### 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 Assignment66522 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. Ifpersonnel 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 categoryFederal 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 ofTasks

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 thatparagraph.



### 1. What is the underlying safety issue addressed by FAR/JAR? /ExplaintkeUnderljingsalety**rdiional~lor** 

### the requirement. Why 

### does the requirement exist?J
FARlJAR 25.1141 (f) is intended to mitigate the potential for flight crews to select an inappropriate position for, or be unaware ofthe position of, powerplant valves controlled from the cockpit.



### 2. Wllatare the current FAR and JAR standards? [Reproduce the FAR andJAR rulestext 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 offuel valves suitable index provisions, in the open and closed positions; and (2) In the case ofvalves 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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'rieJexplanation 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 ofcompliance are those associated with the differences in the scope ofrule applicability.



### 5. What is the proposed action? [Is theproposed 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 ofthis 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? [Inserttheproposed 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 mustprovide the crew with means to: 

### (1) select each intendedposition of the valve; (2) indicate the selectedposition of the valve; and (3) indicate the valve has attained the selectedposition. " 

### 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 indexprovisions, in the open and closedpositions; and (2) Forpower-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 theflight 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 howthepropOsed 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 theproposed change to the stiindardiiJ/eds the iiirel}jj$iljeiyieliitiviitothe F'AR. It 

### ispossible that someportions of theproposalmay 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. Thepreferred 

### proposed standard specifically requires a means to select each intended position ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofboth the FAR and JAR, the adoption ofparts ofthe JAR is inherently viewed 

### as increasing the level of safety required by the FAR. See sections 3 and 7 above. However, neither ofthe 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:ilrrentindustrypraCtice 

### is in compliance with

### theproposed**~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 tiflectedbythej'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 asprovidingJhe(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£theproposed advisory material here, or su",,,,arizetkeinformatiiJn 

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

### Ifthe preferred proposed standard and preamble materials are adopted, then no need for additional advisory material is currently foreseen. However, ifthe 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** 

## iiieproposei/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 theproposed 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 likelyto 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 cOI

# l1 plex or**contro~ersial** 

### for the Fast Track Process? Explain. /A**negativean~er** 

### to this question Will promptthe FAA topull theproject 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 16Attac h m ent #1 to ANM -D1-Il10-A PP1HWG Re port t6AugU$\I999



### PPIHWG
- 

## Draft Harmonization Rl'porl
Harm o ni zation Proposa l for "

-AR/JAR 25 Ap pe ndix 1 Harmonizati o n Proposal for 25

.901(d) and J A 

## R- J (G a s Turbine A U ;l: iliary Power Unit In st allation.

I

. What 

### is th e underl ying**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 ofAPU;' ola

..

### tfoed as**OOQ~SKotlal** as It;' tnStalle<1 as 

# a man.... of ,,,,,,·oruo""

... " may he ood-openlUOllltl ""thoutjeopardizlD& 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 .,.. appropri ately**addr~~** by the deSlgn_
This proros<'d regulatory oenon " prompted by • ro,-icw ofpfCI,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 are the cLlnent FAR 

### and JAR**tandard s~**  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 standard s and what do these differences resu lt in ? {CxpliliJl**lh~ diff~"'n"n**  lit**I.~** "onJor J., «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 ofreqUlUtneIlU 10 be presented

... an Appeooi.



### Docs 

## 1115130 • I I

_Attachment" to ANM .(Il.(110·A 

### PPIHWG Repo"


### 4

. What, if ally, are the differe n ces in the mean s o f complian ce?**Ipro";d~** a**bri~1 ~~planaIIQn**  

### 01any**difJ~,e~c n**  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 act ion? 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 h a rmo nized uandard h e? fln."rrlitepropo5U**T"~t ollh~**  

### Itarmoni!ed "a"da,d here.1



### 7. How does thi s proposed sta nd a rd addres s the undul) ing s afety issues (id e lllified under II I'!**fE.~p/a;n Ito~'** **Ih~** 

### I'",,,,,,,,d ,,"ndard**e".-ur~.** 

### ,Ito, 'lte**und~r/)'ing** 

### utlff)' iss«e 

# n lubn C Dre 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 

### ofoil

..re'y conc.rns "PIOVlded. 

### fW1hn, "" 

### significant

..**f~ty** 

### shortfall. anribu

.. d

.... APU [nstaltaUOrt**Requir~ments,** 

### ha. been 

### ,deohfied by ope
....

### honal expcnen«. 8. R elath'e to th e current FAR, does the proposal in crea se, d ec rea se o r maintain th e same le n l of s af ety? Explain. I£.",,/o;n ho",**~lId** 

### rleMe,,' ol'hep'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",,/ ,u y 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 saf ety ha,**~o** 

### p,owled by ><1«lion of ,ho 

### mos, app,,,,,,, ..,e lOquu.menl from eilhcT ".n<brd.
9. Relative to current indu stry practice, does the proposed s tandard increase, decrease. or mainlain the sa me lent of safety? Explain. {S;lfce Indu>l,)' p'sctia "'")' be 

### difJe...,

.. , 'hD'**~·ItQ'** i

.**,~uirN** b y 

### lhe FAR 

### (e.g., genelll/Indust,)" I',"c'iu "'")' be 

### ",ore**,n"iC/i.'~).** 

### t!.J(1"ain h", 

### ellch**rl~men'** 

### "lIhe p,opo.ed chlfge 10 tlte "a"dard" IIfJect>**Ihd~,'e1** 

### 01 utle/}·**'e/ali"~** 

### lO c"rrenl indust,yp,ac,ia. E>plain

...It.,.her "«"enl indu"!)'p,,,clia Is i" 

### ,,"mpliance with Ih e p'opo.ed

.. andard.! 

### Same le'·.[ ofsafety,

Docs 

### #15 130 

## 12

### AttachmRnt jj1 to ANM-01-010·A PPIHWG 

### RRport 

### 10

. " 'hat olher oplioll5 ha,'e been considered and" hy "-He**Ih e~** **'** 

### nOI selee led '!**£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'"'' et c. )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 Ib e proposcd change? {IJemijj" hrpam' •• ,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 AP U in<tolkrt

.. 

### 12. To ensu re harmonization, "hal eu rrelll**ad\'iso~ '**  

### mal erial (c.g

.. ACJ, 

### Ai\1J, 

### AC , 

### policy leiters) ne eds tu be included in the rule lexl or preamble? IDoesrh ee xi

. 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. ''''lIu e, 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),

, 15 A'i43 ,

, 1 5A953{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 adequat e? 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 "'''I e,iol

. lro"ld H '

...**·i d.**  

### 0'**~"'"** /IIou,i.1p'o'·ided. 

### AI

..

"

..ith.., i1l"''' ,Ir

.. ,,,,,, of tA epropo. 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'** ,Aep",po>rd "."do,J ""IIIpli"5 "'i,1< .ITdIU, "at c"",ply

...i,.**'h ~**  applic"ble fCAO

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



### Ther. 

# = "" kno"" ICAO 'e<ju!l'emtn" fOf 

### APU'.· AlfWOftlun

... Of 

### Envuonmcntol

Docs# 1513 0 

### 13

### Attach ment" to ANM -Ol-OHI·A PPIHWG Re port 

### 15. Does th e 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 th e con Impact of complyin g with Ih e proposed stand ard': 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> ofboth FAA and JAA No C<lSt mere ... or change 

### i.judged to**~** .ignifica nt 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 Ih e Federal Regisler?

1 8 , 

### In tigh t of th in format ion pro,ided in th is repori. does th e 'IWG consid er that the

- Fast Track

- process is app ropriate for thi s rul e making proj ect, or is the project too complex or con troversial for the Fast 

### Track**Pr occ~s,**  

### Explain ? 

## Exlllain. /A**"~Kot;,'e** aM,K..,' 10 ,hi. que ..

ion K'/11 P'" "' pI 'h e 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