[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30820-30825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11493]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2002-12244; Notice No. 02-08]
RIN 2120-AH65


Powerplant Controls on Transport Category Airplanes, General

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 
design requirements for powerplant valves controlled from the flight 
deck. The proposed rule would clarify the requirements for a means to 
select the intended position of the valve, to indicate the selected 
position, and to indicate if the valve has not attained the selected 
position. 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 July 8, 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-
2002-12244 at the beginning of your comments, and you should send 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. ____.'' We will date-stamp the postcard and mail it back 
to you.
    You also may submit comments through the Internet to: http://dms.dot.gov. You may review the public docket containing comments to 
this proposed regulation in person in the Dockets Office, between 9:00 
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The 
Dockets office is on the plaza level of the NASSIF Building at the 
Department of Transportation at the above address. Also, you may review 
the public dockets on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael McRae, FAA, Propulsion/
Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-
4056; telephone 425-227-2123; facsimile 425-227-1320, e-mail 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also 
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or 
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in 
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion 
of the proposal, explain the reason for any

[[Page 30821]]

recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send 
us two copies of written comments.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public 
inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to 
review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section 
of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the 
Internet at the web address in the ADDRESSES section.
    Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we 
receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider 
comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring 
expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments 
we receive.
    If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this 
proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard 
on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the 
postcard and mail it to you.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the 
following steps:
    (1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's 
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search).
    (2) On the search page type in the last four digits of the Docket 
number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information 
for the Docket you selected, click on the document number of the item 
you wish to view.
    You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the 
Office of Rulemaking's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm 
or the Federal Register's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
    You can also get a copy 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. Make 
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number 
of this rulemaking.
    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.

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 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 added costs to manufacturers and operators. These added 
costs, however, often 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 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 were 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

[[Page 30822]]

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 recommended a number of changes to the NPRM. The 
FAA agrees with the intent of some of those recommendations, but we 
disagree with others. Those recommendations, and our reasons for 
disagreeing, are described below in the section entitled ``What 
Comments Did ARAC Have Concerning the Proposed Action?''

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 
action, the FAA proposes to amend Sec. 25.1141, concerning general 
design requirements for power plant controls. This action was 
designated a Category 1 project under the Fast Track program.

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

    The intent of this standard is to mitigate the potential for 
flightcrews to select an inappropriate position for, or be unaware of 
the position of, powerplant valves that are controlled from the flight 
deck.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

    The current text of 14 CFR 25.1141(f) [amendment 25-72 (55 FR 
29785, July 20, 1990)] is:
    ``(f) Powerplant valve controls located in the cockpit must have--
    (1) For manual valves, positive stops or in the case of fuel valves 
suitable index provisions, in the open and closed position; and
    (2) For power-assisted valves, a means to indicate to the flight 
crew when the valve--
    (i) Is in the fully open or fully closed position; or
    (ii) Is moving between the fully open and fully closed position.''
    The current text of JAR-25.1141(f) (Change 15, October 2000) is:
    ``(f) Powerplant valve controls located in the cockpit must have--
    (1) For manual valves, positive stops or in the case of fuel valves 
suitable index provisions, in the open and closed positions; and
    (2) In the case of valves controlled from the cockpit other than by 
mechanical means, where the correct functioning of such a valve is 
essential for the safe operation of the aeroplane, a valve position 
indicator operated by a system which senses directly that the valve has 
attained the position selected, unless other indications in the cockpit 
give the flight crew a clear indication that the valve has moved to the 
selected position.
    (See Advisory Circular Joint (ACJ) 25.1141(f).)''
    The JAA also has issued ACJ 25.1141(f), which serves as 
interpretative material that supplements JAR 25.1141(f). The text of 
the ACJ is:
    ``A continuous indicator need not be provided.''

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

    There are four differences between the two standards in paragraph 
(f)(2). These differences are:
    1. To describe the applicable valves, part 25 uses the term 
``power-assisted.'' The JAR uses the phrase ``other than by mechanical 
means.''
    2. The JAR uses the phrase ``where the correct functioning of such 
a valve is essential for the safe operation of the aeroplane'' to 
reduce the applicability to be more consistent with the requirements of 
JAR 25.1309(c) relating to indications. Part 25 does not use such a 
phrase.
    3. For the basic indicating requirement, the JAR uses the phrase 
``a valve position indicator operated by a

[[Page 30823]]

system which senses directly that the valve has attained the position 
selected.'' Part 25 uses the phrase ``a means to indicate to the flight 
crew when the valve is in the fully open or fully closed position, or 
is moving between the fully open and fully closed position.''
    4. By including the phrase ``unless other indications in the flight 
deck give the flightcrew a clear indication that the valve has moved to 
the selected position,'' the JAR specifically acknowledges that a 
dedicated indication is not required. Part 25 does not.

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

    The only significant differences in the means of compliance are 
those associated with the differences in the scope of the applicability 
of the standards.

What Is the Proposed Action?

    The FAA proposes to revise the current standard to include the more 
stringent requirements of the parallel JAR. The text of the rule would 
be updated, however, so that it more clearly reflects the existing 
practices that have been found to achieve an acceptable level of 
safety. Specifically, the proposed revision would require that 
powerplant valve controls located in the flight deck must provide the 
crew with means to:
     Select each intended position of the valve;
     Indicate the selected position of the valve; and
     Indicate when the valve has not responded as intended to 
the selected position or function.
    As used in the proposed rule, the ``means to indicate'' can be:
     Provided either by a dedicated ``indicator'' or through 
the inherent response of the airplane, system, or valve control;
     Provided by either the presence or lack of indication; or
     Provided either continuously or on an ``as required'' 
basis.
    In any case, however, the means to indicate must be clearly evident 
to the crew.
    As used in the proposed rule, the ``means to indicate'' must comply 
with all other relevant regulations such as Secs. 25.1309(c), 25.1321, 
25.1322, etc.

What Comments Did ARAC Have Concerning the Proposed Action?

    During its review of this proposed rule, ARAC suggested changes to 
certain parts of the proposed action. Those suggestions and the FAA's 
response are as follows:
    Suggestion 1. The powerplant valve controls should provide the crew 
with means to ``determine''--rather than ``indicate''--the selected 
position of the valve and when the valve has not responded as intended 
to the selected position or function.
    FAA Response to Suggestion 1: The FAA does not agree with this 
change in wording because such a change would change the purpose of the 
rule in a way that is not intended or desired, and would go ``beyond 
the scope'' of harmonizing this part 25 rule with that of the parallel 
JAR-25. The intent is for there to be a means that directly or 
inherently indicates to the flightcrew the position of the valve and 
any incorrect response of the valve. The intent is not for the 
flightcrew to have to deliberate and determine these things.
    Suggestion 2. The requirement for the powerplant valve controls to 
provide a means to indicate when the valve has not responded as 
intended should be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of an 
upcoming revision to Sec. 25.1322 (Warning, caution, and advisory 
lights).
    FAA Response to Suggestion 2: The FAA agrees with the intent of 
this suggestion, but considers it inappropriate to (1) refer to rules 
in transition, and (2) single out one indication requirement 
(Sec. 25.1322) when there are other rules that are just as relevant, 
such as Sec. 25.1321 (Instruments: Installations, Arrangements and 
visibility). As an alternative, we have added a clarification in the 
preamble to indicate that the ``means to indicate'' must necessarily 
comply with all other relevant regulations, such as Secs. 25.1309(c), 
25.1321, 25.1322, etc.
    Suggestion 3. The ARAC questioned what was meant by the phrase 
``the means to indicate must be provided * * * through the inherent 
response of the airplane * * *'' The ARAC asked if it meant, for 
example, when the stick force lightens because of inappropriate fuel 
transfer to give the airplane an aft center of gravity, or when an 
engine quits for lack of fuel.
    FAA Response to Suggestion 3: The FAA intends for that phrase to 
potentially include such examples and any others that the applicant 
claims and the FAA Aircraft Certification Office can substantiate as 
effective.

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    The proposed standard continues to address the identified safety 
issue. It continues to ensure that flight crews will not select an 
inappropriate position for, or be unaware of the position of, 
powerplant valves that are controlled from the flight deck. The 
proposed standard also clarifies the current industry practices that 
have been found to achieve an acceptable level of safety.

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

    The proposed standard specifically requires a means to indicate 
when the valve has not responded as intended to the selected position 
or function, while the current standard only implies this is a 
requirement for ``manual valves.''
    Since the proposed rule takes the more ``stringent'' parts of both 
part 25 and JAR-25, it may be viewed as increasing the current level of 
safety. However, the intent of the proposed standard is not to increase 
the level of safety, but to help standardize current design practices.

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

    In effect, the proposed standard duplicates the current 
requirements for those applicants who certify their designs to both 14 
CFR and the JAR. Since these standards are what have resulted in the 
existing practices, this ``enveloped'' standard should also be 
considered capable of achieving an acceptable level of safety.

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

    One option considered was to delete Sec. 25.1141(f) altogether and 
rely on Sec. 25.1309(c). However, this would reduce the overall level 
of safety provided by part 25. Additionally, it would not fulfill the 
objectives of the FAA's tasking to harmonize standards.
    Another option was to revise the text of Sec. 25.1141(f) to state:
    ``(f) Powerplant valve controls located in the flight deck must 
have--
    (1) For manual valves, positive stops or in the case of fuel valves 
suitable index provisions, in the open and closed positions; and
    (2) For power-assisted valves, a valve position indicator operated 
by a system which senses directly that the valve has attained the 
position selected, unless other indications in the flight deck give the 
flight crew a clear indication that the valve has moved to the selected 
position.''
    While this, like the proposal, represents an ``enveloped'' 
standard, it does not reflect the existing practices as clearly and 
effectively as the proposed standard. Consequently, additional

[[Page 30824]]

interpretive and guidance material probably would be needed to make 
this somewhat dated and narrow iteration of the rule more relevant for 
modern designs.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Change?

    The proposed standard would affect manufacturers of transport 
category airplanes and components. However, manufacturers are either 
already complying, or fully intend to comply with the more stringent 
standards as a means of obtaining joint certification.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    With the change in the proposed standard, the FAA does not consider 
that additional advisory material is necessary.

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).
    The FAA has determined that this proposal would result in a cost-
savings by a reduction in duplicative testing, and that it is not ``a 
significant regulatory action'' as defined in 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.
    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. We provide the basis for this determination as follows:
    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.
    This proposal would replace some requirements of existing 
Sec. 25.1141(f) with the ``more stringent'' requirements in JAR 
25.1141(f) . It also would revise the wording of the section to reflect 
common industry terminology. This proposed rule results from the FAA's 
acceptance of recommendations made by ARAC. We have concluded that, for 
the reasons previously discussed in the preamble, the adoption of the 
proposed requirements in 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.
    There was consensus within the ARAC members, comprised of 
representatives of the affected industry, that the requirements of the 
proposed rule will not impose additional costs on U.S. manufacturers of 
part 25 airplanes. In fact, manufacturers are expected to receive cost-
savings by a reduction in the FAA/JAA certification requirements for 
new airplanes. The cost-savings from this proposed rule would be a 
reduction in duplicative testing to generate data to demonstrate 
compliance with each standard. We have reviewed the cost analysis 
provided by industry through the ARAC process. Based on this analysis, 
we consider that a full regulatory evaluation is not necessary.
    We invite comments with supporting documentation regarding the 
regulatory evaluation statements based on ARAC's proposal.
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 aircraft manufacturers meet just one certification 
requirement, rather than different standards for the United States and 
Europe. 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

[[Page 30825]]

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 accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the 
potential effect of the proposed rule and has determined that it 
complies with the Act 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 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 14 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 section 25.1141 by revising paragraph (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 25.1141  Powerplant controls: general.

* * * * *
    (f) Powerplant valve controls located in the flight deck must 
provide the flightcrew with means to:
    (1) Select each intended position or function of the valve;
    (2) Indicate the selected position or function of the valve; and
    (3) Indicate when the valve has not responded as intended to the 
selected position or function.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 26, 2002.
Vi L. Lipski,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-11493 Filed 5-7-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U