Feathering Propeller Systems for Light-Sport Aircraft Powered Gliders, 5-9 [2010-33082]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
lender’s written request, the Agency
may exempt a project from this
requirement if requested by the lender
and the project meets the following
criteria:
(i) Original appraisal—the original
appraisal that meets the Agency’s
appraisal requirements with a valuation
date no older than 36 months;
(ii) Valuation—the appraisal’s lowest
valuation, regardless of valuation
approach and rent restrictions
considered, is greater than the section
538 guaranteed loan amount; and
(iii) Guaranteed loan balance—the
Agency’s guaranteed loan’s principal
balance does not exceed 50 percent
[unless a different percent has been
announced in a Notice published in the
Federal Register] of the project’s total
development costs.
(5) A certificate of substantial
completion;
(6) A certificate of occupancy or
similar evidence of local approval;
(7) A final inspection conducted by a
qualified Agency representative;
(8) A final cost certification in a form
acceptable to the Agency;
(9) A submission to the Agency of the
complete closing docket;
(10) A certification by the lender that
the project has reached an acceptable
minimum level occupancy;
(11) An executed regulatory
agreement;
(12) The Lender certifies that it has
approved the borrower’s management
plan and assures that the borrower is in
compliance with Agency standards
regarding property management
contained in subparts E and F of this
part;
(13) Necessary information to
complete an updated necessary
assistance review by the Agency under
§ 3565.204(c); and
(14) Compliance with all conditions
contained in the conditional
commitment for guarantee.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Continuous Guarantee
Compliance. The continuous guarantee
will remain in effect once construction
is completed. In order to remain in
compliance with 7 CFR part 3565, the
following items must be submitted to
and approved by the Agency. These
items will be submitted to the Agency
by the date stated in the Conditional
Commitment and any Agency approved
extension(s).
(1) Certification from the lender
stating that the lender or its qualified
representative inspected the property
and found that the construction meets
the Government’s requirements for the
standards and conditions for housing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Dec 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
and facilities in 7 CFR part 1924,
subpart A and the standards for site
development in 7 CFR part 1924,
subpart C, or its successor regulations;
(2) Cash flow certification—the lender
certifies in writing the project’s cash
flow assumptions are still valid and
depict compliance with the section 538
program’s debt service coverage ratio
requirement of at least 1.15, based on
the lender’s analysis of current market
conditions and comparable properties in
the project’s market area;
(3) Documentation that either:
(i) The project has attained a
minimum level of acceptable occupancy
of 90% for 90 continuous days within
the 120-day period immediately
preceding the issuance of the permanent
guarantee, or
(ii) Additional funds, supplementing
the funds required under § 3565.303(d),
have been added to the lease-up reserve
in an amount the Agency determines is
necessary to cover projected shortfalls.
(4) An appraisal of the property;
(5) A certificate of substantial
completion;
(6) A certificate of occupancy or
similar evidence of local approval;
(7) A final inspection conducted by a
qualified Agency representative;
(8) A final cost certification in a form
acceptable to the Agency;
(9) A submission to the Agency of the
complete closing docket;
(10) A certification by the lender that
the project has reached an acceptable
minimum level occupancy;
(11) An executed regulatory
agreement;
(12) The Lender certifies that it has
approved the borrower’s management
plan and assures that the borrower is in
compliance with Agency standards
regarding property management
contained in subparts E and F of this
part;
(13) Necessary information to
complete an updated necessary
assistance review by the Agency under
§ 3565.204(c); and
(14) Compliance with all conditions
contained in the conditional
commitment for guarantee.
Subpart J—Assignment, Conveyance,
and Claims
§ 3565.457
[Amended]
8. Section 3565.457 (c)(1)is amended
in the first sentence by removing the
word ’’collectibility’’ and adding
‘‘collectability’’ in its place.
■
Dated: December 3, 2010.
ˇ
Tammye Trevino,
Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–33042 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
5
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 1
[Docket No. FAA–2010–0812; Amendment
No. 1–66]
RIN 2120–AJ81
Feathering Propeller Systems for
Light-Sport Aircraft Powered Gliders
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for
comments.
SUMMARY: This final rule with request
for comments amends the definition of
light-sport aircraft by removing ‘‘auto’’
from the term ‘‘autofeathering’’ as it
applies to powered gliders. This
amendment will allow both manual and
autofeathering propeller operation for
powered gliders that qualify as lightsport aircraft.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on
March 4, 2011. Submit comments on or
before February 2, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments
identified by Docket Number FAA–
2010–0812 using any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and follow
the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
• Mail: Send comments to the Docket
Management Facility; U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC
20590–0001.
• Fax: Fax comments to the Docket
Management Facility at 202–493–2251.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For more information on the rulemaking
process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Privacy: We will post all comments
we receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide.
Using the search function of our docket
Web site, anyone can find and read the
comments received into any of our
dockets, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or
signing the comment for an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78) or you may visit https://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM
03JAR1
6
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Docket: To read background
documents or comments received, go to
https://www.regulations.gov at any time
or visit Docket Operations in Room
W12–140 of the West Building Ground
Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Terry Chasteen, Federal Aviation
Administration, Aircraft Certification
Service, Small Airplane Directorate,
ACE–114, 901 Locust, Room 301,
Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone:
(816) 329–4147; fax: (816) 329–4090; email: terry.chasteen@faa.gov. For legal
questions concerning this rule, contact
David Pardo, Office of Chief Counsel,
AGC–240, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone: (202) 267–3073; fax: (202)
267–7971.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Comments Invited
The FAA is adopting this final rule
without prior notice and prior public
comment because this amendment is
relieving in nature, imposes no burden
on the public, and is responsive to a
petition for exemption and related
public comments which sought the
relief granted by this rule. The
Regulatory Policies and Procedures of
the Department of Transportation (DOT)
(44 FR 1134, February 26, 1979) provide
that, to the maximum extent possible,
operating administrations for the DOT
should provide an opportunity for
public comment on regulations issued
without prior notice. Accordingly, we
invite interested persons to participate
in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also
invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result
from adopting this final rule. The most
helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change,
and include supporting data. To ensure
the docket does not contain duplicate
comments, please send only one copy of
written comments, or if you are filing
comments electronically, please submit
your comments only one time.
We will file in the docket all
comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive
public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this final rule. Before acting
on this final rule, we will consider all
comments we receive on or before the
closing date for comments. We will
consider comments filed after the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Dec 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
comment period has closed if it is
possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. We may change this
final rule in light of the comments
received.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with
small entity requests for information or
advice about compliance with statutes
and regulations within its jurisdiction.
Therefore, any small entity that has a
question regarding this document may
contact their local FAA official, or the
persons listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out
more about SBREFA on the Internet at
our site, https://www.faa.gov/
regulations%5Fpolicies/rulemaking/
sbre_act/.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding 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 prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the
Administrator finds necessary for safety
in air commerce. This regulation is
within the scope of that authority
because it establishes minimum
standards required in the interest of
safety for the design of aircraft.
Background
Currently, the definition of light-sport
aircraft in § 1.1 General Definitions,
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), specifies that powered gliders
that are light-sport aircraft have a fixed
or autofeathering propeller system. The
restriction to ‘‘autofeathering’’ has
resulted in varying applications of lightsport aircraft (LSA) design.
In 2004, the FAA issued the final rule
‘‘Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for
the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft’’
(Sport Pilot Rule) (69 FR 44772, July 27,
2004). That rule established a definition
for the term ‘‘light-sport aircraft.’’ Since
we adopted that rule, the FAA has been
working with the LSA industry in
evaluating the overall LSA program. The
past five years have seen remarkable
growth in the overall LSA industry.
Over 1,200 new factory-built airplanes,
powered parachutes, and weight-shift
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
control aircraft have received special
airworthiness certificates in the special
LSA category. One exception to this
rapid growth is LSA powered gliders.
The FAA has determined that a
propeller on a LSA powered glider can
be safely feathered using either a
manual or automatic feathering
propeller system, which justifies
replacing the term ‘‘autofeathering’’ with
‘‘feathering.’’ We discuss this
determination in the following section.
Feathering Propeller Systems for
Soaring Flight
When we published the notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled
Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for
the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft on
February 5, 2002 that proposed a
definition for LSA, we intended that
LSA be simple in design and operation
and appropriate for operation by sport
pilots. For aircraft design, low
performance within the constraints of
light weight and structural integrity
were important. For aircraft operation,
simple mechanical systems within the
constraints of sport pilot training
requirements were important. In that
NPRM (67 FR 5376), we stated that ‘‘a
light sport aircraft, if powered, would be
limited to a fixed or ground adjustable
propeller.’’ We determined that ‘‘a
propeller that could not be adjusted in
pitch during flight was necessary to
limit the operational complexity of the
aircraft and would be consistent with
the skills necessary to hold a sport pilot
certificate.’’
Some commenters requested that
controllable pitch propellers be
permitted on LSA. We disagreed that
the LSA definition should be revised
accordingly because it would require a
level of training for sport pilots and
repairmen that would not be
commensurate with the privileges of
their certificates. However, for powered
gliders, we revised the final rule to
permit autofeathering propeller systems
on LSA powered gliders to decrease
drag while soaring.
In June 2008, the Light Aircraft
Manufacturers Association (LAMA)
petitioned the FAA for an exemption to
allow manual feathering of a propeller
in LSA powered gliders. As part of its
request, LAMA provided information
concerning the design and operation of
manual feathering propeller systems.
This petition can be found in Docket
No. FAA–2008–0737.
The FAA received approximately 16
comments from 13 commenters in
response to the petition. All the
commenters supported the petition for
exemption. Comments on the petition
highlighted the overall benefits for a
E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM
03JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
LSA powered glider to have the option
of being equipped with a manual
feathering propeller system.
After reviewing LAMA’s petition and
the comments received in support of it,
the FAA has determined that a change
to the definition of LSA for powered
gliders is appropriate. The FAA agrees
that autofeathering propeller systems
are not necessary for the safe operation
of LSA powered gliders. These systems,
which are typically found in multiengine aircraft, automatically feather a
propeller in the event of a power loss
during takeoff. These systems can be
complex, heavy, and expensive.
On the other hand, powered gliders
typically incorporate a simple, manual
feathering propeller system. These
simple, two-position manual feathering
systems are more consistent with the
intended use of a LSA powered glider
and the expected level of complexity for
LSA operations. For example, these
systems allow the pilot to feather the
propeller by toggling a switch or moving
a lever in the cockpit. This system
rotates the propeller blades to be aligned
with the wind—from power
configuration to soaring configuration—
so that the glider may maximize gained
altitude through thermal lift only. The
ability to feather the propeller is
desirable when the glider is aloft and
the engine has been intentionally shut
off.
A manual feathering propeller system
is the lightest, simplest, and most direct
way to rotate the propeller blades from
power configuration to soaring
configuration. This translates to a lower
glider weight that may result in better
performance and fewer parts or systems
that could fail (i.e., better reliability)
than with autofeathering systems, while
still maintaining low cockpit workload
and pilot distraction.
LSA. In addition, use of the consensus
standard process assures government
and industry that discussion and
agreement on appropriate standards
have occurred for the required level of
safety.
We believe a simple manually
operated propeller system for in-flight
feathering would be an acceptable
means of compliance with the propeller
feathering provisions for LSA.
From the aircraft design perspective,
we were concerned that malfunction or
misuse of a manual feathering propeller
on an LSA powered glider could impose
a hazard to the aircraft occupants. Since
publication of the Sport Pilot Rule, the
FAA has reviewed powered glider
accident statistics in the electronic
database of the National Transportation
Safety Board. The data show 32
accidents in the years 1962 through
2009 (October) with no accidents
attributed to the operation of feathering
or un-feathering a propeller during
flight. The data also indicate that inflight feathering of a propeller system in
powered gliders—many of which are
permitted to use either manual or
autofeathering propeller system—does
not decrease safety.
We find that a manually operated
propeller system for in-flight feathering
is appropriate. Currently, pilots flying
LSA powered gliders are allowed to use
a direct-action manual lever to operate
the landing gear, which typically occurs
at low altitudes during times of high
pilot workload. By contrast, feathering
the propeller takes place at higher
altitudes when pilot workload is
minimal. We have determined that this
revision to the definition of a LSA
recognizes the operational nature of
LSA powered gliders and is consistent
with the stated design and safety
objectives.
Design and Standards
Under the provisions of the Sport
Pilot rule and the revised Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular A–119, ‘‘Federal Participation
in the Development and Use of
Voluntary Consensus Standards and in
Conformity Assessment Activities,’’
dated February 10, 1998, the LSA
industry and the FAA have been
working with the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM)
International to develop consensus
standards for aircraft issued special
airworthiness certificates in the LSA
category under § 21.190 for Special
Light-Sport Aircraft (S–LSA). These
consensus standards, once accepted by
the FAA, satisfy the agency’s goal for
airworthiness certification and establish
a verifiable minimum safety level for S–
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires the FAA to
consider the impact of paperwork and
other information collection burdens
imposed on the public. We have
determined that there are no current or
new requirements for information
collection associated with this
amendment.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Dec 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations
under the Convention on International
Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to
comply with International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards
and Recommended Practices to the
maximum extent practicable. The FAA
has determined there are no
International Civil Aviation
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
7
Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices that
correspond to this regulation.
International standards for Light Sport
Aircraft are being coordinated by ASTM
International.
Good Cause for ‘‘No Notice’’
Section 4(a) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B)) authorizes agencies to
dispense with certain notice procedures
for rules when they find ‘‘good cause’’ to
do so. Under section 553(b)(B), the
requirements of prior notice and
opportunity for comment do not apply
when the agency for good cause finds
that those procedures are
‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest.’’
This final rule will change the
definition of LSA powered glider by
removing ‘‘auto’’ from ‘‘autofeathering,’’
which will eliminate the current
restriction on manual feathering
propeller designs. Prior public comment
is unnecessary because the FAA has
already obtained public comments
regarding a petition for exemption
seeking to eliminate the restriction on
manual feathering propeller designs
from the definition of light-sport
aircraft. This final rule is responsive to
those comments, all of which were in
support of the petition for exemption.
We do not anticipate significant
public comment on this amendment,
since it does not impose a requirement.
Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, directs the FAA
to assess both the costs and benefits of
a regulatory change. We are not allowed
to propose or adopt a regulation unless
we make a reasoned determination that
the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Our assessment of this
final rule indicates that its economic
impact is minimal.
Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory
Flexibility Determination, International
Trade Impact Assessment, and
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Changes to Federal regulations must
undergo several economic analyses.
First, Executive Order 12866 directs
each Federal agency to 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 (Public Law 96–39) prohibits
E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM
03JAR1
8
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
agencies from setting standards that
create unnecessary obstacles to the
foreign commerce of the United States.
In developing U.S. standards, this Trade
Act also 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 the base year of 1995).
This portion of the preamble
summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the
economic impacts of this final rule.
Department of Transportation Order
DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and
procedures for simplification, analysis,
and review of regulations. If the
expected cost impact is so minimal that
a proposed or final rule does not
warrant a full evaluation, this order
permits that a statement to that effect
and the basis for it be included in the
preamble if a full regulatory evaluation
of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for
this final rule. The reasoning for this
determination is that the rule is cost
relieving, as it eliminates the current
restriction on manual feathering
propeller designs while maintaining the
current safety level.
FAA has therefore determined that
this final rule is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not
‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
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 of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and
informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to
the 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Dec 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
substantial number of small entities. If
the agency determines it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis as described in the
RFA. However, if an agency determines
that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that
the head of the agency may so certify
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required. The certification must
include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and
the reasoning should be clear. This rule
will not have a significant economic
impact because it is cost relieving.
Therefore, as the FAA Administrator,
I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979
(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub.
L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies
from establishing standards or engaging
in related activities that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States.
Pursuant to these Acts, the
establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to
the foreign commerce of the United
States, so long as the standard has a
legitimate domestic objective, such the
protection of safety, and does not
operate in a manner that excludes
imports that meet this objective. The
statute also requires consideration of
international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for
U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed
the potential effect of this final rule with
request for comments and has
determined that it will have a cost
relieving impact on domestic and
international entities and thus has a
neutral trade impact.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)
requires each Federal agency to prepare
a written statement assessing the effects
of any Federal mandate in a proposed or
final agency rule that may result in an
expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation with the
base year 1995) in any one year by State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector; such
a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant
regulatory action.’’ The level equivalent
of $100 million in CY 1995, adjusted for
inflation to CY 2010 levels by the
Consumer Price Index for all Urban
Consumers (CPI–U) as published by the
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Bureau of Labor Statistics, is $143.1
million.
This final rule with request for
comments does not contain such a
mandate. Therefore, the requirements of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this
regulation.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule
with request for comments under the
principles and criteria of Executive
Order 13132, Federalism. We
determined that this action will not
have a substantial direct effect on the
States, or the relationship between the
national Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, we
have determined that this final rule with
request for comments does not have
federalism implications.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA
actions that are categorically excluded
from preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact
statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act in the
absence of extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has determined this proposed
rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in
paragraph 312 and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA has analyzed this final rule
with request for comments under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May
18, 2001). We have determined that it is
not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under
the executive order, and it is not likely
to have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy using
the Internet by:
(1) Searching the Federal
eRulemaking portal at https://
www.regulations.gov;
(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and
Policies Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
(3) Accessing the Government
Printing Office’s Web page at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
You can also get a copy by sending a
request to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM
03JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to
identify the docket and amendment
number of this rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 1
Air transportation.
The Amendments
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
amends part 1 of Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND
ABBREVIATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 1
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Amend the definition of ‘‘light-sport
aircraft’’ in § 1.1 by revising paragraph
(8) to read as follows:
■
§ 1.1
General definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Light-sport aircraft * * *
(8) A fixed or feathering propeller
system if a powered glider.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in Washington, DC on December 22,
2010.
J. Randolph Babbit,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010–33082 Filed 12–30–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 65
[Docket No.: FAA–2010–0567; Amendment
No. 65–55]
RIN 2120–AJ66
Modification of the Process for
Requesting a Waiver of the Mandatory
Separation Age of 56 for Air Traffic
Control Specialists
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The FAA amends its
regulation concerning the process for
requesting a waiver of the mandatory
separation age of 56 for Air Traffic
Control Specialists in flight service
stations, enroute or terminal facilities,
and the David J. Hurley Air Traffic
Control System Command Center.
Under this final rule, Air Traffic Control
Specialists will no longer be required to
certify they have not been involved in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:12 Dec 30, 2010
Jkt 223001
an operational error (OE), operational
deviation (OD), or runway incursion in
the past 5 years. The rule will
streamline the waiver process and bring
it into conformance with current FAA
OE and OD reporting policy.
DATES: This amendment becomes
effective March 4, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical questions concerning this final
rule contact Kelly J. Neubecker,
Airspace, Regulations, and ATC
Procedures Group, Office of Airspace
Services, AJV–11, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 267–9235; facsimile
(202) 267–9328, e-mail
Kelly.Neubecker@faa.gov. For legal
questions concerning this final rule
contact Anne Moore, Office of Chief
Counsel, AGC–240, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 267–3123; facsimile
(202) 267–7971, e-mail
Anne.Moore@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code.
Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator to
issue, rescind, and revise regulations.
Under this authority, we are amending
Special Federal Aviation Regulation No.
103 in 14 CFR part 65 (SFAR 103) by
removing paragraph 5.b.vii. The change
is within the scope of our authority and
is a reasonable and necessary exercise of
our statutory obligations.
I. Background
On January 23, 2004, H.R. 2673,
Consolidated Appropriations 2004,
became Public Law 108–199. Within the
appropriations bill, there was a mandate
that ‘‘not later than March 1, 2004, the
Secretary of Transportation, in
consultation with the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration,
shall issue final regulations, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 8335, establishing an
exemption process allowing individual
Air Traffic Controllers to delay
mandatory retirement until the
employee reaches no later than 61 years
of age.’’ On January 7, 2005, the FAA
published the final rule in the Federal
Register, 14 CFR part 65 (Docket No.
FAA–2004–17334; SFAR No. 103, 70 FR
1634).
The process for an Air Traffic Control
Specialist (ATCS) to request a waiver
from the mandatory separation age of 56
is currently codified in SFAR 103 and
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
9
reflected in the Human Resources Policy
Bulletin 35, Waiver Process to
Mandatory Separation at Age 56. This
policy applies to all ATCSs and their
first-level supervisors in flight service,
enroute and terminal facilities, and at
the David J. Hurley Air Traffic Control
System Command Center covered under
the mandatory separation provisions of
5 U.S.C. 8335(a) and 8425(a).
The regulation contains information
contrary to air traffic policy under
amended FAA Order JO 7210.56C,
Change 2, effective July 20, 2009.
Specifically, paragraph 5.b.vii. of SFAR
103 requires a controller to provide a
statement that they have not been
involved in an operational error (OE),
operational deviation (OD), or runway
incursion in the last 5 years while in a
control position. This requirement is
inconsistent with current air traffic
orders developed specifically to foster a
safety culture that encourages full and
open reporting of safety information and
focuses on determining why events
occur, rather than placing blame. In
support of this culture, FAA Order JO
7210.56C, Change 2 removed all
references to employee identification,
training record entries, performance
management, and return-to-duty actions
that were historically tied to reported
OE or OD events. Due to this change in
policy, the reporting requirements of
SFAR 103 5.b.vii. became unverifiable.
II. Summary of the NPRM
The FAA published the NPRM on
June 2, 2010. (75 FR 30742, Docket No.
FAA 2010–0567) The proposed rule
invited comments on the proposal to
remove paragraph 5.b vii of SFAR 103,
since current practice made those
provisions unverifiable. The proposed
rule would amend only the requirement
for controllers to provide a statement
that they have not been involved in an
operational error (OE), operational
deviation (OD), or runway incursion in
the last 5 years while in a control
position. The proposal did not affect
any other requirements for Air Traffic
Controllers who request a waiver.
III. Summary of Comments
The comment period for the NPRM
closed on July 2, 2010. The FAA
received comments from two
individuals on the proposal to amend
the exemption process allowing ATC to
delay mandatory retirement age. Both
commenters supported waivers to
extend the retirement age in general,
and one commenter was also in favor of
the specific proposal to remove
documentation of any occurrences
within the preceding 5 years. The other
commenter suggested removing the
E:\FR\FM\03JAR1.SGM
03JAR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5-9]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33082]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 1
[Docket No. FAA-2010-0812; Amendment No. 1-66]
RIN 2120-AJ81
Feathering Propeller Systems for Light-Sport Aircraft Powered
Gliders
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule with request for comments amends the
definition of light-sport aircraft by removing ``auto'' from the term
``autofeathering'' as it applies to powered gliders. This amendment
will allow both manual and autofeathering propeller operation for
powered gliders that qualify as light-sport aircraft.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on March 4, 2011. Submit comments on
or before February 2, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
0812 using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
[[Page 6]]
Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
https://www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Chasteen, Federal Aviation
Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane
Directorate, ACE-114, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106;
telephone: (816) 329-4147; fax: (816) 329-4090; e-mail:
terry.chasteen@faa.gov. For legal questions concerning this rule,
contact David Pardo, Office of Chief Counsel, AGC-240, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone: (202) 267-3073; fax: (202) 267-7971.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA is adopting this final rule without prior notice and prior
public comment because this amendment is relieving in nature, imposes
no burden on the public, and is responsive to a petition for exemption
and related public comments which sought the relief granted by this
rule. The Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of
Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 1134, February 26, 1979) provide that, to
the maximum extent possible, operating administrations for the DOT
should provide an opportunity for public comment on regulations issued
without prior notice. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to
participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or
views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental,
energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting this
final rule. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of
the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or
if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments
only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this final rule. Before acting on this final rule, we will
consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this final rule in light of the comments received.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a
question regarding this document may contact their local FAA official,
or the persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can
find out more about SBREFA on the Internet at our site, https://www.faa.gov/regulations%5Fpolicies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding 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 prescribing regulations for practices, methods,
and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it establishes minimum standards required in the interest of safety for
the design of aircraft.
Background
Currently, the definition of light-sport aircraft in Sec. 1.1
General Definitions, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR),
specifies that powered gliders that are light-sport aircraft have a
fixed or autofeathering propeller system. The restriction to
``autofeathering'' has resulted in varying applications of light-sport
aircraft (LSA) design.
In 2004, the FAA issued the final rule ``Certification of Aircraft
and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft'' (Sport Pilot
Rule) (69 FR 44772, July 27, 2004). That rule established a definition
for the term ``light-sport aircraft.'' Since we adopted that rule, the
FAA has been working with the LSA industry in evaluating the overall
LSA program. The past five years have seen remarkable growth in the
overall LSA industry. Over 1,200 new factory-built airplanes, powered
parachutes, and weight-shift control aircraft have received special
airworthiness certificates in the special LSA category. One exception
to this rapid growth is LSA powered gliders.
The FAA has determined that a propeller on a LSA powered glider can
be safely feathered using either a manual or automatic feathering
propeller system, which justifies replacing the term ``autofeathering''
with ``feathering.'' We discuss this determination in the following
section.
Feathering Propeller Systems for Soaring Flight
When we published the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled
Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport
Aircraft on February 5, 2002 that proposed a definition for LSA, we
intended that LSA be simple in design and operation and appropriate for
operation by sport pilots. For aircraft design, low performance within
the constraints of light weight and structural integrity were
important. For aircraft operation, simple mechanical systems within the
constraints of sport pilot training requirements were important. In
that NPRM (67 FR 5376), we stated that ``a light sport aircraft, if
powered, would be limited to a fixed or ground adjustable propeller.''
We determined that ``a propeller that could not be adjusted in pitch
during flight was necessary to limit the operational complexity of the
aircraft and would be consistent with the skills necessary to hold a
sport pilot certificate.''
Some commenters requested that controllable pitch propellers be
permitted on LSA. We disagreed that the LSA definition should be
revised accordingly because it would require a level of training for
sport pilots and repairmen that would not be commensurate with the
privileges of their certificates. However, for powered gliders, we
revised the final rule to permit autofeathering propeller systems on
LSA powered gliders to decrease drag while soaring.
In June 2008, the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association (LAMA)
petitioned the FAA for an exemption to allow manual feathering of a
propeller in LSA powered gliders. As part of its request, LAMA provided
information concerning the design and operation of manual feathering
propeller systems. This petition can be found in Docket No. FAA-2008-
0737.
The FAA received approximately 16 comments from 13 commenters in
response to the petition. All the commenters supported the petition for
exemption. Comments on the petition highlighted the overall benefits
for a
[[Page 7]]
LSA powered glider to have the option of being equipped with a manual
feathering propeller system.
After reviewing LAMA's petition and the comments received in
support of it, the FAA has determined that a change to the definition
of LSA for powered gliders is appropriate. The FAA agrees that
autofeathering propeller systems are not necessary for the safe
operation of LSA powered gliders. These systems, which are typically
found in multi-engine aircraft, automatically feather a propeller in
the event of a power loss during takeoff. These systems can be complex,
heavy, and expensive.
On the other hand, powered gliders typically incorporate a simple,
manual feathering propeller system. These simple, two-position manual
feathering systems are more consistent with the intended use of a LSA
powered glider and the expected level of complexity for LSA operations.
For example, these systems allow the pilot to feather the propeller by
toggling a switch or moving a lever in the cockpit. This system rotates
the propeller blades to be aligned with the wind--from power
configuration to soaring configuration--so that the glider may maximize
gained altitude through thermal lift only. The ability to feather the
propeller is desirable when the glider is aloft and the engine has been
intentionally shut off.
A manual feathering propeller system is the lightest, simplest, and
most direct way to rotate the propeller blades from power configuration
to soaring configuration. This translates to a lower glider weight that
may result in better performance and fewer parts or systems that could
fail (i.e., better reliability) than with autofeathering systems, while
still maintaining low cockpit workload and pilot distraction.
Design and Standards
Under the provisions of the Sport Pilot rule and the revised Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, ``Federal Participation
in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in
Conformity Assessment Activities,'' dated February 10, 1998, the LSA
industry and the FAA have been working with the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) International to develop consensus
standards for aircraft issued special airworthiness certificates in the
LSA category under Sec. 21.190 for Special Light-Sport Aircraft (S-
LSA). These consensus standards, once accepted by the FAA, satisfy the
agency's goal for airworthiness certification and establish a
verifiable minimum safety level for S-LSA. In addition, use of the
consensus standard process assures government and industry that
discussion and agreement on appropriate standards have occurred for the
required level of safety.
We believe a simple manually operated propeller system for in-
flight feathering would be an acceptable means of compliance with the
propeller feathering provisions for LSA.
From the aircraft design perspective, we were concerned that
malfunction or misuse of a manual feathering propeller on an LSA
powered glider could impose a hazard to the aircraft occupants. Since
publication of the Sport Pilot Rule, the FAA has reviewed powered
glider accident statistics in the electronic database of the National
Transportation Safety Board. The data show 32 accidents in the years
1962 through 2009 (October) with no accidents attributed to the
operation of feathering or un-feathering a propeller during flight. The
data also indicate that in-flight feathering of a propeller system in
powered gliders--many of which are permitted to use either manual or
autofeathering propeller system--does not decrease safety.
We find that a manually operated propeller system for in-flight
feathering is appropriate. Currently, pilots flying LSA powered gliders
are allowed to use a direct-action manual lever to operate the landing
gear, which typically occurs at low altitudes during times of high
pilot workload. By contrast, feathering the propeller takes place at
higher altitudes when pilot workload is minimal. We have determined
that this revision to the definition of a LSA recognizes the
operational nature of LSA powered gliders and is consistent with the
stated design and safety objectives.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
the FAA to consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there
are no current or new requirements for information collection
associated with this amendment.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined there are no International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to this
regulation. International standards for Light Sport Aircraft are being
coordinated by ASTM International.
Good Cause for ``No Notice''
Section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B)) authorizes agencies to dispense with certain notice
procedures for rules when they find ``good cause'' to do so. Under
section 553(b)(B), the requirements of prior notice and opportunity for
comment do not apply when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.''
This final rule will change the definition of LSA powered glider by
removing ``auto'' from ``autofeathering,'' which will eliminate the
current restriction on manual feathering propeller designs. Prior
public comment is unnecessary because the FAA has already obtained
public comments regarding a petition for exemption seeking to eliminate
the restriction on manual feathering propeller designs from the
definition of light-sport aircraft. This final rule is responsive to
those comments, all of which were in support of the petition for
exemption.
We do not anticipate significant public comment on this amendment,
since it does not impose a requirement.
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, directs the
FAA to assess both the costs and benefits of a regulatory change. We
are not allowed to propose or adopt a regulation unless we make a
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Our assessment of this final rule indicates that its
economic impact is minimal.
Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal agency to
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 (Public Law 96-39) prohibits
[[Page 8]]
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act also 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
the base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the
FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning
for this determination is that the rule is cost relieving, as it
eliminates the current restriction on manual feathering propeller
designs while maintaining the current safety level.
FAA has therefore determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
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 of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to the 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 it will, the agency must prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an
agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section
605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. This rule will
not have a significant economic impact because it is cost relieving.
Therefore, as the FAA Administrator, I certify that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this final rule with request for
comments and has determined that it will have a cost relieving impact
on domestic and international entities and thus has a neutral trade
impact.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one
year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant
regulatory action.'' The level equivalent of $100 million in CY 1995,
adjusted for inflation to CY 2010 levels by the Consumer Price Index
for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) as published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, is $143.1 million.
This final rule with request for comments does not contain such a
mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this regulation.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule with request for comments
under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism.
We determined that this action will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, or the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, we
have determined that this final rule with request for comments does not
have federalism implications.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312 and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use
The FAA has analyzed this final rule with request for comments
under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not a ``significant energy
action'' under the executive order, and it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
(1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov;
(2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
[[Page 9]]
ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket and amendment
number of this rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 1
Air transportation.
The Amendments
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends part 1 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations,
as follows:
PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
0
2. Amend the definition of ``light-sport aircraft'' in Sec. 1.1 by
revising paragraph (8) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.1 General definitions.
* * * * *
Light-sport aircraft * * *
(8) A fixed or feathering propeller system if a powered glider.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC on December 22, 2010.
J. Randolph Babbit,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-33082 Filed 12-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
