Federal Aviation Administration 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

Transport Airplane and Engine Issue Area 

Powerplant Installation Harmonization Working Group 

Task 8 – Harmonize 14 CFR 25.934, 25.643, 25.1091, 25.1103, 25.1141, 

25X1315 
Task Assignment 
66522 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 227/Friday, November 26, 1999/Notices 

exemption is necessary or appropriate 

in the public interest and consistent 

with the protection of investors and the 

purposes fairly intended by the policies 

and provisions of the Act. OLDE 

Management states that the requested 

relief satisfies this standard. 

4. OLDE Management asserts that the 

Transaction arose out of business 

considerations unrelated to the Trust 

and OLDE Management. OLDE 

Management states that there is 

insufficient time to obtain shareholder 

approval of the New Agreements prior 

to the Closing Date. 

5. OLDE Management represents that 

under the New Agreements, during the 

Interim Period, the scope and quality of 

services provided to the Funds will be 

at least equivalent to the scope and 

quality of the services it previously 

provided under the Existing 

Agreements. OLDE Management states 

that if any material change in its 

personnel occurs during the Interim 

Period, OLDE Management will apprise 

and consult with the Board to ensure 

that the Board, including a majority of 

the Independent Trustees, are satisfied 

that the scope and quality of the 

advisory services provided to the Funds 

will not be diminished. OLDE 

Management also states that the 

compensation payable to it under the 

New Agreements will be no greater than 

the compensation that would have been 

paid to OLDE Management under the 

Existing Agreements. 

Applicant's Conditions 

OLDE Management agrees as 

conditions to the issuance of the 

exemptive order requested by the 

application that: 

1. The New Agreements will have the 

same terms and conditions as the 

Existing Agreements except for the dates 

of execution and termination. 

2. Fees earned by OLDE Management 

in respect of the New Agreements 

during the Interim Period will be 

maintained in an interest-bearing 

escrow account, and amounts in the 

account (including interest earned on 

such fees) will be paid to (i) OLDE 

Management in accordance with the 

New Agreements, after the requisite 

shareholder approvals are obtained, or 

(ii) the respective Fund, in absence of 

such shareholder approval. 

3. The Trust will convene a meeting 

of shareholders of each Fund to vote on 

approval of the respective New 

Agreements during the Interim Period 

(but in no event later than April 15, 

2000). 

4. OLDE Management or an affiliate, 

not the Funds, will bear the costs of 

preparing and filing the application and 

the costs relating to the solicitation of 

shareholder approval of the Funds 

necessitated by the Transaction. 

5. OLDE Management will take all 

appropriate steps so that the scope and 

quality of advisory and other services 

provided to the Funds during the 

Interim Period will be at least 

equivalent, in the judgment of the 

Trust's Board, including a majority of 

the Independent Trustees, to the scope 

and quality of services previously 

provided under the Existing 

Agreements. If personnel providing 

material services during the Interim 

Period change materially, OLDE 

Management will apprise and consult 

with the Board to assure that the 

trustees, including a majority of the 

Independent Trustees, of the Trust are 

satisfied that the services provided will 

not be diminished in scope or quality. 

For the SEC, by the Division of Investment 

Management, under delegated authority. 

Margaret H. McFarland. 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 99-30709 Filed 11-24-99; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 801O-01-M 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

SUNSHINE ACT MEETING 

AGENCY MEETING: Notice is hereby given, 

pursuant to the provisions of the 

Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. 

L. 94-409, that the Securities and 

Exchange Commission will hold the 

following meeting during the week of 

November 29,1999. 

A closed meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, December 1,1999, at 11:00 

a.m. 

Commissioners, Counsel to the 

Commissioners, the Secretary to the 

Commission, and recording secretaries 

will attend the closed meeting. Certain 

staff members who have an interest in 

the matters may also be present. 

The General Counsel of the 

Commission, or his designee, has 

certified that, in his opinion, one or 

more ofthe exemptions set forth in 5 

U.S.c. 552b(c) (4). (8), (9)(A) and (10) 

and 17 CFR 200.402(a) (4). (8), (9)(A) 

and (10), permit consideration for the 

scheduled matters at the closed meeting. 

Commissioner Unger. as duty officer, 

voted to consider the items listed for the 

closed meeting in a closed session. 

The subject matter of the closed 

meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 

December 1, 1999, will be: 

Institution and settlement of injunctive 

actions 

Institution and settlement of 

administrative proceedings of an 

enforcement nature 

At times, changes in Commission 

priorities require alterations in the 

scheduling of meeting items. For further 

information and to ascertain what, if 

any, matters have been added, deleted 

or postponed, please contact: 

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 

942-7070. 

Dated: November 23,1999. 

Jonathan G. Katz, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 99-30918 Filed 11-23-99; 2:54 pm] 

BILLING CODE 801O-01-M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee; Transport Airplane and 

Engine Issues-New and Revised 

Tasks 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of new and revised task 

assignments for the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC). 

SUMMARY: Notice is given of new tasks 

assigned to and accepted by the 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee (ARAC) and of revisions to 

a number of existing tasks. This notice 

informs the public of the activities of 

ARAC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dorenda Baker, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service (ANM-110), 1601 Lind Avenue, 

SW., Renton, WA 98055; phone (425) 

227-2109; fax (425) 227-1320. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The FAA has established an Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee to 

provide advice and recommendations to 

the FAA Administrator, through the 

Associate Administrator for Regulation 

and Certification, on the full range of 

the FAA's rulemaking activities with 

respect to aviation-related issues. This 

includes obtaining advice and 

recommendations on the FAA's 

commitment to harmonize its Federal 

Aviation Regulations (FAR) and 

practices with its trading partners in 

Europe and Canada. 

One area ARAC deals with is 

transport airplane and engine issues. 

These issues involve the airworthiness 

standards for transport category 
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 227 I Friday, November 26, 1999/Notices 66523 

airplanes and engines in 14 CFR parts 

25, 33, and 35 and parallel provisions in 

14 CFR parts 121 and 135. The 

corresponding Canadian standards are 

contained in Parts V, VI, and VII of the 

Canadian Aviation Regulations. The 

corresponding European standards are 

contained in Joint Aviation 

Requirements (JAR) 25, JAR-E, JAR-P, 

JAR-OPS-Part 1, and JAR-26. 

As proposed by the U.S. and 

European aviation industry, and as 

agreed between the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) and the European 

Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), an 

accelerated process to reach 

harmonization has been adopted. This 

process is based on two procedures: 

(1) Accepting the more stringent of 

the regulations in Title 14 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (FAR), Part 25, 

and the Joint Airworthiness 

Requirements (JAR); and 

(2) Assigning approximately 41 

already-tasked significant regulatory 

differences (SRD), and certain 

additional part 25 regulatory 

differences, to one of three categories: 

• Category I-Envelope 

• Category 2-Completed or near 

complete 

• Category 3-Harmonize 

The Revised Tasks 

ARAC will review the rules identified 

in the "FAR/JAR 25 Differences List," 

dated June 30, 1999, and identify 

changes to the regulations necessary to 

harmonize part 25 and JAR 25. ARAC 

will submit a technical report on each 

rule. Each report will include the cost 

information that has been requested by 

the FAA. The tasks currently underway 

in ARAC to harmonize the listed rules 

are superseded by this tasking. 

New Tasks 

The FAA has submitted a number of 

new tasks for the Aviation Rulemaking 

Advisory Committee (ARAC), Transport 

Airplane and Engine Issues. As agreed 

by ARAC, these tasks will be 

accomplished by existing harmonization 

working groups. The tasks are regulatory 

differences identified in the abovereferenced differences list as Rule type 

= P-SRD. 

New Working Group 

In addition to the above new tasks, a 

newly established Cabin Safety 

Harmonization Working Group will 

review several FAR/JAR paragraphs as 

follows: 

ARAC will review the following rules 

and identify changes to the regulations 

necessary to harmonize part 25 and JAR: 

(1) Section 25.787; 

(2) Section 25.791(a) to (d); 

(3) Section 25.810; 

(4) Section 25.811; 

(5) Section 25.819; and 

(6) Section 25.813(c). 

ARAC will submit a technical report 

on each rule. Each report will include 

the cost information that has been 

requested by the FAA. 

The Cabin Safety Harmonization 

Working Group would be expected to 

complete its work for the first five items 

(identified as Category 1 or 2) before 

completing item 6 (identified as 

Category 3). 

Schedule 

Within 120 days oftaskinglretasking: • For Category 1 tasks, ARAC submits 

the Working Groups' technical 

reports to the FAA to initiate 

drafting of proposed rulemaking 

documents. • For Category 2 tasks, ARAC submits 

technical reports, including already 

developed draft rules and/or 

advisory materials, to the FAA to 

complete legal review, economic 

analysis, coordination, and 

issuance . 

June 2000: For Category 3 tasks, ARAC 

submits technical reports including 

draft rules and/or advisory 

materials to the FAA to complete 

legal review, economic analysis, 

coordination, and issuance. 

ARAC Acceptance of Tasks 

ARAC has accepted the new tasks and 

has chosen to assign all but one of them 

to existing harmonization working 

groups. A new Cabin Safety 

Harmonization Working Group will be 

formed to complete the remaining tasks. 

The working groups serve as staff to 

ARAC to assist ARAC in the analysis of 

the assigned tasks. Working group 

recommendations must be reviewed and 

approved by ARAC. If ARAC accepts a 

working group's recommendations, it 

forwards them to the FAA and ARAC 

recommendations. 

Working Group Activity 

All working groups are expected to 

comply with the procedures adopted by 

ARAC. As part of the procedures, the 

working groups are expected to 

accomplish the following: 

1. Document their decisions and 

discuss areas of disagreement, including 

options, in a report. A report can be 

used both for the enveloping and for the 

harmonization processes. 

2. If requested by the FAA, provide 

support for disposition of the comments 

received in response to the NPRM or 

review the FAA's prepared disposition 

of comments. If support is requested, 

the Working Group will review 

comments/disposition and prepare a 

report documenting their 

recommendations, agreement, or 

disagreement. This report will be 

submitted by ARAC back to the FAA. 

3. Provide a status report at each 

meeting of ARAC held to consider 

Transport Airplane and Engine Issues. 

Partcipation in the Working Groups 

Membership on existing working 

groups will remain the same, with the 

formation of subtask groups, if 

appropriate. The Cabin Safety 

Harmonization Working Group will be 

composed of technical experts having 

an interest in the assigned task. A 

working group member need not be a 

representative of a member of the full 

committee. 

An individual who has expertise in 

the subject matter and wishes to become 

a member of the Cabin Safety 

Harmonization Working Group should 

write to the person listed under the 

caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

CONTACT expressing that desire, 

describing his or her interest in the 

tasks, and stating the expertise he or she 

would bring to the working group. All 

requests to participate must be received 

no later than December 30,1999. The 

requests will be reviewed by the 

assistant chair, the assistant executive 

director, and the working group chair, 

and the individuals will be advised 

whether or not the request can be 

accommodated. 

Individuals chosen for membership 

on the Cabin Safety Harmonization 

Working Group will be expected to 

represent their aviation community 

segment and participate actively in the 

working group (e.g., attend all meetings, 

provide written comments when 

requested to do so, etc.). They also will 

be expected to devote the resources 

necessary to ensure the ability of the 

working group to meet any assigned 

deadline(s). Members are expected to 

keep their management chain advised of 

working group activities and decisions 

to ensure that the agreed technical 

solutions do not conflict with their 

sponsoring organization's position when 

the subject being negotiated is presented 

to ARAC for a vote. 

Once the working group has begun 

deliberations, members will not be 

added or substituted without the 

approval of the assistant chair, the 

assistant executive director, and the 

working group chair. 

The Secretary of Transportation has 

determined that the formation and use 

of ARAC are necessary and in the public 

interest in connection with the 

performance of duties imposed on the 

FAA by law. 
Acknowledgement Letter 
Mr. Craig R. Bolt 

Assistant Chair, Aviation Rulemaking 

Advisory Committee 

Pratt & Whitney 

400 Main Street 

East Hartford, CT 06108 

Dear Mr. Bolt: 

This letter acknowledges receipt of letters that you sent recently on behalf of 

the on behalf of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) on 

Transport Airplane and Engine (TAE) Areas: 

Date of Task Description of Harmonization 

Letter No. Recommendation Working Group 

May 21 1 Review the current §§ 25.671 and Flight Controls 

25.672 standards and corresponding 

JAR 25.671 and 25.672 standards 

pertaining to flight control systems, 

taking into account the requirements in 

§§ 25.1309 and 25.1329. 

June 29 2 Harmonize ... 25.851(b) (fire Mechanical 

extinguishers) ... Systems 

I ~Uld like to thank the ARAC, particularly those members associated with \ 

th Flight Controls and Mechanical Systems Harmonization Working Groups 

for heir cooperation in using the fast track process and completing the 

working group report in a timely manner. The report will be forwarded to the 

Transport Airplane Directorate for review. The Federal Aviation 

Administration's progress will be reported at the TAE meetings. 

Sincerely, 

Anthony F. Fazio 

Director, Office of Rulemaking 

ARM-209: EUpshaw:fs: 7/16/01: PCDOCS #15888 

cc ARM-1/20/200/209; APO-320, ANM-110 

File # ANM-98-428-A and ANM-00-085-A 

CONCURRENCES 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

ARM-209 

INITIALS/SIGNATURE 

emu 

DATE 

7/13/01 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

ARM-20 

INITIALS/SIGNATURE 

DATE 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

ANM-110 

INITIALS/SIGNATURE 

DATE 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

APO-320 

INITIALS/SIGNATURE 

DATE 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

ARM-200 

INITIALS/SIGNATURE 

DATE 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

INITIALS/SIGNATURE 

DATE 

ROUT'NG SYMBOL 

ARM-l 

INITIALS/SIGNATURE 

DATE 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

INITIALS/SIGNATURE 

DATE 
Recommendation 
f-6 . v'.·'i·~.' 

PPIHWG Report -

Harmonization Proposal for 25. 1141 

)e).JV~-O(J_ d6 7'-/1 , IV 'I' 1-. v--

~./L, 

Tj;/02.... 

NOTE: The only FAR/JAR harmonization issues associated with FAR/JAR 25.1141 pertain to 

paragraph 25.1141UJ. Consequently, the scope of this report and the associated harmonization 

tasking is limited to that paragraph. 

1. What is the underlying safety issue addressed by FAR/JAR? /ExplaintkeUnderljingsalety 

rdiional~lor the requirement. Why does the requirement exist?J 

F ARlJAR 25.1141 (f) is intended to mitigate the potential for flight crews to select an inappropriate 

position for, or be unaware of the position of, powerplant valves controlled from the cockpit. 

2. Wllatare the current FAR and JAR standards? [Reproduce the FAR and JAR rules text 

aSlii3icateabe[ow.} 

FAR Sec. 25.1141 - Powerplant controls: general. 

* * * * 

(f) Powerplant valve controls located in the cockpit must have--

(1) For manual valves, positive stops or in the case offuel valves suitable index 

provisions, in the open and closed position; and 

(2) For power-assisted valves, a means to indicate to the flight crew when the 

valve--

(i) Is in the fully open or fully closed position; or 

(ii) Is moving between the fully open and fully closed position. 

JAR 25.1141 Powerplant controls: general 

* * * * 

(f) Powerplant valve controls located in the cockpit must have -

(1) For manual valves, positive stops or in the case of fuel valves suitable index 

provisions, in the open and closed positions; and 

(2) In the case of valves controlled from the cockpit other than by mechanical 

means, where the correct functioning of such a valve is essential for the safe operation of 

the aeroplane, a valve position indicator operated by a system which senses directly that 

the valve has attained the position selected, unless other indications in the cockpit give the 

flight crew a clear indication that the valve has moved to the selected position. (See ACJ 

25.1141(f).) 

Docs #12269 12 
RPR # ANM-OO-320-A 

ACJ 25.1141(0 - Powerplant Controls. General (Interpretative Material) 

A continuous indicator need not be provided. 

3. What are the differences in the standards and what do these differences result in? 

[Explainth~differen~esinth~s{andards,and whiltlhedifferences result in relativetoltiS applicable) 

fjJiiifnJliiiflii!$li:iljJ"ilbi!iiy,iiiJiliYnrarglns, cost; Siitngeney, etc.] 

The significant regulatory difference exist is in sub-paragraph (t)(2) where: 

• The FAR uses the term "power assisted" and the JAR uses "other than by mechanical 

means" to describe applicability; 

• The JAR uses the phrase "where the correct functioning of such a valve is essential for the 

safe operation of the aeroplane" to reduce the applicability to be more consistent with JAR 

25 .1309( c) requirements for indications, the FAR does not; and 

• The basic indicating requirement of the FAR and JAR are also different. While the JAR uses 

"a valve position indicator operated by a system which senses directly that the valve has 

attained the position selected", the FAR uses "a means to indicate to the flight crew when 

the valve is in the fully open or fully closed position, or is moving between the fully open 

and fully closed position"; and 

• Lastly, by including: " unless other indication in the cockpit give the flight crew a clear 

indication that the valve has moved to the selected position", the JAR specifically 

acknowledges that a dedicated indication is not required. The FAR does not. 

4. What, if any, are the differences in the means of compliance? /Provideab'rieJ explanation of 

anfdlffere1lcesin the complidnce criteria or methodology, including any differences in either criterli4 

methodolOgy,or application that resuitin a difference in stringencybetiveen the Stimdards.J 

The only identified significant differences in the means of compliance are those associated with the 

differences in the scope of rule applicability. 

5. What is the proposed action? [Is the proposed action to harmonize on one of the two standards, a 

if!i.Xture O/ll1etlVllS!f!,!dards, pr?pose a new standotd,orto take some otherapti0n? ~lain who/action is 

f:!eing proposed (not the regulatory text, but the underlying rationale) and why tllatdirection was cho~en.] 

While ARAC was tasked with "enveloping" the FAR and JAR versions of this rule, ARAC has 

concluded that a more objective and effective alternative to either rule should be proposed along with 

suitable preamble material. This alternative proposed standard more clearly reflects the existing 

practices that have been found to achieve an acceptable level of safety. ARAC will also provide an 

alternative proposal which simply "envelopes" the two rules as called for in the tasking. 

Docs #12269 13 
RPR # ANM-OO-320-A 

6. What should the harmonized standard be? [Insertthe proposed Text of the harmonfr.ediii:.datd 

here.] 

The preferred proposal for a harmonized standard is set forth below: 

"25.1141 Powerplant controls: general 

* * * * 

(f) Power plant valve controls located in the cockpit must provide the crew with means to: 

(1) select each intended position of the valve; 

(2) indicate the selected position of the valve; and 

(3) indicate the valve has attained the selected position. " 

An alternative "envelope" -only proposal for a harmonized standard is set forth below: 

"25.1141 Powerplant controls: general 

* * * * 

(f) Power plant valve controls located in the cockpit must have -

(1) For manual valves, positive stops or in the case offoel valves suitable index provisions, 

in the open and closed positions; and 

(2) For power-assisted valves, a valve position indicator operated by a system which senses 

directly that the valve has attained the position selected, unless other indications in the 

cockpit give the flight crew a clear indication that the valve has moved to the selected 

position. " 

7. How ~.?es.this pro~osed~tandard address the underlying safety issues (identified under 

#1? [EXplain how the propOsed standard ensures thai the underlying safety issue is taken care of.] 

The preferred proposed standard clarifies the existing practices that have been found to achieve an 

acceptable level of safety. The alternative proposal duplicates the requirements in effect today for 

those applicants that certify their designs to both the FAR and JAR. Since these standards are what has 

resulted in the existing practices, this "enveloped" standard should also be considered capable of 

achieving an acceptable level of safety. However, the "enveloped" standard does not reflect the existing 

practices as clearly and effectively as the preferred proposed standard. Consequently, additional 

interpretive and guidance material may be needed to make this somewhat dated and narrow rule more 

relevant for modem designs. 

8. Relative to the current FAR, does the proposal increase, decrease or maintain the same 

level of safety? Explain. [Explain how each element of the proposed change to the stiindardiiJ/eds the 

iiirel}jj$iljeiyieliitiviitothe F'AR. It is possible that some portions of the proposal may reduce thdeVel of 

~iftiiiyeVe"ihough thepropo~iil as a whole may increase the level of safety.] 

Both the preferred and the alternative "enveloped" proposed standards may increase the level of safety 

depending upon how the current FAR is interpreted and applied to a given modem design. 

The preferred proposed standard specifically requires a means to select each intended position of the 

valve while the current FAR only implies this is a requirement for "manual valves". The preferred 

Docs #12269 14 
RPR # ANM-OO-320-A 

proposed standard specifically requires a means to indicate the selected position of the valve while the 

current FAR only implies this is a requirement for "manual valves". The preferred proposed standard 

specifically requires a means to indicate the valve has attained the selected position while the current 

FAR only implies this is a requirement for all valves. Since the "enveloped" rule takes the more 

"severe" parts of both the FAR and JAR, the adoption of parts of the JAR is inherently viewed as 

increasing the level of safety required by the FAR. See sections 3 and 7 above. 

However, neither of the proposed standards are intended to increase the level of safety provided by 

current design practices, only to help standardize them. See section 7 above. 

9. Relative to current industry practice, does thepropose~~~~~da~~inc~~ase,~~c~e~~~~e~ 

~.~.~~tain the same level of safety? Explain. [Sinc~iI;'dusfryprdCticenr~f:kedifferen~~~.¥1'ff:OtJS 

f!.~uir.e~~f:.~~er:1R (e.g., ge~era! ~ndu~'l'l!raCtice may'!~mQr~restrictiV(i),fitpl~~'!~OlJ:~ach~liifijf!ntfl t~.~"erl!lJf~~dchange to the ~f!."diirils affects theleve/of siifetj!fi!lative to current induStrypradjc~EXpI(lin 

whnheri:ilrrentindustry praCtice is in compliance with the proposed ~andard.] 

Maintains the current level of safety. See section 7 above. 

10.'Y~ato~~er~ptions have been considered and why were they not selected? IExplai~lf!h'f! 

i!ilter Qptionswer~considered and why they were not selected (e;g;, cost/benefl1, unacceptable decritise in 

ihlliNelofsafetY, lack of consensus, etc,)} 

Deleting FAR/JAR 25.1141(f) and rely on FAR/JAR 25.1309(c). However, this would reduce the 

overall level of safety provided by Part 25. 

11 ••.. "'~.~.~~~I~~~~fTected b~ t~e proposed chang~? . [I~ntify the paJji~sthat WQuldbe materially 

tiflectedbythe j'ule change -(lirjiliine manufacturers, airplane operators, etc..] 

Primarily the regulatory authorities and the airframe manufactures. 

12. To ensure harmonization, what current advisory material (e.g., ACJ, AMJ, AC, policy 

I~tt~rs) needs to.be.included in the rule text orprea~~I~? [DoestM~ng~1"rr(jiy~~e~al 

iI;'.c!lIdesuhstf!.1ltillerequirementsthats~ould becont~ined in~heregulation ?. Th~ may occur h~£(l~~·ethe 

ffrgulation itself is vague, or if the advisory material is iiiterprded as providingJhe(jnly iJcceptakle means 

oJcompliance.J 

See sections 6 and 7 above. 

Docs #12269 15 
RPR # ANM-OO-320-A 

13. Is the existing FAA advisory material adequate? If not, what advisory material should 

be. adopted? /indicate whether the. existing advisory material (if ~ny) is adequate. If the cu~re~t 

'!f!rifOry ~erial is".o~adeqllat~;indicat~ whether the exiflingmaterial should be revi~ed'lI.~n~~'f!if.i'ta1 

~rovit!.~~ AIio,either l'nserttluttexto£the proposed advisory material here, or su",,,,arizetkeinformatiiJn 

it WilictJntain, and indicati!what forinit will be in (e.g., Advisory Circular, po/icy;Order,etc.)j 

If the preferred proposed standard and preamble materials are adopted, then no need for additional 

advisory material is currently foreseen. However, if the alternative "enveloped" proposed standard is 

adopted, then additional advisory material should be provided. 

14.~.?\V~?~~thepropose~.standard compare.to current U?AO standard? [I"dicat~whether 

iiie proposei/ standartipomplies with or does not comply with thi! apjiliCableICAO standards (ifany);] 

No counterpart leAQ standard exists. 

15. ~oes the proposed standard afTect other HWG's? /Indicate whether the proposed standard 

should be reviewed by other harmonization working groups and why., 

No. 

16 .. W ............. h .....a ..... t .. i.s ...... t.h ... e ........ c .. o. s ....t .... i.m .. p.act .0. f c.omplying. with the p.rop.os.e. d .. stan ....d ... a.r. d? [Is. the. over ... all cost .. . iTRact likely to be significant, andwill the cost be higher or lower? Include an>: cost savings thatlfpuld 

ri!sultjroltl complying with one harmonized rule instead of the two existing standards. Explain whiltitems 

iilIect thi/costof complying lIJiihiheproposed standard relative to the cost of complying Witk thei:urrent 

$Iandori/.) 

No anticipated change in cost. 

17. Does the HWG want to review the draft NPRM at "Phase 4" prior to publication in the 

Federal Register? 

18. In light of the information provided in this report, does the HWG consider that the 

"Fast Track" process is appropriate for this rulemaking project, or is the project too 

cOIl1plex or contro~ersial for the Fast Track Process? Explain. /A negativean~er to this 

question Will promptthe FAA to pull the project out of the Fast Track Process lfndfonvard the issues to the 

F'AA's Rulemaking Management Council for consideration as a "significant "project., 

Yes 

Docs #12269 16 
Attachment #1 to ANM-D1-Il10-A 

PP1HWG Report 

t6AugU$\I999 

PPIHWG - Draft Harmonization Rl'porl 

Harmonization Proposa l for "-AR/JAR 25 Appendix 1 

Harmonization Proposal for 25.901(d) and JA R- J (Gas Turbine AU;l: iliary 

Power Unit Installation. 

I. What is the underlying sa ret · issue addressed by FAR/JAR? /Explain rh unJer/j"inK 

"'-In)" r~donale I~r r.e requirement. 11'.)" J_s rite requlumenr EXI"~I 

The UlSllIllauon of an APU i, functionally intended 10 free the aiJpI.ne from the neW for ground· 

based po""e, aoo thereby pe"",t m>'. flexible am, ... ft ope"Ulons. The APU Installation may he 

desig.ned to .upply pncUIIllltic power fOT ' ''''l1Ift ." oondltlomng (cnv,ronmtnlal oontrol). ma,n 

engine .taning. aoo oIc<tnc.l power for op<-ralton of Olftl1lft ')"'t,,,,, " ..1I11e the .""1 ....... on the 

grmmd only. nu, type of APU;' ola .. tfoed as OOQ~SKotlal as It;' tnStalle<1 as a man .... of 

,,,,,,·oruo"" ... " may he ood-openlUOllltl ""thout jeopardizlD& safe .""la .... op<-rauom. An APU 

ins .. I1.IIon may abo he desIgned to be utilized to thghl 10 .upply electricallD<lor pDOumatK: power 

to .uppon .,rcraft ')",I,m requtremeots ... lated to redundancy .odor engine infltght s .. nioa. Thll 

typt of APU '05I.l1ot"'" is oonsidered euenti.l ., di'pot,h of the .iJpI."" or for contmued safe 

/lIght. The APU installation.nd """ration .... intended to perform their intended fuoctiot>(.) 

without producing an un<af. condition. The installallon rc<Jurrt"ment< PJOI'O<"d be,.. .. ·,tlt lIe 

int.nded to cmllTC tha, the fwte:!JOOa1 and specific fatlure 0000,1100$ on 10 Aux.llary I'o"'e, Urut 

wtallahOo .,.. appropriately addr~~ by the deSlgn_ 

This proros<'d regulatory oenon " prompted by • ro,-icw of pfCI,I ..... ly ccnified APU instal1ano", 

which h .. ,..,·e.l,d tha~ ID some cases. part 25 APU certtficauon requirements ha"e not been 

owhed co05lStently to Inn,pan categOf)' airplanes. Further. this .ctioo IS mter>ded 10 harnlOlUZ< 

APU installation rc<Jui ... menu ""h standards utilized by the Europe"" Joml A "iation Requi ... ments. 

APU technol~y has w-aoced .00 ne"" (wte:tional ,ap;lbilt"05 .re beIng prm'ided. 'The .. DOW 

functions a ... regul .. ed under the propoSed reqUlrement_ 

2. " 'hat a re the cLlnent FAR and JAR tandards~ I Rqm>Ju<:olte FAR and JAR rul~"=l 

«. InJicQleJ be/o .. ·.J 

s.-e current JAR·) and FAR 15. ReprodllCma:' large number of 1"-1105 of texI ID this repon .. ""Id 

00( .. r'-~ a useful purpose. 

3. What are the differences in the standards and what do these differences result 

in? {CxpliliJl lh~ diff~"'n"n lit I.~ "onJorJ., «nJ ..-h«r I.~ Jiff~"'Jlcn ",.~II In ,d"l!I"<! l~ ~. 

Il/>pll~"bl") deslgll leOluUskll/>"I>IIu,'. "Itt)' "'''/'gIn" c~>I. >I""K""ry. ,,~. J 

The curren' FAR <landa,,\< for APU [",,.11.,,0'" arc nurrrroUS and embedded in various seetio". of 

Pan 25, wlule tbe JAR requuemenlS are.U p,.. .. nt.d ut. "p.tnlt. Subpart J to JAR_H. The 

Tasking .OO Work Plan d"e"ed that the m>st approp"ate requ"e"",ot from either FAR Or JAR be 

.... ni>led ,nlo • smgJe harrnolilZed Id of reqUlUtneIlU 10 be presented ... an Appeooi. 

Docs 1115130 • I I _ 
Attachment" to ANM.(Il.(110·A 

PPIHWG Repo" 

4. What, if ally, are the differences in the means of compliance? Ipro";d~ a bri~1 

~~planaIIQn 01 any difJ~,e~cn in lite CO"'I'/lance "ile,ia 0' ",elltodology. inrluding any difJ"~"c~s 

in eilltu c,ite,ia. "'Nltodolog}', or appJicalion Iltal ,oull in " difJ~'~n u in >lringMl'}' bt'f~"'en Ihe 

.. andard .. / 

No sia.DlflCom dIfference iD means ofco~l ... nce ffom c=em potiey is IDtended. The pr<>p<>Kd 

mjuiremcnu d>rify ,ho , ... ri.,.... APU m.ult.nOD ,.'ogon .. aoo .... specifIC ~gula'ions applicable 

to each. 

5. \Vhat is the proposed action? lis Ihe I'",,,,,.,,d ac,ion '0 It.m"oni~"n "MoI'he I~'" 

$Ianda,ds. u mu;I«U ol,lte , .. .., ... "dards. p,upo,e a M~' .. ""dard. ",10 'like .ome ",lte, a"'ion~ 

ExpJoln ~,ItQ' (1r,I'M i. />ring pr"""",d (n", Ih ~ ug"IQ'ory ,e,,~. b«, 'he u"derlying rll'i""a/e) ""d 

,,·lty lito, dif'fflion "'lIS ch", ... / 

The l'PRM pad'''ge altache<! ho •• ,o ContalllS the OllIaJUJM\ISly agr«d harmonIZe<! APU 

requirements .. n' to FAA fOf p~hnrina'Y l.gal . 1Id economic ..... ,.w 

6. \\'hat shollid the ha rmonized uandard he? fln."rrlitepropo5U T"~t ollh~ Itarmoni!ed 

"a"da,d here.1 

7. How does this proposed standa rd address the undul) ing safety issues (idelllified 

under II I'! fE.~p/a;n Ito~' Ih~ I'",,,,,,,,d ,,"ndard e".-ur~. ,Ito, 'lte und~r/)'ing utlff)' iss«e n lubn 

CDre of.1 

Gwen tha"ho mo,' applOpn.~ '"'lUJl'em<1ll fmm .,thn- FAR or IAR has been u,ilize<! in ,ho 

proposak adeqll<l,e co"erage of oil .. re'y conc.rns "PIOVlded. fW1hn, "" significant .. f~ty 

shortfall. anribu .. d .... APU [nstaltaUOrt Requir~ments, ha. been ,deohfied by ope .... honal 

expcnen«. 

8. Relath'e to the current FAR, does the proposal increase, d ec rea se or maintain the 

same len l of safety? Explain. I£.",,/o;n ho", ~lId rleMe,,' ol'he p'opo5ed ~ltunge,o Ihe 

$Ia"dll'" IIfJ«t,- .he /eo'd "ISIII"'" reIQ,i"e 10 lite FAN. I, I. possjbl~ ,ha, "'flU ""nl"". "I'lte 

propo",,/ ,uy ndJiU 'he I~.-e/ III "Itty e"en Ihuglt ,It~ propo's/ •• D ~'ho/e .... J. ;nc,..,a." 'ltde>'rl 

"I ' _It'fy·' 

1l>c "'me 1"'<1 or .lighlly hlgbel k"~1 of safety ha, ~o p,owled by ><1«lion of ,ho mos, 

app,,,,,,, .. ,e lOquu.menl from eilhcT ".n<brd. 

9. Relative to current industry practice, does the proposed standard increase, 

decrease. or mainlain the same lent of safety? Explain. {S;lfce Indu>l,)' p'sctia "'")' 

be difJe..., .. , 'hD' ~·ItQ' i. ,~uirN by lhe FAR (e.g., genelll/ Indust,)" I',"c'iu "'")' be ",ore 

,n"iC/i.'~). t!.J(1"ain h", ellch rl~men' "l Ihe p,opo.ed chlfge 10 tlte "a"dard" IIfJect> Ihd~,'e1 01 

utle/}· 'e/ali"~ lO c"rrenl indust,y p,ac,ia. E>plain ... It.,.her "«"enl indu"!)' p,,,clia Is i" 

,,"mpliance with Ihe p'opo.ed .. andard.! 

Same le'·.[ of safety, 

Docs #15 130 12 
AttachmRnt jj1 to ANM-01-010·A 

PPIHWG RRport 

10. " 'hat olher oplioll5 ha,'e been considered and" hy "-He Ihe~' nOI seleeled'! 

£Xpl~iM A~l I>Ih~ oplioM' " ,(,fY con.id~wJ ~nd "'h), lh~,. .. we 111>1 sel«ud (r.g .. c". filJelfefi', 

""~CUf!lQbi, deae,,,e ill Ihe "'- ol.oln,·. I,,"k 01 ",,,,5e1l'"'' etc.)1 

:<10 oth .. OPUOIIS ha,'o b«n <o",idcmi to ~ rt'IOf< appropriate 1)1' !IC'< ..... ry ba~ on =t 

cxJ><ne""e. 

II. Who would be affeCled by Ibe proposcd change? {IJemijj" hr pam' •• ,ho, ",oulJ be 

ma'e,ially "If«'ed hy 'he ,uie chn,l' - oi,pI"ne m"""IMIU'"'''' "i'piane ope",'o", ere.f 

Airf"u,.", and APU manufacturers, and STC APU in<tolkrt .. 

12. To ensu re harmonization, "hal eu rrelll ad\'iso~' maleri al (c.g .. ACJ, A i\1J, AC, 

policy leiters) needs tu be included in the rule lexl or preamble? IDoesrheexi. rinll 

od,·I .. ".,· ",a,viai inc/,.,I, . ,,1»'0,,';''(' uflli, .. m,,"" ,h", .Ao"ld H ""n'oiJud in ,h .. "'lIula'ioM? 

rbl • ... ",. ","U' /wt:"" .... 1<, rrtlIllolion itsnli. ''''lIue, 0' if .... "d,·i..,ry .. arr,ial is i""'prerfi/ 0$ 

p"",dillg .he "n/), " cup •• ble ... un. 01 """,pli,,"e ... 1 

There are ACro '0 Subpa" J ,d Oled to 

, 25A90I(b)(1). 

, 15A90I(b)(4). 

25A901(d). 

258903(.)(2). 

, 25A939(a), 

, 15A'i43, 

, 15A953{b), 

25B96I(0)(5). 

258991. 

, 2S8 1093(b)(2). 

, 25.1195(b) 

A rev,"'" oft"" ACJ for JAR· 2S Subp>.n J hu led to ''''' dclmon o f lwo CUlTOn! Aero25B903(.)(2) and 25A939(.). lbc «mamm, Aer •• r. <"",>dored not to add n<w rcq i.-.: m<nl$_ 

13. Is Ibe existing FAA ad"isory material adequate? If nOl, whal advisory material 

should be adopted? IJ~di ou ,,·h .. ~e,'he n:i>li~g _""""" m.,uiol (if .11)-} i. _"equate. 11,1<. 

""eM ad, •• ",,· "'aUria' i. ~Ql ad"'l"oU, i"di~te ,,'.erJ • .., the ""i, ri1lg "'''Ie,iol .lro"ld H ' ... ·i d. 

0' ~"'" /IIou,i.1 p'o'·ided. AI .. " .. ith.., i1l"''' ,Ir .. ,,,,,, of tA e propo. ed Gd,'."". "'aurial he,~. 0' 

.u ... ma,iU' tire info,mation it "'ill c.ontain. ud i"dicale ",/ra, fIt'''' it "";/1 be in (e.g., Ad"i.ory 

Ci,eul ... poliq. Q,Je< . .. c.)} 

FAA adVISOry maten.l ""0 no' ad.dre> .. d by the HWG 

14. How does Ihe proposed standard compare 10 current ICAO slandard? {Indica'e 

"'~"Ilre' ,Ae p",po>rd "."do,J ""IIIpli"5 "'i,1< .IT dIU, "at c"",ply ... i,. 'h ~ applic"ble fCAO 

" ,,"JlId. (if "")').1 

Ther. = "" kno"" ICAO 'e<ju!l'emtn" fOf APU'.· AlfWOftlun ... Of Envuonmcntol 

Docs# 15130 13 
Attachment" to ANM-Ol-OHI·A 

PPIHWG Report 

15. Does the proposed sta ndard affect other HWG's'! Ilmli""I~ ~'h~,h~r'h~ P"'1"'5N 

!i4MJ4Ni shoulJ b~ ",'I~~'~II bJ' olh"r Jt,,''''oMi;lltion K""kiMK groupo' 4mi K·JtJ',J 

No_ 

16, Wh at is the con Impact of complying with Ihe proposed standard': lis thell,',rQII 

"ost implull"dy If> H .ignijk"M. Qnd »'iIIlhe COlst be highv I" III"'"' IMclude "MY ell.f """itOg. 

lit., k'Ou/J 'e5ul, fro'" COlmpJ,-i"K .. i,h on~ br",oni:d "'/~ i,u,ad of'Jt~ '~'II ~xi.,i"K 5t""d4,1II .. 

upl"i" K'h., iU"'5 -11- 'h~ co., I>f c"",p/J'ittg K'ith 'h~ pro,wulll .,,,,,.1_,11 ,d4'iv~ ,I> 'h~ ('1>., of 

COl"'plyillX K'ith th~ c""e"t .,o"lIarJ./ 

Applicants In POSt "'Plane programs haye met the requirement> of both FAA and JAA No C<lSt 

mere ... or change i. judged to ~ .ignificant Son>< mil>OT co>1 .. "ing are po$.ible, but rould not be 

reliably determined, 

17, Does Ihe HWG "ant 10 re"iew the draft NPRM at - Phase 4 '" prior 10 

publication in Ihe Federal Regisler? 

18, In tigh t of th informat ion pro,ided in th is repori. does the 'IWG consider that 

the - Fast Track- process is appropriate for this rul e making project, or is the 

project too complex or con troversial for the Fast Track Procc~s, Explain? 

E xlllain. /A "~Kot;,'e aM,K..,' 10 ,hi. que .. ion K'/11 P'""'pI 'he F M If> pulllh~ p,o}h" IIul ofth< 

Fa., T,Qck r<K~" .ml for"coNi,he /<>U6 If> the I'M " Ru/e",dinK MQ"ag~"'ent Council fll' 

cf>n.id"",,;on QS. ".'/gnijicQIf' *p'f>}«I,/ 

'" 

Docs#IS130 14