36978 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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:

mike.mcrae@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Do I Submit Comments to this

NPRM?

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed action by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments, as

they may desire. Comments relating to

the environmental, energy, federalism,

or economic impact that might result

from adopting the proposals in this

document 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:

• Airplanes manufactured within the

U.S. for use by U.S.-registered operators,

and

• Airplanes manufactured in other

countries and imported to the U.S.

under a bilateral airworthiness

agreement.

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness

Standards in Europe?

In Europe, the airworthiness

standards for type certification of

transport category airplanes are

contained in Joint Aviation

Requirements (JAR)–25, which are

based on part 25. These were developed

by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA)

of Europe to provide a common set of

airworthiness standards within the

European aviation community. Twentythree 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

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

• Where possible, standards do not

require domestic and foreign parties to

manufacture or operate to different

standards for each country involved;

and

• The standards adopted are mutually

acceptable to the FAA and the foreign

aviation authorities.

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 timeconsuming 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:

• 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.

• Identify changes necessary to the

standards to harmonize part 25 and

JAR–25.

• 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:

• Considering the fundamentals of

the industry proposals,

36980 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules

• Defining a process for expeditiously

adopting the harmonized requirements,

• Maintaining an emphasis on using

ARAC in making a group decision on

the harmonization proposal, and

• 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 § 25.1183 (‘‘Flammable fluidcarrying 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 § 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

§ 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:

• Result in fire spreading to other

regions of the airplane, or

• 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 § 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

§ 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:

• Section 25.867 (pertaining to

components of the nacelles); and

• Section 25.1185 through § 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 § 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 § 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

§ 25.1181 and § 25.1191, and the

‘‘installation level’’ requirements of

§ 25.901(c). For example, to comply

with either the proposed § 25.1183(c) or

the existing § 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 § 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 § 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

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

§ 25.1181 and § 25.1191 concern

requirements for protecting zones in the

airplane against fire, while the current

§ 25.901(c) concerns requirements for

protecting the installation of each

powerplant and auxiliary power unit

against fire. On the other hand, the

proposed § 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 § 25.1181 and § 25.1191

and the ‘‘installation-level’’

requirements of § 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 § 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 § 25.1183(c) essentially are

met already when an applicant properly

demonstrates compliance with

§ 25.1181, § 25.1191, § 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

§ 25.1183. FAA Advisory Circular 20–

135, ‘‘Powerplant Installation and

Propulsion System Component Fire

Protection Test Methods, Standards, and

Criteria,’’ does reference § 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 § 25.1183. As

discussed in the preamble, the FAA has

concluded that the only difference

between the current sections and the

proposed § 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

36982 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 transportaircraft 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 113 / Monday, June 12, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 reexamined 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 § 25.1183 by adding a new

paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 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