[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6160-6164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2971]



[[Page 6159]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 25



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 1999 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 6160]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. 28930; Amdt. No. 25-98]
RIN 2120-AF82


Revision of Gate Requirements for High-Lift Device Controls

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the airworthiness standards for transport 
category airplanes 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 FAA is taking this action to 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. This final rule also harmonizes these 
standards with those being adopted by the European Joint Aviation 
Authorities (JAA).

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Stimson, FAA, Airplane and Flight 
Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-
4056; telephone (425) 227-1129; facsimile (425) 227-1320, e-mail 
Don.S[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Final Rule

    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 aboard service (telephone: 703-321-
3339), the Government Printing Office's electronic bulletin board 
service (telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee Bulletin Board service (telephone: 800-322-2722 or 
202-267-5948).
    Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the Government Printing Office's web page at 
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara for access to recently published 
rulemaking documents.
    Any person may obtain a copy of this document by submitting a 
request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 
ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 
calling (202) 267-9680. Communications must reference the amendment 
number or docket number of this final rule.
    Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future 
notices of proposed rulemaking and final rules should request from the 
above office a copy of Advisory Circular (AC) No. 11-2A, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the 
application procedure.

Small Entity Inquiries

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 
(SBREFA) requires the FAA to report inquiries from small entities 
concerning information on, and advice about, compliance with statutes 
and regulations within the FAA's jurisdiction, including interpretation 
and application of the law to specific sets of facts supplied by a 
small entity.
    The FAA's definitions of small entities may be accessed through the 
FAA's web page (http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm), by contacting a 
local FAA official or by contacting the FAA's Small Entity Contact 
listed below.
    If you are a small entity and have a question, contact your local 
FAA official. If you do not know how to contact your local FAA 
official, you may contact Charlene Brown, Program Analyst Staff, Office 
of Rulemaking, ARM-27, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, 1-888-551-1594. 
Internet users can find additional information on SBREFA in the ``Quick 
Jump'' section of the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/
sbrefa.htm and may send electronic inquiries to the following Internet 
address: [email protected].

Background

    Section 25.145(c) of 14 CFR 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 25-23 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 25-23 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 25-23, 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 gated 
positions of the high lift devices. As amended by Amendment 25-23, 
Sec. 25.145(c) 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.
    In Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 97-9, which was published in the 
Federal Register on June 9, 1997 (62 FR 31482), the FAA proposed 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 Notice 
97-9 was originally 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,

[[Page 6161]]

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

    In Notice 97-9, the FAA proposed 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 proposed to re-codify the gate requirements of Sec. 25.145(c) as a 
new Sec. 25.145(d). Second, the FAA proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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. 24.145(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 airplane 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 proposed 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 also proposed a revision to Advisory Circular (AC) 25-7, 
``Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes'' 
(June 17, 1997, 62 FR 32852) to provide additional guidance regarding 
criteria for locating the gate when the airplane has multiple go-around 
configurations.
    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 proposed to further revise the 
existing gate standards to require applicants to demonstrate that no 
less 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 proposed 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 Notice 97-9 were harmonized with 
proposed amendments to JAR-25. The Joint Aviation Authorities published 
Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 25B-238 on June 20, 1997, which, in 
combination with the proposed part 25 changes, would achieve complete 
harmonization of the affected positions of part 25 and JAR-25.

Discussion of Comments

    Very few comments were received on the part 25 rule changes 
proposed by the FAA in Notice 97-9. Three of the commenters, which were 
organizations represented in the ARAC process that developed these 
proposals, expressed their support for the proposals. One of these 
commenters noted that the ARAC process was highly successful in 
developing a better proposal than what was envisaged at the beginning 
of the process, did so in a very short period of time, and ended up 
with a proposal that was unanimously supported by all the participants. 
This commenter expressed hope that the FAA will continue to make 
improvements in the process to develop rules in less overall time.
    One commenter, whose organization was also represented in the ARAC 
deliberations, expressed support for the proposals, but also suggested 
several changes be made. First, the commenter notes that Sec. 25.145 
uses both terms ``wing flaps'' and ``high lift devices.'' The commenter 
suggests standardizing on the single term ``high lift devices'' 
throughout.

[[Page 6162]]

    Second, the commenter alleges that the FAA proposal differs from 
the JAA proposal relative to the position of the first gated position 
from the maximum landing position. The commenter claims that the FAA 
proposal would require the gate to correspond with the configuration 
used to establish a go-around procedure from ``the'' landing position, 
implying that the landing position is the maximum position. The 
commenter notes that the JAA proposal refers to ``a'' landing position, 
which the commenter believes allows the optimum gate position to be 
chosen when there are multiple landing configurations.
    Third, the commenter notes that there is no reference within part 
25 regarding the relationship between the configuration for the missed 
approach (Secs. 25.101(g) and 25.121(d)) and the configuration used for 
go-around (proposed Sec. 25.145(d)). Since these configurations can be 
different, the commenter believes that the definitions and procedures 
should be clarified. The commenter did not fully explain why such 
clarification is needed, nor were any specific suggestions provided.
    Last, the commenter notes that there could be a landing flap 
position at a lesser flap angle than the gated go-around position. 
Under the proposed rules, there would not be a requirement to have any 
gates between that position and the clean configuration. This could 
lead to an inadvertent retraction of the high lift leading edge devices 
(e.g., slats) during a go-around, which the commenter believes may be a 
hazardous event even if the ``don't sink'' requirement is met.
    Although the FAA agrees in principle with the commenter's first 
suggestion, to standardize on a single term, this issue is outside the 
scope of the proposed rulemaking. The terms ``flaps,'' ``wing flaps,'' 
and ``high lift devices'' are used in other part 25 sections in 
addition to Sec. 25.145, and any attempt to standardize these terms 
should include a thorough review of these other sections. The objective 
of this rulemaking is to clarify and harmonize the requirements 
regarding gates on the high lift device control, taking into account 
current airplane designs.
    Regarding the commenter's second suggestion, the commenter is 
incorrect in stating that the FAA and JAA proposals are different. The 
FAA and JAA proposals are exactly the same; they both contain the 
wording that the commenter prefers. In fact, it is the existing 
Sec. 25.145(c) and JAR 25.145 that contain the wording the commenter is 
objecting to, which the FAA and JAA proposed to revise due to the issue 
raised by the commenter.
    The commenter is correct in stating that there is no reference 
within part 25 regarding the relationship between the configuration for 
the missed approach (used to comply with Secs. 25.101(g) and 25.121(d)) 
and the configuration used for go-around (used to comply with 
Sec. 25.145(d)). Although a single configuration is typically specified 
by the applicant for both situations, the commenter points out that 
this is not a part 25 requirement. The FAA disagrees that further 
clarification of the definitions and procedures associated with the 
missed approach and go-around configurations is necessary. The 
configuration associated with a missed approach is specifically defined 
in Sec. 25.121(d), which refers to an approach configuration prior to 
selection of the landing configuration. The go-around configuration, 
which is used to show compliance with Sec. 25.145(d), is the climb 
configuration referenced in the procedures for a balked landing from 
the landing configuration. The references to and relationships between 
these configurations have not been changed by this rulemaking.
    The issue brought up by the commenter's last suggestion was 
considered during the development of the proposed rule. However, a 
specific requirement to place a gate at the position preceding the one 
at which the wing's leading edge high lift devices (e.g., slats) 
retract was considered to be too prescriptive. The performance effect 
of retracting the wing's leading edge high lift devices can vary 
significantly, depending on the design of the high lift system on the 
particular airplane. Other than the ``no loss of altitude'' provision 
of Sec. 25.145(c), it is difficult to quantify a minimum performance 
requirement that would appropriately address any safety concerns with 
an inadvertent leading edge device retraction. The FAA considers the 
``no loss of altitude'' criterion, coupled with industry design 
practice, to adequately address this issue.
    A commenter who was not involved in the ARAC process leading to the 
proposed amendment suggests that a gate should be required at all 
approved go-around positions of the high lift devices, rather than at 
``a'' go-around position. This commenter believes that from a human 
factors standpoint the benefits of maintaining a consistent procedure 
for selecting the go-around configuration outweigh any drawbacks 
associated with having too many gates.
    The FAA addressed this issue in the preamble of the proposed 
amendment (which is repeated in the background discussion above). The 
FAA considers that requiring a gate at every approved go-around 
position would 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).
    Although the FAA generally agrees that from a human factors 
standpoint a consistent operational procedure is desirable, this 
objective would not necessarily be achieved even if the commenter's 
suggestion were adopted. For a typical transport category airplane with 
multiple go-around positions requiring multiple gates, the procedure 
for selecting the desired go-around configuration may involve moving 
the selector to the first gate, through a gate to another gate, or 
through multiple gates to the gate corresponding to the desired 
configuration. Such a procedure is roughly equivalent to moving the 
control to the gate and either forward or backward one or more 
positions to select the desired configuration. The FAA does not 
consider the presence of multiple gates to provide enough of an 
enhancement to the flightcrew's ability in selecting the proper 
configuration to outweigh the potential drawbacks associated with the 
need to negotiate the control through multiple gates during normal 
operations.
    In light of the foregoing discussion, the amendment is adopted as 
proposed.

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

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the 
economic impact 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. And 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

[[Page 6163]]

$100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation). In conducting 
these analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule: (1) will 
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 Regulatory Policies and Procedures; 
(3) will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities; (4) will lessen restraints on international trade; and (5) 
does not contain a significant intergovernmental or private sector 
mandate. 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 final rule. Industry representatives indicate that 
U.S. manufacturers will not have to redesign high-lift device controls 
on either newly certificated airplanes or derivatives of currently 
certificated models. The costs of the rule, therefore, will be 
negligible. The FAA solicited information from manufacturers of 
transport category airplanes concerning any possible design changes and 
associated costs that would result from the proposed amendment. No 
comments were received concerning these matters.
    The primary benefit of the 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 of high-
lift devices with JAR certification requirements, and this benefit may 
result in cost savings to manufacturers of transport category airplanes 
in the United States and in JAA countries. Although the FAA is unable 
to quantify these benefits, the FAA has determined that these benefits 
exceed the negligible costs of the final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a 
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, 
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, 
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the 
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to 
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies to 
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the 
rationale for their actions. The Act 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 proposal or 
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the 
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in 
the Act.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act 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. For manufacturers, a small entity is one with 1,500 or 
fewer employees. No transport category airplane manufacturer has 1,500 
or fewer employees, thus there are no affected small entities. In 
addition, the rule has negligible costs. Consequently, the FAA 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small transport category airplane 
manufacturers.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    Consistent with the Administration's belief in the general 
superiority, desirability, and efficacy of free trade, it is the policy 
of the Administrator to remove or diminish, to the extent feasible, 
barriers to international trade, including both barriers affecting the 
export of American goods and services to foreign countries, and those 
affecting the import of foreign goods and services into the United 
States.
    In accordance with that policy, the FAA is committed to develop, as 
much as possible, its aviation standards and practices in harmony with 
its trading partners. Significant cost savings can result from this, 
both to American companies doing business in foreign markets, and 
foreign companies doing business in the United States.
    This rule is a direct action to respond to this policy by 
increasing the harmonization of the U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations 
with the European Joint Aviation Requirements. The result will be a 
positive step toward removing impediments to international trade.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal 
agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment 
of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency 
rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. 
Section 204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal 
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by 
elected officers (or their designees) of State, local, and tribal 
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A 
``significant intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any 
provision in a Federal agency regulation that will impose an 
enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one 
year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section 
204(a), provides that before establishing any regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the 
agency shall have developed a plan that, among other things, provides 
for notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a 
meaningful and timely opportunity to provide input in the development 
of regulatory proposals.
    The rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental or private 
sector mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

Federalism Implications

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

International Compatibility

    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 rule does not conflict with any 
international agreement of the United States.

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in Title 
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to 
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by

[[Page 6164]]

transportation modes other than aviation, and to establish such 
regulatory distinctions as he or she considers appropriate. Because 
this final rule applies to the certification of future designs of 
transport category airplanes and their subsequent operation, it could 
affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. The Administrator has considered 
the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other 
than aviation, and how the final rule could have been applied 
differently to intrastate operations in Alaska. However, the 
Administrator has determined that airplanes operated solely in Alaska 
would present the same safety concerns as all other affected airplanes; 
therefore, it would be inappropriate to establish a regulatory 
distinction for the intrastate operation of affected airplanes in 
Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Administration (FAA) 
amends part 25 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 
25) 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.
    2. Section 25.145 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory 
text, revising the text following paragraph (c)(3), and designating the 
text 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 position 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 February 3, 1999.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-2971 Filed 2-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M