[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 113 (Monday, June 12, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36978-36983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14483]



[[Page 36977]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 25



Fire Protection Requirements for Powerplant Installations on Transport 
Category Airplanes; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 36978]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2000-7471; Notice No. 00-04]
RIN 2120-AG94


Fire Protection Requirements for Powerplant Installations on 
Transport Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend the 
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes to establish a 
new requirement for fire protection of powerplant installations. This 
proposal would require that components within a designated fire zone 
must be fireproof if, when exposed to or damaged by fire, they could 
pose a hazard to the airplane. Adopting this proposal would eliminate 
regulatory differences between the airworthiness standards of the U.S. 
and the Joint Aviation Requirements of Europe, without affecting 
current industry design practices.

DATES: Send your comments on or before August 11, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Address your comments to Dockets Management System, U.S. 
Department of Transportation Dockets, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket 
number FAA-2000-7471 at the beginning of your comments, and you should 
submit two copies of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation 
that the FAA has received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: 
``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2000-7471.'' We will date-stamp the 
postcard and mail it back to you.
    You also may submit comments electronically to the following 
Internet address: http://dms.dot.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing comments to this 
proposed regulation at the Department of Transportation (DOT) Dockets 
Office, located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the above 
address. You may review the public docket in person at this address 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. In addition, you may review the public dockets on the 
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. McRae, Propulsion/
Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 
Lind Avenue S.W., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-
2133; facsimile (425) 227-1320; e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#54393d3f317a3937263531143235357a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd90949698d3909e8f9c98bd9b9c9cd39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Do I Submit Comments to this NPRM?

    Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the 
proposed action by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, 
as they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy, 
federalism, or economic impact that might result from adopting the 
proposals in this document are also invited. Substantive comments 
should be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments must identify the 
regulatory docket number and be submitted in duplicate to the DOT Rules 
Docket address specified above.
    All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each 
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed 
rulemaking, will be filed in the docket. The docket is available for 
public inspection before and after the comment closing date.
    We will consider all comments received on or before the closing 
date before taking action on this proposed rulemaking. Comments filed 
late will be considered as far as possible without incurring expense or 
delay. The proposals in this document may be changed in light of the 
comments received.

How Can I Obtain a Copy of This NPRM?

    You may download an electronic copy of this document using a modem 
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section 
of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-
3339); the Government Printing Office (GPO)'s electronic bulletin board 
service (telephone: 202-512-1661); or, if applicable, the FAA's 
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee bulletin board service 
(telephone: 800-322-2722 or 202-267-5948).
    Internet users may access recently published rulemaking documents 
at the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or 
the GPO's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
    You may obtain a copy of this document by submitting a request to 
the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or by calling 202-267-
9680. Communications must identify the docket number of this NPRM.
    Any person interested in being placed on the mailing list for 
future rulemaking documents should request from the above office a copy 
of Advisory Circular 11-2A, ``Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
Distribution System,'' which describes the application procedure.

Background

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Standards in the United States?

    In the United States, the airworthiness standards for type 
certification of transport category airplanes are contained in Title 14 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 25. Manufacturers of transport 
category airplanes must show that each airplane they produce of a 
different type design complies with the appropriate part 25 standards. 
These standards apply to:
    <bullet> Airplanes manufactured within the U.S. for use by U.S.-
registered operators, and
    <bullet> Airplanes manufactured in other countries and imported to 
the U.S. under a bilateral airworthiness agreement.

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Standards in Europe?

    In Europe, the airworthiness standards for type certification of 
transport category airplanes are contained in Joint Aviation 
Requirements (JAR)-25, which are based on part 25. These were developed 
by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe to provide a common 
set of airworthiness standards within the European aviation community. 
Twenty-three European countries accept airplanes type certificated to 
the JAR-25 standards, including airplanes manufactured in the U.S. that 
are type certificated to JAR-25 standards for export to Europe.

What Is ``Harmonization'' and How Did It Start?

    Although part 25 and JAR-25 are very similar, they are not 
identical in every respect. When airplanes are type certificated to 
both sets of standards, the differences between part 25 and JAR-25 can 
result in substantial additional costs to manufacturers and operators. 
These additional costs, however, frequently do not bring about an 
increase in safety. In many cases, part 25 and JAR-25 may contain 
different requirements to accomplish the same safety intent. 
Consequently, manufacturers are

[[Page 36979]]

usually burdened with meeting the requirements of both sets of 
standards, although the level of safety is not increased 
correspondingly.
    Recognizing that a common set of standards would not only benefit 
the aviation industry economically, but also maintain the necessary 
high level of safety, the FAA and the JAA began an effort in 1988 to 
``harmonize'' their respective aviation standards. The goal of the 
harmonization effort is to ensure that:
    <bullet> Where possible, standards do not require domestic and 
foreign parties to manufacture or operate to different standards for 
each country involved; and
    <bullet> The standards adopted are mutually acceptable to the FAA 
and the foreign aviation authorities.
    Both the FAA and the JAA consider ``harmonization'' of the two sets 
of standards a high priority.

What Is ARAC and What Role Does It Play in Harmonization?

    After initiating the first steps towards harmonization, the FAA and 
JAA soon realized that following the traditional methods of rulemaking 
and accommodating different administrative procedures was neither 
sufficient nor adequate to make appreciable progress towards fulfilling 
the goal of harmonization. The FAA then identified the Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) as an ideal vehicle for assisting 
in resolving harmonization issues, and, in 1992, the FAA tasked ARAC to 
undertake the entire harmonization effort.
    The FAA had formally established ARAC in 1991 (56 FR 2190, January 
22, 1991), to provide advice and recommendations concerning the full 
range of the FAA's safety-related rulemaking activity. The FAA sought 
this advice to develop better rules in less overall time and using 
fewer FAA resources than previously needed. The committee provides the 
FAA firsthand information and insight from interested parties regarding 
potential new rules or revisions of existing rules.
    There are 64 member organizations on the committee, representing a 
wide range of interests within the aviation community. Meetings of the 
committee are open to the public, except as authorized by section 10(d) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    The ARAC establishes working groups to develop recommendations for 
resolving specific airworthiness issues. Tasks assigned to working 
groups are published in the Federal Register. Although working group 
meetings are not generally open to the public, the FAA solicits 
participation in working groups from interested members of the public 
who possess knowledge or experience in the task areas. Working groups 
report directly to the ARAC, and the ARAC must accept a working group 
proposal before ARAC presents the proposal to the FAA as an advisory 
committee recommendation.
    The activities of the ARAC will not, however, circumvent the public 
rulemaking procedures; nor is the FAA limited to the rule language 
``recommended'' by ARAC. If the FAA accepts an ARAC recommendation, the 
agency proceeds with the normal public rulemaking procedures. Any ARAC 
participation in a rulemaking package is fully disclosed in the public 
docket.

What Is the Status of the Harmonization Effort Today?

    Despite the work that ARAC has undertaken to address harmonization, 
there remain a large number of regulatory differences between part 25 
and JAR-25. The current harmonization process is extremely costly and 
time-consuming for industry, the FAA, and the JAA. Industry has 
expressed a strong desire to conclude the harmonization program as 
quickly as possible to alleviate the drain on their resources and to 
finally establish one acceptable set of standards.
    Recently, representatives of the aviation industry [including 
Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. (AIA), General 
Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and European Association of 
Aerospace Industries (AECMA)] proposed an accelerated process to reach 
harmonization. These representatives recommended that the FAA and JAA 
harmonize differences between parallel part 25 and JAR-25 standards by 
accepting the more ``stringent'' of the two standards. ``Stringent,'' 
in this case, indicates the relative higher level of safety, or greater 
applicability to modern technology, between a part 25 standard and the 
parallel JAR-25 standard.
    Aviation industry groups further refined their proposed process by 
suggesting that the 42 part 25 standards that already have been tasked 
to ARAC for harmonization be divided into three categories:
    Category 1: Envelope--For these standards, parallel part 25 and 
JAR-25 standards would be compared, and harmonization would be reached 
by accepting the more stringent of the two standards. Thus, the more 
stringent requirement of one standard would be ``enveloped'' into the 
other standard. In some cases, it may be necessary to incorporate parts 
of both the part 25 and JAR standard to achieve the final, more 
stringent standard. (This may necessitate that each authority revises 
its current standard to incorporate more stringent provisions of the 
other.)
    Category 2: Completed or near complete--For these standards, ARAC 
has reached, or has nearly reached, technical agreement or consensus on 
the new wording of the proposed harmonized standards.
    Category 3: Harmonize--For these standards, ARAC is not near 
technical agreement on harmonization, and the parallel part 25 and JAR-
25 standards cannot be ``enveloped'' (as described under Category 1) 
for reasons of safety or unacceptability. A standard developed under 
Category 3 would be mutually acceptable to the FAA and JAA, with a 
consistent means of compliance.

What Is the ``Fast Track Harmonization Program''?

    In light of the general agreement among the affected industries and 
authorities to expedite the harmonization program, and a willingness to 
consider ``enveloping'' of parallel standards, the FAA and JAA in March 
1999 agreed upon a method to achieve these goals. This method, which 
the FAA has titled ``The Fast Track Harmonization Program,'' is aimed 
at expediting the rulemaking process for harmonizing not only the 42 
standards that are currently tasked to ARAC for harmonization, but 
approximately 80 additional standards for part 25 airplanes.
    The FAA initiated the Fast Track program on November 26, 1999 (64 
FR 66522), by re-tasking ARAC to accomplish the following:
    <bullet> Review a list of part 25/JAR-25 standards (approximately 
120 parallel pairs) identified by industry, FAA, and JAA as having 
differences that should be harmonized in order to establish one single 
set of standards that represent the highest level of safety.
    <bullet> Identify changes necessary to the standards to harmonize 
part 25 and JAR-25.
    <bullet> Submit to the FAA a technical report on each standard and 
recommend what the requirements of the harmonized standard should be.
    The FAA then considers the recommendations submitted by ARAC and 
initiates rulemaking action, as appropriate, based on those 
recommendations.
    As implemented, the Fast Track program achieves its aims by:
    <bullet> Considering the fundamentals of the industry proposals,

[[Page 36980]]

    <bullet> Defining a process for expeditiously adopting the 
harmonized requirements,
    <bullet> Maintaining an emphasis on using ARAC in making a group 
decision on the harmonization proposal, and
    <bullet> Incorporating an improved ARAC rulemaking process that 
does not overburden the FAA and industry due to additional workload.

Discussion of the Proposal

How Does This Proposed Regulation Relate to ``Fast Track''?

    This proposed regulation results from the recommendations of ARAC 
submitted under the FAA's Fast Track Harmonization Program. (It was 
submitted as a Category 2 item.) In this notice, the FAA proposes to 
amend 14 CFR Sec. 25.1183 (``Flammable fluid-carrying components'') to 
establish a new requirement for fire protection of powerplant 
installations.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

    The current text of 14 CFR 25.1183(a) is:
    ``(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each 
line, fitting, and other component carrying flammable fluid in any area 
subject to engine fire conditions, and each component which conveys or 
contains flammable fluid in a designated fire zone must be fire 
resistant, except that flammable fluid tanks and supports in a 
designated fire zone must be fireproof or be enclosed by a fireproof 
shield unless damage by fire to any non-fireproof part will not cause 
leakage or spillage of flammable fluid. Components must be shielded or 
located to safeguard against the ignition of leaking flammable fluid. 
An integral oil sump of less than 25-quart capacity on a reciprocating 
engine need not be fireproof nor be enclosed by a fireproof shield.
    (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
    (1) Lines, fittings, and components which are already approved as 
part of a type certificated engine; and
    (2) Vent and drain lines, and their fittings, whose failure will 
not result in, or add to, a fire hazard.''
    The current text of JAR-25.1183 is identical to Sec. 25.1183, but 
contains an additional paragraph 25.1183(c) that states:
    ``(c) All components, including ducts, within a designated fire 
zone must be fireproof if, when exposed to or damaged by fire, they 
could--
    (1) Result in fire spreading to other regions of the airplane; or
    (2) Cause unintentional operation of, or inability to operate, 
essential services or equipment.''

What Is the Proposed Action?

    The FAA proposes to add a new Sec. 25.1183(c), which would require 
that all components (including ducts) within a designated fire zone be 
fireproof if, when exposed to or damaged by fire, they could:
    <bullet> Result in fire spreading to other regions of the airplane, 
or
    <bullet> Cause unintentional operation of, or inability to operate, 
essential services or equipment.
    The FAA considers that the addition of this paragraph to part 25 is 
necessary in order to harmonize the actual wording of part 25 with the 
JAR on this particular issue, and to clarify the intent of the part 25 
regulation. The addition of Sec. 25.1183(c) in part 25 will align the 
U.S. regulations with their European counterparts, and the wording of 
both airworthiness standards would be exactly parallel in this aspect.
    Furthermore, the addition of Sec. 25.1183(c) will provide some 
additional assurance that all ``components'' that need to be fireproof 
will be identified and qualified during certification. Adoption of this 
proposal is intended to benefit the public interest by standardizing 
the requirements, concepts, and procedures contained in the U.S. and 
European airworthiness standards without reducing the current level of 
safety.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to the Current 
Regulations?

    The FAA acknowledges that this proposed requirement might be 
considered redundant to other existing part 25 sections, including the 
following:
    1. Section 25.1181 (``Designated fire zones; regions included''): 
This section identifies which areas of the powerplant installation are 
considered ``fire zones,'' including the engine power section, the 
engine accessory section, the auxiliary power unit (APU) compartment, 
etc. It also requires that each of these fire zones meet the fire 
protection requirements of:
    <bullet> Section 25.867 (pertaining to components of the nacelles); 
and
    <bullet> Section 25.1185 through Sec. 25.1203 (pertaining to 
flammable fluids, drainage/ventilation of fire zones, means of fuel 
shutoff, fire extinguishing systems and agents, fire detection systems, 
etc.).
    2. Section 25.1191 (``Firewalls''): This section requires that each 
engine, APU, fuel-burning heater, and other components and areas of the 
(turbine) engine be isolated from the rest of the airplane by firewalls 
or other equivalent means. Additionally, it requires that each firewall 
be fireproof, ``leakproof'' (so that no hazardous quantity of air, 
fluid, or flame can pass from the compartment), sealed (so that all 
openings are sealed with close fitting fireproof fasteners), and 
protected against corrosion.
    3. Section 25.901(c) (``Powerplant, General--Installation''): This 
section requires that each powerplant and APU installation be designed 
so that no single failure, malfunction, or combination of failures will 
jeopardize the safe operation of the airplane. (It also specifies that 
the failure of structural elements need not be considered if the 
probability of such failure is determined to be extremely remote.)
    While these regulations may seem redundant in effect to the 
proposed new paragraph 25.1183(c), the FAA considers it beneficial to 
clarify the objective of these rules by the addition of the new 
paragraph.
    Further, the only difference between these current sections and the 
proposed new Sec. 25.1183(c) is that the new paragraph would address 
fire protection specifically at the ``component level,'' whereas the 
other requirements, listed above, address fire protection at the ``zone 
level'' or the ``installation level.''
    In order to actually meet the ``zone level'' or ``installation 
level'' objectives currently within part 25, the components of the 
installation must be sufficiently fireproof to comply with the proposed 
Sec. 25.1183(c). Hence, the FAA considers that the proposed ``component 
level'' requirement is met inherently by meeting the current, more 
general ``zone level'' requirements of Sec. 25.1181 and Sec. 25.1191, 
and the ``installation level'' requirements of Sec. 25.901(c). For 
example, to comply with either the proposed Sec. 25.1183(c) or the 
existing Sec. 25.901(c), even when a duct is completely contained 
within a fire zone, if the duct is not fireproof, any airflow that 
would result from burnthrough of that duct must be considered when 
establishing the ``critical airflow conditions'' for compliance with 
Sec. 25.1195(b). The fire detection, flammable fluid shutoff, and fire 
extinguishing means for the affected fire zone are some of the 
``essential services or equipment'' of particular interest when showing 
compliance with the proposed Sec. 25.1183(c).''

What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to Current 
Industry Practice?

    The proposed amendment would neither add any new or different 
objective to the current regulations, nor

[[Page 36981]]

change the way that any current certification practice is applied. 
Instead, the intent of the new paragraph is to clarify and codify the 
way that the FAA traditionally has applied the related rules. 
Specifying the fire protection requirement at all three levels--zone, 
installation, and component--in the regulations will help to ensure 
that, by looking at the same problem in numerous ways, an applicant 
will not overlook anything during design development and certification.

What Other Options Have Been Considered and Why Were They Not Selected?

    The only alternative to this proposed action that the ARAC (Working 
Group) considered was to delete JAR 25.1183(c). However, ARAC did not 
recommend this for the following reasons:
    First, as noted above, the current Sec. 25.1181 and Sec. 25.1191 
concern requirements for protecting zones in the airplane against fire, 
while the current Sec. 25.901(c) concerns requirements for protecting 
the installation of each powerplant and auxiliary power unit against 
fire. On the other hand, the proposed Sec. 25.1183(c) specifies 
requirements for protecting components on the airplane against fire. 
ARAC recognized that compliance with the proposed ``component-level'' 
requirement is met, in effect, by complying with the ``zone-level'' 
requirements of Sec. 25.1181 and Sec. 25.1191 and the ``installation-
level'' requirements of Sec. 25.901(c). However, ARAC considered (and 
the FAA agrees) that specifying in 14 CFR the fire protection 
requirement at all three levels--component, zone, and installation--
will help to clarify (and codify) the intent of the current 
regulations, and ensure that nothing gets overlooked during design 
development.
    Second, adopting Sec. 25.1183(c) would have no significant 
additional impact on the cost of type certification, since it is 
consistent with standard design practices currently used to meet other 
part 25 regulations relevant to powerplant installation fire 
protection. In other words, the requirements of proposed 
Sec. 25.1183(c) essentially are met already when an applicant properly 
demonstrates compliance with Sec. 25.1181, Sec. 25.1191, 
Sec. 25.901(c), and other part 25 [subpart E (``Powerplant'')] 
regulations. Adopting the proposal would neither reduce nor increase 
the requirements beyond those that exist in the currently published 
regulations.
    Finally, adopting the proposal would eliminate an identified 
Significant Regulatory Difference (SRD) between the wording of part 25 
and JAR-25, without affecting currently accepted industry design 
practices. The benefits of eliminating an SRD such as this are that 
more consistent interpretations of the rules can be expected, and the 
relations between regulatory authorities may be improved.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    There currently is no formal advisory material specifically 
concerning Sec. 25.1183. FAA Advisory Circular 20-135, ``Powerplant 
Installation and Propulsion System Component Fire Protection Test 
Methods, Standards, and Criteria,'' does reference Sec. 25.1183 in some 
of its guidance. At this time, however, the FAA does not consider that 
further guidance material is needed.

What Regulatory Analyses and Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Proposed 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 requires agencies 
to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. section 2531-2533) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, this Trade Act also requires the consideration of 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
of U.S. standards. And fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules 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).
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
proposed rule has benefits, but no costs, and that the rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order nor 
``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 
Further, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, would reduce barriers 
to international trade, and would not impose an Unfunded Mandate on 
state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector.
    (DOT) Order 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for 
simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If it is 
determined that the expected impact is so minimal that the proposed 
rule does not warrant a full evaluation, a statement to that effect and 
the basis for it is included in the proposed regulation. Accordingly, 
the FAA has determined that the expected impact of this proposed rule 
is so minimal that the proposed rule does not warrant a full 
evaluation. The FAA provides the basis for this minimal impact 
determination below.
    Currently, airplane manufacturers must satisfy both the 14 CFR and 
the European JAR standards to certificate transport category aircraft 
in both the United States and Europe. Meeting two sets of certification 
requirements raises the cost of developing a new transport category 
airplane often with no increase in safety. In the interest of fostering 
international trade, lowering the cost of aircraft development, and 
making the certification process more efficient, the FAA, JAA, and 
aircraft manufacturers have been working to create, to the maximum 
possible extent, a single set of certification requirements accepted in 
both the United States and Europe. These efforts are referred to as 
harmonization. This proposed rule results from the FAA's acceptance of 
an ARAC harmonization working group's recommendation. Members of the 
ARAC working group agreed that this proposed rule would impose no 
additional cost to U.S. manufacturers of part 25 aircraft.
    Specifically, this proposal would add JAR-25.1183 (c) to 14 CFR 
Sec. 25.1183. As discussed in the preamble, the FAA has concluded that 
the only difference between the current sections and the proposed 
Sec. 25.1183(c) is that the new paragraph would address fire protection 
specifically at the ``component level,'' whereas the existing 
requirements address fire protection at the ``zone level'' or the 
``installation level.'' The FAA believes that adopting this proposal 
would neither reduce nor increase the requirements beyond those that 
exist in the current FAA published regulations.
    As this proposal neither increases nor decreases certification 
requirements beyond those already in existence, the FAA believes there 
would be no cost associated with this proposal to part 25 
manufacturers. The FAA has not attempted to quantify the benefits of 
this proposal beyond identifying the expected harmonization benefit. 
The

[[Page 36982]]

adoption of this proposal would eliminate an identified SRD between the 
wording of the FAR and the JAR. The elimination of the SRD may provide 
for a more consistent interpretation of the rules and, thus, is an 
element of the potentially large cost savings of harmonization.
    The FAA requests that current or potential part 25 manufacturers 
who believe that the rule would result in a cost increase to provide 
the basis of such information to the docket.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) of 1980, as amended, 
establishes as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the sale 
of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject 
to regulation. To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to 
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the 
rationale for their actions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the determination is that the rule will, 
the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described 
in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the 
head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis 
is not required. The certification must include a statement providing 
the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    The FAA believes that this proposed rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
for two reasons:
    First, the net effect of the proposed rule is minimum regulatory 
cost relief. The proposed rule requires that new transport category 
aircraft manufacturers meet just the ``more stringent'' European 
certification requirement, rather than both the United States and 
European standards. Airplane manufacturers already meet or expect to 
meet this standard as well as the existing FAR requirement.
    Second, all United States transport-aircraft category manufacturers 
exceed the Small Business Administration small entity criteria of 1,500 
employees for aircraft manufacturers. United States part 25 airplane 
manufacturers include: Boeing, Cessna Aircraft, Gulfstream Aerospace, 
Learjet (owned by Bombardier), Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas (a 
wholly-owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company), Raytheon Aircraft, and 
Sabreliner Corporation.
    Given that this proposed rule is only minimally cost-relieving and 
that there are no small entity manufacturers of part 25 airplanes, the 
FAA certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards. In addition, consistent with the Administration's belief in 
the general superiority and desirability of free trade, it is the 
policy of the Administration to remove or diminish to the extent 
feasible, barriers to international trade, including both barriers 
affecting the export of American goods and services to foreign 
countries and barriers affecting the import of foreign goods and 
services into the United States.
    In accordance with the above statute and policy, the FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of the proposed rule and has determined 
that it supports the Administration's free trade policy because this 
rule would use European international standards as the basis for U.S. 
standards.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) (2 
U.S.C. 1532-1538), enacted as Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995, 
requires each Federal agency, to the extent permitted by law, to 
prepare a written assessment of the effects of any Federal mandate in a 
proposed or final agency rule that may result in the expenditure by 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule does not contain a 
Federal intergovernmental or private sector mandate that exceeds $100 
million in any year; therefore, the requirements of the Act do not 
apply.

What Other Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)], the FAA has determined there are no requirements for 
information collection associated with this proposed rule.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these proposed regulations.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically 
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, 
appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this proposed rulemaking action qualifies 
for a categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

    The energy impact of the proposal has been assessed in accordance 
with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Public Law 94-163, 
as amended (43 U.S.C. 6362), and FAA Order 1053.1. It has been 
determined that the proposal is not a major regulatory action under the 
provisions of the EPCA.

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

[[Page 36983]]

aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent to which Alaska is not 
served by transportation modes other than aviation, and to establish 
such regulatory distinctions as he or she considers appropriate. 
Because this proposed rule would apply to the certification of future 
designs of transport category airplanes and their subsequent operation, 
it could, if adopted, affect 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.

Plain Language

    In response to the June 1, 1998, Presidential memorandum regarding 
the use of plain language, the FAA re-examined the writing style 
currently used in the development of regulations. The memorandum 
requires Federal agencies to communicate clearly with the public. We 
are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document 
is clear, and in any other suggestions you might have to improve the 
clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get more 
information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language 
initiative at http://www.plainlanguage.gov.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Powerplant fire protection, 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. 25.1183 by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 25.1183  Flammable fluid-carrying components.

* * * * *
    (c) All components, including ducts, within a designated fire zone 
must be fireproof if, when exposed to or damaged by fire, they could--
    (1) Result in fire spreading to other regions of the airplane; or
    (2) Cause unintentional operation of, or inability to operate, 
essential services or equipment.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 1, 2000.
John J. Hickey,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 00-14483 Filed 6-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>