Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 49815 

1See NTSB safety recommendation A–04–060, 

which is included in the docket for this rulemaking 

or can be found at http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/ 

2004/A04_56_62.pdf. 

Suite 1100’’ and adding, in their place, 

the words ‘‘1201 New York Avenue, 

NW., Suite 300’’ in the following places: 

■ a. § 9420.8(d)(ii)(3); and 

■ b. § 9420.8(h)(i). 

PART 9428—NATIONAL VOTER 

REGISTRATION ACT 

■ 11. The authority citation for part 

9420 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1973gg–1 et seq., 

15532 

§ 9428.7 [Amended] 

■ 12. Amend 9428.7 by removing the 

words ‘‘1225 New York Avenue, NW., 

Suite 1100’’ and adding, in their place, 

the words ‘‘1201 New York Avenue, 

NW., Suite 300.’’ 

Signed: August 10, 2010. 

Thomas Wilkey, 

Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20089 Filed 8–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–KF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0810; Amendment 

No. 25–130] 

RIN 2120–AJ21 

Maneuvering Speed Limitation 

Statement 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration amends the 

airworthiness standards applicable to 

transport category airplanes to clarify 

that flying at or below the design 

maneuvering speed does not allow a 

pilot to make multiple large control 

inputs in one airplane axis or single full 

control inputs in more than one airplane 

axis at a time without endangering the 

airplane’s structure. The FAA is issuing 

this final rule to prevent pilots from 

misunderstanding the meaning of an 

airplane’s maneuvering speed, which 

could cause or contribute to a future 

accident. 

DATES: This amendment becomes 

effective October 15, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions about this final rule, 

contact Don Stimson, Airplane and 

Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM– 

111, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1129; 

facsimile (425) 227–1149, e-mail 

don.stimson@faa.gov. For legal 

questions about this final rule, contact 

Doug Anderson, Office of the Regional 

Counsel, ANM–7, Northwest Mountain 

Region, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–2166; facsimile (425) 227– 

1007, e-mail 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 minimum 

standards required in the interest of 

safety for the design and performance of 

aircraft. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority because it 

prescribes new safety standards for the 

design of transport category airplanes. 

I. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

On November 12, 2001, American 

Airlines Flight 587, an Airbus Industrie 

Model A300–605R airplane, crashed 

shortly after takeoff from New York’s 

John F. Kennedy International Airport. 

All 260 people aboard the airplane and 

5 people on the ground were killed. The 

airplane was destroyed by impact forces 

and a post-crash fire. The National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

determined ‘‘that the probable cause of 

this accident was the in-flight 

separation of the vertical stabilizer as a 

result of the loads beyond ultimate 

design loads that were created by the 

first officer’s unnecessary and excessive 

rudder pedal inputs.’’ 

The NTSB’s investigation revealed 

that many pilots might have a general 

misunderstanding of what the design 

maneuvering speed (VA) is and the 

extent of structural protection that exists 

when an airplane is operated at speeds 

below its VA. VA is a structural design 

airspeed used in determining the 

strength requirements for the airplane 

and its control surfaces. The structural 

design requirements do not cover 

multiple control inputs in one axis or 

control inputs in more than one axis at 

a time at any speed, even below VA. 

The NTSB found that many pilots of 

transport category airplanes mistakenly 

believe that, as long as the airplane’s 

speed is below VA, they can make any 

control input they desire without 

risking structural damage to the 

airplane. As a result, the NTSB 

recommended that the FAA amend all 

relevant regulatory and advisory 

materials to clarify that operating at or 

below maneuvering speed does not 

provide structural protection against 

multiple full control inputs in one axis 

or full control inputs in more than one 

axis at the same time.1 After making our 

own assessment, the FAA agrees with 

the NTSB’s finding and the resulting 

recommendation. 

B. Summary of the NPRM 

This final rule is based on a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Notice 

No. 09–10, published in the Federal 

Register on September 4, 2009 (74 FR 

45777). In the NPRM, we proposed to 

amend 14 CFR 25.1583(a)(3) to change 

the requirement associated with a 

statement that must be furnished in the 

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) 

explaining the use of VA to pilots. The 

proposed amendment was intended to 

clarify that, depending on the particular 

airplane design, flying at or below VA

does not allow a pilot to make multiple 

large control inputs in one airplane axis 

or single full control inputs in more 

than one airplane axis at a time without 

endangering the airplane’s structure. 

The comment period for the NPRM 

closed on November 3, 2009. 

C. Summary of the Final Rule 

The FAA is adopting this final rule to 

prevent pilots from misunderstanding 

the meaning of VA, which could cause 

or contribute to a future accident. The 

final rule adopts clarifying changes to 

certain statements that must be 

furnished in each AFM identifying the 

types of control inputs to avoid because 

they may result in structural failure. 

This final rule adopts the proposed 

rule with minor changes that will 

resolve a longstanding inconsistency in 

the current requirements that would 

have been left in place by the proposed 

rule. This inconsistency, which goes 

back to at least the 1953 Civil Air 

Regulations Part 4b, concerns the 

reference to ‘‘maneuvering speed VA’’ in 

the existing § 25.1583(a)(3). Sections 1.2 

and 25.335(c) define ‘‘VA’’ as the ‘‘design 

maneuvering speed,’’ not the 

‘‘maneuvering speed.’’ Section 25.1507 

defines the ‘‘maneuvering speed’’ as an 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

49816 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2The full text of each commenter’s submission is 

available in the docket for this rulemaking. 

operating limitation that must not 

exceed the design maneuvering speed, 

VA. Since the ‘‘maneuvering speed’’ can 

be less than VA, the reference to 

‘‘maneuvering speed VA’’ in the existing 

§ 25.1583(a)(3) is incorrect. 

An applicant may wish to establish a 

maneuvering speed different from the 

design maneuvering speed, in order to 

make it easier for pilots to use. For 

example, the design maneuvering speed, 

VA, is an equivalent airspeed. 

Applicants might find it desirable to 

provide a maneuvering speed as a 

calibrated airspeed equal to or below the 

corresponding equivalent design 

maneuvering airspeed at all altitudes, in 

order to provide the information in a 

format that is consistent with that used 

on the flight deck airspeed indicator. 

In practice, the maneuvering speed 

has been identified as VA in AFMs even 

when it is not always exactly the same 

as the design maneuvering speed 

defined in § 25.335(c). We have no 

evidence of this being unsafe and see no 

reason to prohibit it in the future. 

However, in order to address the 

inconsistency in the regulations, for 

§ 25.1583(a)(3), we have changed the 

reference to ‘‘the maneuvering speed 

VA’’ proposed in the NPRM to ‘‘the 

maneuvering speed established under 

§ 25.1507’’ in this final rule. For new 

§ 25.1583(a)(3)(i) and (ii), we have also 

changed the references to ‘‘VA’’ proposed 

in the NPRM to ‘‘maneuvering speed’’ in 

this final rule. We will continue to 

allow applicants to refer to this 

maneuvering speed as VA in AFMs. 

For small airplanes, part 23 defines an 

operating maneuver speed (VO) to serve 

the same purpose as the maneuvering 

speed established under § 25.1507. The 

part 23 approach has one advantage in 

that there is a unique V-speed 

abbreviation for pilots to use that 

differentiates the maneuvering speed 

used operationally from the design 

maneuvering speed used to show 

compliance with the structural type 

certification requirements. We chose not 

to introduce a new V-speed term in part 

25 because the VA term has historically 

been used for transport category 

airplanes for both the speed to be used 

operationally and for design purposes. 

Using a new V-speed term could also 

potentially lead to confusion if different 

speed terms and definitions are used for 

new airplane designs compared to 

current designs. 

D. Summary of the Comments 

The FAA received nine comments on 

the NPRM from four commenters— 

Airbus, the Air Line Pilots Association 

(ALPA), the NTSB, and one private 

citizen. Airbus, ALPA, and the NTSB all 

supported the proposed amendment. 

ALPA also submitted a comment that 

was beyond the scope of the NPRM. 

Only the private citizen submitted 

comments specific to the scope of the 

NPRM. The private citizen believed the 

proposed amendment is too weak and 

does not address the underlying 

airplane handling, structural, and 

systems issues. Summaries of the 

comments and our responses are 

provided below.2 No changes were 

made to the final rule in response to the 

comments. 

II. Discussion of the Comments 

A. Proposed Language Unclear 

The private citizen stated that the 

proposed wording does not help the 

pilot know at what speed a certain input 

to the airframe is safe and what type of 

input is likely to cause structural 

failure. The commenter went on to ask 

several related questions: How is a pilot 

to know what ‘‘rapid and large’’ mean? 

Will the FAA require the AFM to 

provide a specific and detailed 

explanation of exactly what the 

particular airplane is capable of 

withstanding? Will there be an advisory 

circular associated with this changed 

requirement to provide interpretation 

and guidance as to acceptable means of 

compliance? 

The proposed wording tells the pilot 

the types of pilot input at speeds above 

and below VA that may lead to 

structural failure. As stated in the 

NPRM, ‘‘full application of pitch, roll, or 

yaw controls should be confined to 

speeds below VA.’’ Therefore, at speeds 

below VA, pilots can make a full control 

input in a single direction in the pitch, 

roll, or yaw axis without concern for 

structural failure. (Note: In the final 

rule, the term ‘‘VA’’ has been replaced 

with the words ‘‘maneuvering speed.’’) 

The proposed regulatory language also 

states that rapid and large alternating 

control inputs, especially if combined 

with large changes in pitch, roll, or yaw, 

and full control inputs in more than one 

axis (i.e., pitch, roll, or yaw) at the same 

time, may result in structural failure at 

any speed. 

The FAA believes the standard 

dictionary definitions and common 

usage of the words ‘‘rapid and large’’ 

accurately convey their meaning. The 

FAA does not see a need to provide 

further interpretation or guidance as to 

the meaning of these terms. 

B. Applicability 

The private citizen noted the 

proposed amendment is not retroactive, 

so it would not fix the problem for 

existing aircraft. 

Although the proposed amendment 

would not be retroactive, the FAA has 

worked with airplane manufacturers to 

amend their AFMs for all major 

transport category airplanes used in U.S. 

operations. The wording now in the 

limitations section of these AFMs meets 

the requirements of this final rule. 

C. Airplane Handling Problems Not 

Addressed 

The private citizen stated that the 

underlying handling problem that led to 

the Flight 587 accident has not been 

addressed. In certain circumstances, a 

pilot is required to take firm and, if not 

aggressive, then immediate and positive 

action, yet seemingly has no way to 

know how much or when this action is 

likely to break the airplane. The 

commenter noted that the dilemma 

faced by the pilot is that there is some 

unspecified (or poorly specified) point 

where the kind of control inputs that he 

would almost routinely need to apply 

during landing or takeoff are no longer 

safe. 

The FAA believes the kinds of control 

inputs that the pilot may need to apply 

during takeoff or landing, or to counter 

an upset, continue to be safe and are not 

precluded by this final rule. The control 

inputs made by Flight 587’s first officer, 

which included five alternating full 

rudder inputs, would not be needed for 

any reason. 

D. Safety Issues Not Addressed 

The private citizen noted that the 

structural and systems issues arising 

from the Flight 587 accident have not 

been addressed. The commenter 

believes different kinds of modifications 

to 14 CFR part 25 would be required, 

including consideration of composite 

structure failure characteristics 

compared with traditional (metal) 

structure. The commenter stated that 

this rulemaking must not proceed in 

isolation from the other 

recommendations made by the NTSB. 

This action responds to only one of 

seven NTSB safety recommendations. 

The commenter is correct in that this 

final rule responds only to NTSB Safety 

Recommendation A–04–60. The other 

safety issues arising from the Flight 587 

accident are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking and will be addressed by 

other means. 

III. Regulatory Notice and Analysis 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 49817 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. We 

have determined that there is no current 

or new requirement for information 

collection requirement associated with 

this amendment. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these regulations. 

IV. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. 

The reasoning for this determination 

follows. As a result of its investigation 

of the crash of American Airlines Flight 

587 on November 12, 2001, the NTSB 

determined ‘‘that the probable cause of 

the accident was the in-flight separation 

of the vertical stabilizer as a result of the 

loads beyond ultimate design loads that 

were created by the first officer’s 

unnecessary and excessive pedal 

inputs,’’ including five alternating full 

rudder inputs. The NTSB’s investigation 

identified what appears to be a 

widespread misunderstanding among 

pilots about the degree of structural 

protection that exists when full or 

abrupt flight control inputs are made at 

airspeeds below an airplane’s design 

maneuvering speed. In fact, even below 

the design maneuvering speed, the 

structural design standards do not 

ensure the airplane structure can 

withstand multiple control inputs in 

one axis or control inputs in more than 

one axis simultaneously. This 

amendment will require the AFM to 

clarify that flying at or below the design 

maneuvering speed does not allow a 

pilot to make multiple large control 

inputs in one airplane axis, or single full 

control inputs simultaneously in more 

than one axis, as such control inputs 

will endanger the airplane’s structure. A 

similar change has been made 

voluntarily to the AFM by 

manufacturers of transport category 

airplanes currently in service. 

Consequently, this amendment will 

entail no crew-training costs, as well as 

no costs of testing, analysis, or changes 

to airplane design, and the expected 

outcome will be minimal costs. 

This amendment addresses an 

identified safety issue, so the final rule 

has benefits. Consequently, the final 

rule will have minimal costs and 

positive net benefits and a full 

regulatory evaluation was not prepared. 

In the NPRM we requested comments 

on our determination of positive net 

benefits and did not receive any. 

The FAA has, therefore, determined 

that this final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

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

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-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 we noted in the NPRM, all U.S. 

transport category aircraft 

manufacturers exceed the Small 

Business Administration small-entity 

criterion of 1,500 employees. We 

received no comments disputing this 

determination. Moreover, we have 

determined that the rule will have 

minimal costs and positive net benefits. 

Therefore, as the Administrator, I certify 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing any standards or 

engaging in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standards have a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and do not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the effects of this rule and determined 

that it would promote international 

trade by harmonizing with 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

49818 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

corresponding EASA regulations thus 

reducing the cost of joint certification. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million. 

This final rule does not contain such 

a mandate. The requirements of Title II 

do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

would not have federalism implications. 

Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the Administrator, when 

modifying regulations in Title 14 of the 

CFR in a manner affecting intrastate 

aviation in Alaska, to consider the 

extent to which Alaska is not served by 

transportation modes other than 

aviation, and to establish appropriate 

regulatory distinctions. In the NPRM, 

we requested comments on whether the 

proposed rule should apply differently 

to intrastate operations in Alaska. We 

did not receive any comments, and we 

have determined, based on the 

administrative record of this 

rulemaking, there is no need to make 

any regulatory distinctions applicable to 

intrastate aviation in Alaska. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 4(j) and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order, and it is unlikely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

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

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the docket number or 

amendment number of this rulemaking. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

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

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. If 

you are a small entity and you have a 

question regarding this document, you 

may contact your local FAA official, or 

the person listed under the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the 

beginning of the preamble. You can find 

out more about SBREFA on the Internet 

at http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/rulemaking/ 

sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, 

Transportation. 

The Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations part 25, as follows: 

PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT 

CATEGORY AIRPLANES 

■ 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 § 25.1583 by revising 

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

§ 25.1583 Operating limitations. 

(a) * * * 

(3) The maneuvering speed 

established under § 25.1507 and 

statements, as applicable to the 

particular design, explaining that: 

(i) Full application of pitch, roll, or 

yaw controls should be confined to 

speeds below the maneuvering speed; 

and 

(ii) Rapid and large alternating control 

inputs, especially in combination with 

large changes in pitch, roll, or yaw, and 

full control inputs in more than one axis 

at the same time, should be avoided as 

they may result in structural failures at 

any speed, including below the 

maneuvering speed. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 8, 

2010. 

J. Randolph Babbitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–20195 Filed 8–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 305 

[RIN 3084-AB03] 

APPLIANCE LABELING RULE 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is issuing a 

technical correction to a final rule 

published on July 19, 2010 (75 FR 

41696). In particular, the Commission is 

correcting text in Sample Label 13 in 

Appendix L published on page 41724 of 

that document. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 19, 2011. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES