[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76652-76656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-31341]



[[Page 76651]]

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

Part VII





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 25



Airspeed Indicating System Requirements for Transport Category 
Airplanes; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 239 / Thursday, December 12, 2002 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 76652]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2001-9636; Amendment No. 25-109]
RIN 2120-AH26


Airspeed Indicating System Requirements for Transport Category 
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the airworthiness standards for transport 
category airplanes concerning the airspeed indicating system. It adds 
airspeed indication requirements for speeds greater than and less than 
the speed range for which airspeed indication accuracy requirements 
currently apply; a requirement that airspeed indications not cause the 
pilot undue difficulty between the initiation of rotation and the 
achievement of a steady climbing condition during takeoff; and a 
requirement to limit the effects of airspeed lag. This amendment 
eliminates regulatory differences between the airworthiness standards 
of the U.S. and the Joint Aviation Requirements of Europe, without 
affecting current industry design practices.

DATES: Effective January 13, 2003.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 document. Click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information 
for the Docket you selected, click on the document number for 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/arm/nprm.cfm?nav=nprm 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 sending 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 amendment number or docket number of this 
rulemaking.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a question regarding this 
document may contact their local FAA official, or the person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more about 
SBREFA on the Internet at our site, http://www.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm. 
For more information on SBREFA, e-mail us at [email protected].

Background

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Standards in the United States?

    In the United States, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
part 25 contains the airworthiness standards for type certification of 
transport category airplanes. 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:
    [sbull] Airplanes manufactured within the U.S. for use by U.S.-
registered operators; and
    [sbull] 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, Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR)-25 contains the 
airworthiness standards for type certification of transport category 
airplanes. The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe developed 
these standards, which are based on part 25, 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, without a corresponding increase in the level of safety.
    Recognizing that a common set of standards would not only benefit 
the aviation industry economically, but also preserve 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:
    [sbull] Where possible, standards do not require domestic and 
foreign parties to manufacture or operate to different standards for 
each country involved; and
    [sbull] The standards adopted are mutually acceptable to the FAA 
and the foreign aviation authorities.
    The FAA and JAA have identified many 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 beginning 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 noticeable progress towards fulfilling 
the harmonization goal. The FAA then identified the Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee (ARAC) as an ideal vehicle for helping to resolve 
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

[[Page 76653]]

recommendations on 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 on potential new rules or revisions of 
existing rules.
    There are 74 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 sets up 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 invites 
participation in working groups from interested members of the public 
who have 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 continues with the normal public rulemaking procedures. Any ARAC 
participation in a rulemaking package is fully disclosed in the public 
docket.

What Did the FAA Propose?

    In Notice No. 01-05, the FAA proposed to revise Sec.  25.1323 to 
add the additional airspeed system indication requirements of JAR 
25.1323(c)(2), (3) and (4) (66 FR 26948, May 15, 2001).
    JAR 25.1323(c)(2) and (c)(3), which the FAA proposed to adopt as a 
new Sec. Sec.  25.1323(d) and (e), respectively, require the indicated 
airspeed to change perceptibly and in the same sense in certain speed 
regimes. The speed regimes where this requirement applies are the low 
speed regime from the stall warning speed to 1.3 VS, and in 
the high speed regime from VMO to VMO + 2/
3(VDF - VMO). At speeds below the stall warning 
speed and speeds above VMO + 2/3(VDF - 
VMO), the indicated airspeed must not change in an incorrect 
sense. In other words, the indicated airspeed must not show a decrease 
in airspeed when the calibrated airspeed is increasing.
    JAR 25.1322(c)(4), which the FAA proposed to adopt as a new Sec.  
25.1323(f), states that between the initiation of rotation and the 
achievement of a steady climbing condition during takeoff, there must 
not be an airspeed indication that would cause the pilot undue 
difficulty. The FAA considers an airspeed indication that would affect 
the average pilot's ability to maintain the intended takeoff flight 
path and takeoff speed profile as an airspeed indication that would 
cause undue difficulty. An example of such an airspeed indication would 
be a significant pause or variation in the rate of change in airspeed 
caused by the diminishing effect of the ground on the airflow pattern 
around the airplane as the airplane climbs away after takeoff.
    In addition, a new requirement was proposed concerning airspeed 
lag. With the advent of electronic instruments in the cockpit, the 
pneumatic signals from the pitot and static sources are processed and 
digitized in the Air Data Computer (ADC) and then filtered and 
transported to the cockpit display. Data processing and filtering cause 
a time lag in displaying the airspeed on the cockpit display. This can 
be an important consideration in the airspeed indicating system 
calibration during ground acceleration. As stated in Sec.  25.1323(b), 
the calibration for an accelerated takeoff ground run must determine 
the ``system error,'' which is the relation between indicated and 
calibrated airspeeds. The system error is the sum of the pneumatic lag 
in the pressure lines, airspeed lag due to time lags in processing the 
data, and static source position error.
    Airspeed lag, which results in airspeed indication errors when the 
airspeed is changing, can be a safety issue during takeoff, because the 
airspeed is changing rapidly. Airspeed lag may result in the pilot 
rotating the airplane for takeoff at a speed higher than the scheduled 
rotation speed, resulting in an increased takeoff distance. For an 
aborted takeoff, airspeed lag may result in the pilot initiating the 
abort at a speed higher than that used in determining the accelerate-
stop distance. A new Sec.  25.1323(g) was proposed to ensure that the 
effect of airspeed indicating system lag would not introduce 
significant indicated airspeed bias during takeoff or significant 
errors in takeoff or accelerate-stop distances. In general, an airspeed 
indication error of 3 knots or an error of 100 feet in the takeoff or 
accelerate-stop distances would be considered significant under Sec.  
25.1323(g).
    The FAA considers adding these requirements to part 25 necessary to 
harmonize part 25 with JAR-25 to ensure correct indication of changes 
in airspeed, and to codify current FAA policy. The JAA intends to 
revise JAR-25 in accordance with the harmonization goal. The JAA 
distributed Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 25F-324, ``Airspeed 
Indicating System,'' for comment on January 1, 2002. The NPA proposals 
are expected to be included in Change 16 to JAR-25, anticipated to be 
published on March 1, 2003.
    Adoption of this amendment is intended to benefit the public 
interest by standardizing the requirements, concepts, and procedures 
contained in the U.S. and European airworthiness standards without 
reducing, but potentially enhancing, the current level of safety.

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

    The revised standard increases the level of safety relative to 14 
CFR part 25 by incorporating the additional JAR requirements. The 
additional requirement regarding airspeed lag codifies current FAA 
policy.

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

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

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

    Various options regarding the split between rule and advisory 
material were discussed. The FAA considers the option chosen to best 
achieve the safety objective while ensuring flexibility in the means of 
compliance. The other options that were discussed are described below, 
along with the reasons for not selecting them.
    The ARAC working group considered incorporating the JAR Advisory 
Material-Joint (ACJ) 25.1323(c)(2) and (c)(3) for the proposed speed 
requirements into the rule. The working group decided that adopting the 
JAR ACJ as the regulatory standard would be too prescriptive and would 
preclude the use of other means of compliance that could be found 
acceptable. The FAA

[[Page 76654]]

agrees with the working group's determination.
    Another consideration was to include quantitative limits on the 
allowable level of airspeed bias and takeoff/accelerate-stop distance 
errors in the proposed airspeed lag requirement. The ARAC working group 
concluded, and the FAA agrees, that the ``one size fits all'' approach 
would not be appropriate because a specified speed bias may be a 
significant safety issue for one airplane type and not for another. 
Also, the FAA's ability to evaluate and approve alternative compliance 
approaches may be more difficult to consider if the standard consists 
of prescriptive, quantitative values.
    Finally, the ARAC working group considered retaining the airspeed 
lag policy as policy only and not including it as a regulatory 
standard. The working group determined that this means of compliance 
did not have a specific regulatory standard against which it was 
applied. The FAA agrees with the working group's determination that a 
regulatory standard is necessary to assure that future certifications 
continue to consider airspeed lag issues.
    Adopting this rule eliminates an identified SRD between the wording 
of part 25 and JAR-25, without affecting currently accepted industry 
design practices. The FAA expects more consistent interpretations of 
the rules and improved relations between regulatory authorities by 
eliminating this SRD.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    The FAA plans to revise Advisory Circular (AC) 25-7A, ``Flight Test 
Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes,'' to identify 
an acceptable means of compliance with the JAR requirements that have 
been added to Sec.  25.1323(c). The revision will add the means of 
compliance currently accepted by the JAA as one acceptable means of 
showing compliance with these requirements. The FAA plans to 
incorporate the changes in the next update of AC 25-7A.
    AC 25-7A already contains adequate advisory material concerning the 
airspeed lag issue. Accordingly, no revision is required to the AC to 
address the airspeed lag issue.

What Comments Were Received in Response to the Proposal?

    Two commenters responded to the request for comments in Notice No. 
01-05. Both agree not only with the proposal, but also with the goal of 
harmonization to reduce the differences between part 25 and JAR-25. One 
of the commenters provided additional specific comments, as discussed 
below.
    The commenter notes that the proposed rule harmonizes Sec.  25.1323 
at JAR-25 Change 14, Orange Paper 96/1, and states that in order for 
harmonization to be fully achieved, the rule should have been 
harmonized with Change 15.
    The FAA agrees. As noted in the preamble of Notice No. 01-05, 
harmonization with JAR-25 Change 15 depended on separate FAA rulemaking 
that was underway at that time. The other rulemaking has now been 
completed, having been adopted as Amendment 108 to part 25. Therefore, 
the term ``1.3 VS'' in Sec.  25.1323(d) has been changed to 
``1.23 VSR'' in this final rule to conform to the reference 
stall speed basis adopted by Amendment 108. Similar speed references in 
Sec.  25.1323(c) were revised accordingly by Amendment 108.
    The commenter also points out that the preamble to Notice No. 01-05 
contains an incorrect reference to a speed of ``2/3 (VDF - 
VMO); this should be ``VMO + 2/3 (VDF 
- VMO).'' The FAA concurs and the comment is duly noted.

What Regulatory Analyses and Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, directs the 
FAA to assess both the costs and benefits of a regulatory change. We 
are not allowed to propose or adopt a regulation unless we make a 
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. Our assessment of this amendment indicates that its 
economic impact is minimal. Since its costs and benefits do not make it 
a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Order, we have 
not prepared a ``regulatory impact analysis.'' Similarly, we have not 
prepared a ``regulatory evaluation,'' which is the written cost/benefit 
analysis ordinarily required for all rulemaking proposals under the DOT 
Regulatory and Policies and Procedures. We do not need to do the latter 
analysis where the economic impact of a proposal is minimal.
Economic Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact 
Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal agency to 
propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that 
the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the 
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the 
Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 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 
Agreements Act also requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, use them as the basis of U.S. 
standards. And fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the 
costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that 
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation).
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this rule:
    [sbull] Has benefits that do justify its costs, is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order, 
and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures;
    [sbull] Will not have a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small entities;
    [sbull] Reduces barriers to international trade; and
    [sbull] Does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or 
tribal governments, or on the private sector.
    The DOT Order 2100.5, ``Regulatory Policies and Procedures,'' 
prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and 
review of regulations. If it is determined that the expected impact is 
so minimal that the rule does not warrant a full evaluation, a 
statement to that effect and the basis for it is included in the 
regulation. We provide the basis for this minimal impact determination 
below. We received no comments that conflicted with the economic 
assessment of minimal impact published in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking for this action. Given the reasons presented below, and the 
fact that no comments were received to the contrary, we have determined 
that the expected impact of this rule is so minimal that the final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation.
    Currently, airplane manufacturers must satisfy both the 14 CFR and 
the European JAR standards to certificate transport category airplanes 
in both the United States and Europe. Meeting two sets of certification 
requirements raises the cost of developing a new transport category 
airplane, often with no increase

[[Page 76655]]

in safety. In the interest of fostering international trade, lowering 
the cost of airplane development, and making the certification process 
more efficient, the FAA, JAA, and airplane manufacturers have been 
working to create, to the maximum possible extent, a single set of 
certification requirements accepted in both the United States and 
Europe. This final rule results from the FAA's acceptance of an ARAC 
harmonization working group's recommendation, including the group's 
determination that the requirements of this rule will not impose 
additional costs to U.S. manufacturers of part 25 airplanes.
    Specifically, this rule revises the airspeed indicating 
requirements of Sec.  25.1323 to: (1) Add airspeed indication 
requirements for speeds greater than and less than the speed range for 
which airspeed indication accuracy requirements currently apply; (2) 
require that airspeed indications not cause the pilot undue difficulty 
between the initiation of rotation and the achievement of a steady 
climbing condition during takeoff; and (3) codify current FAA policy 
concerning airspeed lag. We consider that this rule will neither reduce 
nor increase the requirements beyond those that are already met by U.S. 
manufacturers to satisfy European airworthiness standards.
    As this rule neither increases nor decreases certification 
requirements beyond those already in existence, we have determined 
there will be no additional cost associated with this rule to part 25 
manufacturers. We have not tried to quantify the benefits of this 
amendment beyond identifying the expected harmonization benefit. This 
amendment eliminates an identified SRD between the wording of part 25 
and JAR-25. The elimination of the SRD will provide for a more 
consistent interpretation of the rules and, thus, is an element of the 
potentially large cost savings of harmonization.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, 
directs the FAA to fit regulatory requirements to the scale of the 
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the 
regulation. We are required to determine whether a proposed or final 
action will have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities'' as defined in the Act.
    If we find that the action will have a significant impact, we must 
do a ``regulatory flexibility analysis.'' If we find, however, that the 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, we are not required to do the analysis. In 
this case, the Act requires that we include a statement that provides 
the factual basis for our determination.
    We have determined that this amendment will not have a significant 
economic 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 amendment requires 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 part 25 requirement.
    Second, all United States manufacturers of transport category 
airplanes exceed the Small Business Administration small entity 
criteria of 1,500 employees for aircraft manufacturers. Those U.S. 
manufacturers include:

[sbull] The Boeing Company,
[sbull] Cessna Aircraft Company,
[sbull] Gulfstream Aerospace,
[sbull] Learjet (owned by Bombardier Aerospace),
[sbull] Lockheed Martin Corporation,
[sbull] McDonnell Douglas (a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Boeing 
Company),
[sbull] Raytheon Aircraft, and
[sbull] Sabreliner Corporation.

    No comments were received that differed with the assessment given 
in this section. Since this final rule is minimally cost-relieving and 
there are no small entity manufacturers of part 25 airplanes, the FAA 
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Analysis
    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979, 19 U.S.C. et seq., 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 that statute, we have assessed the potential 
effect of this final rule and have determined that it is consistent 
with the statute's requirements by using European international 
standards as the basis for U.S. standards.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538, 1571, is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of 
imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal 
governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to 
prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal 
mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in a $100 
million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 
one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 
by the private sector; such a mandate is considered to be a 
``significant regulatory action.''
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the 
requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do 
not apply.

What Other Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this 
action will 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. We therefore determined that this final rule does not have 
federalism implications.
Paperwork Reduction Act
    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), we have determined there are no new requirements for 
information collection associated with this final 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. We have 
determined there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that 
correspond to these regulations.
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

[[Page 76656]]

rulemaking action qualifies for a categorical exclusion.
Energy Impact
    The FAA has assessed the energy impact of this final rule in 
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), Public 
Law 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362), and FAA Order 1053.1. We have 
determined that this final rule 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 final 
rule would apply to the certification of future designs of transport 
category airplanes and their subsequent operation, it could affect 
intrastate aviation in Alaska. Because no comments were received 
regarding this regulation affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, we 
will apply the rule in the same way that it is being applied 
nationally.
Plain Language
    In response to the June 1, 1998, Presidential memorandum regarding 
the use of plain language, the FAA re-examined the writing style 
currently used in the development of regulations. The memorandum 
requires Federal agencies to communicate clearly with the public. We 
are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document 
is clear, and in any other suggestions you might have to improve the 
clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get more 
information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language 
initiative at http://www.plainlanguage.gov.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends part 25 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, 
as follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

    1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, and 44704.

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


Sec.  25.1323  Airspeed indicating system.

* * * * *
    (d) From 1.23 VSR to the speed at which stall warning 
begins, the IAS must change perceptibly with CAS and in the same sense, 
and at speeds below stall warning speed the IAS must not change in an 
incorrect sense.
    (e) From VMO to VMO + 2/3 (VDF - 
VMO), the IAS must change perceptibly with CAS and in the 
same sense, and at higher speeds up to VDF the IAS must not 
change in an incorrect sense.
    (f) There must be no indication of airspeed that would cause undue 
difficulty to the pilot during the takeoff between the initiation of 
rotation and the achievement of a steady climbing condition.
    (g) The effects of airspeed indicating system lag may not introduce 
significant takeoff indicated airspeed bias, or significant errors in 
takeoff or accelerate-stop distances.
    (h) Each system must be arranged, so far as practicable, to prevent 
malfunction or serious error due to the entry of moisture, dirt, or 
other substances.
    (i) Each system must have a heated pitot tube or an equivalent 
means of preventing malfunction due to icing.
    (j) Where duplicate airspeed indicators are required, their 
respective pitot tubes must be far enough apart to avoid damage to both 
tubes in a collision with a bird.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 3, 2002.
Ali Bahrami,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-31341 Filed 12-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P