[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26948-26953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12103]



[[Page 26947]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 25



Airspeed Indicating System Requirements for Transport Category 
Airplanes; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 26948]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2001-9636; Notice No. 01-05]
RIN 2120-AH26


Airspeed Indicating System Requirements for Transport Category 
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend the 
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes concerning the 
airspeed indicating system. This proposal would add airspeed indication 
requirements for speeds greater than and less than the speed range for 
which airspeed indication accuracy requirements currently apply, would 
add a requirement that airspeed indications not cause the pilot undue 
difficulty between the initiation of rotation and the achievement of a 
steady climbing condition during takeoff, and would also add a 
requirement to limit the effects of airspeed lag. Adopting this 
proposal would eliminate a regulatory difference between the 
airworthiness standards of the U.S. and the Joint Aviation Requirements 
of Europe, without affecting current industry design practices.

DATES: Send your comments on or before July 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Address your comments to Dockets Management System, U.S. 
Department of Transportation Dockets, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket 
number, FAA-2001-9636, at the beginning of your comments, and you 
should submit two copies of your comments. If you wish to receive 
confirmation that the FAA has received your comments, please include a 
self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is 
made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2001-9636.'' We will date-stamp the 
postcard and mail it back to you.
    You also may submit comments electronically to the following 
Internet address: http://dms.dot.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing comments on this 
proposed regulation at the Department of Transportation (DOT) Dockets 
Office, located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the above 
address. You may review the public docket in person at this address 
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. Also, you may review the public dockets on the Internet at 
http://dms.dot.gov.

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 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Do I Submit Comments to This NPRM?

    Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the 
proposed action by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as 
they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy, 
federalism, or economic impact that might result from adopting the 
proposals in this document are also invited. Substantive comments 
should be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments must identify the 
regulatory docket number and be submitted in duplicate to the DOT Rules 
Docket address specified above.
    All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each 
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed 
rulemaking, will be filed in the docket. The docket is available for 
public inspection before and after the comment closing date.
    We will consider all comments received on or before the closing 
date before taking action on this proposed rulemaking. Comments filed 
late will be considered as far as possible without incurring expense or 
delay. The proposals in this document may be changed in light of the 
comments received.

How Can I Obtain a Copy of This NPRM?

    You may download an electronic copy of this document using a modem 
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section 
of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-
3339); the Government Printing Office (GPO)'s electronic bulletin board 
service (telephone: 202-512-1661); or, if applicable, the FAA's 
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee bulletin board service 
(telephone: 800-322-2722 or 202-267-5948).
    Internet users may access recently published rulemaking documents 
at the FAA's web page at or the GPO's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the GPO's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
    You 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 identify the docket number of this NPRM.
    Any person interested in being placed on the mailing list for 
future rulemaking documents should request from the above office a copy 
of Advisory Circular 11-2A, ``Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
Distribution System,'' which describes the application procedure.

Background

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Standards in the United States?

    In the United States, the airworthiness standards for type 
certification of transport category airplanes are contained in Title 
14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 25. Manufacturers of 
transport category airplanes must show that each airplane they produce 
of a different type design complies with the appropriate part 25 
standards. These standards apply to:
     Airplanes manufactured within the U.S. for use by U.S.-
registered operators, and
     Airplanes manufactured in other countries and imported to 
the U.S. under a bilateral airworthiness agreement.

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Standards in Europe?

    In Europe, the airworthiness standards for type certification of 
transport category airplanes are contained in Joint Aviation 
Requirements (JAR)-25, which are based on part 25. These were developed 
by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe to provide a common 
set of airworthiness standards within the European aviation community. 
Twenty-three European countries accept airplanes type certificated to 
the JAR-25 standards, including airplanes manufactured in the U.S. that 
are type certificated to JAR-25 standards for export to Europe.

What Is ``Harmonization'' and How Did It Start?

    Although part 25 and JAR-25 are very similar, they are not 
identical in every respect. When airplanes are type certificated to 
both sets of standards, the differences between part 25 and JAR-25 can 
result in substantial additional costs

[[Page 26949]]

to manufacturers and operators. These additional costs, however, 
frequently do not bring about an increase in safety. In many cases, 
part 25 and JAR-25 may contain different requirements to accomplish the 
same safety intent. Consequently, manufacturers are usually burdened 
with meeting the requirements of both sets of standards, although the 
level of safety is not increased correspondingly.
    Recognizing that a common set of standards would not only benefit 
the aviation industry economically, but also maintain the necessary 
high level of safety, the FAA and the JAA began an effort in 1988 to 
``harmonize'' their respective aviation standards. The goal of the 
harmonization effort is to ensure that:
     Where possible, standards do not require domestic and 
foreign parties to manufacture or operate to different standards for 
each country involved; and
     The standards adopted are mutually acceptable to the FAA 
and the foreign aviation authorities.
    The FAA and JAA have identified a number of significant regulatory 
differences (SRD) between the wording of part 25 and JAR-25. Both the 
FAA and the JAA consider ``harmonization'' of the two sets of standards 
a high priority.

What Is the ARAC and What Role Does It Play in Harmonization?

    After initiating the first steps towards harmonization, the FAA and 
JAA soon realized that traditional methods of rulemaking and 
accommodating different administrative procedures was neither 
sufficient nor adequate to make appreciable progress towards fulfilling 
the goal of harmonization. The FAA then identified the Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) as an ideal vehicle for assisting 
in resolving harmonization issues, and, in 1992, the FAA tasked ARAC to 
undertake the entire harmonization effort.
    The FAA had formally established ARAC in 1991 (56 FR 2190, January 
22, 1991) to provide advice and recommendations concerning the full 
range of the FAA's safety-related rulemaking activity. The FAA sought 
this advice to develop better rules in less overall time and using 
fewer FAA resources than previously needed. The committee provides the 
FAA firsthand information and insight from interested parties regarding 
potential new rules or revisions of existing rules.
    There are 64 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 recommendations for 
resolving specific airworthiness issues. Tasks assigned to working 
groups are published in the Federal Register. Although working group 
meetings are not generally open to the public, the FAA solicits 
participation in working groups from interested members of the public 
who possess knowledge or experience in the task areas. Working groups 
report directly to the ARAC, and the ARAC must accept a working group 
proposal before ARAC presents the proposal to the FAA as an advisory 
committee recommendation.
    The activities of the ARAC will not, however, circumvent the public 
rulemaking procedures; nor is the FAA limited to the rule language 
``recommended'' by ARAC. If the FAA accepts an ARAC recommendation, the 
agency proceeds with the normal public rulemaking procedures. Any ARAC 
participation in a rulemaking package is fully disclosed in the public 
docket.

What Is the Status of the Harmonization Effort Today?

    Despite the work that ARAC has undertaken to address harmonization, 
there remain a large number of regulatory differences between part 25 
and JAR-25. The current harmonization process is extremely costly and 
time-consuming for industry, the FAA, and the JAA. Industry has 
expressed a strong desire to conclude the harmonization program as 
quickly as possible to alleviate the drain on their resources and to 
finally establish one acceptable set of standards.
    Recently, representatives of the aviation industry [including 
Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. (AIA), General 
Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and European Association of 
Aerospace Industries (AECMA)] proposed an accelerated process to reach 
harmonization.

What Is the ``Fast Track Harmonization Program''?

    In light of a general agreement among the affected industries and 
authorities to expedite the harmonization program, the FAA and JAA, in 
March 1999, agreed upon a method to achieve these goals. This method, 
which the FAA has titled ``The Fast Track Harmonization Program,'' is 
aimed at expediting the rulemaking process for harmonizing not only the 
42 standards that are currently tasked to ARAC for harmonization, but 
approximately 80 additional standards for part 25 airplanes.
    The FAA initiated the Fast Track program on November 26, 1999 (64 
FR 66522). This program involves grouping all of the standards needing 
harmonization into three categories:
Category 1: Envelope
    For these standards, parallel part 25 and JAR-25 standards would be 
compared, and harmonization would be reached by accepting the more 
stringent of the two standards. Thus, the more stringent requirement of 
one standard would be ``enveloped'' into the other standard. In some 
cases, it may be necessary to incorporate parts of both the part 25 and 
JAR standard to achieve the final, more stringent standard. (This may 
necessitate that each authority revises its current standard to 
incorporate more stringent provisions of the other.)
Category 2: Completed or Near Complete
    For these standards, ARAC has reached, or has nearly reached, 
technical agreement or consensus on the new wording of the proposed 
harmonized standards.
Category 3: Harmonize
    For these standards, ARAC is not near technical agreement on 
harmonization, and the parallel part 25 and JAR-25 standards cannot be 
``enveloped'' (as described under Category 1) for reasons of safety or 
unacceptability. A standard developed under Category 3 would be 
mutually acceptable to the FAA and JAA, with a consistent means of 
compliance.
    Further details on the Fast Track Program can be found in the 
tasking statement (64 FR 66522, November 26, 1999) and the first NPRM 
published under this program, Fire Protection Requirements for 
Powerplant Installations on Transport Category Airplanes (65 FR 36978, 
June 12, 2000).
    Under this program, the FAA provides ARAC with an opportunity to 
review, discuss, and comment on the FAA's draft NPRM. In the case of 
this rulemaking, ARAC suggested a few editorial changes, which have 
been incorporated into this NPRM.

Discussion of the Proposal

How Does This Proposed Regulation Relate to ``Fast Track''?

    This proposed regulation results from the recommendations of ARAC 
submitted under the FAA's Fast Track Harmonization Program. In this 
notice, the FAA proposes to amend the airspeed indicating system 
requirements of Sec. 25.1323.

[[Page 26950]]

What Is the Underlying Safety Issue Addressed by the Current Standards?

    The underlying safety issue is to prevent hazardously misleading 
airspeed information from being presented to the flightcrew. To this 
end, Sec. 25.1323 specifies the accuracy and calibration requirements 
and the speed ranges over which each airspeed system must be 
calibrated. In addition, each airspeed system must be designed and 
installed so as to minimize the possibility of malfunction by the entry 
of foreign material, by icing, or due to a collision with a bird.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

    The current text of 14 CFR 25.1323(c) is:
    (c) The airspeed error of the installation, excluding the airspeed 
indicator instrument calibration error, may not exceed three percent or 
five knots, whichever is greater, throughout the speed range, from--
    (1) VMO to 1.3 VS1 with flaps retracted; and
    (2) 1.3 VS0 to VFE with flaps in the landing 
position.
    The text of JAR-25.1323(c), Chg. 14, Orange Paper 96/1, is:
    (c)(1)The airspeed error of the installation, excluding the 
airspeed indicator instrument calibration error, may not exceed three 
percent or five knots, whichever is greater, throughout the speed 
range, from--
    (i) VMO to 1.3 VS1 with wing-flaps retracted; 
and
    (ii) 1.3 VS0 to VFE with wing-flaps in the 
landing position.
    (2) From 1.3 VS to stall warning speed the IAS must 
change perceptibly with CAS and in the same sense, and at speeds below 
stall warning speed the IAS must not change in an incorrect sense. (See 
ACJ 25.1323(c)(2).)
    (3) From VMO to VMO+\2/3\ 
(VDF-VMO) the IAS must change perceptibly with 
CAS and in the same sense, and at higher speeds up to VDF 
the IAS must not change in an incorrect sense. (See ACJ 25.1323(c)(3).)
    (4) There must be no indication of airspeed which would cause undue 
difficulty to the pilot during the take-off between the initiation of 
rotation and the achievement of a steady climbing condition.


    Note: This proposal harmonizes Sec. 25.1323(c) with JAR-
25.1323(c) at JAR Chg. 14. The FAA expects to achieve harmonization 
at Chg. 15, effective October 2000, through separate rulemaking that 
is currently underway.

What are the Differences in the Standards?

    JAR paragraphs 25.1323(c)(2), (3), and (4) contain requirements for 
speeds greater than and less than the speed range for which accuracy 
requirements apply. Part 25 does not have these additional 
requirements.
    At speeds up to \2/3\ (VDF - VMO) and less 
than the stall warning speed, JAR paragraphs 25.1323(c)(2) and (3) 
require the indicated speed to change perceptibly and in the same sense 
as the calibrated airspeed. At speeds up to VDF, the 
indicated airspeed must not change in an incorrect sense. In other 
words, the indicated airspeed should not go down when the actual 
airspeed is going up.
    JAR paragraph 25.1323(c)(4) states that between the initiation of 
rotation and the achievement of a steady climbing condition during 
takeoff, there must not be an airspeed indication that would cause the 
pilot undue difficulty. An example of such an indication would be a 
significant pause or change in the rate of change in airspeed. Such 
effects could result from changes in the airflow pattern around the 
airplane due to the diminishing effect of the ground on the airflow 
pattern as the airplane climbs away.
    The JAR standard is more stringent than part 25. An airspeed 
indicating system that complies with JAR 25.1323(c) ensures compliance 
with Sec. 25.1323(c), but a system that complies with Sec. 25.1323(c) 
may not comply with JAR 25.1323(c). Therefore, a system designed to 
comply with Sec. 25.1323(c) may need to be modified to comply with JAR 
25.1323(c).

What, If Any, Are the Differences in the Means of Compliance and How 
Have the Standards Been Applied?

    In general, where the standards are the same, the FAA and JAA 
accept the same means of compliance. For the additional requirements 
contained in JAR-25, the JAA has published advisory material providing 
an acceptable means of compliance. For showing compliance with JAR 
25.1323(c)(2), the rate of change of IAS with CAS should be not less 
than 0.75 from 1.3 VS to the stall warning speed. For 
showing compliance with JAR 25.1323(c)(3), the rate of change of IAS 
with CAS should be not less than 0.5 from VMO+\2/3\ 
(VDF-VMO). The JAA does not have specific 
advisory material associated with JAR 25.1323(c)(4).

What Is the Proposed Action and How Does it Address the Underlying 
Safety Issue?

    The FAA proposes to revise Sec. 25.1323 to add the additional 
airspeed system indication requirements of JAR 25.1323(c)(2), (3), and 
(4).
    In addition, a new requirement is proposed concerning airspeed lag. 
With the advent of electronic instruments in the cockpit, the pneumatic 
signals from the pitot and static sources are processed and digitized 
in the Air Data Computer (ADC) and then filtered and transported to the 
cockpit display. Data processing and filtering cause a time lag in 
displaying the airspeed on the cockpit display. This can be an 
important consideration in the airspeed indicating system calibration 
during ground acceleration. As stated in Sec. 25.1323(b), the 
calibration for an accelerated takeoff ground run must determine the 
``system error,'' which is the relation between indicated and 
calibrated airspeeds. The system error is the sum of the pneumatic lag 
in the pressure lines, airspeed lag due to time lags in processing the 
data, and static source, position error.
    The FAA considers adding these requirements to part 25 necessary to 
harmonize the actual wording of part 25 with the JAR on the issue of 
stall warning speeds, and to clarify the intent of the part 25 
regulation. This addition would align the U.S. regulations with their 
European counterparts, and the wording of both airworthiness standards 
would be parallel in this respect. Furthermore, the addition of the 
airspeed lag requirement would codify what is current FAA policy. The 
JAA intends to add the airspeed lag requirement to JAR-25.
    Adoption of this proposal is intended to benefit the public 
interest by standardizing the requirements, concepts, and procedures 
contained in the U.S. and European airworthiness standards without 
reducing, but potentially enhancing, the current level of safety.

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    The proposed standard continues to address the underlying safety 
issue in the same manner as the current standard. The additional JAR 
standards have been added for the purpose of harmonization.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to the Current 
Regulations?

    The proposed standard increases the level of safety relative to 14 
CFR part 25

[[Page 26951]]

by incorporating the additional JAR requirements. The additional 
requirement regarding airspeed lag codifies current FAA policy.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to Current 
Industry Practice?

    Since industry practice is to comply with both the FAR and the JAR, 
the proposed amendment would neither add any new or different objective 
to the current regulations, nor change the way that any current 
certification practice is applied. Instead, the intent of the new 
paragraphs is to clarify and codify the way that the FAA and JAA have 
traditionally applied the related rules.

What Other Options Have Been Considered and Why Were They Not Selected?

    Various options regarding the split between rule and advisory 
material were discussed to achieve the safety objective while ensuring 
flexibility in the means of compliance.
    The FAA considered incorporating the JAR acceptable means of 
compliance material for the proposed speed requirements in the rule; 
however, it was decided that this would be too prescriptive and that it 
would preclude the use of other means of compliance that could also be 
found acceptable.
    Another consideration was to include quantitative limits on the 
allowable level of airspeed bias and takeoff/accelerate-stop distance 
errors in the proposed airspeed lag requirement. ARAC concluded, and 
the FAA agrees, that the ``one size fits all'' approach does not work 
well here. A speed bias that varies may be significant for one airplane 
and not for another. A similar argument applies to the takeoff and 
accelerate-stop distance errors. Also, other mitigating factors may be 
more difficult to consider if prescriptive, quantitative values are 
included in the standard.
    Finally, the ARAC working group considered retaining the airspeed 
lag policy as policy only and not including it as a regulatory 
standard. The working group determined that this means of compliance 
did not have a specific regulatory standard against which it was 
applied. The FAA agrees with the working group's determination that a 
regulatory standard is necessary to assure that future certifications 
continue to consider airspeed lag issues.
    Adopting this proposal would eliminate an identified Significant 
Regulatory Difference (SRD) between the wording of part 25 and JAR-25, 
without affecting currently accepted industry design practices. The FAA 
expects more consistent interpretations of the rules and improved 
relations between regulatory authorities by eliminating this SRD.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    To address the additional JAR requirements proposed for 
Sec. 25.1323, the FAA plans to issue a revision to Advisory Circular 
(AC) 25-7A, ``Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category 
Airplanes.'' The proposed revision would add the means of compliance 
currently accepted by the JAA as an acceptable means of showing 
compliance with the proposed revision to Sec. 25.1323 discussed in this 
NPRM. AC 25-7A already contains adequate advisory material concerning 
the airspeed lag issue. Public comments concerning the proposed 
revision are invited by separate notice in this issue of the Federal 
Register.

What Regulatory Analyses and Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Regulatory Evaluation Summary
    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 
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies 
to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. section 2531-2533) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, this Trade Act also requires the consideration of 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
of U.S. standards. And fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
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).
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
proposal has benefits, but no costs, and that it is not ``a significant 
regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order 12866 nor 
``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 
Further, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, would reduce barriers 
to international trade, and would not impose an Unfunded Mandate on 
state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector.
    Because there are no apparent costs associated with this proposed 
rule, it does not warrant the preparation of a full economic evaluation 
for placement in the docket. The basis of this statement and for the 
above determinations is summarized in the following paragraphs. The FAA 
requests comments with supporting documentation in regard to the 
conclusions contained in this section.
    Currently, airplane manufacturers must satisfy both part 25 and the 
European JAR-25 standards to certificate transport category airplanes 
in both the United States and Europe. Meeting two sets of certification 
requirements raises the cost of developing a new transport category 
airplane, often with no increase in safety. In the interest of 
fostering international trade, lowering the cost of airplane 
development, and making the certification process more efficient, the 
FAA, JAA, and airplane manufacturers have been working to create, to 
the maximum possible extent, a single set of certification requirements 
accepted in both the United States and Europe. As explained in detail 
previously, these efforts are referred to as ``harmonization.''
    This proposal rule would revise the airspeed indicating 
requirements of Sec. 25.1323 to add airspeed indication requirements 
for speeds greater than and less than the speed range for which 
airspeed indication accuracy requirements currently apply, would 
require that airspeed indications not cause the pilot undue difficulty 
between the initiation of rotation and the achievement of a steady 
climbing condition during takeoff, and would also codify current FAA 
policy concerning airspeed lag. The FAA has concluded that, for the 
reasons previously discussed in the preamble, the adoption of these JAR 
requirements into 14 CFR part 25 is the most efficient way to harmonize 
these sections and, in so doing, the existing level of safety will be 
preserved.
    The FAA estimates that there are no costs associated with this 
proposal. A review of current manufacturers of transport category 
airplanes certificated under part 25 has revealed that all such future 
airplanes are expected to be certificated under both 14 CFR part 25 and 
JAR-25. Since future certificated transport category airplanes are

[[Page 26952]]

expected to meet the existing JAR requirement and this proposed rule 
simply adopts the same JAR requirement, manufacturers would incur no 
additional cost resulting from this proposal.
    In fact, manufacturers are expected to receive cost-savings by a 
reduction in the FAA/JAA certification requirements for new airplanes. 
The FAA, however, has not attempted to quantify the cost savings that 
may accrue due to this specific proposal, beyond noting that, while 
they may be minimal, they contribute to a large potential harmonization 
savings.
    The agency concludes that, since there is consensus among 
potentially affected airplane manufacturers that savings would result, 
further analysis is not required.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, 50 U.S.C. 601-612, as 
amended, 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 RFA requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible 
regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. If the determination is that the rule will, the Agency 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    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 RFA provides that the 
head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis 
is not required. The certification must include a statement providing 
the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    The FAA considers that this proposed rule would not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for two 
reasons:
    First, the net effect of the proposed rule is minimum regulatory 
cost relief. The proposed rule would require that new transport 
category airplane manufacturers meet just the ``more stringent'' 
European certification requirement, rather than both the United States 
and European standards. Airplane manufacturers already meet or expect 
to meet this standard as well as the existing 14 CFR part 25 
requirement.
    Second, all U.S. transport-airplane category manufacturers exceed 
the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 
employees for airplane manufacturers. The current U.S. part 25 airplane 
manufacturers include: Boeing, Cessna Aircraft, Gulfstream Aerospace, 
Learjet (owned by Bombardier), Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas (a 
wholly-owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company), Raytheon Aircraft, and 
Sabreliner Corporation.
    Given that this proposed rule is minimally cost-relieving and that 
there are no small entity manufacturers of part 25 airplanes, the FAA 
certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards. In addition, consistent with the Administration's belief in 
the general superiority and desirability of free trade, it is the 
policy of the Administration 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 barriers affecting the import of foreign goods and 
services into the United States.
    In accordance with the above statute and policy, the FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of the proposed rule and has determined 
that it supports the Administration's free trade policy because this 
rule would use European international standards as the basis for U.S. 
standards.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
codified in 2 U.S.C. 1532-1538, enacted as Public Law 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. This proposed rule does not contain a 
Federal intergovernmental or private sector mandate that exceeds $100 
million in any year; therefore, the requirements of the Act do not 
apply.

What Other Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule and the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The FAA has determined 
that this action would not have a substantial direct effect 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, the FAA has determined that 
this notice of proposed rulemaking would not have federalism 
implications.
Paperwork Reduction Act
    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there 
are no new information collection requirements associated with this 
proposed rule.
International Compatibility
    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to this proposed regulation.
Environmental Analysis
    FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically 
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, 
appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this proposed rulemaking action qualifies 
for a categorical exclusion.
Energy Impact
    The energy impact of the proposed rule has been assessed in 
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and 
Public Law 94-163, as amended (43 U.S.C. 6362), and FAA Order 1053.1. 
It has been determined that it is not a major

[[Page 26953]]

regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA.
Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in Title 
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to 
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation 
modes other than aviation, and to establish such regulatory 
distinctions as he or she considers appropriate. Because this proposed 
rule would apply to the certification of future designs of transport 
category airplanes and their subsequent operation, it could, if 
adopted, affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. The FAA therefore 
specifically requests comments on whether there is justification for 
applying the proposed rule differently to intrastate operations in 
Alaska.
Plain Language
    In response to the June 1, 1998, Presidential memorandum regarding 
the use of plain language, the FAA re-examined the writing style 
currently used in the development of regulations. The memorandum 
requires Federal agencies to communicate clearly with the public. We 
are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document 
is clear, and in any other suggestions you might have to improve the 
clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get more 
information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language 
initiative at http://www.plainlanguage.gov.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend part 25 of Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations, 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, and 44704.

    2. Amend Sec. 25.1323 by redesignating paragraphs (d) through (f) 
as paragraphs (h) through (j) and revising them, and adding new 
paragraphs (d) through (g) to read as follows:

Sec. 25.1323  Airspeed indicating system.

* * * * *
    (d) From 1.3 VS to the speed at which stall warning 
begins, the IAS must change perceptibly with CAS and in the same 
sense, and at speeds below stall warning speed the IAS must not 
change in an incorrect sense.
    (e) From VMO to VMO+\2/3\ (VDF 
- VMO), the IAS must change perceptibly with CAS and in 
the same sense, and at higher speeds up to VDF the IAS 
must not change in an incorrect sense.
    (f) There must be no indication of airspeed that would cause 
undue difficulty to the pilot during the takeoff between the 
initiation of rotation and the achievement of a steady climbing 
condition.
    (g) The effects of airspeed indicating system lag may not 
introduce significant takeoff indicated airspeed bias, or 
significant errors in takeoff or accelerate-stop distances.
    (h) Each system must be arranged, so far as practicable, to 
prevent malfunction or serious error due to the entry of moisture, 
dirt, or other substances.
    (i) Each system must have a heated pitot tube or an equivalent 
means of preventing malfunction due to icing.
    (j) Where duplicate airspeed indicators are required, their 
respective pitot tubes must be far enough apart to avoid damage to 
both tubes in a collision with a bird.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 2, 2001.
Lirio L. Nelson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 01-12103 Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P