[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