1614 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(ii) Determine the ice hardness factor 

by following the procedure specified in 

the ‘‘Procedure for Determining Ice 

Quality’’ in section A.3 of normative 

annex A of ANSI/ASHRAE 29 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.133), except that the test shall be 

conducted at an ambient air temperature 

of 70 °F ± 1 °F, with an initial water 

temperature of 90 °F ± 1 °F, and weights 

shall be accurate to within ± 2 percent 

of the quantity measured. The ice 

hardness factor is equivalent to the 

corrected net cooling effect per pound of 

ice, line 19 in ANSI/ASHRAE 29 Table 

A1, where the calorimeter constant used 

in line 18 shall be that determined in 

section A2 using seasoned, block ice. 

[FR Doc. 2012–218 Filed 1–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–1193; Amdt. No. 25– 

136] 

RIN 2120–AJ80 

Harmonization of Airworthiness 

Standards for Transport Category 

Airplanes—Landing Gear Retracting 

Mechanisms and Pilot Compartment 

View 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration amends the 

airworthiness standards for transport 

category airplanes on landing gear 

retracting mechanisms and the pilot 

compartment view. For the landing gear 

retracting mechanism, this rulemaking 

adopts the 1-g stall speed as a reference 

stall speed instead of the minimum 

speed obtained in a stalling maneuver 

and adds an additional requirement to 

keep the landing gear and doors in the 

correct retracted position in flight. For 

the pilot compartment view, this 

rulemaking revises the requirements for 

pilot compartment view in precipitation 

conditions. This action eliminates 

regulatory differences between the 

airworthiness standards of the U.S. and 

the European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), without affecting current 

industry design practices. 

DATES: Effective March 12, 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’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Mahinder Wahi, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Propulsion 

and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM– 

112, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; 

telephone (425) 227–1262; facsimile 

(425) 227–1320, email 

mahinder.wahi@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; 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 Frequently Used 

in This Document 

Term Definition 

VS the stalling speed or the minimum 

steady flight speed at which the airplane is 

controllable. 

VS1 the stalling speed or the minimum 

steady flight speed obtained in a specific 

configuration. 

VSR reference stall speed and may not be 

less than a 1-g stall speed. 

VSR1 reference stall speed in a specific 

configuration. 

1-g stall speed minimum speed at which 

the airplane can develop the usable 

maximum lift force capable of supporting 

the weight of the airplane. 

List of Acronyms Frequently Used in 

This Document 

ALPA Airline Pilots Association 

ANAC Ageˆncia Nacional de Aviac ̧a ̃o Civil 

ARAC Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee 

EASA European Aviation Safety Agency 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

ICAO International Civil Aviation 

Organization 

JAA European Joint Aviation Authorities 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

This action harmonizes airworthiness 

certification standards for landing gear 

mechanisms and pilot compartment 

view for transport category airplanes 

with those of EASA. Harmonizing these 

airworthiness standards reduces costs to 

airplane manufacturers and operators 

while retaining the level of safety. 

II. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

This rulemaking results from an 

agreement between the European Joint 

Aviation Authorities (JAA), the 

predecessor to EASA, and the FAA to 

harmonize certain airworthiness 

standards between the two authorities. 

Differences between the regulations of 

the FAA and foreign certification 

authorities increase the cost and 

complexity of certification without 

contributing significantly to safety. 

These rules result from the 

recommendations of the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee, 

through its Mechanical Systems 

Harmonization Working Group 

(MSHWG). 

B. Summary of the NPRM 

The FAA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Docket 

No. FAA–2010–1193; Notice No. 10–19 

in the Federal Register on January 5, 

2011 (76 FR 472). The NPRM proposed 

to amend the standards for landing gear 

retraction mechanism and pilot 

compartment view to harmonize with 

the corresponding EASA standards. The 

proposed standards for landing gear 

addressed reference stall speed, positive 

means to keep the landing gear and 

doors in the correct retracted position, 

gear position indication, and protection 

of equipment on the landing gear and in 

the wheel well. The proposed standards 

for pilot compartment view addressed 

single failures of rain removal systems, 

alternatives to the openable side 

window requirement and certain 

environmental conditions. 

The comment period for the NPRM 

ended on April 5, 2011. 

C. General Overview of Comments 

The FAA received comments from 

Airbus, Boeing Company, Bombardier, 

Cessna Aircraft Company, Embraer, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 1615 

Hawker Beechcraft, Transport Canada, 

and Air Line Pilots Association, 

International (ALPA). ALPA, Airbus, 

Bombardier, and Cessna provided 

general comments in support of the 

proposed changes. 

Embraer correctly noted that a 

proposed text change to § 25.729(a)(3) 

was unnecessary since EASA had 

already adopted the current FAA 

standard. The proposed change to 

§ 25.729(a)(3) is therefore withdrawn. 

Boeing, Transport Canada, and Hawker 

Beechcraft proposed changes to the 

regulatory text. Embraer requested that 

the FAA wait for the final rule issuance 

of NPRM 10–10, Airplane and Engine 

Certification Requirements in 

Supercooled Large Drop, Mixed Phase, 

and Ice Crystal Icing Conditions (75 FR 

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

2010–0636) before issuing this final 

rule. Boeing, Transport Canada and 

Bombardier noted editorial errors which 

have been corrected. 

D. Associated Advisory Circular 

Guidance Material 

Advisory Circular AC 25.729–1 has 

been revised to incorporate acceptable 

means of compliance to the amended 

requirements of this rulemaking action. 

A draft of this AC was made available 

for public comment during the comment 

period of the NPRM. The FAA received 

comments on the AC from the Brazilian 

Civil Aviation Authority (Ageˆncia 

Nacional de Aviac ̧a ̃o Civil—ANAC), 

Transport Canada, Boeing Company, 

and Embraer. The disposition of the AC 

public comments is posted along with 

the final version of the AC on the FAA 

Regulatory and Guidance Library Web 

site (http://rgl.faa.gov/). 

III. Discussion of Public Comments and 

Final Rule 

A. Effect of Flightcrew Alerting Rule 

Boeing recommended the proposed 

rule for landing gear position indication 

be revised to be consistent with the new 

flightcrew alerting rule, § 25.1322. 

Boeing’s rationale is that the proposed 

wording of § 25.729(e) in the NPRM is 

inconsistent with retractable landing 

gear and associated door indication 

systems on existing FAA type 

certificated and recent EASA validated 

airplanes. Boeing also stated the 

proposed wording and the associated 

AC guidance material are inconsistent 

with the quiet and dark flight deck 

philosophy used on modern airplanes. 

The proposed wording would have 

required ‘‘a clear indication or warning 

must be provided whenever the landing 

gear position is not consistent with the 

landing gear selector lever position.’’ In 

some situations, an advisory or caution 

message would be appropriate, not a 

warning message. Boeing requested a 

change to make warning, caution, and 

advisory messages compliant with 

§ 25.1322 and provide information to 

the flight crew if the gear or doors are 

not in the commanded position or are in 

a hazardous configuration. Boeing also 

recommended deleting § 25.729(e)(7) 

and rewording paragraph (e) to 

reference § 25.1322 for alerting. 

We agree the specification to provide 

a ‘‘warning’’ as in the proposed 

§ 25.729(e)(7) is not consistent with the 

§ 25.1322 at the current amendment 

level. ARAC recommended and EASA 

adopted the proposed wording prior to 

the development of the current 

§ 25.1322 requirements. The intent of 

the wording recommended by ARAC 

was consistent with the definition of the 

term ‘‘flightcrew alert’’ in the current 

§ 25.1322. We replaced the wording 

‘‘clear indication or warning’’ with 

‘‘flightcrew alert’’ to be consistent with 

§ 25.1322. This also addresses the 

Boeing comment associated with the 

quiet and dark flightdeck concept. It is 

not necessary to specifically refer to 

§ 25.1322 in the rule text, as the current 

version of § 25.1322 will be in the 

certification basis for new type designs 

and new significant changes to type 

design (as determined per 14 CFR 

§ 21.101). 

Boeing also noted the regulation does 

not address other landing gear actuation 

functions, such as a landing gear lever 

lock or truck tilt message to prevent 

retraction or the hazards associated with 

retracting an out of configuration gear, 

or the necessary indication for hazards 

associated with semi-lever gears or tail 

skid actuation. 

The FAA considers that §§ 25.1301, 

25.1309 and 25.1322 adequately address 

identification and alerting of these 

hazards and provide the applicant the 

greatest flexibility in the use of such 

functions. No change to the rule will be 

made in this regard. 

B. Wheel Brake Temperature 

Hawker Beechcraft stated the 

proposed wording for § 25.729(f)(3), 

‘‘possible wheel brake temperatures,’’ is 

not specific enough. Hawker Beechcraft 

recommends changing the text to 

‘‘excessive wheel brake temperatures,’’ 

or ‘‘wheel brakes overheating.’’ We note 

that because § 25.729(f) refers to the 

‘‘damaging effects of’’ the temperatures, 

we believe it is clear the regulation 

refers to high ‘‘possible’’ temperatures. 

No changes were made to the rule in 

response to this comment. 

C. Landing Gear Lock 

Transport Canada concurs with the 

new requirement for a positive means to 

keep the landing gear and doors in the 

correct retracted position in flight, and 

would like a similar requirement for a 

downlock. As proposed, § 25.729(b) is a 

performance-based rule that requires 

positive means to keep the landing gear 

extended in flight and on the ground. 

Adding specificity to require a 

downlock, limits design options that 

would otherwise meet the intent of the 

rule without increasing the level of 

safety. No change to the rule was made 

in this regard. 

D. Supercooled Large Drop Rulemaking 

Embraer suggested the FAA publish 

the final rule associated with NPRM 

Notice No. 10–10, previously referenced 

on page 5, before proceeding with 

proposed changes to § 25.773(b) in this 

rulemaking since the NPRM proposed to 

change § 25.773(b)(1). This rulemaking 

includes changes to § 25.773(b)(2) and 

additionally to § 25.773(b)(3) and (4), 

but proposed no changes to 

§ 25.773(b)(1). Since these rulemaking 

changes are independent of those 

proposed in the Supercooled Large Drop 

NPRM, the FAA does not plan to wait 

on publishing this rule. 

E. Lightning as a Discrete Damage 

Source for Pilot Compartment View 

Transport Canada requested we add 

lightning to the list of discrete damage 

sources presented in § 25.773(b)(4)(ii). 

The FAA is not aware of any data that 

indicates lightning has resulted in the 

reduction of pilot compartment view, 

therefore changing the regulatory text is 

unnecessary. 

F. Differences Between the NPRM and 

the Final Rule 

Except for the editorial correction in 

the rule title for § 25.729, the 

withdrawal of proposed text change to 

§ 25.729(a)(3), and the change in 

amendatory language found in 

§ 25.729(e)(7) from ‘‘A clear indication 

or warning’’ to ‘‘A flightcrew alert,’’ the 

changes to §§ 25.729 and 25.773 are 

adopted as proposed. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1616 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 the 

airworthiness standards for transport 

category airplanes for landing gear 

retracting mechanisms and pilot 

compartment view to harmonize with 

existing, more stringent European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) 

requirements. For landing gear 

retracting mechanisms, the more 

stringent EASA requirements ensure (1) 

The landing gear is in the appropriate 

configuration; (2) the landing gear and 

its supporting structure, doors, and 

mechanisms operate properly; (3) the 

flight crew is aware of the landing gear 

position status; and (4) critical 

equipment is protected from tire failure 

or excessive brake temperatures. 

For the pilot compartment view, 

reliable and safe operation during 

precipitation is ensured by adoption of 

the EASA design requirements for flight 

deck rain removal systems because there 

will be no single failure of the rain 

removal system that could lead to a loss 

of pilot view through both windshields. 

The effect of this requirement is that, for 

newly certificated airplanes, 

manufacturers must provide a separate, 

mechanically and electrically 

independent method for clearing the 

windshield during precipitation. This 

method may include separate flight 

deck control switches for left and right 

windshield wipers. The FAA has 

determined that installation of the 

second wiper switch will require 

minimal additional costs when the 

system is initially designed to comply 

with the EASA requirement and 

received no comments regarding this 

estimate. 

A review of current practices of U.S. 

manufacturers of transport category 

airplanes has revealed that only a 

minority of manufacturers are not 

already in compliance with the EASA 

requirements. For these manufacturers, 

the FAA has determined that additional 

costs to comply with the EASA 

requirements will be minimal and that 

there will be additional safety benefits 

from adoption of the more stringent 

EASA requirements. For the majority of 

manufacturers already in compliance 

with the EASA requirements as a means 

of obtaining joint certification, there 

will be no additional compliance costs 

or additional safety benefits. We 

received no comments regarding this 

cost estimate. However, the final rule 

will provide benefits from reduced joint 

certification costs—in the requirements 

for data collection and analysis, 

paperwork, and time spent applying for 

and obtaining approval from the 

regulatory authorities. The FAA 

therefore has determined that this final 

rule will have minimal costs and 

positive net benefits and does not 

warrant a full regulatory evaluation. 

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. 

B. 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 would, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. However, if an agency determines 

that a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

As noted above, this final rule will 

impose no or little additional costs on 

part 25 manufacturers. 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 final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. 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 final rule and 

determined that it will promote 

international trade by harmonizing U.S. 

standards with corresponding EASA 

regulations thus reducing the cost of 

joint certification. 

D. 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, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 1617 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$141.3 million. 

This final rule does not contain such 

a mandate. The requirements of Title II 

do not apply. 

E. 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. 

F. 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 determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these regulations. 

G. 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. 

H. 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. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. 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. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

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. 

VI. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. 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.fdsys.gov. 

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. 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

Comments received may be viewed by 

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

following the online instructions to 

search the docket number 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.). 

C. 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. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends part 25 of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT 

CATEGORY AIRPLANES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44702, and 44704. 

■ 2. Amend § 25.729 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (iii), (b), (e) 

introductory text, and (e)(5), adding 

paragraph (e)(7), revising paragraphs (f) 

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

paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 25.729 Retracting mechanism. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) The combination of friction loads, 

inertia loads, brake torque loads, air 

loads, and gyroscopic loads resulting 

from the wheels rotating at a peripheral 

speed equal to 1.23VSR (with the wingflaps in take-off position at design takeoff weight), occurring during retraction 

and extension at any airspeed up to 1.5 

VSR1 (with the wing-flaps in the 

approach position at design landing 

weight), and 

(iii) Any load factor up to those 

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

* * * * * 

(b) Landing gear lock. There must be 

positive means to keep the landing gear 

extended in flight and on the ground. 

There must be positive means to keep 

the landing gear and doors in the correct 

retracted position in flight, unless it can 

be shown that lowering of the landing 

gear or doors, or flight with the landing 

gear or doors extended, at any speed, is 

not hazardous. 

* * * * * 

(e) Position indicator and warning 

device. If a retractable landing gear is 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1618 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

used, there must be a landing gear 

position indicator easily visible to the 

pilot or to the appropriate crew 

members (as well as necessary devices 

to actuate the indicator) to indicate 

without ambiguity that the retractable 

units and their associated doors are 

secured in the extended (or retracted) 

position. The means must be designed 

as follows: 

* * * * * 

(5) The system used to generate the 

aural warning must be designed to 

minimize false or inappropriate alerts. 

* * * * * 

(7) A flightcrew alert must be 

provided whenever the landing gear 

position is not consistent with the 

landing gear selector lever position. 

(f) Protection of equipment on landing 

gear and in wheel wells. Equipment that 

is essential to the safe operation of the 

airplane and that is located on the 

landing gear and in wheel wells must be 

protected from the damaging effects of— 

(1) A bursting tire; 

* * * * * 

(3) Possible wheel brake temperatures. 

■ 3. Amend § 25.773 by revising 

paragraph (b)(2) and adding paragraphs 

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

§ 25.773 Pilot compartment view. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) No single failure of the systems 

used to provide the view required by 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section must 

cause the loss of that view by both pilots 

in the specified precipitation 

conditions. 

(3) The first pilot must have a window 

that— 

(i) Is openable under the conditions 

prescribed in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section when the cabin is not 

pressurized; 

(ii) Provides the view specified in 

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

(iii) Provides sufficient protection 

from the elements against impairment of 

the pilot’s vision. 

(4) The openable window specified in 

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

be provided if it is shown that an area 

of the transparent surface will remain 

clear sufficient for at least one pilot to 

land the airplane safely in the event of— 

(i) Any system failure or combination 

of failures which is not extremely 

improbable, in accordance with 

§ 25.1309, under the precipitation 

conditions specified in paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section. 

(ii) An encounter with severe hail, 

birds, or insects. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

27, 2011. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–360 Filed 1–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0009; Special 

Conditions No. 25–454–SC] 

Special Conditions: The Boeing 

Company, Model 767–300; Seats With 

Inflatable Lapbelts 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final special conditions; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: These special conditions are 

issued for the Boeing Model 767–300 

series airplanes. These airplanes will 

have a novel or unusual design feature 

associated with seats with inflatable 

lapbelts. The applicable airworthiness 

regulations do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for this 

design feature. These special conditions 

contain the additional safety standards 

that the Administrator considers 

necessary to establish a level of safety 

equivalent to that established by the 

existing airworthiness standards. 

DATES: The effective date of these 

special conditions is January 5, 2012. 

We must receive your comments by 

February 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2012–0009 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRegulations 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 (DOT), 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 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at (202) 493–2251. 

Privacy: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

to http://www.regulations.gov/, 

including any personal information the 

commenter provides. Using the search 

function of the docket Web site, anyone 

can find and read the electronic form of 

all comments received into any FAA 

docket, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), 

as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/ 

. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

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

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: John 

Shelden, FAA, Airframe and Cabin 

Safety Branch, ANM–115, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227–2785; facsimile 

(425) 227–1320. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

has determined that notice of, and 

opportunity for prior public comment 

on, these special conditions are 

impracticable because these procedures 

would significantly delay issuance of 

the design approval and thus delivery of 

the affected aircraft. In addition, the 

substance of these special conditions 

has been subject to the public comment 

process in several prior instances with 

no substantive comments received. The 

FAA therefore finds that good cause 

exists for making these special 

conditions effective upon issuance. 

Comments Invited 

We invite interested people to take 

part in this rulemaking by sending 

written comments, data, or views. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the special 

conditions, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive by the closing date for 

comments. We may change these special 

conditions based on the comments we 

receive. 

Background 

On April 19, 2011, The Boeing 

Company (hereafter referred to as 

‘‘Boeing’’) applied for a change to Type 

Certificate No. A1NM for the 

installation of inflatable lapbelts on 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES