[Federal Register: April 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 68)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18134-18138]
[DOCID:fr09ap10-30]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 21

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0218; Notice No. 10-03]
RIN 2120-AJ56

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise the applicability for function
and reliability flight testing to include all turbine-powered airplanes
weighing 6,000 pounds or less. Revising the applicability is necessary
because advancements in aviation technology have invalidated the
reasons for excluding these airplanes. The proposed revision would
improve aviation safety for these airplanes.

DATES: Send your comments on or before July 8, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
0218 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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 go 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victor Powell, Aircraft Certification
Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, Certification Procedures
Branch, AIR-110, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile
(202) 385-6475; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Discussion of the Proposal

I. Statement of the Problem

    For part 23, function and reliability (F & R) flight testing is
required by Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.35(b)(2)
for all airplanes weighing more than 6,000 pounds maximum certified
weight. Function and reliability flight testing is not required for
gliders, nor for part 23 airplanes weighing 6,000 pounds or less.
Because of advancements in airplane structures, propulsion methods, and
systems technologies, the 6,000 pound break point may no longer be
justified. Turbine-powered airplanes that weigh 6,000 pounds or less
are not required to undergo F & R flight testing regardless of the
airplane's systems complexity or level of automation. After reviewing
several recent TC projects for small turbojet-powered airplanes
(turbojets)--involving airplanes expected to weigh 6,000 pounds or
less--the FAA has determined that most, if not all, of these airplane
designs would benefit from the F & R flight testing requirement. This
determination is based on new lightweight, turbine-powered airplanes
having design features and performance consistent with larger airplanes
that are required to undergo F & R flight testing.

II. Background

A. What Is Function and Reliability Flight Testing?
    Function and reliability flight testing simulates typical aircraft,
in-service flight operations for a new aircraft design. This flight
testing is done prior to the aircraft's final design approval leading
to the issuance of a TC. The F & R flight testing requirement in Sec.
21.35(b)(2) gives the FAA and the public a reasonable assurance that an
aircraft, its components, and its equipment are reliable and function
properly.
    Function and reliability flight testing covers a wide variety of
operations that an aircraft will likely undertake in service.
Typically, F & R flight testing plans specify the type and number of
each task to be completed (i.e., takeoffs, landings, Instrument Landing
Systems approaches, high altitude, hot/cold/humid air operations,
stalls, in-flight engine restarts, engine starts using different power
sources, flight in rain, and night flights).
    In addition, F & R flight testing involves simulated in-service
operations

using a mature aircraft configuration. Mature in this sense means the
aircraft configuration that represents the type design that has been
shown to meet the airworthiness standards of the aircraft's
certification basis in accordance with applicable requirements of
Sec. Sec.  21.33 and 21.35(a). The regulatory sequencing prescribed by
Sec. Sec.  21.35(a) and (b) results in the aircraft configuration
selected for F & R flight testing having successfully completed much,
if not most, of the individual certification requirements for the
issuance of a TC.
B. Historical Overview of Function and Reliability Flight Testing
    The requirement for F & R flight testing originated with the Civil
Aeronautics Board (CAB) imposing a ``service test'' requirement for
aircraft in 1947. The purpose of these service tests was to ``ascertain
whether there is reasonable assurance that the airplane, its
components, and equipment are reliable and function properly'' (see 12
FR 2086, March 29, 1947). A related rulemaking included a reference to
a study of accidents and maintenance issues of then relatively new
model aircraft (see 12 FR 1028, February 13, 1947). That study showed
extensive difficulties can occur in the initial stages of operating new
aircraft.
    The operation of new aircraft had a greater chance for accidents
caused by mechanical malfunctioning of troublesome components or
equipment. The CAB determined that accidents likely would be prevented
if an aircraft were required to undergo tests specifically designed to
ascertain the reliability and proper functioning of the aircraft and
its systems and equipment before type certification.
    In 1950, the CAB amended the airworthiness standards to exclude ``*
* * smaller airplanes, specifically those of 6,000 pounds maximum
weight or less * * *'' from the service test requirement (see 15 FR
8899, December 15, 1950). The introductory material published in the
revision of the service test requirement explained that most of the
significant changes in the amendment stemmed from ``the desire for
simplification of the rules in this part with respect to the smaller
airplanes, specifically those of 6,000 pounds maximum weight or less,
which would be expected to be used mainly as personal airplanes.'' \1\
The introductory material also stated the service test requirement was
removed for airplanes of 6,000 pounds or less maximum weight because
``experience seems to indicate that this rule imposes a burden upon the
manufacturers not commensurate with the safety gained.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Id.
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the recodification of airworthiness standards in 1964 and
1965, the requirement for F & R flight testing was placed in Sec.
21.35(b)(2). The exclusion of smaller airplanes weighing 6,000 pounds
or less maximum certificated weight was described in terms of aircraft
type certificated in accordance with part 23.

III. The Need for This Proposal

A. Evolution of Aviation Technology
    The decision to exclude certain airplanes of 6,000 pounds or less
maximum weight from F & R flight testing was based on the state of
technology existing in 1950. At that time, airplanes of 6,000 pounds or
less maximum weight were expected to be used mainly as personal
airplanes. Such civil aircraft developed between the years of 1945 and
1955 were typically single, reciprocating-engine powered airplanes
weighing less than 3,000 pounds with engine output of less than 300
horsepower. Technological advancements now allow airplanes that weigh
6,000 pounds or less to be more complex and integrated than some
transport category airplanes of the 1960s and earlier.
B. Purpose of Function and Reliability Flight Testing
    The safety goal of F & R flight testing is to identify and reduce
aircraft system malfunctions or failures that would be more than
inconvenient nuisances routinely accommodated in normal operations. By
minimizing flight crew distractions from system malfunctions, new
aircraft entering service are protected from the flight crew workload
consequences of aircraft system deficiencies. Function and reliability
flight testing will target deficiencies that may not have been apparent
during aircraft engineering ground and flight test programs.
C. Very Light Jet Certification Experience
    Recent FAA TC program experience with the new very light jets (VLJ)
has led to reconsideration of the existing exclusion of airplanes
weighing 6,000 pounds or less in Sec.  21.35(b)(2). This
reconsideration was driven in part by difficulties encountered with the
voluntary application of the requirement during the FAA type
certification of the Eclipse Aviation Corporation's (Eclipse) EA-500
VLJ and the subsequent problems experienced during that airplane's
entry into service.
    The FAA assembled a team of technical staff to conduct a Special
Certification Review (SCR) of the EA-500 certification program. A copy
of the Eclipse SCR has been placed in the Rules Docket for this
rulemaking.\3\ That team's report reviewed the FAA's TC program and
focused on four service problems encountered during the EA-500's entry
into service. That team also reviewed Service Difficulty Report (SDR)
experience concerning airplane system deficiencies and malfunctions
encountered subsequent to the EA-500's entry into service. The team
developed eight findings and six recommendations. One of the SCR
findings (Finding No. 8) stated: ``The newly designed VLJs have modern
and integrated complex avionics. The traditional approach of defining
certification requirements for part 23 airplanes based solely on
maximum certificated weight is no longer valid.'' \4\ The FAA has
issued a separate rulemaking proposal to address Finding No. 8 (see
``Certification of Turbojets,'' 74 FR 41522, August 17, 2009). A
corresponding recommendation (Recommendation No. 6) in the Eclipse SCR
stated: ``The FAA should reevaluate the criteria for applicability of F
& R testing.'' \5\ The Eclipse SCR further found that the EA-500
complied with the requirements of its certification basis and noted
that the airplane was not required by existing regulations to include
the F & R flight testing requirements of Sec.  21.35(b)(2). This
rulemaking proposal addresses Recommendation No. 6, which called for a
revision of the applicability of the existing F & R flight testing
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Subcommittee of the United States Congress held hearings
on problems related to the introduction of the Eclipse VLJ (Refer to
House of Representatives Subcommittee on Aviation, Hearing No. 110-
169, September 17, 2008).
    \4\ Special Certification Review (SCR) of the Eclipse 500
certification program.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the Eclipse SCR and the EA-500 certification
program, the FAA reviewed the likelihood that F & R flight testing
requirements might have preventatively identified problems encountered
by the EA-500 when it entered into service. Function and reliability
flight testing might have discovered five of the problems identified in
the SCR (pitch and rudder trim problems; pitot system moisture trap;
engine surges caused by hard carbon build-up on the static vanes; brake
problems; and tire problems) while two of the cited problems (autopilot
turbulence sensitivity; and problems with the software logic

dealing with the throttle position) would less likely have been
detected, based on the chances of duplicating causal conditions and
other risk factors.
    These conclusions were based on the likelihood that the root causes
for the reported problems would be identified by the additional
effective flight testing that would be accomplished by a mandatory F &
R flight testing program (150 or 300 additional hours of simulated in-
service operations accomplished in various environments and locations).
Section 21.35(f) has the criteria for selection of 150 or 300 hours, a
provision that is not changed in this proposal.
    This proposal would expand the applicability of F & R flight
testing requirements to all turbine-powered airplanes that weigh 6,000
pounds or less, while retaining the exception for gliders and
reciprocating-engine powered airplanes type certificated under 14 CFR
part 23.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Paperwork Reduction Act
    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d))
requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other
information collection burdens imposed on the public. We have
determined that there is no information collection burden associated
with this proposed rule.
International Compatibility
    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.
Initial Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by state, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking
greater detail read the full initial regulatory evaluation, a copy of
which we have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
the DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5) would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States; and (6) would not impose an unfunded mandate on
state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized
below.
Total Costs and Benefits of This Proposed Rule
    We expect that the typical certification project for an airplane
subject to the proposed rule would be for a new airplane design with a
turbine engine previously used in a type-certificated aircraft
requiring 165 hours \6\ of F & R flight testing at a total cost of
$317,000. In the case of a new airplane design and an engine not
previously used on a certificated airplane, we estimate that double the
hours (330 hours) would be required, so the total cost would double to
$634,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the separate cost section below for the reason we
increased the number of hours from 150 hours, the minimum required
by Sec.  21.35(f), to 165 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We expect that adoption of this proposed rule would enhance safety
and reduce costs by substantially reducing the number of safety
incidents and post-certification Airworthiness Directives (AD). A
partial estimate of the expected costs that would be avoided for a
single new airplane design amounts to $1.8 million, with a present
value of $1.6 million. These avoided costs are approximately six times
the costs of our 165-hour estimate ($317,000) and approximately three
times the higher 330-hour estimate ($634,000). Consequently, the
benefits of this proposed rule greatly exceed its modest costs. For
additional detail, see the separate sections on costs and benefits
below.
    The FAA solicits comments on our determination of costs and
benefits and our expectation that this proposed rule would enhance
safety and reduce costs.
Who Is Potentially Affected by This Rule?
    Manufacturers of part 23 turbine-powered airplanes weighing 6,000
pounds or less are potentially affected.
Assumptions and Sources of Information
     We use a two-year period of analysis, as we find this
period sufficient to show the cost-beneficial nature of this proposed
rule. We use the period from the beginning of 2007 to the end of 2008,
as the data used in the analysis are from this period. The short period
of analysis reflects the inherent nature of F & R flight testing,
designed as it is to uncover design flaws that otherwise would reveal
themselves in the very early life of an airplane.
     Discount rate is 7% (Office of Management and Budget,
Circular A-94, ``Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost
Analysis of Federal Programs,'' October 29, 1992, p. 8).
     Data on costs of compliance with this proposal were
obtained from a part 23 airplane manufacturer and FAA estimates.
Costs of This Proposed Rule
    Aircraft subject to F & R flight testing under 14 CFR 21.35(b)(2),
Sec.  21.35(f) require at least 300 hours of F & R flight testing for
aircraft ``incorporating turbine engines of a type not previously used
in a type certificated aircraft'' and at least 150 hours for all other
aircraft. Unless a totally new engine is used, it is rare that the
applicant is required to run a full 300-hour program. Generally, an
applicant with a new aircraft design, but with an engine previously
used in a type-certificated aircraft, would be required to conduct at
least 150 hours of F & R flight testing. As most VLJ projects appear to
be based on derivatives of the Williams FJ-33 engine or other
previously-certificated engines, we expect this requirement to hold for

the typical project subject to this proposed rule. Failures during F &
R flight testing, however, occasionally lead to extension of the
required hours. We estimate that the average extension is 10%, or 15
hours, so our ``typical'' estimate assumes 165 hours of F & R flight
testing. We double that estimate to also provide an estimate for a new
airplane design with a new engine design.
    Our final figures are $317,066 for a 165-hour program and $634,132
for a 330-hour program.
Benefits of This Proposed Rule
    We expect that adoption of this proposed rule would enhance safety
and reduce costs by substantially reducing the number of service
difficulties experienced post-certification. This expectation is
supported by evidence from the service experience of the EA-500. The
Eclipse SCR \7\ team looked at 85 Eclipse SDRs submitted between July
29, 2007 and May 13, 2008. The Eclipse SCR team ``concluded the
majority of the SDRs resulted from reliability issues separate from
compliance with the minimum FAA standards'' (see SCR, Executive
Summary). There also were 6 Eclipse-related ADs issued in the one-year
period between November 2007 and November 2008. In any case, the pitot/
angle of attack (AOA) issue (SCR, p. 25; AD 2008-02-04) is the one most
likely to have been uncovered by a mandatory F & R flight testing
program. Extending the AD estimate to the entire U.S.-registered
Eclipse EA-500 fleet (264 airplanes), we estimate the total cost of the
pitot/AOA problem to be $2.5 million. As discussed above, however, we
assess the probability of F & R flight testing uncovering the pitot/AOA
problem to be approximately 0.7 to 0.75. Using the lower figure, we
accordingly calculate the expected benefit as the total cost avoided of
$2.5 million times 0.7, or $1.8 million. Since the FAA issued a type
certificate on September 30, 2006, approximately 1.5 years prior to the
compliance date for this AD, we discount the expected benefit 1.5 years
to find present value benefit of $1.6 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Special Certification Review: Eclipse Aviation Corporation
Model EA-500 Airplane. Prepared for the Federal Aviation
Administration Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety,
September 12, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the $1.6 million benefit from avoiding just this one problem
greatly exceeds our $317,066 estimated typical cost of F & R flight
testing.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    The FAA believes that this proposed rule would not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of entities for the
following reason: The cost of requiring F & R flight testing is small
and a very small percentage of development, certification, and
production costs. Consequently, requiring F & R flight testing for
turbine-powered airplanes weighing 6,000 pounds or less would have a
minimal cost impact on manufacturers of airplanes in this category.
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 Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing 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 an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such the protection of safety, and does 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 has
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined the
purpose is to promote safety and is thus not considered an unnecessary
obstacle to foreign commerce of the United States.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one
year by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value
of $136.1 million.
    This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. The
requirements of Title II do not apply to this proposal.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    The FAA 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, or the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and, therefore, would not have federalism implications.
Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in Title
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation
modes other than aviation, and to establish appropriate regulatory
distinctions. The proposed rule would apply to the certification of
airplanes that may be used for air transportation in Alaska. In light
of air transportation needs, and terrain and aviation environment
conditions unique

to that state, we anticipate that safety benefits of the proposal would
be correspondingly higher than expected for aviation operations in the
continental National Airspace System (NAS).
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 312(f) and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use
    The FAA has analyzed this proposal under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant regulatory action'' under the executive order because
it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
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.
    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<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the docket number 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 in 14 CFR Part 21

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 21--CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS, ARTICLES, AND PARTS

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

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

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

Sec.  21.35  Flight tests.

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 2, 2010.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-8130 Filed 4-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 79890]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32196]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0422; FRL--9940-42-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Chromium Emissions From Hard and
Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NESHAP for Chromium Emissions
from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing
Tanks (40 CFR part 63, subpart N) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1611.11, OMB
Control No. 2060-0327) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through December 31, 2015. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5,
2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 22,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2009-0422, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Supporting documents which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in
the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Owners and operators of chromium electroplating or
chromium anodizing tanks at existing and new facilities performing hard
chromium electroplating, decorative chromium electroplating, and
chromium anodizing are required to comply with reporting and record
keeping requirements for the general provisions of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A, as well as the applicable specific standards found at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart N. This includes submitting initial notifications,
performance tests and periodic reports and results, and maintaining
records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period
during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These reports are
used by EPA to determine compliance with the standards.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Hard chromium electroplating,
decorative chromium electroplating, and chromium anodizing facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart N).
    Estimated number of respondents: 1,343 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, annually, semiannually and
quarterly.
    Total estimated burden: 242,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $28,300,000 (per year), includes $20,400,000
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in the respondent
burden hours and a decrease in the number of annual responses and the
annual cost burden. The burden currently approved by OMB is the sum of
the burden from EPA ICR Number 1161.10 (2012 amendment) and EPA ICR
Number 1611.07 (existing rule). Changes to the OMB approved burden
occurred because this ICR is updated to reflect the ongoing compliance
burden and cost of the 2012 rule, and to use more recent estimate on
the number of sources for all burden calculations.
    The increase in the respondent labor hours is primarily due to the
correction of a data entry error, which was that the number of area
sources using wetting agents monitoring on a regular schedule was
switched with the number monitoring on a reduced schedule, and vice
versa.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-32196 Filed 12-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P