```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 472-477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33347]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 472]]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1193; Notice No. 10-19]
RIN 2120-AJ80

Harmonization of Airworthiness Standards for Transport Category 
Airplanes--Landing Gear Retracting Mechanisms and Pilot Compartment 
View

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend the 
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes on landing 
gear retracting mechanisms and the pilot compartment view. This 
proposal would adopt the 1-g stall speed as a reference stall speed 
instead of the minimum speed obtained in a stalling maneuver, and would 
add an additional requirement to keep the landing gear and doors in the 
correct retracted position in flight. This proposal would also revise 
the requirements for pilot compartment view in precipitation 
conditions. Adopting these proposals would eliminate regulatory 
differences between the airworthiness standards of the U.S. and the 
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), without affecting current 
industry design practices.

DATES: Send your comments on or before April 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
1193 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-
140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket 
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
    For more information on the rulemaking process, see the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you 
provide. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can 
find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any of 
our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment 
(or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, 
etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the 
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you 
may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to 
http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online 
instructions for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-
140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this proposed rule contact Douglas Tsuji, Propulsion and Mechanical 
Systems Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind 
Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2135; facsimile 
(425) 227-1320, e-mail Douglas.Tsuji@faa.gov.
    For legal questions concerning this proposed rule contact Doug 
Anderson, Office of the Regional Counsel, ANM-7, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; 
telephone (425) 227-2166; facsimile (425) 227-1007; e-mail 
Douglas.Anderson@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional 
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal 
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is 
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of 
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how 
you can get a copy of related rulemaking documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes 
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting 
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations and minimum standards for the design and performance of 
aircraft that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air 
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority. It 
prescribes new safety standards for the design and operation of 
transport category airplanes.

Background

    Part 25 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 
prescribes airworthiness standards for type certification of transport 
category airplanes for products certified in the United States. The 
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Certification Specifications for 
Large Aeroplanes (CS-25) prescribe the corresponding airworthiness 
standards for products certified in Europe. While part 25 and CS-25 are 
similar, they differ in several respects. Therefore, the FAA tasked the 
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) through the Mechanical 
Systems Harmonization Working Group (MSHWG) to review existing 
regulations and recommend changes that would eliminate differences 
between the FAA and EASA airworthiness standards for landing gear 
retracting mechanisms and the pilot compartment view. This proposed 
rule is a result of this harmonization effort.

[[Page 473]]

General Discussion of the Proposal

    The FAA agrees with the ARAC recommendation to harmonize 
airworthiness standards for landing gear retracting mechanisms and the 
pilot compartment view with the corresponding EASA specifications, and 
we propose to amend part 25 accordingly. The proposals are not expected 
to be controversial and should reduce certification costs to industry 
without adversely affecting safety. In developing these proposals, ARAC 
and the FAA considered the following factors:
    a. Underlying safety issues addressed by current standards;
    b. Differences between part 25 and CS-25 standards;
    c. Differences between part 25 and CS-25 means of compliance;
    e. Effect of the proposed standard on current industry practice;
    f. Whether FAA advisory material exists and/or needs amendment; and
    g. The costs and benefits of each proposal.

The complete analyses for the proposed changes made in response to ARAC 
recommendations can be found in the ARAC recommendation reports, 
located in the docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion of the Proposed Regulatory Requirements

Proposed Changes to Sec.  25.729, Retracting Mechanism

    1. Amendment 25-108 (67 FR 70811, November 26, 2002) to 14 CFR 
redefined the reference stall speed, VSR, for transport 
category airplanes, as the 1-g stall speed, instead of the minimum 
speed obtained in a stalling maneuver. This provides a higher level of 
safety in cases where current methods of determining stall speed may 
result in lower operating speeds. This change was established to 
provide a consistent, repeatable reference stall speed; ensure 
consistent and dependable maneuvering margins; to provide for adjusted 
multiplying factors to maintain the current stalling speeds where they 
are proven adequate; and to harmonize the applicable regulations with 
those adopted in EASA CS-25.
    Under Amendment 25-108, several sections of part 25 were revised to 
adopt VSR. However, that change was inadvertently omitted 
from 14 CFR 25.729(a)(1)(ii). This proposed rule would update Sec.  
25.729(a)(1)(ii) with the new reference stall speed, VSR, 
and harmonize it with the more stringent EASA standard. CS 
25.729(a)(1)(ii) refers to wheel rotation at a peripheral speed equal 
to 1.23 VSR (with the flaps in takeoff position at design 
takeoff weight), occurring during retraction and extension at any 
airspeed up to 1.5 VSR1 with the wing-flaps in the approach 
position at design landing weight. Whereas, Sec.  25.729(a)(1)(ii) 
currently uses a peripheral speed equal to 1.3 VS during 
retraction and extension at any airspeed up to 1.6 VS1, 
respectively. The difference in these factors (1.23 versus 1.3, and 1.5 
versus 1.6) adjusts for the difference between the speeds used 
(VSR versus VS, and VSR1 versus 
VS1). In some cases, these factors make this proposed rule 
slightly more conservative than the existing rule.
    2. For clarification and harmonization with the EASA terminology 
used in CS 25.729(a)(1)(iii), this proposed rule would add the word 
``wing'' to ``flaps'' in Sec.  25.729(a)(1)(iii).
    3. For clarification and harmonization with the EASA terminology 
used in CS 25.729(a)(3), this proposed rule would replace the word 
``prescribed'' with ``presented.''
    4. Section 25.729(b) does not currently require a positive means to 
keep the landing gear and doors in the correct retracted position in 
flight for any condition. The EASA standard requires each retractable 
landing gear and separately actuated door to have a positive uplock, or 
be able to extend or open into the air stream at any flight speed 
without causing a hazard. Compliance would be demonstrated by system 
description or stress analysis. This proposed rule would add that 
requirement to Sec.  25.729(b) to harmonize with the more stringent 
EASA standard.
    5. Section 25.729(e) requires a landing gear position indicator for 
retractable gear and provides design requirements for the indicator and 
warning system. CS 25.729(e) has additional design requirements that 
Sec.  25.729(e) does not have. The EASA standard requires that each 
indicator be easily visible to the pilot or appropriate crewmembers and 
not be ambiguous regarding landing gear position. The EASA standard 
also requires the indicator to show the associated landing gear door 
position. This proposed rule would add these requirements to Sec.  
25.729(e) to harmonize with the more stringent EASA standard.
    6. Section 25.729(e)(5) currently requires that the aural warning 
system be designed to ``eliminate'' false or inappropriate alerts, 
while CS 25.729(e)(5) requires that they be ``minimized.'' If taken 
literally, Sec.  25.729(e)(5) is too stringent. While elimination of 
nuisance warnings is a worthy goal, it is impossible to eliminate all 
nuisance warnings. A requirement to ``minimize'' false or inappropriate 
alerts is a more subjective but attainable standard, and moreover 
embraces any improvements in warning system technology. The preamble to 
the final rule amending Sec.  25.729, states ``* * * the regulations on 
landing gear aural warning are being revised to state the performance 
objectives without stating how the requirements should be implemented 
(56 FR 63762, December 5, 1991). This allows the manufacturers to use 
their ingenuity in designing systems to minimize nuisance warnings.'' 
Therefore, the intent of the requirement has always been to minimize 
false or inappropriate alerts. Compliance with Sec.  25.729(e)(5) is 
currently demonstrated by failure mode and effects analysis with an 
understanding that ``eliminate'' means ``very low probability.'' This 
proposed rule would update Sec.  25.729(e)(5) to reflect our original 
intent and to harmonize with the less stringent EASA standard.
    7. Section 25.729(e) does not currently require an indication 
whenever the landing gear position does not agree with the selector 
lever position. However, such an indication is consistent with prudent 
design of landing gear indication. CS 25.729(e)(7) requires an 
indicator for this situation. Compliance is demonstrated by the landing 
gear system description and the failure modes and effects analysis 
(FMEA). This proposed rule would add a new paragraph (e)(7) containing 
this requirement, which would harmonize Sec.  25.729(e) with the more 
stringent EASA standard.
    8. Although Sec.  25.729(f) requires protection of equipment in 
wheel wells from the damaging effects of a bursting tire or loose tire 
tread, it does not currently require the protection of equipment on the 
landing gear. Since equipment on the lower part of the landing gear is 
always near the tire, such equipment should be protected. CS 25.729(f) 
requires protection of equipment ``* * * located on the landing gear 
and in the wheel wells * * *.'' This proposed rule would harmonize 
Sec.  25.729(f) with the more stringent EASA standard by requiring 
protection of equipment ``* * * located on the landing gear or in the 
wheel wells * * *.'' Note that we have used the word ``or'' instead of 
``and'' to clarify that the proposed rule would apply to equipment 
located in either location.
    Essential equipment on the landing gear could include any sensors 
such as ``weight on wheels'' sensors that, if damaged or destroyed by a 
tire burst, could have an effect on the safe operation of the airplane. 
An example is the Global Express Learjet that overran the runway during 
a rejected takeoff. The tire burst damaged the weight on

[[Page 474]]

wheel sensors, so when the pilot rejected the takeoff and retarded the 
thrust, the thrust reversers remained stowed.
    9. Section 25.729(f)(1) contains a condition that excludes 
consideration of bursting tires if it can be shown that the tires 
cannot burst from overheat. CS 25.729(f)(1) does not contain this 
exception, and EASA's interpretative material in Acceptable Means of 
Compliance (AMC) 25.729 does not allow the use of wheel fuse plugs as a 
complete safeguard against tire burst damage. Instead, it requires 
additional means of compliance, such as separation analysis, robust 
design, or test. This proposed rule would harmonize Sec.  25.729(f)(1) 
with the more stringent EASA standard.
    10. Section 25.729 does not currently require protection of 
equipment in wheel wells from possible wheel brake temperatures. 
However, CS 25.729(f)(3) contains this requirement, and the 
interpretative material in AMC 25.729 suggests that the pilot should be 
provided an indication of brake temperature. This requirement results 
in an analysis of equipment that could be exposed to heat from the 
brake or installation of a brake heat indication system. Additional 
safety and cost factors to consider are the location of essential 
equipment away from possible brake heat, and the installation of an 
additional heat indication system that has its own failure mode and 
maintenance issues. Compliance is demonstrated by separation analysis, 
thermal analysis, or, as suggested in AMC 25.729, a brake temperature 
indication system. This proposed rule would add a new paragraph (f)(3) 
containing the requirement to protect equipment from the damaging 
effects of possible wheel brake temperatures, which would harmonize 
Sec.  25.729(f) with the more stringent EASA standard.

Advisory Material for Sec.  25.729

    Current FAA advisory material addresses only flight testing for 
compliance with the existing rule. To address the proposed requirements 
for Sec.  25.729, the FAA proposes to incorporate the interpretative 
material found in EASA AMC 25.729 into new advisory circular (AC) 
25.729-1A. The draft AC accompanies this proposed rule and is posted on 
the FAA's draft document Web site at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/ for public comment.

Proposed Changes to Sec.  25.773, Pilot Compartment View

    1. Section 25.773(b) contains requirements for clear pilot view 
along the flight path during precipitation conditions, but does not 
address single failures of rain removal systems that can cause the loss 
of the pilot view through both windshields, which paragraph (b)(1) 
requires. Currently, compliance with part 25 can be demonstrated with 
only one wiper switch to control both the left and right wipers, but 
the EASA standard specifically requires provisions to preclude a single 
fault from causing the potential failure of both systems. As a result, 
system design is driven to have separate left and right wiper switches 
in addition to separate motors. In this case, the more stringent EASA 
standard provides for increased system reliability and an increased 
level of safety. This proposed rule would add this requirement to Sec.  
25.773(b)(2). This proposed rule would also move the existing 
requirements of Sec.  25.773(b)(2) and (b)(2)(i) to new Sec.  
25.773(b)(3) and (b)(3)(i) through (b)(3)(iii), respectively. These 
proposed changes would harmonize Sec.  25.773(b)(2) and (b)(3) with the 
EASA standard.
    2. Section 25.773(b)(2)(ii) refers only to severe hail, while the 
corresponding CS 25.773(b)(4)(ii) refers to severe hail, birds, and 
insects. This proposed rule would remove Sec.  25.773(b)(2)(ii) and add 
new Sec.  25.773(b)(4)(ii), which would harmonize it with the EASA 
standard.
    3. Section 25.773(b) does not currently allow for an alternative to 
the openable side window required by Sec.  25.773(b)(2)(i). (Section 
25.773(b)(2)(i) currently corresponds to CS 25.773(b)(3)(i).) However, 
CS 25.773(b)(4) does allow for an alternative to the openable side 
window. CS 25.773(b)(4) could be interpreted to be redundant with 
existing Sec.  25.773(b)(2)(ii), but the EASA standard provides more 
detail. CS 25.773(b)(4) contains two subparagraphs:
     Paragraph (b)(4)(i) allows relief for the openable side 
window if it can be demonstrated that sufficient pilot view is still 
provided in the event of failure--or combination of failures--of the 
rain removal system, where the failure(s) is not extremely improbable. 
This provision implies that, for a dual windshield wiper system failure 
(which is typically not extremely improbable), the openable side window 
is not required if adequate vision can still be maintained through the 
windshield or side window.
     Paragraph (b)(4)(ii) also allows relief for the openable 
side window if it can be demonstrated that sufficient pilot view is 
still provided in the event of an encounter with severe hail, birds, or 
insects.
    The reference in CS 25.773(b)(4)(ii) to severe hail, birds, and 
insects has not been specifically demonstrated in any manner 
differently from that of compliance with Sec.  25.773(b)(2)(ii), which 
only specifies severe hail. Compliance with Sec.  25.773(b)(2)(ii), and 
with CS (b)(4)(i) and (ii), has typically been demonstrated by 
compliance statement, system description, or analysis only. This 
proposed rule would add new Sec.  25.773(b)(4), (b)(4)(i), and 
(b)(4)(ii) to harmonize with the EASA standard.

Existing Advisory Material for Sec.  25.773

    AC 25.773-1, Pilot Compartment View Design Considerations, dated 
January 8, 1983, provides extensive definition of what constitutes 
sufficient pilot visibility through the windshield, including suggested 
means of compliance for windshield wiper speed. The obsolete AMC 
25.773(b)(1)(ii) was redundant to AC 25.773-1, and the MSHWG 
recommended eliminating the AMC. As a result, EASA eliminated this AMC 
material at Amendment 4 to CS-25. AC 25.773-1 would be retained without 
change in regard to this proposed rule.

Other Proposed Rulemaking

    On June 23, 2010, the FAA issued an NPRM, Notice No. 10-10, 
Airplane and Engine Certification Requirements in Supercooled Large 
Drop, Mixed Phase, and Ice Crystal Icing Conditions (75 FR 37311, June 
29, 2010) (Docket No. FAA-2010-0636). That NPRM proposes that Sec.  
25.773 be modified to expand the icing conditions from those specified 
in Sec.  25.1419 (i.e., appendix C icing conditions) to include certain 
supercooled large drop conditions defined in a proposed Appendix O. If 
that NPRM becomes a final rule prior to this proposed rule, we request 
comment on maintaining those changes when this proposed rule becomes 
final.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that 
there would be no new requirement for information collection associated 
with this proposed rule.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the

[[Page 475]]

maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 
Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences 
with these proposed regulations.

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, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. 
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of 
the economic impact of the proposed rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule.
    The reasoning for this determination follows: The proposed rule 
would amend the airworthiness standards for transport category 
airplanes for landing gear retracting mechanisms and pilot compartment 
view to harmonize with existing more stringent European Aviation Safety 
Agency (EASA) requirements. For landing gear retracting mechanisms, 
adoption of the EASA requirements would ensure the landing gear is in 
the appropriate configuration when necessary; that the landing gear and 
its supporting structure, doors, and mechanisms operate properly; that 
the flight crew would be aware of the landing gear position status; and 
that critical equipment would be protected from tire failure or brake 
temperatures. For the pilot compartment view, reliable and safe 
operation during precipitation would be ensured by adoption of the EASA 
design requirements for flight deck rain removal systems. The most 
significant of the pilot compartment view requirements is that no 
single failure of the rain removal system could lead to a loss of pilot 
view through both windshields. The effect of this proposed requirement 
is that, for newly certificated airplanes, manufacturers must provide a 
separate, mechanically and electrically independent method for clearing 
the windshield during precipitation. This method may include separate 
flight deck control switches for left and right windshield wipers. The 
FAA has determined that installation of the second wiper switch would 
require minimal additional costs when the system is initially designed 
to comply with the EASA requirement.
    Currently, U.S. manufacturers of transport category airplanes meet 
both FAA and EASA requirements. The FAA expects these manufacturers 
would want to continue selling future transport category airplanes in 
Europe and thus would meet EASA requirements. Thus, for these 
manufacturers and for the majority of manufacturers already in 
compliance with the EASA requirements, there would be no additional 
costs. However, the proposed rule would provide benefits from reduced 
joint certification costs--in the requirements for data collection and 
analysis, paperwork, and time spent applying for and obtaining approval 
from the regulatory authorities. The FAA therefore has determined that 
this proposed rule is cost beneficial due to the overall reduction in 
compliance costs while maintaining the same level of safety. The FAA 
requests comments regarding this determination.
    The FAA has also determined that this proposed 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-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule would 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it would, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. 
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so 
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The 
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for 
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    As noted above, this proposed rule would impose no or little 
additional costs on part 25 manufacturers. Moreover, all U.S. 
manufacturers of transport category airplanes exceed the Small Business 
Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 employees. Therefore, the 
FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA 
requests comments regarding this determination.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that 
it would

[[Page 476]]

incorporate an international standard as the basis for a U.S. standard. 
Thus the proposed rule complies with the Trade Agreement Act of 1979 
and does not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one 
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by 
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant 
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value 
of $141.3 million.
    This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. The 
requirements of Title II do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed 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 national 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. Because this proposed rule would apply to the 
certification of future designs of transport category airplanes and 
their subsequent operation, it could, if adopted, affect intrastate 
aviation in Alaska. The FAA therefore specifically requests comments on 
whether there is justification for applying the proposed rule 
differently to intrastate operations 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 proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the 
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312d and involves no 
extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM 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 not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

Plain English

    Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) requires each 
agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. We 
invite your comments on how to make these proposed regulations easier 
to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
     Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly 
stated?
     Do the proposed regulations contain unnecessary technical 
language or jargon that interferes with their clarity?
     Would the regulations be easier to understand if they were 
divided into more (but shorter) sections?
     Is the description in the preamble helpful in 
understanding the proposed regulations?
    Please send your comments to the address specified in the Addresses 
section of this preamble.

Additional Information

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also 
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or 
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in 
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion 
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and 
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain 
duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or 
if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments 
only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we 
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for 
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has 
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. 
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information

    Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be 
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this 
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the 
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send 
the information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or 
CD-ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information 
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a 
separate file to which the public does not have access, and we place a 
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to 
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request 
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a 
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

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 or notice number of this rulemaking.
    You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this 
proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from 
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in 
paragraph (1).

[[Page 477]]

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend part 25 of Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations, as follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

    1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, and 44704.

    2. Amend Sec.  25.729 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), 
(a)(1)(iii), (a)(3), (b), (e) introductory text, (e)(5), (f) 
introductory text, and (f)(1), and by adding paragraphs (e)(7) and 
(f)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  25.729  Operating limitations.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The combination of friction loads, inertia loads, brake torque 
loads, air loads, and gyroscopic loads resulting from the wheels 
rotating at a peripheral speed equal to 1.23 VSR (with the 
wing-flaps in takeoff position at design takeoff weight), occurring 
during retraction and extension at any airspeed up to 1.5 
VSR1 (with the wing-flaps in the approach position at design 
landing weight), and
    (iii) Any load factor up to those specified in Sec.  25.345(a) for 
the wing-flaps extended condition.
* * * * *
    (3) Landing gear doors, their operating mechanism, and their 
supporting structures must be designed for the yawing maneuvers 
prescribed for the airplane in addition to the conditions of airspeed 
and load factor presented in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (b) Landing gear lock. There must be positive means to keep the 
landing gear extended in flight and on the ground. There must be 
positive means to keep the landing gear and doors in the correct 
retracted position in flight, unless it can be shown that lowering of 
the landing gear or doors, or flight with the landing gear or doors 
extended, at any speed, is not hazardous.
* * * * *
    (e) Position indicator and warning device. If a retractable landing 
gear is used, there must be a landing gear position indicator easily 
visible to the pilot or to the appropriate crew members (as well as 
necessary devices to actuate the indicator) to indicate without 
ambiguity that the retractable units and their associated doors are 
secured in the extended (or retracted) position. The means must be 
designed as follows:
* * * * *
    (5) The system used to generate the aural warning must be designed 
to minimize false or inappropriate alerts.
* * * * *
    (7) A clear indication or warning must be provided whenever the 
landing gear position is not consistent with the landing gear selector 
lever position.
    (f) Protection of equipment on landing gear and in wheel wells. 
Equipment that is essential to the safe operation of the airplane and 
that is located on the landing gear or in wheel wells must be protected 
from the damaging effects of--
    (1) A bursting tire;
* * * * *
    (3) Possible wheel brake temperatures.
    3. Amend Sec.  25.773 by revising paragraph (b)(2) and adding 
paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  25.773  Pilot compartment view.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) No single failure of the systems used to provide the view 
required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section may cause the loss of that 
view by both pilots in the specified precipitation conditions.
    (3) The first pilot must have a window that--
    (i) Is openable under the conditions prescribed in paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section when the cabin is not pressurized;
    (ii) Provides the view specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section; and
    (iii) Provides sufficient protection from the elements against 
impairment of the pilot's vision.
    (4) The openable window specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this 
section need not be provided if it is shown that an area of the 
transparent surface will remain clear sufficient for at least one pilot 
to land the airplane safely in the event of--
    (i) Any system failure or combination of failures which is not 
extremely improbable, in accordance with Sec.  25.1309, under the 
precipitation conditions specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (ii) An encounter with severe hail, birds, or insects.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 29, 2010.
K.C. Yanamura,
Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-33347 Filed 1-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```