Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 13515 

(iv) Loan losses (dollar amount and as 

a percentage of average portfolio 

balance) in the aggregate and by 

subportfolio, including: domestic 

closed-end first-lien mortgages; 

domestic junior lien mortgages and 

home equity lines of credit; commercial 

and industrial loans; commercial real 

estate loans; credit card exposures; other 

consumer loans; and all other loans; and 

(v) Pro forma regulatory capital ratios 

and the tier 1 common ratio and any 

other capital ratios specified by the 

Board; 

(4) An explanation of the most 

significant causes for the changes in 

regulatory capital ratios and the tier 1 

common ratio; and 

(5) With respect to a stress test 

conducted pursuant to section 165(i)(2) 

of the Dodd-Frank Act by an insured 

depository institution that is a 

subsidiary of the covered company and 

that is required to disclose a summary 

of its stress tests results under 

applicable regulations, changes in 

regulatory capital ratios and any other 

capital ratios specified by the Board of 

the depository institution subsidiary 

over the planning horizon, including an 

explanation of the most significant 

causes for the changes in regulatory 

capital ratios. 

(c) Content of results. (1) The 

following disclosures required under 

paragraph (b) of this section must be on 

a cumulative basis over the planning 

horizon: 

(i) Pre-provision net revenue and 

other revenue; 

(ii) Provision for loan and lease losses, 

realized losses/gains on available-forsale and held-to-maturity securities, 

trading and counterparty losses, and 

other losses or gains; 

(iii) Net income before taxes; and 

(iv) Loan losses in the aggregate and 

by subportfolio. 

(2) The disclosure of pro forma 

regulatory capital ratios, the tier 1 

common ratio, and any other capital 

ratios specified by the Board that is 

required under paragraph (b) of this 

section must include the beginning 

value, ending value, and minimum 

value of each ratio over the planning 

horizon. 

■ 7. Subparts G and H are removed and 

reserved. 

■ 8. Subparts J through U are added and 

reserved. 

By order of the Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System, March 4, 2014. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2014–05053 Filed 3–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0812; Amendment 

No. 25–138] 

RIN 2120–AK36 

Requirements for Chemical Oxygen 

Generators Installed on Transport 

Category Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

type certification requirements for 

chemical oxygen generators installed on 

transport category airplanes so the 

generators are secure and not subject to 

misuse. This rule increases the level of 

security for future transport category 

airplane designs but does not directly 

affect the existing fleet of those 

airplanes. 

DATES: This action becomes effective 

May 12, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How to Obtain 

Additional Information’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Jeff Gardlin, Airframe 

and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM–115, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Northwest Mountain 

Region, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

WA 98057–3356; telephone: (425) 227– 

2136; email: jeff.gardlin@faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Douglas Anderson, 

Federal Aviation Administration, Office 

of the Regional Counsel, ANM–7, 

Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

telephone: (425) 227–2166; email: 

douglas.anderson@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue 

regulations 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 final rule 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 revises the safety standards 

for design and operation of transport 

category airplanes. 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Frequently Used in This Document 

AD Airworthiness Directive 

ARAC Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee 

COG Chemical Oxygen Generator 

LOARC Lavatory Oxygen Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee 

SFAR Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

This final rule adopts new standards 

for chemical oxygen generators (COG) 

installed in transport category airplanes. 

These new standards, based on the 

recommendations of the Lavatory 

Oxygen Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee (LOARC), pertain to future 

applications for type certificates, 

address potential security 

vulnerabilities with COG installations, 

and provide performance-based options 

for acceptable methods of compliance. 

II. Background 

The FAA became aware of security 

vulnerabilities with certain types of 

oxygen systems installed inside the 

lavatories of most transport category 

airplanes. To address the underlying 

security issues, the FAA chartered an 

aviation rulemaking committee (ARC) to 

make recommendations regarding new 

standards for oxygen system 

installations, as well as how to 

implement those standards. 

Specifically, the LOARC was tasked to: 

• Establish criteria for in-service, new 

production and new type design 

airplanes, preferably in the form of 

performance standards, for safe and 

secure installation of lavatory oxygen 

systems; 

• Determine whether the same 

criteria should apply to the existing fleet 

and to new production and type 

designs; 

• Establish what type of safety 

assessment approach should be used, 

for example, in accordance with Society 

of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

13516 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) 5577, 

Aircraft Lightning Direct Effects Certification, dated 

September 30, 2002. 

International Document ARP5577 1 or 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) 25.1309, as well as define 

content and procedures of the safety 

assessment; 

• Determine whether tamper 

resistance, active tamper evidence, or 

different system design characteristics 

are equivalent options; 

• Develop guidance as necessary to 

satisfy the recommended criteria for 

each system design characteristic as 

appropriate; and 

• Consider the advantages and 

disadvantages of different 

implementation options and 

recommend a schedule(s) for 

implementation. 

The LOARC identified five key 

subjects to focus on to develop its 

recommendations and fulfill its charter. 

Those subjects were: 

• Design considerations—identifying 

and characterizing the design 

constraints and key factors affecting an 

installation. 

• Security standards—identifying the 

necessary components of a secure 

installation, in terms of both new 

designs and for retrofit. 

• System performance—identifying 

the factors that affect system 

performance in general and how 

modifications to enhance security might 

affect system performance. 

• Implementation considerations— 

identifying the major factors to 

implement the new requirements into 

the fleet as expeditiously as practicable, 

as well as assessing how long certain 

actions will take. 

• Other affected areas—characterizing 

the parameters that resulted in the 

determination of a security vulnerability 

for lavatory COG installations and 

establishing criteria for evaluating other 

installations against those 

characteristics. 

The ARC submitted its 

recommendations to the FAA. Those 

recommendations are the basis for these 

new standards. On January 9, 2013, the 

FAA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM), Notice No. 13–01, 

entitled Requirements for Chemical 

Oxygen Generators Installed on 

Transport Category Airplanes in the 

Federal Register (78 FR 1765). The 

comment period for the NPRM closed 

on March 11, 2013. Additional 

background and historical information 

is contained in the NPRM. (See the 

docket for this rulemaking at 

www.regulations.gov.) 

III. Discussion of Public Comments and 

Final Rule 

The FAA received comments from 

four commenters regarding the NPRM 

for this final rule. Those commenters 

were the Association of Flight 

Attendants, The Boeing Company 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Boeing’’), 

Bombardier, and an individual 

commenter. 

Support for the NPRM 

The Association of Flight Attendants 

and Bombardier concurred with the 

proposal without further comment. 

Requests To Revise Applicability 

Boeing commented that the proposed 

rule should be limited to lavatory 

installations and indicated that this 

would be consistent with the LOARC’s 

recommendation. We disagree. The 

LOARC generalized its 

recommendations to apply to any COG 

installation. The effect of these new 

regulations on any given COG 

installation will vary. For most interior 

arrangements, lavatories are the only 

installation where design changes will 

be necessary. We did not change this 

final rule based on this comment. 

Boeing proposed that we modify the 

applicability of the proposed rule to 

correspond with Airworthiness 

Directive (AD) 2011–04–09, 

Amendment 39–16630 (76 FR 12556, 

March 8, 2011), such that all-cargo 

airplanes and airplanes operating under 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 

other than part 121 operations would 

not be affected. We disagree. While the 

final rule is intended to address the 

security of COGs on primarily 

passenger-carrying airplanes operating 

under part 121, all types of operations 

will benefit to some degree. Once 

installations are defined for an airplane 

type, the airplane could be operated 

under any operating regulation and 

would not require changes. This 

approach also accommodates future 

changes in operating requirements by 

making the COG standards a basic 

design requirement. Also, § 25.1450 

contains a provision that excludes 

compliance with the new standards for 

airplanes approved using Special 

Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 

109. We did not change this final rule 

based on this comment. 

An individual commented that the inservice fleet should be modified for any 

COG installation and not just lavatories. 

We disagree. The proposed rule did not 

address in-service airplanes, so adding 

retrofit requirements would be beyond 

the scope of the proposal. However, the 

FAA has taken action to revise COG 

installations that have a known unsafe 

condition by issuing AD 2011–04–09, 

Amendment 39–16630 (76 FR 12556, 

March 8, 2011) and AD 2012–11–09, 

Amendment 39–17072 (77 FR 38000, 

June 26, 2012). If we identify additional 

unsafe conditions on in-service 

airplanes, we will issue additional ADs. 

We did not change this final rule based 

on this comment. 

The same individual also proposed 

that the requirements apply to newlyproduced airplanes, in addition to new 

type certificates. We disagree. As 

discussed above, the FAA has already 

taken action on installations identified 

as being potentially unsafe. The 

referenced ADs apply to newly 

produced airplanes, as well as existing 

airplanes. This final rule raises the level 

of safety for future type certificates, but 

it is not meant to affect current airplanes 

in production. We did not change this 

final rule based on this comment. 

Request To Revise Economic Analysis 

Boeing commented that if the 

proposed rule applies to all COG 

installations, the economic analysis was 

not accurate, since it assumes there will 

be little cost impact. We disagree. As 

previously noted, all COG installations 

are affected by this final rule, but the 

vast majority of installations will not 

require any design changes because they 

are located where it would be 

immediately obvious if anyone 

attempted to access them. In those 

cases, the installation complies with the 

rule because of its location and would 

not require any physical changes to the 

generator or method of installation. In 

addition, because this rule applies to 

new applications for type certification, 

any design changes to existing 

approaches that might be needed can 

readily be accommodated during the 

design process. Therefore, the economic 

assessment is valid. We did not change 

this final rule based on this comment. 

Boeing also commented that if the 

requirements of this rule were imposed 

as a result of § 21.101, the cost 

ramifications would be more significant 

and that this was not accounted for in 

the economic evaluation. We disagree. It 

is true that these requirements could be 

imposed on significant product-level 

design changes. However, as noted in 

the ‘‘Benefits’’ discussion of the Type 

Certification Procedures for Changed 

Products (65 FR 36244, June 7, 2000) 

final rule, compliance is required with 

all later regulations where such 

compliance will materially contribute to 

the level of safety. 

The provisions of § 21.101 do not 

require compliance with later 

requirements under specified 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 13517 

2http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/

20050518005123/en/Boeing-Selects-AerospacesPulse-Oxygen-System-Outfit. 

circumstances. In particular, where the 

costs involved would not be 

commensurate with the safety benefit 

achieved. Therefore, the incremental 

costs for changed products have already 

been justified by the benefits and are not 

attributable to this final rule. 

Accordingly, no change was made to 

this final rule as a result of this 

comment. 

Comments on Design Considerations 

An individual commented on the 

detailed technical merits any such 

system should have, as well as the 

processes necessary to ensure such 

systems can be maintained and 

produced. We agree that most of the 

comments are worthwhile design 

considerations, but they are beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking effort, which 

defines a minimum performance 

standard for COG installations. The 

commenter also addressed the 

economics of product development and 

marketing, which is also beyond the 

scope of the notice. We did not change 

this final rule based on the individual’s 

comments. 

Request To Maintain Paragraph 

Numbering 

Boeing suggested that the current 

paragraph numbering be maintained in 

the CFR, such that § 25.795(d) is 

retained as ‘‘exceptions.’’ Boeing 

suggested this would assist future 

applicants administratively, since the 

amendment level would not affect 

which paragraph contained a 

requirement. We partially agree. While 

we understand the reason for the 

comment, an applicant must always 

specify the certification basis when 

applying for a design change, so the 

paragraph numbering should not be an 

issue. Furthermore, for consistency with 

existing regulations, a paragraph 

covering exceptions should come after 

the substantive requirements of the 

section. We did not change this final 

rule based on this comment. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, 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 final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it to 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 final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows: 

This final rule adopts new standards 

for future type certificate applications 

pertaining to COGs installed on 

transport category airplanes. The new 

standards are intended to eliminate 

potential security vulnerabilities. 

Consequently, the primary benefit of 

this rule is that air carriers may 

continue to provide supplemental 

oxygen to individuals in lavatories 

during emergencies while ensuring that 

individuals in lavatories cannot tamper 

with the supplemental oxygen system. 

The rule will affect future 

certifications, but as the newest 

certificated airplanes are in compliance 

with this final rule, these costs are 

expected to be minimal. The Boeing 

Model 787 and the Airbus A350 

established an acceptable design, or 

received type certification between 3 

and 5 years ago (hence predating this 

rule). The FAA expects that these 

systems can be incorporated into future 

type certificated airplanes at a minimal 

cost. 

Secondly, the ‘‘newer’’ oxygen 

systems (such as those on the Boeing 

Model 787 and the Airbus A350) are 

cost efficient in comparison to the more 

traditional COGs.2 The ‘‘newer’’ systems 

weigh less and deliver oxygen more 

effectively than the traditional COGs. 

The lesser weight of the materials used 

to construct the newer systems, 

combined with a reduction in the 

amount of oxygen required per 

passenger, translates into fuel cost 

savings over an airplane’s lifespan. 

The design standards for secure 

oxygen systems apply to future 

transport category airplane type 

certificates only. Airplanes currently in 

production, or already in the existing 

fleet, are excluded from this rule. Thus, 

there are no costs to the existing fleet or 

airplanes in production. 

For these reasons this final rule is 

expected to have a minimal impact with 

positive net benefits, and a regulatory 

evaluation was not prepared. The FAA 

has therefore determined that this final 

rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined in section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

B. 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-forprofit 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

13518 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) small-entity size standard for 

aircraft manufacturers is 1,500 

employees or less. No U.S. 

manufacturers of transport category 

airplanes are small entities; thus, this 

final rule will not affect small entities, 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis was 

not prepared. 

If an agency determines that a 

rulemaking will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

head of the agency may so certify under 

section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as 

provided in section 605(b), the head of 

the FAA certifies that this rulemaking 

will not result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this final rule and 

determined that it would improve a 

safety objective and therefore is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

international trade. 

D. 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 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there is no 

new requirement for information 

collection associated with this final 

rule. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these regulations. 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609, and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency determined that this action will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the states, or the relationship between 

the federal government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have Federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

VI. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

Internet— 

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 

3. Access the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by 

amendment or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

Comments received may be viewed by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov and 

following the online instructions to 

search the docket number for this 

action. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of the FAA’s dockets 

by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

C. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document, may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 13519 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The Amendments 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT 

CATEGORY AIRPLANES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702 and 44704. 

■ 2. Amend § 25.795 by redesignating 

paragraphs (d) and (e) as (e) and (f) 

respectively, and by adding a new 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 25.795 Security considerations. 

* * * * * 

(d) Each chemical oxygen generator or 

its installation must be designed to be 

secure from deliberate manipulation by 

one of the following: 

(1) By providing effective resistance to 

tampering, 

(2) By providing an effective 

combination of resistance to tampering 

and active tamper-evident features, 

(3) By installation in a location or 

manner whereby any attempt to access 

the generator would be immediately 

obvious, or 

(4) By a combination of approaches 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2) and 

(d)(3) of this section that the 

Administrator finds provides a secure 

installation. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 25.1450 by adding a new 

paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 25.1450 Chemical oxygen generators. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Except as provided in SFAR 109, 

each chemical oxygen generator 

installation must meet the requirements 

of § 25.795(d). 

* * * * * 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in 

Washington, DC, on February 19, 2014. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–05291 Filed 3–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0872; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–SW–012–AD; Amendment 

39–17784; AD 2014–05–11] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Helicopters (Type Certificate 

Previously Held by Eurocopter France) 

(Airbus Helicopters) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus 

Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332L, 

AS332L1, AS332L2, EC225LP, and 

SA330J helicopters with a certain tail 

rotor control turnbuckle (turnbuckle) 

installed. This AD requires inspecting 

the turnbuckles for corrosion or a crack, 

and depending on the results, either 

replacing the turnbuckle or treating the 

turnbuckle for corrosion. This AD was 

prompted by a report that a turnbuckle 

had failed because of corrosion. The 

actions of this AD are intended to detect 

corrosion or a crack on a turnbuckle and 

prevent the failure of a turnbuckle, loss 

of control of the tail rotor and 

subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

DATES: This AD is effective April 15, 

2014. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain documents listed in this AD 

as of April 15, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Airbus 

Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, 

Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone 

(972) 641–0000 or (800) 232–0323; fax 

(972) 641–3775; or at http://www.airbus

helicopters.com/techpub. You may 

review the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort 

Worth, Texas 76137. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov or in person at the 

Docket Operations Office between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any 

incorporated-by-reference service 

information, the economic evaluation, 

any comments received, and other 

information. The street address for the 

Docket Operations Office (phone: 800– 

647–5527) is U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations 

Office, M–30, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

Safety Management Group, FAA, 2601 

Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 

76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email 

robert.grant@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

On October 24, 2013, at 78 FR 63429, 

the Federal Register published our 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 

which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 

39 by adding an AD that would apply 

to Eurocopter France (now Airbus 

Helicopters) Model AS332C, AS332L, 

AS332L1, AS332L2, EC225LP, and 

SA330J helicopters with a turnbuckle, 

part number (P/N) 330A27–5031–20, 

installed. The NPRM proposed to 

require inspecting the turnbuckles for 

corrosion or a crack, and depending on 

the results, either replacing the 

turnbuckle or treating the turnbuckle for 

corrosion. The proposed requirements 

were intended to detect corrosion or a 

crack on a turnbuckle and prevent the 

failure of a turnbuckle, loss of control of 

the tail rotor and subsequent loss of 

control of the helicopter. 

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 

2013–0081, dated March 26, 2013, 

issued by EASA, which is the Technical 

Agent for the Member States of the 

European Union. EASA published AD 

No. 2013–0081 to correct an unsafe 

condition for Eurocopter Model SA330J, 

AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, 

AS332L2, EC225LP helicopters 

equipped with tail rotor control 

turnbuckles, part number 330A27– 

5031–20. EASA advises that one of the 

two turnbuckles installed on the tail 

rotor’s yaw flight control cables failed 

on a helicopter because of corrosion. 

The subsequent investigation revealed a 

lack of Mastinox sealant coating 

between both sides of the turnbuckle’s 

internal tappings and the interface 

screws of the end-fitting components of 

the yaw flight control cables. To address 

this condition, EASA issued AD No. 

2013–0081, which requires repetitive 

inspections of each turnbuckle and, 

depending on the results, either 

replacing the turnbuckle or treating the 

turnbuckle for corrosion. EASA revised 

its AD and issued AD No. 2013–0081R1, 

dated June 20, 2013, to clarify some of 

the requirements. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES