26948 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA–2001–9636; Notice No. 01–

05]

RIN 2120–AH26

Airspeed Indicating System

Requirements for Transport Category

Airplanes

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 concerning the

airspeed indicating system. This

proposal would add airspeed indication

requirements for speeds greater than

and less than the speed range for which

airspeed indication accuracy

requirements currently apply, would

add a requirement that airspeed

indications not cause the pilot undue

difficulty between the initiation of

rotation and the achievement of a steady

climbing condition during takeoff, and

would also add a requirement to limit

the effects of airspeed lag. Adopting this

proposal would eliminate a regulatory

difference between the airworthiness

standards of the U.S. and the Joint

Aviation Requirements of Europe,

without affecting current industry

design practices.

DATES: Send your comments on or

before July 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Address your comments to

Dockets Management System, U.S.

Department of Transportation Dockets,

Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street

SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. You

must identify the docket number, FAA–

2001–9636, at the beginning of your

comments, and you should submit two

copies of your comments. If you wish to

receive confirmation that the FAA has

received your comments, please include

a self-addressed, stamped postcard on

which the following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Docket No. FAA–2001–

9636.’’ We will date-stamp the postcard

and mail it back to you.

You also may submit comments

electronically to the following Internet

address: http://dms.dot.gov.

You may review the public docket

containing comments on this proposed

regulation at the Department of

Transportation (DOT) Dockets Office,

located on the plaza level of the Nassif

Building at the above address. You may

review the public docket in person at

this address between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. Also, you may review

the public dockets on the Internet at

http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don

Stimson, FAA, Airplane and Flight

Crew Interface Branch, ANM–111,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue

SW., Renton, WA 98055–4056;

telephone 425–227–1129; facsimile

425–227–1320, e-mail

don.stimson@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Do I Submit Comments to This

NPRM?

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed action by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Comments relating to

the environmental, energy, federalism,

or economic impact that might result

from adopting the proposals in this

document are also invited. Substantive

comments should be accompanied by

cost estimates. Comments must identify

the regulatory docket number and be

submitted in duplicate to the DOT Rules

Docket address specified above.

All comments received, as well as a

report summarizing each substantive

public contact with FAA personnel

concerning this proposed rulemaking,

will be filed in the docket. The docket

is available for public inspection before

and after the comment closing date.

We will consider all comments

received on or before the closing date

before taking action on this proposed

rulemaking. Comments filed late will be

considered as far as possible without

incurring expense or delay. The

proposals in this document may be

changed in light of the comments

received.

How Can I Obtain a Copy of This

NPRM?

You may download an electronic

copy of this document using a modem

and suitable communications software

from the FAA regulations section of the

Fedworld electronic bulletin board

service (telephone: 703–321–3339); the

Government Printing Office (GPO)’s

electronic bulletin board service

(telephone: 202–512–1661); or, if

applicable, the FAA’s Aviation

Rulemaking Advisory Committee

bulletin board service (telephone: 800–

322–2722 or 202–267–5948).

Internet users may access recently

published rulemaking documents at the

FAA’s web page at or the GPO’s web

page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/

nprm/nprm.htm or the GPO’s web page

at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

You may obtain a copy of this

document by submitting 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. Communications must

identify the docket number of this

NPRM.

Any person interested in being placed

on the mailing list for future rulemaking

documents should request from the

above office a copy of Advisory Circular

11–2A, ‘‘Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Distribution System,’’ which describes

the application procedure.

Background

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness

Standards in the United States?

In the United States, the airworthiness

standards for type certification of

transport category airplanes are

contained in Title 14, Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR), part 25.

Manufacturers of transport category

airplanes must show that each airplane

they produce of a different type design

complies with the appropriate part 25

standards. These standards apply to:

• Airplanes manufactured within the

U.S. for use by U.S.-registered operators,

and

• Airplanes manufactured in other

countries and imported to the U.S.

under a bilateral airworthiness

agreement.

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness

Standards in Europe?

In Europe, the airworthiness

standards for type certification of

transport category airplanes are

contained in Joint Aviation

Requirements (JAR)–25, which are

based on part 25. These were developed

by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA)

of Europe to provide a common set of

airworthiness standards within the

European aviation community. Twentythree European countries accept

airplanes type certificated to the JAR–25

standards, including airplanes

manufactured in the U.S. that are type

certificated to JAR–25 standards for

export to Europe.

What Is ‘‘Harmonization’’ and How Did

It Start?

Although part 25 and JAR–25 are very

similar, they are not identical in every

respect. When airplanes are type

certificated to both sets of standards, the

differences between part 25 and JAR–25

can result in substantial additional costs

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules 26949

to manufacturers and operators. These

additional costs, however, frequently do

not bring about an increase in safety. In

many cases, part 25 and JAR–25 may

contain different requirements to

accomplish the same safety intent.

Consequently, manufacturers are

usually burdened with meeting the

requirements of both sets of standards,

although the level of safety is not

increased correspondingly.

Recognizing that a common set of

standards would not only benefit the

aviation industry economically, but also

maintain the necessary high level of

safety, the FAA and the JAA began an

effort in 1988 to ‘‘harmonize’’ their

respective aviation standards. The goal

of the harmonization effort is to ensure

that:

• Where possible, standards do not

require domestic and foreign parties to

manufacture or operate to different

standards for each country involved;

and

• The standards adopted are mutually

acceptable to the FAA and the foreign

aviation authorities.

The FAA and JAA have identified a

number of significant regulatory

differences (SRD) between the wording

of part 25 and JAR–25. Both the FAA

and the JAA consider ‘‘harmonization’’

of the two sets of standards a high

priority.

What Is the ARAC and What Role Does

It Play in Harmonization?

After initiating the first steps towards

harmonization, the FAA and JAA soon

realized that traditional methods of

rulemaking and accommodating

different administrative procedures was

neither sufficient nor adequate to make

appreciable progress towards fulfilling

the goal of harmonization. The FAA

then identified the Aviation Rulemaking

Advisory Committee (ARAC) as an ideal

vehicle for assisting in resolving

harmonization issues, and, in 1992, the

FAA tasked ARAC to undertake the

entire harmonization effort.

The FAA had formally established

ARAC in 1991 (56 FR 2190, January 22,

1991) to provide advice and

recommendations concerning the full

range of the FAA’s safety-related

rulemaking activity. The FAA sought

this advice to develop better rules in

less overall time and using fewer FAA

resources than previously needed. The

committee provides the FAA firsthand

information and insight from interested

parties regarding potential new rules or

revisions of existing rules.

There are 64 member organizations on

the committee, representing a wide

range of interests within the aviation

community. Meetings of the committee

are open to the public, except as

authorized by section 10(d) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act.

The ARAC establishes working groups

to develop recommendations for

resolving specific airworthiness issues.

Tasks assigned to working groups are

published in the Federal Register.

Although working group meetings are

not generally open to the public, the

FAA solicits participation in working

groups from interested members of the

public who possess knowledge or

experience in the task areas. Working

groups report directly to the ARAC, and

the ARAC must accept a working group

proposal before ARAC presents the

proposal to the FAA as an advisory

committee recommendation.

The activities of the ARAC will not,

however, circumvent the public

rulemaking procedures; nor is the FAA

limited to the rule language

‘‘recommended’’ by ARAC. If the FAA

accepts an ARAC recommendation, the

agency proceeds with the normal public

rulemaking procedures. Any ARAC

participation in a rulemaking package is

fully disclosed in the public docket.

What Is the Status of the Harmonization

Effort Today?

Despite the work that ARAC has

undertaken to address harmonization,

there remain a large number of

regulatory differences between part 25

and JAR–25. The current harmonization

process is extremely costly and timeconsuming for industry, the FAA, and

the JAA. Industry has expressed a strong

desire to conclude the harmonization

program as quickly as possible to

alleviate the drain on their resources

and to finally establish one acceptable

set of standards.

Recently, representatives of the

aviation industry [including Aerospace

Industries Association of America, Inc.

(AIA), General Aviation Manufacturers

Association (GAMA), and European

Association of Aerospace Industries

(AECMA)] proposed an accelerated

process to reach harmonization.

What Is the ‘‘Fast Track Harmonization

Program’’?

In light of a general agreement among

the affected industries and authorities to

expedite the harmonization program,

the FAA and JAA, in March 1999,

agreed upon a method to achieve these

goals. This method, which the FAA has

titled ‘‘The Fast Track Harmonization

Program,’’ is aimed at expediting the

rulemaking process for harmonizing not

only the 42 standards that are currently

tasked to ARAC for harmonization, but

approximately 80 additional standards

for part 25 airplanes.

The FAA initiated the Fast Track

program on November 26, 1999 (64 FR

66522). This program involves grouping

all of the standards needing

harmonization into three categories:

Category 1: Envelope

For these standards, parallel part 25

and JAR–25 standards would be

compared, and harmonization would be

reached by accepting the more stringent

of the two standards. Thus, the more

stringent requirement of one standard

would be ‘‘enveloped’’ into the other

standard. In some cases, it may be

necessary to incorporate parts of both

the part 25 and JAR standard to achieve

the final, more stringent standard. (This

may necessitate that each authority

revises its current standard to

incorporate more stringent provisions of

the other.)

Category 2: Completed or Near

Complete

For these standards, ARAC has

reached, or has nearly reached,

technical agreement or consensus on the

new wording of the proposed

harmonized standards.

Category 3: Harmonize

For these standards, ARAC is not near

technical agreement on harmonization,

and the parallel part 25 and JAR–25

standards cannot be ‘‘enveloped’’ (as

described under Category 1) for reasons

of safety or unacceptability. A standard

developed under Category 3 would be

mutually acceptable to the FAA and

JAA, with a consistent means of

compliance.

Further details on the Fast Track

Program can be found in the tasking

statement (64 FR 66522, November 26,

1999) and the first NPRM published

under this program, Fire Protection

Requirements for Powerplant

Installations on Transport Category

Airplanes (65 FR 36978, June 12, 2000).

Under this program, the FAA

provides ARAC with an opportunity to

review, discuss, and comment on the

FAA’s draft NPRM. In the case of this

rulemaking, ARAC suggested a few

editorial changes, which have been

incorporated into this NPRM.

Discussion of the Proposal

How Does This Proposed Regulation

Relate to ‘‘Fast Track’’?

This proposed regulation results from

the recommendations of ARAC

submitted under the FAA’s Fast Track

Harmonization Program. In this notice,

the FAA proposes to amend the

airspeed indicating system requirements

of § 25.1323.

26950 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules

What Is the Underlying Safety Issue

Addressed by the Current Standards?

The underlying safety issue is to

prevent hazardously misleading

airspeed information from being

presented to the flightcrew. To this end,

§ 25.1323 specifies the accuracy and

calibration requirements and the speed

ranges over which each airspeed system

must be calibrated. In addition, each

airspeed system must be designed and

installed so as to minimize the

possibility of malfunction by the entry

of foreign material, by icing, or due to

a collision with a bird.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR

Standards?

The current text of 14 CFR 25.1323(c)

is:

(c) The airspeed error of the

installation, excluding the airspeed

indicator instrument calibration error,

may not exceed three percent or five

knots, whichever is greater, throughout

the speed range, from—

(1) VMO to 1.3 VS1 with flaps retracted;

and

(2) 1.3 VS0 to VFE with flaps in the

landing position.

The text of JAR–25.1323(c), Chg. 14,

Orange Paper 96/1, is:

(c)(1)The airspeed error of the

installation, excluding the airspeed

indicator instrument calibration error,

may not exceed three percent or five

knots, whichever is greater, throughout

the speed range, from—

(i) VMO to 1.3 VS1 with wing-flaps

retracted; and

(ii) 1.3 VS0 to VFE with wing-flaps in

the landing position.

(2) From 1.3 VS to stall warning speed

the IAS must change perceptibly with

CAS and in the same sense, and at

speeds below stall warning speed the

IAS must not change in an incorrect

sense. (See ACJ 25.1323(c)(2).)

(3) From VMO to VMO+2⁄3 (VDF¥VMO)

the IAS must change perceptibly with

CAS and in the same sense, and at

higher speeds up to VDF the IAS must

not change in an incorrect sense. (See

ACJ 25.1323(c)(3).)

(4) There must be no indication of

airspeed which would cause undue

difficulty to the pilot during the take-off

between the initiation of rotation and

the achievement of a steady climbing

condition.

Note: This proposal harmonizes

§ 25.1323(c) with JAR–25.1323(c) at JAR Chg.

14. The FAA expects to achieve

harmonization at Chg. 15, effective October

2000, through separate rulemaking that is

currently underway.

What are the Differences in the

Standards?

JAR paragraphs 25.1323(c)(2), (3), and

(4) contain requirements for speeds

greater than and less than the speed

range for which accuracy requirements

apply. Part 25 does not have these

additional requirements.

At speeds up to 2⁄3 (VDF ¥ VMO) and

less than the stall warning speed, JAR

paragraphs 25.1323(c)(2) and (3) require

the indicated speed to change

perceptibly and in the same sense as the

calibrated airspeed. At speeds up to

VDF, the indicated airspeed must not

change in an incorrect sense. In other

words, the indicated airspeed should

not go down when the actual airspeed

is going up.

JAR paragraph 25.1323(c)(4) states

that between the initiation of rotation

and the achievement of a steady

climbing condition during takeoff, there

must not be an airspeed indication that

would cause the pilot undue difficulty.

An example of such an indication

would be a significant pause or change

in the rate of change in airspeed. Such

effects could result from changes in the

airflow pattern around the airplane due

to the diminishing effect of the ground

on the airflow pattern as the airplane

climbs away.

The JAR standard is more stringent

than part 25. An airspeed indicating

system that complies with JAR

25.1323(c) ensures compliance with

§ 25.1323(c), but a system that complies

with § 25.1323(c) may not comply with

JAR 25.1323(c). Therefore, a system

designed to comply with § 25.1323(c)

may need to be modified to comply with

JAR 25.1323(c).

What, If Any, Are the Differences in the

Means of Compliance and How Have

the Standards Been Applied?

In general, where the standards are

the same, the FAA and JAA accept the

same means of compliance. For the

additional requirements contained in

JAR–25, the JAA has published advisory

material providing an acceptable means

of compliance. For showing compliance

with JAR 25.1323(c)(2), the rate of

change of IAS with CAS should be not

less than 0.75 from 1.3 VS to the stall

warning speed. For showing compliance

with JAR 25.1323(c)(3), the rate of

change of IAS with CAS should be not

less than 0.5 from VMO+2⁄3 (VDF¥VMO).

The JAA does not have specific advisory

material associated with JAR

25.1323(c)(4).

What Is the Proposed Action and How

Does it Address the Underlying Safety

Issue?

The FAA proposes to revise § 25.1323

to add the additional airspeed system

indication requirements of JAR

25.1323(c)(2), (3), and (4).

In addition, a new requirement is

proposed concerning airspeed lag. With

the advent of electronic instruments in

the cockpit, the pneumatic signals from

the pitot and static sources are

processed and digitized in the Air Data

Computer (ADC) and then filtered and

transported to the cockpit display. Data

processing and filtering cause a time lag

in displaying the airspeed on the

cockpit display. This can be an

important consideration in the airspeed

indicating system calibration during

ground acceleration. As stated in

§ 25.1323(b), the calibration for an

accelerated takeoff ground run must

determine the ‘‘system error,’’ which is

the relation between indicated and

calibrated airspeeds. The system error is

the sum of the pneumatic lag in the

pressure lines, airspeed lag due to time

lags in processing the data, and static

source, position error.

The FAA considers adding these

requirements to part 25 necessary to

harmonize the actual wording of part 25

with the JAR on the issue of stall

warning speeds, and to clarify the intent

of the part 25 regulation. This addition

would align the U.S. regulations with

their European counterparts, and the

wording of both airworthiness standards

would be parallel in this respect.

Furthermore, the addition of the

airspeed lag requirement would codify

what is current FAA policy. The JAA

intends to add the airspeed lag

requirement to JAR–25.

Adoption of this proposal is intended

to benefit the public interest by

standardizing the requirements,

concepts, and procedures contained in

the U.S. and European airworthiness

standards without reducing, but

potentially enhancing, the current level

of safety.

How Does This Proposed Standard

Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

The proposed standard continues to

address the underlying safety issue in

the same manner as the current

standard. The additional JAR standards

have been added for the purpose of

harmonization.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed

Standard Relative to the Current

Regulations?

The proposed standard increases the

level of safety relative to 14 CFR part 25

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules 26951

by incorporating the additional JAR

requirements. The additional

requirement regarding airspeed lag

codifies current FAA policy.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed

Standard Relative to Current Industry

Practice?

Since industry practice is to comply

with both the FAR and the JAR, the

proposed amendment would neither

add any new or different objective to the

current regulations, nor change the way

that any current certification practice is

applied. Instead, the intent of the new

paragraphs is to clarify and codify the

way that the FAA and JAA have

traditionally applied the related rules.

What Other Options Have Been

Considered and Why Were They Not

Selected?

Various options regarding the split

between rule and advisory material

were discussed to achieve the safety

objective while ensuring flexibility in

the means of compliance.

The FAA considered incorporating

the JAR acceptable means of compliance

material for the proposed speed

requirements in the rule; however, it

was decided that this would be too

prescriptive and that it would preclude

the use of other means of compliance

that could also be found acceptable.

Another consideration was to include

quantitative limits on the allowable

level of airspeed bias and takeoff/

accelerate-stop distance errors in the

proposed airspeed lag requirement.

ARAC concluded, and the FAA agrees,

that the ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach

does not work well here. A speed bias

that varies may be significant for one

airplane and not for another. A similar

argument applies to the takeoff and

accelerate-stop distance errors. Also,

other mitigating factors may be more

difficult to consider if prescriptive,

quantitative values are included in the

standard.

Finally, the ARAC working group

considered retaining the airspeed lag

policy as policy only and not including

it as a regulatory standard. The working

group determined that this means of

compliance did not have a specific

regulatory standard against which it was

applied. The FAA agrees with the

working group’s determination that a

regulatory standard is necessary to

assure that future certifications continue

to consider airspeed lag issues.

Adopting this proposal would

eliminate an identified Significant

Regulatory Difference (SRD) between

the wording of part 25 and JAR–25,

without affecting currently accepted

industry design practices. The FAA

expects more consistent interpretations

of the rules and improved relations

between regulatory authorities by

eliminating this SRD.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material

Adequate?

To address the additional JAR

requirements proposed for § 25.1323,

the FAA plans to issue a revision to

Advisory Circular (AC) 25–7A, ‘‘Flight

Test Guide for Certification of Transport

Category Airplanes.’’ The proposed

revision would add the means of

compliance currently accepted by the

JAA as an acceptable means of showing

compliance with the proposed revision

to § 25.1323 discussed in this NPRM.

AC 25–7A already contains adequate

advisory material concerning the

airspeed lag issue. Public comments

concerning the proposed revision are

invited by separate notice in this issue

of the Federal Register.

What Regulatory Analyses and

Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Proposed 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 requires agencies to analyze the

economic effect of regulatory changes

on small entities. Third, the Trade

Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. section

2531–2533) 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 also requires the consideration of

international standards and, where

appropriate, that they be the basis of

U.S. standards. And fourth, the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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).

In conducting these analyses, the FAA

has determined that this proposal has

benefits, but no costs, and that it is not

‘‘a significant regulatory action’’ as

defined in the Executive Order 12866

nor ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s

Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Further, this proposed rule would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities,

would reduce barriers to international

trade, and would not impose an

Unfunded Mandate on state, local, or

tribal governments, or on the private

sector.

Because there are no apparent costs

associated with this proposed rule, it

does not warrant the preparation of a

full economic evaluation for placement

in the docket. The basis of this

statement and for the above

determinations is summarized in the

following paragraphs. The FAA requests

comments with supporting

documentation in regard to the

conclusions contained in this section.

Currently, airplane manufacturers

must satisfy both part 25 and the

European JAR–25 standards to

certificate transport category airplanes

in both the United States and Europe.

Meeting two sets of certification

requirements raises the cost of

developing a new transport category

airplane, often with no increase in

safety. In the interest of fostering

international trade, lowering the cost of

airplane development, and making the

certification process more efficient, the

FAA, JAA, and airplane manufacturers

have been working to create, to the

maximum possible extent, a single set of

certification requirements accepted in

both the United States and Europe. As

explained in detail previously, these

efforts are referred to as

‘‘harmonization.’’

This proposal rule would revise the

airspeed indicating requirements of

§ 25.1323 to add airspeed indication

requirements for speeds greater than

and less than the speed range for which

airspeed indication accuracy

requirements currently apply, would

require that airspeed indications not

cause the pilot undue difficulty between

the initiation of rotation and the

achievement of a steady climbing

condition during takeoff, and would

also codify current FAA policy

concerning airspeed lag. The FAA has

concluded that, for the reasons

previously discussed in the preamble,

the adoption of these JAR requirements

into 14 CFR part 25 is the most efficient

way to harmonize these sections and, in

so doing, the existing level of safety will

be preserved.

The FAA estimates that there are no

costs associated with this proposal. A

review of current manufacturers of

transport category airplanes certificated

under part 25 has revealed that all such

future airplanes are expected to be

certificated under both 14 CFR part 25

and JAR–25. Since future certificated

transport category airplanes are

26952 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules

expected to meet the existing JAR

requirement and this proposed rule

simply adopts the same JAR

requirement, manufacturers would

incur no additional cost resulting from

this proposal.

In fact, manufacturers are expected to

receive cost-savings by a reduction in

the FAA/JAA certification requirements

for new airplanes. The FAA, however,

has not attempted to quantify the cost

savings that may accrue due to this

specific proposal, beyond noting that,

while they may be minimal, they

contribute to a large potential

harmonization savings.

The agency concludes that, since

there is consensus among potentially

affected airplane manufacturers that

savings would result, further analysis is

not required.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

of 1980, 50 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended,

establishes ‘‘as a principle of regulatory

issuance that agencies shall endeavor,

consistent with the objective of the rule

and of applicable statutes, to fit

regulatory and informational

requirements to the scale of the

business, organizations, and

governmental jurisdictions subject to

regulation.’’ To achieve that principle,

the RFA requires agencies to solicit and

consider flexible regulatory proposals

and to explain the rationale for their

actions.

Agencies must perform a review to

determine whether a proposed or final

rule will have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities. If

the determination is that the rule will,

the Agency must prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis as described in the

RFA.

However, if an agency determines that

a proposed or final 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.

The FAA considers that this proposed

rule would not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small entities

for two reasons:

First, the net effect of the proposed

rule is minimum regulatory cost relief.

The proposed rule would require that

new transport category airplane

manufacturers meet just the ‘‘more

stringent’’ European certification

requirement, rather than both the

United States and European standards.

Airplane manufacturers already meet or

expect to meet this standard as well as

the existing 14 CFR part 25 requirement.

Second, all U.S. transport-airplane

category manufacturers exceed the

Small Business Administration smallentity criteria of 1,500 employees for

airplane manufacturers. The current

U.S. part 25 airplane manufacturers

include: Boeing, Cessna Aircraft,

Gulfstream Aerospace, Learjet (owned

by Bombardier), Lockheed Martin,

McDonnell Douglas (a wholly-owned

subsidiary of The Boeing Company),

Raytheon Aircraft, and Sabreliner

Corporation.

Given that this proposed rule is

minimally cost-relieving and that there

are no small entity manufacturers of

part 25 airplanes, the FAA certifies that

this proposed rule would not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979

prohibits Federal agencies from

engaging in any standards or related

activities that create unnecessary

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the

United States. Legitimate domestic

objectives, such as safety, are not

considered unnecessary obstacles. The

statute also requires consideration of

international standards and, where

appropriate, that they be the basis for

U.S. standards. In addition, consistent

with the Administration’s belief in the

general superiority and desirability of

free trade, it is the policy of the

Administration to remove or diminish,

to the extent feasible, barriers to

international trade, including both

barriers affecting the export of American

goods and services to foreign countries,

and barriers affecting the import of

foreign goods and services into the

United States.

In accordance with the above statute

and policy, the FAA has assessed the

potential effect of the proposed rule and

has determined that it supports the

Administration’s free trade policy

because this rule would use European

international standards as the basis for

U.S. standards.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), codified

in 2 U.S.C. 1532–1538, enacted as

Public Law 104–4 on March 22, 1995,

requires each Federal agency, to the

extent permitted by law, to prepare a

written assessment of the effects of any

Federal mandate in a proposed or final

agency rule that may result in the

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any

one year. This proposed rule does not

contain a Federal intergovernmental or

private sector mandate that exceeds

$100 million in any year; therefore, the

requirements of the Act do not apply.

What Other Assessments Has the FAA

Conducted?

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

The FAA has analyzed this proposed

rule and the principles and criteria of

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The

FAA has 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. Therefore,

the FAA has determined that this notice

of proposed rulemaking would not have

federalism implications.

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. We

have determined that there are no new

information collection requirements

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

comply with International Civil

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards

and Recommended Practices to the

maximum extent practicable. The FAA

determined that there are no ICAO

Standards and Recommended Practices

that correspond to this proposed

regulation.

Environmental Analysis

FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA

actions that may be categorically

excluded from preparation of a National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

environmental impact statement. In

accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,

appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this

proposed rulemaking action qualifies for

a categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

The energy impact of the proposed

rule has been assessed in accordance

with the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act (EPCA) and Public

Law 94–163, as amended (43 U.S.C.

6362), and FAA Order 1053.1. It has

been determined that it is not a major

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules 26953

regulatory action under the provisions

of the EPCA.

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 such

regulatory distinctions as he or she

considers appropriate. 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.

Plain Language

In response to the June 1, 1998,

Presidential memorandum regarding the

use of plain language, the FAA reexamined the writing style currently

used in the development of regulations.

The memorandum requires Federal

agencies to communicate clearly with

the public. We are interested in your

comments on whether the style of this

document is clear, and in any other

suggestions you might have to improve

the clarity of FAA communications that

affect you. You can get more

information about the Presidential

memorandum and the plain language

initiative at http://

www.plainlanguage.gov.

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 § 25.1323 by redesignating

paragraphs (d) through (f) as paragraphs

(h) through (j) and revising them, and

adding new paragraphs (d) through (g)

to read as follows:

§ 25.1323 Airspeed indicating system.

* * * * *

(d) From 1.3 VS to the speed at which stall

warning begins, the IAS must change

perceptibly with CAS and in the same sense,

and at speeds below stall warning speed the

IAS must not change in an incorrect sense.

(e) From VMO to VMO+2⁄3 (VDF ¥ VMO), the

IAS must change perceptibly with CAS and

in the same sense, and at higher speeds up

to VDF the IAS must not change in an

incorrect sense.

(f) There must be no indication of airspeed

that would cause undue difficulty to the pilot

during the takeoff between the initiation of

rotation and the achievement of a steady

climbing condition.

(g) The effects of airspeed indicating

system lag may not introduce significant

takeoff indicated airspeed bias, or significant

errors in takeoff or accelerate-stop distances.

(h) Each system must be arranged, so far as

practicable, to prevent malfunction or serious

error due to the entry of moisture, dirt, or

other substances.

(i) Each system must have a heated pitot

tube or an equivalent means of preventing

malfunction due to icing.

(j) Where duplicate airspeed indicators are

required, their respective pitot tubes must be

far enough apart to avoid damage to both

tubes in a collision with a bird.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 2,

2001.

Lirio L. Nelson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–12103 Filed 5–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P