[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 110 (Monday, June 9, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31482-31485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14886]



[[Page 31481]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 25



Revision of Gate Requirements for High-Lift Device Controls; Proposed 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 110 / Monday, June 9, 1997 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 31482]]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. 28930; Notice No. 97-9]
RIN 2120-AF82


Revision of Gate Requirements for High-Lift Device Controls

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 25 
of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) to revise the requirements 
concerning gated positions on the control used by the pilot to select 
the position of an airplane's high-lift devices. The proposed amendment 
would update the current standards to take into account the multiple 
configurations of the high-lift devices provided on current airplanes 
to perform landings and go-around maneuvers. The proposed amendment 
would also harmonize these standards with those being proposed for the 
European Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed in triplicate to: 
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-10), Docket No. 28930, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or delivered in triplicate to: Room 
915G, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments 
delivered must be marked Docket No. 28930. Comments may also be 
submitted electronically to: [email protected]. Comments may be 
examined in Room 915G weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 8:30 
a.m. and 5 p.m. In addition, the FAA is maintaining an information 
docket of comments in the Transport Airplane Directorate (ANM-100), 
Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 Lind 
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056. Comments in the information docket 
may be examined weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. 
and 4 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Don Stimson, Flight Test and System Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 
Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone (206) 227-1129; facsimile (206) 227-
1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to participate in this proposed 
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they 
may desire. comments relating to any environmental, energy, or economic 
impact that might result from adopting the proposals contained in this 
notice are invited. Substantive comments should be accompanied by cost 
estimates. Commenters should identify the regulatory docket or notice 
number and submit comments in triplicate to the Rules Docket address 
above. All comments received on or before the closing date for comments 
will be considered by the Administrator before taking action on this 
proposed rulemaking. The proposals contained in this notice may be 
changed in light of comments received. All comments received will be 
available in the Rules Docket, both before and after the comment period 
closing date, for examination by interested persons. A report 
summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Persons wishing 
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments must submit with those 
comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following 
statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. 28930.'' The postcard will 
be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

Availability of the NPRM

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem 
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section 
of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-
3339), the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service 
(telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee Bulletin Board service (telephone: 202-267-5948).
    Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov 
or the Federal Register's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/
su__docs for access to recently published rulemaking documents.
    Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request 
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20591, or by calling 
(202) 267-9677. Communications must identify the notice number of this 
NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future 
rulemaking documents should request from the Office of Public Affairs, 
Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230, 800 Independence Ave. SW., 
Washington, D.C. 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484, a copy of 
Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution 
System, which describes the application procedure.

Background

    Section 25.145(c) of 14 CFR part 25 (part 25) of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations prescribes conditions under which it must be 
possible for the pilot, without using exceptional piloting skill, to 
prevent losing altitude while retracting the airplane's high-lift 
devices (e.g., wing flaps and slats). The intent of this requirement is 
to ensure that during a go-around from an approach to landing, the 
high-lift devices can be retracted at a rate that prevents altitude 
loss if the pilot applies maximum available power to the engines at the 
same time the control lever is moved to begin retracting the high-lift 
devices.
    Prior to amendment 23 to part 25, the Sec. 25.145(c) requirement 
applied to retractions of the high-lift devices from any initial 
position to any ending position, including a continuous retraction from 
the fully extended position to the fully retracted position. In 
amendment 23 to part 25, the FAA revised this requirement to allow the 
use of segmented retractions if gates are provided on the control the 
pilot uses to select the high-lift device position.
    Gates are devices that require a separate and distinct motion of 
the control before the control can be moved through a gated position. 
The purpose of the gates is to prevent pilots from inadvertently moving 
the high-lift device control through the gated position. Gate design 
requirements were introduced into part 25 with amendment 23, which 
revised Sec. 25.145(c) to allow the no altitude loss requirement to be 
met by segmented retractions of the high-lift devices between the gated 
positions. Amendment 23 specifies that the no altitude loss requirement 
applies to retractions of the high-lift devices between the gated 
positions and between the gates and the fully extended and fully 
retracted positions. In addition, the first gated control position from 
the landing position must correspond to the position used to establish 
the go-around procedure from the landing configuration.

[[Page 31483]]

    In this notice, the FAA proposes to update the gate design 
standards to clarify which positions of the high-lift device control 
should be gated and to harmonize these standards with those being 
proposed for the European Joint Airworthiness Requirements (JAR-25). 
The proposal contained in this notice was developed by the Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) and presented to the FAA as a 
recommendation for rulemaking.

The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee

    The ARAC was formally established by the FAA on January 22, 1991 
(56 FR 2190), to provide advice and recommendations concerning the full 
range of the FAA's safety-related rulemaking activity. This advice was 
sought to develop better rules in less overall time using fewer FAA 
resources than are currently needed. The committee provides the 
opportunity for the FAA to obtain firsthand information and insight 
from interested parties regarding proposed new rules or revisions of 
existing rules.
    There are over 60 member organizations on the committee, 
representing a wide range of interests within the aviation community. 
Meetings of the committee are open to the public, except as authorized 
by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    The ARAC establishes working groups to develop proposals to 
recommend to the FAA for resolving specific issues. Tasks assigned to 
working groups are published in the Federal Register. Although working 
group meetings are not generally open to the public, all interested 
parties are invited to participate as working group members. Working 
groups report directly to the ARAC, and the ARAC must concur with a 
working group proposal before that proposal can be presented to the FAA 
as an advisory committee recommendation.
    The activities of the ARAC will not, however, circumvent the public 
rulemaking procedures. After an ARAC recommendation is received and 
found acceptable by the FAA, the agency proceeds with the normal public 
rulemaking procedures. Any ARAC participation in a rulemaking package 
will be fully disclosed in the public docket.

Discussion of the Proposals

    The FAA proposes to update the gate design standards to clarify 
which positions of the high-lift device control should be gated and to 
harmonize these standards with those being proposed for the European 
Joint Airworthiness Requirements. First, the FAA proposes to re-codify 
the gate requirements of Sec. 25.145(c) as a new Sec. 25.145(d). 
Second, the FAA proposes to update and clarify the requirement that the 
first gated control position from the landing position corresponds to 
the configuration used to execute a go-around from an approach to 
landing. Third, the FAA proposes to clarify that performing a go-around 
maneuver beginning from any approved landing configuration should not 
result in a loss of altitude, regardless of the location of gated 
control positions. Fourth, the FAA proposes to add a statement to 
clarify that the ``separate and distinct motion'' required to move the 
high-lift device control through a gated position must be made at that 
gated position.
    The existing gate requirements are contained in a separate, but 
undesignated paragraph at the end of Sec. 25.145(c). To be consistent 
with current codification practices, the FAA proposes to re-codify 
these requirements as a new Sec. 25.145(d). Re-codification would not 
affect the content or intent of the requirement.
    Currently, Sec. 25.145(c) requires the first gated control position 
from the landing position to ``correspond with the high-lift devices 
configuration used to establish the go-around procedure from the 
landing configuration.'' The wording of this requirement implies that 
airplanes have only one configuration that can be used for landing and 
one configuration that can be used to perform a go-around maneuver. 
Modern transport category airplanes, however, typically have multiple 
configurations that can be used for performing a landing or a go-
around. Airplane manufacturers provide multiple landing and go-around 
configurations to optimize an airplane's performance for different 
environmental conditions (e.g., field elevation and temperature) and 
for non-normal situations (e.g., inoperative engines or systems).
    To provide for airplanes with multiple landing and go-around 
configurations, the FAA proposes to revise the portion of the gate 
requirements relating to the placement of the first gated control 
position from the landing position by inserting the word ``maximum'' 
preceding ``landing position'' and by replacing ``the high-lift devices 
configuration'' and ``the go-around procedure'' with ``a configuration 
of the high-lift devices'' and ``a go-around procedure,'' respectively. 
The FAA considered allowing the location of the flap gates to be made 
independent of the go-around position; however, from a human factors 
standpoint, providing a gate at a go-around position assists the pilot 
in selecting the proper configuration for a maneuver that is usually 
unexpected and entails a high workload. The FAA considers that 
requiring a gate at every approved go-around position would also be 
undesirable. Too many gates would make it difficult for the pilot to 
move the control through high-lift device positions that might not be 
used during normal operations. For go-around maneuvers using a 
different high-lift device position than the position that is gated, 
the gate can still serve as a guide for selecting the proper 
configuration (e.g., the pilot could move the control to the gate and 
either forward or backward one or more positions).
    The FAA is proposing to revise Advisory Circular (AC) 25-7, 
``Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes'' 
to provide additional guidance regarding criteria for locating the gate 
when the airplane has multiple go-around configurations. Public 
comments concerning this proposed revision to AC 25-7 are invited by 
separate notice published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register.
    Regardless of the location of any gates, initiating a go-around 
from any of the approved landing configurations should not result in a 
loss of altitude. Therefore, the FAA proposes to further revise the 
existing gate standards to require applicants to demonstrate that no 
loss of altitude will result from retracting the high-lift devices from 
each approved landing position to the position(s) corresponding with 
the high-lift device configuration(s) used to establish the go-around 
procedure(s) from that landing configuration.
    The existing Sec. 25.145(c) also requires that a separate and 
distinct movement of the high-lift device control must be made to pass 
through a gated position. The FAA proposes to further clarify the gate 
design criteria in the proposed Sec. 25.145(d) to specify that this 
separate and distinct movement can occur only at the gated position. 
This provision would ensure that the pilot receives tactile feedback 
when the control reaches a gated position. Although the FAA has always 
interpreted the current requirements in a manner consistent with this 
provision, this proposal will assist applicants by clarifying the part 
25 design requirements for gated high-lift device control positions.
    The amendments proposed in this notice have been harmonized with 
proposed amendments to JAR-25. The Joint Aviation Authorities intend to 
publish a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA), which, in

[[Page 31484]]

combination with the proposed part 25 changes contained in this notice, 
would achieve complete harmonization of the affected portions of part 
25 and JAR-25. When it is published, the NPA will be placed in the 
docket for this rulemaking.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation, Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Determination, and Trade Impact Assessment

    Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several 
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each 
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its 
cots. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies 
to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess 
the effects of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting 
these analyses, the FAA has determined that this proposed rule: 1) 
would generate benefits that justify its costs and is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order; 2) 
is not significant as defined in DOT's Policies and Procedures; (3) 
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities; and 4) would not constitute a barrier to international trade. 
These analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    U.S. manufacturers currently design high-lift device controls in 
compliance with the proposed rule. Industry representatives indicate 
that U.S. manufacturers would not have to redesign high-lift device 
controls on either newly certificated airplanes or derivatives of 
currently certificated models. The costs of the proposed rule, 
therefore, would be negligible. However, the FAA solicits information 
from all manufacturers of transport category airplanes concerning any 
possible design changes and associated costs that would result from the 
proposed amendment.
    The primary benefit of the proposed rule is the clarification of 
gate design standards of high-lift device controls. A second benefit is 
the harmonization of FAR certification requirements for controls on 
high-lift devices with proposed JAR certification requirements. The FAA 
has determined that the proposed rule would be cost-beneficial.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by 
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or 
disproportionately burdened by government regulations. The RFA requires 
a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a proposed rule would have a 
significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a 
substantial number of small entities. FAA Order 2100.14A, Regulatory 
Flexibility Criteria and Guidance, establishes threshold cost values 
and small entity size standards for complying with RFA review 
requirements in FAA rulemaking actions. The Order defines ``small 
entities'' in terms of size thresholds, ``significant economic impact'' 
in terms of annualized cost thresholds, and ``substantial number'' as a 
number which is not less than eleven and which is more than one-third 
of the small entities subject to the proposed or final rule.
    Order 2100.14A specifies a size threshold for classification as a 
small manufacturer as 75 or fewer employees. Since none of the 
manufacturers affected by this proposed rule has 75 or fewer employees 
and any costs of the proposed rule would be negligible, the proposed 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small manufacturers.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The proposed rule will not constitute a barrier to international 
trade, including the export of American airplanes to foreign countries 
and the import of foreign airplanes into the United States. The 
proposed gate design requirements in this proposed rule would harmonize 
with those of the JAA and would, in fact, lessen the restraints on 
trade.

Federalism Implications

    The amended regulations proposed in this rulemaking would not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, 
in accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this 
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
preparing a Federalism Assessment.

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and Joint Aviation 
Regulations

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with ICAO 
Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. 
The FAA has determined that this proposed rule does not conflict with 
any international agreement of the United States.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1990 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.), there are no reporting or recordkeeping requirements 
associated with this proposed rule.

Conclusion

    Because the proposed changes to the flap gate design requirements 
for transport category airplanes are not expected to result in 
substantial economic cost, the FAA has determined that this proposed 
regulation would not be significant under Executive Order 12866. 
Because this is an issue which has not prompted a great deal of public 
concern, the FAA has determined that this action is not significant 
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 25, 
1979). In addition since there are no small entities affected by this 
proposed rulemaking, the FAA certifies, under the criteria of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, that this rule, if adopted. will not have a 
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial 
number of small entities. An initial regulatory evaluation of the 
proposal, including a Regulatory Flexibility Determination and Trade 
Impact Analysis, has been placed in the docket. A copy may be obtained 
by contacting the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Proposed Amendments

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to 
amend 14 CFR part 25 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) as 
follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS--TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

    1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.


[[Page 31485]]


    2. Section 25.145 would be amended by revising paragraph (c) 
introductory text, revising the undesignated paragraph following 
paragraph (c)(3), and designating that paragraph as paragraph (d) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 25.145  Longitudinal control.

* * * * *
    (c) It must be possible, without exceptional piloting skill, to 
prevent loss of altitude when complete retraction of the high-lift 
devices from any positive is begun during steady, straight, level 
flight at 1.1 VS1 for propeller powered airplanes, or 
1.2VS1 for turbojet powered airplanes, with--
    (1) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (d) If gated high-lift device control positions are provided, 
paragraph (c) of this section applies to retractions of the high-lift 
devices from any position from the maximum landing position to the 
first gated position, between gated positions, and from the last gated 
position to the fully retracted position. The requirements of paragraph 
(c) of this section also apply to retractions from each approved 
landing position to the control position(s) associated with the high-
lift device configuration(s) used to establish the go-around 
procedure(s) from that landing position. In addition, the first gated 
control position from the maximum landing position must correspond with 
a configuration of the high-lift devices used to establish a go-around 
procedure from a landing configuration. Each gated control position 
must require a separate and distinct motion of the control to pass 
through the gated position and must have features to prevent 
inadvertent movement of the control through the gated position. It must 
only be possible to make this separate and distinct motion once the 
control has reached the gated position.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 30, 1997.
Thomas E. McSweeney,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service,    AIR-1.
[FR Doc. 97-14886 Filed 6-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M