[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 63 (Friday, April 2, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16676-16683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7525]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 63 / Friday, April 2, 2010 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 16676]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 23, 25, 27, and 29
[Docket No. FAA-2010-0224; Notice No. 10-05]
RIN 2120-AJ57
Airworthiness Standards; Electrical and Electronic System
Lightning Protection
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to amend
the lightning protection airworthiness standards by establishing new
lightning protection regulations for electrical and electronic systems
installed on aircraft certificated under parts 23, 27, and 29, and
revising lightning protection regulations for electrical and electronic
systems installed on airplanes certificated under part 25. The proposed
rulemaking would establish two levels of lightning protection for
aircraft systems based on consequences of system function failure:
Catastrophic consequences which would prevent continued safe flight and
landing and hazardous or major consequences which would reduce the
capability of the aircraft or the ability of the flightcrew to respond
to an adverse operating condition. The proposed rulemaking would also
establish lightning protection for aircraft systems according to the
aircraft's potential for lightning exposure. Compliance with the new
requirements would be based on demonstration of effective lightning
protection for electrical and electronic systems. The proposed
airworthiness standards would establish consistent lightning protection
requirements for electrical and electronic systems.
DATES: Send your comments on or before July 1, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number [Insert
docket number, for example, FAA-200X-XXXXX] using any of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-
140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any of
our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment
(or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you
may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-
140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this proposed rule contact Lee Nguyen, AIR-130, Federal Aviation
Administration, Suite 4102, 470 L'Enfant Plaza, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 385-4676; facsimile (202) 385-4651, e-mail
[email protected]. For legal questions concerning this proposed rule
contact Viola Pando, AGC-220, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 493-5293;
facsimile (202) 267-7971, e-mail [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Later in this preamble under the Additional Information section, we
discuss how you can comment on this proposal and how we will handle
your comments. Included in this discussion is related information about
the docket, privacy, and the handling of proprietary or confidential
business information. We also discuss how you can get a copy of related
rulemaking documents.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701(a)(1). Under that
section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to promote
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum
standards in the interest of safety for appliances and for the design,
material, construction, quality of work, and performance of aircraft,
aircraft engines, and propellers. By prescribing standards to protect
aircraft electrical and electronic systems from the effects of
lightning, this regulation is within the scope of the Administrator's
authority.
Background and History
Existing regulations for lightning protection of electrical and
electronic systems installed on aircraft certificated under 14 CFR
parts 23, 27 and 29 require the type certification applicant only to
``consider'' the effects of lightning. Unlike system lightning
protection regulations for part 25 airplanes, these regulations have
not been significantly amended since they were first adopted, and do
not reflect current advances in technology.
A. History of Lightning Regulations
In the 1960s, regulations applicable to lightning protection for
aircraft design, construction, and fuel systems were adopted for
aircraft certificated under
[[Page 16677]]
parts 23, 25, 27 and 29. The regulations required that the aircraft be
protected against catastrophic effects of lightning, but did not have
specific requirements for electrical and electronic system lightning
protection. At the time, most aircraft were designed with mechanical
systems, or simple electrical and electronic systems. Airframe
components were made from aluminum materials, with high electrical
conductivity, and offered good protection against lightning.
The early 1980s ushered in part 25 transport airplane designs that
routinely included more complex electrical and electronic systems.
Flight-critical electronic primary flight controls, electronic primary
flight displays, and full-authority electronic engine controls became
common on transport airplanes certificated under part 25. At this time,
the FAA began to impose lightning protection requirements for critical
and essential electrical and electronic systems through special
conditions, when appropriate, for part 25 airplane certification
projects.
As electrical and electronic systems became more common on part 25
airplanes, the FAA issued Sec. 25.1316, specifically requiring
protection for electrical and electronic systems on part 25 transport
category airplanes. The final rule was published on April 28, 1994 (59
FR 22112). This regulation, in effect today, requires lightning
protection for electrical and electronic systems based on the
consequences of failure for functions these systems perform. The
present regulation provides specific considerations that the applicant
must design for to validate that the electrical and electronic systems
and functions are protected from the effects of lightning strikes.
B. Related Rulemaking Activity
The FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) on
Transport Airplane and Engine Issues (57 FR 58843; December 11, 1992)
to develop recommendations for specific electrical and electronic
systems lightning protection requirements for aircraft certificated
under parts 23, 27, and 29 standards.
The ARAC submitted recommendations to the FAA in November 1998. The
recommendations included lightning protection requirements, based on
the consequences of the failure of system functions, similar to the
requirements in Sec. 25.1316. The ARAC also recommended changes to
Sec. 25.1316 consistent with its recommendations for classification of
the failure conditions for parts 23, 27, and 29. ARAC recommended the
same requirements for all four parts.
The FAA considered the ARAC recommendations in developing this
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and agrees with these
recommendations, with one exception. After careful consideration, the
FAA is unable to endorse the ARAC recommendation to provide an
exception to the requirement for automatic and timely recovery of a
system that performs a function for which failure is catastrophic. ARAC
recommended an exception to recovery of such a system in instances
where the recovery of the system would conflict with other operational
or functional requirements of the system. We are unable to identify a
situation where such an exception would be appropriate, nor could we
justify the need for such an exception and propose requirements that
could ensure an equivalent level of safety.
The recommendations of the ARAC are available at the following Web
address: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/arac/issue_areas/tae/eeh/.
C. Advisory Material
In the absence of performance standards for protection of
electrical and electronic systems from lightning effects, the FAA has
issued Advisory Circular (AC) 20-136A, ``Protection of Aircraft
Electrical/Electronic System against the Indirect Effects of
Lightning.'' Since advisory circulars are not mandatory, a type
certificate applicant may elect to ignore or deviate from the guidance
therein, while still satisfying the requirement to ``consider''
lightning. The lack of specific performance standards has resulted in a
variety of different interpretations and means of compliance for system
lightning protection.
General Discussion of the Proposal
The proposed rulemaking would establish type certification
standards for lightning protection of electrical and electronic systems
for aircraft certificated under parts 23, 27 and 29. This action also
proposes to revise Sec. 25.1316 for transport category airplanes to be
consistent in format with the proposed regulations applicable to other
aircraft.
This rulemaking reflects a change in our approach to achieving
lightning protection for aircraft by protecting functions of electrical
and electronic systems. The current part 25 regulation for lightning
protection focuses on protection of electrical and electronic systems
that perform critical and essential functions and are no longer
compatible or consistent with the latest classification concepts,
terminology, and practices. Parts 23, 27 and 29 regulations for
lightning protection are less precise, and require the applicant only
to ``consider'' lightning. While the focus on protection of electrical
and electronic systems that perform critical or essential functions was
fundamental to the wording of earlier airworthiness standards regarding
systems, and associated advisory circulars, this proposal focuses on
the effects that failure conditions would have on aircraft safety. The
FAA proposes that lightning protection design required for each
aircraft would be determined by the type of electrical and electronic
systems installed on the aircraft, and how critical the system or
function is to either continued flight and landing, or the aircraft
capability and flightcrew's ability to respond to adverse operating
conditions.
In aircraft, the term ``electrical and electronic system'' refers
to the electrical and electronic equipment, associated software, and
interconnecting wires installed on aircraft to perform one or more
functions. The term ``function'' refers to the action that the system
performs. An aircraft system may perform multiple functions with
different failure conditions. For example, an engine control system may
perform the function of the engine thrust control--for which failure
could have catastrophic effects on the continued safe flight and
landing of the aircraft. The engine control system may also perform the
function of engine condition monitoring--for which failure could have
hazardous or major effects on continued safe operation of the aircraft.
A function may also be performed by multiple systems or subsystems. For
example, the function of controlling engine thrust may be provided by
an electronic engine control subsystem, with a separate backup
mechanical control subsystem.
A. Proposed Performance Standards
The proposed regulations would establish consistent performance
standards to design lightning protection for those aircraft electrical
and electronic systems that provide:
1. Functions for which failure would prevent the continued safe
flight and landing of the aircraft: Failure of these functions could
result in catastrophic consequences such as loss of life and loss of
the aircraft;
2. Functions for which failure would reduce the capability of the
aircraft or the ability of the flightcrew to cope with adverse
operating conditions: Failure of
[[Page 16678]]
these functions could have hazardous or major consequences.
This NPRM identifies system lightning performance standards for
item 1 as ``protection against catastrophic failure.'' These standards
are addressed by paragraph (a) of the proposed regulations. System
lightning performance standards for item 2 will be referenced as
``protection against hazardous or major failure.'' These standards are
addressed by paragraph (b) of the proposed regulations.
The proposed standards for protection against catastrophic failure
would require an applicant to show that the function would not be
adversely affected during or after the time the aircraft is exposed to
lightning. Compliance with the standard would depend on the specific
aircraft function, the system that performs that function, and the
effects of failure on the system and function. Further guidance on
defining the adverse effects for specific aircraft system functions can
be found in various FAA advisory materials.
The system could be affected during lightning exposure because a
backup system continues to provide the function, even though the
function may not be adversely affected. Accordingly, the applicant
would be required to show that the system would automatically recover
normal operation after the lightning exposure in a timely manner.
``Normal operation'' means the ability of the system to perform
functions to the extent necessary to continue safe flight and landing.
For systems that provide one or more functions, the proposal would
require the system to automatically recover normal operations of those
functions for which failure could be catastrophic. Other functions
would not be required to return to normal operation. The FAA would
determine what constitutes ``timely'' automatic recovery on a case-by-
case evaluation, based on engineering judgment of the specific function
and its failure effects.
The aircraft engine thrust/power control is an example of a
function for which failure would have catastrophic effects on the
aircraft's ability to continue safe flight and landing. A full-
authority electronic engine control system may provide this function,
and perform aircraft engine thrust/power control by automatically
regulating fuel flow and airflow to the engine(s). The loss or
malfunction of this function could stop the engines or result in engine
overspeed, which could result in a catastrophic failure condition. In
this situation, the applicant would be required to ensure the aircraft
engine thrust/power control function is not adversely affected during
or after lightning exposure.
The aircraft display is another function for which failure would
have catastrophic effects on continued safe flight and landing. This
function provides aircraft attitude, altitude, and airspeed information
to the pilot, which are required for continued safe flight and landing
of the aircraft. The aircraft display may be provided by two systems:
An electronic primary display and an electromechanical standby display.
In this situation, the primary display may momentarily blank while the
aircraft is exposed to lightning, provided the information is available
from a standby display. The applicant would be required to demonstrate
that the primary display system automatically recovers normal operation
in a timely manner with no adverse effect on providing the attitude,
altitude, and airspeed information.
The proposed requirements for protection against hazardous or major
failure would require the applicant to show that the system would not
be damaged, and the function would recover normal operation in a timely
manner after the aircraft is exposed to lightning. This proposed
requirement would primarily focus on the recovery of the function to
normal operation. For these systems, ``damaged'' refers to the
inability to recover. As with the proposed standard for protection
against catastrophic failure, the FAA would determine what constitutes
a ``timely'' recovery of normal function based on engineering judgment
of the specific function and its failure effects upon the design
submitted for certification.
An example of a function for which failure could result in or have
a hazardous or major effect on aircraft operation is voice
communication provided by radio. Failure of this function would
increase the flightcrew's normal workload and affect their ability to
maintain situational awareness, as the flightcrew would no longer be
able to transmit or receive voice communication information with other
pilots or air traffic control. As proposed, the applicant would be
required to ensure the radio system is not damaged after lightning
exposure and the voice communication function would recover in a timely
manner. Recovery may require flightcrew interaction.
B. Applicability of the Proposed Lightning Protection Requirements
Application of the proposed standards for aircraft electrical and
electronic system lightning protection would be based on the aircraft's
potential for lightning exposure and the consequences of system
failure. The proposed requirements for parts 25 and 29 would apply to
all aircraft certificated under part 25 and part 29. The proposed
requirements would also apply to part 23 and part 27 aircraft approved
for operations under instrument flight rules (IFR). In addition, the
proposed requirements would apply to part 23 airplanes and part 27
rotorcraft approved solely for operations under visual flight rules
(VFR); for those electrical and electronic systems that perform
functions for which failures would be catastrophic.
Parts 25 and 29 Aircraft
Parts 25 and 29 transport category aircraft are now routinely
equipped with complex electrical and electronic systems. These systems
are highly integrated, and provide a range of flight-critical
functions. The FAA has tentatively determined that these transport
category aircraft should be required to provide full protection for
those systems that perform functions for which failure could result in
both catastrophic and hazardous or major failure effects.
Part 23 Airplanes
Application of the proposed requirements for airplanes certificated
to part 23 standards depends on whether the airplane is approved for
IFR or VFR-only operations. This difference exists because, compared to
part 23 VFR-only airplanes, part 23 IFR-approved airplanes are more
likely equipped with complex electrical and electronic systems that
allow them to operate into instrument meteorological conditions (IMC),
where lightning strikes are prevalent. As a result, part 23 IFR-
approved airplanes are designed for, and expected to operate into,
weather conditions that present greater potential for exposure to
lightning.
In contrast, part 23 VFR-only airplanes are prohibited by
regulation from operating into IMC. Nevertheless, there is still some
likelihood of the airplanes being exposed to lightning. Therefore, the
FAA has determined that the resulting risk to part 23 VFR-only
airplanes for which failure would be catastrophic may be sufficiently
great to require lightning protection to prevent catastrophic failures.
However, the FAA has tentatively determined that the resulting risk to
part 23 VFR-only airplanes with electrical or electronic systems
installed for which failure would be hazardous or major remains
sufficiently low as to not require lightning protection.
[[Page 16679]]
Part 27 Rotorcraft
Similar to the applicability of proposed changes to part 23,
application of the proposed requirements for part 27 would depend on
whether the rotorcraft is approved for IFR or VFR-only operations. The
proposed lightning protection requirements would apply to IFR-approved
rotorcraft in the same way, and for the same reasons. Likewise, part 27
VFR-only rotorcraft would be required to protect those systems that
perform functions where failure could have catastrophic effects. This
requirement is intended to address the unique performance capabilities
that make rotorcraft VFR operations vulnerable to lightning. Rotorcraft
are inherently more maneuverable, and have more versatile landing
capability than fixed wing aircraft. Accordingly, they are permitted to
operate with low minimum altitude, low flight visibility, and nearer to
clouds. Although prohibited from operating directly into IMC, part 27
VFR-only rotorcraft are able to operate close to meteorological
conditions that have a high potential for lightning strikes. This means
rotorcraft certificated to part 27 standards in VFR-only operations are
likely to encounter lightning exposure. The FAA has determined that the
resulting risk to part 27 VFR-only rotorcraft systems for which failure
would be catastrophic is sufficiently great to propose requiring
lightning protection to prevent catastrophic failures. As with part 23
VFR-only airplanes, the FAA has determined that the resulting risk to
rotorcraft certificated to part 27 standards that operate in VFR-only
operations with electrical or electronic systems installed for which
failure would be hazardous or major likely remains sufficiently low as
to not require lightning protection.
C. Specific Changes to Part 25
The proposed changes to Sec. 25.1316 are intended to rephrase the
existing regulation to clarify intent, to reformat it so that it is in
keeping with the other three parts, and to delete Sec. 25.1316(c)
which sets forth specific requirements for compliance. If adopted, the
proposal would not change the current part 25 practices for lightning
protection. Rather, the proposal would shift the emphasis placed on
protecting functions of electrical and electronic systems, and focus on
the effects that systems and equipment failure conditions have on
aircraft safety. The most significant change would be to clearly set
forth lightning protection performance standards for the function and
the system, based on the failure effects of the function.
Section 25.1316(a) currently requires those electrical and
electronic systems that provide functions where failure would be
catastrophic to be designed and installed so their operation and
operational capabilities are not adversely affected when the airplane
is exposed to lightning. Section 25.1316(b) requires that lightning
protection for electrical and electronic systems that perform functions
for which failure would be hazardous or major must be designed and
installed to ensure that these functions can be timely recovered after
exposure to lightning.
The proposed regulation is distinguishable from existing Sec.
25.1316 in that it places the emphasis on the function and also sets
forth specific standards for the function and the system respectively.
By focusing on functions performed by systems, rather than the systems
themselves, the proposed revision would allow the applicant to choose
appropriate system configurations and designs to comply with this
regulation, but would also require that the applicant demonstrate that
the proposed configuration provides effective protection.
Finally, the proposal would remove Sec. 25.1316(c), which contains
specific step-by-step actions required to show compliance. The ARAC
recommended removing Sec. 25.1316(c) because this information is more
appropriately addressed in guidance for means of compliance. Since
Sec. 25.1316 was adopted in 1994, significant guidance has been
developed by the FAA and lightning technical committees. Advisory
circulars 20-136A and 20-155 provide much more comprehensive guidance
on means of compliance with the lightning regulations. Removing Sec.
25.1316(c) allows for the use of means of compliance that achieve the
intent of Sec. 25.1316(a) and (b) without the prescriptive list that
is currently in Sec. 25.1316(c). The technology for showing compliance
with Sec. 25.1316(a) and (b) has progressed substantially since Sec.
25.1316 was adopted in 1994, which makes the prescriptive list in Sec.
25.1316(c) obsolete.
D. Miscellaneous Changes
This rulemaking would remove Sec. Sec. 27.1309(d) and 29.1309(h),
and delete ``lightning and'' from Sec. Sec. 27.610(d)(4) and
29.610(d)(4). Section 27.1309(d) currently governs lightning protection
for part 27 electrical and electronic systems, and requires only that
the applicant ``consider'' the effects of lightning according to Sec.
27.610. Section 29.1309(h) requires only that the applicant
``consider'' the effects of lightning. Sections 27.610(d)(4) and
29.610(d)(4) both address general design requirements for electrical
bonding and protection against lightning and static electricity. They
require electrical bonding against lightning to reduce to an acceptable
level the effects of lightning on the functioning of essential
electrical and electronic equipment. Adoption of the proposed
Sec. Sec. 27.1316 and 29.1316 would replace these references to
lightning with specific performance standards for lightning protection
of parts 27 and 29 electrical and electronic systems.
Also, we propose to add a cross reference to Sec. 27.1316 in
Appendix B of Part 27 on electrical and electronic system lightning
protection for rotorcraft approved for IFR operation.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there
is no new information collection requirement associated with this
proposed rule.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed regulations.
Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of
[[Page 16680]]
U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the
costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impact of the proposed rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble. Such a
determination has been made for this proposed rule. The reasoning for
this determination follows:
In a cost survey of industry conducted by the FAA, six of the seven
replying firms reported no incremental cost from this proposed rule.
One firm reported ``little or no cost.'' The reason for little or no
incremental cost is that these firms (six out of seven) reported usage
of Advisory Circular (AC) 20-136A, ``Protection of Aircraft Electrical/
Electronic Systems Against the Indirect Effects of Lightning,'' as
guidance for demonstrating compliance with lightning requirements.
Consequently, these firms are already in compliance with the proposed
rule as it represents a codification of AC 20-136A. For manufacturers
of Part 25 airplanes, cost changes should be minimal in any case, as
the proposed changes in the rule are clarifying only. Moreover, four of
the seven respondents reported at least some expected benefits from the
proposed rule (See ``Benefits'' section below). The FAA therefore has
determined that this proposed rule would have minimal costs with
positive net benefits and does not warrant a full regulatory
evaluation. The FAA requests comments with supporting justification on
the FAA determination of minimal impact. Our analysis follows below.
The FAA has also determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
Total Costs and Benefits of This Rulemaking
As noted above, there are little or no expected costs for this
proposed rule and some benefits. The benefits therefore justify the
costs. See details in the separate costs and benefits sections below.
Who Is Potentially Affected by This Rulemaking?
Manufacturers of Parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 aircraft and
manufacturers of electrical and electronic systems for those aircraft.
Assumptions and Sources of Information
We use a ten-year period of analysis, 2009-2018.
Data on costs of compliance and benefits of this rule were
obtained from an FAA survey of industry.
Firms are defined as ``small'' or ``large'' using Small
Business Administration (SBA) size standards (U.S. SBA. Table of Small
Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry
Classification System Codes, July 21, 2006).
Costs of This Rulemaking
On February 9, 2009, we sent a detailed cost survey to six
manufacturers of Parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 aircraft and three
manufacturers of electrical and electronic systems for those aircraft.
In addition to several detailed cost questions, the survey also asked
one question about potential benefits from the proposed rule. We
received four responses to this initial survey. On March 17, 2009, we
resurveyed the five non-respondents and received three additional
replies, although the last response came only on August 8, 2009. The
seven responses we received were from manufacturers ranging from a
small aircraft manufacturer (less than 1,500 employees) to the largest
U.S. aircraft manufacturer. As shown in the table below, the
respondents indicated little or no cost from the proposed rule.
Summary of Cost Survey Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firm Type Products certified to: Costs Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...................... Airplane manufacturer. Part 23............................. No cost............................. ``The certification process
will be less ambiguous and
slightly streamlined by
writing some of the AC 20-
136A requirements directly
into the regulations.''
B...................... Airplane manufacturer. Parts 23 & 25....................... No cost............................. ``The commonality between
parts and the ability to
use the same
substantiation across
product lines is a very
large benefit.''
C...................... Airplane manufacturer. Parts 23 & 25....................... No cost............................. ``Harmonization of Part 23
and Part 25 rules will
simplify our certification
process as our internal
procedures benefit from
any similarity of the two
Parts.''
D...................... Airplane manufacturer. Part 25............................. Little or no cost................... No response to benefits
question.
E...................... Electrical/electronic Parts 23 & 25....................... No cost............................. ``NA.''
systems manufacturer.
F...................... Electrical/electronic Parts 23, 25, 27, & 29.............. No cost............................. ``None.''
systems manufacturer.
G...................... Electrical/electronic Parts 23, 25, 27, & 29.............. No cost............................. ``Standardization of the
systems manufacturer. rule across all aircraft
types may simplify
requirements capture
resulting in some
limit[ed] non-recurring
cost reduction.''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits of This Rulemaking
As supported by the responses to the benefits question, shown in
the table, the proposed rule and the standardization of rule language
would reduce firm costs by clarifying and simplifying the certification
process.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that
[[Page 16681]]
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and
of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational
requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this
principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible
regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to
assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.'' The RFA
covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-
for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
As noted above, in a cost survey of industry, the FAA found little
or no expected costs from this proposed rule. The reason for this
finding is that all but one respondent reported usage of AC 20-136A,
``Protection of Aircraft Electrical/Electronic Systems Against the
Indirect Effects of Lightning,'' as guidance for complying with system
lightning requirements. Accordingly, this proposed rule represents
current practice and imposes no more requirements than those previously
recommended by AC 20-136A. Consequently, these firms are already in
compliance with the proposed rule as it represents a codification of AC
20-136A. For manufacturers of Part 25 airplanes, cost changes should,
in any case, be minimal as the proposed changes in the rule are
clarifying only. Therefore, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreement Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of
standards is not considered not considered an unnecessary obstacle to
the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard have
a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and
do not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this
objective. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards. The FAA notes the purpose is to ensure the safety of the
American public, and has assessed the effect of this proposed rule to
ensure that it does not exclude imports that meet this objective. As a
result, this proposed rule is not considered as creating an unnecessary
obstacle to foreign commerce because the FAA found little or no
expected costs from this proposed rule.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100
million.
This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. The
requirements of Title II do not apply.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and, therefore, would not have federalism implications.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 308(c)(1) and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use
The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
Additional Information
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or
if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments
only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information
Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send
the information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or
CD-ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
[[Page 16682]]
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a
separate file to which the public does not have access, and we place a
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this
proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in
paragraph (1).
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 23
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.
14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
14 CFR Part 27
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 29
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 of Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 23--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND
COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES
1. The authority citation for part 23 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
2. Add new Sec. 23.1306 to read as follows:
Sec. 23.1306 Electrical and electronic system lightning protection.
(a) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function,
for which failure would prevent the continued safe flight and landing
of the airplane, must be designed and installed so that--
(1) The function is not adversely affected during and after the
time the airplane is exposed to lightning; and
(2) The system automatically recovers normal operation of that
function in a timely manner after the airplane is exposed to lightning.
(b) For airplanes approved for instrument flight rules operation,
each electrical and electronic system that performs a function, for
which failure would reduce the capability of the airplane or the
ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition,
must be designed and installed so that--
(1) The system is not damaged after the airplane is exposed to
lightning; and
(2) The function recovers normal operation in a timely manner after
the airplane is exposed to lightning.
PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
3. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
4. Revise Sec. 25.1316 to read as follows:
Sec. 25.1316 Electrical and electronic system lightning protection.
(a) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function,
for which failure would prevent the continued safe flight and landing
of the airplane, must be designed and installed so that--
(1) The function is not adversely affected during and after the
time the airplane is exposed to lightning; and
(2) The system automatically recovers normal operation of that
function in a timely manner after the airplane is exposed to lightning.
(b) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function,
for which failure would reduce the capability of the airplane or the
ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition,
must be designed and installed so that--
(1) The system is not damaged after the airplane is exposed to
lightning; and
(2) The function recovers normal operation in a timely manner after
the airplane is exposed to lightning.
PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
5. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
6. Amend Sec. 27.610 by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 27.610 Lightning and static electricity protection.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) Reduce to an acceptable level the effects of static electricity
on the functioning of essential electrical and electronic equipment.
Sec. 27.1309 [Amended]
7. Amend Sec. 27.1309 by removing paragraph (d).
8. Add a new Sec. 27.1316 to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1316 Electrical and electronic system lightning protection.
(a) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function,
for which failure would prevent the continued safe flight and landing
of the rotorcraft, must be designed and installed so that--
(1) The function is not adversely affected during and after the
time the rotorcraft is exposed to lightning; and
(2) The system automatically recovers normal operation of that
function in a timely manner after the rotorcraft is exposed to
lightning.
(b) For rotorcraft approved for instrument flight rules operation,
each electrical and electronic system that performs a function, for
which failure would reduce the capability of the rotorcraft or the
ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition,
must be designed and installed so that--
(1) The system is not damaged after the rotorcraft is exposed to
lightning; and
(2) The function recovers normal operation in a timely manner after
the rotorcraft is exposed to lightning.
9. Add paragraph X. to Appendix B of part 27 to read as follows:
[[Page 16683]]
Appendix B to Part 29--Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument
Flight
* * * * *
X. Electrical and electronic system lightning protection. For
regulations concerning lightning protection for electrical and
electronic systems, see Sec. 27.1316.
PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
10. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
11. Amend Sec. 29.610 by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 29.610 Lightning and static electricity protection.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) Reduce to an acceptable level the effects of static electricity
on the functioning of essential electrical and electronic equipment.
Sec. 29.1309 [Amended]
12. Amend Sec. 29.1309 by removing paragraph (h).
13. Add new Sec. 29.1316 to read as follows:
Sec. 29.1316 Electrical and electronic system lightning protection.
(a) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function,
for which failure would prevent the continued safe flight and landing
of the rotorcraft, must be designed and installed so that--
(1) The function is not adversely affected during and after the
time the rotorcraft is exposed to lightning; and
(2) The system automatically recovers normal operation of that
function in a timely manner after the rotorcraft is exposed to
lightning.
(b) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function,
for which failure would reduce the capability of the airplane or the
ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition,
must be designed and installed so that--
(1) The system is not damaged after the rotorcraft is exposed to
lightning; and
(2) The function recovers normal operation in a timely manner after
the rotorcraft is exposed to lightning.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 29, 2010.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-7525 Filed 4-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P