[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41966-41968]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16749]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69941; File No. SR-NSX-2013-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend its Fee and Rebate Schedule

July 8, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act '' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
notice is hereby given that on July 1, 2013, National Stock Exchange,
Inc. (``NSX[supreg]'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule
change, as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comment on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is proposing to amend its Fee and Rebate Schedule (the
``Fee Schedule'') issued pursuant to Exchange Rule 16.1(a) to: (i)
Increase the rebate paid to Equity Trading Permit (``ETP'') Holders \3\
that direct Double Play Orders \4\ in securities priced at $1 or above
to the CBOE Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CBSX'') from $0.0013 per share to
(a) $0.0045 per share for executions in five select securities
(``Select Securities''),\5\ or (b) $0.0015 per share in all other
securities; (ii) make it clear that the unexecuted portion of a Double
Play Order that is returned to NSX after its initial route to the
designated away Trading Center,\6\ and subsequently executed on the NSX
or routed away in accordance with NSX Rule 11.15(a)(ii) is subject to
the standard Fee Schedule; and (iii) make it clear that the $0.0030 per
share routing fee applies only to orders routed by the Exchange in
accordance with NSX Rule 11.15(a)(ii).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NSX Rule 1.5 defines the term ``ETP'' as an Equity Trading
Permit issued by the Exchange for effecting approved securities
transactions on the Exchange's Trading Facilities.
    \4\ NSX Rule 11.11(c)(10) defines a ``Double Play Order'' as
market or limit orders for which an ETP Holder instructs the System
to route to designated away Trading Centers which are approved by
the Exchange from time to time without first exposing the order to
the NSX Book. A Double Play Order that is not executed in full after
routing away receives a new time stamp upon return to the Exchange
and is ranked and maintained in the NSX Book in accordance with Rule
11.14(a).
    \5\ The five select securities include Advanced Micro Devices,
Inc. (``AMD''), Bank of America Corp. (``BAC''), Micron Technology,
Inc. (``MU''), Nokia Corporation (``NOK''), and Sirius XM Radio Inc.
(``SIRI'').
    \6\ NSX Rule 2.11(a) defines a Trading Center as other
securities exchanges, facilities of securities exchanges, automated
trading systems, electronic communications networks or other brokers
or dealers.
    \7\ NSX 11.15(a)(ii) provides that ``[u]nless the terms of the
order direct otherwise, if an order (other than a Sweep Order) has
not been executed in its entirety pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of
this Rule, the order shall be eligible for routing away . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.nsx.com, at the Exchange's principal office, and at the
Commission's public reference room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section III.A of its Fee Schedule in
order to (i) increase the rebate paid to ETP Holders that direct Double
Play Orders in securities priced $1 or above to CBSX from $0.0013 per
share to (a) $0.0045 per share for executions in Select Securities, or
(b) $0.0015 per share in all other securities; (ii) make it clear that
the unexecuted portion of a Double Play Order that is returned to NSX
after its initial route to the designated away Trading Center, and
subsequently executed on the NSX or is routed away in accordance with
NSX Rule 11.15(a)(ii) is subject to the standard Fee Schedule; and
(iii) make it clear that the $0.0030 per share routing fee applies only
to orders routed by the Exchange in accordance with NSX Rule
11.15(a)(ii).
Double Play Order Rebate
    The Double Play Order is a market or limit order for which the ETP
Holder instructs the System \8\ to bypass the NSX Book \9\ and route
the order to a designated away Trading Center(s) that has been approved
by the Exchange.\10\ The NSX System will provide any unexecuted portion
of a Double Play Order with a new timestamp upon return to the
Exchange, and the order will be processed in the manner described in
NSX Rule 11.14 (Priority of Orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Under NSX Rule 1.5, the term ``System'' is defined as ``the
electronic securities communications and trading facility . . .
through which orders of Users are consolidated for ranking and
execution.''
    \9\ Under NSX Rule 1.5, the term ``NSX Book'' is defined as
``the System's electronic file of orders.''
    \10\ See NSX Rule 11.11(c)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Section III.A of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange currently
pays ETP Holders a rebate of $0.0013 for each share routed to and
executed on a designated Trading Center approved by the Exchange.
Currently, the only approved Trading Center is CBSX. The Exchange is
proposing to increase the rebate for Double Play Orders routed to and
executed on CBSX from $0.0013 per share to (i) $0.0045 per share for
orders in Select Securities, and (ii) $0.0015 per share for orders in
all other securities. This increase mirrors a proposal by the CBSX to
increase rebates offered on its Fee Schedule that became effective on
July 1, 2013.\11\ The Exchange intends to merely pass through rebates
to ETP Holders that direct Double Play Orders to the CBSX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See SR-CBOE-2013-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange anticipates that additional Trading Centers will be
approved in the future for designation by ETP Holders as the
destination for Double Play Orders. The Exchange will not pay ETP
Holders a rebate for orders that are routed to and executed on a
designated Trading Center other than CBSX. The Exchange notes that the
ETP Holder directs the order to the designated away Trading Center, and
decides the appropriate execution venue based on factors including
whether any rebate is available. The Exchange believes that the
proposed increase in rebates for Double Play Orders routed to and
executed on CBSX will provide ETP Holders with an incentive to direct
additional order flow to the NSX and CBSX.
Unexecuted Portion of Double Play Orders
    The Exchange is also proposing to amend its Fee Schedule to make it
clear that any unexecuted portion of a Double Play Order that is
executed on the NSX upon return from an away Trading Center, or is
routed away in accordance

with NSX Rule 11.15(a)(ii), is subject to the charges on the standard
Fee Schedule. The Exchange believes that this amendment will provide
ETP Holders with important information on how the Exchange imposes its
fees and clarify the fees applicable when any unexecuted portion of a
Double Play Order is returned to the NSX and subsequently executed or
routed away in accordance with NSX Rule 11.15(a)(ii).
Regulation NMS Routing Fee
    Finally, the Exchange is proposing to amend its Fee Schedule to
make it clear that only orders routed by the Exchange in accordance
with NSX Rule 11.15(a)(ii), and not Double Play Orders being routed to
the designated away Trading Center as instructed by the ETP Holder,
will be subject to the $0.0030 per share routing fee. An ETP Holder
will only be charged a fee if an unexecuted portion of the Double Play
Order returns to the Exchange, and is routed away by the Exchange in
accordance with NSX Rule 11.15(a)(ii). The Exchange believes that, by
not charging a routing fee for the initial routing of the Double Play
Order, it will attract additional liquidity from ETP Holders seeking a
low cost route and execution venue, and will further promote the
economically efficient execution of securities transactions.
Operative Date and Notice
    The Exchange intends to make the proposed modifications, which are
effective upon filing, operative as of the commencement of trading on
July 1, 2013. Pursuant to Exchange Rule 16.1(c), the Exchange will
``provide ETP Holders with notice of all relevant dues, fees,
assessments and charges of the Exchange'' through the issuance of an
Information Circular and will post a copy of the rule filing on the
Exchange's Web site (www.nsx.com).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed increase in the rebate for
Double Play Orders routed away and executed on the CBSX is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and
Sections 6(b)(4) \13\ and 6(b)(5) \14\ of the Act \15\ in particular.
The Exchange submits that the amendments to the Fee Schedule provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable, dues, fees and other
charges among market participants and persons using the facilities of
the Exchange and are therefore consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act. The increased rebate is equitably allocated among ETP Holders,
issuers and persons using the Exchange's facilities because all ETP
Holders are eligible to submit (or not submit) Double Play Orders at
their discretion. The Exchange notes that ETP Holders using the Double
Play Order to access the CBSX will receive a rebate rather than being
charged the Exchange's standard fees for routing orders. This is
because the Exchange is passing through to ETP Holders the rebate it
receives from CBSX. Providing ETP Holders with a rebate for directing
Double Play Orders to the CBSX is reasonable to increase order flow
handled by the Exchange. Increased use of the Double Play Order should
also increase liquidity at the Exchange since any unexecuted portion is
returned to the NSX Book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The increased rebate is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
because use of the Double Play Order is available to all ETP Holders,
without limitation, and thus the Fee Schedule amendment does not permit
unfair discrimination among issuers, ETP Holders or their customers.
The increased rebate is also consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest in that they are designed to
encourage increased liquidity and more efficient and economical
securities trading.
    The Exchange believes that offering a different rebate structure
for the Select Securities is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act
is an equitable allocation of rebates among persons entering orders on
the Exchange. In addition, the Exchange believes that the rebates are
reasonable based on the trading in the Selected Securities. The
liquidity profiles of the Select Securities are different from those
for other symbols. The NBBO market width in the Select Securities in
the Select Securities is often $0.01, and the proposed rebate structure
for the Select Securities is designed to approximate a midpoint between
the NBBO. Further, the proposed rebate structure for the Select
Securities is intended to incentivize the trading in the Select
Securities and thus provide a greater pool of liquidity. Finally, the
proposed rebates for the Select Securities will apply equally to all
market participants. The Exchange submits that the different rebate
structure for the Select Securities constitutes an equitable allocation
of reasonable fees and other charges among ETP Holders, issuers and
other persons using the facilities of the Exchange.
    The amended rebate structure for the Select Securities is also
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it does not permit
unfair discrimination between ETP Holders, issuers and customers. ETP
Holders and their customers will choose to send orders in the Select
Securities to NSX to be eligible for the amended fee and rebate
schedule, but they also have a choice of other execution venues with
different pricing mechanisms as well. By offering the enhanced fee and
rebate structure in the Select Securities, the Exchange is providing
alternatives to ETP Holders and their customers, while also striving to
increase the liquidity in the Select Securities on the Exchange.
    The Exchange further submits that the proposed clarifications to
Section III.A of the Fee Schedule are consistent with the provisions of
Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in
particular, in that these changes are intended to Promote just and
equitable principles of trade and the protection of investors. The
amendments are intended to provide clarity for ETP Holders, their
customers, and other market participants that (i) the Exchange will
apply its standard Fee Schedule for any portion of a Double Play Order
that is executed on the NSX after returning from another Trading Center
or is subsequently routed away by the Exchange in accordance with NSX
Rule 11.15(a)(ii); and (ii) the ETP Holders will be charged the $0.0030
routing fee in the event that the Exchange routes an order away in
accordance with NSX Rule 11.15(a)(ii), but that such routing fees will
not apply to the initial routing of a Double Play Order to the
designated away Trading Center. This clarification to the Fee Schedule
is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act in that
they provide for additional transparency and clarity with respect to
the circumstances under which a routing fee will be charged by the
Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendments are
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act in that they do not pose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the Act. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to
enhance the ability of the Exchange to attract additional order flow,
allow ETP Holders to access liquidity on the CBSX exchange, and expand
the pool of liquidity on NSX. The amendments are designed to enhance
competition among exchanges and thereby further the purposes of the
Act.The exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
environment in which market participants can make order entry decisions
among competing

venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review
and change its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to offer its ETP Holders and their customers the means to
achieve economically efficient securities transactions. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive
environment.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    As noted above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
changes are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act and specifically
Section 6(b)(8) in that they do not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange believes that increasing the rebate paid to ETP
Holders using the Double Play Order will operate to promote competition
by potentially attracting additional liquidity to the Exchange and
providing access to liquidity on the CBSX. The Exchange does not
believe that passing through the rebate received from the CBSX to ETP
Holders imposes a burden on competition for any other Exchange approved
Trading Center since other Trading Centers may offer other competitive
functions or features such as low cost executions, faster executions,
of increased levels of liquidity. The ETP Holder may choose which
offering is most attractive and the increased rebate is one factor
which an ETP Holder may consider. As stated above, the Exchange
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can choose competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to
remain competitive with other exchanges.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The proposed rule change has taken effect upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \16\ and subparagraph
(f)(2) of Rule 19b-4.\17\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of
such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily
suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSX-2013-14 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2013-14. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2013-14,
and should be submitted on or before August 2, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16749 Filed 7-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 472-477]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33347]

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

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

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

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

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this proposed rule contact Douglas Tsuji, Propulsion and Mechanical
Systems Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile
(425) 227-1320, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this proposed rule contact Doug
Anderson, Office of the Regional Counsel, ANM-7, Federal Aviation
Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how
you can get a copy of related rulemaking documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Background

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

General Discussion of the Proposal

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

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

Discussion of the Proposed Regulatory Requirements

Proposed Changes to Sec.  25.729, Retracting Mechanism

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

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

Advisory Material for Sec.  25.729

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

Proposed Changes to Sec.  25.773, Pilot Compartment View

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

Existing Advisory Material for Sec.  25.773

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

Other Proposed Rulemaking

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

International Compatibility

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

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

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impact of the proposed rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule.
    The reasoning for this determination follows: The proposed rule
would amend the airworthiness standards for transport category
airplanes for landing gear retracting mechanisms and pilot compartment
view to harmonize with existing more stringent European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) requirements. For landing gear retracting mechanisms,
adoption of the EASA requirements would ensure the landing gear is in
the appropriate configuration when necessary; that the landing gear and
its supporting structure, doors, and mechanisms operate properly; that
the flight crew would be aware of the landing gear position status; and
that critical equipment would be protected from tire failure or brake
temperatures. For the pilot compartment view, reliable and safe
operation during precipitation would be ensured by adoption of the EASA
design requirements for flight deck rain removal systems. The most
significant of the pilot compartment view requirements is that no
single failure of the rain removal system could lead to a loss of pilot
view through both windshields. The effect of this proposed requirement
is that, for newly certificated airplanes, manufacturers must provide a
separate, mechanically and electrically independent method for clearing
the windshield during precipitation. This method may include separate
flight deck control switches for left and right windshield wipers. The
FAA has determined that installation of the second wiper switch would
require minimal additional costs when the system is initially designed
to comply with the EASA requirement.
    Currently, U.S. manufacturers of transport category airplanes meet
both FAA and EASA requirements. The FAA expects these manufacturers
would want to continue selling future transport category airplanes in
Europe and thus would meet EASA requirements. Thus, for these
manufacturers and for the majority of manufacturers already in
compliance with the EASA requirements, there would be no additional
costs. However, the proposed rule would provide benefits from reduced
joint certification costs--in the requirements for data collection and
analysis, paperwork, and time spent applying for and obtaining approval
from the regulatory authorities. The FAA therefore has determined that
this proposed rule is cost beneficial due to the overall reduction in
compliance costs while maintaining the same level of safety. The FAA
requests comments regarding this determination.
    The FAA has also determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule would
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it would, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    As noted above, this proposed rule would impose no or little
additional costs on part 25 manufacturers. Moreover, all U.S.
manufacturers of transport category airplanes exceed the Small Business
Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 employees. Therefore, the
FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA
requests comments regarding this determination.

International Trade Impact Assessment

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

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

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

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

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and therefore would not have federalism implications.

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in title
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation
modes other than aviation, and to establish appropriate regulatory
distinctions. Because this proposed rule would apply to the
certification of future designs of transport category airplanes and
their subsequent operation, it could, if adopted, affect intrastate
aviation in Alaska. The FAA therefore specifically requests comments on
whether there is justification for applying the proposed rule
differently to intrastate operations in Alaska.

Environmental Analysis

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

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

Plain English

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

Additional Information

Comments Invited

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

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information

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

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
    You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this
proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in
paragraph (1).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

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

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

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

Sec.  25.729  Operating limitations.

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

Sec.  25.773  Pilot compartment view.

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

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