This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

472 

Vol. 76, No. 3 

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–1193; Notice No. 10– 

19] 

RIN 2120–AJ80 

Harmonization of Airworthiness 

Standards for Transport Category 

Airplanes—Landing Gear Retracting 

Mechanisms and Pilot Compartment 

View 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration proposes to amend the 

airworthiness standards for transport 

category airplanes on landing gear 

retracting mechanisms and the pilot 

compartment view. This proposal 

would adopt the 1-g stall speed as a 

reference stall speed instead of the 

minimum speed obtained in a stalling 

maneuver, and would add an additional 

requirement to keep the landing gear 

and doors in the correct retracted 

position in flight. This proposal would 

also revise the requirements for pilot 

compartment view in precipitation 

conditions. Adopting these proposals 

would eliminate regulatory differences 

between the airworthiness standards of 

the U.S. and the European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA), without affecting 

current industry design practices. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before April 5, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2010–1193 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

For more information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of the docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

sending the comment (or signing the 

comment for an association, business, 

labor union, etc.). You may review 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement 

in the Federal Register published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

and follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

proposed rule contact Douglas Tsuji, 

Propulsion and Mechanical Systems 

Branch, ANM–112, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, 

SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227–2135; facsimile 

(425) 227–1320, e-mail 

Douglas.Tsuji@faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

proposed rule contact Doug Anderson, 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ANM–7, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2166; 

facsimile (425) 227–1007; e-mail 

Douglas.Anderson@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in 

this preamble under the Additional 

Information section, we discuss how 

you can comment on this proposal and 

how we will handle your comments. 

Included in this discussion is related 

information about the docket, privacy, 

and the handling of proprietary or 

confidential business information. We 

also discuss how you can get a copy of 

related rulemaking documents. 

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 regulations 

and minimum standards for the design 

and performance of aircraft that the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce. This regulation is 

within the scope of that authority. It 

prescribes new safety standards for the 

design and operation of transport 

category airplanes. 

Background 

Part 25 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) prescribes 

airworthiness standards for type 

certification of transport category 

airplanes for products certified in the 

United States. The European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) Certification 

Specifications for Large Aeroplanes 

(CS–25) prescribe the corresponding 

airworthiness standards for products 

certified in Europe. While part 25 and 

CS–25 are similar, they differ in several 

respects. Therefore, the FAA tasked the 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee (ARAC) through the 

Mechanical Systems Harmonization 

Working Group (MSHWG) to review 

existing regulations and recommend 

changes that would eliminate 

differences between the FAA and EASA 

airworthiness standards for landing gear 

retracting mechanisms and the pilot 

compartment view. This proposed rule 

is a result of this harmonization effort. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 473 

General Discussion of the Proposal 

The FAA agrees with the ARAC 

recommendation to harmonize 

airworthiness standards for landing gear 

retracting mechanisms and the pilot 

compartment view with the 

corresponding EASA specifications, and 

we propose to amend part 25 

accordingly. The proposals are not 

expected to be controversial and should 

reduce certification costs to industry 

without adversely affecting safety. In 

developing these proposals, ARAC and 

the FAA considered the following 

factors: 

a. Underlying safety issues addressed 

by current standards; 

b. Differences between part 25 and 

CS–25 standards; 

c. Differences between part 25 and 

CS–25 means of compliance; 

e. Effect of the proposed standard on 

current industry practice; 

f. Whether FAA advisory material 

exists and/or needs amendment; and 

g. The costs and benefits of each 

proposal. 

The complete analyses for the proposed 

changes made in response to ARAC 

recommendations can be found in the 

ARAC recommendation reports, located 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

Discussion of the Proposed Regulatory 

Requirements 

Proposed Changes to § 25.729, 

Retracting Mechanism 

1. Amendment 25–108 (67 FR 70811, 

November 26, 2002) to 14 CFR redefined 

the reference stall speed, VSR, for 

transport category airplanes, as the 1-g 

stall speed, instead of the minimum 

speed obtained in a stalling maneuver. 

This provides a higher level of safety in 

cases where current methods of 

determining stall speed may result in 

lower operating speeds. This change 

was established to provide a consistent, 

repeatable reference stall speed; ensure 

consistent and dependable maneuvering 

margins; to provide for adjusted 

multiplying factors to maintain the 

current stalling speeds where they are 

proven adequate; and to harmonize the 

applicable regulations with those 

adopted in EASA CS–25. 

Under Amendment 25–108, several 

sections of part 25 were revised to adopt 

VSR. However, that change was 

inadvertently omitted from 14 CFR 

25.729(a)(1)(ii). This proposed rule 

would update § 25.729(a)(1)(ii) with the 

new reference stall speed, VSR, and 

harmonize it with the more stringent 

EASA standard. CS 25.729(a)(1)(ii) 

refers to wheel rotation at a peripheral 

speed equal to 1.23 VSR (with the flaps 

in takeoff position at design takeoff 

weight), occurring during retraction and 

extension at any airspeed up to 1.5 VSR1

with the wing-flaps in the approach 

position at design landing weight. 

Whereas, § 25.729(a)(1)(ii) currently 

uses a peripheral speed equal to 1.3 VS

during retraction and extension at any 

airspeed up to 1.6 VS1, respectively. The 

difference in these factors (1.23 versus 

1.3, and 1.5 versus 1.6) adjusts for the 

difference between the speeds used (VSR

versus VS, and VSR1 versus VS1). In some 

cases, these factors make this proposed 

rule slightly more conservative than the 

existing rule. 

2. For clarification and harmonization 

with the EASA terminology used in CS 

25.729(a)(1)(iii), this proposed rule 

would add the word ‘‘wing’’ to ‘‘flaps’’ in 

§ 25.729(a)(1)(iii). 

3. For clarification and harmonization 

with the EASA terminology used in CS 

25.729(a)(3), this proposed rule would 

replace the word ‘‘prescribed’’ with 

‘‘presented.’’ 

4. Section 25.729(b) does not 

currently require a positive means to 

keep the landing gear and doors in the 

correct retracted position in flight for 

any condition. The EASA standard 

requires each retractable landing gear 

and separately actuated door to have a 

positive uplock, or be able to extend or 

open into the air stream at any flight 

speed without causing a hazard. 

Compliance would be demonstrated by 

system description or stress analysis. 

This proposed rule would add that 

requirement to § 25.729(b) to harmonize 

with the more stringent EASA standard. 

5. Section 25.729(e) requires a landing 

gear position indicator for retractable 

gear and provides design requirements 

for the indicator and warning system. 

CS 25.729(e) has additional design 

requirements that § 25.729(e) does not 

have. The EASA standard requires that 

each indicator be easily visible to the 

pilot or appropriate crewmembers and 

not be ambiguous regarding landing gear 

position. The EASA standard also 

requires the indicator to show the 

associated landing gear door position. 

This proposed rule would add these 

requirements to § 25.729(e) to 

harmonize with the more stringent 

EASA standard. 

6. Section 25.729(e)(5) currently 

requires that the aural warning system 

be designed to ‘‘eliminate’’ false or 

inappropriate alerts, while CS 

25.729(e)(5) requires that they be 

‘‘minimized.’’ If taken literally, 

§ 25.729(e)(5) is too stringent. While 

elimination of nuisance warnings is a 

worthy goal, it is impossible to 

eliminate all nuisance warnings. A 

requirement to ‘‘minimize’’ false or 

inappropriate alerts is a more subjective 

but attainable standard, and moreover 

embraces any improvements in warning 

system technology. The preamble to the 

final rule amending § 25.729, states 

‘‘* * * the regulations on landing gear 

aural warning are being revised to state 

the performance objectives without 

stating how the requirements should be 

implemented (56 FR 63762, December 5, 

1991). This allows the manufacturers to 

use their ingenuity in designing systems 

to minimize nuisance warnings.’’ 

Therefore, the intent of the requirement 

has always been to minimize false or 

inappropriate alerts. Compliance with 

§ 25.729(e)(5) is currently demonstrated 

by failure mode and effects analysis 

with an understanding that ‘‘eliminate’’ 

means ‘‘very low probability.’’ This 

proposed rule would update 

§ 25.729(e)(5) to reflect our original 

intent and to harmonize with the less 

stringent EASA standard. 

7. Section 25.729(e) does not 

currently require an indication 

whenever the landing gear position does 

not agree with the selector lever 

position. However, such an indication is 

consistent with prudent design of 

landing gear indication. CS 25.729(e)(7) 

requires an indicator for this situation. 

Compliance is demonstrated by the 

landing gear system description and the 

failure modes and effects analysis 

(FMEA). This proposed rule would add 

a new paragraph (e)(7) containing this 

requirement, which would harmonize 

§ 25.729(e) with the more stringent 

EASA standard. 

8. Although § 25.729(f) requires 

protection of equipment in wheel wells 

from the damaging effects of a bursting 

tire or loose tire tread, it does not 

currently require the protection of 

equipment on the landing gear. Since 

equipment on the lower part of the 

landing gear is always near the tire, 

such equipment should be protected. CS 

25.729(f) requires protection of 

equipment ‘‘* * * located on the 

landing gear and in the wheel wells 

* * *.’’ This proposed rule would 

harmonize § 25.729(f) with the more 

stringent EASA standard by requiring 

protection of equipment ‘‘* * * located 

on the landing gear or in the wheel 

wells * * *.’’ Note that we have used 

the word ‘‘or’’ instead of ‘‘and’’ to clarify 

that the proposed rule would apply to 

equipment located in either location. 

Essential equipment on the landing 

gear could include any sensors such as 

‘‘weight on wheels’’ sensors that, if 

damaged or destroyed by a tire burst, 

could have an effect on the safe 

operation of the airplane. An example is 

the Global Express Learjet that overran 

the runway during a rejected takeoff. 

The tire burst damaged the weight on 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
474 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

wheel sensors, so when the pilot 

rejected the takeoff and retarded the 

thrust, the thrust reversers remained 

stowed. 

9. Section 25.729(f)(1) contains a 

condition that excludes consideration of 

bursting tires if it can be shown that the 

tires cannot burst from overheat. CS 

25.729(f)(1) does not contain this 

exception, and EASA’s interpretative 

material in Acceptable Means of 

Compliance (AMC) 25.729 does not 

allow the use of wheel fuse plugs as a 

complete safeguard against tire burst 

damage. Instead, it requires additional 

means of compliance, such as 

separation analysis, robust design, or 

test. This proposed rule would 

harmonize § 25.729(f)(1) with the more 

stringent EASA standard. 

10. Section 25.729 does not currently 

require protection of equipment in 

wheel wells from possible wheel brake 

temperatures. However, CS 25.729(f)(3) 

contains this requirement, and the 

interpretative material in AMC 25.729 

suggests that the pilot should be 

provided an indication of brake 

temperature. This requirement results in 

an analysis of equipment that could be 

exposed to heat from the brake or 

installation of a brake heat indication 

system. Additional safety and cost 

factors to consider are the location of 

essential equipment away from possible 

brake heat, and the installation of an 

additional heat indication system that 

has its own failure mode and 

maintenance issues. Compliance is 

demonstrated by separation analysis, 

thermal analysis, or, as suggested in 

AMC 25.729, a brake temperature 

indication system. This proposed rule 

would add a new paragraph (f)(3) 

containing the requirement to protect 

equipment from the damaging effects of 

possible wheel brake temperatures, 

which would harmonize § 25.729(f) 

with the more stringent EASA standard. 

Advisory Material for § 25.729 

Current FAA advisory material 

addresses only flight testing for 

compliance with the existing rule. To 

address the proposed requirements for 

§ 25.729, the FAA proposes to 

incorporate the interpretative material 

found in EASA AMC 25.729 into new 

advisory circular (AC) 25.729–1A. The 

draft AC accompanies this proposed 

rule and is posted on the FAA’s draft 

document Web site at http:// 

www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/ for 

public comment. 

Proposed Changes to § 25.773, Pilot 

Compartment View 

1. Section 25.773(b) contains 

requirements for clear pilot view along 

the flight path during precipitation 

conditions, but does not address single 

failures of rain removal systems that can 

cause the loss of the pilot view through 

both windshields, which paragraph 

(b)(1) requires. Currently, compliance 

with part 25 can be demonstrated with 

only one wiper switch to control both 

the left and right wipers, but the EASA 

standard specifically requires provisions 

to preclude a single fault from causing 

the potential failure of both systems. As 

a result, system design is driven to have 

separate left and right wiper switches in 

addition to separate motors. In this case, 

the more stringent EASA standard 

provides for increased system reliability 

and an increased level of safety. This 

proposed rule would add this 

requirement to § 25.773(b)(2). This 

proposed rule would also move the 

existing requirements of § 25.773(b)(2) 

and (b)(2)(i) to new § 25.773(b)(3) and 

(b)(3)(i) through (b)(3)(iii), respectively. 

These proposed changes would 

harmonize § 25.773(b)(2) and (b)(3) with 

the EASA standard. 

2. Section 25.773(b)(2)(ii) refers only 

to severe hail, while the corresponding 

CS 25.773(b)(4)(ii) refers to severe hail, 

birds, and insects. This proposed rule 

would remove § 25.773(b)(2)(ii) and add 

new § 25.773(b)(4)(ii), which would 

harmonize it with the EASA standard. 

3. Section 25.773(b) does not 

currently allow for an alternative to the 

openable side window required by 

§ 25.773(b)(2)(i). (Section 25.773(b)(2)(i) 

currently corresponds to CS 

25.773(b)(3)(i).) However, CS 

25.773(b)(4) does allow for an 

alternative to the openable side 

window. CS 25.773(b)(4) could be 

interpreted to be redundant with 

existing § 25.773(b)(2)(ii), but the EASA 

standard provides more detail. CS 

25.773(b)(4) contains two 

subparagraphs: 

• Paragraph (b)(4)(i) allows relief for 

the openable side window if it can be 

demonstrated that sufficient pilot view 

is still provided in the event of failure— 

or combination of failures—of the rain 

removal system, where the failure(s) is 

not extremely improbable. This 

provision implies that, for a dual 

windshield wiper system failure (which 

is typically not extremely improbable), 

the openable side window is not 

required if adequate vision can still be 

maintained through the windshield or 

side window. 

• Paragraph (b)(4)(ii) also allows 

relief for the openable side window if it 

can be demonstrated that sufficient pilot 

view is still provided in the event of an 

encounter with severe hail, birds, or 

insects. 

The reference in CS 25.773(b)(4)(ii) to 

severe hail, birds, and insects has not 

been specifically demonstrated in any 

manner differently from that of 

compliance with § 25.773(b)(2)(ii), 

which only specifies severe hail. 

Compliance with § 25.773(b)(2)(ii), and 

with CS (b)(4)(i) and (ii), has typically 

been demonstrated by compliance 

statement, system description, or 

analysis only. This proposed rule would 

add new § 25.773(b)(4), (b)(4)(i), and 

(b)(4)(ii) to harmonize with the EASA 

standard. 

Existing Advisory Material for § 25.773 

AC 25.773–1, Pilot Compartment 

View Design Considerations, dated 

January 8, 1983, provides extensive 

definition of what constitutes sufficient 

pilot visibility through the windshield, 

including suggested means of 

compliance for windshield wiper speed. 

The obsolete AMC 25.773(b)(1)(ii) was 

redundant to AC 25.773–1, and the 

MSHWG recommended eliminating the 

AMC. As a result, EASA eliminated this 

AMC material at Amendment 4 to CS– 

25. AC 25.773–1 would be retained 

without change in regard to this 

proposed rule. 

Other Proposed Rulemaking 

On June 23, 2010, the FAA issued an 

NPRM, Notice No. 10–10, Airplane and 

Engine Certification Requirements in 

Supercooled Large Drop, Mixed Phase, 

and Ice Crystal Icing Conditions (75 FR 

37311, June 29, 2010) (Docket No. FAA– 

2010–0636). That NPRM proposes that 

§ 25.773 be modified to expand the icing 

conditions from those specified in 

§ 25.1419 (i.e., appendix C icing 

conditions) to include certain 

supercooled large drop conditions 

defined in a proposed Appendix O. If 

that NPRM becomes a final rule prior to 

this proposed rule, we request comment 

on maintaining those changes when this 

proposed rule becomes final. 

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. The 

FAA has determined that there would 

be no new requirement for information 

collection associated with this proposed 

rule. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 475 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these proposed regulations. 

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, this 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 impact of the proposed 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 costs and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this proposed rule. 

The reasoning for this determination 

follows: The proposed rule would 

amend the airworthiness standards for 

transport category airplanes for landing 

gear retracting mechanisms and pilot 

compartment view to harmonize with 

existing more stringent European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) 

requirements. For landing gear 

retracting mechanisms, adoption of the 

EASA requirements would ensure the 

landing gear is in the appropriate 

configuration when necessary; that the 

landing gear and its supporting 

structure, doors, and mechanisms 

operate properly; that the flight crew 

would be aware of the landing gear 

position status; and that critical 

equipment would be protected from tire 

failure or brake temperatures. For the 

pilot compartment view, reliable and 

safe operation during precipitation 

would be ensured by adoption of the 

EASA design requirements for flight 

deck rain removal systems. The most 

significant of the pilot compartment 

view requirements is that no single 

failure of the rain removal system could 

lead to a loss of pilot view through both 

windshields. The effect of this proposed 

requirement is that, for newly 

certificated airplanes, manufacturers 

must provide a separate, mechanically 

and electrically independent method for 

clearing the windshield during 

precipitation. This method may include 

separate flight deck control switches for 

left and right windshield wipers. The 

FAA has determined that installation of 

the second wiper switch would require 

minimal additional costs when the 

system is initially designed to comply 

with the EASA requirement. 

Currently, U.S. manufacturers of 

transport category airplanes meet both 

FAA and EASA requirements. The FAA 

expects these manufacturers would 

want to continue selling future transport 

category airplanes in Europe and thus 

would meet EASA requirements. Thus, 

for these manufacturers and for the 

majority of manufacturers already in 

compliance with the EASA 

requirements, there would be no 

additional costs. However, the proposed 

rule would provide benefits from 

reduced joint certification costs—in the 

requirements for data collection and 

analysis, paperwork, and time spent 

applying for and obtaining approval 

from the regulatory authorities. The 

FAA therefore has determined that this 

proposed rule is cost beneficial due to 

the overall reduction in compliance 

costs while maintaining the same level 

of safety. The FAA requests comments 

regarding this determination. 

The FAA has also determined that 

this proposed 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-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it would, 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 noted above, this proposed rule 

would impose no or little additional 

costs on part 25 manufacturers. 

Moreover, all U.S. manufacturers of 

transport category airplanes exceed the 

Small Business Administration smallentity criteria of 1,500 employees. 

Therefore, the FAA certifies that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The FAA requests comments regarding 

this determination. 

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 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 standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does 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 potential effect of this proposed rule 

and determined that it would 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
476 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

incorporate an international standard as 

the basis for a U.S. standard. Thus the 

proposed rule complies with the Trade 

Agreement Act of 1979 and does not 

create unnecessary obstacles to 

international trade. 

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 

(adjusted annually for inflation with the 

base year 1995) 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 

$141.3 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate. The requirements of 

Title II do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

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 

national 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. 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. 

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 proposed 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312d and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this NPRM 

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 not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Plain English 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

Oct. 4, 1993) requires each agency to 

write regulations that are simple and 

easy to understand. We invite your 

comments on how to make these 

proposed regulations easier to 

understand, including answers to 

questions such as the following: 

• Are the requirements in the 

proposed regulations clearly stated? 

• Do the proposed regulations contain 

unnecessary technical language or 

jargon that interferes with their clarity? 

• Would the regulations be easier to 

understand if they were divided into 

more (but shorter) sections? 

• Is the description in the preamble 

helpful in understanding the proposed 

regulations? 

Please send your comments to the 

address specified in the Addresses 

section of this preamble. 

Additional 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 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

please send only one copy of written 

comments, or if you are filing comments 

electronically, please submit your 

comments only one time. 

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. 

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 after 

the comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

proposal in light of the comments we 

receive. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information 

Do not file in the docket information 

that you consider to be proprietary or 

confidential business information. Send 

or deliver this information directly to 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. You must mark the 

information that you consider 

proprietary or confidential. If you send 

the information on a disk or CD–ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM 

and also identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is proprietary or 

confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, we do not place it in 

the docket. We hold it in a separate file 

to which the public does not have 

access, and we place a note in the 

docket that we have received it. If we 

receive a request to examine or copy 

this information, we treat it as any other 

request under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We 

process such a request under the DOT 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

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 or notice number of 

this rulemaking. 

You may access all documents the 

FAA considered in developing this 

proposed rule, including economic 

analyses and technical reports, from the 

internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in 

paragraph (1). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 477 

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 § 25.729 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iii), (a)(3), (b), 

(e) introductory text, (e)(5), (f) 

introductory text, and (f)(1), and by 

adding paragraphs (e)(7) and (f)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 25.729 Operating limitations. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) The combination of friction loads, 

inertia loads, brake torque loads, air 

loads, and gyroscopic loads resulting 

from the wheels rotating at a peripheral 

speed equal to 1.23 VSR (with the wingflaps in takeoff position at design takeoff 

weight), occurring during retraction and 

extension at any airspeed up to 1.5 VSR1

(with the wing-flaps in the approach 

position at design landing weight), and 

(iii) Any load factor up to those 

specified in § 25.345(a) for the wingflaps extended condition. 

* * * * * 

(3) Landing gear doors, their operating 

mechanism, and their supporting 

structures must be designed for the 

yawing maneuvers prescribed for the 

airplane in addition to the conditions of 

airspeed and load factor presented in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(b) Landing gear lock. There must be 

positive means to keep the landing gear 

extended in flight and on the ground. 

There must be positive means to keep 

the landing gear and doors in the correct 

retracted position in flight, unless it can 

be shown that lowering of the landing 

gear or doors, or flight with the landing 

gear or doors extended, at any speed, is 

not hazardous. 

* * * * * 

(e) Position indicator and warning 

device. If a retractable landing gear is 

used, there must be a landing gear 

position indicator easily visible to the 

pilot or to the appropriate crew 

members (as well as necessary devices 

to actuate the indicator) to indicate 

without ambiguity that the retractable 

units and their associated doors are 

secured in the extended (or retracted) 

position. The means must be designed 

as follows: 

* * * * * 

(5) The system used to generate the 

aural warning must be designed to 

minimize false or inappropriate alerts. 

* * * * * 

(7) A clear indication or warning must 

be provided whenever the landing gear 

position is not consistent with the 

landing gear selector lever position. 

(f) Protection of equipment on landing 

gear and in wheel wells. Equipment that 

is essential to the safe operation of the 

airplane and that is located on the 

landing gear or in wheel wells must be 

protected from the damaging effects of— 

(1) A bursting tire; 

* * * * * 

(3) Possible wheel brake temperatures. 

3. Amend § 25.773 by revising 

paragraph (b)(2) and adding paragraphs 

(b)(3) and (b)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 25.773 Pilot compartment view. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) No single failure of the systems 

used to provide the view required by 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section may 

cause the loss of that view by both pilots 

in the specified precipitation 

conditions. 

(3) The first pilot must have a window 

that— 

(i) Is openable under the conditions 

prescribed in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section when the cabin is not 

pressurized; 

(ii) Provides the view specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and 

(iii) Provides sufficient protection 

from the elements against impairment of 

the pilot’s vision. 

(4) The openable window specified in 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section need not 

be provided if it is shown that an area 

of the transparent surface will remain 

clear sufficient for at least one pilot to 

land the airplane safely in the event of— 

(i) Any system failure or combination 

of failures which is not extremely 

improbable, in accordance with 

§ 25.1309, under the precipitation 

conditions specified in paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section. 

(ii) An encounter with severe hail, 

birds, or insects. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

29, 2010. 

K.C. Yanamura, 

Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33347 Filed 1–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–1307; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–049–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc. Model CL–600–2A12 (CL–601) and 

CL–600–2B16 (CL–601–3A, CL–601– 

3R, and CL–604 Variants) Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This proposed 

AD results from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as 

During flight-testing of a wing anti-ice 

piccolo tube containing a deliberate small 

breach, it was determined that the wing 

leading edge thermal switches were not 

detecting the consequent bleed leak at the 

design threshold. As a result, new 

Airworthiness Limitation tasks, consisting of 

a functional test of the wing leading edge 

thermal switches and an inspection of the 

wing anti-ice duct piccolo tubes, have been 

introduced in order to limit exposure to 

dormant failure of the switches in the event 

of piccolo tube failure, which could 

potentially compromise the structural 

integrity of the wing leading edge and the 

effectiveness of the wing anti-ice system. 

The proposed AD would require actions 

that are intended to address the unsafe 

condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by February 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS