[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 157 (Monday, August 16, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49815-49818]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20195]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0810; Amendment No. 25-130]
RIN 2120-AJ21


Maneuvering Speed Limitation Statement

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration amends the airworthiness 
standards applicable to transport category airplanes to clarify that 
flying at or below the design maneuvering speed does not allow a pilot 
to make multiple large control inputs in one airplane axis or single 
full control inputs in more than one airplane axis at a time without 
endangering the airplane's structure. The FAA is issuing this final 
rule to prevent pilots from misunderstanding the meaning of an 
airplane's maneuvering speed, which could cause or contribute to a 
future accident.

DATES: This amendment becomes effective October 15, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions about this 
final rule, contact Don Stimson, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface 
Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 
(425) 227-1129; facsimile (425) 227-1149, e-mail [email protected]. 
For legal questions about this final rule, contact Doug Anderson, 
Office of the Regional Counsel, ANM-7, Northwest Mountain Region, FAA, 
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2166; 
facsimile (425) 227-1007, e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes 
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting 
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum 
standards required in the interest of safety for the design and 
performance of aircraft. This regulation is within the scope of that 
authority because it prescribes new safety standards for the design of 
transport category airplanes.

I. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    On November 12, 2001, American Airlines Flight 587, an Airbus 
Industrie Model A300-605R airplane, crashed shortly after takeoff from 
New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. All 260 people aboard 
the airplane and 5 people on the ground were killed. The airplane was 
destroyed by impact forces and a post-crash fire. The National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined ``that the probable cause 
of this accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical 
stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design loads that 
were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder 
pedal inputs.''
    The NTSB's investigation revealed that many pilots might have a 
general misunderstanding of what the design maneuvering speed 
(VA) is and the extent of structural protection that exists 
when an airplane is operated at speeds below its VA. 
VA is a structural design airspeed used in determining the 
strength requirements for the airplane and its control surfaces. The 
structural design requirements do not cover multiple control inputs in 
one axis or control inputs in more than one axis at a time at any 
speed, even below VA.
    The NTSB found that many pilots of transport category airplanes 
mistakenly believe that, as long as the airplane's speed is below 
VA, they can make any control input they desire without 
risking structural damage to the airplane. As a result, the NTSB 
recommended that the FAA amend all relevant regulatory and advisory 
materials to clarify that operating at or below maneuvering speed does 
not provide structural protection against multiple full control inputs 
in one axis or full control inputs in more than one axis at the same 
time.\1\ After making our own assessment, the FAA agrees with the 
NTSB's finding and the resulting recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See NTSB safety recommendation A-04-060, which is included 
in the docket for this rulemaking or can be found at http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2004/A04_56_62.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of the NPRM

    This final rule is based on a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 
Notice No. 09-10, published in the Federal Register on September 4, 
2009 (74 FR 45777). In the NPRM, we proposed to amend 14 CFR 
25.1583(a)(3) to change the requirement associated with a statement 
that must be furnished in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) explaining 
the use of VA to pilots. The proposed amendment was intended 
to clarify that, depending on the particular airplane design, flying at 
or below VA does not allow a pilot to make multiple large 
control inputs in one airplane axis or single full control inputs in 
more than one airplane axis at a time without endangering the 
airplane's structure. The comment period for the NPRM closed on 
November 3, 2009.

C. Summary of the Final Rule

    The FAA is adopting this final rule to prevent pilots from 
misunderstanding the meaning of VA, which could cause or 
contribute to a future accident. The final rule adopts clarifying 
changes to certain statements that must be furnished in each AFM 
identifying the types of control inputs to avoid because they may 
result in structural failure.
    This final rule adopts the proposed rule with minor changes that 
will resolve a longstanding inconsistency in the current requirements 
that would have been left in place by the proposed rule. This 
inconsistency, which goes back to at least the 1953 Civil Air 
Regulations Part 4b, concerns the reference to ``maneuvering speed 
VA'' in the existing Sec.  25.1583(a)(3). Sections 1.2 and 
25.335(c) define ``VA'' as the ``design maneuvering speed,'' 
not the ``maneuvering speed.'' Section 25.1507 defines the 
``maneuvering speed'' as an

[[Page 49816]]

operating limitation that must not exceed the design maneuvering speed, 
VA. Since the ``maneuvering speed'' can be less than 
VA, the reference to ``maneuvering speed VA'' in 
the existing Sec.  25.1583(a)(3) is incorrect.
    An applicant may wish to establish a maneuvering speed different 
from the design maneuvering speed, in order to make it easier for 
pilots to use. For example, the design maneuvering speed, 
VA, is an equivalent airspeed. Applicants might find it 
desirable to provide a maneuvering speed as a calibrated airspeed equal 
to or below the corresponding equivalent design maneuvering airspeed at 
all altitudes, in order to provide the information in a format that is 
consistent with that used on the flight deck airspeed indicator.
    In practice, the maneuvering speed has been identified as 
VA in AFMs even when it is not always exactly the same as 
the design maneuvering speed defined in Sec.  25.335(c). We have no 
evidence of this being unsafe and see no reason to prohibit it in the 
future. However, in order to address the inconsistency in the 
regulations, for Sec.  25.1583(a)(3), we have changed the reference to 
``the maneuvering speed VA'' proposed in the NPRM to ``the 
maneuvering speed established under Sec.  25.1507'' in this final rule. 
For new Sec.  25.1583(a)(3)(i) and (ii), we have also changed the 
references to ``VA'' proposed in the NPRM to ``maneuvering 
speed'' in this final rule. We will continue to allow applicants to 
refer to this maneuvering speed as VA in AFMs.
    For small airplanes, part 23 defines an operating maneuver speed 
(VO) to serve the same purpose as the maneuvering speed 
established under Sec.  25.1507. The part 23 approach has one advantage 
in that there is a unique V-speed abbreviation for pilots to use that 
differentiates the maneuvering speed used operationally from the design 
maneuvering speed used to show compliance with the structural type 
certification requirements. We chose not to introduce a new V-speed 
term in part 25 because the VA term has historically been 
used for transport category airplanes for both the speed to be used 
operationally and for design purposes. Using a new V-speed term could 
also potentially lead to confusion if different speed terms and 
definitions are used for new airplane designs compared to current 
designs.

D. Summary of the Comments

    The FAA received nine comments on the NPRM from four commenters--
Airbus, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the NTSB, and one 
private citizen. Airbus, ALPA, and the NTSB all supported the proposed 
amendment. ALPA also submitted a comment that was beyond the scope of 
the NPRM. Only the private citizen submitted comments specific to the 
scope of the NPRM. The private citizen believed the proposed amendment 
is too weak and does not address the underlying airplane handling, 
structural, and systems issues. Summaries of the comments and our 
responses are provided below.\2\ No changes were made to the final rule 
in response to the comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The full text of each commenter's submission is available in 
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion of the Comments

A. Proposed Language Unclear

    The private citizen stated that the proposed wording does not help 
the pilot know at what speed a certain input to the airframe is safe 
and what type of input is likely to cause structural failure. The 
commenter went on to ask several related questions: How is a pilot to 
know what ``rapid and large'' mean? Will the FAA require the AFM to 
provide a specific and detailed explanation of exactly what the 
particular airplane is capable of withstanding? Will there be an 
advisory circular associated with this changed requirement to provide 
interpretation and guidance as to acceptable means of compliance?
    The proposed wording tells the pilot the types of pilot input at 
speeds above and below VA that may lead to structural 
failure. As stated in the NPRM, ``full application of pitch, roll, or 
yaw controls should be confined to speeds below VA.'' 
Therefore, at speeds below VA, pilots can make a full 
control input in a single direction in the pitch, roll, or yaw axis 
without concern for structural failure. (Note: In the final rule, the 
term ``VA'' has been replaced with the words ``maneuvering 
speed.'') The proposed regulatory language also states that rapid and 
large alternating control inputs, especially if combined with large 
changes in pitch, roll, or yaw, and full control inputs in more than 
one axis (i.e., pitch, roll, or yaw) at the same time, may result in 
structural failure at any speed.
    The FAA believes the standard dictionary definitions and common 
usage of the words ``rapid and large'' accurately convey their meaning. 
The FAA does not see a need to provide further interpretation or 
guidance as to the meaning of these terms.

B. Applicability

    The private citizen noted the proposed amendment is not 
retroactive, so it would not fix the problem for existing aircraft.
    Although the proposed amendment would not be retroactive, the FAA 
has worked with airplane manufacturers to amend their AFMs for all 
major transport category airplanes used in U.S. operations. The wording 
now in the limitations section of these AFMs meets the requirements of 
this final rule.

C. Airplane Handling Problems Not Addressed

    The private citizen stated that the underlying handling problem 
that led to the Flight 587 accident has not been addressed. In certain 
circumstances, a pilot is required to take firm and, if not aggressive, 
then immediate and positive action, yet seemingly has no way to know 
how much or when this action is likely to break the airplane. The 
commenter noted that the dilemma faced by the pilot is that there is 
some unspecified (or poorly specified) point where the kind of control 
inputs that he would almost routinely need to apply during landing or 
takeoff are no longer safe.
    The FAA believes the kinds of control inputs that the pilot may 
need to apply during takeoff or landing, or to counter an upset, 
continue to be safe and are not precluded by this final rule. The 
control inputs made by Flight 587's first officer, which included five 
alternating full rudder inputs, would not be needed for any reason.

D. Safety Issues Not Addressed

    The private citizen noted that the structural and systems issues 
arising from the Flight 587 accident have not been addressed. The 
commenter believes different kinds of modifications to 14 CFR part 25 
would be required, including consideration of composite structure 
failure characteristics compared with traditional (metal) structure. 
The commenter stated that this rulemaking must not proceed in isolation 
from the other recommendations made by the NTSB. This action responds 
to only one of seven NTSB safety recommendations.
    The commenter is correct in that this final rule responds only to 
NTSB Safety Recommendation A-04-60. The other safety issues arising 
from the Flight 587 accident are beyond the scope of this rulemaking 
and will be addressed by other means.

III. Regulatory Notice and Analysis

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork

[[Page 49817]]

and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. We have 
determined that there is no current or new requirement for information 
collection requirement associated with this amendment.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform 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.

IV. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    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 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small 
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they 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 with base year of 
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of 
the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this final rule.
    The reasoning for this determination follows. As a result of its 
investigation of the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 on November 
12, 2001, the NTSB determined ``that the probable cause of the accident 
was the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer as a result of 
the loads beyond ultimate design loads that were created by the first 
officer's unnecessary and excessive pedal inputs,'' including five 
alternating full rudder inputs. The NTSB's investigation identified 
what appears to be a widespread misunderstanding among pilots about the 
degree of structural protection that exists when full or abrupt flight 
control inputs are made at airspeeds below an airplane's design 
maneuvering speed. In fact, even below the design maneuvering speed, 
the structural design standards do not ensure the airplane structure 
can withstand multiple control inputs in one axis or control inputs in 
more than one axis simultaneously. This amendment will require the AFM 
to clarify that flying at or below the design maneuvering speed does 
not allow a pilot to make multiple large control inputs in one airplane 
axis, or single full control inputs simultaneously in more than one 
axis, as such control inputs will endanger the airplane's structure. A 
similar change has been made voluntarily to the AFM by manufacturers of 
transport category airplanes currently in service. Consequently, this 
amendment will entail no crew-training costs, as well as no costs of 
testing, analysis, or changes to airplane design, and the expected 
outcome will be minimal costs.
    This amendment addresses an identified safety issue, so the final 
rule has benefits. Consequently, the final rule will have minimal costs 
and positive net benefits and a full regulatory evaluation was not 
prepared. In the NPRM we requested comments on our determination of 
positive net benefits and did not receive any.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule 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.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA 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 rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. 
However, if an agency determines that a 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.
    As we noted in the NPRM, all U.S. transport category aircraft 
manufacturers exceed the Small Business Administration small-entity 
criterion of 1,500 employees. We received no comments disputing this 
determination. Moreover, we have determined that the rule will have 
minimal costs and positive net benefits. Therefore, as the 
Administrator, I certify that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related 
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of 
standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign 
commerce of the United States, so long as the standards have a 
legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and do 
not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. 
The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, 
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA 
has assessed the effects of this rule and determined that it would 
promote international trade by harmonizing with

[[Page 49818]]

corresponding EASA regulations thus reducing the cost of joint 
certification.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) 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 an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements 
of Title II do not apply.

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 would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, and, therefore, would 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 appropriate regulatory 
distinctions. In the NPRM, we requested comments on whether the 
proposed rule should apply differently to intrastate operations in 
Alaska. We did not receive any comments, and we have determined, based 
on the administrative record of this rulemaking, there is no need to 
make any regulatory distinctions applicable to intrastate aviation in 
Alaska.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 4(j) and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not 
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order, and it is 
unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.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 docket number or amendment number of this 
rulemaking.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

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. If you are a small entity and you have a question 
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or 
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at 
the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on 
the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Safety, Transportation.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration 
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations part 25, 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.  25.1583 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.1583  Operating limitations.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The maneuvering speed established under Sec.  25.1507 and 
statements, as applicable to the particular design, explaining that:
    (i) Full application of pitch, roll, or yaw controls should be 
confined to speeds below the maneuvering speed; and
    (ii) Rapid and large alternating control inputs, especially in 
combination with large changes in pitch, roll, or yaw, and full control 
inputs in more than one axis at the same time, should be avoided as 
they may result in structural failures at any speed, including below 
the maneuvering speed.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 8, 2010.
J. Randolph Babbitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-20195 Filed 8-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P