[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 9 (Monday, January 14, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1846-1855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-655]



[[Page 1845]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 25



Miscellaneous Flight Requirements; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 9 / Monday, January 14, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 1846]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2002-11271; Notice No. 02-01]
RIN 2120-AH39


Miscellaneous Flight Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend the 
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes concerning 
miscellaneous flight requirements. Adopting this proposal would 
eliminate regulatory differences 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 March 15, 2002.

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-2002-11271, 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-2002-11271.'' 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 to 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 a.m. and 5 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 & 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 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 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

[[Page 1847]]

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 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 accepted the draft NPRM as proposed.

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 five sections of the regulations 
concerning transport category airplane miscellaneous flight 
requirements to harmonize the associated standards with those of JAR-
25. The standards addressed in this proposal are all classified as 
Category 1 under the fast track harmonization program. Since the FAA 
agrees with the recommendations received from ARAC, this proposal is 
consistent with the ARAC recommendations. The five proposed changes are 
described separately below.

Change 1: Section 25.111(c)(4), ``Takeoff Path''

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

    This requirement only allows certain routine crew actions to be 
made before the airplane reaches a height of 400 feet above the takeoff 
surface. Simulation studies and accident investigations have shown that 
during periods of high

[[Page 1848]]

workload, such as after an engine failure during takeoff, the crew 
might not take actions necessary to maintain the safe flight of the 
airplane. This revision would require that certain actions be automatic 
before the airplane reaches a height of 400 feet in order to receive 
credit for the effect of the action on the flight path.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

     The current text of 14 CFR Section 25.111(c)(4) is:

Section 25.111 Takeoff path.

    * * * (c)(4) Except for gear retraction and propeller 
feathering, the airplane configuration may not be changed, and no 
change in power or thrust that requires action by the pilot may be 
made, until the airplane is 400 feet above the takeoff surface.

     The current text of JAR-25.111(c)(4), Change 15, 
Amendment 25/96/1, is:

JAR-25.111  Take-Off Path

    * * * (c)(4) Except for gear retraction and automatic propeller 
feathering, the aeroplane configuration may not be changed, and no 
change in power or thrust that requires action by the pilot may be 
made, until the aeroplane is 400 ft above the takeoff surface.

What Are the Differences In the Standards and What Do Those Differences 
Result In?

    Although both part 25 and the JAR address the effect of propeller 
feathering on the flight path before the airplane is 400 feet above the 
takeoff surface, the JAR standard does not allow manual propeller 
feathering until the airplane is at least 400 feet above the takeoff 
surface. Although current FAA policy has been in accordance with the 
JAR standard, the rule language was not clear. Only automatic propeller 
feathering has been accepted as complying with the intent of 
Sec. 25.111(c)(4).

What, If Any, Are the Differences In the Means of Compliance?

    There are no differences between part 25 and JAR-25 in the means of 
compliance.

What Is the Proposed Action?

    The FAA proposes to harmonize the regulations by revising part 25 
to adopt the text of JAR-25.111(c)(4) as new Sec. 25.111(c)(4). The 
proposed action would codify current FAA policy by incorporating the 
text of the JAR standard.

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    The proposed standard would continue to address the underlying 
safety issue in the same manner by codifying current FAA policy to the 
JAR.

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

    The proposed standard would maintain the same level of safety 
relative to the current regulations, considering the application of FAA 
policy concerning propeller feathering below a height of 400 feet.

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

    The proposed standard would maintain the same level of safety 
relative to the current industry practice.

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

    The FAA has not considered another option. The FAA considers the 
proposed enveloping action to be the most appropriate way to maintain 
safety.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Change?

    Manufacturers and operators of transport category airplanes could 
be affected by the proposed change. The proposed change, however, would 
not have an effect because it codifies current practices and policy.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    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 Sec. 25.111(c)(4). Public comments concerning the 
proposed revision to AC 25-7A are invited by separate notice, following 
this NPRM.

Change 2: Section 25.147(c)(2), ``Directional and Lateral Control''

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

    This requirement addresses controllability in the one-engine-
inoperative condition. It requires that transport category airplanes be 
controllable and maneuverable with the critical engine inoperative.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

     There is no comparable part 25 section.
     The current text of JAR-25.147(c)(2), Change 15, Amendment 
25/96/1, is:

JAR-25.147  Directional and Lateral Control

    * * * (c)(2) With the critical engine inoperative, roll response 
must allow normal manoeuvres. Lateral control must be sufficient, at 
the speeds likely to be used with one engine inoperative for climb, 
cruise, descent and landing approach, to provide a peak roll rate 
necessary for safety without excessive control forces or travel. 
(See ACJ 25.147(c)(2).)

What Are the Differences in the Standards and What Do Those Differences 
Result In?

    Section 25.147 of part 25 does not address roll rate response. The 
JAR 25.147(c)(2), however, addresses roll rate response. Additional 
flight testing is needed to show compliance with the JAR requirement. 
Since industry practice is to comply with both standards, it is 
difficult to determine whether there are any resulting design 
differences. It is not known if the differences in the standards would 
have resulted in any design differences had current industry practice 
not been to comply with both standards.

What, If Any, Are the Differences in the Means of Compliance?

    Section 25.147 of part 25 does not prescribe any roll rate 
requirements. Any evaluation of roll rate would be only of a general 
qualitative nature relative to the ease of performing the banked turns 
required by Sec. 25.147(c). Also, the part 25 evaluation is only 
performed at 1.4 VS.

What Is the Proposed Action?

    The proposed action would add the additional JAR-25 requirement to 
part 25 as a new Sec. 25.147(d). However, the word ``peak,'' as used in 
JAR 25.147(c)(2), would not be included in this proposal in reference 
to the roll rate that must be available. The FAA considers the use of 
the word ``peak'' too constraining and unclear. For example, 
demonstrating an ``average'' roll rate capability may not be acceptable 
for showing compliance with a requirement for a ``peak'' roll rate. 
Also, it is difficult to determine if a peak roll rate is the maximum 
sustainable roll rate, or is merely a short transient condition that 
could result from unique or unusual piloting techniques.
    Also, the reference to the climb, cruise, descent, and landing 
approach flight phases currently contained in JAR 25.147(c)(2) would be 
removed. The FAA considers this proposed requirement applicable to all 
flight

[[Page 1849]]

phases with one engine inoperative, including takeoff and initial 
climb, which are not referenced in the current JAR 25.147(c)(2). By 
removing the reference to specific flight phases, the proposed 
requirement would be applicable to all flight phases with one engine 
inoperative.
    Additionally, Sec. 25.147(d) and (e) would be redesignated as 
Sec. 25.147(e) and (f), respectively. The JAA plans to harmonize the 
JAR accordingly to correspond to these proposals.

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    The proposed standard would continue to address the underlying 
safety issue for all phases of flight with one engine inoperative in 
the same manner, but would add a requirement specifically addressing 
roll rate response.

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

    The proposed standard would increase the level of safety since it 
adds a requirement that is not currently in Sec. 25.147.

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

    The proposed standard would maintain the same level of safety since 
current industry practice is to comply with both standards.

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

    The FAA has not considered another option. The FAA considers the 
proposed enveloping action to be the most appropriate way to maintain 
safety.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Change?

    The proposed standard would affect manufacturers of transport 
category airplanes. This change would not affect operators since it 
would have no effect on the operating limitations or procedures.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    The FAA considers that adding the existing JAA ACJ material to AC 
25-7A would be necessary to address the means of compliance for the 
proposed addition to part 25. The FAA plans to issue a revision to AC 
25-7A to add this material. Public comments concerning this proposed 
revision are invited by separate notice, following this NPRM.

Change 3: Section 25.161(c)(2), ``Trim (Longitudinal)''

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

    Transport category airplanes are required to maintain longitudinal, 
lateral, and directional trim under certain conditions of flight. This 
requirement specifies conditions under which longitudinal trim must be 
maintained. The capability to trim out control forces is both a pilot 
workload and a flight path precision issue. An out-of-trim airplane can 
be fatiguing to fly and can make maintaining the desired flight path 
more difficult.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

     The current text of 14 CFR Section 25.161(c)(2) is:

Section 25.161 Trim.

    (c) Longitudinal trim. The airplane must maintain longitudinal 
trim during--
* * * * *
    * * * (c)(2) A glide with power off at a speed not more than 1.4 
V\S1\, with the landing gear extended, the wing flaps (i) retracted 
and (ii) extended, the most unfavorable center of gravity position 
approved for landing with the maximum landing weight, and with the 
most unfavorable center of gravity position approved for landing 
regardless of weight; and * * *

     The current text of JAR 25.161(c)(2), Change 14, is:

JAR-25.161  Trim

    (c) Longitudinal trim. The aeroplane must maintain longitudinal 
trim during--
* * * * *
    * * * (c)(2) Either a glide with power off at a speed not more 
than 1.4 VS1, or an approach within the normal range of 
approach speeds appropriate to the weight and configuration with 
power settings corresponding to a 3 deg. glidepath, whichever is the 
most severe, with the landing gear extended, the wing flaps (i) 
retracted and (ii) extended, the most unfavourable centre of gravity 
position approved for landing with the maximum landing weight, and 
the most unfavourable centre of gravity position approved for 
landing regardless of weight; and * * *

What Are the Differences in the Standards and What Do Those Differences 
Result In?

    In addition to the power-off glide condition specified by part 25, 
the JAR requires longitudinal trim to be maintained at speeds and power 
settings appropriate to an approach on a
3-degree glidepath. For airplanes where this condition is more 
stringent than the power-off glide condition, a design difference may 
result. Also, additional flight testing must be performed to 
demonstrate compliance with the JAR.

What, If Any, Are the Differences in the Means of Compliance?

    Although the explicit standards are different, there are no 
differences in the means of compliance.

What Is the Proposed Action?

    The proposed action would revise Sec. 25.161(c)(2) to adopt the 
more stringent JAR standard. The requirement to demonstrate compliance 
at ``the most unfavorable center of gravity position approved for 
landing with the maximum landing weight, and with the most unfavorable 
center of gravity position approved for landing regardless of weight'' 
would be simplified to refer to ``the most unfavorable combination of 
center of gravity position and weight approved for landing.'' This 
proposed change would not affect the safety intent of the requirement. 
The longitudinal trim requirement would continue to apply to the most 
critical combination of landing weight and center of gravity position. 
If, due to the characteristics of the approved center of gravity 
envelope, the most critical combination of landing weight and center of 
gravity position does not coincide with the maximum landing weight, 
there would not be any need to demonstrate compliance at the maximum 
landing weight condition.

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    The proposed standard would continue to address the underlying 
safety issue in the same manner, but would add a requirement to ensure 
that transport category airplanes maintain longitudinal trim in a 
power-on approach condition.

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

    The proposed standard would increase the level of safety for those 
transport category airplanes for which the power-on approach condition 
is more critical for maintaining longitudinal trim than the power-off 
glide condition.

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

    The proposed standard would maintain the current level of safety 
since industry practice is to comply with both part 25 and JAR-25.

[[Page 1850]]

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

    The FAA has not considered another option. The FAA considers the 
proposed action to be the most appropriate way to fulfill harmonization 
goals while maintaining safety and without affecting current industry 
practice.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Change?

    The proposed change would affect manufacturers and operators of 
transport category airplanes. However, since the proposed change does 
not result in any practical changes in requirements or practice, there 
would not be any significant effect.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    There is no specific advisory material for either part 25 or the 
JAR. The FAA considers developing new advisory material to be 
unnecessary.

Change 4: Section Sec. 25.161(e), ``Trim (Four or More Engines)''

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

    Transport category airplanes are required to maintain longitudinal, 
lateral, and directional trim under certain conditions of flight. This 
requirement specifies additional conditions applicable to airplanes 
with four or more engines under which longitudinal, directional, and 
lateral trim must be maintained. The capability to trim out control 
forces is both a pilot workload and capability to maintain a desired 
flight path issue. An out-of-trim airplane can be fatiguing to fly and 
can make maintaining the desired flight path more difficult.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

     The current text of 14 CFR 25.161(e) is:

Section 25.161 Trim.

    * * * (e) Airplanes with four or more engines. Each airplane 
with four or more engines must maintain trim in rectilinear flight--
    (1) At the climb speed, configuration, and power required by 
Sec. 25.123(a) for the purpose of establishing the rate of climb;
    (2) With the most unfavorable center of gravity position; and
    (3) At the weight at which the two-engine-inoperative climb is 
equal to at least 0.013 VSO2 at an altitude of 5,000 
feet.

     The current text of JAR-25.161(e), Change 15, Amendment 
25/96/1, is:

JAR-25.161  Trim

     * * *(e) Aeroplanes with four or more engines. Each aeroplane 
with four or more engines must maintain trim in rectilinear flight--
    (1) At the climb speed, configuration, and power required by JAR 
25.123(a) for the purpose of establishing gradient of climb; and
    (2) With the most unfavourable centre of gravity position.
    (3) Not required for JAR-25.

What Are the Differences in the Standards and What Do Those Differences 
Result in?

    Part 25 specifies a single weight at which a transport category 
airplane with four or more engines must maintain trim in rectilinear 
flight. The JAR-25 standard, which does not contain this provision, 
applies at all weights. Therefore, the JAR-25 standard is more 
stringent.
    The weight requirement in part 25 originated in the U.S. Civil Air 
Regulations (CAR) part 4b, which specified climb rates proportional to 
the square of the stall speed. Climb rates were specified in this 
manner because it was assumed that the level of safety associated with 
an emergency landing would depend on the kinetic energy of the 
airplane, which in turn is proportional to the mass times the velocity 
squared. For equivalent safety, it was reasoned that excess power, 
expressed in terms of rate of climb, should be proportional to the 
stall speed squared. Since the climb requirements of part 25 are now 
expressed in terms of climb gradient rather than rates of climb, the 
manner in which the weight for compliance is defined in 
Sec. 25.161(e)(3) is an historical artifact and out of step with the 
rest of part 25.

What, if Any, Are the Differences in the Means of Compliance?

    Although the explicit standards are different, there are no 
differences in the means of compliance.

What Is the Proposed Action?

    The proposed action would reformat this section into one paragraph 
with no sub-paragraphs. The wording currently in Sec. 25.161(e)(1) and 
JAR 25.161(e)(1) would be moved to Sec. 25.161(e) and updated to 
reflect current industry practice in reference to the en route flight 
path configurations of Sec. 25.123(a) and JAR 25.123(a). The part 25 
wording originated in CAR part 4b when the equivalent requirement to 
Sec. 25.123(a) for two-engine-inoperative climb performance specified a 
minimum rate of climb that an airplane must be capable of achieving. In 
the current part 25 and JAR-25 standards, Sec. 25.123(a) and JAR 
25.123(a) require the determination of the en route flight paths, 
rather than a minimum rate of climb or climb gradient. To be consistent 
with the current Sec. 25.123(a) and JAR 25.123(a), the proposed 
Sec. 25.161(e) would refer to en route flight paths rather than either 
rate of climb (as in current part 25) or gradient of climb (as in 
current JAR-25).
    In addition, the word ``also'' has been added to the lead-in 
sentence of the proposed standard to clarify that this is an additional 
requirement for airplanes with four or more engines. The requirements 
of Sec. 25.161(d) and JAR 25.161(d) remain applicable for these 
airplanes.
    The wording of Sec. 25.161(e)(2) would be incorporated into the 
proposed Sec. 25.161(e). Section 25.161(e)(3) would be removed. Its 
removal would result in the proposed Sec. 25.161(e) requirements being 
applicable at all weights as in the current JAR 25.161(e).

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    This proposed standard would continue to address the underlying 
safety issue in the same manner. However, it also would expand the 
conditions under which airplanes with four or more engines must be able 
to maintain longitudinal, lateral, and directional trim by making the 
current standard applicable at all relevant gross weight conditions.

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

    The proposed standard would increase the level of safety relative 
to the current part 25. It expands the conditions under which an 
airplane with four or more engines must be able to maintain 
longitudinal, lateral, and directional trim.

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

    The proposed standard would maintain the current level of safety 
since industry practice is to comply with both part 25 and JAR-25.

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

    The FAA has not considered another option. The FAA considers the 
proposed action to be the most appropriate way to fulfill harmonization 
goals while maintaining safety and without affecting current industry 
practice.

[[Page 1851]]

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Change?

    The proposed change would affect manufacturers and operators of 
transport category airplanes. However, since the proposed change does 
not result in any practical changes in requirements or practice, there 
would not be any significant effect.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    There is no specific advisory material for either part 25 or JAR-
25. The FAA considers developing new advisory material unnecessary.

Change 5: Section 25.175(d), ``Static Longitudinal Stability''

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

    Section 25.175 and JAR 25.175 contain the conditions under which 
static longitudinal stability must be demonstrated for transport 
category airplanes. Static longitudinal stability is required by part 
25 for the following reasons:
    1. To provide additional speed change cues to the pilot through 
control force changes.
    2. To ensure that short periods of unattended operation do not 
result in any significant changes in attitude, airspeed, or load 
factor.
    3. To provide predictable pitch response.
    4. To provide acceptable level of pilot attention (workload) to 
attain and maintain trim speed and altitude.
    5. To provide gust stability.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

     The current text of 14 CFR 25.175(d) is:

Section 25.175 Demonstration of Static Longitudinal Stability.

    * * * (d) Landing. The stick force curve must have a stable 
slope, and the stick force may not exceed 80 pounds, at speeds 
between 1.1 VS0 and 1.8 VS0 with--
    (1) Wing flaps in the landing position;
    (2) Landing gear extended;
    (3) Maximum landing weight;
    (4) Power or thrust off on the engines; and
    (5) The airplane trimmed at 1.4 VS0 with power or 
thrust off.

     The current text of JAR-25.175(d), Change 14, is:

JAR 25.175  Demonstration of Static Longitudinal stability

    * * * (d) Landing. The stick force curve must have a stable 
slope and the stick force may not exceed 80 pounds at speeds between 
1.1 VS0 and 1.8 VS0 with--
    (1) Wing flaps in the landing position;
    (2) Landing gear extended;
    (3) Maximum landing weight;
    (4) The aeroplane trimmed at 1.4 VS0 with
    (i) Power or thrust off, and
    (ii) Power or thrust for level flight.

What Are the Differences in the Standards and What Do Those Differences 
Result in?

    In addition to the part 25 condition of power--or thrust-off, JAR-
25 requires the stick force criteria to be met at the power or thrust 
for level flight. This additional condition requires additional flight 
test demonstrations to show compliance, and may influence the design of 
airplanes for which the application of power has a significant 
destabilizing effect.

What, If Any, Are the Differences in the Means of Compliance?

    Except for the additional power-on condition required by the JAR, 
there are no differences in the means of compliance for part 25 and 
JAR-25.

What Is the Proposed Action?

    The proposed action would revise part 25 by adopting the more 
stringent text of JAR 25.175(d).

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    The proposed standard would continue to address the underlying 
safety issue in the same manner, but would add a requirement to ensure 
that transport category airplanes have adequate static longitudinal 
stability in a power-on approach condition.

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

    The proposed standard would increase the level of safety for those 
transport category airplanes for which the power-on condition is more 
critical in terms of static longitudinal stability than the power-off 
condition.

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

    The proposed standard would maintain the current level of safety 
since industry practice is to comply with both part 25 and the JAR-25.

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

    The FAA considers the proposed action to be the most appropriate 
way to fulfill harmonization goals while maintaining safety and without 
affecting current industry practices. Using the less stringent part 25 
standard was also considered; however, there are normally occurring 
situations for which level flight in the landing configuration may be 
relevant. These situations include stepdown fixes on nonprecision 
approaches and extending the flaps and landing gear to the landing 
configuration when the glide slope becomes active on a precision 
approach, but before the glide slope intercept point.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Change?

    The proposed change would affect manufacturers and operators of 
transport category airplanes. However, since the proposed change does 
not result in any practical changes in requirements or practice, there 
would not be any significant effect.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    The FAA has not considered another option. The FAA considers that 
current advisory material is adequate.

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 substantial costs, and that it is not ``a 
significant regulatory action'' as defined in Executive Order

[[Page 1852]]

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.
    The DOT Order 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for 
simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If it is 
determined that the expected impact is so minimal that the proposed 
rule does not warrant a full evaluation, a statement to that effect and 
the basis for it is included in the proposed regulation. Accordingly, 
the FAA has determined that the expected impact of this proposed rule 
is so minimal that the proposed rule does not warrant a full 
evaluation. The FAA provides the basis for this minimal impact 
determination below.
    Currently, airplane manufacturers must satisfy both part 25 and the 
European JAR-25 standards to certificate transport category aircraft 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 aircraft 
development, and making the certification process more efficient, the 
FAA, JAA, and aircraft 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.''
    Change 1: Section 25.111(c)(4), ``Takeoff Path'':
    Current industry practice covering aircraft crew actions concerning 
the takeoff path already complies with the more stringent JAR 
requirements. The JAR 25.111(c)(4) requirement allows only certain 
routine crew actions to be made before the airplane reaches a height 
400 feet above the takeoff surface.
    This proposal would revise the FAA requirements for propeller 
feathering before the airplane is at least 400 feet above the takeoff 
surface by adding the following ``more stringent'' requirements of the 
JAR standards to include:

Section 25.111 Take-off path.

    * * * (c)(4) Except for gear retraction and automatic propeller 
feathering, the airplane configuration may not be changed, and no 
change in power or thrust that requires action by the pilot may be 
made, until the airplane is 400 feet above the takeoff surface.

    Concerning the impact of complying with the proposed standard, the 
ARAC working group states there is no additional cost associated with 
complying with the proposed standard as it represents current practices 
and policy.
    Manufacturers are expected to receive certification cost-savings 
with a single FAA/JAA certification requirement for new aircraft. The 
FAA, however, has not attempted to quantify the cost savings for 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 the benefits of 
harmonization exceed the cost, further analysis is not required.
    The FAA requests comments with supporting documentation in regard 
to the conclusions contained in this section.
    Change 2: Section 25.147(c)(2), ``Directional and Lateral 
Control'':
    Current industry practice covering pilot techniques concerning 
controllability in the one-engine inoperative condition already 
complies with the more stringent JAR requirements. The JAR 25.147(c)(2) 
standard is more stringent than Sec. 25.147(c)(2) since part 25 does 
not prescribe any roll rate requirements when one engine is 
inoperative.
    This proposal would harmonize part 25 to the JAR by adding an 
additional requirement to Sec. 25.147(c)(2). The new Sec. 25.147(c)(2) 
would require roll rate response to be evaluated and found adequate for 
all speeds likely to be used with one engine inoperative. The word 
``peak,'' as used in JAR 25.147(c)(2), would not be included in this 
proposal in reference to the roll rate since the FAA considers its use 
too constraining and unclear. The ARAC working group recommends the 
words ``for climb, cruise, descent and landing approach'' be removed so 
that this requirement would apply to all flight conditions. The ARAC 
working group states the proposed change will have no increase to 
manufacturing costs to applicants already conducting JAA 
certifications. The ARAC has informed the FAA that for future 
certifications, part 25 manufacturers intend to conform to JAA 
standards. Therefore, the FAA considers that for current and future 
part 25 aircraft certifications all manufacturers will meet JAA 
certification and this rule would result in no additional costs to 
manufacturers.
    Manufacturers are expected to receive certification cost-savings 
with a single FAA/JAA certification requirement for new aircraft. The 
FAA, however, has not attempted to quantify the cost savings for 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 the benefits of 
harmonization exceed the cost, further analysis is not required.
    The FAA requests comments with supporting documentation in regard 
to the conclusions contained in this section.
    Change 3: Section 25.161(c)(2), ``Trim (Longitudinal)'':
    Current industry practice covering pilot techniques concerning 
conditions under which longitudinal trim must be maintained already 
complies with the more stringent JAR requirements. The JAR 25.161(c)(2) 
standard is more stringent than Sec. 25.161(c)(2) since part 25 does 
not require longitudinal trim to be maintained at speeds and power 
settings appropriate to an approach on a 3-degree glidepath.
    This proposal would harmonize part 25 to the JAR by adding an 
additional requirement to Sec. 25.161(c)(2). The new Sec. 25.161(c)(2) 
would require longitudinal trim to be maintained at speeds and power 
settings appropriate to an approach on a 3-degree glidepath. In 
addition, the requirement to demonstrate compliance at ``the most 
unfavorable center of gravity position approved for landing with the 
maximum landing weight, and with the most unfavorable center of gravity 
position approved for landing regardless of weight'' would be 
simplified to refer to ``the most unfavorable combination of center of 
gravity position and weight approved for landing.'' The ARAC working 
group states the proposed change will have no increase to manufacturing 
costs to applicants already conducting JAA certifications. The ARAC has 
informed the FAA that for future certifications, part 25 manufacturers 
intend to conform to JAA standards. Therefore, the FAA considers that 
for current and future part 25 aircraft certifications all 
manufacturers will meet JAA certification and this rule would result in 
no additional costs to manufacturers.
    Manufacturers are expected to receive certification cost-savings 
with a single FAA/JAA certification requirement for new aircraft. The 
FAA, however, has not attempted to quantify the cost savings for this 
specific proposal, beyond noting that, while they may be minimal, they

[[Page 1853]]

contribute to a large potential harmonization savings.
    The agency concludes that, since there is consensus among 
potentially affected airplane manufacturers that the benefits of 
harmonization exceed the cost, further analysis is not required.
    The FAA requests comments with supporting documentation in regard 
to the conclusions contained in this section.
    Change 4: Section 25.161(e), ``Trim (Four or More Engines)'':
    Current industry practice covering pilot techniques concerning 
conditions under which longitudinal, directional, and lateral trim on 
airplanes with four or more engines must be maintained is already 
complying with the more stringent JAR requirements. The 
Sec. 25.161(c)(2) standard specifies a single weight at which a 
transport category airplane with four or more engines must maintain 
trim in rectilinear flight. The JAR 25.161(c)(2) standard, which does 
not contain this provision, applies at all weights.
    This proposal would harmonize part 25 to the JAR by adding an 
additional requirement to Sec. 25.161(e). The new Sec. 25.161(e) would 
apply to all weights at which a transport category airplane with four 
or more engines must maintain trim in rectilinear flight. In addition, 
the ARAC working group states that to be consistent with Sec. 25.123(a) 
and JAR 25.123(a), the proposed harmonized Sec. 25.161(e)(1) and JAR 
25.161(e)(1) should refer to en route flight paths rather that either 
rate of climb (as in the current part 25) or gradient of climb (as in 
the current JAR). The ARAC and FAA consider that since the climb 
requirements of part 25 are now expressed in terms of climb gradient 
rather that rates of climb, the manner in which the weight for 
compliance is defined in Sec. 25.161(e)(3) is an historical artifact 
and out of step with the rest of part 25. Lastly, ARAC finds that the 
word ``also'' should be added to the lead-in sentence of the proposed 
standard to clarify that this is an additional requirement for 
airplanes with four or more engines.
    Concerning the impact of complying with the proposed standard, the 
ARAC working group states the cost of complying with the proposed 
standard is none as it codifies current practices and policy.
    Manufacturers are expected to receive certification cost-savings 
with a single FAA/JAA certification requirement for new aircraft. The 
FAA, however, has not attempted to quantify the cost savings for 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 the benefits of 
harmonization exceed the cost, further analysis is not required.
    The FAA requests comments with supporting documentation in regard 
to the conclusions contained in this section.
    Change 5: Section 25.175(d), ``Static Longitudinal Stability'':
    Current industry practice covering pilot techniques concerning 
conditions under which static longitudinal stability must be 
demonstrated for transport category airplanes already complies with the 
more stringent JAR requirements. The JAR 25.175(d) would require the 
stick force criteria to be met at the power or thrust for level flight 
in addition to the part 25 condition of power or thrust off.
    This proposal would harmonize part 25 to the JAR by adding an 
additional requirement to Sec. 25.175(d). The new Sec. 25.175(d) would 
add a requirement to ensure that transport category airplanes have 
adequate static longitudinal stability in a power-on approach 
condition. The ARAC working group states the proposed change will have 
no increase to manufacturing costs to applicants already conducting JAA 
certifications. The ARAC has informed the FAA that for future 
certifications, part 25 manufacturers intend to conform to JAA 
standards. Therefore, the FAA considers that for current and future 
part 25 aircraft certifications all manufacturers will meet JAA 
certification and this rule would result in no additional costs to 
manufacturers.
    Manufacturers are expected to receive certification cost-savings 
with a single FAA/JAA certification requirement for new aircraft. The 
FAA, however, has not attempted to quantify the cost savings for 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 the benefits of 
harmonization exceed the cost, further analysis is not required.
    The FAA requests comments with supporting documentation in regard 
to the conclusions contained in this section.
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 sale 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 aircraft 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-aircraft category manufacturers exceed 
the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 
employees for aircraft 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

[[Page 1854]]

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
    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)], the FAA has determined there are no requirements for 
information collection 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 has 
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 assessment or environmental impact statement. In 
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this 
rulemaking 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 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 issue 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. 25.111 by revising paragraph (c)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 25.111  Takeoff path.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Except for gear retraction and automatic propeller feathering, 
the airplane configuration may not be changed, and no change in power 
or thrust that requires action by the pilot may be made, until the 
airplane is 400 feet above the takeoff surface.
* * * * *
    3. Amend Sec. 25.147 by redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as 
paragraphs (e) and (f), and by adding new paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 25.147  Directional and lateral control.

* * * * *
    (d) Lateral control; roll capability. With the critical engine 
inoperative, roll response must allow normal maneuvers. Lateral control 
must be sufficient, at the speeds likely to be used with one engine 
inoperative, to provide a roll rate necessary for safety without 
excessive control forces or travel.
* * * * *

[[Page 1855]]

    4. Amend Sec. 25.161 by revising paragraph (c)(2), and by revising 
paragraph (e) as follows:


Sec. 25.161  Trim.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Either a glide with power off at a speed not more than 1.4VS1, 
or an approach within the normal range of approach speeds appropriate 
to the weight and configuration with power settings corresponding to a 
3 degree glidepath, whichever is the most severe, with the landing gear 
extended, the wing flaps retracted and extended, and with the most 
unfavorable combination of center of gravity position and weight 
approved for landing; and
* * * * *
    (e) Airplanes with four or more engines. Each airplane with four or 
more engines must also maintain trim in rectilinear flight with the 
most unfavorable center of gravity and at the climb speed, 
configuration, and power required by Sec. 25.123(a) for the purpose of 
establishing the en route flight paths with two engines inoperative.
    5. Amend Sec. 25.175 by revising the text of paragraph (d)(4) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 25.175  Demonstration of static longitudinal stability.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) The airplane trimmed at 1.4VSO with--
    (i) Power or thrust off, and
    (ii) Power or thrust for level flight.
* * * * *

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 18, 2001.
Vi Lipski,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification.
[FR Doc. 02-655 Filed 1-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P