained in this section is Proposed subpart C would replace of subpart C. These parameters would redundant with the safety intent current subpart C and include those include the design airspeeds and proposed in § 23.125 and the testing sections of current subpart D that are maneuver load factors often depicted as procedures contained in § 23.63 are applicable to the airframe. We have a V-n diagram. An applicant would be more appropriate for inclusion in means arranged proposed subpart C into the required to determine design airspeeds, of compliance. following five topics: including the design maneuvering speed The FAA proposes removing current • General: Including § 23.300, Structural (V ), the design cruising speed (V ), the § 23.221(a) and (b), which address A C design envelope; and § 23.305 Interaction of design dive speed (V ), design flap and spinning requirements for normal and D systems and structures. landing gear speeds, and any other utility category airplanes, and would no • Structural Loads: Including § 23.310, speed used as a design limitation. For longer be necessary. The increased focus Structural design loads; § 23.315, Flight load certification of level 4 airplanes, an on preventing stall-based departures conditions; § 23.320, Ground and water load applicant would be required to along with improved stall margin conditions; § 23.325, Component loading determine a rough air penetration speed, awareness would provide a level of conditions; and § 23.330, Limit and ultimate loads. VB. safety higher than would be achieved Additionally, applicants would have • Structural performance: Including through spin testing. to determine the design maneuver load § 23.400, Structural strength; § 23.405, The FAA proposes removing the factors based on the intended usage of reference to appendix C to part 25, part Structural durability; and § 23.410, Aeroelasticity. the airplane and the values associated II, currently in § 23.1419, Ice protection, with the level of safety experienced paragraph (a), when relocating § 23.1419 • Design: Including § 23.500, Structural design; § 23.505, Protection of structure; with current designs. Applicants have to proposed § 23.230 and 23.1405. Part rarely used the relief for maneuvering II is a means of compliance for § 23.510, Materials and processes; and § 23.515, Special factors of safety. load factors based on airplane determining critical ice accretions on • capabilities in current § 23.337(c). The transport category airplanes and is not Structural occupant protection: Included in § 23.600, Emergency conditions. FAA views this relief as an application applicable to airplanes certified under of physical principles, and believes that part 23. The FAA proposes removing the this current requirement does not need 3. Subpart C—Structures content of current appendix A to part to be addressed in proposed § 23.300. 23, Simplified design load criteria; Design weights and inertia parameters a. General Discussion appendix C to part 23, Basic landing are also part of the structural design The FAA’s intent in proposed subpart conditions; appendix D to part 23, envelope. Design weights include the C is to provide a regulatory framework Wheel spin-up and spring-back loads; empty weight, maximum weight, takeoff that maintains the current level of safety and appendix I to part 23, Seaplane and landing weight, and maximum zero while (1) allowing for certification of loads. The content of these current part fuel weight. The range of center of unique airplane configurations with 23 appendices is more appropriate for gravity locations at these and other new technology and materials, and (2) inclusion in means of compliance. The weights is depicted as the weight center supporting new means of compliance, FAA also proposes removing appendix of gravity envelope. An applicant would testing, and analysis. To support new B to part 23, Reserved, since the content have to determine the weight and center technologies, the FAA proposes to of this appendix was removed at of gravity of occupants, payload, and incorporate the safety intent of recent amendment 23–42 (56 FR 344, January fuel as well as any mass moments of special conditions for airplanes 3, 1991). Refer to appendix 1 of this inertia required for loads or flutter equipped with systems that affect preamble for a cross-reference table analysis. An applicant would also have structural performance, such as load detailing how the current regulations to specify any other parameters that alleviation systems, in proposed are addressed in the proposed part 23 describe the structural design envelope. § 23.305. To support new means of regulations. These parameters include maximum

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13474 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

altitude limitations, Mach number in the guidance material for current additional detailed structural analysis limitations, and control surface § 23.1309. Structural failures resulting would be required for compliance with deflections. in fatalities are rare, occurring at a rate proposed § 23.305 other then the of approximately 3 × 10¥8 per flight ii. Proposed § 23.305, Interaction of application of optional lower safety Systems and Structures hour for small airplanes. The reason for margins to the structural performance incorporating structural systems is not, analysis. Proposed § 23.305 would provide a in general, to improve safety, but rather Proposed § 23.305 would allow an regulatory framework for the evaluation to reduce structural weight and thereby of systems intended to modify an improve airplane performance. applicant to realize the value of airplane’s structural design envelope or Proposed § 23.305 would require that structural and non-structural systems structural performance and other the level of safety must be the same for and would potentially allow reduced systems whose normal operating state or airplanes equipped with systems that structural weight of the airplane. The failed states may affect structural affect the structure and airplanes magnitude of the weight reduction performance. Compliance with without such systems. would depend on the functional proposed § 23.305 would provide An existing acceptable means of characteristics of the systems and the acceptable mitigation of structural complying with proposed § 23.305 is likelihood of system failures. The FAA hazards identified in the functional provided in several existing special believes proposed § 23.305 would hazard assessments required by conditions that address the interaction reduce the need for special conditions proposed § 23.1315. of systems and structures, for example, that deal with interaction of systems Proposed § 23.305 would apply to FAA Special Condition 25–390–SC.20 and structures, saving time and effort for airplanes equipped with— • Most of these special conditions address the FAA and the applicant. Structural systems, including load load alleviation systems. Load alleviation systems, where the intended alleviation systems counteract the iii. Proposed § 23.310, Structural Design function is to modify structural effects of gust and maneuver loads and Loads performance, to alleviate the impact of allow an applicant to design a lighter Proposed § 23.310 would require an subpart C requirements, or provide a structure, thereby improving the applicant to determine structural design means of compliance to subpart C performance and utility of the airplane. loads resulting from any externally or requirements; and These special conditions require that an • Systems where the intended applicant design the structure to the internally applied pressure, force, or function is non-structural, but whose required structural safety margins with moment, which may occur in flight, normal operation or failure states affect the load alleviation system its normal ground and water operations, ground the structural design envelope or functioning state. The special and water handling, and while the structural performance, and would conditions provide a means for an airplane is parked or moored. Proposed include fuel management systems, applicant to maintain the required § 23.310 would require the applicant to flight-envelope protection systems, and structural safety margins with the determine structural design loads at all active control systems. combinations of parameters on and Under the current regulations, an system in its failed state by adjusting the within the boundaries of the structural applicant seeking certification of required safety margins based on the design envelope which result in the airplanes incorporating structural and likelihood of system failure. Systems most severe loading conditions. non-structural systems must ensure that that fail frequently require higher safety failures of these systems will not result margins than systems that rarely fail in Proposed § 23.310 would also require in exceeding the structural design order to maintain the same level of the magnitude and distribution of these envelope or the structural design loads, safety. The means of compliance loads to be based on physical principles or other structural performance described in these special conditions and would be no less than service characteristics. An applicant has the allow an applicant to utilize the benefits history has shown can occur within the option of designing the structure to the of structural systems and potentially structural design envelope. eliminate weight and performance full subpart C and subpart D Proposed § 23.310 would capture the penalties associated with structural requirements, including margins of safety intent of §§ 23.301, Loads; 23.302, safety, with the system in its failed state. hazards due to system failures. Applicants who use the means of or tandem wing configurations; This option may result in increased compliance described in the existing 23.321, Flight Loads—General, structural weight and reduced airplane special conditions would be able to use paragraph (a); and 23.331, Symmetrical performance and utility. data developed for compliance with flight conditions. Proposed § 23.310 Proposed § 23.1315 in subpart F would also capture the intent of several would apply to both structural and non- proposed § 23.1315. This data includes current requirements for sound and structural systems. Guidance material identification of failure modes, physics-based engineering evaluations. for current § 23.1309, the corresponding identification of hazards resulting from An example is in current § 23.301(b), regulation to proposed § 23.1315, allows the failure modes, and the likelihood of for different acceptable values for the occurrence of the failure modes. which requires that the forces and likelihood of failures based on the With or without the proposed § 23.305 moments applied to the airplane must severity of the hazard, airplane weight, requirements, an applicant would have balance in equilibrium, and the and method of propulsion. These to account for structural performance distribution of loads on the airplane different values encourage the with the system in its normal operating must reasonably approximate actual incorporation of equipment that and failed states and evaluate the conditions. The part 23 regulations improves pilot situational awareness system for compliance to the proposed should not need to prescribe basic and other systems that promote the § 23.1315. The FAA does not expect that physical principles, sound engineering overall airplane level of safety. judgment, and common sense. Proposed 20 _ _ _ http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory and Guidance § 23.310 would place the burden on the In most cases, means of compliance Library/rgSC.nsf/0/7B2D4B459E2784858625 with proposed § 23.305 would follow an 7620006A6999?OpenDocument&Highlight=25-390- applicant to properly account for loads approach somewhat similar to that used sc acting on the structure.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13475

iv. Proposed § 23.315, Flight Load General; 23.473, Ground load conditions tab effects; 23.409, Tabs; 23.415, Ground Conditions and assumptions; 23.477, Landing gear gust conditions; 23.455, ; and Proposed § 23.315 would require an arrangement; 23.479, Level landing 23.459, Special devices. The current part 23 regulations applicant to determine the loads conditions; 23.481, Tail down landing establish prescriptive requirements for resulting from vertical and horizontal conditions; 23.483, One-wheel landing determining loads acting on pressurized atmospheric gusts, symmetric and conditions; 23.485, Side load cabins, engine mounts and attachment asymmetric maneuvers, and, for conditions; 23.493, Braked roll conditions; 23.497, Supplementary structure, control surfaces, high lift multiengine airplanes, failure of the conditions for tail wheels; 23.499, surfaces, and speed control devices. The powerplant unit which results in the Supplementary conditions for nose FAA believes that these prescriptive most severe structural loads. Proposed wheels; 23.505, Supplementary requirements in the current regulations § 23.315 would capture the safety intent conditions for skiplanes; 23.507, Jacking are more appropriate for inclusion in of current §§ 23.333, Flight envelope, loads; 23.509, Towing loads; 23.511, means of compliance. However, in paragraph (c); 23.341, Gust loads factors; Ground load; unsymmetrical loads on proposed § 23.325, we have retained 23.347, Unsymmetrical flight multiple-wheel units; 23.521, Water some of the prescriptive requirements conditions; 23.349, Rolling conditions; load conditions; 23.523, Design weights for pressurized cabins, including 23.351, Yawing conditions; 23.367, and center of gravity positions; 23.525, descriptions of combined loading Unsymmetrical loads due to engine Application of loads; 23.527, Hull and conditions and additional factors of failure; 23.421, Balancing loads; 23.423, main float load factors; 23.529 Hull and safety for determining limit load. Maneuvering loads; 23.425, Gust loads; main float landing conditions; 23.531, vii. Proposed § 23.330, Limit and 23.427, Unsymmetrical loads; 23.441, Hull and main float takeoff condition; Ultimate Loads Maneuvering loads; 23.443, Gust loads; 23.533, Hull and main float bottom and 23.445, Outboard fins or winglets, pressures; 23.535, Auxiliary float loads; Proposed § 23.330 would describe paragraphs (b), (c), and (d). 23.537, Seawing loads, and 23.753 Main how the applicant must determine the These current part 23 sections float design. limit and ultimate loads associated with establish prescriptive requirements for The current requirements set forth the structural design loads. Proposed gust loads and symmetrical, rolling, and prescriptive requirements for § 23.330 would capture the safety intent yawing maneuvering loads, acting on determining takeoff and landing loads of current §§ 23.301, Loads, paragraph the wing, horizontal tail, vertical tail, for airplanes operated on land, loads (a); and 23.303, Factor of safety. These and other lifting surfaces. Portions of acting on floats and hulls for airplanes current sections specify factors of safety the current sections, such as § 23.331(c), operated on water, as well as ground for determining limit and ultimate are restatements of basic physical handling loads, including jacking and loads. principles. Proposed § 23.315 would towing conditions. The current Proposed § 23.330 retains the current remove this language. requirements also provide applicants 1.5 safety factor for ultimate loads. This The FAA’s intent is not to lessen the with descriptions of the normal and safety factor has resulted in a service structural load requirements. The adverse operating conditions and history where structural failures due to current prescriptive flight load configurations for which applicants applied static loads are rare. The FAA requirements have established a level of must determine ground and water loads. believes the 1.5 factor of safety is critical safety where structural failure due to The FAA believes that the to maintaining the current level of overloading is rare. When structural prescriptive descriptions of the loading safety. failures do occur, the most common conditions, normal and adverse Proposed § 23.330 would allow for cause is airplane upset or pilot conditions, and configurations are more additional special factors of safety to disorientation in instrument appropriate for inclusion in means of account for material and manufacturing meteorological conditions. compliance. Applicants who wish to variability. Proposed § 23.330 would The FAA believes the prescriptive propose alternate design loading also allow alternate factors of safety content of the current regulations, conditions should note that extensive when showing compliance with including the modified Pratt formula for data collection, testing, and evaluation occupant protection loading conditions gust loads, the descriptions of may be necessary to substantiate their and when showing compliance with symmetrical maneuvers, checked and proposal. proposed § 23.305. unchecked maneuvers, rolling maneuvers, and yawing maneuvers are vi. Proposed § 23.325, Component viii. Proposed § 23.400, Structural more appropriate for inclusion in means Loading Conditions Strength of compliance. Applicants who wish to Proposed § 23.325 would require an Proposed § 23.400 would require an propose alternate design loading applicant to determine the loads acting applicant to demonstrate that the conditions should note that extensive on each engine mount, flight control structure will support limit and ultimate data collection, testing, and evaluation and high lift surface, and the loads loads. Proposed § 23.400 would capture may be necessary to substantiate their acting on pressurized cabins. Proposed the safety intent of current §§ 23.305, proposal. § 23.325 would capture the safety intent Strength and deformation; and 23.307, of current §§ 23.345, High lift devices; Proof of structure. v. Proposed § 23.320, Ground and Water 23.361, Engine torque; 23.363, Side load These current sections provide Load Conditions on engine mount; 23.365, Pressurized performance criteria for the structure Proposed § 23.320 would require an cabin loads; 23.371, Gyroscopic and when subjected to limit and ultimate applicant to determine the loads aerodynamic loads; 23.373, Speed loads. Proposed § 23.400 would retain resulting from taxi, take-off, landing, control devices; 23.391, Control surface these performance criteria and would and ground handling conditions loads; 23.393, Loads parallel to hinge require the applicant to demonstrate occurring in normal and adverse line; 23.395, Control system loads; that the structure will meet these attitudes and configurations. Proposed 23.397, Limit control forces and torques; performance criteria. In this context, § 23.320 would capture the safety intent 23.399, Dual control system; 23.405, ‘‘demonstrate’’ means the applicant of current §§ 23.471, Ground Loads— Secondary control system; 23.407, Trim must conduct structural tests to show

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13476 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

compliance with the structural disbonds, and impact damage in tolerance as necessary since current performance requirements, unless the composite structures. New material § 23.571(d) and proposed § 23.405(c) applicant shows that a structural systems or structural designs, such as require the applicant to assume that analysis is reliable and applicable to the additive manufacturing, may introduce structural damage exists in the structure. The FAA proposes not to new causes of strength degradation and pressurized cabin. However, proposed retain the ‘‘3 second’’ rule in proposed may require development of new and § 23.405(c) would allow for other means § 23.400. This prescriptive requirement unique procedures to prevent structural of compliance as long as serious injuries in current § 23.305(b) requires the failures. and fatalities will be prevented. applicant to demonstrate that the The current part 23 regulations use Examples of other means of compliance structure will support ultimate load for prevention of catastrophic failures as might include requiring pilots and at least three seconds. The FAA believes the safety intent of the regulations. The occupants to use oxygen masks or wear this prescriptive requirement is a word ‘‘catastrophic’’ is used throughout pressurized flight suits when operating statement of physical principles and the current regulations, current policy, above 41,000 feet (12,497 meters). This testing experience and is more and guidance material, especially in means of compliance could be appropriate for inclusion in means of context of system safety analysis. To acceptable in certain airplane designs, compliance. avoid any potential conflict over the such as two-seat jet trainers. meaning of ‘‘catastrophic,’’ proposed Proposed § 23.405(d) would capture ix. Proposed § 23.405, Structural § 23.405(a) would specify the the safety intent of current § 23.903(b)(1) Durability consequences we want to prevent. to minimize hazards to the airframe Proposed § 23.405 would require an These consequences include the resulting from turbine engine rotorburst. applicant to develop and implement obvious performance criteria for The FAA would move the structural procedures to prevent structural failures prevention of serious injuries, fatalities, portion of the rotorburst evaluation from due to foreseeable causes of strength or hull loss of the airplane. current § 23.903(b)(1) to proposed degradation, and to prevent rapid The FAA also wants to prevent § 23.405(d) to ensure all structural decompression in airplanes with a extended periods of operations with requirements are contained in subpart C maximum operating altitude above reduced safety margins in those and to avoid potential confusion over 41,000 feet. Proposed § 23.405 would structural components whose failure the structural rotorburst requirements in also require an airplane to be reasonably could result in serious injuries, part 23. capable of continued safe flight and fatalities, or hull loss. One situation that Proposed § 23.405(d) would require landing with foreseeable structural can result in reduced safety margins is an applicant to show that the design of damage caused by high-energy fail-safe design. The FAA has identified the structure would provide sufficient fragments from an uncontained engine potential shortcomings in fail-safe structural capability to allow continued or rotating machinery failure. Proposed designs, including an applicant’s safe flight and landing with foreseeable § 23.405 would capture the safety intent difficulty to anticipate all possible structural damage caused by high of current §§ 23.365(e), Pressurized failure scenarios and ensure that all energy fragments from an uncontained cabin loads; 23.571, Metallic structural failures would be engine or rotating machinery failure. pressurized cabin structures; 23.572, immediately obvious and corrected The FAA recognizes that some high- Metallic wing, , and before further flight. The concept of energy fragment events may result in associated structures; 23.573, Damage failures being obvious and repaired catastrophic failures that may not be tolerance and fatigue evaluation of before further flight is basic to the avoidable and that complete elimination structure; 23.574, Metallic damage successful implementation of a fail-safe of the hazards resulting from high tolerance and fatigue evaluation of design. This scenario could allow energy fragment events may not be commuter category airplanes; 23.575, operation for extended periods with a possible. Inspections and other procedures; and passive structural failure and reduced An applicant would be required to 23.627, Fatigue strength. safety margins. If an applicant chooses address other sources of high energy Proposed § 23.405(a) would require an fail-safe design as a means of rotating machinery fragments in the applicant to develop and implement compliance, an applicant would have to proposed structural rotorburst procedures to prevent structural ensure that the structure was not requirements. Our intent is to ensure an failures. These procedures may include operating for extended periods with adequate regulatory framework for the safe-life, damage tolerance, or fail- reduced safety margins. An applicant applications of electrical propulsion safe design approaches described in the may be able to apply safe-life or damage systems and other unique and novel current regulations. An applicant can tolerance principles to ensure that fail- approaches to propulsion, which may propose other means of compliance, but safe structure maintains the required release high-energy fragments. these means must provide at least the safety margins without extended Applicants who have shown same level of safety as current means of periods of operation with reduced safety compliance with current § 23.903(b)(1) compliance. Any new means of margins through life limits or damage would be able to show compliance with compliance must consider the airplane tolerance based inspections. proposed § 23.405(d). Applicants should design, manufacturing, operational, and Proposed § 23.405(b) would capture note that previous certification maintenance environments. The FAA the safety intent of current § 23.365(e), programs with turbine engine proposes implementing these requiring the applicant to design the installations have been able to show that procedures by including them in the structure for sudden loss of the airplane structure is capable of airplane’s Instructions for Continued pressurization after the failure of a door continued safe flight and landing Airworthiness. or window in pressurized following a rotorburst event. AC 23– The procedures must be able to compartments. Proposed § 23.405(c) 13A, Fatigue, Fail-Safe, and Damage prevent structural failures due to incorporates the safety intent of current Tolerance Evaluation of Metallic foreseeable causes of strength § 23.571(d). Our intention is that the Structure for Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, degradation. Foreseeable causes include damage tolerance methodology would and Commuter Category airplanes, fatigue and corrosion in metallic remain the accepted means of provides guidance on the required structures, and fatigue, delaminations, compliance. The FAA views damage structural evaluation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13477

x. Proposed § 23.410, Aeroelasticity adequate for innovative designs or Fasteners; 23.609, Protection of Proposed § 23.410 would require an accommodate new analytical methods structure; and 23.611, Accessibility. airplane to be free from flutter, control or testing techniques. These current requirements explain methods and techniques to ensure an reversal, and divergence at all speeds xi. Proposed § 23.500, Structural Design within and sufficiently beyond the adequate design. This proposed rule Proposed § 23.500 would require an structural design envelope, for any would require the applicant to produce applicant to design each part, article, configuration and condition of an adequate design without specifying and assembly for the expected operating operation, accounting for critical how to accomplish it. The prescriptive conditions of the airplane. Proposed degrees of freedom, and any critical language within these current sections § 23.500 would require the design data failures or malfunctions. Proposed is more appropriate as a means of to adequately define the part, article, or § 23.410 would also require an applicant compliance. assembly configuration, its design to establish tolerances for all quantities features, and any materials and xiii. Proposed § 23.510, Materials and that affect flutter. processes used. Proposed § 23.500 Processes Proposed § 23.410 would capture the would require an applicant to determine Proposed § 23.510 would require an safety intent of the current §§ 23.629, the suitability of each design detail and applicant to determine the suitability Flutter; 23.677, Trim systems, paragraph part having an important bearing on and durability of materials used for (c); and 23.687, Spring devices, in part. safety in operations. Proposed § 23.500 parts, articles, and assemblies, the Specifically, proposed § 23.410 would would also require the control system to failure of which could prevent address the safety intent of these rules be free from— continued safe flight and landing, while by requiring freedom from flutter, • Jamming; accounting for the effects of likely control reversal, and divergence, while • Excessive friction, and environmental conditions expected in accounting for all speeds, • Excessive deflection when the service. Proposed § 23.510 would configurations, modes, and failures, and control system and its supporting require the methods and processes of to establish tolerances on anything structure are subjected to loads fabrication and assembly used to affecting flutter. The current § 23.629(a) corresponding to the limit airloads produce consistently sound structures states that freedom from flutter, control when the primary controls are subjected and, if a fabrication process requires reversal, and divergence must be shown to the lesser of the limit airloads or limit close control to reach this objective, an by the methods of § 23.629(b) and (c) or pilot forces and when the secondary applicant would have to perform the (d). These paragraphs are prescriptive in controls are subjected to loads not less process under an approved process nature and some portions are applicable than those corresponding to maximum specification. Additionally, proposed only to very specific types of designs pilot effort. § 23.510 would require an applicant to and include speed limitations. Proposed § 23.500 would capture the justify the selected design values to Therefore, these paragraphs are more safety intent of the current §§ 23.601, ensure material strength with appropriate as means of compliance. Design and Construction—General; probabilities, account for— The current § 23.629(e) requires the 23.603, Materials and workmanship, • The criticality of the structural evaluation of whirl mode flutter. Since paragraph (b); 23.671, Control element; and this is another flutter mode, it must be Systems—General, paragraph (a); • The structural failure due to accounted for when an airplane is 23.683, Operation tests; 23.685, Control material variability, unless each determined to be free from flutter. The system details; 23.687, Spring devices, individual item is tested before use to current § 23.629(f), (g), (h), and (i) in part; and 23.689, Cable systems. determine that the actual strength provide instructions on how to evaluate These current requirements explain properties of that particular item would (1) certain airplane design types, (2) methods and techniques to ensure an equal or exceed those used in the designs employing certain methods adequate design. The proposed rule design, or the design values are (fail-safe or damage tolerant), or (3) would require an applicant to produce accepted by the Administrator. airplanes incorporating design an adequate design without specifying Proposed § 23.510 would require a modifications. The current § 23.677(c) how. The prescriptive language within determination of required material requires either that the tab be balanced these current sections noted above, are strength properties to be based on or that the tab controls be irreversible. more appropriate for a means of sufficient tests of material meeting Additionally, it requires that irreversible compliance. specifications to establish design values tab systems have adequate rigidity and on a statistical basis. Proposed § 23.510 reliability. These are very specific xii. Proposed § 23.505, Protection of would also require an applicant to design solutions for ensuring freedom Structure determine the effects on allowable from flutter. The current § 23.687 Proposed § 23.505 would require an stresses used for design if thermal requires that the reliability of spring applicant to protect each part of the effects were significant on an essential devices used in control systems be airplane, including small parts such as component or structure under normal established by tests unless its failure fasteners, against deterioration or loss of operating conditions. would not cause flutter. This is a strength due to any cause likely to occur Proposed § 23.510 would capture the method of compliance to ensure in the expected operational safety intent of the current §§ 23.605, freedom from flutter. All of these environment. Proposed § 23.505 would Fabrication methods and 23.613, current requirements are more require each part of the airplane to have Material strength properties and design appropriate as means of compliance adequate provisions for ventilation and values. These current requirements because they describe how to ensure drainage and would require an explain methods and techniques to freedom from flutter, control reversal, applicant to incorporate a means into ensure adequate materials and process and divergence. They are not the safety the airplane design to allow for required controls. This proposed rule would intent, but just one method to achieve maintenance, preventive maintenance, require the applicant to ensure the the safety intent. As such, they serve and servicing. resulting materials and processes are only specific designs utilizing current Proposed § 23.505 would capture the adequate without specifying how. The methods, and may or may not be safety intent of the current §§ 23.607, prescriptive language within the current

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13478 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

sections is more appropriate as a means Proposed § 23.600 would require each • Public expectation for automobile of compliance. baggage and cargo compartment be safety; designed for its maximum weight of • Higher general public likelihood xiv. Proposed § 23.515, Special Factors contents and for the critical load and exposure to automobile accidents; of Safety distributions at the maximum load and • Proposed § 23.515 would require an factors corresponding to the determined High automobile production rates applicant to determine a special factor flight and ground load conditions. allow for multiple actual full-vehicle of safety for any critical design value Proposed § 23.600 would also require crash tests that result in very accurate that was uncertain, used for a part, each baggage and cargo compartment to crash impulse data from the outer article, or assembly likely to deteriorate have a means to prevent the contents of surface of the vehicle all the way to the in service before normal replacement, or the compartment from becoming a occupant. subject to appreciable variability hazard by impacting occupants or Because of these facts, automotive because of uncertainties in shifting, and to protect any controls, designers know accurate impulses and manufacturing processes or inspection wiring, lines, equipment, or accessories the specific vehicle response for impact methods. Proposed § 23.515 would whose damage or failure would affect conditions. Furthermore, this data can require an applicant to determine a operations. be extrapolated to consider many more special factor of safety using quality Proposed § 23.600 would capture the accident scenarios. Automotive safety controls and specifications that safety intent of current §§ 23.561, requirements progressively add new accounted for each structural Emergency Landing Conditions— impact scenario requirements and application, inspection method, General; 23.562, Emergency landing enhanced impulse magnitudes, thus structural test requirement, sampling dynamic conditions; 23.785, Seats, requiring more industry innovation. percentage, and process and material berths, litters, safety belts, and shoulder This innovation has enabled rapid control. Proposed § 23.515 would harnesses; and 23.787, Baggage and advances in automotive occupant require an applicant to apply any cargo compartments. The prescriptive protection systems. Automotive safety begins at the special factor of safety in the design for language within these current sections outside of the vehicle, evaluating the each part of the structure by multiplying are more appropriate as a means of entire system’s response. In contrast, each limit load and ultimate load by the compliance, and thus would allow aircraft manufacturers have used special factor of safety. flexibility for new technology to be available in new part 23 airplanes in a essentially the same generic designed Proposed § 23.515 would capture the timely manner. pulse imparted at the cabin floor for the safety intent of current §§ 23.619, Occupant safety for aviation has last 25 years. The same impulse applies Special factors; 23.621, Casting factors; progressed incrementally over the years. to all GA airplanes independent of the 23.623, Bearing factors; 23.625, Fitting This has resulted in rulemaking that has structure below the cabin floor and the factors; 23.657, Hinges; 23.681(b), Limit enhanced safety for individual system aircraft’s stall speed, unless the stall load static test (in part); and 23.693, components, but not in an integrated speed is greater than 61 knots. Joints. These current requirements fashion. Modeling and analysis Determining airplane crashworthiness is explain methods and techniques to techniques have matured to a point that a more complex process than ensure adequate special factors are used may allow evaluation of more crash determining automotive and the proposed rule would simply scenarios and crashworthiness crashworthiness because of higher require the applicant to determine and components as an integrated system. impact speeds, lighter weight structures, apply adequate special factors without The FAA has relied on many industry and the effect of the third dimension of specifying what these are. The studies to develop current occupant altitude on the aircraft. Dynamic seat prescriptive language within the current safety rules. These studies evaluated testing has improved crashworthiness in sections is more appropriate as a means characteristics of actual accidents, full- aviation; however, the FAA believes of compliance. scale aircraft drop testing, and dynamic that newer means of evaluating the full xv. Proposed § 23.600, Emergency seat testing on a sled. When dynamic aircraft response to crash conditions via Conditions seat testing began, determination of an modeling, newer materials, and new adequate generic floor impulse that technologies promise to offer improved Proposed § 23.600 would require the represented a survivable aircraft crash features, evaluation, and accuracy that airplane, even if damaged in emergency was established. As an alternative to would facilitate consideration of more landing conditions, to provide current crashworthiness requirements, crash scenarios and evaluation of more protection to each occupant against the proposed rule would allow for variables that could improve injury that would preclude egress. evaluation of the conditions of likely survivability. Proposed § 23.600 would require the impacts, assessment of vehicle response, The NTSB produced a series of airplane to have seating and restraints and ultimately, evaluation of occupant reports, called the General Aviation for all occupants, consisting of a seat, a reaction to vehicle impact and vehicle Crashworthiness Project,21 in the 1980s method to restrain the occupant’s pelvis response. that evaluated over 21,000 GA airplane and torso, and a single action restraint Technology used in aviation crashes that occurred between 1972 and release, which meets its intended crashworthiness, in a large part, has 1981. The NTSB evaluated airplane function and does not create a hazard come from the automotive industry. The orientation, impact magnitudes, and that could cause a secondary injury to automotive industry has analyzed survival rates and factors on many of an occupant. Proposed § 23.600 would crashworthiness components as a these accidents in order to provide require the airplane seating, restraints, system for many years. The automotive information to support changes in and cabin interior to account for likely industry generally has a more developed crashworthiness design standards for flight and emergency landing crashworthiness analysis capability than seating and restraint systems in GA conditions. Additionally, they could not that used in the aviation industry. This airplanes. These reports also established prevent occupant egress or interfere advanced crashworthiness analysis with the operation of the airplane when capability has evolved primarily 21 See www.regulations.gov (Docket #FAA–2015– not in use. because of the— 1621).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13479

conditions approximating survivable survival odds. Energy attenuation from incorporation of innovative technology. accidents, and categorized factors that vertical forces, both static and dynamic, The transportation industry has made would have the largest impact on safety. has been important to crashworthiness significant progress with energy These reports further illuminated the regulations within the past 25 years. absorbing seats and restraint technology. various crashworthiness systems and Seat deformation throughout the The FAA believes enhanced cabin their respective impact to overall safety. emergency landing sequence is strength that improves survivable Amendment 23–36 (53 FR 30802, acceptable if the load path through volume, coupled with better restraint August 15, 1988), to part 23 referenced attachment, seat, and restraint remains technology and refined energy absorbing these reports for dynamic seats but did continuous. Coupling the seat seats, would be key factors in improving not adopt a systems-approach to performance to the rest of the airframe expansion of the survivable accident evaluating crashworthiness of an response is important to the envelope. These factors and additional airplane design. enhancement and understanding of considerations were included in the The NTSB reports identified several occupant survivability. The FAA Small Airplane Crashworthiness Design factors that would enhance safety. All of believes that allowing designers to Guide.23 This guide was prepared for these factors working together as a consider a particular airframe’s unique the Advanced General Aviation system should result in a safer airplane. deformation in a crash, the designers Transports Experiments and the However, the assessment indicated that can create a safer cabin for the National Aerospace and Space shoulder harnesses offer the fastest occupants. Using unique airframe Administration and addresses the individual improvement for safety. The deformations would result in more concept of designing crashworthiness FAA codified the shoulder harnesses accurate accident floor impulses and into an airplane design as a system. requirement in amendments 23–19 (42 may allow evaluation of crash impulses In order to evaluate an accident from FR 20601, June 16, 1977) and 23–32 (50 in multiple directions; instead of only an occupant’s perspective, the FR 46872, November 13, 1985), for two directions considered in current emergency landing condition must first newly manufactured airplanes. The certification. be defined, starting with the conditions FAA also issued policy statement ACE– Occupant restraints must maintain external to the aircraft. In most 00–23.561–01,22 Methods of Approval integrity, stay in place on the occupant survivable accidents, the pilot is able to of Retrofit Shoulder Harness throughout the event, properly maintain control of the aircraft prior to Installations in Small Airplanes, to distribute loads on the occupant, and impact. Accidents where the airplane streamline the process for retrofitting restrain the occupant by mitigating impacts the ground out of control are older airplanes. interaction with other items in the typically much less survivable. Speed Survivable volume is another critical cabin. Restraints originally were and impact orientation are significant factor to survival. Survivable volume is comprised of lap belts. Shoulder factors in crash survivability. Therefore, the ability of the airframe to protect the harnesses were later required as considerations for impact beyond a occupants from external intrusion or discussed above. Newer technology that controllable impact are beyond the cabin crushing during and after the enhances or supplements the scope of these proposed regulations. accident sequence. There were several performance of restraints, like airbags The slowest forward speed that any observed accidents in the NTSB study and consideration of items in the cabin fixed wing airplane can fly is its stall where conventional aircraft that the occupant might impact, are now speed. This stall speed can vary with construction simply crushed an being considered for inclusion in airplane configuration and weight, but otherwise restrained occupant. designs. The use of airbags has greatly represents the most universal parameter Crashworthiness regulations have never increased passenger safety in for impact speed and energy attenuation included survivable volume as a factor, automobiles, which offer protection in at impact. For this reason, stall speed is except for aircraft turnover. Airplane much more severe impacts and in the starting point for consideration of designs should provide the space impacts from multiple directions, and expected impact conditions. needed for the protection and restraint could be a viable option for airplanes as Orientation of impact can vary with of the occupants. A compromised well. pitch, yaw, terrain angle, and angle of survivable volume could cause Seat retention in airplanes is a factor flight path and becomes dynamic as the occupant impact with objects in the identified as another basic building pilot loses control effectiveness at stall. cabin. This is one of the first steps in the block for crashworthiness. The NTSB The result is the airplane impact angle analysis of airplane crashworthiness. reports shows more than a quarter of can result in a combination of Additional data from the NTSB otherwise-survivable accidents included horizontal and vertical loads and General Aviation Crashworthiness instances where the seats broke free at impulses that vary widely. Angle of Project suggested that energy-absorbing the attachment to the airplane, resulting impact, the line of the center of mass seats that protect the occupant from in fatalities or serious injuries. Dynamic with respect to the angle of the impact vertical loads could enhance occupant seat testing requirements address the surface, can also affect the amount of survivability and work to prevent ability of seat assemblies to remain energy absorbed or transmitted to the serious injury, thereby enhancing odds attached to the floor, even when the occupant. for egress and preventing many floor shifts during impact. Pitching and An accident impulse is a dynamic debilitating long-term injuries. The FAA yawing of the seat tracks during event that rapidly loads and unloads the established dynamic seat testing dynamic seat tests demonstrates the structure. Dynamic impacts accurately requirements in amendment 23–36 for gimbaling and flexibility of the seat. represent the impact event, often airplanes certificated under part 23. All of the aforementioned safety including load levels far surpassing the Energy absorbing seats benefit a smaller considerations must work together to static load requirements. Dynamic portion of accident occupants because enhance occupant safety and testing is also subject to a wide variation accident impacts with larger vertical survivability. The FAA believes that of results due to the unpredictable components tend to reduce occupant evaluating occupant safety, as a whole dynamic responses of varying system, would allow for a better 22 See www.regulations.gov (Docket #FAA–2015– understanding of vehicle performance 23 See www.regulations.gov (Docket #FAA–2015– 1621). in an emergency landing, enabling the 1621).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13480 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

construction methods and materials, and 23.562. The airplane stall speed proposal. Refer to appendix 1 of this resulting in complicated modeling and limits the maximum forward impact preamble for a cross-reference table analysis. This contrasts with static load speed. The emergency landing detailing how the current regulations tests that load the structure slowly, condition assumes the pilot maintains are addressed in the proposed part 23 maintain that load at high levels, are airplane control at or near final impact, regulations. generally simpler, and often provide thereby limiting impact velocity. The subpart D organization was more adequate demonstration of part strength. Proposed § 23.600(c) would capture complex than other subparts due to the Static analysis is generally more reliable the survivability factors for the occupant relocation and removal of many with both testing and modeling; in the cabin during the emergency requirements at the sub-paragraph level. however, it does not capture the nature landing sequence and would capture the To reduce confusion, the specific of rapid loading. Some combination of safety intent of current § 23.562. These discussion of subpart D changes is dynamic and static testing allows for the factors include proper use and loading shown in a cross reference table at the best understanding of airplane behavior of seats and restraints, and the end of the specific discussion section during an accident. interaction of the occupants with each below rather than the Relocation and Compliance with the proposed rule other and the cabin interior. Removal paragraphs in other subparts. could be shown using conventional Survivability is determined upon the b. Specific Discussion of Changes means of compliance like dynamic occupant’s interaction with the interior, testing of seats, and static testing of seat, and restraints, and bounded by i. Proposed § 23.700, Flight Controls other components using the prescriptive established human injury criteria. Systems methods contained in the current part Proposed § 23.600(d) would provide Proposed § 23.700 would require an 23. Alternative compliance methods the framework for seats and occupant applicant to design airplane flight could include analysis or modeling restraints and would require simplified control systems to prevent major, supported by testing using an airframe seat and restraint requirements for all hazardous, and catastrophic hazards. coupled with the airplane’s performance occupants. This proposed section would Proposed § 23.700 would require an envelope, viewing the entire interaction capture the safety intent of current applicant to design trim systems to of ground, airplane, and occupant, thus § 23.785. prevent inadvertent, incorrect, or abrupt using a more complete systemic Proposed § 23.600(e) would establish trim operation. In addition, proposed approach to achieve improved requirements for baggage and cargo § 23.700 would require an applicant to protection. compartments and the restraint of design trim systems to provide a means Proposed § 23.600(a) is intended to contents. The proposed section would to indicate— provide structural performance that capture the safety intent of current • The direction of trim control protects the occupant during an § 23.787. movement relative to airplane motion; emergency landing while accounting for • The trim position with respect to only static loads and assuming all safety xvi. Current Subpart C Regulations the trim range; equipment is in use. The proposed Relocated to Other Proposed Subparts • The neutral position for lateral and section would capture the safety intent directional trim; and As discussed, the FAA proposes • of the current § 23.561. As noted earlier, removing current §§ 23.561, 23.562, For all airplanes except simple static loads are generally lower than 23.785, and 23.787. Also, this proposal airplanes, the range for takeoff for all peak dynamic loads; however, they may would consolidate the safety intent of applicant requested center of gravity offer a more-easily predictable loading these crashworthiness regulations in ranges and configurations. Proposed § 23.700 would also require condition and are generally of longer proposed § 23.600. duration such that the structure can an applicant to design trim systems to fully react to the load. The landing 4. Subpart D—Design and Construction provide control for continued safe flight conditions should consider possible a. General Discussion and landing when any one connecting accident sequence variables at impact, or transmitting element in the primary including restraint of items of mass The FAA proposes restructuring flight control system failed, except for within the cabin, directions of loading current subpart D to retain the simple airplanes. Additionally, along or about the three axes, and requirements for flight control systems, proposed § 23.700 would require an airframe response with respect to the along with their attachment to the applicant to design trim systems to limit occupants and effects of airframe structure and landing gear, and the range of travel to allow safe flight deflection during an emergency landing. occupant safety other than structural and landing, if an adjustable is Effects of emergency landing on the requirements. The FAA proposes to used. airplane should also be considered to align structural requirements, found in Furthermore, proposed § 23.700 include the effect of airframe damage current §§ 23.601 through 23.659, to would require the system for an airplane and how static loads would affect egress proposed subpart C. Aspects that equipped with an artificial stall barrier and survivable cabin volume. Items of directly affected the pilot’s interface system to prevent uncommanded mass within the cabin and rear mounted with the airplane, such as the control or thrust action and provide for engines have also been traditionally shape, would be relocated to proposed a preflight check. The FAA also considered using even higher static § 23.1500, Flightcrew Interface. proposes requiring an applicant seeking loads as an additional factor of safety to The FAA also proposes, in those certification of a certification level 3 ensure that these items of mass are sections where there are requirements high-speed or certification level 4 restrained and would be among the last specific to the current commuter airplane to install a takeoff warning items to come free in an accident. category, to use certification level 4. In system on the airplane, unless the Proposed § 23.600(b) is intended to those sections where there are current applicant demonstrates that the provide boundary conditions for the requirements specific to multiengine airplane, for each configuration, could emergency landing sequence for both jets over 6,000 pounds, the FAA takeoff at the limits of its trim and flap static and dynamic load considerations. proposes requirements for certification ranges. The proposed section would capture the level 3, high-speed multiengine Proposed § 23.700(b)(3) would also safety intent of the current §§ 23.561 airplanes as discussed earlier in this allow an exception for simple airplanes

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13481

from the requirement to provide control specifications for landing. For iv. § 23.750, Means of Egress and for continued safe flight and landing certification level 3 high-speed Emergency Exits when any one connecting or multiengine and certification level 4 Proposed § 23.750 would require the transmitting element in the primary multiengine airplanes, proposed airplane cabin exit be designed to control system fails. This would provide § 23.705 would require the braking provide for evacuation of the airplane a level of safety equivalent to that system to provide kinetic energy within 90 seconds in conditions likely specified in EASA’s CS–VLA. Last, absorption within the design of the to occur, excluding ditching, following proposed § 23.700(d) would maintain airplane specifications for rejected an emergency landing. For ditching, the level of safety in the current takeoff as the current rules do for proposed § 23.750 would require the requirements for a takeoff warning multiengine jets over 6,000 pounds and cabin exit for all certification levels 3 system. commuter category airplanes. and 4 multiengine airplanes be designed Proposed § 23.700 would capture the Proposed § 23.705 would capture the to allow evacuation in 90 seconds. safety intent of current §§ 23.677, Trim safety intent of current §§ 23.729, systems, paragraphs (a), (b), and (d); Landing gear extension and retraction Proposed § 23.750 would require each 23.689, Cable systems, paragraphs (a) system, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e); exit to have a simple and obvious and (f); 23.691, Artificial stall barrier 23.731, Wheels; 23.733, Tires, paragraph means, marked inside and outside the system, paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e) and (a); 23.735, Brakes, paragraphs (a), (b), airplane, to be opened from both inside (f); 23.697, Wing flap controls, and (e); 23.737, Skis. The FAA proposes and outside the airplane, when the paragraphs (a); and 23.703, Takeoff to combine the fixed and retractable internal locking mechanism is in the warning system, paragraphs (a) and (b). landing gear systems into the proposed locked position. This proposed section would apply to section, which would apply to the Proposed § 23.750 would also require the function, usability, and hazard function, usability, and hazard levels of airplane evacuation paths to protect levels of all mechanical, electrical, or all mechanical, electrical, or electronic occupants from serious injury from the electronic control systems. The landing gear systems. propulsion system, and require that certification levels proposed in this doors, canopies, and exits be protected iii. Proposed § 23.710, Buoyancy for NPRM would be incorporated into the from opening inadvertently in flight. Seaplanes and Amphibians mechanical, electrical, or electronic Proposed § 23.750 would preclude each control systems to maintain the Proposed § 23.710 would require exit from being obstructed by a seat or differences in airplanes certificated airplanes intended for operations on seat back, unless the seat or seat back under part 23 (i.e., weight and water to provide buoyancy of 80 percent could be easily moved in one action to powerplant.) in excess of the buoyancy required to clear the exit. Proposed § 23.750 would support the maximum weight of the also require airplanes certified for ii. Proposed § 23.705, Landing Gear airplane in fresh water. Proposed aerobatics to have a means to exit the Systems § 23.710 would also require airplanes airplane in flight. Proposed § 23.705 would require an intended for operations on water to have Proposed § 23.750 would capture the airplane’s landing gear and retracting sufficient watertight compartments so safety intent of current §§ 23.783, Doors, mechanism be able to withstand the airplane will stay afloat at rest in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d); 23.791, operational and flight loads. Proposed calm water without capsizing if any two 23.803, Emergency evacuation, § 23.705 would require an airplane with compartments of any main float or hull paragraph (a); 23.805, Flightcrew retractable landing gear to have a are flooded. emergency exits; 23.807, Emergency positive means to keep the landing gear Proposed § 23.710 would capture the exits except paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(1), (c), extended and a secondary means for safety intent of current §§ 23.751(a), (d)(1) and (d)(4); 23.811, Emergency exit extending the landing gear that could Main float buoyancy; 23.755, Hulls; and marking; 23.812, Emergency lighting; not be extended using the primary 23.757, Auxiliary floats. The FAA 23.813, Emergency exit access, means. Proposed § 23.705 would also proposes combining the floats or hulls paragraph (a); and 23.815, Width of require a means to inform the pilot that landing gear systems into the proposed aisle; and CS–VLA–783, Exits. This each landing gear is secured in the section and having it apply to the proposed rule would incorporate the extended and retracted positions. function, usability, and hazard levels of requirements for all door and emergency Additionally, proposed § 23.705 would hulls and floats. The existing rule exits and remove specified design require an airplane, except for airplanes requires at least four watertight solutions and means of compliances. intended for operation on water, with compartments of approximately equal To encourage the installation of egress retractable landing gear to also have a volume, which the FAA proposes to and emergency exits with new safety warning to the pilot if the thrust and remove because they are specific design enhancing technology and streamline configuration is selected for landing and requirements and are addressed in the the certification process, the FAA yet the landing gear is not fully proposed performance-based proposes removing most of the current extended and locked. requirements. prescriptive requirements and the Furthermore, if the landing gear bayis To encourage the installation of detailed means of compliance for these used as the location for equipment other buoyancy systems with new safety requirements from the current part 23. than the landing gear, proposed § 23.705 enhancing technology and streamlining The FAA expects that the current would require that equipment be the certification process, the FAA prescriptive means of compliance designed and installed to avoid damage proposes removing most of the current would continue to be used for from tire burst and from items that may prescriptive requirements and the traditional part 23 airplane designs. enter the landing gear bay. Proposed detailed means of compliance for these The FAA would continue to accept an § 23.705 would also require the design requirements from the current part 23 airplane designed to meet these of each landing gear wheel, tire, and ski and replacing them with performance- prescriptive design constraints as means account for critical loads and would based regulations. The FAA expects the of compliance to meet the proposed require a reliable means of stopping the current means of compliance would performance standard. However, if an airplane with kinetic energy absorption continue to be used for the traditional airplane did not meet the prescriptive within the airplane’s design airplane designs under part 23. design constraints, the applicant could

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13482 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

propose its own means of compliance to determining use of oxygen; and 23.1461, fire extinguishing means available show compliance with the proposed Equipment containing high energy within the passenger compartment. performance standard. Historically, the rotors. Current part 23 regulations Where flammable fluids or vapors might FAA has accepted an emergency contain prescriptive language and escape by leakage of a fluid system, evacuation demonstration in less than means of compliance for the occupant proposed § 23.800 would require each 90 seconds as an ELOS for airplanes that physical environment requirements. area, outside designated fire zones, be did not meet the prescriptive design The FAA proposes to remove the defined and have a means to make fluid requirements in the current part 23 specific requirements to allow an and vapor ignition, and the resultant regulations. AC 20–118A, Emergency applicant to specify the means of hazard, if ignition occurs, improbable. Evacuation Demonstration, contains an compliance for the physical needs of the Additionally, proposed § 23.800 would acceptable means of compliance for the occupants including temperature, also require combustion heater 90-second requirement for emergency ventilation, pressurization, installations outside designated fire evacuation. supplemental oxygen, etc. For example, zones be protected from uncontained current § 23.831(a) requires carbon v. Proposed § 23.755, Occupant Physical fire. monoxide not exceeding one part in Environment Proposed § 23.800 would capture the 20,000 parts of air. The FAA proposes safety intent of current §§ 23.851, Fire Proposed § 23.755 would require an revising this by requiring breathable extinguishers, paragraphs (a) and (b); applicant to design the airplane to allow atmosphere without hazardous 23.853, Passenger and crew clear communication between the concentrations of gases and vapors. compartment interiors, Paragraphs (a), flightcrew and passengers and provide a (d)(3)(i), (d)(3)(iii) and (d)(3)(iv), (e), and clear, sufficiently undistorted external vi. Proposed § 23.800, Fire Protection (f); 23.855, Cargo and baggage view to enable the flightcrew to perform Outside Designated Fire Zones compartment fire protection; 23.856, any maneuvers within the operating Proposed § 23.800 would require that Thermal/acoustic insulation materials; limitations of the airplane. Proposed insulation on electrical wire and 23.859, Combustion heater fire § 23.755 would also require an applicant electrical cable outside designated fire protection, paragraph (a); 23.863, to design the airplane to protect the zones be self-extinguishing. Proposed Flammable fluid fire protection, pilot from serious injury due to high § 23.800 would require airplane cockpit paragraphs (a) and (d); 23.1359, energy rotating failures in systems and and cabin materials in certification Electrical system fire protection, equipment, and protect the occupants levels 1, 2, and 3 be flame-resistant. from serious injury due to damage to Proposed § 23.800 would require paragraph (c); 23.1365, Electric cables windshields, windows, and canopies. airplane cockpit and cabin materials in and equipment, paragraph (b); 23.1383, Additionally, proposed § 23.755 certification level 4 airplanes be self- Taxi and , paragraph (d); would require, for certification level 4 extinguishing. Proposed § 23.800 would 23.1385, Position light system airplanes, each windshield and its also require that airplane materials in installation, paragraph (d). It would also supporting structure directly in front of the baggage and cargo compartments, capture the safety intent of CS–VLA– the pilot to withstand the impact which are inaccessible in flight and 853, Compartment interiors. Proposed equivalent of a two-pound bird at outside designated fire zones, be self- § 23.800 would incorporate the maximum approach flap airspeed and extinguishing. Proposed § 23.800 would requirements for flammability of all allow for continued safe flight and require that any electrical cable subpart D and F systems and equipment landing after the loss of vision through installation that would overheat in the outside designated fire zones needed for any one panel. event of circuit overload or fault be continued safe flight and landing and Furthermore, proposed § 23.755 flame resistant. Additionally, proposed remove specified design solutions and would require any installed oxygen § 23.800 would preclude thermal means of compliances. system to include a means to determine acoustic materials outside designated vii. Proposed § 23.805, Fire Protection whether oxygen is being delivered and fire zones from being a flame in Designated Fire Zones a means for the flightcrew to turn on propagation hazard. Proposed § 23.800 and shut off the oxygen supply, and the would also require sources of heat that Proposed § 23.805 would require ability for the flightcrew to determine are capable of igniting adjacent objects flight controls, engine mounts, and the quantity of oxygen available. outside designated fire zones to be other flight structures within or adjacent Proposed § 23.755 would also require shielded and insulated to prevent such to designated fire zones be capable of any installed pressurization system to ignition. withstanding the effects of a fire. include a pressurization system test and Proposed § 23.800 would require Proposed § 23.805 would require a warning if an unsafe condition exists. airplane baggage and cargo engines inside designated fire zones to Proposed § 23.755 would capture the compartments, outside designated fire remain attached to the airplane in the safety intent of current §§ 23.771, Pilot zones, to be located where a fire would event of a fire or electrical arcing. compartment, paragraphs (b) and (c); be visible to the pilots, or equipped with Proposed § 23.805 would also require 23.775, Windshields and windows, a fire detection system and warning terminals, equipment, and electrical paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (h); system, and be accessible for the manual cables, inside designated fire zones, 23.831, Ventilation; 23.841, Pressurized extinguishing of a fire, have a built-in used during emergency procedures, be cabins, paragraphs (a), (b)(6), (c) and (d); fire extinguishing system, or be fire-resistant. 23.843, Pressurization tests; 23.1441, constructed and sealed to contain any Proposed § 23.805 would capture the Oxygen equipment and supply, fire within the compartment. safety intent of current § 23.865, Fire paragraphs (c), (d) and (e); 23.1443, Proposed § 23.800 would require a protection of flight controls, engine minimum mass flow of supplemental means to extinguish any fire in the mounts, and other flight structure and oxygen, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c); cabin, outside designated fire zones, § 23.1359(b), Electrical system fire 23.1445; Oxygen distribution system; such that the pilot, while seated, could protection. The intent of proposed 23.1447, Equipment standards for easily access the fire extinguishing § 23.805 is to protect flight controls, oxygen dispensing units, paragraphs (a) means, and for certification levels 3 and engine mounts, and other flight through (d) and (f); 23.1449, means of 4 airplanes, passengers would have a structure as well as electrical cables,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13483

terminals and equipment from the for VFR to achieve lightning protection 13, 1969), to limit the rule to protection effects of fire in designated fire zones. by following FAA accepted design of primary structure from direct effects practices found in FAA issued advisory of lightning. viii. Proposed § 23.810, Lightning circulars and in FAA accepted Protection of Structure ix. Reorganization of Subpart D consensus standards. Proposed § 23.810 would preclude Proposed § 23.810 would capture the The FAA proposes relocating the primary structure failure caused by safety intent of the current § 23.867(a) underlying safety. intent of various exposure to the direct effects of and (c), Electrical bonding and subpart D sections with proposed lightning, that could prevent continued protection against lightning and static sections in subparts B, C, F, and G. The safe flight and landing for airplanes electricity. The FAA proposes adopting following table shows where the FAA approved for IFR. Proposed § 23.810 the structure requirements in part 23, proposes moving the current subpart D would require airplanes approved only amendment 23–7 (34 FR 13078, August sections in part 23.

Current section Title Proposed section Proposed title

23.601 ...... General ...... 23.500 ...... Structural design. 23.603 ...... Materials and workmanship ...... 23.500 ...... Structural design. 23.605 ...... Fabrication methods ...... 23.510 ...... Materials and processes. 23.607 ...... Fasteners ...... 23.505 ...... Protection of structure. 23.609 ...... Protection of Structure ...... 23.505 ...... Protection of structure. 23.611 ...... Accessibility ...... 23.505 ...... Protection of structure. 23.613 ...... Material strength properties and design 23.510 ...... Materials and processes. values. 23.619 ...... Special factors ...... 23.515 ...... Special factors of safety. 23.621 ...... Casting factors ...... 23.515 ...... Special factors of safety. 23.623...... Bearing factors ...... 23.515 ...... Special factors of safety. 23.625 ...... Fitting factors ...... 23.515 ...... Special factors of safety. 23.627 ...... Fatigue strength ...... 23.405 ...... Structural durability. 23.629 ...... Flutter ...... 23.410 ...... Aeroelasticity. 23.641 ...... Proof of strength ...... Means of Compliance. 23.651 ...... Proof of strength ...... Means of Compliance. 23.655 ...... Installation ...... Means of Compliance. 23.657 ...... Hinges ...... 23.515 ...... Special factors of safety. 23.659 ...... Mass balance ...... 23.315 ...... Flight load conditions. 23.671 ...... Control Surfaces—General. (a) ...... 23.500 ...... Structural design. (b) ...... 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. 23.672 ...... Stability augmentation and automatic 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. and power-operated systems. 23.673 ...... Primary flight controls ...... 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. 23.675 ...... Stops ...... 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. 23.677 ...... Trim systems. (a) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (b) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (c) ...... 23.410 ...... Aeroelasticity. (d) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. 23.679 ...... Control system locks ...... 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. 23.681(a) ...... Limit load static tests ...... 23.325(b) ...... Component loading conditions. 23.681(b) ...... Limit load static tests ...... 23.515 ...... Special factors of safety. 23.683 ...... Operation tests ...... 23.500(d) ...... Structural design. 23.685(a), (b), (c) ...... Control system details ...... 23.500(d) ...... Structural design. 23.685(d) ...... Control system details ...... 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. 23.687 ...... Spring devices ...... 23.410 and 23.500 ...... Aeroelasticity and Structural design. 23.689 ...... Cable systems ...... Component loading conditions, Struc- tural design, and Equipment Systems and Installations. (a) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (b) ...... 23.325(b), 23.500(d) ...... Component loading conditions, Struc- tural design. (c) ...... 23.325(b), 23.500(d) ...... Component loading conditions, Struc- tural design. (d) ...... 23.325(b), 23.500(d) ...... Component loading conditions, Struc- tural design. (e) ...... 23.325(b), 23.500(d) ...... Component loading conditions, Struc- tural design. (f) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. 23.691 ...... Artificial stall barrier system. (a) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (b) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (c) ...... 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. (d) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (e) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (f) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (g) ...... 23.1315 ...... Equipment, systems and Installations. 23.693 ...... Joints ...... 23.515 ...... Special factors of safety.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13484 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Current section Title Proposed section Proposed title

23.697 ...... Wing flap controls. (a) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (b) and (c) ...... 23.200 ...... Controllability. 23.699 ...... Wing flap position indicator ...... 23.1500 ...... Flightcrew interface. 23.701 ...... Flap interconnection ...... Means of Compliance. 23.703 ...... Takeoff warning system. (a) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (b) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (c) ...... Definition. 23.721 ...... General ...... 23.910 ...... Powerplant installation hazard assess- ment. 23.723...... Shock absorption tests ...... Means of Compliance. 23.725 ...... Limit drop tests ...... Means of Compliance. 23.726 ...... Ground load dynamic tests ...... Means of Compliance. 23.727 ...... Reserve energy absorption drop tests .... Means of Compliance. 23.729 ...... Landing gear extension and retraction system. (a) ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. (b) ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. (c) ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. (d) ...... Means of Compliance. (e) ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. (f) ...... 23.1315 ...... Equipment, systems and installation. (g) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.731 ...... Wheels ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. 23.733 ...... Tires. (a) ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. (b) ...... Means of Compliance. (c) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.735 ...... Brakes ...... 23.705. (a) ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. (1) ...... Means of Compliance. (2) ...... Means of Compliance. (b) ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. (c) ...... Means of Compliance. (d) ...... 23.1315 ...... Equipment, systems and installation. (e) ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. (1) ...... Means of Compliance. (2) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.737 ...... Skis ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. 23.745 ...... Nose/Tail wheel steering ...... 23.1500 ...... Flightcrew interface. 23.751 ...... Main float buoyancy. (a) ...... 710 ...... Buoyancy for seaplanes and amphib- ians. (b) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.753 ...... Main float design...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.755 ...... Hulls ...... 23.710 ...... Buoyancy for seaplanes and amphib- ians. 23.757 ...... Auxiliary floats ...... 23.710 ...... Buoyancy for seaplanes and amphib- ians. 23.771 ...... Pilot compartment. (a) ...... 23.1500 ...... Flightcrew interface. (b) ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. (c ) ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. 23.773 ...... Pilot compartment view. (a) ...... 23.1500 ...... Flightcrew interface. (b) ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. 23.775 ...... Windshields and windows. (a), (b), (c), (d) ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. (e) ...... Means of Compliance. (f) ...... 23.1405 ...... Flight in icing conditions. (g) ...... Means of Compliance. (h) ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. 23.777 ...... Cockpit controls ...... 23.1500 ...... Flightcrew interface. 23.779 ...... Motion and effect of cockpit controls ...... 23.1500 ...... Flightcrew interface. 23.781 ...... Cockpit control knob shape ...... 23.1500 ...... Flightcrew interface. 23.783 ...... Doors. (a), (b), (c), (d) ...... 23.750 ...... Means of egress and emergency exits. (e), (f), (g) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.785 ...... Seats, berths, litters, safety belts, and 23.600 and 23.515...... Special factors of safety, Emergency shoulder harnesses. landing conditions. 23.787 ...... Baggage and cargo compartments ...... 23.600(e) ...... Emergency landing conditions. 23.791 ...... Passenger information signs ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. 23.803 ...... Emergency evacuation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13485

Current section Title Proposed section Proposed title

(a) ...... 23.750 ...... Means of egress and emergency exits. (b) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.805 ...... Flightcrew emergency exits ...... 23.750 ...... Means of egress and emergency exits. 23.807 ...... Emergency exits. (a)(3 ), (b)(1), (c), (d)(1), ...... Means of Compliance. (d)(4). Balance of 23.807 ...... 23.750 ...... Means of egress and emergency exits. 23.811 ...... Emergency exit marking ...... 23.750 ...... Means of egress and emergency exits. 23.812 ...... Emergency lighting ...... 23.750 ...... Means of egress and emergency exits. 23.813 ...... Emergency exit access. (a) ...... 23.750 ...... Means of egress and emergency exits. (b) ...... Means of Compliance. CS–VLA 853 ...... 23.750 ...... Means of egress and emergency exits. 23.815 ...... Width of aisle ...... 23.750 ...... Means of egress and emergency exits. 23.831 ...... Ventilation ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. 23.841(a), (b)(6), (c), (d) ..... Pressurized cabins ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. (b)(1) through (5) and (7) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.843 ...... Pressurization tests ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. 23.851 ...... Fire extinguishers. (a) and (b) ...... 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. (c) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.853 ...... Passenger and crew compartment inte- riors. (a) ...... 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. (b)(c) and (d)(1)(2) ...... Means of Compliance. (d)(3)(i), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(3)(iv) ...... 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. (e) ...... 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. (f) ...... 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. 23.855 ...... Cargo and baggage compartment fire 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire protection. zones. 23.856 ...... Thermal/acoustic insulation materials ..... 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. 23.859 ...... Combustion heater fire protection. (a) ...... 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. (b) thru (i) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.863 ...... Flammable fluid fire protection. (a) and (d) ...... 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. (b) and (c) ...... Means of Compliance ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. 23.865 ...... Fire protection of flight controls, engine 23.805 ...... Fire protection in designated fire zones. mounts, and other flight structure. 23.867 ...... Electrical bonding and protection against lightning and static electricity. (a), (c) ...... 23.810 ...... Lightning protection of structure. (b) ...... 23.1320 ...... Electrical and electronic system lightning protection. 23.871 ...... Leveling means ...... Means of Compliance.

5. Subpart E—Powerplant b. Specific Discussion of Changes airplanes,24 each would i. Proposed § 23.900, Powerplant have to be type certificated. a. General Discussion Proposed § 23.900 would capture the Installation The FAA proposes substantial safety intent of current §§ 23.901, changes to subpart E based on two Proposed § 23.900 would clarify, for Installation, paragraphs (a), (b), and (f); considerations. First, many of the the purpose of this subpart, that the 23.903, Engines, paragraph (a); 23.905, current regulations could be combined airplane powerplant installation must Propellers, paragraph (a), 23.909, to provide fewer regulations that include each component necessary for Turbocharger systems, paragraphs (a) accomplish the same safety intent. propulsion, affects propulsion safety, or and (c); and 23.925, Propeller clearance. Second, part 23 overlaps with the provides auxiliary power to the Proposed § 23.900 would combine the requirements in parts 33 and 35. Refer airplane. Proposed § 23.900 would installation requirements that are scattered throughout the subpart into a to appendix 1 of this preamble for a require the applicant to construct and cross-reference table detailing how the arrange each powerplant installation to account for likely hazards in operation 24 Refer to Section III, Discussion of Proposal, current regulations are addressed in the paragraphs A and B of this NPRM for definition and proposed part 23 regulations. and maintenance and, except for simple discussion of a simple airplane.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13486 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

general requirement for installation, and duplication between the current part 23 remove any duplication with part 33. regulations and part 33 requirements: The following table illustrates the

Part 23 Part 33

§ 23.901(d), Installation ...... § 33.33, Vibration. § 23.901(e), Installation ...... § 33.1, Applicability. § 23.934, Turbojet and turbofan engine thrust reverser systems tests ... § 33.97, Thrust reversers. § 23.939, Powerplant operating characteristics ...... §§ 33.61 thru 33.79. § 23.1011, Oil System—General ...... §§ 33.39 and 33.71, Lubrication system. § 23.1013(a) and (d), Oil tanks ...... §§ 33.39, and 33.71, Lubrication system. § 23.1015, Oil tank tests ...... § 33.33, Vibration. § 23.1023, Oil radiators ...... § 33.33, Vibration. § 23.1041, Cooling—General ...... § 33.1, Applicability. § 23.1043, Cooling tests ...... §§ 33.41 and 33.81, Applicability—Block Tests. § 23.1045, Cooling test procedures for turbine engine powered air- § 33.81, Applicability—Block Tests. planes. § 23.1047, Cooling test procedures for reciprocating engine powered § 33.35, Fuel and induction system. airplanes. § 23.1061, Liquid Cooling—Installation ...... § 33.21, Engine cooling. § 23.1063, Coolant tank tests ...... § 33.41 and 33.81, Applicability—Block Tests. § 23.1093, Induction system icing protection ...... §§ 33.35(b), Fuel and induction system and 33.68, Induction system icing. § 23.1099, Carburetor deicing fluid system detail design ...... § 33.35, Fuel and induction system.

Additionally, proposed § 23.900 part of the certification baseline and paragraph (c); 23.905, Propellers, would identify the scope of the recorded in an issue paper as an ELOS, paragraph (h); 23.909, Turbocharger powerplant installation in the same exemption, or special condition. Also, systems, paragraph (b), (c), and (e); manner as the current requirements. simple airplanes will follow the 23.933 Reversing systems, paragraph (b); However, the FAA would redefine precedence set for CS–VLA and will 23.937, Turbopropeller-drag limiting several terms to allow for alternate maintain the exception to the systems, paragraph (a); 23.959, sources of propulsion, such as electric requirement to be type certificated. Unusable fuel supply; 23.979, Pressure motors. The FAA considers the term ii. Proposed § 23.905, Propeller fueling systems, paragraphs (c) and (d); powerplant to include all equipment Installation 23.991, Fuel pumps, paragraph (d); used by the airplane that provides 23.994, Fuel system components; propulsion or auxiliary power. The Proposed § 23.905 would retain the 23.1001, Fuel jettisoning system, word engine would be replaced with the requirement that each propeller be type paragraph (h); 23.1027, Propeller term power unit and would include certificated, except for simple airplanes. feathering system; 23.1111, Turbine other power sources driven by fuel such Proposed § 23.905 would retain the engine, paragraph (a) and (c); 23.1123, as liquid fuel, electrical, or other power requirement that each pusher propeller Exhaust system; 23.1125 Exhaust heat sources not yet envisioned. This be marked so that it is conspicuous exchangers, paragraph (a); 23.1142, proposal also predicates that each under daylight conditions. All the other controls, airplane power unit or propeller receive requirements of the current section paragraphs (d) and (e); 23.1155, Turbine a type certificate as a prerequisite for either duplicate part 35 standards, or engine reverse thrust and propeller installation, with the exception of would condense into the other pitch settings below the flight regime; requirements proposed in §§ 23.900, simple airplanes. The current part 33 23.1163, Powerplant accessories, Powerplant installation; 23.910, airworthiness standards did not paragraphs (b) and (d); 23.1191, Powerplant installation hazard envision providing certification Firewalls, paragraph (f); 23.1193, assessment; and 23.940, Powerplant ice requirements for types of engines Cowling and , paragraphs (f) and protection. outside of those that operate on fossil (g); 23.1201, Fire extinguishing systems fuels. As such, the ability of an iii. Proposed § 23.910, Powerplant materials, paragraph (a); and 23.1203, applicant to obtain the required engine Installation Hazard Assessment Fire detector system, paragraphs (b) and type certificate for an alternate fuel type Proposed § 23.910 would require an (c). may be impractical. For those power applicant to assess each powerplant The proposed standard would reduce units, the FAA proposes to include separately and in relation to other the repetitive requirements found them in the airplane certification, which airplane systems and installations to throughout the subpart and create one could include the use of an ELOS to part show that a failure of any powerplant general powerplant requirement to 23. The FAA would expect an applicant system component or accessory will analyze and mitigate hazards associated to utilize all the requirements listed in not— with the powerplant installation. For part 33 as a baseline matrix to find • Prevent continued safe flight and example, current § 23.903(b)(1) requires compliance for an alternate powerplant landing; that design precautions be taken to type and for those requirements that • Cause serious injury; and minimize the hazards to the airplane in could not be met. Also, § 21.16, Special • Require immediate action by the event of an engine rotor failure or a conditions, may apply. It should be crewmembers for continued operation fire originating inside the engine that noted that additional requirements of any remaining powerplant system. could burn though the engine case. might also be necessary due to an Proposed § 23.910 would capture the These are very specific failure absence of a corresponding part 33 safety intent of current §§ 23.721, conditions, but are actually only two requirement. This matrix would become Landing gear—General; 23.903, Engines, small categories of many engine failure

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13487

conditions an applicant must assess. vi. Proposed § 23.925, Powerplant automatically shut-off before exceeding Section 23.903(c) requires that multiple Operational Characteristics the maximum fuel quantity of the engines must be isolated from one Proposed § 23.925 would require the airplane, and provide an indication of a another so a malfunction of one engine powerplant to operate at any negative failure at the fueling station. Proposed does not affect the operation of the acceleration that could occur during § 23.930 would capture the safety intent other. This is a general analysis normal and emergency operation within of current §§ 23.951, Fuel System— technique frequently called common the airplane operating limitations. General, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d); mode analysis that should apply to all Proposed § 23.925 would require the 23.953, Fuel System; 23.954, Fuel powerplant components and include pilot to have the capability to stop and system lightning protection; 23.955, other critical airplane systems that are restart the powerplant in flight. Fuel flow; 23.957, Flow between not powerplant related, but could be Proposed § 23.925 would require the interconnected tanks, paragraph (a); affected by a powerplant failure. airplane to have an independent power 23.961, Fuel system hot weather Hazards the FAA proposes to remove source for restarting each powerplant operation; 23.963, Fuel tanks: General, from other regulations and which would following an in-flight shutdown. paragraphs (a), (d), and (e); 23.977, Fuel be addressed in this proposed section Proposed § 23.925 would capture the tank outlet; 23.979, Pressure fueling include, but are not limited to, fire, ice, safety intent of current §§ 23.903, systems, paragraphs (a) and (b); 23.991, rain and bird ingestion, rotorburst, Engines, paragraph (d), (e), (f), and (g); Fuel pumps, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c); engine case burn through, and 23.939, Powerplant operating 23.997, Fuel strainer or filter, flammable leakage. characteristics; and 23.943, Negative paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d); 23.999, iv. Proposed § 23.915, Automatic Power acceleration. Current § 23.939 addresses Fuel system drains; and 23.1001, Fuel Control Systems powerplant operating characteristics jettisoning system, paragraph (a). and clearly requires an analysis that Proposed § 23.915 would require a would be required by proposed § 23.910 The FAA believes that the regulations power or thrust augmentation system and the existing requirements of part 33. for the design of fuel systems may be that automatically controls the power or Current § 23.943 would be included in overly prescriptive and exceed what is thrust on the operating powerplant to this proposed rule because it is another necessary to design a safe system. provide an indication to the flightcrew analysis requirement, and one that Accordingly, a more general set of when the system is operating; provide a provides an environment where requirements could include the intent of means for the pilot to deactivate the powerplant systems are required to many current rules. More importantly, automatic functions; and prevent operate. this proposed rule would allow for other inadvertent deactivation. vii. Proposed § 23.930, Fuel Systems types of energy sources to power Proposed § 23.915 would capture the propulsion systems such as electrical Proposed § 23.930 would require that motors and future energy sources. safety intent of current § 23.904, each fuel system provide an Automatic power reserve system and independent fuel supply to each viii. Proposed § 23.935, Powerplant appendix H to part 23—Installation of powerplant in at least one configuration Induction and Exhaust Systems An Automatic Power Reserve (APR) and prevent ignition from an unknown System. To foster the growth and source. This section would require that Proposed § 23.935 would require the approval of technological advances, the each fuel system provide the fuel air induction system to supply the air FAA believes that the detailed and required to achieve maximum power or required for each power unit and its prescriptive language of appendix H is thrust plus a margin for likely variables accessories under expected operating more appropriate as means of in all temperature conditions within the conditions, and provide a means to compliance. We would also include operating envelope of the airplane and discharge potential harmful material. requirements for thrust augmenting provide a means to remove the fuel from Proposed § 23.935 would capture the systems into this proposed section since the airplane. Proposed § 23.930 would safety intent of current §§ 23.1091, Air there seems to be a trend in general require each fuel system to be capable induction system, paragraph (a); aviation to provide thrust management of retaining fuel when subject to inertia 23.1101, Induction air preheater design, systems more sophisticated than loads under expected operating paragraph (a); 23.1103, Induction historical automatic power reserve conditions and prevent hazardous system ducts; 23.1107, Induction system systems. contamination of the fuel supply. filters; and 23.1121, Exhaust System— v. Proposed § 23.920, Reversing Systems Proposed § 23.930 would require each General, paragraphs (a) through (g). This fuel storage system to withstand the proposed rule would combine induction Proposed § 23.920 would require an loads and pressures under expected and exhaust systems into a single rule airplane to be capable of continued safe operating conditions and provide a because of the commonality with issues flight and landing under any available means to prevent loss of fuel during any associated with moving air. The reversing system setting, and would maneuver under operating conditions prescriptive language of the regulations capture the safety intent of current for which certification is requested. identified above in this paragraph drove § 23.933(a) and (b). The current rule Also, proposed § 23.930 would require the development of this proposed includes a separate requirement for a each fuel storage system to prevent section. For example, § 23.1091(b) propeller reversing system that would discharge when transferring fuel, mandates a certain number of intake be covered in the more general language provide fuel for at least one-half hour of of the proposed section and applied to operation at maximum continuous sources and specifies particular any type of reverser system. Current power or thrust, and be capable of requirements for a primary and alternate § 23.933 also requires an analysis of the jettisoning fuel, if required for landing. intakes. Current § 23.1101 requires system for a failure condition. Those Proposed § 23.930 would require inspection access of critical parts, and provisions would be addressed in the installed pressure refueling systems to current § 23.1103 is considered a part of general analysis requirements of have a means to prevent the escape of a proper safety analysis that would be proposed § 23.910. hazardous quantities of fuel, required by proposed § 23.910.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13488 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

ix. Proposed § 23.940, Powerplant Ice including accumulation in inadvertent cost of certification. Each fire detection Protection icing encounters, described in appendix system would be required to provide a Proposed § 23.940 would require the C to part 25, on airplanes not certified means to alert the flightcrew in the airplane design, including the engine for icing, which may pose a shed hazard event of a detection of fire or failure of induction system, to prevent foreseeable to the powerplant. the system and a means to check the fire accumulation of ice or snow that would Airplane design in proposed detection system in flight. Proposed adversely affect powerplant operation. § 23.940(a) refers to the engine § 23.1000 would also require an Proposed § 23.940 would also require induction system and airframe applicant to install a fire extinguishing the applicant design the powerplant to components on which accumulated ice system for certification levels 2, 3, and prevent any accumulation of ice or may shed into the powerplant. 4 airplanes with a powerplant located Powerplant design in proposed snow that would adversely affect outside the pilot’s view that uses § 23.940(b) refers to the engine, powerplant operation, in those icing combustible fuel. propeller, and other powerplant Additionally, proposed § 23.1000 conditions for which certification is components such as cooling inlets. would require each component, line, requested. Proposed § 23.940 would Proposed § 23.940(b) would apply and fitting carrying flammable fluids, capture the safety intent of current only to airplanes certified for flight in gases, or air subject to fire conditions to §§ 23.905, Propellers, paragraph (e); icing and would require compliance to be fire resistant, except components 23.929, Engine installation ice the icing requirements in part 33, which storing concentrated flammable material protection; 23.975, vents and currently only apply to turbine engines. would have to be fireproof or enclosed carburetor vapor vents, paragraph (a)(1); Part 33, amendment 33–34 (79 FR by a fireproof shield. Proposed 23.1093, Induction system icing 65507, November 4, 2014) and effective § 23.1000 would also require an protection; 23.1095, Carburetor deicing January 5, 2015, added SLD and ice applicant to provide a means to shut off fluid flow rate; 23.1097, Carburetor crystal requirements to § 33.68 and fuel or flammable material for each deicing fluid system capacity; and amended the engine ice ingestion powerplant, while not restricting fuel to 23.1099, Carburetor deicing fluid system requirements in § 33.77. Proposed remaining units, and prevent detail design. § 23.940(b) would require installation of inadvertent operation. Proposed Proposed § 23.940(a) would reflect the an engine(s) certified to § 33.68 § 23.1000 would capture the safety requirements in current § 23.1093, amendment 33–34, or later, if the intent of current §§ 23.1181, Designated which applies to all airplanes, airplane will be certified for flight in fire zones: Regions included; 23.1182, regardless if flight in icing certification freezing drizzle and freezing rain. Nacelle areas behind firewalls; 23.1183, is sought. We are proposing to remove Proposed § 23.940(b) would allow an Lines, fittings, and components; the type of powerplant to accommodate airplane manufacturer to install an 23.1189, Shutoff means; 23.1191, for new powerplant technologies. In engine, type certified at an earlier Firewalls; 23.1192 Engine accessory addition, we propose to define other amendment, in an airplane not certified compartment diaphragm; 23.1193, foreseeable icing in the means of for flight in freezing drizzle or freezing Cowling and nacelle; 23.1195, Fire compliance, which would include rain, as long as no ADs have been extinguishing systems; 23.1197, Fire conditions conducive to induction icing applied that relate to engine operation extinguishing agents; 23.1199, of reciprocating engines. Foreseeable in inadvertent SLD or ice crystal Extinguishing agent containers; 23.1201, icing in the means of compliance would conditions. Airplanes certified under Fire extinguishing system materials; and also include the cloud icing conditions part 23 have not had ADs related to SLD 23.1203, Fire detector system. of appendix C to part 25, currently or ice crystals. Certain part 23 turbojet Regulations for fuel may have become defined in § 23.1093(b)(1)(i), falling and engines have experienced thrust too detailed and prescriptive. A more blowing snow currently defined in rollback due to ice crystals blocking the general set of requirements should § 23.1093(b)(1)(ii), and ground ice fog heated inlet temperature probe. The capture the intent of these many rules. conditions currently defined in FAA would expect the means of More importantly, this new proposed § 23.1093(b)(2). The FAA proposes to compliance to address this in a similar rule would allow other types of energy remove the prescriptive requirements of manner to what is accomplished on sources to power propulsion systems the current §§ 23.1093(a), 23.1095, current certification projects. The such as electrical motors and future 23.1097, and 23.1099 as these are more engine ice ingestion requirements of the energy sources. appropriately considered as means of current § 23.903(a)(2) would be moved compliance. The FAA would expect the to proposed § 23.940(b). xi. Current Subpart E Regulations means of compliance to expand the Relocated to Other Proposed Subparts ground ice fog conditions to colder x. Proposed § 23.1000, Powerplant Fire The requirements of current ambient temperatures to harmonize Protection § 23.903(b)(1) would be moved to with EASA. The FAA would also expect Proposed § 23.1000 would require subpart C, § 23.405, Structural the means of compliance to include that a powerplant only be installed in a durability, paragraph (d). Section optional ground and flight freezing designated fire zone and would require 23.903(b)(1) requires design precautions drizzle and freezing rain conditions, an applicant to install a fire detection for turbine engine installations to be similar to appendix O of part 25, for system in each designated fire zone for taken to minimize hazards to the those airplanes that seek certification to certification levels 3 and 4 airplanes. airplane in the event of an engine rotor operate in those conditions. The Part 23 This rulemaking effort is maintaining failure or of a fire originating inside the Icing ARC had recommended specific the current level of safety for fire engine which burns through the engine pass/fail criteria for the effect of ice protection. While not a perfect one-to- case. accretion on engine operation. The FAA one relationship, airplanes equivalent to Additionally, the requirements of would expect this criterion to be certification levels 1 and 2 airplanes are current § 23.929 would be moved to defined in a means of compliance. not required to have a fire detection proposed § 23.940(b) and would only Proposed paragraph (a) would require system today and therefore, should not apply to airplanes certified for flight in an airplane design to prevent be required to have them in this icing. The means of compliance for ‘‘foreseeable’’ ice or snow accumulation, proposed rule. This would increase the § 23.940(b) should address propeller ice

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13489

protection system design and analysis. b. Specific Discussion of Changes Proposed § 23.1300(a) would address However, the means of compliance for i. Proposed § 23.1300, Airplane Level equipment and systems required to climb performance for proposed Systems Requirements operate safely. Required equipment may § 23.230 should address ice accretion be defined by other parts such as part effects on propeller performance on Proposed § 23.1300 would require 91 or part 135, by other sections of this airplanes certified for flight in icing. equipment and systems that are part such as equipment necessary for required for an airplane to operate flight into known icing, or other xii. Removal of Subpart E Current safely, be designed and installed to meet requirements placed on the Type Regulations the level of safety applicable to the Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) such as a The following current regulations are certification and performance levels of working autopilot for single pilot considered duplicative of part 35 and the airplane, and to perform their operations. The FAA proposes in would be removed from subpart E: intended function throughout the § 23.1300(b) that non-required § 23.905(b)—duplicative of § 35.5, operating and environmental limits equipment may be installed because it Propeller ratings and operation specified by an applicant. Proposed offers some benefit and its failure or use limitations; § 23.905(c)—duplicative of § 23.1300 would mandate that would not result in a reduction in safety § 35.22, Feathering propellers; non-required airplane equipment and of the airplane or for its occupants from § 23.905(d)—duplicative of §§ 35.21, systems, considered separately and in the base aircraft if the system was not 35.23, 35.42 and 35.43; and relation to other systems, be designed installed. This proposed section would § 23.905(e)(g) and (h)—duplicative of and installed so their operation or contain general requirements for the § 35.7, Features and characteristics. failure would not have an adverse effect environmental qualifications of on the airplane or its occupants. installed equipment, and would require 6. Subpart F—Equipment Proposed § 23.1300 would capture the installed equipment to perform its a. General Discussion safety intent found in portions of intended function over its defined current §§ 23.1301, Function and environmental range. This would mean The proposed changes to subpart F installation; 23.1303, Flight and that the equipment should have the would consolidate the current rules into navigation instruments; 23.1305, same environmental qualification as new performance-based standards and Powerplant instruments; 23.1307, requested for the useful range of the allow for use of new technologies once Miscellaneous equipment; 23.1309, airplane. consensus standards are developed that Equipment, systems, and installations; Proposed § 23.1300(b) would not could be used as a means of 23.1311, Electronic display instrument mandate that non-required equipment compliance.The FAA believes the systems; 23.1321, Arrangement and and systems function properly during all airplane operations once in service, proposed part 23 requirements would visibility; 23.1323, Airspeed indicating provided all potential failure conditions maintain the current level of safety system, 23.1325, Static pressure system; do not effect safe operation of the while staying relevant for new future 23.1327, Magnetic direction indicator; airplane. The equipment or system technologies. The prescriptive design 23.1329, Automatic pilot system; would have to function in the manner solutions in the current rules are often 23.1335, Flight director systems; expected by the manufacturer’s not relevant to new technology 23.1337, Powerplant instruments operating manual for the equipment or requiring special conditions, installation; 23.1351, Electrical Systems system. An applicant’s statement of exemptions, and ELOS findings. The and Equipment—General; 23.1353, intended function would have to be rate of new technology development Storage battery design and installation; and adoption has increased dramatically sufficiently specific and detailed so that and 23.1361, Master switch the FAA could evaluate whether the in the last decade. As a result, airplane arrangement. systems with new features and system was appropriate for the intended The current requirements can be function. capabilities are rapidly becoming traced back to CAR 3, specifically CAR available. The FAA believes that 3.651, 3.652, 3.655, 3.661, 3.662, 3.663, ii. Proposed § 23.1305, Function and removing the prescriptive design 3.665, 3.666, 3.667, 3.669, 3.670, 3.671, Installation solutions, which are based on outdated 3.672, 3.673, 3.674, 3.681, 3.682, 3.686, Proposed § 23.1305 would require or existing technology, while focusing 3.687, and 3.683. These requirements, that each item of installed equipment on the safety intent of the rule and including § 23.1311, which does not perform its intended function, be maintaining design solutions as a have a corresponding rule in CAR 3, installed according to limitations documented means of compliance were based on the technology and specified for that equipment, and the would enable the adoption of newer design solutions available at the time of equipment be labeled, if applicable, due technologies. their adoption. Although these to size, location, or lack of clarity as to The FAA also believes the current requirements are appropriate for its intended function, as to its part 23 regulatory prescriptive structure traditional systems found in airplanes identification, function or operating does not effectively address the safety designed to these assumptions, they limitations, or any combination of these continuum, particularly the low lack the flexibility to adopt current and factors. Proposed § 23.1305 would performance end of the continuum. anticipated technologies and design require a discernable means of Recent part 23 amendments have capabilities. The FAA wants to facilitate providing system operating parameters increasingly focused on high- the use of systems in new airplanes that required to operate the airplane, performance, complex airplanes. These reduce pilot workload and enhance including warnings, cautions, and stricter requirements have also been safety. The FAA proposes the use of normal indications to the responsible applied to the low-performance performance-based language that crewmember. Proposed § 23.1305 would airplanes even though their risk in the maintains the level of safety achieved require information concerning an safety continuum is lower. This has with the current requirements for unsafe system operating condition be created an unintended barrier to new traditionally designed airplanes but also provided in a clear and timely manner safety enhancing technology in low- allows for alternative system designs in to the crewmember responsible for performance airplanes. the future. taking corrective action.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13490 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Proposed § 23.1305 would capture the instructions. The intent is for an Proposed § 23.1310 would capture the safety intent found in portions of the applicant to define proper functionality safety intent of current §§ 23.1303, current §§ 23.671, Control systems- and to propose an acceptable means of Flight and navigation instruments; General; 23.672, Stability augmentation compliance. 23.1305, Powerplant instruments; and automatic and power-operated Proposed § 23.1305(a) would require 23.1307, Miscellaneous equipment; systems; 23.673, Primary flight controls; that equipment be installed under 23.1311, Electronic display instrument 23.675, Stops; 23.679, Control system prescribed limitations. Therefore, if an systems; 23.1321, Arrangement and locks; 23.685(d), Control system details; equipment manufacturer specified any visibility; 23.1323, Airspeed indicating 23.691(c), Artificial stall barrier system; allowable installation requirements, the system; 23.1331, Instruments using a 23.1361, Master switch arrangement; installer would stay within the power source; and 23.1337, Powerplant and 23.1365(a) and (b), Electric cables limitations or substantiate the new instruments installation. The current and equipment; 23.1301, Function and limits. The proposed requirement that requirements can be traced to CAR 3, installation; 23.1303, Flight and the equipment be labeled as to its specifically, CAR 3.655, 3.661, 3.662, navigation instruments; 23.1305, identification, function or operating 3.675, 3.663, 3.668, 3.670, 3.671, 3.672, Powerplant instruments; 23.1309, limitations, or any combination of these 3.673, and 3.674. These requirements, Equipment, systems, and installations; factors, if applicable, would apply to the including § 23.1311, which did not have 23.1322, Warning, caution, and advisory manufacturer of the equipment, not to a corresponding rule in CAR 3, were lights; 23.1323, Airspeed indicating the installer. based on the technology and design system; 23.1326, Pitot heat indication Proposed § 23.1305 would require solutions available at the time of their systems; 23.1327, Magnetic direction that information concerning an unsafe adoption. Although these requirements indicator; 23.1329, Automatic pilot system operating condition be provided are appropriate for traditional systems system; 23.1331, Instruments using a to the flightcrew. Microprocessing units and designs found in airplanes designed power source; 23.1335, Flight director that monitor parameters and warn of to these assumptions, they lack the systems; 23.1337, Powerplant system problems have already been flexibility to adopt current and instruments installation; 23.1351, incorporated in some airplanes and are anticipated technologies and design Electrical Systems and Equipment— used by other industries, including the capabilities. Furthermore, the FAA General; 23.1353, Storage battery design automobile and nuclear energy fields. proposes to remove prescriptive and installation; 23.1365, Electric cables Pilots may not monitor gauges as they requirements from the rule that and equipment; 23.1367, Switches; used to; instead, they could rely on historically provided standardization for 23.1416, Pneumatic de-icer boot system. warnings and alerts. The FAA does not primary flight instruments and controls. The current requirements can be traced propose to allow simple on-off failure The FAA still believes this to CAR 3, specifically, CAR 3.651, lights to replace critical trend displays. standardization is important for 3.652, 3.655, 3.663, 3.666, 3.667, 3.668, Warning systems would need to be traditionally designed airplane 3.669, 3.670, 3.671, 3.672, 3.673, 3.674, sophisticated enough to read transients instrumentation. Accordingly, to reduce 3.675, 3.681, 3.682, 3.683, 3.686, 3.687, and trends, when appropriate, and give the potential for pilot error, the reliance 3.693, 3.694, 3.696, 3.697, 3.700, 3.712, useful warning to the flightcrew. on standards accepted by the and 3.726. These requirements, Administrator would maintain including §§ 23.1322, 23.1326, and iii. Proposed § 23.1310, Flight, standardization for traditional systems. 23.1441, which did not have Navigation, and Powerplant Instruments The proposed regulations would corresponding rules in CAR 3, were Proposed § 23.1310 would require require applicants to use a means of based on the technology and design installed systems to provide the compliance based on consensus solutions available at the time of their flightcrew member who sets or monitors standards or other means accepted by adoption. Although these requirements flight parameters for the flight, the Administrator. However, new are appropriate for traditional systems navigation, and powerplant information technology is already being approved and designs found in airplanes designed necessary to do so during each phase of that does not meet the traditional to these assumptions, they lack the flight. Proposed § 23.1310 would require installation requirements and guidance. flexibility to adopt current and this information include parameters and At the same time, this technology is anticipated technologies and design trends, as needed for normal, abnormal, proving equivalent or better than the capabilities. The FAA wants to facilitate and emergency operation, and traditional technology.25 Furthermore, the use of systems in new airplanes that limitations, unless an applicant showed the FAA believes that new systems, reduce pilot workload and enhance the limitation would not be exceeded in displays, and controls have the potential safety. The FAA proposes the use of all intended operations. Proposed to reduce pilot workload with a direct performance-based language that § 23.1310 would prohibit indication safety benefit. By removing prescriptive maintains the safety requirements for systems that integrate the display of requirements for the rules and allowing traditionally designed airplanes, but flight or powerplant parameters to alternatives, the industry would be able also allows for alternative system operate the airplane or are required by to develop and certify safety-enhancing designs. the operating rules of this chapter, from technology faster. The equipment or system would have inhibiting the primary display of flight Proposed § 23.1310 would not require to function in the manner expected by or powerplant parameters needed by limitations that could not be exceeded the manufacturer’s operating manual for any flightcrew member in any normal due to system design or physical the equipment or system. An applicant’s mode of operation. Proposed § 23.1310 properties to be shown because they statement of intended function would would require these indication systems would be useless information and result have to be sufficiently specific and be designed and installed so in clutter of the displays. Additionally, detailed so that the FAA could evaluate information essential for continued safe the FAA proposes removing the whether the system was appropriate for flight and landing would be available to 25 the flightcrew in a timely manner after See Accident and GA Safety reports from the intended function. The equipment NTSB, AOPA Safety Foundation, and the General should function when installed as any single failure or probable Aviation Joint Steering Committee (GA–JSC) over intended by the manufacturer’s combination of failures. the past 10 years.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13491

prescriptive design requirement in installation of airplane systems and such equipment, systems, and current § 23.1311 for the installation of equipment, separately and in relation to installations. Section 23.1309 secondary indicators. The safety intent other airplane systems and equipment, introduced two main concepts: multiple is that a single failure or likely multiple for any airplane system or equipment failure combinations as well as a single failures would not result in the lack of whose failure or abnormal operation has failure had to be considered and there all critical flight data. The design and not been specifically addressed by must be an inverse relationship between installation of flight critical information another requirement in this part. the likelihood of occurrence and the should be such that the pilot could still Proposed § 23.1315 would require an severity of consequences. The premise fly partial panel after probable failures. applicant to determine if a failure of was that more severe consequences The prescriptive redundancy these systems and equipment would should happen less often. requirements for installed secondary prevent continued safe flight and In addition to specific part 23 design indicators have been too restrictive for landing and if any other failure would requirements, proposed § 23.1315 airplanes limited to VFR operations. significantly reduce the capability of the requirements would apply to any This has caused several applicants to airplane or the ability of the flightcrew equipment or system installed in the request an ELOS finding from current to cope with adverse operating airplane. This proposed section § 23.1311(a)(5). conditions. Proposed § 23.1315 would The safety intent of § 23.1311 is to require an applicant to design and addresses general requirements and is provide crewmembers the ability to install these systems and equipment, not intended to supersede any specific obtain the information necessary to examined separately and in relation to requirements contained in other part 23 operate the airplane safely in flight. other airplane systems and equipment, sections. Proposed § 23.1315 would not Traditionally, the minimum was such that each catastrophic failure apply to the performance or flight prescribed as airspeed, altimeter, and condition is extremely improbable, each characteristics requirements of subpart magnetic direction. The corresponding hazardous failure condition is extremely B, and structural loads and strength CAR 3 rule is 3.655. The regulation is remote, and each major failure requirements of subpart C and D. redundant with the operating rules, condition was remote. Proposed However, it would apply to systems that specifically, §§ 91.205 and 135.149, as § 23.1315 would capture the safety complied with subpart B, C, D, and E well as providing prescriptive design intent found in portions of current requirements. As an example, proposed solutions that were assumed to achieve §§ 23.691(g), Artificial stall barrier § 23.1315 would not apply to an an acceptable level of safety. The airplane’s inherent stall characteristics, prescriptive solutions precluded finding system; 23.729(f), Landing gear but would apply to a more effective or more economical paths extension and retraction system; system installed to attain stall to providing acceptable safety. Proposed 23.735(d), Brakes; 23.1309, Equipment, § 23.1310 would maintain the safety systems, and installations; 23.1323, compliance. Both current § 23.1309 and intent of the current rule. Airspeed indicating system; 23.1325, proposed § 23.1315 rules are not The FAA proposes consolidating the Static pressure system; 23.1329, intended to add requirements to specific safety intent of current § 23.1305, Automatic pilot system; 23.1331, rules in part 23, but to account for the Powerplant instruments, into proposed Instruments using a power source; added complexity of integration and § 23.1310, Flight, Navigation, and 23.1337, Powerplant instruments new technologies. Powerplant Instruments. The safety installation; 23.1335, Flight director This proposed regulation would intent of § 23.1305 is to provide systems; 23.1353, Storage battery design require an engineering safety analysis to crewmembers the ability to obtain the and installation, 23.1357, Circuit identify possible failures, interactions, protective devices; 23.1431, Electronic information necessary to operate the and consequences, and would require equipment; 23.1441(b), Oxygen airplane and powerplant safely in flight. an inverse relationship between the equipment and supply; 23.1450(b), Traditionally, the minimum was probability of failures and the severity Chemical oxygen generators; 23.1451, prescribed, such as oil pressure, oil of consequences. This would be Fire protection for oxygen equipment; temperature, and oil quantity for all accomplished by requiring all of the and 23.1453, Protection of oxygen airplanes. The corresponding rules in airplane’s systems to be reviewed to CAR 3 are 3.655 and 3.675. Some of the equipment from rupture. The current requirements can be traced to CAR 3, determine if the airplane was dependent regulation was redundant with the upon a system function for continued operating rules as well as providing specifically, 3.652, 3.663, 3.665, 3.667, 3.668, 3.670, 3.671, 3.672, 3.673, 3.674, safe flight and landing and if a failure prescriptive design solutions that were of any system on the airplane would assumed to achieve an acceptable level and 3.683. The foundation of the current significantly reduce the ability of the of safety based on an assumption of § 23.1309 was derived from CAR 3.652, flightcrew to cope with the adverse powerplant types. The prescriptive which stated that ‘‘each item of operating condition. If the design of the solutions precluded finding more equipment, which is essential to the safe airplane included systems that effective or more economical paths to operation of the airplane, shall be found performed such functions, the systems providing acceptable safety. by the Administrator to perform Additionally, they do not facilitate adequately the functions for which it is would be required to meet standards adoption of new technologies such as to be used . . .’’. At that time, the that establish that maximum allowable electric powered airplanes. The airworthiness requirements were based probability of that failure. Section proposed § 23.1310, Flight, Navigation, on single-fault or fail-safe concepts. Due 23.1315 would impose qualitative, and Powerplant Instruments, would to the increased use of airplanes rather than quantitative probabilities of maintain the safety intent of the current certificated under part 23 in the 1970s occurrence. As the FAA determined rule. for all-weather operation, and a pilot’s which quantitative values satisfied the increased reliance on installed avionic proposed performance standards, it iv. Proposed § 23.1315, Equipment, systems and equipment, § 23.1309, would share that information in FAA Systems, and Installation amendment 23–14 (38 FR 31816, guidance or documented means of Proposed § 23.1315 would require an November 19, 1973), was issued to compliance appropriate to the applicant to examine the design and provide an acceptable level of safety for certification levels of proposed § 23.5.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13492 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

v. Proposed § 23.1320, Electrical and level function is not adversely affected would require the design installation Electronic System Lightning Protection during and after the time the airplane is ensure no single failure or malfunction Proposed § 23.1320 would require, for exposed to the HIRF environment. would prevent the system from an airplane approved for IFR operations, Proposed § 23.1325 would also require supplying the essential loads required that each electrical or electronic system that these systems automatically recover for continued safe flight and landing. that performed a function, the failure of normal operation of that function in a Proposed § 23.1330 would also require which would prevent the continued safe timely manner after the airplane is the design and installation have enough exposed to the HIRF environment, capacity to supply essential loads, flight and landing of the airplane, be unless the system’s recovery conflicts should the primary power source fail, designed and installed such that the with other operational or functional for at least 30 minutes for airplanes airplane level function continues to requirements of the system. Proposed certificated with a maximum altitude of perform during and after the time the § 23.1325, High-Intensity Radiated 25,000 feet or less, and at least 60 airplane is exposed to lightning. Fields (HIRF) protection, would minutes for airplanes certificated with a Proposed § 23.1320 would also require incorporate the safety intent of current maximum altitude over 25,000 feet. these systems automatically recover § 23.1308, High-intensity Radiated Proposed § 23.1330 would capture the normal operation of that function in a Fields (HIRF) protection. safety intent of the current §§ 23.1310, timely manner after the airplane is Before § 23.1308, amendment 23–57 Power source capacity and distribution; exposed to lightning, unless the (72 FR 44016, August 6, 2007), the 23.1351, General; 23.1353, Storage system’s recovery conflicts with other requirements for HIRF protection were battery design and installation; and operational or functional requirements found in § 23.1309. The adoption of 23.1357, Circuit protective devices. The of the system. § 23.1308 was justified because there intent is to ensure airplane power Proposed § 23.1320 would require was an increased use of complex generation and the related distribution each electrical and electronic system systems and equipment, including systems are designed for adequate that performed a function, the failure of engine and flight controls, in small capacity and safe operation under which would reduce the capability of airplanes. These systems are more anticipated use and in the event of a the airplane or the ability of the susceptible to the adverse effects of failure or malfunction. flightcrew to respond to an adverse operation in the HIRF environment. operating condition, be designed and The electromagnetic HIRF viii. Proposed § 23.1335, External and installed such that the function recovers environment results from the Cockpit Lighting normal operation in a timely manner transmission of electromagnetic energy Proposed § 23.1335 would require an after the airplane is exposed to from radar, radio, television, and other applicant to design and install all lights lightning. ground-based, ship-borne, or airborne to prevent adverse effects on the Proposed § 23.1320 would capture the radio frequency transmitters. The HIRF performance of flightcrew duties. safety intent of current § 23.1306, environment changes as the number and Proposed § 23.1335 would require Electrical and electronic system types of transmitters change. During the position and anti-collision lights, if lightning protection. The original 1990’s, extensive studies were installed, to have the intensities, flash adoption of the rule, first introduced as conducted to define the environment rate, colors, fields of coverage, and other part of § 23.1309, was justified because that then existed. The FAA codified this characteristics to provide sufficient time there was an increased use of small environment in amendment 23–57 in for another aircraft to avoid a collision. airplanes in all-weather operations with appendix J to part 23—HIRF Proposed § 23.1335 would require an increasing reliance on complex Environments and Equipment HIRF Test position lights, if installed, to include a systems and equipment in the modern, Levels. red light on the left side of the airplane, complex, high-performance airplanes. Proposed § 23.1325 would require the a green light on the right side of the The FAA wants to facilitate the use of applicant to address the HIRF airplane, spaced laterally as far apart as systems in new airplanes that reduce environment expected in service instead practicable, and a white light facing aft, pilot workload and enhance safety. The of solely relying on the HIRF located on an aft portion of the airplane current requirement that all aircraft environment codified in appendix J. or on the wing tips. regardless of their design or operational The current appendix J to part 23 would Proposed § 23.1335 would require limitations meet the same requirements become a means of compliance as the that an applicant design and install any for lightning regardless of the potential accepted expected HIRF environment, taxi and landing lights, if required by threat has been burdensome for the until other levels were accepted by the operational rules, so they provide traditional VFR-only airplane designs. Administrator. This would allow the sufficient light for night operations. For Proposed § 23.1320 would cover the test levels to match the current threat as seaplanes or amphibian airplanes, this airplanes with the greatest threat of the environment changes over time. section would also require riding lights lightning. In addition, the proposed Additionally, the proposed language to provide a white light visible in clear language clarifies that the failure would clarify that the failure atmospheric conditions. Airplanes consequence of interest is at the consequence of interest is at the moored or maneuvering on water are by airplane system level, which allows airplane level, which allows credit for mairtime law considered watercraft; credit for design and installation design and installation architecture. therefore, riding lights are required for architecture. seaplanes and amphibians during water vii. Proposed § 23.1330, System Power operations. vi. Proposed § 23.1325, High-Intensity Generation, Storage, and Distribution To encourage the installation of Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection Proposed § 23.1330(a) would require internal and external lighting systems Proposed § 23.1325 would require that the power generation, storage, and with new safety enhancing technology that electrical and electronic systems distribution for any system be designed and streamline the certification process, that perform a function whose failure and installed to supply the power the FAA proposes removing most of the would prevent the continued safe flight required for operation of connected current prescriptive requirements and and landing of the airplane, be designed loads during all likely operating the detailed means of compliance for and installed such that the airplane conditions. Also, proposed § 23.1330(b) these requirements from current part 23.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13493

The current prescriptive requirements and not be damaged in survivable NTSB Safety Recommendations A–07– would be replaced with performance- emergency landings. 14 and A–07–15. based requirements. The FAA expects This section would capture the safety Proposed § 23.1405(a)(2) is the Part 23 that current means of compliance would intent of current §§ 23.1411, Safety Icing ARC recommendation for continue to be used for the traditional equipment—General, paragraphs (a) and airplanes certified under part 23 in icing airplane designs under part 23. (b)(1); and 23.1415; Ditching equipment, and is based on NTSB safety Required lighting for the operation paragraphs (a), (c), and (d). recommendation A–10–12. The target for this proposed rule is older airplanes requested by an applicant would have to x. Proposed § 23.1405, Flight in Icing adding an autopilot for first time, be installed and approved as part of the Conditions type design. The current rule requires modifying certain autopilots on that interior and exterior lighting Proposed § 23.1405 would require an airplanes with a negative service history function as intended without causing applicant to demonstrate its ice in icing, or significant changes that any safety hazard in normal operation. protection system would provide for affect performance or flight safe operation, if certification for flight The proposed rule would require characteristics. Proposed § 23.1405 in icing conditions is requested. external lighting to make each airplane would require, under the changed Proposed § 23.1405 would also require visible at night at a distance allowing product rule, to add proposed these airplanes to be protected from each pilot to maneuver in sufficient § 23.1405(a)(2) to the certification basis stalling when the autopilot is operating time to avoid collision. The current rule without requiring the remainder of in a vertical mode. Proposed § 23.1405 specifies a specific amount of light § 23.1405 for certain autopilot would require this demonstration be illumination accounting for airframe modifications. For new airplanes, a stall conducted in atmospheric icing obstructions. The FAA proposes warning system that complies with conditions specified in part 1 of removing this specified location and proposed § 23.230 would comply with appendix C to part 25 of this chapter, proposed § 23.1405(a)(2). The vertical amount of illumination because it is and any additional icing conditions for more appropriate as means of mode is a prescriptive requirement to which certification is requested. limit the applicability. Simple compliance. The FAA does not consider Proposed § 23.1405 would capture the small obstructions caused by airplane autopilots such as a wing leveler would safety intent of current § 23.775(a) not be affected by this requirement. structure to be a safety issue. Windshields and windows, and This section would capture the safety Numerous icing accidents have shown § 23.1419, Ice protection. Proposed that unrecognized airspeed loss can intent of current §§ 23.1381, Instrument § 23.1405 would also increase safety by lights, paragraph (c); 23.1383, Taxi and occur with autopilots in altitude hold adding icing conditions beyond those mode or vertical speed mode. landing lights, paragraphs (a), (b) and specified in the current § 23.1419. The (c); 23.1385, Position light system Demonstration, as a means of proposed § 23.1405 would only apply to compliance, may include design and/or installation, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c); airplanes seeking certification for flight 23.1387, Position light dihedral angles; analysis and does not mean natural in icing. The current § 23.1419 only icing flight tests are required. 23.1389, position light distribution and applies to airplanes seeking certification intensities; 23.1391, Minimum for flight in icing; however, ice xi. Proposed § 23.1410, Pressurized intensities in the horizontal plane of protection systems can be certified System Elements position lights; 23.1393, Minimum without certification for flight in icing. Proposed § 23.1410 would require the intensities in any vertical plane of The current minimum burst pressure of— position lights; 23.1395, Maximum requirements in § 23.1419(a) would be • Hydraulic systems be at least 2.5 intensities in overlapping beams of captured in proposed § 23.1405(a)(1). times the design operating pressure with position lights; 23.1397, color The proposed rule would require an the proof pressure at least 1.5 times the specifications; 23.1399, Riding light; applicant to show systems are adequate maximum operating pressure; and 23.1401, Anticollision light system, in the icing conditions for which • Pressurization system elements be paragraphs (a), (a)(1), (b), (c), (d), (e), certification is requested. As in the at least 2.0 times, and proof pressure be and (f). current rule, ice protection systems at least 1.5 times, the maximum normal ix. Proposed § 23.1400, Safety would have to be shown to be adequate operating pressure; and • Equipment in the icing conditions of appendix C to Pneumatic system elements be at part 25. Freezing drizzle and freezing least 3.0 times, and proof pressure be at Proposed § 23.1400 would require rain icing conditions are optional icing least 1.5 times, the maximum normal safety and survival equipment, required conditions in which the airplane may be operating pressure. by the operating rules of this chapter, to certificated to operate. These icing Additionally, this proposed section be reliable, readily accessible, easily conditions, which the FAA added to would also require that other identifiable, and clearly marked to appendix O to part 25 in amendment pressurized system elements have identify its method of operation. 25–140, are not being defined in pressure margins that take into account The FAA proposes requirements for proposed § 23.230. The FAA determined system design and operating conditions. safety equipment needed for emergency that the definition of these optional This section would capture the safety landings and ditching when required by icing conditions is more appropriate as intent of current §§ 23.1435, Hydraulic operational rules, and removal of the a means of compliance. Ice crystal system, paragraphs (a)(4) and (b); duplicative rules that are found in conditions are added to this proposal for 23.1437, Accessories for multiengine current part 23. Required safety certain air data probes to harmonize airplanes; and 23.1438, Pressurization equipment would have to be installed, with EASA requirements. and pneumatic systems, paragraphs (a) located, and accessible for use in an The Part 23 Icing ARC and (b). emergency, and secured against recommendations on activation and emergency landing accelerations. The operation of ice protection systems xii. Proposed § 23.1457, Cockpit Voice proposed rule would require safety, would be used as a means of Recorders ditching, and survival equipment, be compliance to proposed § 23.1405(a)(1). The FAA is not proposing to revise reachable, plainly marked for operation, This proposal would satisfy the intent of current § 23.1457 because amendment

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13494 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

23–58 (73 FR 12542, March 7, 2008) and § 23.1411, Safety equipment—General, detection systems and icing conditions corrected on July 9, 2009 (74 FR 32799), paragraph (b)(2) would be relocated to detection systems. However, there was written to standardize the cockpit proposed § 23.600, Emergency would remain a requirement for pilots voice recorder rules to address the conditions. to detect severe ice accretions, and this NTSB’s recommendations (70 FR 9752, would be addressed in proposed xv. Removal of Subpart F of the Current February 28, 2005). The FAA agrees Regulations § 23.230(b). with NTSB recommendation numbers When the FAA evaluated the current A–96–89, A–96–171, A–99–18, and When the FAA evaluated the current regulations, it determined that the parts of A–99–16 and A–99–17 and regulations, it determined that the prescriptive requirements in §§ 23.1323, believes changing the current rule to prescriptive icing requirements in Airspeed indicating system; 23.1325, remove prescriptive requirements could §§ 23.1323, Airspeed indicating system, Static pressure system; 23.1327, hinder the conduct of future accident and 23.1325, Static pressure system, Magnetic direction indicator; 23.1329, investigations and be detrimental to would be means of compliance to Automatic pilot system; 23.1335, Flight aviation accident investigations. proposed § 23.1405(a)(1). The current director systems; 23.1337, Powerplant requirement for a heated pitot probe or instruments installation; 23.1353, xiii. Proposed § 23.1459, Flight Data an equivalent means on an IFR certified Recorders Storage battery design and installation; and a flight in icing conditions airplane and 23.1357, Circuit protective devices, The FAA is not making any in current § 23.1323(d) would become a would be covered on a performance substantive changes to the current means of compliance for proposed basis by proposed §§ 23.1300; 23.1305; § 23.1459 because amendment 23–58 § 23.1300. 23.1310; and 23.1315. (73 FR 12541, March 7, 2008) was The part 23 re-write ARC had Current § 23.1401, Anticollision light written to standardize the flight data recommended that proposed § 23.1405 system, paragraph (a)(2) would be recorder rules to address the NTSB’s include the requirement for a heated removed as introductory material. recommendations. The FAA agrees with pitot probe on an IFR certified airplane, Current § 23.1415, ditching equipment, NTSB recommendation numbers A–96– but the FAA determined this would be paragraph (b) would be removed but 89, A–96–171, A–99–18, and parts of better addressed on a performance could serve as a means of compliance. numbers A–99–16 and A–99–17 and standard under proposed § 23.1300, The current §§ 23.1435, Hydraulic believes changing the current rule to because proposed § 23.1405 would only systems, paragraphs, (a), (a)(1), (a)(2), remove prescriptive requirements could apply to icing certified airplanes. High (a)(3), and (c); 23.1438, Pressurization hinder the conduct of future accident altitude mixed phase and ice crystal and pneumatic systems, paragraph (c), investigations and be detrimental to conditions for certain high-performance would be removed as prescriptive aviation safety. Proposed airplanes, and ice protection design and means of compliance. § 23.1459(a)(1), however, is amended to requirements for stall warning and angle Current § 23.1443, Minimum mass flow revise current references to §§ 23.1323, of attack would be means of of supplemental oxygen, paragraph (d) Airspeed indicating system; 23.1325, compliance. The proposed standard would be removed as a definition. Static pressure system; and 23.1327, would harmonize with EASA Current § 23.1445, paragraph (e) would Magnetic direction indicator, as those requirements. be removed as redundant to current Current § 23.1416 would be removed sections are not contained in this § 91.211, paragraph (a)(3). NPRM. since the requirements for proper inflation and annunciation of operation 7. Subpart G—Flightcrew Interface and xiv. Current Subpart F Regulations of pneumatic boots would be covered on Other Information Relocated to Other Proposed Subparts a performance basis in proposed a. General Discussion The requirement currently in §§ 23.1300 and 23.1305. This would § 23.1419(a) to comply with subpart B reflect that all types of ice protection The FAA proposes to expand subpart requirements to show safe operating systems have annunciation G to address not only current operating capability is moved to proposed requirements, and would eliminate limitations and information, but also the § 23.230 as recommended by the Part 23 unnecessary annunciations. The Part 23 concept of flightcrew interface. Based Icing ARC and Part 23 Reorganization Icing ARC recommended this approach. on current technologies, the FAA ARC. The analysis required in the current anticipates that new airplanes will Ice protection of engine inlets would § 23.1419(a), and all the requirements in heavily rely on automation and systems move to proposed § 23.940, Powerplant the current § 23.1419(b) and (c), would that require new and novel pilot or ice protection. The Part 23 become means of compliance to flightcrew interface. The FAA is Reorganization ARC had proposed that proposed 1405(a) and would be proposing to address the pilot interface § 23.1405 include these requirements, as removed. issues found in subparts D and F with well as heated pitot probe requirements Current § 23.1419(d) requires a means proposed § 23.1500. Otherwise, subpart for IFR airplanes. The FAA decided to to detect critical ice accretions, G retains the safety requirements from separate them since compliance with including night lighting. The Part 23 the current rules without change. Refer proposed §§ 23.940 and 23.1300 would Icing ARC had proposed a new to appendix 1 of this preamble for a be required for all airplanes, whereas § 23.1403 to replace these ice detection cross-reference table detailing how the compliance with § 23.1405 would be requirements, which would also address current regulations are addressed in the optional. The FAA wants to avoid the SLD detection required by proposed proposed part 23 regulations. potential confusion on TCDS § 23.230. These ice detection b. Specific Discussion of Changes interpretation as to whether an airplane requirements are more appropriately is certified for flight in icing. addressed as a means of compliance to i. Proposed § 23.1500, Flightcrew The requirements currently in accommodate new technology. For Interface § 23.1381, Instrument lights, paragraphs example, visual ice accretion detection Proposed § 23.1500 would require the (a) and (b) would be relocated to as a means to activate ice protection pilot compartment and its equipment to proposed § 23.1500, Flightcrew systems is no longer necessary on some allow the pilot(s) to perform their Interface. The requirements currently in designs, examples being primary ice duties, including taxi, takeoff, climb,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13495

cruise, descent, approach, and landing; prescriptive requirements from the other limitations and information and perform any maneuvers within the current rules to allow for alternative necessary for safe operation. operating envelope of the airplane, approaches to pilot interface that would iv. Proposed § 23.1515, Instructions for without excessive concentration, skill, reduce pilot workload or increase safety. Continued Airworthiness alertness, or fatigue. Proposed § 23.1500 ii. Proposed § 23.1505, Instrument would also require an applicant to Proposed § 23.1515 would require an Markings, Control Markings, and install flight, navigation, surveillance, applicant to prepare Instructions for Placards and powerplant controls and displays so Continued Airworthiness in accordance qualified flightcrew could monitor and Proposed § 23.1505 would require with proposed appendix A to this part, perform all tasks associated with the each airplane to display in a that are acceptable to the Administrator, intended functions of systems and conspicuous manner any placard and prior to the delivery of the first airplane equipment in order to make the instrument marking necessary for or issuance of a standard certification of possibility that a flightcrew error could operation. Proposed § 23.1505 would airworthiness, whichever occurs later. result in a catastrophic event highly also require an applicant to clearly mark This proposed section would capture unlikely. Proposed § 23.1500 would each cockpit control, other than primary the current § 23.1529 without change. capture the safety intent of current part flight controls, as to its function and The FAA proposes renaming Appendix 23 rules that are directly related to the method of operation and include G to Part 23—Instructions for Continued pilot or flightcrew interface with the instrument marking and placard Airworthiness, to Appendix A to Part airplane. Interfaces include controls, information in the AFM. The 23—Instructions for Continued displays, and visibility requirements. consolidation of these sections appears Airworthiness. Current and anticipated technologies large, but many of these sections contain 8. Appendices to Part 23 that affect how the pilot interfaces with one prescriptive requirement that, in the airplane are expected to expand many cases, is based on traditional a. General Discussion faster than other technologies. The FAA airplanes, instruments, and equipment. Many of the appendices to part 23 believes that significant safety contain information that the FAA iii. Proposed § 23.1510, Airplane Flight improvements can result from the believes would be more appropriate as Manual evolution of how the pilot interfaces a means of compliance, with the with the airplane. Pilot workload is a Proposed § 23.1510 would require an exception of Appendix G to Part 23– major factor in causing accidents, but it applicant to furnish an AFM with each Instructions for Continued is almost impossible to connect airplane that contains the operating Airworthiness. Appendices A, B, C, D, workload-related mistakes to an limitations and procedures, E, F, H, and J would be removed and accident after the accident has performance information, loading appendix G would be renamed happened. Evidence from large airplane information, and any other information Appendix A—Instructions for accidents, where we have recorded data necessary for the operation of the Continued Airworthiness. as well as research, points to the airplane. importance of the pilot interface and The proposed rules capture the b. Specific Discussion of Changes associated mistakes as causal factors in prescriptive list of information that is i. Proposed Appendix A to Part 23— aircraft accidents. The smart use of considered necessary for the operation Instructions for Continued automation and phase-of-flight-based of the traditional airplanes. The current Airworthiness displays could reduce pilot workload rules contain very prescriptive and The FAA proposes renaming and increase pilot awareness. detailed information. Furthermore, that Appendix G to Part 23—Instructions for The converse is also true. Equipment level of detail assumes a traditional Continued Airworthiness, as Appendix is becoming available faster than airplane configuration and operation. A to Part 23—Instructions for Continued manufacturers and the FAA can The FAA proposes to remove this detail Airworthiness. evaluate it. Determining the safety risks from the rule because it is more and recognizing the safety benefits of appropriate as means of compliance. ii. Removal of Appendices to Part 23 new technology available to the pilot is Currently, the majority of airplanes Appendix A to Part 23—Simplified important. For this reason, the proposed certificated under part 23 already use an Design Load Criteria. The FAA proposes language addresses the safety issues of industry standard to develop their to remove this appendix because the the current §§ 23.699, Wing flap AFMs—General Aviation Manufactures content is more appropriate for position indicator; 23.745 Nose/Tail Association Specification 1, inclusion in methods of compliance. wheel steering, 23.1303, Flight and Specification for Pilot’s Operating Appendix B to Part 23—[Reserved]. navigation instruments, paragraph Handbook.26 The FAA already accepts The FAA proposes to remove this (g)(3); 23.1321, Arrangement and this industry standard for many appendix because it has been reserved visibility, paragraphs (a),(b),(d), and (e); airplanes certificated under part 23 since amendment 23–42. There is no 23.1311, Electronic display instrument because it includes the information that reason to include this appendix in the systems, paragraphs (a)(6) and (7); is currently required in part 23. The proposed revision to part 23. 23.771, Pilot compartment, paragraph FAA believes that allowing alternative Appendix C to Part 23—Basic (a), 23.773(a) Pilot compartment view, approaches to information would Landing Conditions. The FAA proposes 23.777, Cockpit controls; 23.779, Motion facilitate new technology integration to remove this appendix because the and effect of cockpit controls; and into airplanes certified under part 23. content is more appropriate for 23.781, Cockpit control knob shape; are The proposed § 23.1510(d) would inclusion in methods of compliance. addressed in proposed § 23.1500(a) and capture the safety intent of the current Appendix D to Part 23—Wheel Spin- (b). The proposed language would allow §§ 23.1505, Airspeed limitations, thru Up and Spring-Back Loads. The FAA the FAA to rapidly evaluate new 23.1527, Maximum operating altitude, proposes to remove this appendix equipment for concentration, skill, specific to operating limitations and because the content is more appropriate alertness, and fatigue against pilot for inclusion in methods of compliance. workload as is current practice. More 26 See www.regulations.gov (Docket #FAA–2015– Appendix E to Part 23—[Reserved]. importantly, the FAA would remove the 1621). The FAA proposes to remove this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13496 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

appendix because the current appendix quality system. Accordingly, approval to 6. Designation of Applicable is reserved and contains no information. produce a modification or replacement Regulations (§ 21.101) Appendix F to Part 23—Test article under proposed § 21.9(a)(7) The FAA proposes amending § 21.101 Procedure. The FAA proposes to remove would not constitute a production by removing the reference to § 23.2 as this appendix because this is purely a approval as defined in § 21.1(b)(6). The this section is proposed to be deleted means of showing compliance for FAA intends to limit use of this and is addressed in the operating rules, materials that must comply with self- procedure to articles whose improper and to refer to the proposed part 23 extinguishing flammability operation or failure would not cause a certification levels in paragraph (c). The requirements. hazard. Approval would be granted to current 6,000-pound reference would be Appendix H to Part 23—Installation the applicant on a case-by-case basis, augmented by the inclusion of simple of an Automatic Power Reserve (APR) specific to the installation proposed, airplanes, certification level 1 low-speed System. The FAA proposes to remove accounting for potential risk and airplanes, and certification level 2 low- this appendix because the FAA believes considering the safety continuum. speed airplanes, in order to align the that the detailed and prescriptive current rules with the proposed part 23 language of appendix H is more 2. Designation of Applicable certification levels. appropriate as means of compliance. Regulations (§ 21.17) Additionally, the FAA recognizes that Appendix I to Part 23—Seaplane The FAA proposes amending § 21.17, it may be impractical for airplanes Loads. The FAA proposes to remove by removing the reference to § 23.2, certified under part 23, amendment 23– this appendix because the content is because this section would be deleted. 62, or prior amendments, to move up to more appropriate for inclusion in The requirements in § 23.2 are currently the latest amendment for modifications. methods of compliance. addressed in the operational rules. Appendix J to Part 23—HIRF Section 21.101 would not be revised to Since § 23.2 is a retroactive rule, it is address this circumstance, as this Environments and Equipment HIRF Test appropriate for the requirement to be in Levels. The accepted HIRF environment section allows for certification at a the operating rules. As a result, the FAA lower amendment level if meeting the is codified as appendix J to part 23— also proposes amending § 91.205 by HIRF Environments and Equipment current amendment is impractical. This revising paragraphs (b)(13) and (b)(14) current provision would allow for HIRF Test Levels. The proposed to ensure removing this requirement language in § 23.1325 would revise this compliance to the certification would not have any effect on the requirements at amendment 23–62 or to the expected HIRF environment. The existing fleet. current appendix J to part 23 would earlier when compliance to the latest remain an accepted expected HIRF 3. Issuance of Type Certificate: Primary amendment of part 23 was determined environment until the Administrator Category Aircraft (§ 21.24) by the FAA to be impractical. accepted other levels. Any new The FAA proposes amending § 21.24 7. Applicability (§ 35.1) expected HIRF environment would be by revising paragraph (a)(1)(i) to modify The FAA proposes amending § 35.1 found in FAA guidance material or the phrase as defined by § 23.49 to by replacing the reference to § 23.907 other standards accepted by the include reference to amendment 23–62 with proposed § 23.905(c). Administrator. This would allow the (76 FR 75736, December 2,2011), certification requirement to match the effective on January 31, 2012. This 8. Fatigue Limits and Evaluation current threat agreed to over time. revision is necessary to maintain a (§ 35.37) Additionally, the proposed language complete definition of stall speed in this The FAA proposes amending § 35.37 would clarify that the failure section, as the current § 23.49 would be by replacing the reference to § 23.907 consequence of interest is at the removed from the proposed rule. with proposed § 23.905(c). airplane level, which allows credit for design and installation architecture. 4. Flight Tests (§ 21.35) 9. Altimeter System Test and Inspection (Appendix E to Part 43) B. Miscellaneous Amendments (§§ 21.9, The FAA proposes amending § 21.35 21.17, 21.24, 21.35, 21.50, 21.101, 35.1, by revising paragraph (b)(2) to delete the The FAA proposes amending 35.37, 91.205, 91.313, 91.323, 91.531, reference to reciprocating engines and appendix E to part 43 by revising 121.310, 135.169, and Appendix E to expanding the exempted airplanes to paragraph (a)(2) to conform with Part 43) include all low-speed part 23 airplanes proposed part 23 changes. This 6,000 pounds or less. This proposed proposed change would affect owners 1. Production of Replacement and change would align the requirements for and operators of part 23 certificated Modification Articles (§ 21.9) function and reliability testing with the airplanes in controlled airspace under The FAA proposes amending § 21.9 proposed changes in part 23 that do not instrument flight rules who must by adding paragraph (a)(7) to provide distinguish between propulsion types. comply with § 91.411. Concurrent with applicants with an alternative method to This change would allow the FAA this rule change, AC 43–6, Altitude obtain FAA approval to produce flexibility to address new propulsion Reporting Equipment and Transponder replacement and modification articles types based on the changes to part 23. System Maintenance and Inspection Practices, would be revised to include a that are reasonably likely to be installed 5. Instructions for Continued static pressure system proof test on type certificated aircraft. We also Airworthiness and Manufacturer’s acceptable to the Administrator. propose to revise paragraphs (b) and (c) Maintenance Manuals Having Additionally, while reviewing appendix to specify these articles would be Airworthiness Limitations Sections E to part 43, paragraph (a)(2), we noted suitable for use in a type certificated (§ 21.50) product. These proposed changes would that it remains silent on parts 27 and 29 allow an applicant to submit production The FAA proposes amending rotorcraft and Civil Air Regulations information for a specific article, but § 21.50(b) to reference § 23.1515 rather certificated aircraft. The static pressure would not require the producer of the than § 23.1529. This change is editorial system proof test in AC 43–6 ensures article to apply for approval of the and would align with the proposed part the accuracy needed to meet § 91.411 article’s design or obtain approval of its 23 numbering convention. requirements.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13497

10. Powered Civil Aircraft With 14. Additional Emergency Equipment VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses Standard Category U.S. Airworthiness (§ 121.310) A. Regulatory Evaluation Summary Certificates: Instrument and Equipment Requirements (§ 91.205) The FAA proposes amending Changes to Federal regulations must § 121.310(b)(2)(iii) to reflect the undergo several economic analyses. The FAA proposes amending § 91.205 reference to § 23.811(b), effective June First, Executive Order 12866 and by revising paragraphs (b)(13) and 16, 1994. This would be an update to Executive Order 13563 direct that each (b)(14) to include the potential for Federal agency shall propose or adopt a allowing other approved restraint the reference for conformity only. This regulation only upon a reasoned systems. Additionally, paragraph (b)(14) amendment would make no change to determination that the benefits of the refers to § 23.561(b)(2), which would be the requirements of the rule. intended regulation justify its costs. retitled in the proposed revision for 15. Additional Airworthiness Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act structural strength limits and would be Requirements (§ 135.169) of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires addressed in the means of compliance. agencies to analyze the economic Section 91.205(b)(16) would be deleted The FAA proposes amending impact of regulatory changes on small and incorporated into (b)(14) with no § 135.169(b) by deleting the terms, entities. Third, the Trade Agreements additional requirements. The part 23 ‘‘reciprocating-engine or turbopropeller- Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies proposal would delete references to powered’’. The current rule limits from setting standards that create utility and acrobatic categories, as they operation under this part to unnecessary obstacles to the foreign would be incorporated into the normal reciprocating-engine or turbopropeller- commerce of the United States. In categories that would be redefined into powered small airplanes. By amending developing U.S. standards, this Trade performance-based standards. the paragraph as proposed, other small Act requires agencies to consider 11. Restricted Category Civil Aircraft: airplanes, regardless of propulsion type international standards and, where Operating Limitations (§ 91.313) and including turbojet-powered, would appropriate, that they be the basis of potentially be considered for The FAA proposes amending U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded certification under this part. § 91.313(g) to include the potential for Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. allowing other approved restraint The FAA also proposes to allow a 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a systems. Additionally, paragraph (g) small airplane in normal category, in written assessment of the costs, benefits, includes a regulatory reference to § 135.169(b)(8), to operate within the and other effects of proposed or final § 23.561(b)(2), which would be retitled rules governing commuter and on rules that include a Federal mandate in the proposed revision as § 23.600, demand operations. This action would likely to result in the expenditure by which would be accompanied by be necessary as a result of the proposed State, local, or tribal governments, in the accepted means of compliance. part 23 rules which would sunset the aggregate, or by the private sector, of Approval for a shoulder harness or commuter category for newly type $100 million or more annually (adjusted restraint system, therefore, would certificated airplanes and create a for inflation with base year of 1995). require withstanding the static inertia normal category, certification level 4 This portion of the preamble loads specified in § 23.600 during airplane as equivalent to the commuter summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the emergency conditions. category by applying to 10–19 economic impacts of this proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking greater 12. Increased Maximum Certification passengers. This proposed amendment would allow for the consideration of the detail read the full regulatory Weights for Certain Airplanes Operated evaluation, a copy of which we have new category airplane and to ensure a in Alaska (§ 91.323) placed in the docket for this rulemaking. continued higher level of safety for In conducting these analyses, FAA The FAA proposes amending § 91.323 commercial operations. Because of the by removing reference to § 23.337 has determined that this proposed rule: ground-breaking nature of the part 23 (1) Would have benefits that justify its because this section would be revised proposals, the associated adjustment to and consolidated with other structural costs, (2) would not be an an performance-based airworthiness economically ‘‘significant regulatory requirements. The relevant prescriptive standards in future airplane designs and requirement(s) maneuvering load factors action’’ as defined in section 3(f) of manufacturing, and the myriad of found in § 23.337 would be added to the Executive Order 12866, (3) would be potential possibilities for attaining a regulation in § 91.323(b)(3). ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s means of compliance for airplane type Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 13. Second in Command Requirements certification, the FAA proposes to would have a significant positive (§ 91.531) require the new normal category economic impact on small entities; (5) The FAA proposes amending certification level 4 airplanes to meet would not create unnecessary obstacles § 91.531(1) and (3) to incorporate the the current airworthiness and to the foreign commerce of the United new risk and performance levels performance standards of the commuter States; and (6) would not impose an proposed in this NPRM. The FAA category found in part 23 thru unfunded mandate on state, local, or proposes deleting the reference to amendment 23–62. These standards are tribal governments, or on the private utility, acrobatic, and commuter envisioned to remain as requirements sector by exceeding the threshold categories in part 23. Other divisions for the new normal category identified above. These analyses are would be used to define levels of certification level 4 airplanes into the summarized below. certification for normal category near-term future, but not the long-term. airplanes. This proposed amendment It is intended that once the new part 23 1. Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule would ensure airplanes certificated in requirements have proven successful The following table shows the the commuter category in the past and with the new normal category estimated benefits and costs of the airplanes certificated in the future under certification levels 1, 2, and 3 airplanes, proposed rule. The major factors driving the proposed part 23 airworthiness and the FAA would reconsider normal the expected costs of this proposal are performance levels would be addressed category certification level 4 airplanes the additional training tasks, database in this rule. for part 135 commercial operations. development, and documentation to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13498 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

FAA and industry part 23 certification number of special conditions, characteristics and stall warnings, that engineers. Benefits consist of safety exemptions, and equivalent levels of alone would result in benefits benefits from preventing stall and spin safety. If the proposed rule saves only outweighing the costs. accidents and savings from reducing the one human life by improving stall

ESTIMATED BENEFITS AND COSTS FROM 2017 TO 2036 [2014 $ Millions]

Costs Safety benefits + cost savings = total benefits

Total ...... $3.9 $19.6 + $12.6 = $32.2. Present value ...... $3.9 $6.2 + $5.8 = $12.0.

2. Who is potentially affected by this 4. Benefits of This Rule TOTAL COST SUMMARY BY rule? CATEGORY—Continued The major safety benefit of this The proposal would affect U.S. proposed rule is to add stall manufacturers and operators of new part Total costs characteristics and stall warnings that Type of cost (2014$) and 23 type certificated airplanes. would result in airplane designs that are P.V. 3. Assumptions more resistant to depart controlled flight Total Costs ...... 3,920,106 The benefit and cost analysis for the inadvertently. The largest number of regulatory evaluation is based on the accidents for small airplanes is a stall or * These numbers are subject to rounding following factors/assumptions: departure-based LOC in flight. This error. proposal would also have cost savings • B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility The analysis is conducted in constant by streamlining the certification process Determination dollars with 2014 as the base year. and encouraging new and innovative • The final rule would be effective in 2017. • The primary analysis period for costs technology. Streamlining the The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and benefits extends for 20 years, from 2017 certification process would reduce the (Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a through 2036. This period was selected issuance of special conditions, principle of regulatory issuance that because annual costs and benefits will have exemptions, and equivalent level of agencies shall endeavor, consistent with reached a steady state by 2036. safety findings. the objectives of the rule and of • Future part 23 type certifications and applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 5. Costs of This Rule deliveries are estimated from historical part informational requirements to the scale 23 type certifications and deliveries. • Costs for the new part 23 type The proposed rules major costs are of the businesses, organizations, and certifications forecasted in the ‘‘Fleet the engineer training costs and the governmental jurisdictions subject to Discussion’’ section of the regulatory certification database creation costs. regulation. To achieve this principle, evaluation would occur in year 1 of the Additional costs would also accrue from agencies are required to solicit and analysis interval. the proposed controllability and stall consider flexible regulatory proposals • Airplane deliveries from the forecasted sections that would increase scope over and to explain the rationale for their part 23 type certificates would start in year current requirements and manual actions to assure that such proposals are 5 of the analysis interval. • upgrade costs. given serious consideration.’’ The RFA The FAA uses a seven percent discount covers a wide-range of small entities, rate for the benefits and costs as prescribed In the following table, we summarize including small businesses, not-for- by OMB in Circular A–4. the total estimated compliance costs by profit organizations, and small • The baseline for estimating the costs and category. The FAA notes that since we governmental jurisdictions. benefits of the proposed rule would be part assumed that all costs occurred in Year 23, through amendment 62. 1 of the analysis interval, the 2014- Agencies must perform a review to • The FAA estimates 335 FAA part 23 determine whether a rule will have a certification engineers would require dollar costs equal the present value costs. significant economic impact on a additional training as a result of this substantial number of small entities. If proposal. The FAA assumes that the same number of industry part 23 certification TOTAL COST SUMMARY BY CATEGORY the agency determines that it will, the engineers would also require additional agency must prepare a regulatory training as a result of this proposal. Total costs flexibility analysis as described in the • The FAA estimates that this proposal Type of cost (2014$) and RFA. would add 16 hours of training to FAA and P.V. The FAA believes that this proposed industry part 23 certification engineers. rule could have a significant economic • § 23.200 Controllability ...... $276,939 Since this training program would be on- impact on a substantial number of line, we estimate no travel costs for the § 23.215 Stall characteristics, engineers. stall warning, and spins .... 500,000 entities because we believe that this rule • FAA pay-band tables and the Bureau of Engineer Training Costs ...... 1,149,418 could enable the creation of new part 23 Labor Statistics (BLS) determine the hourly Certification Database Costs 1,293,750 type certificates and new manufacturers. wages used to estimate the costs to the FAA Manual Upgrade Costs ...... 700,000 The FAA has been working with U.S. and applicants. and foreign small aircraft manufacturers • Using the U.S. Department of since 2007 to review the life cycle of Transportation guidance, the wage multiplier part 23 airplanes and determine what 27 directs the FAA that when a rule requires for employee benefits is 1.17. incremental hours per existing employee, the wage/ needed improvement. salary multiplier is of smaller magnitude because The purpose of this analysis is to 27 On January 30, 2014, the DOT published a not all categories of employer provided benefits memo on ‘‘Estimating Total Costs of Compensation increase with additional hours worked by an provide the reasoning underlying the Based on Wage Rates or Salaries.’’ The memo individual employee. FAA determination.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13499

Under Section 603(b) of the RFA, the Federal Regulations to revise the 5. Estimated Number of Small Firms initial analysis must address: airworthiness standards for small Potentially Impacted • Description of reasons the agency is airplanes by removing current Under the RFA, the FAA must considering the action; prescriptive design requirements and • determine whether a proposed or final Statement of the legal basis and replacing those requirements with risk rule significantly affects a substantial objectives for the proposed rule; • and performance-based airworthiness number of small entities. This Description of the record keeping and standards. other compliance requirements of the determination is typically based on proposed rule; The FAA’s authority to issue rules on small entity size and cost thresholds • All federal rules that may duplicate, aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the that vary depending on the affected overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; United States Code. Subtitle I, Section industry. Using the size standards from • Description and an estimated number of 106 describes the authority of the FAA the Small Business Administration for small entities to which the proposed rule will Air Transportation and Aircraft apply; and Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation • Describe alternatives considered. Programs, describes in more detail the Manufacturing, we defined companies scope of the agency’s authority. This as small entities if they have fewer than 28 1. Reasons Why the Rule Is Being rulemaking is promulgated under the 1,500 employees. Proposed authority described in Subtitle VII, Part There are seven U.S. owned aircraft manufacturers who delivered part 23 A, Subpart III, Section 44701. Under The FAA proposes this action to airplanes in the 1998–2013 analysis that section, the FAA is charged with amend the airworthiness standards for interval. These manufacturers are new part 23 type certificated airplanes promoting safe flight of civil airplanes Adam, American Champion, Cessna, to reflect the current needs of the small in air commerce by prescribing Hawker Beechcraft, Maule, Quest, and airplane industry, accommodate future minimum standards required in the Sino-Swearingen. trends, address emerging technologies, interest of safety for the design and Using information provided by the and enable the creation of new part 23 performance of airplanes. This Internet filings and news reports, manufacturers and new type certificated regulation is within the scope of that manufacturers that are subsidiary airplanes. The proposed changes to part authority because it prescribes new businesses of larger businesses, 23 are necessary to eliminate the current performance-based safety standards for manufacturers that are foreign owned, workload of exemptions, special the design of normal category airplanes. and businesses with more than 1,500 conditions, and equivalent levels of employees were eliminated from the list safety findings necessary to certificate 3. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping of small entities. Cessna and Hawker new part 23 airplanes. These proposed and Other Requirements part 23 changes would also promote Beechcraft are businesses with more safety by enacting new regulations for The FAA expects no more than than 1,500 employees. For the controllability and stall standards and minimal new reporting and remaining businesses, we obtained promote new technologies in part 23 recordkeeping compliant requirements company revenue and employment from airplanes. would result from this proposed rule the above sources. because the prescriptive nature of part The base year for the final rule is 2. Statement of the Legal Basis and 2014. Although the FAA forecasts traffic Objectives 23 would be in other FAA approved documents where future technology can and air carrier fleets, we cannot determine either the number of new The FAMRA required the readily be adopted into the regulatory entrants or who will be in the part 23 Administrator, in consultation with the framework. The FAA requests comment airplane manufacturing business in the aviation industry, to assess the aircraft regarding the anticipated reduction in certification and approval process. In future. Therefore, we use current U.S. paperwork and recordkeeping burdens addition, the SARA directs the FAA to part 23 airplane manufacturers’ revenue that may result from this revision. create performance-based regulations for and employment in order to determine small airplanes and provide for the use 4. Overlapping, Duplicative, or the number of small entities this of industry developed consensus Conflicting Federal Rules proposed rule would affect. standards to allow flexibility in the The methodology discussed above certification of new technology. The proposed rule would not overlap, resulted in the following list of five U.S. Accordingly, this proposed rule duplicate, or conflict with existing part 23 airplane manufacturers, with would amend Title 14 of the Code of federal rules. less than 1,500 employees.

Number of Annual Manufacturer employees revenue

Part 23 Manufacturer 1 ...... 2 $110,000 Part 23 Manufacturer 2 ...... 65 7,000,000 Part 23 Manufacturer 3 ...... 75 35,000,000 Part 23 Manufacturer 4 ...... 175 34,000,000 Part 23 Manufacturer 5 ...... 2 97,000

From this list of small entity U.S. 23 reciprocating engine airplanes; only single manufacturer producing a part 23 airplane manufacturers, there are three one manufacturer producing turboprops turbojet has not delivered an airplane manufacturers currently producing part and only one producing turbojets. The since 2009 and is still working on

28 13 CFR 121.201, Size Standards Used to Define Small Business Concerns, Sector 48–49 Transportation, Subsector 481 Air Transportation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13500 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

acquiring the means to start up its Many of the ARC members collaborated by installing larger engines. But this is production line again. One of the and provided a joint cost estimate for a very expensive alternative that would manufacturers producing a part 23 the proposed rule. raise certification costs and operating reciprocating engine airplane has not The ARC has informed us that the costs and we believe that part 23 aircraft delivered an airplane since 2007 and is proposed rule would save the manufacturers would not make the working on acquiring the means to start manufacturers design time for the airplane capable of climbing after a up their production line again. The FAA certification of part 23 airplanes by critical loss by installing larger engines. is not aware that either of these reducing the number of exemptions, The FAA solicits comments regarding manufacturers is considering a new equivalent level of safety findings and this determination. special conditions required to airplane for part 23 type certification in C. International Trade Impact incorporate new and future technology the future and therefore this proposed Assessment rulemaking would most likely not add into their new airplane certifications. costs to these two manufacturers The proposed rule would also require The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 because the proposed rule only affects manuals to be updated and database (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the new part 23 type certificates. development. We expect these updates Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. For the remaining two reciprocating to be minimal and request commen on L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies engine part 23 airplane manufacturers, these anticipated costs and overall from establishing standards or engaging their last type certificates were issued in reduction in paperwork burden. in related activities that create 1961 and 1970. The 1961 type certificate The ARC has also informed us that unnecessary obstacles to the foreign was issued for the only airplane this every other section of this proposed rule commerce of the United States. manufacturer produces and the would be cost-neutral since the majority Pursuant to these Acts, the manufacturer with the 1970 type of the prescriptive requirements in part establishment of standards is not certificate produces one other airplane 23 would be moved from part 23. The considered an unnecessary obstacle to that was type certificated in 1941. The FAA expects that these current the foreign commerce of the United last small entity manufacturer produces requirements would form the basis for States, so long as the standard has a only turboprop airplanes and it started consensus standards that would be used legitimate domestic objective, such as delivering airplanes in 2007. Again, the as a means of compliance to the the protection of safety, and does not FAA is not aware that any of these proposed performance based operate in a manner that excludes manufacturers is considering a new regulations. imports that meet this objective. The airplane for part 23 type certification in The FAA expects this proposed rule statute also requires consideration of the future and therefore this proposed could have a positive economic impact international standards and, where rulemaking would most likely not add to small entities because it would enable appropriate, that they be the basis for costs for it. new businesses to produce new part 23 U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed While this rulemaking may enable the type certificated airplanes while the potential effect of this proposed rule creation of new manufacturers, the FAA maintaining a safe operating and determined that the standards are is not aware of any new small entity environment in the NAS. This proposal necessary for aviation safety and would part 23 manufacturers who want a type is based on the ARC’s recommendations not create unnecessary obstacles to the certification in the future for a new part and would allow for the use of foreign commerce of the United States. 23 airplane. However, by simplifying consensus standards that have been and lowering the costs for certification developed in partnership with industry. D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment of new small airplanes, barriers to entry Therefore, the FAA believes that this Title II of the Unfunded Mandates may be lowered and thus new proposed rule could have a positive Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) manufacturers may emerge. significant economic impact on a requires each Federal agency to prepare substantial number of entities. a written statement assessing the effects 6. Cost and Affordability for Small of any Federal mandate in a proposed or Entities 7. Alternative Analysis final agency rule that may result in an In 2009, a joint FAA/industry team a. Alternative 1 expenditure of $100 million or more (in finalized the Part 23 CPS. This proposed The FAA would continue to issue 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, rulemaking resulted from this study by special conditions, exemptions, and local, and tribal governments, in the the recommendation to use consensus equivalent level of safety findings to aggregate, or by the private sector; such standards to supplement the regulatory certificate part 23 airplanes. As this a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant language. Since then, the FAA and the approach would not follow regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently part 23 industry have worked together congressional direction, we choose not uses an inflation-adjusted value of to develop common part 23 airplane to continue with the status quo. $155.0 million in lieu of $100 million. certification requirements for this This proposed rule does not contain rulemaking. In 2011, with the Part 23 b. Alternative 2 such a mandate; therefore, the CPS as a foundation, the FAA formed The FAA would continue to enforce requirements of Title II of the Act do not the Part 23 Reorganization ARC. The the current regulations that affect stall apply. ARC consisted of large and small entity and controllability. The FAA rejected E. Paperwork Reduction Act domestic and international businesses. this alternative because the accident rate We contacted the part 23 airplane for part 23 airplanes identified a safety The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 manufacturers, the ARC, and GAMA for issue that had to be addressed. (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the specific cost estimates for each section FAA consider the impact of paperwork change for the rule and they all believe c. Alternative 3 and other information collection that this proposed rule would have a The FAA notes that a multi-engine burdens imposed on the public. The minimal cost impact on their operations part 23 aircraft manufacturer could information requirements for aircraft and in many cases, would have decide it wants to comply with certification are covered by existing significant cost savings by streamlining § 23.200(b) by making the airplane OMB No. 2120–0018. Burdens the part 23 type certification process. capable of climbing after a critical loss associated with special conditions,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13501

ELOS, and exemptions are not applications per year.29 The ARC report The number of applications is quantified in this collection because the offered a similar average of 37 multiplied by the number of pages and need to seek relief under one of these applications per year.30 Additionally, by the hourly wage for the applicant and options is dependent on each applicant the FAA counted the number of pages different FAA offices to account for the and is difficult to quantify. It is per application for all 47 applications to cost to the FAA and the applicant. The expected that this rulemaking would obtain an average number of pages per estimated hourly wage is $74.10 for a reduce the number of special application. For special conditions, Small Airplane Directorate employee,32 conditions, ELOS, and exemptions filed, there were approximately 21 pages, 16 $50.75 for an Aircraft Certificate Office thus reducing paperwork and pages for an exemption, and 15 pages employee,33 and $60.58 for an processing time for both the FAA and per ELOS application. The FAA engineer 34 employed by the applicant. industry. It would also maintain the assumes that the applicant and each Annual cost equals the sum of the fundamental safety requirements from the current part 23 regulations but allow FAA office that reviews the application associated costs of special conditions, more flexibility in airplane designs, spend 8 hours on research, exemptions, plus equivalent level of faster adoption of safety enhancing coordination, and review per page. The safety. Yearly cost totals roughly technology, and reduce the regulatory ARC also noted ‘‘an ELOS finding or $502,469 for the Small Airplane cost burden. To estimate savings driven exemption can take the FAA between 4 Directorate, $344,172 for Aircraft by this change, the FAA counted the to 12 months to develop and approve. Certificate Offices, and $410,823 for the special conditions, ELOS, and The applicant spends roughly the same applicants. Tables 1, 2, and 3 show cost exemption applications submitted to the amount of time as the FAA in proposing by office and applicant as well as by FAA for part 23 aircraft between 2012 what they need and responding to FAA special condition, exemption, and and 2013 and divided the number by questions for SC, exemption, or ELOS. two years for an average of 47 ELOS.’’ 31

TABLE 1—SAVINGS FROM SPECIAL CONDITIONS (SC) *

Average Average FAA SAD FAA ACO Applicant Part 23 Section number of SC number of (2012–2013) pages Man-hours Savings Man-hours Savings Man-hours Savings

143 ...... 0.5 20.8 83 $6,165 83 $4,223 83 $5,040 171 ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 173 ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 175 ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 177 ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 251 ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 361 ...... 1 20.8 166 12,330 166 8,445 166 10,081 562 ...... 1 20.8 166 12,330 166 8,445 166 10,081 572 ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 573 ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 574 ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 613 ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 627 ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 629 ...... 1.5 20.8 250 18,495 250 12,668 250 15,121 901 ...... 1 20.8 166 12,330 166 8,445 166 10,081 939 ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 951 ...... 1 20.8 166 12,330 166 8,445 166 10,081 961 ...... 1 20.8 166 12,330 166 8,445 166 10,081 973 ...... 1 20.8 166 12,330 166 8,445 166 10,081 977 ...... 1.5 20.8 250 18,495 250 12,668 250 15,121 1141 ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 1301 ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 1305 ...... 1 20.8 166 12,330 166 8,445 166 10,081 1308 ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 1309 ...... 1 20.8 166 12,330 166 8,445 166 10,081 1329 ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 1337 ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 1521 ...... 1 20.8 166 12,330 166 8,445 166 10,081 1557 ...... 1 20.8 166 12,330 166 8,445 166 10,081 3Pt Restraint with Air- bag ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 Inflatable Restraint...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 Electronic Engine Con- trols ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040

29 https://my.faa.gov/org/linebusiness/avs/offices/ 31 Ibid., 54. program_policies/policy_guidance/hr_policies/ air/tools/cert.html. 32 2014 FAA Bay Band, Average K Band Salary hrpm/comp/comp_ref/2014payadjustment/. 30 A report from the 14 CFR part 23 (Rest of the U.S.) plus wage multiplier for benefits 34 National Occupational Employment and Wage Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Committee to https://employees.faa.gov/org/staffoffices/ahr/ Estimates United States, May 2014; Aerospace the Federal Aviation Administration; program_policies/policy_guidance/hr_policies/ Engineer mean hourly wage, NAIC code 17–2011 Recommendation for increasing the safety of small _ general aviation airplanes certificated to 14 CFR hrpm/comp/comp ref/2014payadjustment/. plus wage multiplier for benefits http:// 33 _ part 23, June 5, 2013, Table 7.1—Special 2014 FAA Bay Band, Average I Band Salary www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes nat.htm#17-0000. A Conditions, Exemptions, Equivalent Safety (Rest of the U.S.) plus wage multiplier for benefits more detailed discussion is provided in the ‘‘Costs’’ Findings, Page 55. https://employees.faa.gov/org/staffoffices/ahr/ section below.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13502 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—SAVINGS FROM SPECIAL CONDITIONS (SC) *—Continued

Average Average FAA SAD FAA ACO Applicant Part 23 Section number of SC number of (2012–2013) pages Man-hours Savings Man-hours Savings Man-hours Savings

Fuel Jettisoning...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 Load Alleviation System 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040 Side Facing Seat with Airbag ...... 0.5 20.8 83 6,165 83 4,223 83 5,040

Totals ...... 24.5 728 4077 302,080 4077 206,914 4077 246,983 * These numbers are subject to rounding error.

TABLE 2—SAVINGS FROM EXEMPTIONS *

Average FAA SAD FAA ACO Applicant number Average Part 23 Section exemptions number of (2012–2013) pages Man-hours Savings Man-hours Savings Man-hours Savings

1359 ...... 0.5 15.6 62.4 $4,624 62 $3,167 62 $3,780 1549 ...... 0.5 15.6 62.4 4,624 62 3,167 62 3,780 177 ...... 0.5 15.6 62.4 4,624 62 3,167 62 3,780 49 ...... 1 15.6 124.8 9,247 125 6,334 125 7,561 562 ...... 1 15.6 124.8 9,247 125 6,334 125 7,561 1419 ...... 0.5 15.6 62.4 4,624 62 3,167 62 3,780

Totals ...... 4 94 499 36,989 499 25,336 499 30,243 * These numbers are subject to rounding error.

TABLE 3—SAVINGS FROM EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY (ELOS) *

Average Average FAA SAD FAA ACO Applicant Part 23 Section number ELOS number of (2012–2013) pages Man-hours Savings Man-hours Savings Savings Man-hours

145 ...... 1 14.9 119.2 $8,832 119 $6,050 119 $7,221 207 ...... 1 14.9 119.2 8,832 119 6,050 119 7,221 672 ...... 0.5 14.9 59.6 4,416 60 3,025 60 3,611 777 ...... 1.5 14.9 178.8 13,249 179 9,075 179 10,832 779 ...... 0.5 14.9 59.6 4,416 60 3,025 60 3,611 781 ...... 1.5 14.9 178.8 13,249 179 9,075 179 10,832 807 ...... 0.5 14.9 59.6 4,416 60 3,025 60 3,611 815 ...... 0.5 14.9 59.6 4,416 60 3,025 60 3,611 841 ...... 1 14.9 119.2 8,832 119 6,050 119 7,221 973 ...... 0.5 14.9 59.6 4,416 60 3,025 60 3,611 1092 ...... 0.5 14.9 59.6 4,416 60 3,025 60 3,611 1145 ...... 1 14.9 119.2 8,832 119 6,050 119 7,221 1305 ...... 1.5 14.9 178.8 13,249 179 9,075 179 10,832 1311 ...... 0.5 14.9 59.6 4,416 60 3,025 60 3,611 1353 ...... 0.5 14.9 59.6 4,416 60 3,025 60 3,611 1357 ...... 0.5 14.9 59.6 4,416 60 3,025 60 3,611 1397 ...... 0.5 14.9 59.6 4,416 60 3,025 60 3,611 1401 ...... 0.5 14.9 59.6 4,416 60 3,025 60 3,611 1419 ...... 0.5 14.9 59.6 4,416 60 3,025 60 3,611 1443 ...... 0.5 14.9 59.6 4,416 60 3,025 60 3,611 1505 ...... 0.5 14.9 59.6 4,416 60 3,025 60 3,611 1545 ...... 0.5 14.9 59.6 4,416 60 3,025 60 3,611 1549 ...... 2.5 14.9 298 22,081 298 15,125 298 18,054

Totals ...... 19 343 2205 163,400 2205 111,923 2205 133,597 * These numbers are subject to rounding error.

Using these yearly cost estimates, over or ELOS would largely be eliminated. conditions, exemptions, and ELOS 20 years $25.1 million in man-hours Instead new products will simply need would be reduced by half for a savings would be spent on applying for and to demonstrate compliance by following to the FAA and applicant of roughly processing special conditions, consensus standards acceptable to the $12.6 million ($5.8 million present exemptions, and ELOS. However under Administrator, or by submitting their value). Savings by year is shown in the the proposed rule, the FAA believes that own novel demonstrations of chart below. The FAA asks for comment the need to demonstrate compliance compliance. As a conservative estimate, regarding the amount of reduction in the through special conditions, exemptions, the FAA estimates that special alternative means of compliance.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13503

In addition to this savings, there four pages to the training courseware regulations. Depending on the would also be additional paperwork and flight manual. The FAA also complexity of each company’s manual, burden associated with proposed estimates that it would take a part 23 industry estimates that these changes § 23.200. As proposed, this provision certification engineer eight hours to could run from about $50,000 up to could result in a change to a limitation complete the one page required for each $200,000. This would be a one-time cost or a performance number in the flight new type certification. The eight hours per new type certification. manual, which would reqire an update to complete a page includes the Since the FAA is unable to determine to the training courseware or flight research, coordination, and review each the complexity of each company’s manual. Industry believes that this document requires. Therefore, the FAA manual, we assume that the proposed change could cost from estimates the total paperwork costs for manufacturers of the two new part 23 $100,000 to $150,000. Therefore, the proposed controllability section would reciprocating engine airplane type FAA uses $125,000 (($100,000 + be about $1,939 (8 hours * 4 pages * certifications, discussed in the ‘‘Fleet $150,000)/2) as an average cost for this $60.58 per hour) in 2014 dollars. Discussion’’ section of the regulatory proposed change. The FAA is expecting part 23 airplane impact analysis, would spend $50,000 There would also be additional manufacturers to update their to make the changes to the engineering paperwork associated with this engineering procedures manuals to manual. We also assume that the one requirement that is not part of the costs reflect the changes from this proposed new part 23 turboprop airplane discussed above. The FAA estimates the rulemaking. However, most of the certification and the two new part 23 paperwork costs for these proposed engineering procedures manuals are not turbojet airplane certifications, provisions by multiplying the number of written around the requirements of part discussed in the ‘‘Fleet Discussion’’ hours the FAA estimates for each page 23, but around the requirements of part section, would use the more complex of paperwork, by the number of pages 21. Since the part 23 changes would and costly approach of $200,000. for the training courseware, or flight have minimal impact on the part 21 The FAA notes that either the simple manual, by the hourly rate of the person requirements, there should be little approach or the more complex approach responsible for the update. The Small change in the engineering procedures to updating the manuals could also Aircraft Directorate of the FAA provided manuals. Conversations with industry either take place in-house or could be average hourly times and the number of indicate that there may need to be some contracted out to a consultant. additional pages of paperwork the changes to the engineering manuals to Table 4 shows the total costs for the proposal would add. The FAA estimates describe how the accepted means of proposed changes to the controllability that this section would add a total of compliance must be related to the section.

TABLE 4—ESTIMATE COSTS FOR UPDATING ENGINEERING MANUALS [2014 $]

Number of estimated Simple Complex Airplane new type approach approach Total certificates

Recip ...... 2 $50,000 $0 $100,000 Turboprop ...... 1 0 200,000 200,000 Turbojet ...... 2 0 200,000 400,000

Total ...... 700,000 * These numbers are subject to rounding error.

F. International Compatibility and proposal is adopted, the FAA intends to concurrently by EASA. Several other Cooperation file these differences with ICAO. CAAs are participating in this effort and In keeping with U.S. obligations Executive Order (EO) 13609, Promoting intend to either adopt the new part 23 under the Convention on International International Regulatory Cooperation, or CS–23 regulations or revise their Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes airworthiness standards to align with conform to International Civil Aviation international regulatory cooperation to these new regulations. Organization (ICAO) Standards and meet shared challenges involving The Part 23 Reorganization ARC Recommended Practices to the health, safety, labor, security, included participants from several maximum extent practicable. The FAA environmental, and other issues and foreign CAAs and international has reviewed the corresponding ICAO reduce, eliminate, or prevent members from almost every GA Standards and Recommended Practices unnecessary differences in regulatory manufacturer of both airplanes and and has identified the following requirements. The FAA has analyzed avionics. It also included several Light- differences with these proposed this action under the policy and agency Sport Aircraft manufacturers who are regulations. The ICAO Standards for responsibilities of Executive Order interested in certificating their products small airplanes use weight and 13609, Promoting International using the airworthiness standards propulsion to differentiate between Regulatory Cooperation. The agency has contained in part 23. The rulemaking some requirements. The proposed determined that this action would and means of compliance documents regulations use certification levels and eliminate differences between U.S. are international efforts. Authorities performance to differentiate between aviation standards and those of other from Europe, Canada, Brazil, China, and some requirements. Furthermore, part CAAs by aligning the revised part 23 New Zealand all are working to produce 23 will still allow the certification of standards with the new CS–23 similar rules. These rules, while not airplanes up to 19,000 pounds. If this standards that are being developed identical, are intended to allow the use

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13504 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

of the same set of industry developed agency has determined that this action directly to the person identified in the means of compliance. Industry has told would not have a substantial direct FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT that FAA that it is very costly to address effect on the States, or the relationship section of this document, and marked as the differences that some contrived between the Federal Government and proprietary or confidential. If submitting means of compliance imposes. If there the States, or on the distribution of information on a disk or CD–ROM, mark is substantial agreement between the power and responsibilities among the the outside of the disk or CD–ROM, and major CAAs to use the same industry various levels of government, and, identify electronically within the disk or means of compliance document, then therefore, would not have Federalism CD–ROM the specific information that U.S. manufactures expect a significant implications. is proprietary or confidential. saving for exporting their products. Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations Furthermore, this project is a aware of proprietary information filed That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, harmonization project between the FAA with a comment, the agency does not Distribution, or Use and EASA. place it in the docket. It is held in a EASA has worked a parallel The FAA analyzed this proposed rule separate file to which the public does rulemaking program for CS–23. The under Executive Order 13211, Actions not have access, and the FAA places a FAA provided comments to the EASA Concerning Regulations that note in the docket that it has received A–NPA The EASA and other authorities Significantly Affect Energy Supply, it. If the FAA receives a request to will have an opportunity to comment on Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The examine or copy this information, it this NPRM when it is published. These agency has determined that it would not treats it as any other request under the efforts will allow the FAA, EASA and be a ‘‘significant energy’’ action under Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. other authorities to work toward a the executive order and would not be 552). The FAA processes such a request harmonized set of regulations when the likely to have a significant adverse effect under Department of Transportation final rules are published. on the supply, distribution, or use of procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. energy. G. Environmental Analysis B. Availability of Rulemaking IX. Additional Information FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA Documents actions that are categorically excluded A. Comments Invited An electronic copy of rulemaking from preparation of an environmental The FAA invites interested persons to documents may be obtained from the assessment or environmental impact participate in this rulemaking by Internet by— statement under the National submitting written comments, data, or 1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Environmental Policy Act in the views. The agency also invites Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); absence of extraordinary circumstances. comments relating to the economic, 2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and The FAA has determined this environmental, energy, or federalism Policies Web page at http:// rulemaking action qualifies for the impacts that might result from adopting www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or categorical exclusion identified in the proposals in this document. The 3. Accessing the Government Printing paragraph 5–6.6 and involves no most helpful comments reference a Office’s Web page at http:// extraordinary circumstances. specific portion of the proposal, explain www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. H. Regulations Affecting Intrastate the reason for any recommended Copies may also be obtained by Aviation in Alaska change, and include supporting data. To sending a request to the Federal ensure the docket does not contain Aviation Administration, Office of Section 1205 of the FAA duplicate comments, commenters Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. should send only one copy of written Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or 3213) requires the Administrator, when comments, or if comments are filed by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters modifying 14 CFR regulations in a electronically, commenters should must identify the docket or notice manner affecting intrastate aviation in submit only one time. number of this rulemaking. Alaska, to consider the extent to which The FAA will file in the docket all All documents the FAA considered in Alaska is not served by transportation comments it receives, as well as a report developing this proposed rule, modes other than aviation, and to summarizing each substantive public including economic analyses and establish appropriate regulatory contact with FAA personnel concerning technical reports, may be accessed from distinctions. Because this proposed rule this proposed rulemaking. Before acting the Internet through the Federal would apply to GA airworthiness on this proposal, the FAA will consider eRulemaking Portal referenced in item standards, it could, if adopted, affect all comments it receives on or before the (1) above. intrastate aviation in Alaska. The FAA, closing date for comments. The FAA Appendix 1 to the Preamble—Current therefore, specifically requests will consider comments filed after the to Proposed Regulations Cross- comments on whether there is comment period has closed if it is Reference Table justification for applying the proposed possible to do so without incurring rule differently in intrastate operations expense or delay. The agency may The below cross-reference table is in Alaska. change this proposal in light of the intended to permit easy access from VIII. Executive Order Determination comments it receives. proposed to current regulations. The Proprietary or Confidential Business preamble is organized topical, section- A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Information: Commenters should not by-section, proposed to current The FAA has analyzed this proposed file proprietary or confidential business regulations. This table should assist the rule under the principles and criteria of information in the docket. Such reader in following the section Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The information must be sent or delivered discussions contained in the preamble.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13505

Current section Title Proposed section Proposed title

Subpart A—General

23.1 ...... Applicability ...... 23.1 ...... Applicability. 23.2 ...... Special retroactive requirements ...... —Deleted— 23.3 ...... Airplane categories ...... 23.5 ...... Certification of normal category airplanes...... 23.10 ...... Accepted means of compliance.

Subpart B—Flight

23.21 ...... Proof of compliance ...... 23.100 ...... Weight and center of gravity. 23.23 ...... Load distribution limits ...... 23.100 ...... Weight and center of gravity. 23.25 ...... Weight limits ...... 23.100 ...... Weight and center of gravity. 23.29 ...... Empty weight and corresponding center of 23.100 ...... Weight and center of gravity. gravity. 23.31 ...... Removable ballast ...... 23.100 ...... Weight and center of gravity. 23.33 ...... Propeller speed and pitch limits ...... 23.900 ...... Powerplant installation. 23.45 ...... Performance—General ...... 23.105 ...... Performance. 23.49 ...... Stalling speed ...... 23.110 ...... Stall Speed. 23.51 ...... Takeoff speeds ...... 23.115 ...... Takeoff performance. 23.53 ...... Takeoff performance ...... 23.115 ...... Takeoff performance. 23.55 ...... Accelerate-stop distance ...... 23.115 ...... Takeoff performance. 23.57 ...... Takeoff path ...... 23.115 ...... Takeoff performance. 23.59 ...... Takeoff distance and takeoff run ...... 23.115 ...... Takeoff performance. 23.61 ...... Takeoff flight path ...... 23.115 ...... Takeoff performance. 23.63 ...... Climb: General ...... 23.120 ...... Climb. 23.65 ...... Climb: All engines operating ...... 23.120 ...... Climb. 23.66 ...... Takeoff climb: one engine inoperative ...... 23.125 ...... Climb. 23.67 ...... Climb: One engine inoperative ...... 23.120 ...... Climb. 23.69 ...... Enroute climb/descent ...... 23.125 ...... Climb. 23.71 ...... Glide: single engine airplanes ...... 23.125 ...... Climb. 23.73 ...... Reference landing approach speed ...... 23.130 ...... Landing. 23.75 ...... Landing distance ...... 23.130 ...... Landing. 23.77 ...... Balked landing ...... 23.120 ...... Climb. 23.141 ...... Flight Characteristics—General ...... 23.200 ...... Controllability. 23.143 ...... Controllability and Maneuverability—Gen- 23.200 ...... Controllability. eral. 23.145 ...... Longitudinal control ...... 23.200 ...... Controllability. 23.147 ...... Directional and lateral control ...... 23.200 ...... Controllability. 23.149 ...... Minimum control speed ...... 23.200 ...... Controllability. 23.151 ...... Acrobatic maneuvers ...... 23.200 ...... Controllability. 23.153 ...... Control during landings ...... 23.200 ...... Controllability. 23.155 ...... Elevator control force in maneuvers ...... 23.200 ...... Controllability. 23.157 ...... Rate of roll ...... 23.200 ...... Controllability. 23.161 ...... Trim ...... 23.205 ...... Trim. 23.171 ...... Stability—General ...... 23.210 ...... Stability. 23.173 ...... Static longitudinal stability ...... 23.210 ...... Stability. 23.175 ...... Demonstration of static longitudinal stability 23.210 ...... Stability. 23.177 ...... Static directional and lateral stability ...... 23.210 ...... Stability. 23.179 ...... Instrument stick force measurements ...... 23.210 ...... Stability. 23.181 ...... Dynamic stability ...... 23.210 ...... Stability. 23.201 ...... Wings level stall ...... 23.215 ...... Stall characteristics, stall warning, and spins. 23.203 ...... Turning Flight and accelerated turning 23.215 ...... Stall characteristics, stall warning, and stalls. spins. 23.207 ...... Stall Warning ...... 23.215 ...... Stall characteristics, stall warning, and spins. 23.221 ...... Spinning ...... 23.215 ...... Stall characteristics, stall warning, and spins. 23.231 ...... Longitudinal stability and control ...... 23.220 ...... Ground handling. 23.233 ...... Directional stability and control ...... 23.220 ...... Ground handling. 23.235 ...... Operation on unpaved surfaces ...... 23.220 ...... Ground handling. 23.237 ...... Operation on water ...... 23.220 ...... Ground handling. 23.239 ...... Spray characteristics ...... 23.220 ...... Ground handling. 23.251 ...... Vibration and buffeting ...... 23.225 ...... Vibration, buffeting, and high-speed char- acteristics. 23.253 ...... High speed characteristics ...... 23.225 ...... Vibration, buffeting, and high-speed char- acteristics. 23.255 ...... Out of trim characteristics ...... 23.225 ...... Vibration, buffeting, and high-speed char- acteristics. 23.230 ...... Performance and flight characteristics re- quirements for flight in icing conditions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13506 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Current section Title Proposed section Proposed title

Subpart C—Structure

23.301 ...... Loads ...... 23.310, 23.330 ...... Structural design loads, Limit and ultimate loads. (a) ...... 23.330 ...... Limit and ultimate loads. (b) ...... 23.310 ...... Structural design loads. (c) ...... 23.310 ...... Structural design loads. (d) ...... 23.310 ...... Structural design loads. 23.302 ...... Canard or tandem wing configurations ...... 23.310 ...... Structural design loads. 23.303 ...... Factors of safety ...... 23.330 ...... Limit and ultimate loads. 23.305 ...... Strength and deformation ...... 23.400 ...... Structural strength. 23.305 ...... Interaction of systems and structures. 23.307 ...... Proof of structure ...... 23.400 ...... Structure strength. 23.321 ...... Flight Loads—General ...... 23.310 ...... Structural design loads. (a) ...... 23.310 ...... Structural design loads. (b) ...... 23.300 ...... Structural design envelope. (c) ...... 23.300 ...... Structural design envelope. 23.331 ...... Symmetrical flight conditions ...... 23.310 ...... Structural design loads. 23.333 ...... Flight envelope ...... 23.300 ...... Structural design envelope. (a) ...... 23.300 ...... Structural design envelope. (b) ...... 23.300 ...... Structural design envelope. (c) ...... 23.315 ...... Flight load conditions. (d) ...... 23.300 ...... Structural design envelope. 23.335 ...... Design airspeeds ...... 23.300 ...... Structural design envelope. 23.337 ...... Limit maneuvering load factors ...... 23.300 ...... Flight load conditions. (a) ...... 23.300 ...... Structural design envelope. (b) ...... 23.300 ...... Structural design envelope. (c) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.341 ...... Gust load factors ...... 23.315 ...... Flight load conditions. 23.343 ...... Design fuel loads ...... 23.300 ...... Structural design envelope. (a) ...... 23.300 ...... Structural design envelope. (b) ...... 23.300 ...... Structural design envelope. (c) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.345 ...... High lift devices ...... 23.325 ...... Component loading conditions. 23.347 ...... Unsymmetrical flight loads ...... 23.315 ...... Flight load conditions. 23.349 ...... Rolling conditions ...... 23.315 ...... Flight load conditions. 23.351 ...... Yawing conditions ...... 23.315 ...... Flight load conditions. 23.361 ...... Engine torque ...... 23.325 ...... Component loading conditions. 23.363 ...... Side load on engine mount ...... 23.325 ...... Component loading conditions. 23.365 ...... Pressurized cabin loads ...... 23.325 ...... Flight load conditions. (e) ...... 23.405 ...... Structural durability. 23.367 ...... Unsymmetrical loads due to engine failure 23.315 ...... Flight load conditions. 23.369 ...... Rear lift truss ...... Means of Compliance. 23.371 ...... Gyroscopic and aerodynamic loads ...... 23.325 ...... Component loading conditions. 23.373 ...... Speed control devices ...... 23.325 ...... Component loading conditions. 23.391 ...... Control surface loads ...... 23.325 ...... Component loading conditions. 23.393 ...... Loads parallel to hinge line ...... 23.325 ...... Component loading conditions. 23.395 ...... Control system loads ...... 23.325 ...... Component loading conditions. 23.397 ...... Limit control forces and torques ...... 23.325 ...... Component loading conditions. 23.399 ...... Dual control system ...... 23.325 ...... Component loading conditions. 23.405 ...... Secondary control system ...... 23.325 ...... Component loading conditions. 23.407 ...... effects ...... 23.325 ...... Component loading conditions. 23.409 ...... Tabs ...... 23.325 ...... Component loading conditions. 23.415 ...... Ground gust conditions ...... 23.325 ...... Component loading conditions. 23.421 ...... Balancing loads ...... Means of Compliance. 23.423 ...... Maneuvering loads ...... 23.315 ...... Flight load conditions. 23.425 ...... Gust loads ...... 23.315 ...... Flight load conditions. 23.427 ...... Unsymmetrical loads due to engine failure 23.315 ...... Flight load conditions. 23.441 ...... Maneuvering loads ...... 23.315 ...... Flight load conditions. 23.443 ...... Gust loads ...... 23.315 ...... Flight load conditions. 23.445 ...... Outboard fins or winglets ...... Means of Compliance. 23.455 ...... Ailerons ...... 23.325 ...... Component loading conditions. 23.459 ...... Special devices ...... 23.325 ...... Component loading conditions. 23.471 ...... Ground Loads—General ...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.473 ...... Ground load conditions and assumptions ... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.477 ...... Landing gear arrangement ...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.479 ...... Level landing conditions ...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.481 ...... Tail down landing conditions ...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.483 ...... One-wheel landing conditions ...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.485 ...... Side load conditions ...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.493 ...... Braked roll conditions ...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.497 ...... Supplementary conditions for tail wheels ... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.499 ...... Supplementary conditions for nose wheels 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.505 ...... Supplementary conditions for skiplanes ..... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13507

Current section Title Proposed section Proposed title

23.507 ...... Jacking loads ...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.509 ...... Towing loads ...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.511 ...... Ground load: unsymmetrical loads on mul- 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. tiple-wheel units. 23.521 ...... Water load conditions ...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.523 ...... Design weights and center of gravity posi- 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. tions. 23.525 ...... Application of loads ...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.527 ...... Hull and main float load factors ...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.529 ...... Hull and main float landing conditions ...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.531 ...... Hull and main float takeoff conditions ...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.533 ...... Hull and main float bottom pressures ...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.535 ...... Auxiliary float loads ...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.537 ...... Seawing loads ...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.561 ...... Emergency Landing Conditions—General .. 23.600 ...... Emergency conditions. 23.562 ...... Emergency landing dynamic conditions ...... 23.600 ...... Emergency conditions. 23.571 ...... Metallic pressurized cabin structures ...... 23.405 ...... Structural durability. 23.572 ...... Metallic wing, empennage, and associated 23.405 ...... Structural durability. structures. 23.573 ...... Damage tolerance and fatigue evaluation 23.405 ...... Structural durability. of structure. 23.574 ...... Metallic damage tolerance and fatigue 23.405 ...... Structural durability. evaluation of commuter category air- planes. 23.575 ...... Inspections and other procedures ...... 23.405 ...... Structural durability.

Subpart D—Design and Construction

23.601 ...... General ...... 23.500 ...... Structural design. 23.603 ...... Materials and workmanship ...... 23.500 ...... Structural design. 23.605 ...... Fabrication methods ...... 23.510 ...... Materials and processes. 23.607 ...... Fasteners ...... 23.505 ...... Protection of structure. 23.609 ...... Protection of Structure ...... 23.505 ...... Protection of structure. 23.611 ...... Accessibility ...... 23.505 ...... Protection of structure. 23.613 ...... Material strength properties and design val- 23.510 ...... Materials and processes. ues. 23.619 ...... Special factors ...... 23.515 ...... Special factors of safety. 23.621 ...... Casting factors ...... 23.515 ...... Special factors of safety. 23.623 ...... Bearing factors ...... 23.515 ...... Special factors of safety. 23.625 ...... Fitting factors ...... 23.515 ...... Special factors of safety. 23.627 ...... Fatigue strength ...... 23.405 ...... Structural durability. 23.629 ...... Flutter ...... 23.410 ...... Aeroelasticity. 23.641 ...... Proof of strength ...... Means of Compliance. 23.651 ...... Proof of strength ...... Means of Compliance. 23.655 ...... Installation ...... Means of Compliance. 23.657 ...... Hinges ...... 23.515 ...... Special factors of safety. 23.659 ...... Mass balance ...... 23.315 ...... Flight load conditions. 23.671 ...... Control Surfaces—General. (a) ...... 23.500 ...... Structural design. (b) ...... 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. 23.672 ...... Stability augmentation and automatic and 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. power-operated systems. 23.673 ...... Primary flight controls ...... 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. 23.675 ...... Stops ...... 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. 23.677 ...... Trim systems. (a) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (b) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (c) ...... 23.410 ...... Aeroelasticity. (d) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. 23.679 ...... Control system locks ...... 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. 23.681(a) ...... Limit load static tests ...... 23.325(b) ...... Component loading conditions. 23.681(b) ...... Limit load static tests ...... 23.515 ...... Special factors of safety. 23.683 ...... Operation tests ...... 23.500(d) ...... Structural design. 23.685(a), (b), (c) Control system details ...... 23.500(d) ...... Structural design. 23.685(d) ...... Control system details ...... 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. 23.687 ...... Spring devices ...... 23.410 and 23.500 ...... Aeroelasticity and Structural design. 23.689 ...... Cable systems. (a) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (b) ...... 23.325(b), 23.500(d) ...... Component loading conditions, Structural design. (c) ...... 23.325(b), 23.500(d) ...... Component loading conditions, Structural design. (d) ...... 23.325(b), 23.500(d) ...... Component loading conditions, Structural design.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13508 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Current section Title Proposed section Proposed title

(e) ...... 23.325(b), 23.500(d) ...... Component loading conditions, Structural design. (f) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. 23.691 ...... Artificial stall barrier system. (a) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (b) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (c) ...... 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. (d) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (e) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (f) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (g) ...... 23.1315 ...... Equipment, systems and Installations. 23.693 ...... Joints ...... 23.515 ...... Special factors of safety. 23.697 ...... Wing flap controls. (a) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (b) and (c) ...... 23.200 ...... Controllability. 23.699 ...... Wing flap position indicator ...... 23.1500 ...... Flightcrew interface. 23.701 ...... Flap interconnection ...... Means of Compliance. 23.703 ...... Takeoff warning system. (a) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (b) ...... 23.700 ...... Flight control systems. (c) ...... Definition. 23.721 ...... General ...... 23.910 ...... Powerplant installation hazard assessment. 23.723 ...... Shock absorption tests ...... Means of Compliance. 23.725 ...... Limit drop tests ...... Means of Compliance. 23.726 ...... Ground load dynamic tests ...... Means of Compliance. 23.727 ...... Reserve energy absorption drop tests ...... Means of Compliance. 23.729 ...... Landing gear extension and retraction sys- tem. (a) ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. (b) ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. (c) ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. (d) ...... Means of Compliance. (e) ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. (f) ...... 23.1315 ...... Equipment, systems and installation. (g) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.731 ...... Wheels ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. 23.733 ...... Tires. (a) ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. (b) ...... Means of Compliance. (c) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.735 ...... Brakes ...... 23.705. (a) ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. (1) ...... Means of Compliance. (2) ...... Means of Compliance. (b) ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. (c) ...... Means of Compliance. (d) ...... 1315 ...... Equipment, systems and installation. (e) ...... 705 ...... Landing gear systems. (1) ...... Means of Compliance. (2) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.737 ...... Skis ...... 23.705 ...... Landing gear systems. 23.745 ...... Nose/Tail wheel steering ...... 23.1500 ...... Flightcrew interface. 23.751 ...... Main float buoyancy. (a) ...... 710 ...... Buoyancy for seaplanes and amphibians. (b) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.753 ...... Main float design ...... 23.320 ...... Ground and water load conditions. 23.755 ...... Hulls ...... 23.710 ...... Buoyancy for seaplanes and amphibians. 23.757 ...... Auxiliary floats ...... 23.710 ...... Buoyancy for seaplanes and amphibians. 23.771 ...... Pilot compartment. (a) ...... 23.1500 ...... Flightcrew interface. (b) ...... 755 ...... Occupant physical environment. (c) ...... 755 ...... Occupant physical environment. 23.773 ...... Pilot compartment view. (a) ...... 1500 ...... Flightcrew interface. (b) ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. 23.775 ...... Windshields and windows. (a), (b), (c), (d) ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. (e) ...... Means of Compliance. (f) ...... 23.1405 ...... Flight in icing conditions. (g) ...... Means of Compliance. (h) ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. 23.777 ...... Cockpit controls ...... 23.1500 ...... Flightcrew interface. 23.779 ...... Motion and effect of cockpit controls ...... 23.1500 ...... Flightcrew interface. 23.781 ...... Cockpit control knob shape ...... 23.1500 ...... Flightcrew interface.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13509

Current section Title Proposed section Proposed title

23.783 ...... Doors. (a), (b), (c), (d) ...... 23.750 ...... Means of egress and emergency exits. (e), (f), (g) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.785 ...... Seats, berths, litters, safety belts, and 23.515 and 23.600 ...... Special factors of safety, Emergency land- shoulder harnesses. ing conditions. 23.787 ...... Baggage and cargo compartments ...... 23.600(e) ...... Emergency landing conditions. 23.791 ...... Passenger information signs ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. 23.803 ...... Emergency evacuation. (a) ...... 23.750 ...... Means of egress and emergency exits. (b) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.805 ...... Flightcrew emergency exits ...... 23.750 ...... Means of egress and emergency exits. 23.807 ...... Emergency exits. (a)(3), (b)(1), (c), ...... Means of Compliance. (d)(1), (d)(4). Balance of 23.807 ...... 23.750 ...... Means of egress and emergency exits. 23.811 ...... Emergency exit marking ...... 23.750 ...... Means of egress and emergency exits. 23.812 ...... Emergency lighting ...... 23.750 ...... Means of egress and emergency exits. 23.813 ...... Emergency exit access. (a) ...... 23.750 ...... Means of egress and emergency exits. (b) ...... Means of Compliance. CS–VLA 853 ...... 23.750 ...... Means of egress and emergency exits. 23.815 ...... Width of aisle ...... 23.750 ...... Means of egress and emergency exits. 23.831 ...... Ventilation ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. 23.841(a), (b)(6), Pressurized cabins ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. (c) ,(d). (b)(1) through (5) ...... Means of Compliance. and (7). 23.843 ...... Pressurization tests ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. 23.851 ...... Fire extinguishers. (a) and (b) ...... 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. (c) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.853 ...... Passenger and crew compartment interiors. (a) ...... 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. (b)(c) and ...... Means of Compliance. (d)(1)(2). (d)(3)(i), (d)(3)(iii), ...... 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire (d)(3)(iv). zones. (e) ...... 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. (f) ...... 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. 23.855 ...... Cargo and baggage compartment fire pro- 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire tection. zones. 23.856 ...... Thermal/acoustic insulation materials ...... 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. 23.859 ...... Combustion heater fire protection. (a) ...... 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. (b) thru (i) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.863 ...... Flammable fluid fire protection. (a) and (d) ...... 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. (b) and (c) ...... Means of Compliance ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. 23.865 ...... Fire protection of flight controls, engine 23.805 ...... Fire protection in designated fire zones. mounts, and other flight structure. 23.867 ...... Electrical bonding and protection against lightning and static electricity. (a) and (c) ...... 23.810 ...... Lightning protection of structure. (b) ...... 23.1320 ...... Electrical and electronic system lightning protection. 23.871 ...... Leveling means ...... Means of Compliance.

Subpart E—Powerplant

23.901 ...... Installation ...... 23.900(c) ...... Powerplant Installation. (a), (b), (f) ...... 23.900(b). (c) ...... 23.900(b). (d) and (e) ...... 23.900(b) ...... Note: In addition to 900(b) these rules are covered under Part 33.63, 76, 77 and 78. 23.903 ...... Engines.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13510 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Current section Title Proposed section Proposed title

(a) ...... 23.900(c). (a)(2) ...... 23.940(b) ...... Powerplant ice protection. (b)(c) ...... 23.910 and 23.920 ...... Powerplant installation hazard assessment; Reversing systems. (b)(1) ...... 23.405(d) ...... Structural durability. (d) thru (g) ...... 23.925 ...... Powerplant operational characteristics. 23.904 ...... Automatic power reserve system ...... 23.915 ...... Automatic power control systems. 23.905 ...... Propellers. (a) ...... 23.910(a) ...... Powerplant installation hazard assessment. (b), (d), (g) ...... Note: Intent covered under part 35. (c) ...... 23.905 ...... Propeller installation. (e) ...... 23.940 ...... Powerplant ice protection. (f) ...... 23.905 ...... Propeller installation. (h) ...... 23.910 ...... Powerplant installation hazard assessment. 23.907 ...... Propeller vibration and fatigue ...... Note: Intent covered under part 35. 23.909 ...... Turbocharger systems. (a) and (c) ...... 23.900 ...... Powerplant installation. (b), (d), (e) ...... 23.910 ...... Powerplant installation hazard assessment. 23.925 ...... Propeller clearance ...... 23.905(c) ...... Installation. 23.929 ...... Engine installation ice protection ...... 23.940 ...... Powerplant ice protection. 23.933 ...... Reversing systems ...... 23.920. (a) ...... 23.920 ...... Reversing systems. (b) ...... 23.920 ...... Reversing systems. 23.934 ...... Turbojet and turbofan engine thrust re- 23.920 ...... Note: In addition to § 23.920, this rule is verser systems tests. covered under § 33.97. 23.937 ...... Turbopropeller-drag limiting systems ...... 23.920. (a) ...... 23.920 ...... Reversing systems. (b) ...... 23.920 ...... Reversing systems. 23.939 ...... Powerplant operating characteristics ...... 23.925 ...... In addition to 925 this rule is covered under Part 33, subpart D and F—Block Tests. 23.943 ...... Negative acceleration ...... 23.925 ...... Operational characteristics. 23.951 ...... Fuel System—General ...... 23.930(a)(3). (a) and (b) ...... 23.930(a)(3) ...... Fuel systems. (c) ...... 23.930(a)(3). (d) ...... 23.930(a)(3) ...... Intent covered under Part 34. 23.953 ...... Fuel system independence ...... 23.930 ...... Fuel systems. 23.954 ...... Fuel system lightning protection ...... 23.930 ...... Fuel systems. 23.955 ...... Fuel flow ...... 23.930 ...... Fuel systems. 23.957 ...... Flow between interconnected tanks ...... 23.930(a)(7) ...... Fuel systems. (a) ...... 23.930(a)(7). (b) ...... 23.930(a)(7). 23.959 ...... Unusable fuel supply ...... 23.930(c) ...... Hazard assessment. 23.961 ...... Fuel system hot weather operation ...... 23.930(a)(3) ...... Fuel systems. 23.963 ...... Fuel tank: general. (a), (d), (e) ...... 23.930(b)(4) ...... Fuel systems. (b) and (c) ...... 23.930(b)(6). 23.965 ...... Fuel tank tests ...... 23.930(b)(1). 23.967 ...... Fuel tank installation ...... 23.930(b)(6). 23.969 ...... Fuel tank expansion space ...... 23.930(b)(6). 23.971 ...... Fuel tank sump ...... 23.930(b)(6). 23.973 ...... Fuel tank filler connection ...... 23.930(b)(6). 23.975 ...... Fuel tank vents and carburetor vapor vents 23.930(b)(6). (a)(1) ...... 23.940 ...... Powerplant ice protection. 23.977 ...... Fuel tank outlet ...... 23.930(b)(6) ...... Fuel systems. 23.979 ...... Pressure fueling systems ...... 23.930(d). (a) and (b) ...... 23.930(d) ...... Fuel systems. (c) and (d) ...... 23.930(d) ...... Hazard assessment. 23.991 ...... Fuel pumps ...... 23.930(a)(8). (a), (b), (c) ...... 23.930(a)(8) ...... Fuel systems. (d) ...... 23.910 ...... Powerplant installation hazard assessment. 23.993 ...... Fuel system lines and fittings ...... 23.930. 23.994 ...... Fuel system components ...... 23.930(a)(7) ...... Hazard assessment. 23.995 ...... Fuel valves and controls ...... 23.930(d). (a) ...... 23.930(d) ...... Powerplant installation. (b) thru (g) ...... 23.930(d). 23.997 ...... Fuel strainer or filter ...... 23.930(a). (a) thru (d) ...... 23.930(a)(6) ...... Fuel systems. (e) ...... 23.950 ...... Powerplant ice protection. 23.999 ...... Fuel system drains ...... 23.930(a)(4) ...... Fuel systems. 23.1001 ...... Fuel jettisoning system ...... 23.930(b)(5). (a) ...... 23.930(b)(5) ...... Fuel systems. (b) thru (g) ...... 23.930(b)(5). (h) ...... 23.910 ...... Powerplant installation hazard assessment. 23.1011 ...... General ...... 23.935 ...... Intent covered under Part 33.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13511

Current section Title Proposed section Proposed title

23.1013 ...... Oil tanks ...... 23.935(b)(1) ...... Intent covered under Part 33. 23.1015 ...... Oil tank tests ...... 23.935(b)(1) ...... Intent covered under Part 33. 23.1017 ...... Oil lines and fittings ...... 23.935(b)(1) ...... Intent covered under Part 33. 23.1019 ...... Oil strainer or filter ...... 23.935(b)(2) ...... Intent covered under Part 33. 23.1021 ...... Oil system drains ...... 23.935(b)(2) ...... Intent covered under Part 33. 23.1023 ...... Oil radiators ...... 23.935(b)(1) ...... Intent covered under Part 33. 23.1027 ...... Propeller feathering system ...... 23.935(b)(2) ...... Hazard assessment. 23.1041 ...... Cooling—General ...... 23.940(a) ...... Intent covered under Part 33. 23.1043 ...... Cooling tests ...... 23.940(a) ...... Intent covered under Part 33. 23.1045 ...... Cooling test procedures for turbine engine 23.940(a) ...... Intent covered under Part 33. powered airplanes. 23.1047 ...... Cooling test procedures for reciprocating 23.940(a) ...... Intent covered under Part 33. engine powered airplanes. 23.1061 ...... Installation ...... 23.940(b) ...... Intent covered under Part 33. 23.1063 ...... Coolant tank tests ...... 23.940(b) ...... Intent covered under Part 33. 23.1091 ...... Air induction system ...... 23.945(a) ...... Intent covered under Part 33. 23.1093 ...... Induction system icing protection ...... 23.940 ...... Powerplant ice protection. 23.1095 ...... Carburetor deicing fluid flow rate ...... 23.940 ...... Powerplant ice protection. 23.1097 ...... Carburetor deicing fluid system capacity .... 23.940 ...... Powerplant ice protection. 23.1099 ...... Carburetor deicing fluid system detail de- 23.940 ...... Powerplant ice protection. sign. 23.1101 ...... Induction air preheater design ...... 23.935. (a) ...... 23.935 ...... Powerplant induction and exhaust systems. (b) and (c) ...... 23.935. 23.1103 ...... Induction system ducts ...... 23.935 ...... Powerplant induction and exhaust systems. 23.1105 ...... Induction system screens ...... 23.935. 23.1107 ...... Induction system filters ...... 23.935 ...... Powerplant induction and exhaust systems. 23.1109 ...... Turbocharger bleed air system ...... 23.910. 23.1111 ...... Turbine engine bleed air system ...... 23.910. (a) and (c) ...... 23.910 ...... Hazard assessment. (b) ...... 23.910. 23.1121 ...... Exhaust System—General ...... 23.935. (a) thru (g) ...... 23.935 ...... Powerplant induction and exhaust systems. (h) ...... 23.910 ...... Hazard assessment. 23.1123 ...... Exhaust system ...... 23.910 ...... Hazard assessment. 23.1125 ...... Exhaust heat exchangers ...... 23.910. (a) ...... 23.910 ...... Hazard assessment. (b) ...... 23.910. 23.1141 ...... Powerplant controls: general (a)(c)(g) ...... 23.1505(b)...... (b)(d)(e) and (f) ...... 23.910 ...... Powerplant installation hazard assessment. 23.1142 ...... Auxiliary power unit controls ...... 23.1500(b). 23.1143 ...... Engine controls ...... 23.1500(b). 23.1145 ...... Ignition switches ...... 23.1500(b). 23.1147 ...... Mixture controls ...... 23.1500(b). 23.1149 ...... Propeller speed and pitch controls ...... 23.1500(b). 23.1153 ...... Propeller feathering controls ...... 23.1500(b). 23.1155 ...... Turbine engine reverse thrust and propeller 23.910 and 23.1500(b) ...... Hazard assessment. pitch settings below the flight regime. 23.1157 ...... Carburetor air temperature controls ...... 23.1500(b). 23.1163 ...... Powerplant accessories ...... 23.910(a) ...... Powerplant installation hazard assessment. (a), (c), (e) ...... 23.910(a). (b) and (d) ...... 23.910(a). 23.1165 ...... Engine ignition systems ...... Means of Compliance. 23.1181 ...... Designated fire zones: regions included ..... 23.1000(a) ...... Powerplant fire protection. 23.1182 ...... Nacelle areas behind firewalls ...... 23.1000(b). 23.1183 ...... Lines, fittings, and components ...... 23.1000(b). 23.1189 ...... Shutoff means ...... 23.1000(c). 23.1191 ...... Firewalls ...... 23.1000(d). (a) thru (e), (g), ...... 23.1000(d). (h). (f) ...... 23.910 ...... Powerplant installation hazard assessment. 23.1192 ...... Engine accessory compartment diaphragm 23.1000(d). 23.1193 ...... Cowling and nacelle ...... 23.1000(d). (a) thru (e) ...... 23.1000(d). (f) and (g) ...... 23.1000(d) ...... Hazard assessment. 23.1195 ...... Fire extinguishing systems ...... 23.1000(e). 23.1197 ...... Fire extinguishing agents ...... 23.1000(e). 23.1199 ...... Extinguishing agent containers ...... 23.1000(e). 23.1201 ...... Fire extinguishing system materials ...... 23.1000(e). (a) ...... 23.1000(e) ...... Hazard assessment. (b) ...... 23.1000(e). 23.1203 ...... Fire detector system ...... 23.1000(f). (a), (d), (e) ...... 23.1000(f). (b) and (c) ...... 23.1000(f) ...... Hazard assessment.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13512 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Current section Title Proposed section Proposed title

Subpart F—Equipment

23.1301 ...... Function and installation. (a) ...... 23.1300(a) and 23.1305(a) ...... Airplane level systems requirements; Func- tion and installation. (b) ...... 23.1305(a)(3) ...... Function and installation. (c) ...... 23.1305(a)(2) ...... Function and installation. 23.1303 ...... Flight and navigation instruments ...... 23.1300, 23.1310, 23.1305(b) Airplane level systems requirements; Flight, and (c), and 23.1330(c). navigation, and powerplant instruments; Function and installation; System power generation, storage, and distribution. 23.1305 ...... Powerplant instruments...... 23.1300, 23.1310 and Airplane level systems requirements; Flight, 23.1305(c). navigation, and powerplant instruments; Function and installation. 23.1306 ...... Electrical and electronic system lightning 23.1320 ...... Electrical and electronic system lightning protection. protection. 23.1307 ...... Miscellaneous equipment ...... 23.1300 and 23.1310 ...... Airplane level systems requirements; Flight, navigation, and powerplant instruments. 23.1308 ...... High-Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) pro- 23.1325 ...... High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) pro- tection. tection. 23.1309 ...... Equipment, systems, and installations ...... 23.1315 ...... Equipment, systems, and installations. (a)(1) ...... 23.1300(a) ...... Airplane level systems requirements. (a)(2) ...... 23.1300(b) ...... Airplane level systems requirements. (b) ...... —Deleted—. (c) ...... 23.1315(b) ...... Equipment, systems, and installations. (b) ...... 23.1305(c) ...... Function and installation. 23.1310 ...... Power source capacity and distribution ...... 23.1330 ...... System power generation, storage, and distribution. 23.1311 ...... Electronic display instrument systems ...... 23.1300 and 23.1310 ...... Airplane level systems requirements; Flight, navigation, and powerplant instruments. 23.1321 ...... Arrangement and visibility ...... 23.1300 and 23.1310 ...... Airplane level systems requirements; Flight, navigation, and powerplant instruments. 23.1322 ...... Warning, caution, and advisory lights ...... 23.1305(b) and (c) ...... Flight, navigation, and powerplant instru- ments. 23.1323 ...... Airspeed indicating system ...... 23.1300, 23.1305, 23.1310, and Airplane level systems requirements; Func- 1315. tion and installation; Flight, navigation, and powerplant instruments; and Equip- ment, systems, and installations. (d) ...... 23.1405 ...... Flight in icing conditions. 23.1325 ...... Static pressure system ...... 23.1300, 23.1310, and 23.1315 Airplane level systems requirements; Flight, navigation, and powerplant instruments; and Equipment, systems, and installa- tions. (b)(3) and (g) ...... 1405 ...... Flight in icing conditions. 23.1326 ...... Pitot heat indication systems ...... 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. 23.1327 ...... Magnetic direction indicator ...... 23.1300, 23.1305 and 23.1310 .. Airplane level systems requirements; Func- tion and installation; Flight, navigation, and powerplant instruments. 23.1329 ...... Automatic pilot system ...... 23.1300, 23.1305 and 23.1315 .. Airplane level systems requirements; Func- tion and installation; Equipment, sys- tems, and installations. (a) ...... 23.1300 and 23.1315 ...... Airplane level systems requirements; Equipment, systems, and installations. (b) ...... 23.700 and 23.1500 ...... Flight control systems; Flightcrew interface. (c) ...... 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. (d) ...... 23.700 and 23.1500 ...... Flight control systems; Flightcrew interface. (e), (f), (g) ...... 23.1300 and 23.1315 ...... Airplane level systems requirements; Equipment, systems, and installations. (h) ...... 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. 23.1331 ...... Instruments using a power source. (a) ...... 23.1305(c) ...... Function and installation. (b) ...... 23.1315(b) and 23.1330(b) ...... Equipment, systems, and installations; Sys- tem power generation, storage, and dis- tribution. (c) ...... 23.1310(b) ...... Flight, navigation, and powerplant instru- ments. 23.1335 ...... Flight director systems ...... 23.1300, 23.1305, 23.1315, and Airplane level systems; Function and instal- 23.1500. lation; Equipment systems and installa- tions; and Flightcrew interface. 23.1337 ...... Powerplant instruments installation. (a) ...... 23.800(g) ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. 23.930 ...... Fuel systems. (b) ...... 23.1305(c) and (d) ...... Function and installation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13513

Current section Title Proposed section Proposed title

23.1310(a) ...... Flight, navigation, and powerplant instru- ments. 23.1315(b) ...... Equipment, systems, and installations. (c) ...... 23.1315(b) ...... Equipment, systems, and installations. (d) ...... 23.1305(c) ...... Function and installation. 23.1310(a) ...... Flight, navigation, and powerplant instru- ments. 23.1351 ...... Electrical Systems—General ...... 23.1300 ...... Airplane level systems requirements. 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. 23.1315 ...... Equipment, systems, and installations. 23.1330 ...... System power generation, storage, and distribution. 23.1353 ...... Storage battery design and installation ...... 23.1300 ...... Airplane level systems requirements. 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. 23.1315 ...... Equipment, systems, and installations. 23.1330 ...... System power generation, storage, and distribution. 23.1357 ...... Circuit protective devices ...... 23.1300 ...... Airplane level systems requirements. 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. 23.1315 ...... Equipment, systems, and installations. 23.1330 ...... System power generation, storage, and distribution. 23.1359 ...... Electrical system fire protection. (a) ...... Means of Compliance. (b) ...... 805 ...... Flammability in designated fire zones. (c) ...... 800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. 23.1361 ...... Master switch arrangement ...... 23.1300 and 23.1305 ...... Airplane level systems requirements; Func- tion and installation. 23.1365 ...... Electrical cables and equipment ...... 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. (b) ...... 23.805 ...... Flammability in designated fire zones. (a), (c) thru (f) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.1367 ...... Switches. (a) and (b) ...... 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. (c) and (d) ...... 23.1500 ...... Flightcrew interface. 23.1381 ...... Instrument lights. (a) and (b) ...... 23.1500 ...... Flightcrew interface. (c) ...... 23.1335 ...... External and cockpit lighting. 23.1383(a), (b), Taxi and landing lights ...... 23.1335 ...... External and cockpit lighting. (c). (d) ...... Taxi and landing lights ...... 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. 23.1385(a), (b), Position light system installation ...... 23.1335 ...... External and cockpit lighting. (c). (d) ...... Position light system installation ...... 23.800 ...... Fire protection outside designated fire zones. 23.1387 ...... Position light system dihedral angles ...... 23.1335 ...... External and cockpit lighting. 23.1389 ...... Position light distribution and intensities ..... 23.1335 ...... External and cockpit lighting. 23.1391 ...... Minimum intensities in the horizontal plane 23.1335 ...... External and cockpit lighting. of position lights. 23.1393 ...... Minimum intensities in any vertical plane of 23.1335 ...... External and cockpit lighting. position lights. 23.1395 ...... Maximum intensities in overlapping beams 23.1335 ...... External and cockpit lighting. of position lights. 23.1397 ...... Color specifications ...... 23.1335 ...... External and cockpit lighting. 23.1399 ...... Riding light ...... 23.1335 ...... External and cockpit lighting. 23.1401 ...... Anticollision light system. (a), (a)(1) ...... 23.1335 ...... External and cockpit lighting. (a)(2) ...... Means of Compliance. (b) thru (f) ...... 23.1335 ...... External and cockpit lighting. 23.1411 ...... Safety Equipment-General. (a), (b)(1) ...... 23.1400 ...... Safety equipment. (b)(2) ...... 23.600 ...... Emergency conditions. 23.1415 ...... Ditching equipment ...... 23.1400 ...... Safety equipment. (a), (c), (d) ...... 23.1400 ...... Safety equipment. (b) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.1416 ...... Pneumatic de-icer boot system ...... 23.1300 ...... Airplane level systems requirements...... 23.1305 ...... Function and installation. 23.1419 ...... Ice protection ...... 23.230 ...... Flight in icing conditions. 23.1405 ...... Performance and flight characteristics re- quirements for flight in icing conditions. 23.1431 ...... Electronic equipment ...... 23.1315 ...... Equipment, systems and installations. 23.1435 ...... Hydraulic systems. (a)(4) and (b) ...... 23.1410 ...... Pressurized system elements.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13514 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Current section Title Proposed section Proposed title

(a), (a)(1) through ...... Means of Compliance. (3), (c). 23.1437 ...... Accessories for multiengine airplanes ...... 23.1410 ...... Pressurized system elements. 23.1438 ...... Pressurization and pneumatic systems. (a), (b) ...... 23.1410 ...... Pressurized system elements. (c) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.1410(e) ...... Pressurized system elements. 23.1441 ...... Oxygen equipment and supply. (a) ...... Means of Compliance. (b) ...... 23.1315 ...... Equipment, systems and installation. (c), (d), (e) ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. 23.1443(a), (b), Minimum mass flow of supplemental oxy- 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. (c). gen. (d) ...... Definition. 23.1445 ...... Oxygen distribution system ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. 23.1447 ...... Equipment standards for oxygen dis- pensing units. (a), (b), (c), (d), (f) ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. (e) ...... Means of Compliance. 23.1449 ...... Means for determining use of oxygen ...... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment. 23.1450 ...... Chemical oxygen generators. (a) ...... Means of Compliance. (b) ...... 23.1315 ...... Equipment, systems and installation. (c) ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1451 ...... Fire protection for oxygen equipment ...... 23.1315 ...... Equipment, systems and installation. 23.1453 ...... Protection of oxygen equipment from rup- 23.1315 ...... Equipment, systems and installation. ture. 23.1457 ...... Cockpit voice recorders ...... 23.1457 ...... No Change. 23.1459 ...... Flight recorders. (a)(1) ...... 23.1459 ...... Flight data recorders. (a)(2) thru (d) ...... 23.1459 ...... No Change. 23.1461 ...... Equipment containing high energy rotors ... 23.755 ...... Occupant physical environment.

Subpart G—Operating Limitations and Information

23.1501 ...... General ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1505 ...... Airspeed limitations ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1507 ...... Operating maneuvering speed ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1511 ...... Flap extended speed ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1513 ...... Minimum control speed ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1519 ...... Weight and center of gravity ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1521 ...... Powerplant limitations ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1522 ...... Auxiliary power unit limitations ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1523 ...... Minimum flight crew ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1524 ...... Maximum passenger seating configuration 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1525 ...... Kinds of operation ...... 23.1300 ...... Airplane level system requirements. 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1527 ...... Maximum operating altitude ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1529 ...... Instructions for continued airworthiness ...... 23.1515 ...... Instructions for continued airworthiness. 23.1541 ...... Marking and Placards—General ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1543 ...... Instrument marking: general ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1545 ...... ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1547 ...... Magnetic direction indicator ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1549 ...... Powerplant and auxiliary power unit instru- 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and ments. placards. 23.1551 ...... Oil quantity indicator ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13515

Current section Title Proposed section Proposed title

23.1553 ...... Fuel quantity indicator ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1555 ...... Control markings ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1557 ...... Miscellaneous marking and placards ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1559 ...... Operating limitations placard ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1561 ...... Safety equipment ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1563 ...... Airspeed placards ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1567 ...... Flight maneuver placard ...... 23.1505 ...... Instrument markings, control markings, and placards. 23.1581 ...... Airplane Flight Manual and Approved Man- 23.1510 ...... Airplane flight manual. ual Material—General. 23.1583 ...... Operating limitations ...... 23.1510 ...... Airplane flight manual. 23.1585 ...... Operating procedures ...... 23.1510 ...... Airplane flight manual. 23.1587 ...... Performance information ...... 23.1510 ...... Airplane flight manual. 23.1589 ...... Loading information ...... 23.1510 ...... Airplane flight manual. Appendix A ...... Simplified Design Load Criteria ...... Means of Compliance. Appendix B ...... [Reserved] ...... —Deleted— Appendix C ...... Basic Landing Conditions ...... Means of Compliance. Appendix D ...... Wheel Spin-Up and Spring-Back Loads ..... Means of Compliance. Appendix E ...... [Reserved] ...... —Deleted— Appendix F ...... Test Procedure ...... Means of Compliance. Appendix G ...... Instructions for Continued Airworthiness .... Appendix A ...... Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. Appendix H ...... Installation of An Automatic Power Reserve Means of Compliance. (APR) System. Appendix I ...... Seaplane Loads ...... Means of Compliance. Appendix J ...... HIRF Environments and Equipment HIRF Means of Compliance. Test Levels.

Appendix 2 to the Preamble— VMC Minimum Control Speed 14 CFR Part 135 Abbreviations and Acronyms VMO/MMO Maximum Operating Limit Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Frequently Used in This Document Speed Reporting and recordkeeping AD Airworthiness Directive VFR Visual Flight Rules requirements. AFM Airplane Flight Manual VSO Stalling speed or the minimum The Proposed Amendment ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee steady flight speed in the landing ASTM ASTM International configuration In consideration of the foregoing, the CAA Civil Aviation Authority Federal Aviation Administration CAR Civil Aviation Regulations List of Subjects proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Cf Confer (to identify a source or a 14 CFR Part 21 Code of Federal Regulations as follows: usage citation for a word or phrase) CPS Certification Process Study Aircraft, Aviation safety, Recording PART 21—CERTIFICATION CS Certification Specification and recordkeeping requirements. PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND CS–VLA Certification Specification— ARTICLES Very Light Aeroplanes 14 CFR Part 23 EASA European Aviation Safety Aircraft, Aviation Safety, Signs and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 21 is Agency symbols. revised to read as follows: ELOS Equivalent Level of Safety 14 CFR Part 35 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), FR Federal Register 106(g), 40105, 40113, 44701–44702, 44704, GA General Aviation Aircraft, Aviation safety. 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303. HIRF High-Intensity Radiated Field IFR Instrument Flight Rules 14 CFR Part 43 ■ 2. In § 21.9, revise paragraphs (a)(5), KCAS Knots Calibrated Airspeeds (a)(6), (b), and (c) introductory text, and LOC Loss of Control Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting add paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows: and recordkeeping requirements. NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § 21.9 Replacement and modification NTSB National Transportation Safety 14 CFR Part 91 articles. Board OMB Office of Management and Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, (a) * * * Budget Airports, Aviation safety, Reporting and (5) Produced by an owner or operator SAE SAE International recordkeeping requirements. for maintaining or altering that owner or operator’s product; SLD Supercooled Large Droplet 14 CFR Part 121 TCDS Type Certificate Data Sheet (6) Fabricated by an appropriately VA Design Maneuvering Speed Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, rated certificate holder with a quality VC Design Cruising Speed Reporting and recordkeeping system, and consumed in the repair or VD Design Dive Speed requirements. alteration of a product or article in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13516 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

accordance with part 43 of this chapter; § 21.50 Instructions for continued compliance with an earlier amendment or airworthiness and manufacturer’s of a regulation for any of the following: (7) Produced in any other manner maintenance manuals having airworthiness limitations sections. * * * * * approved by the FAA. (c) An applicant for a change to an (b) Except as provided in paragraphs * * * * * aircraft (other than a rotorcraft) of 6,000 (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(7) of this section, a (b) The holder of a design approval, pounds or less maximum weight, to a person who produces a replacement or including either a type certificate or non-turbine rotorcraft of 3,000 pounds modification article for sale may not supplemental type certificate for an or less maximum weight, to a simple, to represent that part as suitable for aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller for a level 1 low speed, or to a level 2 low installation on a type-certificated which application was made after speed airplane may show that the product. January 28, 1981, must furnish at least change and areas affected by the change (c) Except as provided in paragraphs one set of complete Instructions for comply with the regulations (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(7) of this section, a Continued Airworthiness to the owner incorporated by reference in the type person may not sell or represent an of each type aircraft, aircraft engine, or certificate. However, if the FAA finds article as suitable for installation on an propeller upon its delivery, or upon that the change is significant in an area, aircraft type-certificated under issuance of the first standard the FAA may designate compliance § 21.25(a)(2) or § 21.27 unless that airworthiness certificate for the affected with an amendment to the regulation article— aircraft, whichever occurs later. The incorporated by reference in the type * * * * * Instructions for Continued certificate that applies to the change and ■ 3. In § 21.17, revise paragraph (a) Airworthiness must be prepared in any regulation that the FAA finds is introductory text to read as follows: accordance with §§ 23.1515, 25.1529, directly related, unless the FAA also 25.1729, 27.1529, 29.1529, 31.82, 33.4, finds that compliance with that § 21.17 Designation of applicable 35.4, or part 26 of this subchapter, or as amendment or regulation would not regulations. specified in the applicable contribute materially to the level of (a) Except as provided in §§ 25.2, airworthiness criteria for special classes safety of the product or would be 27.2, 29.2, and in parts 26, 34, and 36 of aircraft defined in § 21.17(b), as impractical. of this subchapter, an applicant for a applicable. If the holder of a design * * * * * type certificate must show that the approval chooses to designate parts as ■ 8. Revise part 23 to read as follows: aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller commercial, it must include in the concerned meets— Instructions for Continued PART 23—AIRWORTHINESS * * * * * Airworthiness a list of commercial parts STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ■ 4. In § 21.24, revise paragraph (a)(1)(i) submitted in accordance with the AIRPLANES to read as follows: provisions of paragraph (c) of this section. Thereafter, the holder of a Sec. § 21.24 Issuance of type certificate: design approval must make those Subpart A—General primary category aircraft. instructions available to any other (a) * * * person required by this chapter to 23.1 Applicability and definitions. (1) * * * comply with any of the terms of those 23.5 Certification of normal category airplanes. (i) Is unpowered; is an airplane instructions. In addition, changes to the 23.10 Accepted means of compliance. powered by a single, naturally aspirated Instructions for Continued Subpart B—Flight engine with a 61-knot or less Vso stall Airworthiness shall be made available speed as defined in § 23.49 of this to any person required by this chapter Performance chapter, at amendment 23–62, effective to comply with any of those 23.100 Weight and center of gravity. on Jan 31, 2012; or is a rotorcraft with instructions. 23.105 Performance data. a 6-pound per square foot main rotor * * * * * 23.110 Stall speed. disc loading limitation, under sea level ■ 7. In § 21.101 revise paragraphs (b) 23.115 Takeoff performance. standard day conditions; introductory text, and (c) to read as 23.120 Climb requirements. 23.125 Climb information. * * * * * follows: ■ 5. In § 21.35, revise paragraph (b)(2) to 23.130 Landing. read as follows: § 21.101 Designation of applicable Flight Characteristics regulations. 23.200 Controllability. § 21.35 Flight tests. * * * * * 23.205 Trim. * * * * * (b) Except as provided in paragraph 23.210 Stability. (b) * * * (g) of this section, if paragraphs (b)(1), 23.215 Stall characteristics, stall warning, (2) For aircraft to be certificated under (2), or (3) of this section apply, an and spins. this subchapter, except gliders, and applicant may show that the change and 23.220 Ground and water handling characteristics. except for low-speed airplanes, as areas affected by the change comply defined in part 23 of this chapter, of 23.225 Vibration, buffeting, and high-speed with an earlier amendment of a characteristics. 6,000 pounds or less maximum weight regulation required by paragraph (a) of 23.230 Performance and flight that are to be certificated under part 23 this section, and of any other regulation characteristics requirements for flight in of this chapter, to determine whether the FAA finds is directly related. icing conditions. there is reasonable assurance that the However, the earlier amended Subpart C—Structures aircraft, its components, and its regulation may not precede either the equipment are reliable and function corresponding regulation incorporated 23.300 Structural design envelope. properly. 23.305 Interaction of systems and by reference in the type certificate, or structures. * * * * * any regulation in §§ 25.2, 27.2, or § 29.2 ■ 6. In § 21.50, revise paragraph (b) to of this chapter that is related to the Structural Loads read as follows: change. The applicant may show 23.310 Structural design loads.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13517

23.315 Flight load conditions. 23.1510 Airplane flight manual. maneuver incident to normal flying, 23.320 Ground and water load conditions. 23.1515 Instructions for continued including— 23.325 Component loading conditions. airworthiness. (1) Stalls (except whip stalls); and 23.330 Limit and ultimate loads. Appendix A to Part 23—Instructions for (2) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep Structural Performance Continued Airworthiness turns, in which the angle of bank is not 23.400 Structural strength. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, more than 60 degrees. 23.405 Structural durability. 44701–44702, 44704, Pub. L. 113–53, 127 (f) Airplanes certified for aerobatics 23.410 Aeroelasticity. Stat. 584 (49 U.S.C. 44704) note. may be used to perform maneuvers Design without limitations, other than those Subpart A—General limitations necessary to avoid damage 23.500 Structural design. 23.505 Protection of structure. § 23.1 Applicability and definitions. or injury. 23.510 Materials and processes. (a) This part prescribes airworthiness § 23.10 Accepted means of compliance. 23.515 Special factors of safety. standards for the issuance of type (a) An applicant must show the FAA Structural Occupant Protection certificates, and changes to those how it will demonstrate compliance 23.600 Emergency conditions. certificates, for airplanes in the normal with this part using a means of category. Subpart D—Design and Construction compliance, which may include (b) For the purposes of this part, the consensus standards, accepted by the 23.700 Flight control systems. following definitions apply: 23.705 Landing gear systems. Administrator. (1) Continued safe flight and landing (b) A person requesting acceptance of 23.710 Buoyancy for seaplanes and means an airplane is capable of amphibians. a means of compliance must provide the continued controlled flight and landing, means of compliance to the FAA in a Occupant System Design Protection possibly using emergency procedures, form and manner specified by the 23.750 Means of egress and emergency without requiring exceptional pilot skill Administrator. exits. or strength. Upon landing, some 23.755 Occupant physical environment. airplane damage may occur as a result Subpart B—Flight Fire and High Energy Protection of a failure condition. (2) Designated fire zone means a zone Performance 23.800 Fire protection outside designated where catastrophic consequences from fire zones. § 23.100 Weight and center of gravity. 23.805 Fire protection in designated fire fire in that zone must be mitigated by containing the fire in that zone. (a) The applicant must determine zones. weights and centers of gravity that 23.810 Lightning protection of structure. (3) Empty weight means the weight of the airplane with fixed ballast, unusable provide limits for the safe operation of Subpart E—Powerplant fuel, full operating fluids, and other the airplane. 23.900 Powerplant installation. fluids required for normal operation of (b) The applicant must show 23.905 Propeller installation. airplane systems. compliance with each requirement of 23.910 Powerplant installation hazard this subpart at each combination of assessment. § 23.5 Certification of normal category weight and center of gravity within the 23.915 Automatic power control systems. airplanes. airplane’s range of loading conditions 23.920 Reversing systems. 23.925 Powerplant operational (a) Certification in the normal using tolerances acceptable to the characteristics. category applies to airplanes with a Administrator. 23.930 Fuel system. passenger-seating configuration of 19 or (c) The condition of the airplane at 23.935 Powerplant induction and exhaust less and a maximum certificated takeoff the time of determining its empty systems. weight of 19,000 pounds or less. weight and center of gravity must be 23.940 Powerplant ice protection. (b) Airplane certification levels are: well defined and easily repeatable. 23.1000 Powerplant fire protection. (1) Level 1—for airplanes with a § 23.105 Performance data. Subpart F—Equipment maximum seating configuration of 0 to (a) Unless otherwise prescribed, an 23.1300 Airplane level systems 1 passengers. requirements. (2) Level 2—for airplanes with a airplane must meet the performance 23.1305 Function and installation. maximum seating configuration of 2 to requirements of this subpart in— 23.1310 Flight, navigation, and powerplant 6 passengers. (1) Still air and standard atmospheric instruments. (3) Level 3—for airplanes with a conditions at sea level for all airplanes; 23.1315 Equipment, systems, and maximum seating configuration of 7 to and installations. 9 passengers. (2) Ambient atmospheric conditions 23.1320 Electrical and electronic system (4) Level 4—for airplanes with a within the operating envelope for— lightning protection. maximum seating configuration of 10 to (i) Level 1 high-speed and level 2 23.1325 High-intensity Radiated Fields high-speed airplanes; and (HIRF) protection. 19 passengers. 23.1330 System power generation, storage, (c) Airplane performance levels are: (ii) Levels 3 and 4 airplanes. and distribution. (1) Low speed—for airplanes with a (b) Unless otherwise prescribed, the 23.1335 External and cockpit lighting. VC or VMO ≤ 250 Knots Calibrated applicant must develop the performance 23.1400 Safety equipment. Airspeed (KCAS) (and MMO ≤ 0.6). data required by this subpart for the 23.1405 Flight in icing conditions. (2) High speed—for airplanes with a following conditions: 23.1410 Pressurized system elements. VC or VMO > 250 KCAS (or MMO > 0.6). (1) Airport altitudes from sea level to 23.1457 Cockpit voice recorders. (d) Simple—Simple is defined as a 10,000 feet (3,048 meters); and 23.1459 Flight data recorders. level 1 airplane with a VC or VMO ≤ 250 (2) Temperatures from standard to 30° Subpart G—Flightcrew Interface and Other KCAS (and MMO ≤ 0.6), a VSO ≤ 45 Celsius above standard or the maximum Information KCAS and approved only for VFR ambient atmospheric temperature at 23.1500 Flightcrew interface. operations. which compliance with propulsion 23.1505 Instrument markings, control (e) Airplanes not certified for cooling requirements in climb is shown, markings and placards. aerobatics may be used to perform any if lower.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13518 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

(c) The procedures used for percent climb gradient at a pressure (3) With any probable flight control or determining takeoff and landing altitude of 5,000 feet (1,524 meters) in propulsion system failure; and distances must be executable the cruise configuration; (4) During configuration changes. consistently by pilots of average skill in (2) For levels 1 and 2 high-speed (b) The airplane must be able to atmospheric conditions expected to be airplanes, and level 3 low-speed complete a landing without causing encountered in service. airplanes, a 1 percent climb gradient at damage or serious injury, in the landing (d) Performance data determined in 400 feet (122 meters) above the takeoff configuration at a speed of VREF minus accordance with paragraph (b) of this surface with the landing gear retracted 5 knots using the approach gradient section must account for losses due to and flaps in the takeoff configuration; equal to the steepest used in the landing atmospheric conditions, cooling needs, (3) For level 3 high-speed airplanes distance determination. and other demands on power sources. and all level 4 airplanes, a 2 percent (c) For levels 1 and 2 multiengine climb gradient at 400 feet (122 meters) § 23.110 Stall speed. airplanes that cannot climb after a above the takeoff surface with the critical loss of thrust, V must not The applicant must determine the MC landing gear retracted and flaps in the exceed V or V for all practical airplane stall speed or the minimum S1 S0 approach configuration; weights and configurations within the steady flight speed for each flight (4) At sea level for level 1 and level operating envelope of the airplane. configuration used in normal 2 low-speed airplanes; and (d) If the applicant requests operations, including takeoff, climb, (5) At the landing surface for all other certification of an airplane for cruise, descent, approach, and landing. airplanes. Each determination must account for (c) For a balked landing, a climb aerobatics, the applicant must the most adverse conditions for each gradient of 3 percent with— demonstrate those aerobatic maneuvers flight configuration with power set at (1) Takeoff power on each engine; for which certification is requested and idle or zero thrust. (2) Landing gear extended; and determine entry speeds. (3) Flaps in the landing configuration. § 23.115 Takeoff performance. § 23.205 Trim. (a) The applicant must determine § 23.125 Climb information. (a) The airplane must maintain airplane takeoff performance accounting (a) The applicant must determine longitudinal, lateral, and directional for— climb performance— trim under the following conditions: (1) Stall speed safety margins; (1) For all single engine airplanes; (1) For levels 1, 2, and 3 airplanes, in (2) Minimum control speeds; and (2) For level 3 multiengine airplanes, cruise, without further force upon, or (3) Climb gradients. following a critical loss of thrust on movement of, the primary flight controls (b) For all airplanes, takeoff takeoff in the initial climb or corresponding trim controls by the performance includes the determination configuration; and pilot, or the flight control system. of ground roll and initial climb distance (3) For all multiengine airplanes, (2) For level 4 airplanes in normal to 50 feet (15 meters) above the takeoff during the enroute phase of flight with operations, without further force upon, surface. all engines operating and after a critical or movement of, the primary flight (c) For levels 1, 2, and 3 high-speed loss of thrust in the cruise configuration. controls or corresponding trim controls multiengine airplanes, multiengine (b) For single engine airplanes, the by the pilot, or the flight control system. airplanes with a maximum takeoff applicant must determine the glide (b) The airplane must maintain weight greater than 12,500 pounds and performance of the airplane after a longitudinal trim under the following level 4 multiengine airplanes, takeoff complete loss of thrust. conditions: performance includes a determination § 23.130 Landing. (1) Climb. the following distances after a sudden (2) Level flight. critical loss of thrust: The applicant must determine the following, for standard temperatures at (3) Descent. (1) Accelerate-stop; (4) Approach. (2) Ground roll and initial climb to 50 each weight and altitude within the (c) Residual forces must not fatigue or feet (15 meters) above the takeoff operational limits for landing: distract the pilot during likely surface; and (a) The distance, starting from a emergency operations, including a (3) Net takeoff flight path. height of 50 feet (15 meters) above the landing surface, required to land and critical loss of thrust on multiengine § 23.120 Climb requirements. come to a stop, or for water operations, airplanes. reach a speed of 3 knots. The applicant must demonstrate the § 23.210 Stability. following minimum climb performance (b) The approach and landing speeds, out of ground effect: configurations, and procedures, which (a) Airplanes not certified for (a) With all engines operating and in allow a pilot of average skill to meet the aerobatics must— the initial climb configuration— landing distance consistently and (1) Have static longitudinal, lateral, (1) For levels 1 and 2 low speed without causing damage or injury. and directional stability in normal operations; airplanes, a climb gradient at sea level Flight Characteristics of 8.3 percent for landplanes and 6.7 (2) Have dynamic short period and percent for seaplanes and amphibians; § 23.200 Controllability. combined lateral-directional stability in and (a) The airplane must be controllable normal operations; and (2) For levels 1 and 2 high-speed and maneuverable, without requiring (3) Provide stable control force airplanes and all level 3 airplanes, a exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or feedback throughout the operating climb gradient at takeoff of 4 percent. strength, within the operating envelope. (b) After a critical loss of thrust on envelope— (b) No airplane may exhibit any multiengine airplanes— (1) At all loading conditions for which divergent longitudinal stability (1) For levels 1and 2 low-speed certification is requested; characteristic so unstable as to increase airplanes that do not meet single engine (2) During low-speed operations, the pilot’s workload or otherwise crashworthiness requirements, a 1.5 including stalls; endanger the airplane and its occupants.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13519

§ 23.215 Stall characteristics, stall onset of perceptible buffet occurs in the at the maximum design maneuvering warning, and spins. cruise configuration within the load factor; (a) The airplane must have operational envelope. Likely inadvertent (2) The design cruising airspeed, VC controllable stall characteristics in excursions beyond this boundary must or MC, which may be no less than the straight flight, turning flight, and not result in structural damage. maximum speed expected in normal accelerated turning flight with a clear (d) High-speed airplanes must have operations; and distinctive stall warning that recovery characteristics that do not (3) The design dive airspeed, VD or provides sufficient margin to prevent result in structural damage or loss of MD, which is the airspeed that will not inadvertent stalling. control, beginning at any likely speed be exceeded by inadvertent airspeed (b) Levels 1 and 2 airplanes and level up to VMO/MMO, following— increases when operating at VC or MC; 3 single-engine airplanes, not certified (1) An inadvertent speed increase; (4) Any other design airspeed for aerobatics, must not have a tendency and limitations required for the operation of to inadvertently depart controlled flight. (2) A high-speed trim upset. high lift devices, landing gear, and other (c) Airplanes certified for aerobatics equipment or devices; and must have controllable stall § 23.230 Performance and flight (5) For level 4 airplanes, a rough air characteristics requirements for flight in penetration speed, VB. characteristics and the ability to recover icing conditions. within one and one-half additional (b) Design maneuvering load factors not less than those, which service turns after initiation of the first control (a) If an applicant requests history shows, may occur within the action from any point in a spin, not certification for flight in icing conditions as specified in part 1 of structural design envelope. exceeding six turns or any greater (c) Inertial properties including number of turns for which certification appendix C to part 25 of this chapter and any additional atmospheric icing weight, center of gravity, and mass is requested, while remaining within the moments of inertia, accounting for— operating limitations of the airplane. conditions for which an applicant requests certification, the applicant (1) All weights from the airplane (d) Spin characteristics in airplanes empty weight to the maximum weight; certified for aerobatics must not result must demonstrate the following: (1) Compliance with each requirement and in unrecoverable spins— (2) The weight and distribution of (1) With any use of the flight or of this subpart, except those applicable to spins and any that must be occupants, payload, and fuel. engine power controls; or (d) Range of motion for control demonstrated at speeds in excess of— (2) Due to pilot disorientation or surfaces, high lift devices, or other (i) 250 knots CAS; incapacitation. moveable surfaces, including tolerances. (ii) VMO or MMO; or (e) All altitudes up to the maximum § 23.220 Ground and water handling (iii) A speed at which the applicant altitude. characteristics. demonstrates the airframe will be free of (a) For airplanes intended for ice accretion. § 23.305 Interaction of systems and operation on land or water, the airplane (2) The stall warning for flight in icing structures. must have controllable longitudinal and conditions and non-icing conditions is For airplanes equipped with systems directional handling characteristics the same. that affect structural performance, either during taxi, takeoff, and landing (b) If an applicant requests directly or as a result of failure or operations. certification for flight in icing malfunction, the applicant must account (b) For airplanes intended for conditions, the applicant must provide for the influence and failure conditions operation on water, the following must a means to detect any icing conditions of these systems when showing be established and included in the for which certification is not requested compliance with the requirements of Airplane Flight Manual (AFM): and demonstrate the aircraft’s ability to this subpart. (1) The maximum wave height at avoid or exit those conditions. Structural Loads which the aircraft demonstrates (c) The applicant must develop an compliance to paragraph (a) of this operating limitation to prohibit § 23.310 Structural design loads. section. This wave height does not intentional flight, including takeoff and The applicant must: constitute an operating limitation. landing, into icing conditions for which (a) Determine structural design loads (2) Any necessary water handling the airplane is not certified to operate. resulting from any externally or procedures. internally applied pressure, force, or Subpart C—Structures moment which may occur in flight, § 23.225 Vibration, buffeting, and high- speed characteristics. § 23.300 Structural design envelope. ground and water operations, ground and water handling, and while the The applicant must determine the (a) Vibration and buffeting, for airplane is parked or moored. operations up to VD/MD, must not structural design envelope, which (b) Determine the loads required by interfere with the control of the airplane describes the range and limits of paragraph (a) of this section at all or cause fatigue to the flightcrew. Stall airplane design and operational critical combinations of parameters, on warning buffet within these limits is parameters for which the applicant will and within the boundaries of the allowable. show compliance with the requirements structural design envelope. (b) For high-speed airplanes and all of this subpart. The applicant must (c) The magnitude and distribution of airplanes with a maximum operating account for all airplane design and these loads must be based on physical altitude greater than 25,000 feet (7,620 operational parameters that affect principles and may be no less than meters) pressure altitude, there must be structural loads, strength, durability, service history shows will occur within no perceptible buffeting in cruise and aeroelasticity, including: the structural design envelope. configuration at 1g and at any speed up (a) Structural design airspeeds and to VMO/MMO, except stall buffeting. Mach numbers, including— § 23.315 Flight load conditions. (c) For high-speed airplanes, the (1) The design maneuvering airspeed, The applicant must determine the applicant must determine the positive VA, which may be no less than the structural design loads resulting from maneuvering load factors at which the airspeed at which the airplane will stall the following flight conditions:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13520 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

(a) Vertical and horizontal requirements of this subpart, the Design atmospheric gusts where the magnitude applicant must determine— and gradient of these gusts are based on (a) The limit loads, which are equal to § 23.500 Structural design. measured gust statistics. the structural design loads; and (a) The applicant must design each (b) Symmetric and asymmetric (b) The ultimate loads, which are part, article, and assembly for the maneuvers. equal to the limit loads multiplied by a expected operating conditions of the (c) For canted lifting surfaces, vertical 1.5 factor of safety. airplane. (b) Design data must adequately and horizontal loads acting Structural Performance simultaneously resulting from gust and define the part, article, or assembly maneuver conditions. § 23.400 Structural strength. configuration, its design features, and (d) For multiengine airplanes, failure The applicant must demonstrate that any materials and processes used. of the powerplant unit which results in the structure will support: (c) The applicant must determine the the most severe structural loads. (a) Limit loads without— suitability of each design detail and part (1) Interference with the operation of having an important bearing on safety in § 23.320 Ground and water load operations. conditions. the airplane; and (2) Detrimental permanent (d) The control system must be free The applicant must determine the deformation. from jamming, excessive friction, and structural design loads resulting from (b) Ultimate loads. excessive deflection when— the following ground and water (1) The control system and its operations: § 23.405 Structural durability. supporting structure are subjected to (a) For airplanes intended for (a) The applicant must develop and loads corresponding to the limit operation on land—taxi, takeoff, implement procedures to prevent airloads; landing, and ground handling structural failures due to foreseeable (2) The primary controls are subjected conditions occurring in normal and causes of strength degradation, which to the lesser of the limit airloads or limit adverse attitudes and configurations. could result in serious or fatal injuries, pilot forces; and (b) For airplanes intended for loss of the airplane, or extended periods (3) The secondary controls are operation on water—taxi, takeoff, of operation with reduced safety subjected to loads not less than those landing, and water handling conditions margins. The Instructions for Continued corresponding to maximum pilot effort. occurring in normal and adverse Airworthiness must include procedures § 23.505 Protection of structure. attitudes and configurations in the most developed under this section. severe sea conditions expected in (b) If a pressurized cabin has two or (a) The applicant must protect each operation. more compartments separated by part of the airplane, including small (c) Jacking and towing conditions. bulkheads or a floor, the applicant must parts such as fasteners, against design the structure for a sudden release deterioration or loss of strength due to § 23.325 Component loading conditions. of pressure in any compartment that has any cause likely to occur in the The applicant must determine the a door or window, considering failure of expected operational environment. structural design loads acting on: the largest door or window opening in (b) Each part of the airplane must (a) Each engine mount and its the compartment. have adequate provisions for ventilation supporting structure resulting from (c) For airplanes with maximum and drainage. engine operation combined with gusts operating altitude greater than 41,000 (c) For each part that requires and maneuvers. feet, the procedures developed for maintenance, preventive maintenance, (b) Each flight control and high lift compliance to paragraph (a) of this or servicing, the applicant must surface, their associated system and section must be capable of detecting incorporate a means into the aircraft supporting structure resulting from— damage to the pressurized cabin design to allow such actions to be (1) The inertia of each surface and structure before the damage could result accomplished. mass balance attachment; in rapid decompression that would § 23.510 Materials and processes. (2) Gusts and maneuvers; result in serious or fatal injuries. (3) Pilot or automated system inputs; (d) The airplane must be capable of (a) The applicant must determine the (4) System induced conditions, continued safe flight and landing with suitability and durability of materials including jamming and friction; and structural damage caused by high- used for parts, articles, and assemblies, (5) Ground operations, including energy fragments from an uncontained the failure of which could prevent downwind taxi and ground gusts. engine or rotating machinery failure. continued safe flight and landing. The (c) A pressurized cabin resulting from applicant must account for the effects of the pressurization differential— § 23.410 Aeroelasticity. likely environmental conditions (1) From zero up to the maximum (a) The airplane must be free from expected in service. relief valve setting combined with gust flutter, control reversal, and (b) The methods and processes of and maneuver loads; divergence— fabrication and assembly used must (2) From zero up to the maximum (1) At all speeds within and produce consistently sound structures. relief valve setting combined with sufficiently beyond the structural design If a fabrication process requires close ground and water loads if the airplane envelope; control to reach this objective, the may land with the cabin pressurized; (2) For any configuration and applicant must perform the process and condition of operation; under an approved process (3) At the maximum relief valve (3) Accounting for critical degrees of specification. setting multiplied by 1.33, omitting all freedom; and (c) Except as provided in paragraphs other loads. (4) Accounting for any critical failures (f) and (g) of this section, the applicant or malfunctions. must select design values that ensure § 23.330 Limit and ultimate loads. (b) The applicant must establish and material strength with probabilities that Unless special or other factors of account for tolerances for all quantities account for the criticality of the safety are necessary to meet the that affect flutter. structural element. Design values must

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13521

account for the probability of structural (b) The emergency landing conditions (2) Provide a means to indicate— failure due to material variability. specified in paragraph (a) of this (i) The direction of trim control (d) If material strength properties are section, must— movement relative to airplane motion; required, a determination of those (1) Include dynamic conditions that (ii) The trim position with respect to properties must be based on sufficient are likely to occur with an impact at the trim range; tests of material meeting specifications stall speed, accounting for variations in (iii) The neutral position for lateral to establish design values on a statistical aircraft mass, flight path angle, flight and directional trim; and basis. pitch angle, yaw, and airplane (iv) For all airplanes, except simple (e) If thermal effects are significant on configuration, including likely failure airplanes, the range for takeoff for all an essential component or structure conditions at impact; and applicant requested center of gravity under normal operating conditions, the (2) Not exceed established human ranges and configurations. applicant must determine those effects injury criteria for human tolerance due (3) Except for simple airplanes, on allowable stresses used for design. to restraint or contact with objects in the provide control for continued safe flight (f) Design values, greater than the airplane. and landing when any one connecting minimums specified by this section, (c) The airplane must have seating or transmitting element in the primary may be used, where only guaranteed and restraints for all occupants. The flight control system fails. minimum values are normally allowed, airplane seating, restraints, and cabin (4) Limit the range of travel to allow if a specimen of each individual item is interior must account for likely flight safe flight and landing, if an adjustable tested before use to determine that the and emergency landing conditions. stabilizer is used. actual strength properties of that (d) Each occupant restraint system (c) For an airplane equipped with an particular item will equal or exceed must consist of a seat, a method to artificial stall barrier system, the system those used in the design. restrain the occupant’s pelvis and torso, must— (g) An applicant may use other and a single action restraint release. For (1) Prevent uncommanded control or material design values if approved by all flight and ground loads during thrust action; and the Administrator. normal operation and any emergency (2) Provide for a preflight check. § 23.515 Special factors of safety. landing conditions, the restraint system (d) For level 3 high-speed and all level 4 airplanes, an applicant must (a) The applicant must determine a must perform its intended function and install a takeoff warning system on the special factor of safety for any critical not create a hazard that could cause a airplane unless the applicant design value that is— secondary injury to an occupant. The (1) Uncertain; restraint system must not prevent demonstrates the airplane, for each (2) Used for a part, article, or occupant egress or interfere with the configuration, can takeoff at the limits of assembly that is likely to deteriorate in operation of the airplane when not in the trim and flap ranges. service before normal replacement; or use. § 23.705 Landing gear systems. (3) Subject to appreciable variability (e) Each baggage and cargo because of uncertainties in compartment must— (a) For airplanes with retractable manufacturing processes or inspection (1) Be designed for its maximum landing gear: methods. weight of contents and for the critical (1) The landing gear and retracting (b) The applicant must determine a load distributions at the maximum load mechanism, including the wheel well special factor of safety using quality factors corresponding to the flight and doors, must be able to withstand controls and specifications that account ground load conditions determined operational and flight loads. for each— under this part; (2) The airplane must have— (1) Structural application; (2) Have a means to prevent the (i) A positive means to keep the (2) Inspection method; contents of the compartment from landing gear extended; (ii) A secondary means of extension (3) Structural test requirement; becoming a hazard by impacting for landing gear that cannot be extended (4) Sampling percentage; and occupants or shifting; and (5) Process and material control. (3) Protect any controls, wiring, lines, using the primary means; (c) The applicant must apply any (iii) A means to inform the pilot that equipment, or accessories whose special factor of safety in the design for each landing gear is secured in the damage or failure would affect each part of the structure by multiplying extended and retracted positions; and operations. each limit load and ultimate load by the (iv) Except for airplanes intended for special factor of safety. Subpart D—Design and Construction operation on water, a warning to the Structural Occupant Protection pilot if the thrust and configuration is § 23.700 Flight control systems. selected for landing and the landing § 23.600 Emergency conditions. (a) The applicant must design gear is not fully extended and locked. (a) The airplane, even when damaged airplane flight control systems to: (3) If the landing gear bay is used as in an emergency landing, must protect (1) Prevent major, hazardous, and the location for equipment other than each occupant against injury that would catastrophic hazards, including— the landing gear, that equipment must preclude egress when— (i) Failure; be designed and installed to avoid (1) Properly using safety equipment (ii) Operational hazards; damage from tire burst and from items and features provided for in the design; (iii) Flutter; that may enter the landing gear bay. (2) The occupant experiences ultimate (iv) Asymmetry; and (b) The design of each landing gear static inertia loads likely to occur in an (v) Misconfiguration. wheel, tire, and ski must account for emergency landing; and (2) Operate easily, smoothly, and critical loads, including those (3) Items of mass, including engines positively enough to allow normal experienced during landing and rejected or auxiliary power units (APUs), within operation. takeoff. or aft of the cabin, that could injure an (b) The applicant must design trim (c) A reliable means of stopping the occupant, experience ultimate static systems to: airplane must provide kinetic energy inertia loads likely to occur in an (1) Prevent inadvertent, incorrect, or absorption within the airplane’s design emergency landing. abrupt trim operation. specifications for landing.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13522 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

(d) For levels 3 and 4 multiengine (1) Withstand, without penetration, (2) Be accessible for the manual airplanes, the braking system must the impact equivalent to a two-pound extinguishing of a fire, have a built-in provide kinetic energy absorption bird when the velocity of the airplane is fire extinguishing system, or be within the airplane’s design equal to the airplane’s maximum constructed and sealed to contain any specifications for rejected takeoff. approach flap speed; and fire within the compartment. (2) Allow for continued safe flight and (f) There must be a means to § 23.710 Buoyancy for seaplanes and extinguish any fire in the cabin such amphibians. landing after the loss of vision through any one panel. that— Airplanes intended for operations on (c) The airplane must provide each (1) The pilot, while seated, can easily water, must— occupant with air at a breathable access the fire extinguishing means; and (a) Provide buoyancy of 80 percent in pressure, free of hazardous (2) For levels 3 and 4 airplanes, excess of the buoyancy required to passengers have a fire extinguishing support the maximum weight of the concentrations of gases and vapors, during normal operations and likely means available within the passenger airplane in fresh water; and compartment. (b) Have sufficient watertight failures. (g) Each area where flammable fluids compartments so the airplane will stay (d) If an oxygen system is installed in or vapors might escape by leakage of a afloat at rest in calm water without the airplane, it must include— fluid system must— capsizing if any two compartments of (1) A means to allow the flightcrew to (1) Be defined; and any main float or hull are flooded. determine the quantity of oxygen available in each source of supply on (2) Have a means to make fluid and Occupant System Design Protection the ground and in flight; vapor ignition, and the resultant hazard, (2) A means to determine whether if ignition occurs, improbable. § 23.750 Means of egress and emergency (h) Combustion heater installations exits. oxygen is being delivered; and (3) A means to permit the flightcrew must be protected from uncontained (a) The airplane cabin exit design fire. must provide for evacuation of the to turn on and shut off the oxygen airplane within 90 seconds in supply at any high-pressure source in § 23.805 Fire protection in designated fire conditions likely to occur following an flight. zones. emergency landing. Likely conditions (e) If a pressurization system is Inside designated fire zones: exclude ditching for all but levels 3 and installed in the airplane, it must (a) Flight controls, engine mounts, 4 multiengine airplanes. include— and other flight structures within or (b) Each exit must have a means to be (1) A warning if an unsafe condition adjacent to those zones must be capable opened from both inside and outside the exists; and of withstanding the effects of a fire. airplane, when the internal locking (2) A pressurization system test. (b) Engines must remain attached to mechanism is in the locked and Fire and High Energy Protection the airplane in the event of a fire or unlocked position. The means of electrical arcing. opening must be simple, obvious, and § 23.800 Fire protection outside (c) Terminals, equipment, and marked inside and outside the airplane. designated fire zones. electrical cables used during emergency (c) Airplane evacuation paths must Outside designated fire zones: procedures must be fire-resistant. protect occupants from serious injury (a) The following materials must be from the propulsion system. self-extinguishing— § 23.810 Lightning protection of structure. (d) Each exit must not be obstructed (1) Insulation on electrical wire and (a) For airplanes approved for by a seat or seat back, unless the seat or electrical cable; instrument flight rules, no structural seat back can be easily moved in one (2) For levels 1, 2, and 3 airplanes, failure preventing continued safe flight action to clear the exit. materials in the baggage and cargo and landing may occur from exposure to (e) Airplanes certified for aerobatics compartments inaccessible in flight; and the direct effects of lightning. must have a means to egress the (3) For level 4 airplanes, materials in (b) Airplanes approved only for visual airplane in flight. the cockpit, cabin, baggage, and cargo flight rules must achieve lightning (f) Doors, canopies, and exits must be compartments. protection by following FAA accepted protected from opening inadvertently in (b) The following materials must be design practices. flight. flame resistant— Subpart E—Powerplant § 23.755 Occupant physical environment. (1) For levels 1, 2 and 3 airplanes, (a) The applicant must design the materials in each compartment § 23.900 Powerplant installation. airplane to— accessible in flight; and (a) For the purpose of this subpart, the (1) Allow clear communication (2) Any electrical cable installation airplane powerplant installation must between the flightcrew and passengers; that would overheat in the event of include each component necessary for (2) Provide a clear, sufficiently circuit overload or fault. propulsion, affects propulsion safety, or undistorted external view to enable the (c) Thermal acoustic materials, if provides auxiliary power to the flightcrew to perform any maneuvers installed, must not be a flame airplane. within the operating limitations of the propagation hazard. (b) The applicant must construct and airplane; (d) Sources of heat that are capable of arrange each powerplant installation to (3) Protect the pilot from serious igniting adjacent objects must be account for likely hazards in operation injury due to high energy rotating shielded and insulated to prevent such and maintenance. failures in systems and equipment; and ignition. (c) Except for simple airplanes, each (4) Protect the occupants from serious (e) For level 4 airplanes, each baggage aircraft power unit must be type injury due to damage to windshields, and cargo compartment must— certificated. windows, and canopies. (1) Be located where a fire would be (b) For level 4 airplanes, each visible to the pilots, or equipped with a § 23.905 Propeller installation. windshield and its supporting structure fire detection system and warning (a) Except for simple airplanes, each directly in front of the pilot must— system; and propeller must be type certificated.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13523

(b) Each pusher propeller must be (6) Prevent hazardous contamination (e) For levels 3 and 4 airplanes, the marked so that it is conspicuous under of the fuel supply. applicant must install a fire detection daylight conditions. (b) Each fuel storage system must— system in each designated fire zone. (c) Each propeller installation must (1) Withstand the loads and pressures (f) Each fire detection system must account for vibration and fatigue. under expected operating conditions; provide a means to alert the flightcrew (2) Provide a means to prevent loss of in the event of a detection of fire or § 23.910 Powerplant installation hazard assessment. fuel during any maneuver under failure of the system. operating conditions for which (g) There must be a means to check The applicant must assess each certification is requested; the fire detection system in flight. powerplant separately and in relation to (3) Prevent discharge when other airplane systems and installations transferring fuel; Subpart F—Equipment to show that a failure of any powerplant (4) Provide fuel for at least one-half system component or accessory will § 23.1300 Airplane level systems hour of operation at maximum requirements. not— continuous power or thrust; and (a) Prevent continued safe flight and (5) Be capable of jettisoning fuel if (a) The equipment and systems landing; required for an airplane to operate safely (b) Cause serious injury that may be required for landing. (c) If a pressure refueling system is in the kinds of operations for which avoided; and certification is requested (Day VFR, (c) Require immediate action by installed, it must have a means to— (1) Prevent the escape of hazardous Night VFR, IFR) must be designed and crewmembers for continued operation installed to— of any remaining powerplant system. quantities of fuel; (2) Automatically shut-off before (1) Meet the level of safety applicable § 23.915 Automatic power control exceeding the maximum fuel quantity of to the certification and performance systems. the airplane; and level of the airplane; and A power or thrust augmentation (3) Provide an indication of a failure (2) Perform their intended function system that automatically controls the at the fueling station. throughout the operating and power or thrust on the operating environmental limits specified by the powerplant, must— § 23.935 Powerplant induction and applicant. exhaust systems. (a) Provide indication to the (b) Non-required airplane equipment flightcrew when the system is operating; The air induction system for each and systems, considered separately and (b) Provide a means for the pilot to power unit and its accessories must— in relation to other systems, must be deactivate the automatic function; and (a) Supply the air required by that designed and installed so their (c) Prevent inadvertent deactivation. power unit and its accessories under operation or failure does not have an expected operating conditions; and adverse effect on the airplane or its § 23.920 Reversing systems. (b) Provide a means to discharge occupants. The airplane must be capable of potential harmful material. continued safe flight and landing under § 23.1305 Function and installation. any available reversing system setting. § 23.940 Powerplant ice protection. (a) Each item of installed equipment (a) The airplane design must prevent must— § 23.925 Powerplant operational foreseeable accumulation of ice or snow characteristics. (1) Perform its intended function; that adversely affects powerplant (2) Be installed according to (a) The powerplant must operate at operation. limitations specified for that equipment; any negative acceleration that may (b) The powerplant design must and occur during normal and emergency prevent any accumulation of ice or (3) Be labeled, if applicable, as to its operation, within the airplane operating snow that adversely affects powerplant identification, function or operating limitations. operation, in those icing conditions for limitations, or any combination of these (b) The pilot must have the capability which certification is requested. factors. to stop and restart the powerplant in (b) There must be a discernable means flight. § 23.1000 Powerplant fire protection. of providing system operating (c) The airplane must have an (a) A powerplant may only be independent power source for restarting parameters required to operate the installed in a designated fire zone. airplane, including warnings, cautions, each powerplant following an in-flight (b) Each component, line, and fitting shutdown. and normal indications to the carrying flammable fluids, gases, or air responsible crewmember. § 23.930 Fuel system subject to fire conditions must be fire (c) Information concerning an unsafe (a) Each fuel system must— resistant, except components storing system operating condition must be (1) Provide an independent fuel concentrated flammable material must provided in a timely manner to the supply to each powerplant in at least be fireproof or enclosed by a fireproof crewmember responsible for taking one configuration; shield. corrective action. Presentation of this (2) Avoid ignition from unplanned (c) The applicant must provide a information must be clear enough to sources; means to shut off fuel or flammable avoid likely crewmember errors. (3) Provide the fuel required to material for each powerplant that achieve maximum power or thrust plus must— § 23.1310 Flight, navigation, and a margin for likely variables, in all (1) Not restrict fuel to remaining powerplant instruments. temperature and altitude conditions units; and (a) Installed systems must provide the within the airplane operating envelope; (2) Prevent inadvertent operation. flightcrew member who sets or monitors (4) Provide a means to remove the fuel (d) For levels 3 and 4 airplanes with flight parameters for the flight, from the airplane; a powerplant located outside the pilot’s navigation, and powerplant the (5) Be capable of retaining fuel when view that uses combustible fuel, the information necessary to do so during subject to inertia loads under expected applicant must install a fire each phase of flight. This information operating conditions; and extinguishing system. must include—

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13524 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

(1) Parameters and trends, as needed exposed to lightning unless the system’s § 23.1335 External and cockpit lighting. for normal, abnormal, and emergency recovery conflicts with other (a) The applicant must design and operation; and operational or functional requirements install all lights to prevent adverse (2) Limitations, unless the applicant of the system. effects on the performance of flightcrew shows each limitation will not be (b) Each electrical and electronic duties. exceeded in all intended operations. system that performs a function, the (b) Any position and anti-collision (b) Indication systems that integrate failure of which would reduce the lights, if required by part 91 of this the display of flight or powerplant capability of the airplane or the ability chapter, must have the intensities, flash parameters to operate the airplane or are of the flightcrew to respond to an rate, colors, fields of coverage, and other required by the operating rules of this adverse operating condition, must be characteristics to provide sufficient time chapter must— designed and installed such that the for another aircraft to avoid a collision. (1) Not inhibit the primary display of function recovers normal operation in a (c) Any position lights, if required by flight or powerplant parameters needed timely manner after the airplane is part 91 of this chapter, must include a by any flightcrew member in any exposed to lightning. red light on the left side of the airplane, normal mode of operation; and a green light on the right side of the (2) In combination with other § 23.1325 High-intensity Radiated Fields airplane, spaced laterally as far apart as (HIRF) protection. systems, be designed and installed so space allows, and a white light facing information essential for continued safe (a) Electrical and electronic systems aft, located on an aft portion of the flight and landing will be available to that perform a function, the failure of airplane or on the wing tips. the flightcrew in a timely manner after which would prevent the continued safe (d) The applicant must design and any single failure or probable flight and landing of the airplane, must install taxi and landing lights so they combination of failures. be designed and installed such that— provide sufficient light for night (1) The airplane system level function operations. § 23.1315 Equipment, systems, and is not adversely affected during and installations. (e) For seaplanes or amphibian after the time the airplane is exposed to airplanes, riding lights must provide a For any airplane system or equipment the HIRF environment; and white light visible in clear atmospheric whose failure or abnormal operation has (2) The system automatically recovers conditions. not been specifically addressed by normal operation of that function in a another requirement in this part, the timely manner after the airplane is § 23.1400 Safety equipment. applicant must: exposed to the HIRF environment, Safety and survival equipment, (a) Examine the design and unless the system’s recovery conflicts required by the operating rules of this installation of airplane systems and with other operational or functional chapter, must be reliable, readily equipment, separately and in relation to requirements of the system. accessible, easily identifiable, and other airplane systems and equipment (b) For airplanes approved for IFR clearly marked to identify its method of to determine— operations, the applicant must design operation. (1) If a failure would prevent and install each electrical and electronic continued safe flight and landing; and system that performs a function, the § 23.1405 Flight in icing conditions. (2) If any other failure would failure of which would reduce the (a) If an applicant requests significantly reduce the capability of the capability of the airplane or the ability certification for flight in icing airplane or the ability of the flightcrew of the flightcrew to respond to an conditions, the applicant must to cope with adverse operating adverse operating condition, so the demonstrate that— conditions. function recovers normal operation in a (1) The ice protection system provides (b) Design and install each system and timely manner after the airplane is for safe operation; and equipment, examined separately and in exposed to the HIRF environment. (2) The airplane is protected from relation to other airplane systems and stalling when the autopilot is operating equipment, such that— § 23.1330 System power generation, in a vertical mode. storage, and distribution. (1) Each catastrophic failure condition (b) The demonstration specified in is extremely improbable; The power generation, storage, and paragraph (a) of this section, must be (2) Each hazardous failure condition distribution for any system must be conducted in atmospheric icing is extremely remote; and designed and installed to— conditions specified in part 1 of (3) Each major failure condition is (a) Supply the power required for appendix C to part 25 of this chapter, remote. operation of connected loads during all and any additional icing conditions for likely operating conditions; which certification is requested. § 23.1320 Electrical and electronic system (b) Ensure no single failure or lightning protection. malfunction will prevent the system § 23.1410 Pressurized systems elements. For an airplane approved for IFR from supplying the essential loads (a) The minimum burst pressure of operations: required for continued safe flight and hydraulic systems must be at least 2.5 (a) Each electrical or electronic system landing; and times the design operating pressure. The that performs a function, the failure of (c) Have enough capacity, if the proof pressure must be at least 1.5 times which would prevent the continued safe primary source fails, to supply essential the maximum operating pressure. flight and landing of the airplane, must loads, including non-continuous (b) On multiengine airplanes, engine be designed and installed such that— essential loads for the time needed to driven accessories essential to safe (1) The airplane system level function complete the function, for— operation must be distributed among continues to perform during and after (1) At least 30 minutes for airplanes multiple engines. the time the airplane is exposed to certificated with a maximum altitude of (c) The minimum burst pressure of lightning; and 25,000 feet (7,620 meters) or less; and cabin pressurization system elements (2) The system automatically recovers (2) At least 60 minutes for airplanes must be at least 2.0 times, and proof normal operation of that function in a certificated with a maximum altitude pressure must be at least 1.5 times, the timely manner after the airplane is over 25,000 feet (7,620 meters). maximum normal operating pressure.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13525

(d) The minimum burst pressure of (1) For the first channel, from each in the event that all other power to the pneumatic system elements must be at boom, mask, or handheld microphone, cockpit voice recorder is interrupted least 3.0 times, and proof pressure must headset, or speaker used at the first pilot either by normal shutdown or by any be at least 1.5 times, the maximum station. other loss of power to the electrical normal operating pressure. (2) For the second channel from each power bus. (e) Other pressurized system elements boom, mask, or handheld microphone, (6) It is in a separate container from must have pressure margins that take headset, or speaker used at the second the flight data recorder when both are into account system design and pilot station. required. If used to comply with only operating conditions. (3) For the third channel—from the the cockpit voice recorder requirements, cockpit-mounted area microphone. a combination unit may be installed. § 23.1457 Cockpit voice recorders. (4) For the fourth channel from: (e) The recorder container must be (a) Each cockpit voice recorder (i) Each boom, mask, or handheld located and mounted to minimize the required by the operating rules of this microphone, headset, or speaker used at probability of rupture of the container as chapter must be approved and must be the station for the third and fourth a result of crash impact and consequent installed so that it will record the crewmembers. heat damage to the recorder from fire. following: (ii) If the stations specified in (1) Except as provided in paragraph (1) Voice communications transmitted paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section are not (e)(2) of this section, the recorder from or received in the airplane by required or if the signal at such a station container must be located as far aft as radio. is picked up by another channel, each practicable, but need not be outside of (2) Voice communications of microphone on the flight deck that is the pressurized compartment, and may flightcrew members on the flight deck. used with the passenger loudspeaker not be located where aft-mounted (3) Voice communications of system, if its signals are not picked up engines may crush the container during flightcrew members on the flight deck, by another channel. impact. (2) If two separate combination digital using the airplane’s interphone system. (5) And that as far as is practicable all sounds received by the microphone flight data recorder and cockpit voice (4) Voice or audio signals identifying recorder units are installed instead of navigation or approach aids introduced listed in paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (4) of this section must be recorded without one cockpit voice recorder and one into a headset or speaker. digital flight data recorder, the (5) Voice communications of interruption irrespective of the position of the interphone-transmitter key combination unit that is installed to flightcrew members using the passenger comply with the cockpit voice recorder loudspeaker system, if there is such a switch. The design shall ensure that sidetone for the flightcrew is produced requirements may be located near the system and if the fourth channel is cockpit. available in accordance with the only when the interphone, public address system, or radio transmitters are (f) If the cockpit voice recorder has a requirements of paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of bulk erasure device, the installation this section. in use. (d) Each cockpit voice recorder must must be designed to minimize the (6) If datalink communication be installed so that: probability of inadvertent operation and equipment is installed, all datalink (1) (i) It receives its electrical power actuation of the device during crash communications, using an approved from the bus that provides the impact. data message set. Datalink messages maximum reliability for operation of the (g) Each recorder container must— must be recorded as the output signal (1) Be either bright orange or bright cockpit voice recorder without from the communications unit that yellow; jeopardizing service to essential or translates the signal into usable data. (2) Have reflective tape affixed to its emergency loads. external surface to facilitate its location (b) The recording requirements of (ii) It remains powered for as long as under water; and paragraph (a)(2) of this section must be possible without jeopardizing met by installing a cockpit-mounted (3) Have an underwater locating emergency operation of the airplane. device, when required by the operating area microphone, located in the best (2) There is an automatic means to position for recording voice rules of this chapter, on or adjacent to simultaneously stop the recorder and the container, which is secured in such communications originating at the first prevent each erasure feature from and second pilot stations and voice manner that they are not likely to be functioning, within 10 minutes after separated during crash impact. communications of other crewmembers crash impact. on the flight deck when directed to (3) There is an aural or visual means § 23.1459 Flight data recorders. those stations. The microphone must be for preflight checking of the recorder for (a) Each required by so located and, if necessary, the proper operation. the operating rules of this chapter must preamplifiers and filters of the recorder (4) Any single electrical failure be installed so that— must be so adjusted or supplemented, so external to the recorder does not disable (1) It is supplied with airspeed, that the intelligibility of the recorded both the cockpit voice recorder and the altitude, and directional data obtained communications is as high as flight data recorder. from sources that meet the aircraft level practicable when recorded under flight (5) It has an independent power system requirements of § 23.1300 and cockpit noise conditions and played source— the functionality specified in § 23.1305; back. Repeated aural or visual playback (i) That provides 10±1 minutes of (2) The vertical acceleration sensor is of the record may be used in evaluating electrical power to operate both the rigidly attached, and located intelligibility. cockpit voice recorder and cockpit- longitudinally either within the (c) Each cockpit voice recorder must mounted area microphone; approved center of gravity limits of the be installed so that the part of the (ii) That is located as close as airplane, or at a distance forward or aft communication or audio signals practicable to the cockpit voice of these limits that does not exceed 25 specified in paragraph (a) of this section recorder; and percent of the airplane’s mean obtained from each of the following (iii) To which the cockpit voice aerodynamic ; sources is recorded on a separate recorder and cockpit-mounted area (3)(i) It receives its electrical power channel: microphone are switched automatically from the bus that provides the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13526 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

maximum reliability for operation of the (e) Any novel or unique design or Appendix A to Part 23—Instructions for flight data recorder without jeopardizing operational characteristics of the aircraft Continued Airworthiness service to essential or emergency loads; shall be evaluated to determine if any A23.1 General (ii) It remains powered for as long as dedicated parameters must be recorded possible without jeopardizing on flight recorders in addition to or in (a) This appendix specifies emergency operation of the airplane; place of existing requirements. requirements for the preparation of (4) There is an aural or visual means Instructions for Continued for preflight checking of the recorder for Subpart G—Flightcrew Interface and Airworthiness as required by this part. proper recording of data in the storage Other Information (b) The Instructions for Continued medium; Airworthiness for each airplane must (5) Except for recorders powered § 23.1500 Flightcrew interface. include the Instructions for Continued solely by the engine-driven electrical (a) The pilot compartment and its Airworthiness for each engine and generator system, there is an automatic equipment must allow each pilot to propeller (hereinafter designated means to simultaneously stop a recorder perform his or her duties, including ‘‘products’’), for each appliance required that has a data erasure feature and taxi, takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, by this chapter, and any required prevent each erasure feature from approach, landing, and perform any information relating to the interface of functioning, within 10 minutes after maneuvers within the operating those appliances and products with the crash impact; envelope of the airplane, without airplane. If Instructions for Continued (6) Any single electrical failure excessive concentration, skill, alertness, Airworthiness are not supplied by the external to the recorder does not disable or fatigue. manufacturer of an appliance or product both the cockpit voice recorder and the (b) The applicant must install flight, installed in the airplane, the flight data recorder; and navigation, surveillance, and Instructions for Continued (7) It is in a separate container from powerplant controls and displays so Airworthiness for the airplane must the cockpit voice recorder when both qualified flightcrew can monitor and include the information essential to the are required. If used to comply with perform all tasks associated with the continued airworthiness of the airplane. only the flight data recorder intended functions of systems and (c) The applicant must submit to the requirements, a combination unit may equipment. The system and equipment FAA a program to show how changes to be installed. If a combination unit is design must make the possibility that a the Instructions for Continued installed as a cockpit voice recorder to flightcrew error could result in a Airworthiness made by the applicant or comply with § 23.1457(e)(2), a catastrophic event highly unlikely. by the manufacturers of products and combination unit must be used to appliances installed in the airplane will comply with this flight data recorder § 23.1505 Instrument markings, control be distributed. requirement. markings, and placards. A23.2 Format (b) Each non-ejectable record (a) Each airplane must display in a container must be located and mounted conspicuous manner any placard and (a) The Instructions for Continued so as to minimize the probability of instrument marking necessary for Airworthiness must be in the form of a container rupture resulting from crash operation. manual or manuals as appropriate for impact and subsequent damage to the (b) The applicant must clearly mark the quantity of data to be provided. record from fire. In meeting this each cockpit control, other than primary (b) The format of the manual or requirement, the record container must flight controls, as to its function and manuals must provide for a practical be located as far aft as practicable, but method of operation. arrangement. need not be aft of the pressurized (c) The applicant must include A23.3 Content compartment, and may not be where aft- instrument marking and placard mounted engines may crush the The contents of the manual or information in the Airplane Flight manuals must be prepared in the container upon impact. Manual. (c) A correlation must be established English language. The Instructions for between the flight recorder readings of § 23.1510 Airplane flight manual. Continued Airworthiness must contain the following manuals or sections and airspeed, altitude, and heading and the The applicant must provide an information: corresponding readings (taking into Airplane Flight Manual that must be account correction factors) of the first (a) Airplane maintenance manual or delivered with each airplane that section. pilot’s instruments. The correlation contains the following information— must cover the airspeed range over (1) Introduction information that (a) Operating limitations and which the airplane is to be operated, the includes an explanation of the procedures; range of altitude to which the airplane airplane’s features and data to the extent is limited, and 360 degrees of heading. (b) Performance information; necessary for maintenance or preventive Correlation may be established on the (c) Loading information; and maintenance. ground as appropriate. (d) Any other information necessary (2) A description of the airplane and (d) Each recorder container must— for the operation of the airplane. its systems and installations including (1) Be either bright orange or bright its engines, propellers, and appliances. yellow; § 23.1515 Instructions for continued (3) Basic control and operation (2) Have reflective tape affixed to its airworthiness. information describing how the airplane external surface to facilitate its location The applicant must prepare components and systems are controlled under water; and Instructions for Continued and how they operate, including any (3) Have an underwater locating Airworthiness, in accordance with special procedures and limitations that device, when required by the operating appendix A of this part, that are apply. rules of this chapter, on or adjacent to acceptable to the Administrator prior to (4) Servicing information that covers the container, which is secured in such the delivery of the first airplane or details regarding servicing points, a manner that they are not likely to be issuance of a standard certification of capacities of tanks, reservoirs, types of separated during crash impact. airworthiness, whichever occurs later. fluids to be used, pressures applicable

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules 13527

to the various systems, location of (1) Electrical loads applicable to the PART 43—MAINTENANCE, access panels for inspection and various systems; PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, servicing, locations of lubrication (2) Methods of balancing control REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION points, lubricants to be used, equipment surfaces; required for servicing, tow instructions (3) Identification of primary and ■ 12. The authority citation for part 43 and limitations, mooring, jacking, and secondary structures; and is revised to read as follows: leveling information. (4) Special repair methods applicable Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(f), to the airplane. 106(g), 40105, 40113, 44701–44702, 44704, (b) Maintenance Instructions 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303. A23.4 Airworthiness limitations (1) Scheduling information for each section ■ 13. In part 43, appendix E, revise the part of the airplane and its engines, The Instructions for Continued introductory text and paragraph (a)(2) to auxiliary power units, propellers, read as follows: accessories, instruments, and equipment Airworthiness must contain a section that provides the recommended periods titled Airworthiness Limitations that is Appendix E to Part 43—Altimeter at which they should be cleaned, segregated and clearly distinguishable System Test and Inspection from the rest of the document. This inspected, adjusted, tested, and Each person performing the altimeter section must set forth each mandatory lubricated, and the degree of inspection, system tests and inspections required by replacement time, structural inspection the applicable wear tolerances, and § 91.411 must comply with the interval, and related structural work recommended at these periods. following: inspection procedure required for type However, the applicant may refer to an (a) * * * certification. If the Instructions for accessory, instrument, or equipment (2) Perform a proof test to demonstrate Continued Airworthiness consist of manufacturer as the source of this the integrity of the static pressure multiple documents, the section information if the applicant shows that system in a manner acceptable to the required by this paragraph must be the item has an exceptionally high Administrator. For airplanes certificated included in the principal manual. This degree of complexity requiring under part 25 of this chapter, determine section must contain a legible statement specialized maintenance techniques, that leakage is within the tolerances in a prominent location that reads ‘‘The test equipment, or expertise. The established by § 25.1325. recommended overhaul periods and Airworthiness Limitations section is * * * * * necessary cross reference to the FAA approved and specifies Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance required under §§ 43.16 PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND manual must also be included. In and 91.403 of Title 14 of the Code of FLIGHT RULES addition, the applicant must include an Federal Regulations unless an inspection program that includes the alternative program has been FAA ■ 14. The authority citation for part 91 frequency and extent of the inspections approved.’’ continues to read as follows: necessary to provide for the continued PART 35—AIRWORTHINESS Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, airworthiness of the airplane. STANDARDS: PROPELLERS 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, (2) Troubleshooting information 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, describing probable malfunctions, how ■ 9. The authority citation for part 35 is 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, to recognize those malfunctions, and the revised to read as follows: 46316, 46504, 46506–46507, 47122, 47508, remedial action for those malfunctions. 47528–47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the (3) Information describing the order Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, Convention on International Civil Aviation 44701–44702, 44704. and method of removing and replacing (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11). products and parts with any necessary ■ 10. In § 35.1, revise paragraph (c) to ■ 15. In § 91.205, revise paragraphs precautions to be taken. read as follows: (b)(13) and (b)(14), and remove (4) Other general procedural § 35.1 Applicability. paragraph (b)(16) to read as follows: instructions including procedures for system testing during ground running, * * * * * § 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with symmetry checks, weighing and (c) An applicant is eligible for a standard category U.S. airworthiness propeller type certificate and changes to certificates: Instrument and equipment determining the center of gravity, lifting requirements. and shoring, and storage limitations. those certificates after demonstrating (c) Diagrams of structural access compliance with subparts A, B, and C * * * * * plates and information needed to gain of this part. However, the propeller may (b) * * * access for inspections when access not be installed on an airplane unless (13) An approved safety belt with an plates are not provided. the applicant has shown compliance approved metal-to-metal latching (d) Details for the application of with either § 23.905(c) or § 25.907 of device, or other approved restraint special inspection techniques including this chapter, as applicable, or system for each occupant 2 years of age radiographic and ultrasonic testing compliance is not required for or older. where such processes are specified by installation on that airplane. (14) For small civil airplanes the applicant. * * * * * manufactured after July 18, 1978, an (e) Information needed to apply ■ 11. In § 35.37, revise paragraph (c)(1) approved shoulder harness or restraint protective treatments to the structure to read as follows: system for each front seat. For small after inspection. civil airplanes manufactured after (f) All data relative to structural § 35.37 Fatigue limits and evaluation. December 12, 1986, an approved fasteners such as identification, discard * * * * * shoulder harness or restraint system for recommendations, and torque values. (c) * * * all seats. Shoulder harnesses installed at (g) A list of special tools needed. (1) The intended airplane by flightcrew stations must permit the (h) In addition, for level 4 airplanes, complying with § 23.905(c) or § 25.907 flightcrew member, when seated and the following information must be of this chapter, as applicable; or with the safety belt and shoulder furnished— * * * * * harness fastened, to perform all

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 13528 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2016 / Proposed Rules

functions necessary for flight (1) A large airplane or normal luminescence (brightness) decreases to operations. For purposes of this category level 4 airplane, except that a below 100 microlamberts. paragraph— person may operate an airplane * * * * * (i) The date of manufacture of an certificated under SFAR 41 without a airplane is the date the inspection pilot who is designated as second in PART 135—OPERATING acceptance records reflect that the command if that airplane is certificated REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND airplane is complete and meets the for operation with one pilot. ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND FAA-approved type design data; and *** RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON (ii) A front seat is a seat located at a BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT flightcrew member station or any seat (3) A commuter category airplane or normal category level 3 airplane, except located alongside such a seat. ■ 21. The authority citation for part 135 that a person may operate those continues to read as follows: * * * * * airplanes notwithstanding paragraph ■ 16. In § 91.313, revise paragraph (g) (a)(1) of this section, that have a Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 41706, introductory text to read as follows: passenger seating configuration, 40113, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709, 44711– excluding pilot seats, of nine or less 44713, 44715–44717, 44722, 44730, 45101– § 91.313 Restricted category civil aircraft: 45105; Pub. L. 112–95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 U.S.C. Operating limitations. without a pilot who is designated as 44730). * * * * * second in command if that airplane is (g) No person may operate a small type certificated for operations with one ■ 22. In § 135.169, revise paragraphs (b) restricted-category civil airplane pilot. introductory text, (b)(6), and (b)(7), and manufactured after July 18, 1978, unless * * * * * add paragraph (b)(8) to read as follows: an approved shoulder harness or PART 121—OPERATING § 135.169 Additional airworthiness restraint system is installed for each requirements. front seat. The shoulder harness or REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, restraint system installation at each AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS * * * * * flightcrew station must permit the (b) No person may operate a small flightcrew member, when seated and ■ 19. The authority citation for part 121 airplane that has a passenger seating with the safety belt and shoulder continues to read as follows: configuration, excluding pilot seats, of harness fastened or the restraint system Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 10 seats or more unless it is type engaged, to perform all functions 40113, 40119, 41706, 42301 preceding note certificated— necessary for flight operation. For added by Pub. L. 112–95, Sec. 412, 126 Stat. * * * * * purposes of this paragraph— 89, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709– (6) In the normal category and 44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44729, * * * * * complies with section 1.(b) of Special ■ 44732; 46105; Pub. L. 111–216, 124 Stat. 17. In § 91.323, revise paragraph (b)(3) 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. L. 112–95, Federal Aviation Regulation No. 41; to read as follows: 126 Stat. 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 note). (7) In the commuter category; or § 91.323 Increased maximum certificated ■ 20. In § 121.310, revise paragraph (8) In the normal category, using a weights for certain airplanes operated in (b)(2)(iii) to read as follows: means of compliance accepted by the Alaska. Administrator equivalent to the * * * * * § 121.310 Additional emergency airworthiness standards applicable to (b) * * * equipment. the certification of airplanes in the (3) The weight at which the airplane * * * * * commuter category found in part 23 of meets the positive maneuvering load (b) * * * this chapter through amendment 23–62, factor n, where n = 2.1 + (24,000/(W + effective January 31, 2012. (2) * * * 10,000)) and W = design maximum * * * * * takeoff weight, except that n need not be (iii) For a nontransport category more than 3.8; or turbopropeller powered airplane type Issued under authority provided by 49 certificated after December 31, 1964, U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), 44703 and Pub. L. * * * * * each passenger emergency exit marking 113–53 (127 Stat. 584; 49 U.S.C. 44704 note) ■ 18. In § 91.531, revise paragraphs in Washington, DC, on March 7, 2016. (a)(1) and (a)(3) to read as follows: and each locating sign must be manufactured to meet the requirements Dorenda D. Baker, § 91.531 Second in command of § 23.811(b) of this chapter in effect on Director, Aircraft Certification Service. requirements. June 16, 1994. On these airplanes, no [FR Doc. 2016–05493 Filed 3–9–16; 11:15 am] (a) * * * sign may continue to be used if its BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:17 Mar 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\14MRP2.SGM 14MRP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2