4 September 2009
[Federal Register: September 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 171)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45777-45781]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04se09-16]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. FAA-2009-0810; Notice No. 09-10]
RIN 2120-AJ21
Design Maneuvering Speed Limitation Statement
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend the
airworthiness standards applicable to transport category airplanes to
clarify that flying at or below the design maneuvering speed does not
allow a pilot to make multiple large control inputs in one airplane
axis or single full control inputs in more than one airplane axis at a
time without endangering the airplane's structure. This proposed
regulation is the result of an accident investigation and responds to a
National Transportation Safety Board recommendation. The results of the
accident investigation indicate that many pilots might have a general
misunderstanding of what the design maneuvering speed (VA)
is and the extent of structural protection that exists when an airplane
is operated at speeds below its VA. This action is being
taken to prevent this misunderstanding from causing or contributing to
a future accident.
DATES:
Send your comments on or before November 3, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number [Insert
docket number, for example, FAA-200X-XXXXX] 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: Bring 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 our 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, go 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Technical Information: Don Stimson, FAA, Airplane and 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, e-mail
don.stimson@faa.gov.
Legal Information: Douglas Anderson, FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, ANM-7, Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, WA 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 this proposal and 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
[[Page 45778]]
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 minimum
standards required in the interest of safety for the design and
performance of aircraft; regulations and minimum standards in the
interest of safety for inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft;
and regulations for other practices, methods, and procedures the
Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority because it
prescribes--
New safety standards for the design and performance of
transport category airplanes; and
New safety requirements that are necessary for the design,
production, operations, and maintenance of those airplanes, and for
other practices, methods, and procedures relating to those airplanes.
Background
On November 12, 2001, American Airlines Flight 587, an Airbus
Industrie Model A300-605R airplane, crashed shortly after takeoff from
New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. All 260 people aboard
the airplane and 5 people on the ground were killed. The airplane was
destroyed by impact forces and a post-crash fire. The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined ``that the probable cause
of this accident was the in-flight separation of the vertical
stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design loads that
were created by the first officer's unnecessary and excessive rudder
pedal inputs.''
The NTSB's investigation revealed that many pilots might have a
general misunderstanding of what the design maneuvering speed
(VA) is and the extent of structural protection that exists
when an airplane is operated at speeds below its VA. The
NTSB found that many pilots of transport category airplanes believe
that, as long as they are below the airplane's VA, they can
make any control input they desire without risking structural damage to
the airplane.
VA is a structural design airspeed used in determining
the strength requirements for the airplane and its control surfaces.
The structural loads resulting from certain movements of the control
surfaces at or below VA must be taken into account during
the design of a transport category airplane. The structural design
standards only consider a single full control input in any single axis.
The design standards also consider an abrupt return of the rudder
control to the neutral position. The standards do not address full
control inputs in more than one axis at the same time or multiple
inputs in the same axis. Therefore, the structural design requirements
do not ensure the airplane structure can withstand multiple control
inputs in one axis or control inputs in more than one axis at a time at
any speed, even below VA.
The NTSB investigation identified what appears to be a widespread
misunderstanding among pilots about the degree of structural protection
that exists when full or abrupt flight control inputs are made at
airspeeds below an airplane's VA. As a result, the NTSB
recommended that the FAA amend all relevant regulatory and advisory
materials to clarify that operating at or below maneuvering speed does
not provide structural protection against multiple full control inputs
in one axis or full control inputs in more than one axis at the same
time. (See NTSB safety recommendation A-04-060, which is included in
the docket for this rulemaking or can be found at http://www.ntsb.gov/
Recs/letters/2004/A04_56_62.pdf.)
14 CFR 25.1583(a)(3) currently requires applicants to provide the
VA, along with the following statement, in the Airplane
Flight Manual (AFM): ``Full application of rudder and aileron controls,
as well as maneuvers that involve angles of attack near the stall,
should be confined to speeds below this value.'' Although the required
AFM statement warns pilots against making full rudder or aileron
control inputs at speeds above VA, it is silent on what
control inputs can safely be made below VA. Pilots may
misinterpret the AFM statement to imply that any control input can
safely be made below VA.
At the FAA's request, manufacturers of transport category airplanes
voluntarily revised the AFMs for all major transport category airplane
types currently in service to include a statement similar to the
following:
Avoid rapid and large alternating control inputs, especially in
combination with large changes in pitch, roll, or yaw (e.g., large
sideslip angles) as they may result in structural failures at any
speed, including below VA.
General Discussion of Proposal
For future airplane designs, this NPRM proposes to amend Sec.
25.1583(a)(3) to change the requirement associated with the statement
to be provided in the AFM. The proposed amendment would clarify that
flying at or below VA does not allow a pilot to make
multiple large control inputs in one airplane axis or single full
control inputs in more than one airplane axis at a time without
endangering the airplane's structure.
Instead of specifying the exact wording of the statement or set of
statements to be included in the AFM, the proposed rule would require
statements, as applicable to the particular design, explaining that:
(1) Full application of pitch, roll, or yaw controls should be
confined to speeds below VA; and
(2) Rapid and large alternating control inputs, especially in
combination with large changes in pitch, roll, or yaw, and full control
inputs in more than one axis at the same time should be avoided as they
may result in structural failures at any speed, including below
VA.
This proposed language would give applicants the flexibility to
provide the required safety information in a way that would best fit
their airplane design. The proposed revision would only require that
the warning statement be included in the AFM if it is applicable. A
warning statement would be unnecessary if the airplane is protected
from structural damage against all types of control inputs at any
speed.
The terms ``rudder and aileron controls'' in the existing
requirement would be replaced by ``pitch, roll, and/or yaw controls.''
Rudders and ailerons are airplane control surfaces commonly used to
provide control in the yaw and roll axes, respectively. However, other
control surfaces may be used to either provide or augment control in
any given axis. The pilot may not always know which control surface is
being moved for any given control input. Since the statement required
by Sec. 25.1583(a)(3) is an operating limitation that must be observed
by the pilot, the proposed text refers to the pilot control inputs by
control axis rather than by control surface.
In addition, the existing text ``as well as maneuvers that involve
angles of attack near the stall'' would be removed. The existing text
assumes that, for high angle of attack maneuvers below VA,
the airplane will always stall before structural failure can occur.
However, this is not always the case. In a pitch-up maneuver, if the
pitch rate is rapidly increased through an abrupt pitch input, a
phenomenon known as dynamic overshoot may occur. A dynamic overshoot
can result in exceeding the airplane's structural limits before the
airplane stalls. Also, the airplane manufacturer may choose to select a
[[Page 45779]]
higher VA than the minimum value required by 14 CFR part 25
certification requirements. This results in a structurally stronger
airplane, but does not ensure the airplane will stall before structural
failure occurs. The proposed revision addresses these concerns by
making the limitation against full application of the roll and yaw
controls also applicable to the pitch axis and by removing the words
``as well as maneuvers that involve angles of attack near the stall.''
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
is no new information collection requirement 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 has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to 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, the 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 impacts of this 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 cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The
reasoning for this determination follows: Since this proposed rule
would merely require a clarifying change to a statement that
manufacturers are currently required to provide in the AFM, and there
are no changes required to airplane design, test, or analysis, the
expected outcome will be minimal costs. The clarification addresses an
identified safety issue, so the proposed rule has benefits. Because the
outcome of the proposed rule is expected to have minimal costs with
positive benefits, a regulatory evaluation was not prepared. The FAA
requests comments with supporting justification about the FAA
determination of minimal impact.
FAA has, therefore, 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 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.
The FAA believes this proposed rule would not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities because all United
States transport-aircraft category manufacturers 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 solicits 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 any 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 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 ensures the safety of the American public. As a result, this rule is
not considered as creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.
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
(in 1995 dollars) 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 $136.1 million in lieu of $100
million.
[[Page 45780]]
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 in 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 4(j) 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 because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
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 number, notice number, or amendment 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).
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety, Transportation.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations part 25, 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, 44704.
[[Page 45781]]
2. Amend Sec. 25.1583 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 25.1583 Operating limitations.
(a) * * *
(3) The maneuvering speed VA and statements, as
applicable to the particular design, explaining that:
(i) Full application of pitch, roll, or yaw controls should be
confined to speeds below VA; and
(ii) Rapid and large alternating control inputs, especially in
combination with large changes in pitch, roll, or yaw, and full control
inputs in more than one axis at the same time, should be avoided as
they may result in structural failures at any speed, including below
VA.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 31, 2009.
Dorenda D. Baker,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-21478 Filed 9-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
|