70854 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

copy of the framework document is 

available at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/commercial/ 

automatic_ice_making_equipment.html. 

Public meeting participants need not 

limit their comments to the issues 

identified in the framework document. 

DOE is also interested in comments on 

other relevant issues that participants 

believe would affect energy 

conservation standards for this 

equipment, applicable test procedures, 

or the preliminary determination of the 

scope of coverage. DOE invites all 

interested parties, whether or not they 

participate in the public meeting, to 

submit in writing by January 18, 2011, 

comments and information on matters 

addressed in the framework document 

and on other matters relevant to DOE’s 

consideration of amended standards for 

automatic commercial ice-makers. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, facilitated, conference 

style. There shall be no discussion of 

proprietary information, costs or prices, 

market shares, or other commercial 

matters regulated by U.S. antitrust laws. 

A court reporter will record the 

proceedings of the public meeting, after 

which a transcript will be available for 

purchase from the court reporter and 

placed on the DOE Web site at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/commercial/ 

automatic_ice_making_equipment.html. 

After the public meeting and the close 

of the comment period on the 

framework document, DOE will begin 

conducting the analyses as discussed in 

the framework document and at the 

public meeting, and reviewing the 

public comments. 

DOE considers public participation to 

be a very important part of the process 

for determining whether to amend 

energy conservation standards, as well 

as for setting those amended standards. 

DOE actively encourages the 

participation and interaction of the 

public during the comment period in 

each stage of the rulemaking process. 

Beginning with the framework 

document, and during each subsequent 

public meeting and comment period, 

interactions with and among members 

of the public provide a balanced 

discussion of the issues to assist DOE in 

the standards rulemaking process. 

Accordingly, anyone who wishes to 

participate in the public meeting, 

receive meeting materials, or be added 

to the DOE mailing list to receive future 

notices and information about this 

rulemaking should contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945, or via 

e-mail at Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 4, 

2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29208 Filed 11–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0310; Notice No. 10– 

17] 

RIN 2120–AJ72 

Harmonization of Various 

Airworthiness Standards for Transport 

Category Airplanes—Flight Rules 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend 

various airworthiness standards for 

transport category airplanes. This action 

would harmonize the requirements for 

takeoff speeds, static lateral-directional 

stability, speed increase and recovery 

characteristics, and the stall warning 

margin for the landing configuration in 

icing conditions with the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) 

certification standards. When airplanes 

are type certificated to both sets of 

standards, differences between the 

standards can result in additional costs 

to manufacturers and operators. 

Adopting this proposal would 

harmonize regulatory differences for the 

items noted above between United 

States (U.S.) and EASA airworthiness 

standards. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before February 17, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2010–0310 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 our 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 go to the 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 Don Stimson, 

FAA, Airplane & Flight Crew Interface 

Branch, ANM–111, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–1129; facsimile (425) 227– 

1149, e-mail Don.Stimson@faa.gov. 

For legal questions about this 

proposed rule, contact Doug Anderson, 

FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel 

(ANM–7), 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 

this proposal and related rulemaking 

documents. Appendix 1 of this NPRM 

defines terms used in this proposal. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 70855 

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 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) prescribes 

airworthiness standards for type 

certification of transport category 

airplanes for products certified in the 

United States. EASA’s Certification 

Specifications for Large Aeroplanes 

(CS–25) prescribe the corresponding 

airworthiness standards for products 

certified in Europe by the European 

Aviation Safety Agency. While part 25 

and CS–25 are similar, they differ in 

several respects. 

The FAA tasked the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) through its Flight Test 

Harmonization Working Group to 

review existing regulations and 

recommend changes that would 

eliminate differences between the U.S. 

and European performance and 

handling characteristics standards by 

harmonizing to the higher standards. 

This proposed rule is a result of this 

harmonization effort. 

General Discussion of the Proposal 

Three of the four changes to the part 

25 airworthiness requirements proposed 

in this rulemaking respond to ARAC 

recommendations and EASA’s actions 

in response to those recommendations. 

The fourth proposed change (pertaining 

to the stall warning margin for the 

landing configuration in icing 

conditions) responds to an action taken 

by EASA regarding a comment made 

during the public comment period of 

the harmonized rulemaking that led to 

adoption of Amendment 25–121 and 

Amendment 3 of CS–25. 

The FAA agrees with the actions 

taken by EASA and proposes to amend 

part 25 in a similar manner. The 

proposals are not expected to be 

controversial and should reduce 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. We 

have placed the reports in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

The appendix of this preamble 

contains a glossary of airspeed terms 

and definitions to help the reader 

understand the rulemaking proposals. 

Proposals From ARAC 

Recommendations 

The following proposals result from 

ARAC recommendations made to the 

FAA and EASA: 

(1) Amend § 25.107(e)(1)(iv), selection 

of the takeoff rotation speed; 

(2) Amend § 25.177, static lateraldirectional stability; and 

(3) Amend § 25.253, roll capability 

and extension of speedbrakes at high 

speeds. 

EASA’s rulemaking action in response 

to these recommendations was included 

in the original issuance of CS–25, 

effective October 17, 2003. The adopted 

CS–25 requirements differ somewhat 

from the ARAC recommendations due 

to public comments received during the 

rulemaking process and because EASA 

disagreed with some portions of ARAC’s 

recommendations. 

A Proposal From a Commenter 

The sole proposal that did not result 

from an ARAC recommendation is to 

amend § 25.21(g)(1) to add stall warning 

requirements that must be met in the 

landing configuration for flight in icing 

conditions. This proposal originates 

from a comment that this requirement 

should be added, which was made 

during the public comment period of 

the rulemaking that led to adoption of 

Amendment 25–121, Airplane 

Performance and Handling Qualities in 

Icing Conditions. 

In the preamble to that rulemaking (72 

FR 44665), the FAA stated that we 

needed more time and aviation industry 

participation to fully address the safety 

concern expressed in this comment. We 

were concerned that adopting the 

changes proposed by the commenter 

would introduce significant regulatory 

differences from EASA’s airworthiness 

certification requirements, and 

potentially add significant costs (as an 

initial cost estimate indicated). Further, 

it was unclear whether the proposed 

changes would completely resolve the 

potential safety issue. 

The commenter made the same 

comment to EASA during the public 

comment period for the rulemaking that 

became Amendment 3 to CS–25, which 

corresponds to Amendment 25–121 of 

14 CFR. EASA deferred addressing the 

comment until its Notice of Proposed 

Amendment 2008–05, dated April 10, 

2008. EASA did not receive any 

opposing comments from the public and 

adopted the rule change in Amendment 

6 to CS–25, issued July 6, 2009. The 

FAA proposes to amend § 25.21(g) in 

the same manner. 

Discussion of the Proposed Regulatory 

Requirements 

Proof of Compliance—§ 25.21(g)(1) 

Section 25.21(g)(1) specifies which 

subpart B requirements must be met in 

icing conditions and the ice accretions 

that must be used to show compliance. 

The current rule does not require the 

stall warning margin requirements of 

§ 25.207(c) and (d) to be met in icing 

conditions. The proposed rule would 

require that these stall warning margin 

requirements be met in icing conditions 

for the landing configuration. This 

proposed change would harmonize our 

standards with CS 25.21(g)(1), except for 

one minor difference regarding 

seaplanes and amphibians. This is 

because part 25 contains requirements 

for seaplanes and amphibians, and CS– 

25 does not. 

Takeoff Speeds—§ 25.107(e)(1)(iv) 

This requirement ensures that the 

scheduled takeoff speeds provide a 

minimum liftoff speed (VLOF) greater 

than the minimum safe flyaway speed 

(VMU). The VMU is the lowest speed at 

which an applicant demonstrates that 

no hazardous characteristics are present, 

such as a relatively high drag condition 

or a stall. This rule prescribes a 

minimum speed margin between VLOF

and VMU to ensure a safe takeoff speed, 

while taking likely in-service variations 

in takeoff technique into consideration. 

The FAA proposes to allow reduction 

of both the all-engines-operating and 

one-engine-inoperative speed margins 

between VMU and VLOF for airplanes for 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
70856 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

which the minimum liftoff speed is 

limited by the geometry of the airplane 

(i.e., ground contact of the tail of the 

airframe with the runway as the nose 

lifts off). This limiting condition 

provides protection against early or 

over-rotation beyond the safe liftoff 

pitch attitude at or near VMU such that 

the prescribed minimum speed margin 

can be reduced without reducing the 

level of safety. In the past, the FAA has 

allowed reduction of this speed margin 

for geometry-limited airplanes for the 

all-engines-operating condition using 

findings of equivalent safety. The 

proposed standard would codify this 

practice and extend its application to 

the one-engine-inoperative condition. 

This proposed change would harmonize 

this takeoff speed requirement with CS 

25.107(e)(1)(iv). 

Static Lateral-Directional Stability— 

§ 25.177 

This requirement ensures that 

transport category airplanes have basic 

lateral and directional stability, 

proportionality between aileron and 

rudder control movements and forces (at 

least within the sideslip angles 

appropriate to the operation of the 

airplane), and freedom from fin stall or 

rudder overbalance. The full rudder 

sideslip requirements of § 25.177(c) are 

primarily intended to investigate the 

potential for a loss of directional 

stability or fin stall (as indicated by a 

decrease in the rudder deflection 

needed for increased angles of sideslip) 

and rudder overbalance or locking (as 

indicated by a reversal in the rudder 

pedal force). 

The proposed revision to § 25.177(a) 

and (b) would reinstate the standards 

that existed prior to Amendment 25–72 

that treat the specific lateral and 

directional stability requirements as 

separate entities. 

The proposed revisions to § 25.177(c) 

are as follows: 

1. Divide the existing paragraph into 

two separate paragraphs. The proposed 

§ 25.177(c) would address the basic 

lateral and directional stability, while a 

new paragraph (d) would be introduced 

to address full rudder sideslips. The 

existing paragraph (d) would be 

removed as its provisions would be 

covered by the reinstated § 25.177(b). 

2. Revise § 25.177(c) to require that 

proportionality criteria must also be met 

at the sideslip angles obtained with onehalf of the available rudder control (i.e., 

rudder pedal input). This change would 

impose a minimum lateral control 

power requirement such that the 

airplane must be capable of maintaining 

a straight, steady, sideslip when the 

pilot puts in one-half of the available 

rudder control or uses a force of 180 

pounds on the rudder control at the 

conditions specified in the rule. 

3. Specify that the requirements in 

§ 25.177(c) must be met for the 

configurations and speeds specified in 

§ 25.177(a). This proposal would not 

change the applicable conditions from 

those applied in practice under the 

current § 25.177(c). 

4. Move the current § 25.177(c) 

requirement that applies to sideslip 

angles greater than those considered 

appropriate for normal operation of the 

airplane (i.e., up to full rudder control 

input) to a proposed new § 25.177(d). 

The conditions for which this 

requirement must be met would include 

all of the approved landing gear and flap 

positions for the range of operating 

speeds and power conditions 

appropriate to each landing gear and 

flap position with all engines operating. 

Relative to the current § 25.177(c), this 

proposal would reduce the range of 

speeds and power settings for which the 

requirement applies. The reduced speed 

ranges specified in the proposed 

§ 25.177(d) are intended to reduce the 

flight test safety risk as well as to 

harmonize and standardize current 

practices. 

5. Add text to the new § 25.177(d) 

stating that compliance with this 

requirement must be shown using 

straight, steady sideslips, unless full 

lateral control input is achieved before 

reaching either the rudder control input 

or force limit. A straight, steady sideslip 

need not be maintained beyond the 

lateral control limit. This change further 

clarifies the intent of the requirement 

regarding the capability required 

beyond the sideslip angles considered 

appropriate for operations. For airplanes 

lacking sufficient aileron control power 

to maintain a steady heading with full 

rudder input, any flight test 

demonstration would be continued to 

full rudder input even though a steady 

heading could not be maintained. This 

situation has caused difficulties in the 

past because the current rule wording is 

ambiguous regarding the conduct of the 

full rudder sideslips. This proposal 

would codify the FAA interpretation 

provided in the preamble to 

Amendment 25–72, Special Review: 

Transport Category Airplane 

Airworthiness Standards (55 FR 29756). 

Also, § 25.253(b) and (c) would be 

revised to reference only § 25.177 (a) 

through (c), rather than the entire 

§ 25.177, to be consistent with the 

proposed reduced speed range over 

which § 25.177(d) applies. The current 

§ 25.253 (b) and (c) specify that VFC/MFC

is the maximum speed for which the 

requirements of all of § 25.177 must be 

met. Because the proposed § 25.177(d) 

requirements only apply to the 

operational speed range (e.g., VMO/MMO) 

and need not be met at VFC/MFC, the 

reference to § 25.177 in § 25.253(b) and 

(c) would be revised to refer only to 

§ 25.177(a) through (c). 

These proposed changes would 

harmonize the static lateral-directional 

stability requirements with the 

corresponding CS–25 requirements and 

update references to these requirements 

in other sections of part 25. 

High-Speed Characteristics—§ 25.253 

This requirement assures that the 

airplane has safe recovery 

characteristics at speeds beyond the 

maximum operating limit speed (VMO/ 

MMO) up to the maximum demonstrated 

flight diving speed (VDF/MDF). We 

propose to add requirements that (1) 

there must be adequate roll capability to 

assure a prompt recovery from a lateral 

upset condition and (2) speedbrake 

extension at high speed must not result 

in an excessive positive load factor 

when the pilot does act to counteract 

the effects of the extension. The 

speedbrake extension at high speed also 

must not cause buffeting that would 

impair the pilot’s ability to read the 

instruments or cause a nose-down 

pitching moment, unless that pitching 

moment is small. 

The proposed revision would 

harmonize our high-speed 

characteristics requirements with CS 

25.253. 

Advisory Material 

The FAA is revising AC 25–7 to 

incorporate guidance on how to comply 

with the proposed harmonized 

standards. The draft AC is posted on the 

FAA’s draft document Web site at 

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/. 

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 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 70857 

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 §§ 25.21(g)(1), 25.107(e)(1)(iv), 

25.177, and 25.253 to harmonize with 

EASA requirements already in CS–25. A 

review of current practice of U.S. 

manufacturers of transport category 

airplanes has revealed the 

manufacturers intend to fully comply 

with the EASA standards (or are already 

complying) as a means of obtaining joint 

certification. Since future certificated 

transport category airplanes are 

expected to meet the existing CS–25 

requirements and this proposed rule 

would simply adopt the same 

requirements, the manufacturers would 

incur no additional costs. The proposed 

rule would provide benefits from 

reduced joint certification costs from the 

harmonization itself, and for the parts of 

the rule harmonizing with less stringent 

EASA requirements; manufacturers can 

expect additional benefits inherent in 

the reduced stringency. The FAA 

therefore has determined that this 

proposed rule would have no costs and 

positive benefits and does not warrant a 

full regulatory evaluation. The FAA 

requests comments regarding this 

determination. We discuss the basis for 

our findings below. 

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. 

Costs and Benefits of This Rulemaking 

Cost and Benefits of Proposed 

Amendment to § 25.21(g)(1) 

We are proposing to adopt an EASA 

requirement that has no counterpart in 

the current CFR. Manufacturer 

compliance with the EASA requirement 

would increase the safety of their 

airplanes. Since the manufacturers 

intend to comply with the EASA 

requirement, however, there would be 

no additional safety benefits from 

compliance with the proposed 

harmonizing amendment. Nevertheless, 

it is beneficial to make the FAA’s 

compliance requirement identical to 

EASA’s requirement in order to avoid 

confusion and make clear that the safety 

implications of the proposed 

§ 25.21(g)(1) and CS 25.21(g)(1) are 

identical. 

As we are proposing to adopt an 

EASA requirement that has no 

counterpart in the current CFR, there 

can be no reduction in certification 

costs—in the requirements for data 

collection and analysis, paperwork, and 

time spent applying for and obtaining 

approval from the regulatory authorities. 

Rather, manufacturers would face some 

increase in certification costs to comply 

with the EASA requirement. Since the 

manufacturers intend to comply with 

the EASA requirement, however, they 

would incur no additional costs to 

comply with the proposed FAA 

harmonizing amendment. 

Costs and Benefits of Proposed 

Amendment to § 25.107(e)(1)(iv) 

Manufacturers would benefit as a 

result of reduced certification costs from 

the harmonization of proposed 

§ 25.107(e)(1)(iv) with CS 

25.107(e)(1)(iv). 

Additional benefits would result 

because the proposed amendment is a 

less stringent requirement, which would 

reduce the required minimum takeoff 

speed of geometry-limited (viz., tail 

contact with the runway) airplanes. As 

discussed in the preamble above, since 

the minimum takeoff speed is, in part, 

intended to reduce the probability of an 

airplane reaching a takeoff pitch attitude 

beyond that shown to be safe, the 

additional protection against such a 

condition inherent in a geometrylimited airplane allows the minimum 

takeoff speed to be safely reduced. The 

less stringent requirement implies 

higher takeoff weights, increases in 

payload, and shorter takeoff distances 

for geometry-limited airplanes. These 

are operator benefits, some of which 

will accrue to part 25 manufacturers by 

increasing airplane value. 

As this proposed amendment is 

relieving, there would be no increase in 

costs. 

Costs and Benefits of Proposed 

Amendment to § 25.177 

Section 25.177(a) and (b) (requiring 

separate directional and lateral stability 

assessments) were removed by 

Amendment 25–72, published in the 

Federal Register (55 FR 29756), July 20, 

1990. The FAA considered them 

unnecessary since directional and 

lateral stability could be determined 

using an ‘‘alternative test’’ based on data 

obtained in showing compliance with 

§ 25.177(c). EASA’s retention of CS 

25.177(a) and (b), however, allows 

manufacturers to use the ‘‘basic test’’ 

outlined by CS 25.177(a) and (b). 

Reinstatement of § 25.177(a) and (b) 

would lower certification costs for 

manufacturers preferring instead to use 

the ‘‘basic test.’’ Part 25 manufacturers 

preferring to satisfy the stability 

requirements with the ‘‘alternative test’’ 

of § 25.177(c) would face no increase in 

cost since they could still use that test. 

In any case, since manufacturers intend 

to comply with CS 25.177(a) and (b), 

they would incur no additional costs 

from complying with the proposed 

harmonizing amendment regardless of 

the cost situation. 

Compared to the current § 25.177(c) 

and (d), CS 25.177(c) and (d) have both 

more stringent and less stringent 

requirements. As discussed in the 

preamble above, the less stringent 

requirement would increase the safety 

of flight tests without reducing test 

validity. Compliance with the more 

stringent requirement would entail 

some certification costs and reduce 

payload-carrying capability under 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
70858 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

certain conditions. Since the 

manufacturers intend to comply with 

CS 25.177(c) and (d), however, they 

would incur no additional costs to 

comply with the proposed harmonizing 

amendment. 

Costs and Benefits of Proposed 

Amendment to § 25.253 

Manufacturers would benefit as a 

result of reduced certification costs from 

the harmonization of § 25.253 with CS 

25.253. The compliance of the 

manufacturers with the more stringent 

EASA requirements would also increase 

the safety of their airplanes. Since the 

manufacturers intend to comply with 

the EASA requirements, however, there 

would be no additional safety benefits 

from compliance with the proposed 

FAA harmonizing amendment. 

Part 25 manufacturers would face 

additional certification costs, especially 

additional flight testing costs, to meet 

the EASA requirements. Since the 

manufacturers intend to comply with 

the EASA requirements, however, they 

would incur no additional costs to 

comply with the proposed FAA 

harmonizing amendment. 

Summary of Costs and Benefits 

The benefits of an FAA rule 

harmonizing with a more stringent 

EASA rule necessarily flow from 

reduced certification costs brought 

about by the harmonization itself. Just 

as any costs are attributable to 

complying with the existing EASA rule, 

so too are any benefits from increased 

safety. Accordingly, the benefits of the 

more stringent §§ 25.21(g)(1), 25.253, 

25.177(a) and (b), and the more stringent 

parts of § 25.177(c) and (d) would be 

reduced certification costs or qualitative 

benefits from harmonization. 

For an FAA rule harmonizing with a 

less stringent EASA rule, there would be 

reduced certification costs from the 

harmonization itself, but also benefits 

inherent in the reduced stringency. For 

§ 25.107(e)(1)(iv) the inherent benefits to 

operators would be higher takeoff 

weights, increases in payload, and 

shorter takeoff distances for geometrylimited airplanes allowed by the 

reduced minimum takeoff speeds. For 

the reduced speed ranges specified in 

proposed § 25.177(c) and (d), the 

inherent benefits would be to reduce 

test flight safety risk. 

The FAA, therefore, has determined 

that this proposed rule would have 

minimal costs with positive net benefits 

and does not warrant a full regulatory 

evaluation. The FAA requests comments 

regarding our determination of minimal 

costs with positive net benefits. 

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 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 noted above, this proposed rule 

would not entail any additional costs to 

part 25 manufacturers as they are 

already in compliance, or intend to fully 

comply, with more stringent EASA 

standards. Moreover, all U.S. 

manufacturers of transport category 

airplanes exceed the Small Business 

Administration small-entity 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 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 promote 

international trade by harmonizing with 

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 

$136.1 million in lieu of $100 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 and 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. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 70859 

executive order, it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 and DOT’s Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

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 

proposed rule would apply to the 

certification of future designs of 

transport category airplanes and their 

subsequent operation, it could, if 

adopted, affect intrastate aviation in 

Alaska. The FAA therefore specifically 

requests comments on whether there is 

justification for applying the proposed 

rule differently to intrastate operations 

in Alaska. 

Plain 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. 

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 that 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 because 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 such 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 § 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 number 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). 

Appendix 1 to the Preamble 

SPEED TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Term Definition 

VR ........................................ Rotation speed. 

V1 ......................................... Maximum speed in the takeoff at which the pilot must take the first action (e.g., apply brakes, reduce thrust, deploy speed brakes) to stop the airplane within the accelerate stop distance. It also means the minimum speed 

in the takeoff, following a failure of the critical engine at VEF, at which the pilot can continue the takeoff and 

achieve the required height above the takeoff surface within the takeoff distance. 

V2 ......................................... Takeoff safety speed. 

VREF ..................................... Reference landing speed. 

VSW ...................................... Speed at which the onset of natural or artificial stall warning occurs. 

VSR ...................................... Reference stall speed. 

VSR1 ..................................... Reference stall speed in a specific configuration. 

VLOF ..................................... Lift-off speed. 

VMU ...................................... Minimum unstick speed. 

VMC ...................................... Minimum control speed with the critical engine inoperative. 

VFE ....................................... Maximum flap extended speed. 

VLE ....................................... Maximum landing gear extended speed. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
70860 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

SPEED TERMS AND DEFINITIONS—Continued 

Term Definition 

VFC/MFC ............................... Maximum speed for stability characteristics. 

VMO/MMO ............................. Maximum operating limit speed. 

VDF/MDF ............................... Demonstrated flight diving speed. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Safety. 

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 § 25.21 by revising 

paragraph (g)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 25.21 Proof of compliance. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) Each requirement of this subpart, 

except §§ 25.121(a), 25.123(c), 

25.143(b)(1) and (b)(2), 25.149, 

25.201(c)(2), 25.239, and 25.251(b) 

through (e), must be met in icing 

conditions. Section 25.207(c) and (d) 

must be met in the landing 

configuration in icing conditions, but 

need not be met for other 

configurations. Compliance must be 

shown using the ice accretions defined 

in appendix C of this part, assuming 

normal operation of the airplane and its 

ice protection system in accordance 

with the operating limitations and 

operating procedures established by the 

applicant and provided in the Airplane 

Flight Manual. 

* * * * * 

3. Amend § 25.107 by revising 

paragraph (e)(1)(iv) to read as follows: 

§ 25.107 Takeoff speeds. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) A speed that, if the airplane is 

rotated at its maximum practicable rate, 

will result in a VLOF of not less than— 

(A) 110 percent of VMU in the allengines-operating condition, and 105 

percent of VMU determined at the thrustto-weight ratio corresponding to the 

one-engine-inoperative condition; or 

(B) If the VMU attitude is limited by 

the geometry of the airplane (i.e., tail 

contact with the runway), 108 percent of 

VMU in the all-engines-operating 

condition and 104 percent of VMU

determined at the thrust-to-weight ratio 

corresponding to the one-engineinoperative condition. 

* * * * * 

4. Revise § 25.177 to read as follows: 

§ 25.177 Static lateral-directional stability. 

(a) The static directional stability (as 

shown by the tendency to recover from 

a skid with the rudder free) must be 

positive for any landing gear and flap 

position and symmetric power 

condition, at speeds from 1.13 VSR1, up 

to VFE, VLE, or VFC/MFC (as appropriate). 

(b) The static lateral stability (as 

shown by the tendency to raise the low 

wing in a sideslip with the aileron 

controls free) for any landing gear and 

flap position and symmetric power 

condition, may not be negative at any 

airspeed (except that speeds higher than 

VFE need not be considered for flaps 

extended configurations nor speeds 

higher than VLE for landing gear 

extended configurations) in the 

following airspeed ranges: 

(1) From 1.13 VSR1 to VMO/MMO. 

(2) From VMO/MMO to VFC/MFC, unless 

the divergence is— 

(i) Gradual; 

(ii) Easily recognizable by the pilot; 

and 

(iii) Easily controllable by the pilot. 

(c) In straight, steady sideslips over 

the range of sideslip angles appropriate 

to the operation of the airplane, but not 

less than those obtained with one-half of 

the available rudder control input or a 

rudder control force of 180 pounds, the 

aileron and rudder control movements 

and forces must be substantially 

proportional to the angle of sideslip in 

a stable sense; and the factor of 

proportionality must lie between limits 

found necessary for safe operation. This 

requirement must be met for the 

configurations and speeds specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(d) For sideslip angles greater than 

those prescribed by paragraph (c) of this 

section, up to the angle at which full 

rudder control is used or a rudder 

control force of 180 pounds is obtained, 

the rudder control forces may not 

reverse, and increased rudder deflection 

must be needed for increased angles of 

sideslip. Compliance with this 

requirement must be shown using 

straight, steady sideslips, unless full 

lateral control input is achieved before 

reaching either full rudder control input 

or a rudder control force of 180 pounds; 

a straight, steady sideslip need not be 

maintained after achieving full lateral 

control input. This requirement must be 

met at all approved landing gear and 

flap positions for the range of operating 

speeds and power conditions 

appropriate to each landing gear and 

flap position with all engines operating. 

5. Amend § 25.253 by adding 

paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) and revising 

paragraphs (b) and (c) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 25.253 High-speed characteristics. 

(a) * * * 

(4) Adequate roll capability to assure 

a prompt recovery from a lateral upset 

condition must be available at any 

speed up to VDF/MDF. 

(5) With the airplane trimmed at VMO/ 

MMO, extension of the speedbrakes over 

the available range of movements of the 

pilot’s control, at all speeds above VMO/ 

MMO, but not so high that VDF/MDF

would be exceeded during the 

maneuver, must not result in: 

(i) An excessive positive load factor 

when the pilot does not take action to 

counteract the effects of extension; 

(ii) Buffeting that would impair the 

pilot’s ability to read the instruments or 

control the airplane for recovery; or 

(iii) A nose down pitching moment, 

unless it is small. 

(b) Maximum speed for stability 

characteristics, VFC/MFC. VFC/MFC is the 

maximum speed at which the 

requirements of §§ 25.143(g), 25.147(e), 

25.175(b)(1), 25.177(a) through (c), and 

25.181 must be met with flaps and 

landing gear retracted. Except as noted 

in § 25.253(c), VFC/MFC may not be less 

than a speed midway between VMO/ 

MMO and VDF/MDF, except that, for 

altitudes where Mach number is the 

limiting factor, MFC need not exceed the 

Mach number at which effective speed 

warning occurs. 

(c) Maximum speed for stability 

characteristics in icing conditions. The 

maximum speed for stability 

characteristics with the ice accretions 

defined in appendix C, at which the 

requirements of §§ 25.143(g), 25.147(e), 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2010 / Proposed Rules 70861 

25.175(b)(1), 25.177(a) through (c), and 

25.181 must be met, is the lower of: 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 9, 

2010. 

KC Yanamura, 

Deputy Director, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29193 Filed 11–18–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–1114; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–206–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker 

Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0100, 

1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 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: 

Prompted by an accident * * *, the FAA 

published Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation (SFAR) 88, and the Joint Aviation 

Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy 

INT/POL/25/12. The design review 

conducted by Fokker on the F28 in response 

to these regulations revealed that, in case of 

a lightning strike, an ignition source can 

develop in the wing tank vapour space 

during fuel transfer from bag tank CWT 

[center wing tank], if the electrical power for 

refuelling is not switched off after refuelling. 

Service experience has revealed situations 

where the power switch of the Fuelling 

Control Panel (FCP) appeared to be ‘‘ON’’ 

with the access panel closed. The cam on the 

access panel that should operate the power 

switch, if forgotten by flight crew or 

maintenance staff, can pivot away during 

closing of the panel, which may result in the 

switch staying in the ‘‘ON’’ position. 

This condition, if not corrected, could 

result in a wing fuel tank explosion and 

consequent loss of the aeroplane. 

* * * * * 

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 January 3, 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 W12–40, 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 Fokker 

Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., 

P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, 

the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)252– 

627–350; fax +31 (0)252–627–211; 

e-mail technicalservices.fokkerservices@

stork.com; Internet http://www.

myfokkerfleet.com. You may review 

copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://www.

regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–1137; fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2010–1114; Directorate Identifier 

2010–NM–206–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD based on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

The European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2010–0139, 

dated July 1, 2010 (referred to after this 

as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe 

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

Prompted by an accident * * *, the FAA 

published Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation (SFAR) 88, and the Joint Aviation 

Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy 

INT/POL/25/12. The design review 

conducted by Fokker on the F28 in response 

to these regulations revealed that, in case of 

a lightning strike, an ignition source can 

develop in the wing tank vapour space 

during fuel transfer from bag tank CWT 

[center wing tank], if the electrical power for 

refuelling is not switched off after refuelling. 

Service experience has revealed situations 

where the power switch of the Fuelling 

Control Panel (FCP) appeared to be ‘‘ON’’ 

with the access panel closed. The cam on the 

access panel that should operate the power 

switch, if forgotten by flight crew or 

maintenance staff, can pivot away during 

closing of the panel, which may result in the 

switch staying in the ‘‘ON’’ position. 

This condition, if not corrected, could 

result in a wing fuel tank explosion and 

consequent loss of the aeroplane. 

For the reasons described above, this 

[EASA] AD requires an inspection of the cam 

and, depending on findings, replacement 

with an improved part. Subsequently, this 

AD requires repetitive functional checks of 

the cam and, depending on findings, the 

necessary corrective actions. 

The corrective action is adjusting the 

FCP cam until it operates correctly. You 

may obtain further information by 

examining the MCAI in the AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Fokker Services B.V. has issued 

Fokker Service Bulletins SBF28–28– 

052, dated April 20, 2010; and SBF100– 

28–063, dated April 15, 2010. The 

actions described in this service 

information are intended to correct the 

unsafe condition identified in the 

MCAI. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS