Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 74649 

12 U.S.C. 1441b(a), (b). RefCorp issued 

approximately $30 billion of long-term 

bonds, the last of which will mature in 

April 2030. The interest due on the 

RefCorp bonds is paid from several 

sources, including mandatory 

contributions from the Banks. As 

initially enacted, the law required the 

Banks to contribute $300 million 

annually toward the RefCorp interest 

payments. Public Law 101–73, Title V, 

section 511(a), 103 Stat. 394, (August 9, 

1989). In 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley 

Act changed the manner in which the 

Banks’ RefCorp annual contributions 

were to be calculated by requiring each 

Bank to pay 20 percent of its annual net 

earnings, rather than $300 million. 

Public Law 106–102, Title VI, section 

607(a), 113 Stat. 1455, (November 12, 

1999), codified at 12 U.S.C. 

1441b(f)(2)(C)(i). Those amendments 

further provided that the Banks’ 

RefCorp obligation was to terminate 

when the value of the contributions 

made under the revised formula equaled 

the value of a benchmark annuity of 

$300 million per year that commenced 

when the RefCorp bonds were issued 

and ended on their maturity date. The 

Finance Board promulgated part 997 to 

implement those Gramm-Leach-Bliley 

Act amendments, and the regulations 

specified the method to be used for 

making the present value calculations 

required to determine the value of the 

Banks’ payments, relative to the 

benchmark annuity, and for adjusting 

the termination date for the payments. 

This year, after consulting with the 

Department of the Treasury and 

conducting the calculations in 

accordance with part 997, FHFA 

determined that the RefCorp payment 

made by the Banks on July 15, 2011, 

caused the value of all RefCorp 

payments made by the Banks to that 

date to equal the value of the benchmark 

annuity, which terminated the 

obligation of the Banks to make any 

further contributions toward the debt 

service for the RefCorp bonds. See 76 FR 

49477 (August 10, 2011). The 

termination of the Banks’ required 

RefCorp payments made part 997, 

which relates solely to the calculation of 

the aggregate value of, and end date, for 

those payments, unnecessary and of no 

effect. Therefore, FHFA is hereby 

repealing part 997 in its entirety. 

E. Parts 1781 to 1799 and Subchapter D 

Currently, parts 1781 to 1799 of title 

12 of the CFR, which are OFHEO 

regulations, are designated as 

‘‘reserved.’’ These reserved parts are 

also currently the only items under 

subchapter D (Rules of Practice and 

Procedure) of chapter 17 of title 12. 

Because these parts contain no 

substantive provisions, there is nothing 

to revise and relocate to the FHFA 

regulations, as is the case with other 

OFHEO and Finance Board regulations. 

Nonetheless, unless FHFA affirmatively 

removes the reference to those parts as 

being reserved and removes subchapter 

D, those references and an empty 

subchapter D will remain in the CFR 

after FHFA has removed or relocated all 

of the other substantive OFHEO 

regulations. Therefore, in the interest of 

ensuring that all OFHEO regulations 

that will not be carried forward into the 

FHFA regulations are removed, FHFA is 

hereby repealing parts 1781 to 1799 and 

subchapter D in their entirety. 

II. Notice and Public Participation 

FHFA finds that good cause exists for 

adopting these rule changes as a final 

rule without public notice and comment 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) because the 

subject regulations currently have no 

legal or practical effect and thus their 

removal would not alter the rights or 

responsibilities of any party. The 

provisions of part 912 relate solely to 

the operations of the Board of Directors 

of the Finance Board, which no longer 

exists. The provisions of part 997 relate 

solely to the manner in which the 

Finance Board and FHFA calculate the 

Banks’ RefCorp obligation, which has 

been terminated. The references to the 

‘‘reserved’’ parts of the OFHEO 

regulations in subchapter D have no 

substantive effect on any party. None of 

these regulations includes provisions 

that are appropriate for FHFA to carry 

over and incorporate into its own 

regulations, and thus they should be 

removed from the CFR. For these 

reasons, FHFA believes that public 

comments are unnecessary and would 

serve no purpose. 

III. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The final rule does not contain any 

collections of information pursuant to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Therefore, 

FHFA has not submitted any 

information to the Office of 

Management and Budget for review. 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The final rule applies only to the 

Banks and Enterprises, which do not 

come within the meaning of small 

entities as defined in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA). See 5 U.S.C. 

601(6). Therefore in accordance with 

section 605(b) of the RFA, FHFA 

certifies that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

List of Subjects 

12 CFR Part 912 

Sunshine Act. 

12 CFR Part 997 

Federal home loan banks. 

Accordingly, for reasons stated in the 

preamble and under the authority of 12 

U.S.C. 4511, 4512, 4513, and 4526, 

FHFA is amending subchapters B and L 

of chapter IX and subchapter D of 

chapter XVII of title 12 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

CHAPTER IX—FEDERAL HOUSING 

FINANCE BOARD 

SUBCHAPTER B—FEDERAL HOUSING 

FINANCE BOARD ORGANIZATION AND 

OPERATIONS 

PART 912—[REMOVED] 

■ 1. Remove part 912. 

SUBCHAPTER L—NON-BANK SYSTEM 

ENTITIES 

PART 997—[REMOVED] 

■ 2. Remove part 997. 

CHAPTER XVII—OFFICE OF FEDERAL 

HOUSING ENTERPRISE OVERSIGHT, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT 

SUBCHAPTER D—RULES OF PRACTICE 

AND PROCEDURE—[REMOVED] 

■ 3. Remove subchapter D, consisting of 

reserved parts 1780 to 1799. 

Dated: November 17, 2011. 

Edward J. DeMarco, 

Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2011–30480 Filed 11–30–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8070–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0310; Amdt. No. 25– 

135] 

RIN 2120–AJ72 

Harmonization of Various 

Airworthiness Standards for Transport 

Category Airplanes—Flight Rules 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule amends the 

regulations governing various 

airworthiness standards for transport 

category airplanes. This action 

harmonizes the requirements for takeoff 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
74650 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

DATES: This amendment becomes 

effective January 30, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Don Stimson, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 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, email 

Don.Stimson@faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Doug Anderson, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of the 

Regional Counsel (ANM–7), 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 

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

facsimile (425) 227–1007; email 

Douglas.Anderson@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 

44701, ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under 

that section, the FAA is charged with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing 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. 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT

Term Definition 

VR ................................................ rotation speed. 

V1 ................................................. the 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. V1 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. 

VEF ............................................... speed at which the critical engine is assumed to fail during takeoff. 

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. 

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

VMO/MMO ..................................... maximum operating limit speed. 

VDF/MDF ....................................... demonstrated flight diving speed. 

Acronym Definition 

ALPA ........................................... Air Line Pilots Association. 

ARAC ........................................... Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. 

EASA ........................................... European Aviation Safety Agency. 

GAMA .......................................... General Aviation Manufacturers Association. 

ICAO ............................................ International Civil Aviation Organization. 

NPRM .......................................... Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

RFA ............................................. Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

SBREFA ...................................... Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

Overview of Final Rule 

This rulemaking harmonizes specific 

airworthiness certification standards for 

transport category airplanes with those 

of the European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA). Harmonizing these 

airworthiness standards reduces 

certification costs to airplane 

manufacturers and improves product 

performance and capability for 

operators while increasing the level of 

safety. 

During certification, applicants for a 

type certificate must determine at what 

speed a pilot begins rotating the 

airplane to the liftoff pitch attitude 

during the takeoff roll. This speed (VR) 

must be fast enough to provide a safe 

speed margin between the resulting 

liftoff speed (VLOF) and the minimum 

safe liftoff speed, also known as the 

minimum unstick speed (VMU). This 

rule allows the speed margin between 

VLOF and VMU to be reduced, and hence 

VR to be reduced, for airplanes where 

the minimum value of VMU is limited by 

the geometry of the airplane (i.e., 

ground contact of the tail of the airframe 

with the runway when the airplane is 

rotated to the takeoff pitch angle). 

Because the geometry of the airplane 

provides protection against early or 

over-rotation beyond the safe liftoff 

pitch attitude at or near VMU, VR can be 

reduced without lowering the level of 

safety. Reducing VR reduces the takeoff 

distance needed at the same weight or 

allows a higher weight (e.g., capability 

to carry more payload or fuel) at the 

same takeoff distance. 

The static lateral-directional stability 

requirements are amended to reinstate 

the standards that existed prior to 

Amendment 25–72 that treat the 

specific lateral and directional stability 

requirements as separate entities. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 74651 

This final rule also adds a 

requirement that, when conducting the 

sideslip tests required by § 25.177(c), 

the sideslip angles evaluated must 

include those resulting from applying at 

least one-half of the available rudder 

control, but no more than 180 pounds 

of force. For sideslip angles greater than 

those appropriate to the operation of the 

airplane, up to the angle achieved using 

a full rudder control input or a rudder 

control force of 180 pounds, this rule 

reduces the range of speeds and power 

settings that must be evaluated. The 

reduced scope of the evaluation will 

lower flight test safety risks as well as 

harmonize and standardize current 

practices. 

The final rule adds requirements for 

minimum roll capability that a transport 

category airplane must have and for 

airplane flight characteristics following 

extension of speedbrakes at high speeds. 

The new requirements are: 

(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 

not act to counteract the effects of the 

extension. 

Extending the speedbrakes at high 

speed also must not cause— 

(a) Buffeting that would impair the 

pilot’s ability to read the instruments, or 

(b) A tendency for the airplane to 

pitch down, which could cause a further 

increase in speed, unless the pitching 

moment is small. 

Lastly, this rule adds a requirement 

that the non-icing stall warning 

requirements prescribing the speed at 

which stall warning must begin (VSW) 

also apply to icing conditions when the 

airplane is in the landing configuration. 

Background 

Harmonization 

Part 25 prescribes airworthiness 

standards for type certification of 

transport category airplanes for products 

certificated in the United States (U.S.). 

EASA Certification Specifications for 

Large Aeroplanes (CS–25) prescribe the 

corresponding airworthiness standards 

for products certificated in Europe. 

While part 25 and CS–25 are similar, 

they differ in some areas. 

The FAA tasked the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) to review existing regulations 

and recommend changes to eliminate 

differences between part 25 and CS–25 

performance and handling characteristic 

standards by harmonizing to the higher 

standards. This rule is a result of that 

harmonization effort. 

Summary of the NPRM 

The FAA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the 

Federal Register on November 19, 2010 

(75 FR 70854). The proposal discussed 

changes to part 25 in four areas: 

1. Selection of the takeoff rotation 

speed, 

2. Static lateral-directional stability, 

3. Roll capability and extension of 

speedbrakes at high speeds, and 

4. Stall warning onset speed for the 

landing configuration in icing 

conditions. 

Three of the four proposed changes 

respond to the ARAC recommendations 

and EASA’s actions in response to those 

recommendations. The fourth, 

pertaining to the stall warning onset 

speed for the landing configuration in 

icing conditions, responds to an action 

taken by EASA regarding a public 

comment made during the harmonized 

rulemaking that led to adoption of 

Amendment 121 to part 25 and 

Amendment 3 to CS–25. The comment 

period closed February 17, 2011. 

General Overview of Comments 

The FAA received comments from 

Airbus, the Boeing Company, the Cessna 

Aircraft Company, the General Aviation 

Manufacturers Association (GAMA), 

and the Air Line Pilots Association, 

International (ALPA). ALPA provided a 

general comment in support of the 

proposed changes. None of the 

commenters opposed the proposed 

changes. 

Discussion of Public Comments and 

Final Rule 

Boeing questioned the wording of 

proposed § 25.177(c), which was taken 

directly from EASA’s CS 25.177(c) and 

requires application of at least 180 

pounds of force to the rudder control to 

show compliance. Boeing believes the 

intent is to require a control input of at 

least one-half the available rudder 

control, but no more than 180 pounds 

of pedal force. Airbus commented that 

there is no need to consider a rudder 

control input beyond that corresponding 

to the maximum commanded sideslip 

angle for the current flight conditions, 

even if it is lower than one-half of the 

maximum possible displacement of the 

rudder pedal control input. 

We agree. The language in the final 

rule reflects the original intent (as 

described in Boeing’s comment) of the 

proposed § 25.177(c). We notified EASA 

that the wording of CS 25.177(c) is in 

error and confirmed it will be corrected. 

We also agree with the Airbus 

interpretation of the requirement. We 

recognize there is no need to apply more 

rudder control input than that which 

results in the maximum available 

sideslip, even if that control input is 

less than one-half of the maximum 

possible displacement of the rudder 

pedal control. This can occur due to a 

rudder travel limiting system or other 

feature of the airplane’s flight control 

system. Further rudder control input 

would not result in additional sideslip, 

and therefore would not affect 

compliance with the rule. 

Airbus also commented on proposed 

§ 25.21(g)(1) to require the stall warning 

requirements of § 25.207(c) and (d) to be 

met in icing conditions for the landing 

configuration. Airbus noted that special 

conditions are used to identify 

appropriate safety standards for Airbus 

fly-by-wire airplanes that have high 

incidence protection features as part of 

their flight control system design. These 

special conditions include requirements 

used in lieu of § 25.207. We anticipate 

that special conditions will continue to 

be used in lieu of § 25.207 to provide an 

equivalent level of safety to that 

established in the regulations. 

Except for the change to § 25.177(c), 

in response to the Boeing comment 

discussed above, a minor clarifying 

addition to § 25.177(a), and correcting 

errors in the references to § 25.147(f) in 

§§ 25.253(b) and (c) noted in comments 

by Cessna and GAMA, this final rule is 

adopted as proposed. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct 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 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
74652 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the costs and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. 

The reasoning for this determination 

follows: The final rule will 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 final rule will 

simply adopt the same requirements, 

the manufacturers will incur no 

additional costs. The final rule will 

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 final 

rule will have no costs, and positive 

benefits, and does not warrant a full 

regulatory evaluation. We discuss the 

basis for our findings below. 

The FAA has also determined that 

this final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

Who is potentially affected by this 

rulemaking? 

Manufacturers of transport category 

airplanes. 

Costs and Benefits of This Rulemaking 

Cost and Benefits of Amendment to 

§ 25.21(g)(1) 

For this amendment we are adopting 

an EASA requirement that has no 

counterpart in the current CFR. 

Manufacturers’ compliance with the 

EASA requirement increases the safety 

of their airplanes. However, since the 

manufacturers are already complying (or 

intend to comply) with the EASA 

requirement, there will be no additional 

safety benefits from compliance with 

the harmonizing amendment. 

As we are adopting an EASA 

requirement that has no counterpart in 

the current CFR, this action will not 

reduce certification costs, which 

include costs of data collection and 

analysis, paperwork, and time spent 

applying for and obtaining approval 

from the regulatory authorities. Since 

the manufacturers intend to comply 

with the EASA requirement, however, 

they will incur no additional costs to 

comply with the FAA harmonizing 

amendment. 

Costs and Benefits of Amendment to 

§ 25.107(e)(1)(iv) 

Manufacturers will benefit as a result 

of reduced certification costs from the 

harmonization of § 25.107(e)(1)(iv) with 

CS 25.107(e)(1)(iv). These benefits will 

result because the amendment is a less 

stringent requirement that will reduce 

the required minimum takeoff speed for 

geometry-limited (viz., tail contact with 

the runway) airplanes. As discussed in 

the NPRM, 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 

geometry-limited 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, much of which 

will accrue to part 25 airplane 

manufacturers by increasing airplane 

value. 

As this amendment is relieving, there 

will be no increase in costs. 

Costs and Benefits of 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) will 

lower certification costs for 

manufacturers preferring instead to use 

the ‘‘basic test.’’ Transport category 

airplane manufacturers preferring to 

satisfy the stability requirements with 

the ‘‘alternative test’’ of § 25.177(c) will 

face no increase in cost since they may 

still use that test. In any case, since 

manufacturers intend to comply with 

CS 25.177(a) and (b), they will incur no 

additional costs from complying with 

the 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 

NPRM, the less stringent requirement 

will increase the safety of flight tests 

without reducing test validity. 

Compliance with the more stringent 

requirement will entail some 

certification costs and, as noted in the 

NPRM, reduce payload-carrying 

capability under certain conditions. 

However, since the manufacturers 

intend to comply with CS 25.177(c) and 

(d) (or are already complying), they will 

incur no additional costs to comply 

with the harmonizing amendment. 

Costs and Benefits of Amendment to 

§ 25.253 

Manufacturers will benefit as a result 

of reduced certification costs from the 

harmonization of § 25.253 with CS 

25.253. Compliance of manufacturers 

with the more stringent EASA 

requirements will also increase the 

safety of their airplanes. However, the 

manufacturers intend to comply with 

the EASA requirements (or are already 

complying). So, there will be no 

additional safety benefits from 

compliance with the FAA harmonizing 

amendment. 

Transport category airplane 

manufacturers will 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 

will incur no additional costs to comply 

with the 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) will be 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 74653 

reduced certification costs from 

harmonization. 

For an FAA rule harmonizing with a 

less stringent EASA rule, there will 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 

will be higher takeoff weights, increases 

in payload, and shorter takeoff distances 

for geometry-limited airplanes allowed 

by the reduced minimum takeoff 

speeds. For the less stringent parts of 

§ 25.177(c) and (d), the inherent benefits 

will be the increase in test flight safety 

brought about by the less stringent 

requirement. 

As no commenters have disputed this 

same rationale used in the NPRM, the 

FAA has determined that this final rule 

will have minimal costs with positive 

net benefits and does not warrant a full 

regulatory evaluation. 

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 final rule will 

not entail any additional costs to 

transport category airplane 

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 smallentity criteria of 1,500 employees. We 

received no comments on our 

determination in the NPRM of no 

significant economic impact. 

Therefore as the FAA Administrator, 

I certify that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing 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 final rule and 

determined that it will 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 

(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 

$143.1 million. 

This final rule does not contain such 

a mandate. The requirements of Title II 

do not apply. 

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 is no 

new requirement for information 

collection associated with this final 

rule. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

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 

and has identified no differences with 

these regulations. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312d and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the FAA, when 

modifying its regulations in a manner 

affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to 

consider the extent to which Alaska is 

not served by transportation modes 

other than aviation, and to establish 

appropriate regulatory distinctions. In 

the NPRM, the FAA requested 

comments on whether the proposed rule 

should apply differently to intrastate 

operations in Alaska. The agency did 

not receive any comments, and has 

determined, based on the administrative 

record of this rulemaking, that there is 

no need to make any regulatory 

distinctions applicable to intrastate 

aviation in Alaska. 

Executive Order Determinations 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency determined that this action will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, or the relationship between 

the Federal Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have Federalism implications. 

Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
74654 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has 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. 

How To Obtain Additional Information 

Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

Internet — 

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 

3. Access the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. 

Comments Submitted to the Docket 

Comments received may be viewed by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov and 

following the online instructions to 

search FAA–2010–0310 for this action. 

Anyone is able to search the electronic 

form of all comments received into any 

of the FAA’s dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document, may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Safety. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I 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 (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, 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 

for the airplane configuration). 

(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) The following requirement must be 

met for the configurations and speed 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section. In straight, steady sideslips over 

the range of sideslip angles appropriate 

to the operation of the airplane, the 

aileron and rudder control movements 

and forces must be substantially 

proportional to the angle of sideslip in 

a stable sense. This factor of 

proportionality must lie between limits 

found necessary for safe operation. The 

range of sideslip angles evaluated must 

include those sideslip angles resulting 

from the lesser of: 

(1) One-half of the available rudder 

control input; and 

(2) A rudder control force of 180 

pounds. 

(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 (5) and revising 

paragraphs (b) and (c) introductory text 

to read as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 231 / Thursday, December 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 74655 

§ 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(f), 

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(f), 

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 1, 

2011. 

J. Randolph Babbitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–30954 Filed 11–30–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29 

[Docket No.: FAA–2009–0660; Amdt. Nos. 

27–47, 29–54] 

RIN 2120–AJ52 

Damage Tolerance and Fatigue 

Evaluation of Composite Rotorcraft 

Structures 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule revises 

airworthiness standards for type 

certification requirements of normal and 

transport category rotorcraft. The 

amendment requires evaluation of 

fatigue and residual static strength of 

composite rotorcraft structures using a 

damage tolerance evaluation, or a 

fatigue evaluation if the applicant 

establishes that a damage tolerance 

evaluation is impractical. The 

amendment addresses advances in 

composite structures technology and 

provides internationally harmonized 

standards. 

DATES: Effective January 30, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How To Obtain 

Additional Information’’ at the end of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Sharon Y. Miles, 

Regulations and Policy Group, 

Rotorcraft Directorate, ASW–111, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 2601 

Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth, Texas 

76137–0111; telephone (817) 222–5122; 

facsimile (817) 222–5961; email 

sharon.y.miles@faa.gov. For legal 

questions concerning this action, 

contact Steve C. Harold, Directorate 

Counsel, ASW–7G1, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 2601 Meacham 

Boulevard Fort Worth, Texas 76137– 

0007, telephone (817) 222–5099; 

facsimile (817) 222–5945, email 

steve.c.harold@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, section 

106, describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, 

‘‘General Requirements,’’ Section 44702, 

‘‘Issuance of Certificates,’’ and Section 

44704, ‘‘Type Certificates, Production 

Certificates, and Airworthiness 

Certificates.’’ Under Section 44701, the 

FAA is charged with prescribing 

regulations and minimum standards for 

practices, methods, and procedures the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce. Under Section 44702, 

the Administrator may issue various 

certificates including type certificates, 

production certificates, air agency 

certificates, and airworthiness 

certificates. Under Section 44704, the 

Administrator must issue type 

certificates for aircraft, aircraft engines, 

propellers, and specified appliances 

when the Administrator finds the 

product is properly designed and 

manufactured, performs properly, and 

meets the regulations and minimum 

standards prescribed under section 

44701(a). This regulation is within the 

scope of these authorities because it will 

promote safety of composite structures 

by updating the existing minimum 

prescribed standards, used during the 

type certification process, to address 

advances in composite structural fatigue 

substantiation technology. It will also 

harmonize this standard with 

international standards for evaluating 

the fatigue strength of normal and 

transport category rotorcraft composite 

primary structural elements. 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

Composite structures present unique 

material behaviors and react differently 

from metallic structures to damage and 

loading conditions. This rule addresses 

the unique characteristics of composite 

materials and requires applicants to 

evaluate these materials in a different 

manner from traditional metallic 

materials. This rulemaking addresses 

the type certification requirements for 

substantiating and certifying composite 

rotorcraft structures, including different 

aspects of the evaluation for the most 

critical issues for each class of materials. 

This rule changes the certification 

standards in areas of frequent nonstandardization and misinterpretation 

by applicants for certification of 

rotorcraft composite structures. This 

rule is intended to require damage 

tolerance and fatigue evaluation of 

composite structures in order to prevent 

reduction of structural strength of 

rotorcraft. In composite structures, low 

cycle fatigue often yields minimal 

damage growth, whereas accidental 

damage from impact can immediately 

reduce residual structural strength. This 

is different in metals, where any critical 

damage to the structure is sensitive to 

cyclic fatigue loads. 

These rule changes also address 

material and process variability and 

environmental effects. A strength 

requirement for ultimate loads will be 

applied when maximum acceptable 

manufacturing defects and service 

damage are present. However, these rule 

changes provide an exception to the 

requirement for a damage tolerance 

evaluation if the applicant can establish 

that the damage tolerance evaluation is 

impractical within the limits of 

geometry, inspectability, and good 

design practice. In that instance, the 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES