![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Revised Requirement for Material Strength Properties and Design Values for Transport Airplanes
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: January 29, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 19)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4317-4322]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29ja02-30]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. FAA-2002-11345; Notice No. 02-05]
RIN 2120-AH36
Revised Requirement for Material Strength Properties and Design
Values for Transport Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to revise the
material strength properties and material design values requirement for
transport category airplanes by incorporating changes developed in
cooperation with the Joint Aviation Authorities of Europe and the U.S.
and European aviation industry through the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (ARAC). This action is necessary because differences between
the current U.S. and European requirements impose unnecessary costs on
airplane manufacturers. These proposals are intended to achieve common
requirements and language between the requirements of the U.S.
regulations and the Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) of Europe, while
maintaining at least the level of safety provided by the current
regulations and industry practice.
DATES: Send your comments on or before April 1, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Address your comments to the Docket Management System, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number, FAA-
2002-11345 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-2002-XXXX.'' 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 to these proposed regulations in person in the
Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Dockets Office is on the plaza level of
the NASSIF Building at the Department of Transportation at the above
address. Also, you may review public dockets on the Internet at http://
dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich Yarges, Airframe/Cabin Safety
Branch, ANM-115, FAA Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056;
telephone (425) 227-2143, facsimile (425) 227-1320, e-mail
rich.yarges@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 also are invited. Substantive comments
should be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments must identify the
regulatory docket or notice 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 can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the
following steps:
(1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/
search).
(2) On the search page type in the last four digits of the Docket
number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on ``search.''
(3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information
for the Docket you selected, click on the document number of the item
you wish to view.
You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the
Office of Rulemaking's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm
or the Government Printing Office's web page at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
You can also get a copy 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. Make
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number
of this rulemaking.
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.
Twenty-three 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 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.
[[Page 4319]]
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 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
time-consuming 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).
By notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 4222, January 20, 1995),
the FAA tasked an ARAC working group of industry and government
structural specialists from Europe, the United States, and Canada to
review Sec. 25.613 of part 25, along with corresponding paragraph
25.613 of the JAR, and supporting policy and guidance material, and to
recommend to the FAA appropriate revisions for harmonization, including
advisory material. The ARAC working group completed its work on that
task and submitted its recommendation to the FAA. That effort was then
absorbed under the Fast Track program when it was established in 1999.
The regulatory changes proposed in this notice result from the
recommendation of ARAC.
Discussion of the Proposal
Section 25.613 of part 25 prescribes requirements for material
static strength properties and design values. Metallic material
strength properties for aircraft manufactured in the U.S. have
traditionally been based on those specified in Military Handbook (MIL-
[[Page 4320]]
HDBK)-5. For metallic materials not listed in that handbook, the
statistical procedures in the handbook were normally used to determine
material strength properties. Prior to Amendment 25-72 to part 25 (55
FR 29786, July 20, 1990), the ``A'' or ``B'' material strength
properties listed in MIL-HDBK-5, or those listed in MIL-HDBK-17, and -
23, or Army-Navy-Commerce (ANC)-18, were required to be used unless
specific FAA approval was granted to use other properties. With
Amendment 25-72, Secs. 25.613 and 25.615 were combined into one
requirement, Sec. 25.613, and the references to MIL-HDBK-5, -17, -23,
and ANC-18 were removed. As part of that amendment, the requirement to
use ``A'' and ``B'' properties of the military handbook was replaced by
a more general requirement specifying probabilities and confidence
levels for material strength properties, with the test procedures and
statistical methods unspecified. Those probability and confidence
levels apply to metallic as well as non-metallic materials. In Europe,
other standards have been used in showing compliance with JAR 25.613,
such as the Euronorm, International Standard Organization, and
Engineering Sciences Data Unit 00932 Metallic Data Handbook.
Because Amendment 25-72 removed the provision which permitted the
Administrator to approve ``other design values,'' such an approval
requires an equivalent safety finding. This finding results in
additional administrative time for both the manufacturer and the FAA.
To reduce this administrative burden, the FAA proposes to revise the
rule to reinstate the pre-amendment 25-72 provision. In addition, other
changes of a clarifying nature are proposed.
Proposed Changes
This proposal would revise Sec. 25.613 as follows:
The heading of Sec. 25.613 would be revised to read,
``Material Strength Properties and Material Design Values.'' This
change would clarify that the design values are material design values.
Paragraph (a) would remain unchanged.
Paragraph (b) would be revised to clarify that the design
values are material design values. The ``A'' and ``B'' properties
published in MIL-HDBK-5 and -17, or in equivalent handbooks, would be
acceptable without further statistical analysis. The statistical
methods specified in MIL-HDBK-5 and -17 would be acceptable for use in
establishing material design values. Other statistical methods, amounts
of data, and material property data might also be acceptable, including
those specified in the European Standards previously noted.
Paragraph (c) currently requires consideration of the
effects of temperature on allowable stresses used for design where
thermal effects are significant under normal operating conditions. The
proposed revision would require consideration of environmental
conditions in general, such as temperature and moisture, on material
design values used in an essential component or structure, where those
effects are significant in the airplane operating envelope. This change
is made because environmental factors other than temperature may have a
significant effect on allowable stresses, not only under normal
operating conditions, but also at other conditions within the airplane
operating envelope.
Paragraph (d) would be removed by this proposal as fatigue
is now adequately addressed in Sec. 25.571.
The premium selection process of paragraph (e) would be
revised to clarify that the design values are material design values.
A new paragraph (f) is proposed, which would permit the
use of other design values if they are approved by the Administrator.
A draft Advisory Circular, AC 25.613-1X, Material Strength
Properties and Material Design Values, which describes acceptable
methods of compliance with this proposed rule, is being developed
concurrently with this proposal. Public comments concerning the
proposed AC are invited by separate notice published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), the FAA has determined that there are no requirements for
information collection associated with this proposed rule.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 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 Summary
Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal
agency to propose or adopt a regulation only if the agency makes 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 impact 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 requires agencies to consider
international standards. Where appropriate, agencies are directed to
use those international standards as 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. This requirement applies only to rules that
include a Federal mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector, likely to result in a total expenditure of $100 million
or more in any one year (adjusted for inflation.)
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined this proposed
rule: (1) Has benefits which do justify its costs, is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order,
and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures; (2) would not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities; (3) would not have an negative impact on
international trade; and (4) would not impose an unfunded mandate on
state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector. The FAA
has placed these analyses in the docket and summarized them below.
The proposed rule would incorporate changes developed in
cooperation with the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe and the
U.S. and European aviation industry through the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (ARAC). If adopted, the proposed amendment would
revise the requirements for material strength properties and material
design values for transport category airplanes. Furthermore, the
proposal would harmonize FAA requirements with those proposed by the
JAA.
There would be no incremental costs as a result of the proposed
rule. Rather, the proposed rule would result in cost savings to
manufacturers and the FAA by reinstating a provision that permits the
Administrator to approve other material design values published in
accepted military and industry handbooks. A draft Advisory Circular
[[Page 4321]]
(AC) accompanies this proposed rule and describes the acceptable
methods of compliance. As a result, in certain material design values
cases, the FAA estimates that the proposed rule would result in cost
savings to manufacturers of transport category airplanes of at least
$100,000 per initial aircraft certification. In addition, the FAA would
realize an estimated administrative cost saving of approximately $1,460
per certification. Finally, by harmonizing JAA and FAA requirements,
the proposed rule would create a single set of requirements accepted in
both the United States and Europe. This action would foster
international trade and make the aircraft certification process more
efficient. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that the proposed rule
would be cost-beneficial. The FAA solicits comments from affected
entities with respect to this finding and determination and requests
that all comments be accompanied by clear documentation.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 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 Act requires agencies to
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the
rationale for their actions. The Act 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 proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the Act.
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 1980 act 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.
This proposed rule would affect manufacturers of transport category
airplanes. However, all United States transport-aircraft category
manufacturers exceed the Small Business Administration (SBA) small-
entity standard of 1,500 employees for aircraft manufacturers. United
States 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. Consequently, the
Federal Aviation Administration certifies that the proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The FAA solicits comments from affected entities with respect
to this finding and determination and requests that all comments be
accompanied by clear documentation.
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 accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed
the potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined that it
complies with the Act because this rule would use European
international standards as the basis for U.S. standards.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as
Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995, is intended, among other things, to
curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State,
local, and tribal governments.
Title II of the Act 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 a $100 million or more
expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) 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.''
This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do
not apply.
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.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
environmental assessment or 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), Public
Law 94-163, as amended (43 U.S.C. 6362), and FAA Order 1053.1. It has
been determined that the proposed rule is not a major regulatory action
under the provisions of the EPCA.
Regulations Affecting Interstate 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 interstate 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 interstate aviation in Alaska. The FAA therefore
specifically requests comments on whether there is justification for
applying the proposed rule differently in interstate operations in
Alaska.
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:
[[Page 4322]]
PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, and 44704.
2. Amend Sec. 25.613 by revising the section heading and paragraphs
(b) introductory text, (c), and (e); by removing and reserving
paragraph (d); and by adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.613 Material strength properties and material design values
* * * * *
(b) Material design values must be chosen to minimize the
probability of structural failures due to material variability. Except
as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, compliance must
be shown by selecting material design values which assure material
strength with the following probability:
* * * * *
(c) The effects of environmental conditions, such as temperature
and moisture, on material design values used in an essential component
or structure must be considered where these effects are significant
within the airplane operating envelope.
(d) [Reserved]
(e) Greater material design values may be used if a `` premium
selection `` of the material is made in which a specimen of each
individual item is tested before use to determine that the actual
strength properties of that particular item will equal or exceed those
used in design.
(f) Other material design values may be used if approved by the
Administrator.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 8, 2002.
Ali Bahrami,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-1767 Filed 1-28-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P