
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74649-74655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30954]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0310; Amdt. No. 25-135]
RIN 2120-AJ72


Harmonization of Various Airworthiness Standards for Transport 
Category Airplanes--Flight Rules

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends the regulations governing various 
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This action 
harmonizes the requirements for takeoff

[[Page 74650]]

speeds, static lateral-directional stability, speed increase and 
recovery characteristics, and the stall warning margin for the landing 
configuration in icing conditions with the European Aviation Safety 
Agency (EASA) certification standards.

DATES: This amendment becomes effective January 30, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this action, contact Don Stimson, Federal Aviation Administration, 
Airplane & Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 
Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1129; facsimile (425) 227-
1149, email Don.Stimson@faa.gov.
    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Doug Anderson, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Regional Counsel (ANM-
7), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 
(425) 227-2166; facsimile (425) 227-1007; email 
Douglas.Anderson@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes 
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting 
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
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.

        List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in This Document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Term                              Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
VR...........................................  rotation speed.
V1...........................................  the maximum speed in the
                                                takeoff at which the
                                                pilot must take the
                                                first action (e.g.,
                                                apply brakes, reduce
                                                thrust, deploy speed
                                                brakes) to stop the
                                                airplane within the
                                                accelerate stop
                                                distance. V1 also means
                                                the minimum speed in the
                                                takeoff, following a
                                                failure of the critical
                                                engine at VEF, at which
                                                the pilot can continue
                                                the takeoff and achieve
                                                the required height
                                                above the takeoff
                                                surface within the
                                                takeoff distance.
V2...........................................  takeoff safety speed.
VEF..........................................  speed at which the
                                                critical engine is
                                                assumed to fail during
                                                takeoff.
VREF.........................................  reference landing speed.
VSW..........................................  speed at which the onset
                                                of natural or artificial
                                                stall warning occurs.
VSR..........................................  reference stall speed.
VSR1.........................................  reference stall speed in
                                                a specific
                                                configuration.
VLOF.........................................  lift-off speed.
VMU..........................................  minimum unstick speed.
VMC..........................................  minimum control speed
                                                with the critical engine
                                                inoperative.
VFE..........................................  maximum flap extended
                                                speed.
VLE..........................................  maximum landing gear
                                                extended speed.
VFC/MFC......................................  maximum speed for
                                                stability
                                                characteristics.
VMO/MMO......................................  maximum operating limit
                                                speed.
VDF/MDF......................................  demonstrated flight
                                                diving speed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Acronym                             Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
ALPA.........................................  Air Line Pilots
                                                Association.
ARAC.........................................  Aviation Rulemaking
                                                Advisory Committee.
EASA.........................................  European Aviation Safety
                                                Agency.
GAMA.........................................  General Aviation
                                                Manufacturers
                                                Association.
ICAO.........................................  International Civil
                                                Aviation Organization.
NPRM.........................................  Notice of Proposed
                                                Rulemaking.
RFA..........................................  Regulatory Flexibility
                                                Act.
SBREFA.......................................  Small Business Regulatory
                                                Enforcement Fairness
                                                Act.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview of Final Rule

    This rulemaking harmonizes specific airworthiness certification 
standards for transport category airplanes with those of the European 
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Harmonizing these airworthiness 
standards reduces certification costs to airplane manufacturers and 
improves product performance and capability for operators while 
increasing the level of safety.
    During certification, applicants for a type certificate must 
determine at what speed a pilot begins rotating the airplane to the 
liftoff pitch attitude during the takeoff roll. This speed 
(VR) must be fast enough to provide a safe speed margin 
between the resulting liftoff speed (VLOF) and the minimum 
safe liftoff speed, also known as the minimum unstick speed 
(VMU). This rule allows the speed margin between 
VLOF and VMU to be reduced, and hence 
VR to be reduced, for airplanes where the minimum value of 
VMU is limited by the geometry of the airplane (i.e., ground 
contact of the tail of the airframe with the runway when the airplane 
is rotated to the takeoff pitch angle). Because the geometry of the 
airplane provides protection against early or over-rotation beyond the 
safe liftoff pitch attitude at or near VMU, VR 
can be reduced without lowering the level of safety. Reducing 
VR reduces the takeoff distance needed at the same weight or 
allows a higher weight (e.g., capability to carry more payload or fuel) 
at the same takeoff distance.
    The static lateral-directional stability requirements are amended 
to reinstate the standards that existed prior to Amendment 25-72 that 
treat the specific lateral and directional stability requirements as 
separate entities.

[[Page 74651]]

    This final rule also adds a requirement that, when conducting the 
sideslip tests required by Sec.  25.177(c), the sideslip angles 
evaluated must include those resulting from applying at least one-half 
of the available rudder control, but no more than 180 pounds of force. 
For sideslip angles greater than those appropriate to the operation of 
the airplane, up to the angle achieved using a full rudder control 
input or a rudder control force of 180 pounds, this rule reduces the 
range of speeds and power settings that must be evaluated. The reduced 
scope of the evaluation will lower flight test safety risks as well as 
harmonize and standardize current practices.
    The final rule adds requirements for minimum roll capability that a 
transport category airplane must have and for airplane flight 
characteristics following extension of speedbrakes at high speeds. The 
new requirements are:
    (1) There must be adequate roll capability to assure a prompt 
recovery from a lateral upset condition, and
    (2) Speedbrake extension at high speed must not result in an 
excessive positive load factor when the pilot does not act to 
counteract the effects of the extension.
    Extending the speedbrakes at high speed also must not cause--
    (a) Buffeting that would impair the pilot's ability to read the 
instruments, or
    (b) A tendency for the airplane to pitch down, which could cause a 
further increase in speed, unless the pitching moment is small.
    Lastly, this rule adds a requirement that the non-icing stall 
warning requirements prescribing the speed at which stall warning must 
begin (VSW) also apply to icing conditions when the airplane 
is in the landing configuration.

Background

Harmonization

    Part 25 prescribes airworthiness standards for type certification 
of transport category airplanes for products certificated in the United 
States (U.S.). EASA Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes 
(CS-25) prescribe the corresponding airworthiness standards for 
products certificated in Europe. While part 25 and CS-25 are similar, 
they differ in some areas.
    The FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to 
review existing regulations and recommend changes to eliminate 
differences between part 25 and CS-25 performance and handling 
characteristic standards by harmonizing to the higher standards. This 
rule is a result of that harmonization effort.

Summary of the NPRM

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the 
Federal Register on November 19, 2010 (75 FR 70854). The proposal 
discussed changes to part 25 in four areas:
    1. Selection of the takeoff rotation speed,
    2. Static lateral-directional stability,
    3. Roll capability and extension of speedbrakes at high speeds, and
    4. Stall warning onset speed for the landing configuration in icing 
conditions.
    Three of the four proposed changes respond to the ARAC 
recommendations and EASA's actions in response to those 
recommendations. The fourth, pertaining to the stall warning onset 
speed for the landing configuration in icing conditions, responds to an 
action taken by EASA regarding a public comment made during the 
harmonized rulemaking that led to adoption of Amendment 121 to part 25 
and Amendment 3 to CS-25. The comment period closed February 17, 2011.

General Overview of Comments

    The FAA received comments from Airbus, the Boeing Company, the 
Cessna Aircraft Company, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association 
(GAMA), and the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA). ALPA 
provided a general comment in support of the proposed changes. None of 
the commenters opposed the proposed changes.

Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

    Boeing questioned the wording of proposed Sec.  25.177(c), which 
was taken directly from EASA's CS 25.177(c) and requires application of 
at least 180 pounds of force to the rudder control to show compliance. 
Boeing believes the intent is to require a control input of at least 
one-half the available rudder control, but no more than 180 pounds of 
pedal force. Airbus commented that there is no need to consider a 
rudder control input beyond that corresponding to the maximum commanded 
sideslip angle for the current flight conditions, even if it is lower 
than one-half of the maximum possible displacement of the rudder pedal 
control input.
    We agree. The language in the final rule reflects the original 
intent (as described in Boeing's comment) of the proposed Sec.  
25.177(c). We notified EASA that the wording of CS 25.177(c) is in 
error and confirmed it will be corrected.
    We also agree with the Airbus interpretation of the requirement. We 
recognize there is no need to apply more rudder control input than that 
which results in the maximum available sideslip, even if that control 
input is less than one-half of the maximum possible displacement of the 
rudder pedal control. This can occur due to a rudder travel limiting 
system or other feature of the airplane's flight control system. 
Further rudder control input would not result in additional sideslip, 
and therefore would not affect compliance with the rule.
    Airbus also commented on proposed Sec.  25.21(g)(1) to require the 
stall warning requirements of Sec.  25.207(c) and (d) to be met in 
icing conditions for the landing configuration. Airbus noted that 
special conditions are used to identify appropriate safety standards 
for Airbus fly-by-wire airplanes that have high incidence protection 
features as part of their flight control system design. These special 
conditions include requirements used in lieu of Sec.  25.207. We 
anticipate that special conditions will continue to be used in lieu of 
Sec.  25.207 to provide an equivalent level of safety to that 
established in the regulations.
    Except for the change to Sec.  25.177(c), in response to the Boeing 
comment discussed above, a minor clarifying addition to Sec.  
25.177(a), and correcting errors in the references to Sec.  25.147(f) 
in Sec. Sec.  25.253(b) and (c) noted in comments by Cessna and GAMA, 
this final rule is adopted as proposed.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct 
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

[[Page 74652]]

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 
final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this final rule.
    The reasoning for this determination follows: The final rule will 
amend Sec. Sec.  25.21(g)(1), 25.107(e)(1)(iv), 25.177, and 25.253 to 
harmonize with EASA requirements already in CS-25. A review of current 
practice of U.S. manufacturers of transport category airplanes has 
revealed the manufacturers intend to fully comply with the EASA 
standards (or are already complying) as a means of obtaining joint 
certification. Since future certificated transport category airplanes 
are expected to meet the existing CS-25 requirements and this final 
rule will simply adopt the same requirements, the manufacturers will 
incur no additional costs. The final rule will provide benefits from 
reduced joint certification costs from the harmonization itself, and 
for the parts of the rule harmonizing with less stringent EASA 
requirements, manufacturers can expect additional benefits inherent in 
the reduced stringency. The FAA, therefore, has determined that this 
final rule will have no costs, and positive benefits, and does not 
warrant a full regulatory evaluation. We discuss the basis for our 
findings below.
    The FAA has also determined that this final rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Who is potentially affected by this rulemaking?

    Manufacturers of transport category airplanes.

Costs and Benefits of This Rulemaking

Cost and Benefits of Amendment to Sec.  25.21(g)(1)

    For this amendment we are adopting an EASA requirement that has no 
counterpart in the current CFR. Manufacturers' compliance with the EASA 
requirement increases the safety of their airplanes. However, since the 
manufacturers are already complying (or intend to comply) with the EASA 
requirement, there will be no additional safety benefits from 
compliance with the harmonizing amendment.
    As we are adopting an EASA requirement that has no counterpart in 
the current CFR, this action will not reduce certification costs, which 
include costs of data collection and analysis, paperwork, and time 
spent applying for and obtaining approval from the regulatory 
authorities. Since the manufacturers intend to comply with the EASA 
requirement, however, they will incur no additional costs to comply 
with the FAA harmonizing amendment.

Costs and Benefits of Amendment to Sec.  25.107(e)(1)(iv)

    Manufacturers will benefit as a result of reduced certification 
costs from the harmonization of Sec.  25.107(e)(1)(iv) with CS 
25.107(e)(1)(iv). These benefits will result because the amendment is a 
less stringent requirement that will reduce the required minimum 
takeoff speed for geometry-limited (viz., tail contact with the runway) 
airplanes. As discussed in the NPRM, since the minimum takeoff speed 
is, in part, intended to reduce the probability of an airplane reaching 
a takeoff pitch attitude beyond that shown to be safe, the additional 
protection against such a condition inherent in a geometry-limited 
airplane allows the minimum takeoff speed to be safely reduced. The 
less stringent requirement implies higher takeoff weights, increases in 
payload, and shorter takeoff distances for geometry-limited airplanes. 
These are operator benefits, much of which will accrue to part 25 
airplane manufacturers by increasing airplane value.
    As this amendment is relieving, there will be no increase in costs.

Costs and Benefits of Amendment to Sec.  25.177

    Section 25.177(a) and (b) (requiring separate directional and 
lateral stability assessments) were removed by Amendment 25-72, 
published in the Federal Register (55 FR 29756), July 20, 1990. The FAA 
considered them unnecessary since directional and lateral stability 
could be determined using an ``alternative test'' based on data 
obtained in showing compliance with Sec.  25.177(c). EASA's retention 
of CS 25.177(a) and (b), however, allows manufacturers to use the 
``basic test'' outlined by CS 25.177(a) and (b). Reinstatement of Sec.  
25.177(a) and (b) will lower certification costs for manufacturers 
preferring instead to use the ``basic test.'' Transport category 
airplane manufacturers preferring to satisfy the stability requirements 
with the ``alternative test'' of Sec.  25.177(c) will face no increase 
in cost since they may still use that test. In any case, since 
manufacturers intend to comply with CS 25.177(a) and (b), they will 
incur no additional costs from complying with the harmonizing amendment 
regardless of the cost situation.
    Compared to the current Sec.  25.177(c) and (d), CS 25.177(c) and 
(d) have both more stringent and less stringent requirements. As 
discussed in the NPRM, the less stringent requirement will increase the 
safety of flight tests without reducing test validity. Compliance with 
the more stringent requirement will entail some certification costs 
and, as noted in the NPRM, reduce payload-carrying capability under 
certain conditions. However, since the manufacturers intend to comply 
with CS 25.177(c) and (d) (or are already complying), they will incur 
no additional costs to comply with the harmonizing amendment.

Costs and Benefits of Amendment to Sec.  25.253

    Manufacturers will benefit as a result of reduced certification 
costs from the harmonization of Sec.  25.253 with CS 25.253. Compliance 
of manufacturers with the more stringent EASA requirements will also 
increase the safety of their airplanes. However, the manufacturers 
intend to comply with the EASA requirements (or are already complying). 
So, there will be no additional safety benefits from compliance with 
the FAA harmonizing amendment.
    Transport category airplane manufacturers will face additional 
certification costs--especially additional flight testing costs--to 
meet the EASA requirements. Since the manufacturers intend to comply 
with the EASA requirements, however, they will incur no additional 
costs to comply with the FAA harmonizing amendment.

Summary of Costs and Benefits

    The benefits of an FAA rule harmonizing with a more stringent EASA 
rule necessarily flow from reduced certification costs brought about by 
the harmonization itself. Just as any costs are attributable to 
complying with the existing EASA rule, so too are any benefits from 
increased safety. Accordingly, the benefits of the more stringent 
Sec. Sec.  25.21(g)(1), 25.253, 25.177(a) and (b), and the more 
stringent parts of Sec.  25.177(c) and (d) will be

[[Page 74653]]

reduced certification costs from harmonization.
    For an FAA rule harmonizing with a less stringent EASA rule, there 
will be reduced certification costs from the harmonization itself, but 
also benefits inherent in the reduced stringency. For Sec.  
25.107(e)(1)(iv), the inherent benefits will be higher takeoff weights, 
increases in payload, and shorter takeoff distances for geometry-
limited airplanes allowed by the reduced minimum takeoff speeds. For 
the less stringent parts of Sec.  25.177(c) and (d), the inherent 
benefits will be the increase in test flight safety brought about by 
the less stringent requirement.
    As no commenters have disputed this same rationale used in the 
NPRM, the FAA has determined that this final rule will have minimal 
costs with positive net benefits and does not warrant a full regulatory 
evaluation.

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 will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. 
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so 
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The 
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for 
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    As noted above, this final rule will not entail any additional 
costs to transport category airplane manufacturers as they are already 
in compliance, or intend to fully comply, with more stringent EASA 
standards. Moreover, all U.S. manufacturers of transport category 
airplanes exceed the Small Business Administration small-entity 
criteria of 1,500 employees. We received no comments on our 
determination in the NPRM of no significant economic impact.
    Therefore as the FAA Administrator, I certify that this rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing 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 final rule and determined that it 
will promote international trade by harmonizing with corresponding EASA 
regulations thus reducing the cost of joint certification.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(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 $143.1 million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements 
of Title II do not apply.

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 is no new requirement for information collection associated with 
this final 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 maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and 
has identified no differences with these regulations.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 312d and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3213) requires the FAA, when modifying its regulations in a manner 
affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent to 
which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation, 
and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions. In the NPRM, the 
FAA requested comments on whether the proposed rule should apply 
differently to intrastate operations in Alaska. The agency did not 
receive any comments, and has determined, based on the administrative 
record of this rulemaking, that there is no need to make any regulatory 
distinctions applicable to intrastate aviation in Alaska.

Executive Order Determinations

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined 
that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism 
implications.

Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions

[[Page 74654]]

Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has 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.

How To Obtain Additional Information

Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by 
using the Internet --
    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by 
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.

Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search 
FAA-2010-0310 for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic 
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name 
of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if 
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, 
may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. 
To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Safety.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Amend Sec.  25.21 by revising paragraph (g)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.21  Proof of compliance.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) Each requirement of this subpart, except Sec. Sec.  25.121(a), 
25.123(c), 25.143(b)(1) and (2), 25.149, 25.201(c)(2), 25.239, and 
25.251(b) through (e), must be met in icing conditions. Section 
25.207(c) and (d) must be met in the landing configuration in icing 
conditions, but need not be met for other configurations. Compliance 
must be shown using the ice accretions defined in appendix C, assuming 
normal operation of the airplane and its ice protection system in 
accordance with the operating limitations and operating procedures 
established by the applicant and provided in the Airplane Flight 
Manual.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  25.107 by revising paragraph (e)(1)(iv) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.107  Takeoff speeds.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) A speed that, if the airplane is rotated at its maximum 
practicable rate, will result in a VLOF of not less than --
    (A) 110 percent of VMU in the all-engines-operating 
condition, and 105 percent of VMU determined at the thrust-
to-weight ratio corresponding to the one-engine-inoperative condition; 
or
    (B) If the VMU attitude is limited by the geometry of 
the airplane (i.e., tail contact with the runway), 108 percent of 
VMU in the all-engines-operating condition, and 104 percent 
of VMU determined at the thrust-to-weight ratio 
corresponding to the one-engine-inoperative condition.
* * * * *

0
4. Revise Sec.  25.177 to read as follows:


Sec.  25.177  Static lateral-directional stability.

    (a) The static directional stability (as shown by the tendency to 
recover from a skid with the rudder free) must be positive for any 
landing gear and flap position and symmetric power condition, at speeds 
from 1.13 VSR1, up to VFE, VLE, or 
VFC/MFC (as appropriate for the airplane 
configuration).
    (b) The static lateral stability (as shown by the tendency to raise 
the low wing in a sideslip with the aileron controls free) for any 
landing gear and flap position and symmetric power condition, may not 
be negative at any airspeed (except that speeds higher than 
VFE need not be considered for flaps extended configurations 
nor speeds higher than VLE for landing gear extended 
configurations) in the following airspeed ranges:
    (1) From 1.13 VSR1 to VMO/MMO.
    (2) From VMO/MMO to VFC/
MFC, unless the divergence is--
    (i) Gradual;
    (ii) Easily recognizable by the pilot; and
    (iii) Easily controllable by the pilot.
    (c) The following requirement must be met for the configurations 
and speed specified in paragraph (a) of this section. In straight, 
steady sideslips over the range of sideslip angles appropriate to the 
operation of the airplane, the aileron and rudder control movements and 
forces must be substantially proportional to the angle of sideslip in a 
stable sense. This factor of proportionality must lie between limits 
found necessary for safe operation. The range of sideslip angles 
evaluated must include those sideslip angles resulting from the lesser 
of:
    (1) One-half of the available rudder control input; and
    (2) A rudder control force of 180 pounds.
    (d) For sideslip angles greater than those prescribed by paragraph 
(c) of this section, up to the angle at which full rudder control is 
used or a rudder control force of 180 pounds is obtained, the rudder 
control forces may not reverse, and increased rudder deflection must be 
needed for increased angles of sideslip. Compliance with this 
requirement must be shown using straight, steady sideslips, unless full 
lateral control input is achieved before reaching either full rudder 
control input or a rudder control force of 180 pounds; a straight, 
steady sideslip need not be maintained after achieving full lateral 
control input. This requirement must be met at all approved landing 
gear and flap positions for the range of operating speeds and power 
conditions appropriate to each landing gear and flap position with all 
engines operating.

0
5. Amend Sec.  25.253 by adding paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) and revising 
paragraphs (b) and (c) introductory text to read as follows:

[[Page 74655]]

Sec.  25.253  High-speed characteristics.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Adequate roll capability to assure a prompt recovery from a 
lateral upset condition must be available at any speed up to 
VDF/MDF.
    (5) With the airplane trimmed at VMO/MMO, 
extension of the speedbrakes over the available range of movements of 
the pilot's control, at all speeds above VMO/MMO, 
but not so high that VDF/MDF would be exceeded 
during the maneuver, must not result in:
    (i) An excessive positive load factor when the pilot does not take 
action to counteract the effects of extension;
    (ii) Buffeting that would impair the pilot's ability to read the 
instruments or control the airplane for recovery; or
    (iii) A nose down pitching moment, unless it is small.
    (b) Maximum speed for stability characteristics, VFC/MFC. 
VFC/MFC is the maximum speed at which the 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  25.143(g), 25.147(f), 25.175(b)(1), 
25.177(a) through (c), and 25.181 must be met with flaps and landing 
gear retracted. Except as noted in Sec.  25.253(c), VFC/
MFC may not be less than a speed midway between 
VMO/MMO and VDF/MDF, except 
that, for altitudes where Mach number is the limiting factor, 
MFC need not exceed the Mach number at which effective speed 
warning occurs.
    (c) Maximum speed for stability characteristics in icing 
conditions. The maximum speed for stability characteristics with the 
ice accretions defined in appendix C, at which the requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  25.143(g), 25.147(f), 25.175(b)(1), 25.177(a) through (c), 
and 25.181 must be met, is the lower of:
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 1, 2011.
J. Randolph Babbitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-30954 Filed 11-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


