[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46428-46431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-19748]



[[Page 46427]]

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

Part VI





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 25



Revised Requirement for Material Strength Properties and Design Values 
for Transport Airplanes; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 2003 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 46428]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2002-11345; Amdt. No. 25-112]
RIN 2120-AH36


Revised Requirement for Material Strength Properties and Design 
Values for Transport Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends the airworthiness standards for transport 
category airplanes concerning material strength properties and material 
design values. It incorporates changes developed in cooperation with 
the Joint Aviation Authorities of Europe and the U.S. and European 
aviation industry through the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
(ARAC). This action is necessary because differences between the 
current U.S. and European requirements impose unnecessary costs on 
airplane manufacturers. Issuing 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 September 4, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich Yarges, Airframe/Cabin Safety 
Branch, ANM-115, FAA Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; 
telephone (425) 227-2143, facsimile (425) 227-1320, e-mail 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Obtain a Copy of This Final Rule?

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
    (1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket 
Management System (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search).
    (2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm.cfm?nav=nprm; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office'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 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. Therefore, any small entity that has a question regarding 
this document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more about 
SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm, or by 
e-mailing 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, 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 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 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 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--
    [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 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 noticeable progress towards fulfilling 
the harmonization goal. The FAA 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 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 regarding 
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

[[Page 46429]]

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 presenting it 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.
    This rulemaking has been identified as a ``fast track'' project. 
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).

What Is the Current Standard?

    Section 25.613 of 14 CFR part 25 prescribes requirements for 
material static strength properties and design values. Metallic 
material strength properties for aircraft manufactured in the U.S. have 
traditionally been based on those specified in Military Handbook (MIL-
HDBK)-5. For metallic materials not listed in that handbook, the 
statistical procedures in the handbook were normally used to determine 
material strength properties. Prior to Amendment 25-72 to part 25 (55 
FR 29786, July 20, 1990), the ``A'' or ``B'' material strength 
properties listed in MIL-HDBK-5, or those listed in MIL-HDBK-17, and -
23, or Army-Navy-Commerce (ANC)-18, were required to be used unless 
specific FAA approval was granted to use other properties. With 
Amendment 25-72, Sec. Sec.  25.613 and 25.615 were combined into one 
requirement, Sec.  25.613, and the references to MIL-HDBK-5, -17, -23, 
and ANC-18 were removed. As part of that amendment, the requirement to 
use ``A'' and ``B'' properties of the military handbook was replaced by 
a more general requirement specifying probabilities and confidence 
levels for material strength properties, with the test procedures and 
statistical methods unspecified. Those probability and confidence 
levels apply to metallic as well as non-metallic materials. In Europe, 
other standards have been used in showing compliance with JAR 25.613, 
such as the Euronorm, International Standard Organization, and 
Engineering Sciences Data Unit 00932 Metallic Data Handbook.
    Because Amendment 25-72 removed the provision which permitted the 
Administrator to approve ``other design values,'' such an approval 
requires an equivalent safety finding, including those where the 
applicant uses MIL-HDBK-5. This finding results in additional 
administrative time for both the manufacturer and the FAA. To reduce 
this administrative burden and to permit applicants to again use MIL-
HDBK-5 data, the FAA issued Notice of Proposed Rulemaking No. 02-05 on 
January 29, 2002 (67 FR 4318).

What Changes to the Current Standard Did the FAA Propose?

    In Notice No. 02-05, we proposed to revise Sec.  25.613 of part 25 
to reinstate the pre-amendment 25-72 provision that permitted the 
Administrator to approve ``other design values.'' We also proposed the 
following changes:
    [sbull] Revise the heading of Sec.  25.613 to read, ``Material 
Strength Properties and Material Design Values.'' This change clarifies 
that the design values are material design values.
    [sbull] Revise paragraph (b) to clarify that the design values are 
material design values. The ``A'' and ``B'' properties published in 
MIL-HDBK-5 and -17, or in equivalent handbooks, would be acceptable 
without further statistical analysis. The statistical methods specified 
in MIL-HDBK-5 and -17 would be acceptable for use in establishing 
material design values. Other statistical methods, amounts of data, and 
material property data might also be acceptable, including those 
specified in the European Standards previously noted.
    [sbull] Revise paragraph (c) to require consideration of 
environmental conditions in general, such as temperature and moisture, 
on material design values used in an essential component or structure, 
where those effects are significant in the airplane operating envelope. 
Paragraph (c) currently requires consideration of the effects of 
temperature on allowable stresses used for design where thermal effects 
are significant under normal operating conditions. This change is made 
because environmental factors other than temperature may have a 
significant effect on allowable stresses, not only under normal 
operating conditions, but also at other conditions within the airplane 
operating envelope.
    [sbull] Remove paragraph (d) as fatigue is now adequately addressed 
in Sec.  25.571.
    [sbull] Revise the premium selection process of paragraph (e) to 
clarify that the design values are material design values.
    [sbull] Add a new paragraph (f), which permits the use of other 
design values if approved by the Administrator.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    Draft Advisory Circular (AC) 25.613-1, Material Strength Properties 
and Material Design Values, which describes acceptable methods of 
compliance with this rule, was published concurrently with Notice No. 
02-05 for public comment. We plan to issue the final AC upon 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.

What Comments Were Received in Response to the Proposal?

    Only one commenter responded to the request for comments. The 
commenter thanked the FAA for the opportunity to comment.

What Analyses and Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no current or 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. The FAA has 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    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 impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the 
Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  2531-2533) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the

[[Page 46430]]

United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires 
agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, to 
be the basis of U.S. standards. 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 this rule: (1) Has 
benefits that justify its costs, is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is 
not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures; (2) will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities; (3) will reduce barriers to 
international trade; and (4) does not impose an unfunded mandate on 
State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector. These 
analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.

Costs and Benefits

    The FAA determines that there will be no additional costs 
associated with the rule and the current level of safety will be 
maintained or improved. As discussed in the previous section, in 
addition to harmonizing Sec.  25.613 and JAA requirements, the 
amendments will clarify the current rule, codify current practice, and 
reinstate the provision that permits the Administrator to approve other 
material design values. Consequently, manufacturers of transport 
category airplanes will not incur any additional costs. In fact, in 
certain cases, the manufacturer and the FAA will realize cost savings 
as a result of the revisions. These cost savings are examined in 
further detail in the following paragraphs.
    Under the current rule, there are three potential options on which 
to base material strength properties and material design values. First, 
a manufacturer could conduct a material properties development program 
for each material, product form, and heat treatment. Second, a 
manufacturer could test each aircraft structural part (on a sampling 
basis) to verify strength characteristics. Third, a manufacturer could 
use another method for establishing material design values and then 
request FAA approval of an equivalent safety finding. The FAA estimates 
that the initial cost of the latter method, which is the least costly, 
is between $100,000 and $150,000.
    There will be cost savings to the manufacturer and the FAA 
associated with the provision in the rule permitting the Administrator 
to approve other material design values (such as those listed in the 
draft AC). First, under certain conditions, manufacturers of transport 
category airplanes will no longer need to employ one of the options, 
described above. If the material design values can be found in the 
accepted military or industry handbooks, the manufacturer would avoid 
the initial or recurring cost of establishing material design values. 
Based on analysis of the available options described above, the FAA 
estimates that this cost saving (i.e., benefits) will be at least 
$100,000 per initial aircraft certification (the lower estimate of the 
least costly option).
    Second, the (new) provision will eliminate the need for an 
equivalent safety finding in the third option. The manufacturer will 
realize minimal cost savings through a reduction in paperwork. For the 
FAA, the rule will eliminate approximately 30 hours of paperwork per 
aircraft certificate for an FAA aerospace engineer (GS-14, step 5) to 
conduct an equivalent safety finding. This converts to a cost savings 
of approximately $1,577 in administrative costs per certificate.
    Given the findings of no incremental costs, benefits of at least 
$100,000 (i.e., cost-savings associated with rule-harmonization), and 
continuation of the necessary high level of safety, the FAA deems this 
final rule cost-beneficial.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 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 Act requires agencies to 
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the 
rationale for their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small 
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and 
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a final rule 
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. If the determination is that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the Act.
    If, however, an agency determines that a final rule is not expected 
to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act 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.
    As stated in the initial regulatory flexibility determination, the 
proposed rule affected only manufacturers of transport category 
airplanes. And, since all United States transport category airplane 
manufacturers exceed the Small Business Administration (SBA) small-
entity standard of 1,500 employees for aircraft manufacturers, the FAA 
determined that the proposal ``would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' There were no 
comments to the docket contesting this finding. Consequently, the FAA 
now certifies that the final rule ``will not have a significant 
economic 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 this rule and has determined that it complies with 
the Act since it harmonizes U.S. standards with similar European 
standards. In addition, the rule will impose no incremental costs on 
either domestic or international manufacturers.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as Pub. 
L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, 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,

[[Page 46431]]

in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to 
be a ``significant regulatory action.'' This rule does not contain such 
a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule and 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, and therefore does not have federalism implications.

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 applies to the certification of future designs of transport 
category airplanes and their subsequent operation, it could affect 
intrastate aviation in Alaska. We received no comments on this final 
rule as it affects intrastate aviation in Alaska, and we will apply the 
rule to Alaska in the same way we will apply it nationally.

Plain English

    Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) requires each 
agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. We 
invite your comments on how to make these regulations easier to 
understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
    [sbull] Are the requirements in the regulations clearly stated?
    [sbull] Do the regulations contain unnecessary technical language 
or jargon that interferes with their clarity?
    [sbull] Would the regulations be easier to understand if they were 
divided into more (but shorter) sections?
    [sbull] Is the description in the preamble helpful in understanding 
the regulations?
    Please send your comments to the address specified in the ADDRESSES 
section.

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 final rule qualifies for a categorical 
exclusion.

Energy Impact

    The energy impact of the final rule has been assessed 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 the final rule is not a major regulatory action under 
the provisions of the EPCA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Amendment

0
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

0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  25.613 as follows:
0
a. By revising the section heading and paragraphs (b) introductory 
text, (c), and (e);
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraph (d); and
0
c. By adding a new paragraph (f).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  25.613  Material strength properties and material design values.

* * * * *
    (b) Material design values must be chosen to minimize the 
probability of structural failures due to material variability. Except 
as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, compliance must 
be shown by selecting material design values which assure material 
strength with the following probability:
* * * * *
    (c) The effects of environmental conditions, such as temperature 
and moisture, on material design values used in an essential component 
or structure must be considered where these effects are significant 
within the airplane operating envelope.
    (d) [Reserved]
    (e) Greater material design values may be used if a ``premium 
selection'' of the material is made in which a specimen of each 
individual item is tested before use to determine that the actual 
strength properties of that particular item will equal or exceed those 
used in design.
    (f) Other material design values may be used if approved by the 
Administrator.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 25, 2003.
K.C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 03-19748 Filed 8-4-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P