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 interiors.
(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        23.800.................  Fire protection outside
                                        compartment fire                                  designated fire zones.
                                        protection.
23.856...............................  Thermal/acoustic         23.800.................  Fire protection outside
                                        insulation materials.                             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       23.805.................  Fire protection in
                                        flight controls,                                  designated fire zones.
                                        engine 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
a. General Discussion
    The FAA proposes substantial changes to subpart E based on two
considerations. First, many of the current regulations could be
combined to provide fewer regulations that accomplish the same safety
intent. Second, part 23 overlaps with the requirements in parts 33 and
35. Refer to appendix 1 of this preamble for a cross-reference table
detailing how the current regulations are addressed in the proposed
part 23 regulations.
b. Specific Discussion of Changes
i. Proposed Sec.  23.900, Powerplant Installation
    Proposed Sec.  23.900 would clarify, for the purpose of this
subpart, that the airplane powerplant installation must include each
component necessary for propulsion, affects propulsion safety, or
provides auxiliary power to the airplane. Proposed Sec.  23.900 would
require the applicant to construct and arrange each powerplant
installation to account for likely hazards in operation and maintenance
and, except for simple airplanes,\24\ each aircraft engine would have
to be type certificated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Refer to Section III, Discussion of Proposal, paragraphs A
and B of this NPRM for definition and discussion of a simple
airplane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Sec.  23.900 would capture the safety intent of current
Sec. Sec.  23.901, Installation, paragraphs (a), (b), and (f); 23.903,
Engines, paragraph (a); 23.905, Propellers, paragraph (a), 23.909,
Turbocharger systems, paragraphs (a) and (c); and 23.925, Propeller
clearance. Proposed Sec.  23.900 would combine the installation
requirements that are scattered throughout the subpart into a

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Part 23                              Part 33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   23.901(d), Installation.........  Sec.   33.33, Vibration.
Sec.   23.901(e), Installation.........  Sec.   33.1, Applicability.
Sec.   23.934, Turbojet and turbofan     Sec.   33.97, Thrust reversers.
 engine thrust reverser systems tests.
Sec.   23.939, Powerplant operating      Sec.  Sec.   33.61 thru 33.79.
 characteristics.
Sec.   23.1011, Oil System--General....  Sec.  Sec.   33.39 and 33.71,
                                          Lubrication system.
Sec.   23.1013(a) and (d), Oil tanks...  Sec.  Sec.   33.39, and 33.71,
                                          Lubrication system.
Sec.   23.1015, Oil tank tests.........  Sec.   33.33, Vibration.
Sec.   23.1023, Oil radiators..........  Sec.   33.33, Vibration.
Sec.   23.1041, Cooling--General.......  Sec.   33.1, Applicability.
Sec.   23.1043, Cooling tests..........  Sec.  Sec.   33.41 and 33.81,
                                          Applicability--Block Tests.
Sec.   23.1045, Cooling test procedures  Sec.   33.81, Applicability--
 for turbine engine powered airplanes.    Block Tests.
Sec.   23.1047, Cooling test procedures  Sec.   33.35, Fuel and
 for reciprocating engine powered         induction system.
 airplanes.
Sec.   23.1061, Liquid Cooling--         Sec.   33.21, Engine cooling.
 Installation.
Sec.   23.1063, Coolant tank tests.....  Sec.   33.41 and 33.81,
                                          Applicability--Block Tests.
Sec.   23.1093, Induction system icing   Sec.  Sec.   33.35(b), Fuel and
 protection.                              induction system and 33.68,
                                          Induction system icing.
Sec.   23.1099, Carburetor deicing       Sec.   33.35, Fuel and
 fluid system detail design.              induction system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    \25\ See Accident and GA Safety reports from NTSB, AOPA Safety
Foundation, and the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee (GA-
JSC) over the past 10 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Sec.  23.1310 would not require limitations that could not
be exceeded due to system design or physical properties to be shown
because they would be useless information and result in clutter of the
displays. Additionally, the FAA proposes removing the

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

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

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

Additionally, this proposed section would also require that other
pressurized system elements have pressure margins that take into
account system design and operating conditions.
    This section would capture the safety intent of current Sec. Sec.
23.1435, Hydraulic system, paragraphs (a)(4) and (b); 23.1437,
Accessories for multiengine airplanes; and 23.1438, Pressurization and
pneumatic systems, paragraphs (a) and (b).
xii. Proposed Sec.  23.1457, Cockpit Voice Recorders
    The FAA is not proposing to revise current Sec.  23.1457 because
amendment

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

cruise, descent, approach, and landing; and perform any maneuvers
within the operating envelope of the airplane, without excessive
concentration, skill, alertness, or fatigue. Proposed Sec.  23.1500
would also require an applicant to install flight, navigation,
surveillance, and powerplant controls and displays so qualified
flightcrew could monitor and perform all tasks associated with the
intended functions of systems and equipment in order to make the
possibility that a flightcrew error could result in a catastrophic
event highly unlikely. Proposed Sec.  23.1500 would capture the safety
intent of current part 23 rules that are directly related to the pilot
or flightcrew interface with the airplane. Interfaces include controls,
displays, and visibility requirements.
    Current and anticipated technologies that affect how the pilot
interfaces with the airplane are expected to expand faster than other
technologies. The FAA believes that significant safety improvements can
result from the evolution of how the pilot interfaces with the
airplane. Pilot workload is a major factor in causing accidents, but it
is almost impossible to connect workload-related mistakes to an
accident after the accident has happened. Evidence from large airplane
accidents, where we have recorded data as well as research, points to
the importance of the pilot interface and associated mistakes as causal
factors in aircraft accidents. The smart use of automation and phase-
of-flight-based displays could reduce pilot workload and increase pilot
awareness.
    The converse is also true. Equipment is becoming available faster
than manufacturers and the FAA can evaluate it. Determining the safety
risks and recognizing the safety benefits of new technology available
to the pilot is important. For this reason, the proposed language
addresses the safety issues of the current Sec. Sec.  23.699, Wing flap
position indicator; 23.745 Nose/Tail wheel steering, 23.1303, Flight
and navigation instruments, paragraph (g)(3); 23.1321, Arrangement and
visibility, paragraphs (a),(b),(d), and (e); 23.1311, Electronic
display instrument systems, paragraphs (a)(6) and (7); 23.771, Pilot
compartment, paragraph (a), 23.773(a) Pilot compartment view, 23.777,
Cockpit controls; 23.779, Motion and effect of cockpit controls; and
23.781, Cockpit control knob shape; are addressed in proposed Sec.
23.1500(a) and (b). The proposed language would allow the FAA to
rapidly evaluate new equipment for concentration, skill, alertness, and
fatigue against pilot workload as is current practice. More
importantly, the FAA would remove the prescriptive requirements from
the current rules to allow for alternative approaches to pilot
interface that would reduce pilot workload or increase safety.
ii. Proposed Sec.  23.1505, Instrument Markings, Control Markings, and
Placards
    Proposed Sec.  23.1505 would require each airplane to display in a
conspicuous manner any placard and instrument marking necessary for
operation. Proposed Sec.  23.1505 would also require an applicant to
clearly mark each cockpit control, other than primary flight controls,
as to its function and method of operation and include instrument
marking and placard information in the AFM. The consolidation of these
sections appears large, but many of these sections contain one
prescriptive requirement that, in many cases, is based on traditional
airplanes, instruments, and equipment.
iii. Proposed Sec.  23.1510, Airplane Flight Manual
    Proposed Sec.  23.1510 would require an applicant to furnish an AFM
with each airplane that contains the operating limitations and
procedures, performance information, loading information, and any other
information necessary for the operation of the airplane.
    The proposed rules capture the prescriptive list of information
that is considered necessary for the operation of the traditional
airplanes. The current rules contain very prescriptive and detailed
information. Furthermore, that level of detail assumes a traditional
airplane configuration and operation. The FAA proposes to remove this
detail from the rule because it is more appropriate as means of
compliance. Currently, the majority of airplanes certificated under
part 23 already use an industry standard to develop their AFMs--General
Aviation Manufactures Association Specification 1, Specification for
Pilot's Operating Handbook.\26\ The FAA already accepts this industry
standard for many airplanes certificated under part 23 because it
includes the information that is currently required in part 23. The FAA
believes that allowing alternative approaches to information would
facilitate new technology integration into airplanes certified under
part 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See www.regulations.gov (Docket #FAA-2015-1621).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Sec.  23.1510(d) would capture the safety intent of
the current Sec. Sec.  23.1505, Airspeed limitations, thru 23.1527,
Maximum operating altitude, specific to operating limitations and other
limitations and information necessary for safe operation.
iv. Proposed Sec.  23.1515, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
    Proposed Sec.  23.1515 would require an applicant to prepare
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness in accordance with proposed
appendix A to this part, that are acceptable to the Administrator,
prior to the delivery of the first airplane or issuance of a standard
certification of airworthiness, whichever occurs later. This proposed
section would capture the current Sec.  23.1529 without change. The FAA
proposes renaming Appendix G to Part 23--Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness, to Appendix A to Part 23--Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness.
8. Appendices to Part 23
a. General Discussion
    Many of the appendices to part 23 contain information that the FAA
believes would be more appropriate as a means of compliance, with the
exception of Appendix G to Part 23-Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness. Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F, H, and J would be removed
and appendix G would be renamed Appendix A--Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness.
b. Specific Discussion of Changes
i. Proposed Appendix A to Part 23--Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness
    The FAA proposes renaming Appendix G to Part 23--Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness, as Appendix A to Part 23--Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness.
ii. Removal of Appendices to Part 23
    Appendix A to Part 23--Simplified Design Load Criteria. The FAA
proposes to remove this appendix because the content is more
appropriate for inclusion in methods of compliance.
    Appendix B to Part 23--[Reserved]. The FAA proposes to remove this
appendix because it has been reserved since amendment 23-42. There is
no reason to include this appendix in the proposed revision to part 23.
    Appendix C to Part 23--Basic Landing Conditions. The FAA proposes
to remove this appendix because the content is more appropriate for
inclusion in methods of compliance.
    Appendix D to Part 23--Wheel Spin-Up and Spring-Back Loads. The FAA
proposes to remove this appendix because the content is more
appropriate for inclusion in methods of compliance.
    Appendix E to Part 23--[Reserved]. The FAA proposes to remove this

appendix because the current appendix is reserved and contains no
information.
    Appendix F to Part 23--Test Procedure. The FAA proposes to remove
this appendix because this is purely a means of showing compliance for
materials that must comply with self-extinguishing flammability
requirements.
    Appendix H to Part 23--Installation of an Automatic Power Reserve
(APR) System. The FAA proposes to remove this appendix because the FAA
believes that the detailed and prescriptive language of appendix H is
more appropriate as means of compliance.
    Appendix I to Part 23--Seaplane Loads. The FAA proposes to remove
this appendix because the content is more appropriate for inclusion in
methods of compliance.
    Appendix J to Part 23--HIRF Environments and Equipment HIRF Test
Levels. The accepted HIRF environment is codified as appendix J to part
23--HIRF Environments and Equipment HIRF Test Levels. The proposed
language in Sec.  23.1325 would revise this to the expected HIRF
environment. The current appendix J to part 23 would remain an accepted
expected HIRF environment until the Administrator accepted other
levels. Any new expected HIRF environment would be found in FAA
guidance material or other standards accepted by the Administrator.
This would allow the certification requirement to match the current
threat agreed to over time. Additionally, the proposed language would
clarify that the failure consequence of interest is at the airplane
level, which allows credit for design and installation architecture.

B. Miscellaneous Amendments (Sec. Sec.  21.9, 21.17, 21.24, 21.35,
21.50, 21.101, 35.1, 35.37, 91.205, 91.313, 91.323, 91.531, 121.310,
135.169, and Appendix E to Part 43)

1. Production of Replacement and Modification Articles (Sec.  21.9)
    The FAA proposes amending Sec.  21.9 by adding paragraph (a)(7) to
provide applicants with an alternative method to obtain FAA approval to
produce replacement and modification articles that are reasonably
likely to be installed on type certificated aircraft. We also propose
to revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to specify these articles would be
suitable for use in a type certificated product. These proposed changes
would allow an applicant to submit production information for a
specific article, but would not require the producer of the article to
apply for approval of the article's design or obtain approval of its
quality system. Accordingly, approval to produce a modification or
replacement article under proposed Sec.  21.9(a)(7) would not
constitute a production approval as defined in Sec.  21.1(b)(6). The
FAA intends to limit use of this procedure to articles whose improper
operation or failure would not cause a hazard. Approval would be
granted to the applicant on a case-by-case basis, specific to the
installation proposed, accounting for potential risk and considering
the safety continuum.
2. Designation of Applicable Regulations (Sec.  21.17)
    The FAA proposes amending Sec.  21.17, by removing the reference to
Sec.  23.2, because this section would be deleted. The requirements in
Sec.  23.2 are currently addressed in the operational rules. Since
Sec.  23.2 is a retroactive rule, it is appropriate for the requirement
to be in the operating rules. As a result, the FAA also proposes
amending Sec.  91.205 by revising paragraphs (b)(13) and (b)(14) to
ensure removing this requirement would not have any effect on the
existing fleet.
3. Issuance of Type Certificate: Primary Category Aircraft (Sec.
21.24)
    The FAA proposes amending Sec.  21.24 by revising paragraph
(a)(1)(i) to modify the phrase as defined by Sec.  23.49 to include
reference to amendment 23-62 (76 FR 75736, December 2,2011), effective
on January 31, 2012. This revision is necessary to maintain a complete
definition of stall speed in this section, as the current Sec.  23.49
would be removed from the proposed rule.
4. Flight Tests (Sec.  21.35)
    The FAA proposes amending Sec.  21.35 by revising paragraph (b)(2)
to delete the reference to reciprocating engines and expanding the
exempted airplanes to include all low-speed part 23 airplanes 6,000
pounds or less. This proposed change would align the requirements for
function and reliability testing with the proposed changes in part 23
that do not distinguish between propulsion types. This change would
allow the FAA flexibility to address new propulsion types based on the
changes to part 23.
5. Instructions for Continued Airworthiness and Manufacturer's
Maintenance Manuals Having Airworthiness Limitations Sections (Sec.
21.50)
    The FAA proposes amending Sec.  21.50(b) to reference Sec.  23.1515
rather than Sec.  23.1529. This change is editorial and would align
with the proposed part 23 numbering convention.
6. Designation of Applicable Regulations (Sec.  21.101)
    The FAA proposes amending Sec.  21.101 by removing the reference to
Sec.  23.2 as this section is proposed to be deleted and is addressed
in the operating rules, and to refer to the proposed part 23
certification levels in paragraph (c). The current 6,000-pound
reference would be augmented by the inclusion of simple airplanes,
certification level 1 low-speed airplanes, and certification level 2
low-speed airplanes, in order to align the current rules with the
proposed part 23 certification levels.
    Additionally, the FAA recognizes that it may be impractical for
airplanes certified under part 23, amendment 23-62, or prior
amendments, to move up to the latest amendment for modifications.
Section 21.101 would not be revised to address this circumstance, as
this section allows for certification at a lower amendment level if
meeting the current amendment is impractical. This current provision
would allow for compliance to the certification requirements at
amendment 23-62 or earlier when compliance to the latest amendment of
part 23 was determined by the FAA to be impractical.
7. Applicability (Sec.  35.1)
    The FAA proposes amending Sec.  35.1 by replacing the reference to
Sec.  23.907 with proposed Sec.  23.905(c).
8. Fatigue Limits and Evaluation (Sec.  35.37)
    The FAA proposes amending Sec.  35.37 by replacing the reference to
Sec.  23.907 with proposed Sec.  23.905(c).
9. Altimeter System Test and Inspection (Appendix E to Part 43)
    The FAA proposes amending appendix E to part 43 by revising
paragraph (a)(2) to conform with proposed part 23 changes. This
proposed change would affect owners and operators of part 23
certificated airplanes in controlled airspace under instrument flight
rules who must comply with Sec.  91.411. Concurrent with this rule
change, AC 43-6, Altitude Reporting Equipment and Transponder System
Maintenance and Inspection Practices, would be revised to include a
static pressure system proof test acceptable to the Administrator.
Additionally, while reviewing appendix E to part 43, paragraph (a)(2),
we noted that it remains silent on parts 27 and 29 rotorcraft and Civil
Air Regulations certificated aircraft. The static pressure system proof
test in AC 43-6 ensures the accuracy needed to meet Sec.  91.411
requirements.

10. Powered Civil Aircraft With Standard Category U.S. Airworthiness
Certificates: Instrument and Equipment Requirements (Sec.  91.205)
    The FAA proposes amending Sec.  91.205 by revising paragraphs
(b)(13) and (b)(14) to include the potential for allowing other
approved restraint systems. Additionally, paragraph (b)(14) refers to
Sec.  23.561(b)(2), which would be retitled in the proposed revision
for structural strength limits and would be addressed in the means of
compliance. Section 91.205(b)(16) would be deleted and incorporated
into (b)(14) with no additional requirements. The part 23 proposal
would delete references to utility and acrobatic categories, as they
would be incorporated into the normal categories that would be
redefined into performance-based standards.
11. Restricted Category Civil Aircraft: Operating Limitations (Sec.
91.313)
    The FAA proposes amending Sec.  91.313(g) to include the potential
for allowing other approved restraint systems. Additionally, paragraph
(g) includes a regulatory reference to Sec.  23.561(b)(2), which would
be retitled in the proposed revision as Sec.  23.600, which would be
accompanied by accepted means of compliance. Approval for a shoulder
harness or restraint system, therefore, would require withstanding the
static inertia loads specified in Sec.  23.600 during emergency
conditions.
12. Increased Maximum Certification Weights for Certain Airplanes
Operated in Alaska (Sec.  91.323)
    The FAA proposes amending Sec.  91.323 by removing reference to
Sec.  23.337 because this section would be revised and consolidated
with other structural requirements. The relevant prescriptive
requirement(s) maneuvering load factors found in Sec.  23.337 would be
added to the regulation in Sec.  91.323(b)(3).
13. Second in Command Requirements (Sec.  91.531)
    The FAA proposes amending Sec.  91.531(1) and (3) to incorporate
the new risk and performance levels proposed in this NPRM. The FAA
proposes deleting the reference to utility, acrobatic, and commuter
categories in part 23. Other divisions would be used to define levels
of certification for normal category airplanes. This proposed amendment
would ensure airplanes certificated in the commuter category in the
past and airplanes certificated in the future under the proposed part
23 airworthiness and performance levels would be addressed in this
rule.
14. Additional Emergency Equipment (Sec.  121.310)
    The FAA proposes amending Sec.  121.310(b)(2)(iii) to reflect the
reference to Sec.  23.811(b), effective June 16, 1994. This would be an
update to the reference for conformity only. This amendment would make
no change to the requirements of the rule.
15. Additional Airworthiness Requirements (Sec.  135.169)
    The FAA proposes amending Sec.  135.169(b) by deleting the terms,
``reciprocating-engine or turbopropeller-powered''. The current rule
limits operation under this part to reciprocating-engine or
turbopropeller-powered small airplanes. By amending the paragraph as
proposed, other small airplanes, regardless of propulsion type and
including turbojet-powered, would potentially be considered for
certification under this part.
    The FAA also proposes to allow a small airplane in normal category,
in Sec.  135.169(b)(8), to operate within the rules governing commuter
and on demand operations. This action would be necessary as a result of
the proposed part 23 rules which would sunset the commuter category for
newly type certificated airplanes and create a normal category,
certification level 4 airplane as equivalent to the commuter category
by applying to 10-19 passengers. This proposed amendment would allow
for the consideration of the new category airplane and to ensure a
continued higher level of safety for commercial operations. Because of
the ground-breaking nature of the part 23 proposals, the associated
adjustment to performance-based airworthiness standards in future
airplane designs and manufacturing, and the myriad of potential
possibilities for attaining a means of compliance for airplane type
certification, the FAA proposes to require the new normal category
certification level 4 airplanes to meet the current airworthiness and
performance standards of the commuter category found in part 23 thru
amendment 23-62. These standards are envisioned to remain as
requirements for the new normal category certification level 4
airplanes into the near-term future, but not the long-term. It is
intended that once the new part 23 requirements have proven successful
with the new normal category certification levels 1, 2, and 3
airplanes, the FAA would reconsider normal category certification level
4 airplanes for part 135 commercial operations.

VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
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 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) Would have benefits that justify its costs, (2) would not be
an an economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) would be ``significant'' as
defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would have a
significant positive economic impact on 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.
1. Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule
    The following table shows the estimated benefits and costs of the
proposed rule. The major factors driving the expected costs of this
proposal are the additional training tasks, database development, and
documentation to

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

             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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Who is potentially affected by this rule?
    The proposal would affect U.S. manufacturers and operators of new
part 23 type certificated airplanes.
3. Assumptions
    The benefit and cost analysis for the regulatory evaluation is
based on the following factors/assumptions:

     The analysis is conducted in constant dollars with 2014
as the base year.
     The final rule would be effective in 2017.
     The primary analysis period for costs and benefits
extends for 20 years, from 2017 through 2036. This period was
selected because annual costs and benefits will have reached a
steady state by 2036.
     Future part 23 type certifications and deliveries are
estimated from historical part 23 type certifications and
deliveries.
     Costs for the new part 23 type certifications
forecasted in the ``Fleet Discussion'' section of the regulatory
evaluation would occur in year 1 of the analysis interval.
     Airplane deliveries from the forecasted part 23 type
certificates would start in year 5 of the analysis interval.
     The FAA uses a seven percent discount rate for the
benefits and costs as prescribed by OMB in Circular A-4.
     The baseline for estimating the costs and benefits of
the proposed rule would be part 23, through amendment 62.
     The FAA estimates 335 FAA part 23 certification
engineers would require additional training as a result of this
proposal. The FAA assumes that the same number of industry part 23
certification engineers would also require additional training as a
result of this proposal.
     The FAA estimates that this proposal would add 16 hours
of training to FAA and industry part 23 certification engineers.
     Since this training program would be on-line, we
estimate no travel costs for the engineers.
     FAA pay-band tables and the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) determine the hourly wages used to estimate the costs to the
FAA and applicants.
     Using the U.S. Department of Transportation guidance,
the wage multiplier for employee benefits is 1.17.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ On January 30, 2014, the DOT published a memo on
``Estimating Total Costs of Compensation Based on Wage Rates or
Salaries.'' The memo directs the FAA that when a rule requires
incremental hours per existing employee, the wage/salary multiplier
is of smaller magnitude because not all categories of employer
provided benefits increase with additional hours worked by an
individual employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Benefits of This Rule
    The major safety benefit of this proposed rule is to add stall
characteristics and stall warnings that would result in airplane
designs that are more resistant to depart controlled flight
inadvertently. The largest number of accidents for small airplanes is a
stall or departure-based LOC in flight. This proposal would also have
cost savings by streamlining the certification process and encouraging
new and innovative technology. Streamlining the certification process
would reduce the issuance of special conditions, exemptions, and
equivalent level of safety findings.
5. Costs of This Rule
    The proposed rules major costs are the engineer training costs and
the certification database creation costs. Additional costs would also
accrue from the proposed controllability and stall sections that would
increase scope over current requirements and manual upgrade costs.
    In the following table, we summarize the total estimated compliance
costs by category. The FAA notes that since we assumed that all costs
occurred in Year 1 of the analysis interval, the 2014-dollar costs
equal the present value costs.

                     Total Cost Summary by Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Total costs
                      Type of cost                          (2014$) and
                                                               P.V.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   23.200 Controllability...........................        $276,939
Sec.   23.215 Stall characteristics, stall warning, and          500,000
 spins..................................................
Engineer Training Costs.................................       1,149,418
Certification Database Costs............................       1,293,750
Manual Upgrade Costs....................................         700,000
                                                         ---------------
    Total Costs.........................................       3,920,106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These numbers are subject to rounding error.

B. 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.
    The FAA believes that this proposed rule could have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of entities because we believe
that this rule could enable the creation of new part 23 type
certificates and new manufacturers. The FAA has been working with U.S.
and foreign small aircraft manufacturers since 2007 to review the life
cycle of part 23 airplanes and determine what needed improvement.
    The purpose of this analysis is to provide the reasoning underlying
the FAA determination.

    Under Section 603(b) of the RFA, the initial analysis must address:

     Description of reasons the agency is considering the
action;
     Statement of the legal basis and objectives for the
proposed rule;
     Description of the record keeping and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule;
     All federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule;
     Description and an estimated number of small entities
to which the proposed rule will apply; and
     Describe alternatives considered.

1. Reasons Why the Rule Is Being Proposed
    The FAA proposes this action to amend the airworthiness standards
for new part 23 type certificated airplanes to reflect the current
needs of the small airplane industry, accommodate future trends,
address emerging technologies, and enable the creation of new part 23
manufacturers and new type certificated airplanes. The proposed changes
to part 23 are necessary to eliminate the current workload of
exemptions, special conditions, and equivalent levels of safety
findings necessary to certificate new part 23 airplanes. These proposed
part 23 changes would also promote safety by enacting new regulations
for controllability and stall standards and promote new technologies in
part 23 airplanes.
2. Statement of the Legal Basis and Objectives
    The FAMRA required the Administrator, in consultation with the
aviation industry, to assess the aircraft certification and approval
process. In addition, the SARA directs the FAA to create performance-
based regulations for small airplanes and provide for the use of
industry developed consensus standards to allow flexibility in the
certification of new technology.
    Accordingly, this proposed rule would amend Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations to revise the airworthiness standards for small
airplanes by removing current prescriptive design requirements and
replacing those requirements with risk and performance-based
airworthiness standards.
    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. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of civil airplanes in air
commerce by prescribing minimum standards required in the interest of
safety for the design and performance of airplanes. This regulation is
within the scope of that authority because it prescribes new
performance-based safety standards for the design of normal category
airplanes.
3. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Requirements
    The FAA expects no more than minimal new reporting and
recordkeeping compliant requirements would result from this proposed
rule because the prescriptive nature of part 23 would be in other FAA
approved documents where future technology can readily be adopted into
the regulatory framework. The FAA requests comment regarding the
anticipated reduction in paperwork and recordkeeping burdens that may
result from this revision.
4. Overlapping, Duplicative, or Conflicting Federal Rules
    The proposed rule would not overlap, duplicate, or conflict with
existing federal rules.
5. Estimated Number of Small Firms Potentially Impacted
    Under the RFA, the FAA must determine whether a proposed or final
rule significantly affects a substantial number of small entities. This
determination is typically based on small entity size and cost
thresholds that vary depending on the affected industry. Using the size
standards from the Small Business Administration for Air Transportation
and Aircraft Manufacturing, we defined companies as small entities if
they have fewer than 1,500 employees.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    There are seven U.S. owned aircraft manufacturers who delivered
part 23 airplanes in the 1998-2013 analysis interval. These
manufacturers are Adam, American Champion, Cessna, Hawker Beechcraft,
Maule, Quest, and Sino-Swearingen.
    Using information provided by the Internet filings and news
reports, manufacturers that are subsidiary businesses of larger
businesses, manufacturers that are foreign owned, and businesses with
more than 1,500 employees were eliminated from the list of small
entities. Cessna and Hawker Beechcraft are businesses with more than
1,500 employees. For the remaining businesses, we obtained company
revenue and employment from the above sources.
    The base year for the final rule is 2014. Although the FAA
forecasts traffic and air carrier fleets, we cannot determine either
the number of new entrants or who will be in the part 23 airplane
manufacturing business in the future. Therefore, we use current U.S.
part 23 airplane manufacturers' revenue and employment in order to
determine the number of small entities this proposed rule would affect.
    The methodology discussed above resulted in the following list of
five U.S. part 23 airplane manufacturers, with less than 1,500
employees.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Number of
              Manufacturer                   employees    Annual 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. airplane manufacturers, there
are three manufacturers currently producing part 23 reciprocating
engine airplanes; only one manufacturer producing turboprops and only
one producing turbojets. The single manufacturer producing a part 23
turbojet has not delivered an airplane since 2009 and is still working
on

acquiring the means to start up its production line again. One of the
manufacturers producing a part 23 reciprocating engine airplane has not
delivered an airplane since 2007 and is working on acquiring the means
to start up their production line again. The FAA is not aware that
either of these manufacturers is considering a new airplane for part 23
type certification in the future and therefore this proposed rulemaking
would most likely not add costs to these two manufacturers because the
proposed rule only affects new part 23 type certificates.
    For the remaining two reciprocating engine part 23 airplane
manufacturers, their last type certificates were issued in 1961 and
1970. The 1961 type certificate was issued for the only airplane this
manufacturer produces and the manufacturer with the 1970 type
certificate produces one other airplane that was type certificated in
1941. The last small entity manufacturer produces only turboprop
airplanes and it started delivering airplanes in 2007. Again, the FAA
is not aware that any of these manufacturers is considering a new
airplane for part 23 type certification in the future and therefore
this proposed rulemaking would most likely not add costs for it.
    While this rulemaking may enable the creation of new manufacturers,
the FAA is not aware of any new small entity part 23 manufacturers who
want a type certification in the future for a new part 23 airplane.
However, by simplifying and lowering the costs for certification of new
small airplanes, barriers to entry may be lowered and thus new
manufacturers may emerge.
6. Cost and Affordability for Small Entities
    In 2009, a joint FAA/industry team finalized the Part 23 CPS. This
proposed rulemaking resulted from this study by the recommendation to
use consensus standards to supplement the regulatory language. Since
then, the FAA and the part 23 industry have worked together to develop
common part 23 airplane certification requirements for this rulemaking.
In 2011, with the Part 23 CPS as a foundation, the FAA formed the Part
23 Reorganization ARC. The ARC consisted of large and small entity
domestic and international businesses. We contacted the part 23
airplane manufacturers, the ARC, and GAMA for specific cost estimates
for each section change for the rule and they all believe that this
proposed rule would have a minimal cost impact on their operations and
in many cases, would have significant cost savings by streamlining the
part 23 type certification process. Many of the ARC members
collaborated and provided a joint cost estimate for the proposed rule.
    The ARC has informed us that the proposed rule would save the
manufacturers design time for the certification of part 23 airplanes by
reducing the number of exemptions, equivalent level of safety findings
and special conditions required to incorporate new and future
technology into their new airplane certifications. The proposed rule
would also require manuals to be updated and database development. We
expect these updates to be minimal and request commen on these
anticipated costs and overall reduction in paperwork burden.
    The ARC has also informed us that every other section of this
proposed rule would be cost-neutral since the majority of the
prescriptive requirements in part 23 would be moved from part 23. The
FAA expects that these current requirements would form the basis for
consensus standards that would be used as a means of compliance to the
proposed performance based regulations.
    The FAA expects this proposed rule could have a positive economic
impact to small entities because it would enable new businesses to
produce new part 23 type certificated airplanes while maintaining a
safe operating environment in the NAS. This proposal is based on the
ARC's recommendations and would allow for the use of consensus
standards that have been developed in partnership with industry.
Therefore, the FAA believes that this proposed rule could have a
positive significant economic impact on a substantial number of
entities.
7. Alternative Analysis
a. Alternative 1
    The FAA would continue to issue special conditions, exemptions, and
equivalent level of safety findings to certificate part 23 airplanes.
As this approach would not follow congressional direction, we choose
not to continue with the status quo.
b. Alternative 2
    The FAA would continue to enforce the current regulations that
affect stall and controllability. The FAA rejected this alternative
because the accident rate for part 23 airplanes identified a safety
issue that had to be addressed.
c. Alternative 3
    The FAA notes that a multi-engine part 23 aircraft manufacturer
could decide it wants to comply with Sec.  23.200(b) by making the
airplane capable of climbing after a critical loss by installing larger
engines. But this is a very expensive alternative that would raise
certification costs and operating costs and we believe that part 23
aircraft manufacturers would not make the airplane capable of climbing
after a critical loss by installing larger engines.
    The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination.

C. 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 as 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 that
the standards are necessary for aviation safety and would not create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.

D. 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 $155.0 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. 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. The information requirements
for aircraft certification are covered by existing OMB No. 2120-0018.
Burdens associated with special conditions,

ELOS, and exemptions are not quantified in this collection because the
need to seek relief under one of these options is dependent on each
applicant and is difficult to quantify. It is expected that this
rulemaking would reduce the number of special conditions, ELOS, and
exemptions filed, thus reducing paperwork and processing time for both
the FAA and industry. It would also maintain the fundamental safety
requirements from the current part 23 regulations but allow more
flexibility in airplane designs, faster adoption of safety enhancing
technology, and reduce the regulatory cost burden. To estimate savings
driven by this change, the FAA counted the special conditions, ELOS,
and exemption applications submitted to the FAA for part 23 aircraft
between 2012 and 2013 and divided the number by two years for an
average of 47 applications per year.\29\ The ARC report offered a
similar average of 37 applications per year.\30\ Additionally, the FAA
counted the number of pages per application for all 47 applications to
obtain an average number of pages per application. For special
conditions, there were approximately 21 pages, 16 pages for an
exemption, and 15 pages per ELOS application. The FAA assumes that the
applicant and each FAA office that reviews the application spend 8
hours on research, coordination, and review per page. The ARC also
noted ``an ELOS finding or exemption can take the FAA between 4 to 12
months to develop and approve. The applicant spends roughly the same
amount of time as the FAA in proposing what they need and responding to
FAA questions for SC, exemption, or ELOS.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ https://my.faa.gov/org/linebusiness/avs/offices/air/tools/cert.html.
    \30\ A report from the 14 CFR part 23 Reorganization Aviation
Rulemaking Committee to the Federal Aviation Administration;
Recommendation for increasing the safety of small general aviation
airplanes certificated to 14 CFR part 23, June 5, 2013, Table 7.1--
Special Conditions, Exemptions, Equivalent Safety Findings, Page 55.
    \31\ Ibid., 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of applications is multiplied by the number of pages and
by the hourly wage for the applicant and different FAA offices to
account for the cost to the FAA and the applicant. The estimated hourly
wage is $74.10 for a Small Airplane Directorate employee,\32\ $50.75
for an Aircraft Certificate Office employee,\33\ and $60.58 for an
engineer \34\ employed by the applicant. Annual cost equals the sum of
the associated costs of special conditions, exemptions, plus equivalent
level of safety. Yearly cost totals roughly $502,469 for the Small
Airplane Directorate, $344,172 for Aircraft Certificate Offices, and
$410,823 for the applicants. Tables 1, 2, and 3 show cost by office and
applicant as well as by special condition, exemption, and ELOS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 2014 FAA Bay Band, Average K Band Salary (Rest of the U.S.)
plus wage multiplier for benefits https://employees.faa.gov/org/staffoffices/ahr/program_policies/policy_guidance/hr_policies/hrpm/comp/comp_ref/2014payadjustment/.
    \33\ 2014 FAA Bay Band, Average I Band Salary (Rest of the U.S.)
plus wage multiplier for benefits https://employees.faa.gov/org/staffoffices/ahr/program_policies/policy_guidance/hr_policies/hrpm/comp/comp_ref/2014payadjustment/.
    \34\ National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United
States, May 2014; Aerospace Engineer mean hourly wage, NAIC code 17-
2011 plus wage multiplier for benefits http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#17-0000. A more detailed discussion is provided
in the ``Costs'' section below.

                                                     Table 1--Savings From Special Conditions (SC) *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Average number    Average             FAA SAD                   FAA ACO                  Applicant
               Part 23 Section                  of SC (2012-    number of  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    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 Airbag....................             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 Controls...................             0.5         20.8           83        6,165           83        4,223           83        5,040

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 *