Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 37425 

comments at a California Desert Grape 

Administrative Committee meeting on 

May 9, 2007. Finally, the proposal was 

made available through the Internet by 

USDA and the Office of the Federal 

Register. A 30-day comment period 

ending June 4, 2007, was provided for 

interested persons to respond to the 

proposal. No comments were received. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

fv/moab.html. Any questions about the 

compliance guide should be sent to Jay 

Guerber at the previously mentioned 

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, including the 

information and recommendation 

submitted by the committee and other 

available information it is hereby found 

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also found 

and determined that good cause exists 

for not postponing the effective date of 

this rule until 30 days after publication 

in the Federal Register because: (1) The 

2007 fiscal period began on January 1, 

2007, and the marketing order requires 

that the rate of assessment for each 

fiscal period apply to all assessable 

grapes handled during such period; (2) 

the industry has been shipping grapes 

since April 2007; (3) the committee 

needs to have sufficient funds to pay its 

expenses which are incurred on a 

continuous basis; and (4) handlers are 

aware of this action which was 

unanimously recommended by the 

committee at a public meeting and is 

similar to other assessment rate actions 

issued in past years. Also, a 30-day 

comment period was provided for in the 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 925 

Grapes, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 925 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 925—GRAPES GROWN IN A 

DESIGNATED AREA OF 

SOUTHEASTERN CALIFORNIA 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 925 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Section 925.215 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 925.215 Assessment rate. 

On and after January 1, 2007, an 

assessment rate of $0.0200 per 18-pound 

lug is established for grapes grown in a 

designated area of southeastern 

California. 

Dated: July 5, 2007. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–13342 Filed 7–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. NM359; Special Conditions No. 

25–358–SC] 

Special Conditions: Boeing Model 737 

Series Airplanes; Seats With NonTraditional, Large, Non-Metallic Panels 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final special conditions. 

SUMMARY: These special conditions are 

issued for Boeing Model 737 series 

airplanes. These airplanes will have a 

novel or unusual design feature(s) 

associated with seats that include nontraditional, large, non-metallic panels 

that would affect survivability during a 

post-crash fire event. The applicable 

airworthiness regulations do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards 

for this design feature. These special 

conditions contain the additional safety 

standards that the Administrator 

considers necessary to establish a level 

of safety equivalent to that established 

by the existing airworthiness standards. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of 

these special conditions is August 9, 

2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Sinclair, FAA, Airframe/Cabin 

Safety Branch, ANM–115, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2195; 

facsimile (425) 227–1232; electronic 

mail alan.sinclair@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Future Requests for Installation of Seats 

With Non-Traditional, Large, NonMetallic Panels 

We anticipate that seats with nontraditional, large, non-metallic panels 

will be installed in other makes and 

models of airplanes. We have made the 

determination to require special 

conditions for all applications 

requesting the installation of seats with 

non-traditional, large, non-metallic 

panels until the airworthiness 

requirements can be revised to address 

this issue. Having the same standards 

across the range of airplane makes and 

models will ensure a level playing field 

for the aviation industry. 

Background 

On August 8, 2005, Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, 

Seattle, Washington 98124, applied for 

a design change to Type Certificate No. 

A16WE for installation of seats that 

include non-traditional, large, nonmetallic panels in Boeing Model 737–

700 series airplanes. The Boeing Model 

737 series airplanes, currently approved 

under Type Certificate No. A16WE, are 

swept-wing, conventional-tail, twinengine, turbofan-powered, single aisle, 

medium sized transport category 

airplanes. 

The applicable regulations for 

airplanes currently approved under 

Type Certificate No. A16WE do not 

require seats to meet the more stringent 

flammability standards required of 

large, non-metallic panels in the cabin 

interior. At the time the applicable rules 

were written, seats were designed with 

a metal frame covered by fabric, not 

with large, non-metallic panels. Seats 

also met the then recently adopted 

standards for flammability of seat 

cushions. With the seat design being 

mostly fabric and metal, the 

contribution to a fire in the cabin had 

been minimized and was not considered 

a threat. For these reasons, seats did not 

need to be tested to heat release and 

smoke emission requirements. 

Seat designs have now evolved to 

occasionally include non-traditional, 

large, non-metallic panels. Taken in 

total, the surface area of these panels is 

on the same order as the sidewall and 

overhead stowage bin interior panels. 

To provide the level of passenger 

protection intended by the 

airworthiness standards, these nontraditional, large, non-metallic panels in 

the cabin must meet the standards of 

Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), part 25, Appendix F, parts IV and 

V, heat release and smoke emission 

requirements. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 

21.101, Boeing must show that the 

Model 737 series airplanes, as changed, 

continue to meet the applicable 

provisions of the regulations 

incorporated by reference in Type 

Certificate No. A16WE, or the applicable 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES
37426 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

regulations in effect on the date of 

application for the change. The 

regulations incorporated by reference in 

the type certificate are commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘original type 

certification basis.’’ The regulations 

incorporated by reference in Type 

Certificate No. A16WE are as follows: 

Title 14 CFR part 25, as amended by 

Amendment 25–1 through Amendment 

25–15, for the Models 737–200, –200C, 

–300, –400, and –500. Title 14 CFR part 

25, as amended by Amendment 25–1 

through Amendment 25–77, for the 

Models 737–600, –700, and –800, with 

the exceptions listed: Section 

25.853(d)(3), Compartment interiors, at 

Amendment 25–72; and equivalent 

safety findings, § 25.853(f), 

Compartment interiors. Title 141 CFR 

part 25, as amended by Amendment 25–

1 through Amendment 25–91, for the 

Models 737–700C and –900, with the 

exceptions listed: Section 25.853(d)(3), 

Compartment interiors, at Amendment 

25–72; and equivalent safety findings, 

§ 25.853(f), Compartment interiors. Title 

14 CFR part 25, as amended by 

Amendment 25–1 through Amendment 

25–108, for the models 737–900ER, with 

the exceptions listed: Section 

25.853(d)(3), Compartment interiors, at 

Amendment 25–72; and equivalent 

safety findings, Section 25.853(f), 

Compartment interiors. 

In addition, the certification basis 

includes certain special conditions, 

exemptions, or later amended sections 

of the applicable part that are not 

relevant to these special conditions. 

If the Administrator finds that the 

applicable airworthiness regulations 

(i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards 

for the Boeing Model 737 series 

airplanes because of a novel or unusual 

design feature, special conditions are 

prescribed under the provisions of 

§ 21.16. 

In addition to the applicable 

airworthiness regulations and special 

conditions, the Boeing Model 737 series 

airplanes must comply with the fuel 

vent and exhaust emission requirements 

of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise 

certification requirements of 14 CFR 

part 36. 

The FAA issues special conditions as 

defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38, and 

they become part of the type 

certification basis under § 21.101. 

Special conditions are initially 

applicable to the model for which they 

are issued. Should the type certificate 

for that model be amended later to 

include any other model that 

incorporates the same or similar novel 

or unusual design feature, or should any 

other model already included on the 

same type certificate be modified to 

incorporate the same or similar novel or 

unusual design feature, the special 

conditions would also apply to the other 

model under § 21.101. 

Novel or Unusual Design Features 

The Boeing Model 737 series 

airplanes will incorporate the following 

novel or unusual design features: These 

models offer interior arrangements that 

include passenger seats that incorporate 

non-traditional, large, non-metallic 

panels in lieu of the traditional metal 

frame covered by fabric. The 

flammability properties of these panels 

have been shown to significantly affect 

the survivability of the cabin in the case 

of fire. These seats are considered a 

novel design for transport category 

airplanes that include Amendment 25–

61 and Amendment 25–66 in the 

certification basis, and were not 

considered when those airworthiness 

standards were established. 

The existing regulations do not 

provide adequate or appropriate safety 

standards for seat designs that 

incorporate non-traditional, large, nonmetallic panels in their designs. In order 

to provide a level of safety that is 

equivalent to that afforded to the 

balance of the cabin, additional 

airworthiness standards, in the form of 

special conditions, are necessary. These 

special conditions supplement § 25.853. 

The requirements contained in these 

special conditions consist of applying 

the identical test conditions required of 

all other large panels in the cabin, to 

seats with non-traditional, large, nonmetallic panels. 

Definition of ‘‘Non-Traditional, Large, 

Non-Metallic Panel’’ 

A non-traditional, large, non-metallic 

panel, in this case, is defined as a panel 

with exposed-surface areas greater than 

1.5 square feet installed per seat place. 

The panel may consist of either a single 

component or multiple components in a 

concentrated area. Examples of parts of 

the seat where these non-traditional 

panels are installed include, but are not 

limited to: Seat backs, bottoms and leg/ 

foot rests, kick panels, back shells, 

credenzas and associated furniture. 

Examples of traditional exempted 

parts of the seat include: Arm caps, 

armrest close-outs such as end bays and 

armrest-styled center consoles, food 

trays, video monitors and shrouds. 

Clarification of ‘‘Exposed’’ 

‘‘Exposed’’ is considered to include 

those panels directly exposed to the 

passenger cabin in the traditional sense, 

plus those panels enveloped such as by 

a dress cover. Traditional fabrics or 

leathers currently used on seats are 

excluded from these special conditions. 

These materials must still comply with 

§ 25.853(a) and § 25.853(c) if used as a 

covering for a seat cushion, or 

§ 25.853(a) if installed elsewhere on the 

seat. Non-traditional, large, non-metallic 

panels covered with traditional fabrics 

or leathers will be tested without their 

coverings or covering attachments. 

Discussion 

In the early 1980s the FAA conducted 

extensive research on the effects of postcrash flammability in the passenger 

cabin. As a result of this research and 

service experience, we adopted new 

standards for interior surfaces 

associated with large surface area parts. 

Specifically, the rules require 

measurement of heat release and smoke 

emission (part 25, Appendix F, parts IV 

and V) for the affected parts. Heat 

release has been shown to have a direct 

correlation with post-crash fire survival 

time. Materials that comply with the 

standards (i.e., § 25.853 entitled 

‘‘Compartment interiors,’’ as amended 

by Amendment 25–61 and Amendment 

25–66), extend survival time by 

approximately 2 minutes, over materials 

that do not comply. 

At the time these standards were 

written, the potential application of the 

requirements of heat release and smoke 

emission to seats was explored. The seat 

frame itself was not a concern because 

it was primarily made of aluminum and 

there were only small amounts of nonmetallic materials. It was determined 

that the overall effect on survivability 

was negligible, whether or not the food 

trays met the heat release and smoke 

requirements. The requirements 

therefore did not address seats. The 

preambles to both the Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), Notice 

No. 85–10 (50 FR 15038, April16, 1985) 

and the Final Rule at Amendment 25–

61 (51 FR 26206, July 21, 1986), 

specifically note that seats were 

excluded ‘‘because the recently-adopted 

standards for flammability of seat 

cushions will greatly inhibit 

involvement of the seats.’’

Subsequently, the Final Rule at 

Amendment 25–83 (60 FR 6615, March 

6, 1995) clarified the definition of 

minimum panel size: ‘‘It is not possible 

to cite a specific size that will apply in 

all installations; however, as a general 

rule, components with exposed-surface 

areas of one square foot or less may be 

considered small enough that they do 

not have to meet the new standards. 

Components with exposed-surface areas 

greater than two square feet may be 

considered large enough that they do 

have to meet the new standards. Those 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 37427 

*Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, and –900 as 

of the effective date of these special conditions. 

with exposed-surface areas greater than 

one square foot, but less than two square 

feet, must be considered in conjunction 

with the areas of the cabin in which 

they are installed before a determination 

could be made.’’

In the late 1990s, the FAA issued 

Policy Memorandum 97–112–39, 

Guidance for Flammability Testing of 

Seat/Console Installations, October 17, 

1997 (http://rgl.faa.gov). That memo 

was issued when it became clear that 

seat designs were evolving to include 

large non-metallic panels with surface 

areas that would impact survivability 

during a cabin fire event, comparable to 

partitions or galleys. The memo noted 

that large surface area panels must 

comply with heat release and smoke 

emission requirements, even if they 

were attached to a seat. If the FAA had 

not issued such policy, seat designs 

could have been viewed as a loophole 

to the airworthiness standards that 

would result in an unacceptable 

decrease in survivability during a cabin 

fire event. 

In October of 2004, an issue was 

raised regarding the appropriate 

flammability standards for passenger 

seats that incorporated non-traditional, 

large, non-metallic panels in lieu of the 

traditional metal covered by fabric. The 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office and 

Transport Standards Staff reviewed this 

design and determined that it 

represented the kind and quantity of 

material that should be required to pass 

the heat release and smoke emissions 

requirements. We have determined that 

special conditions would be 

promulgated to apply the standards 

defined in 14 CFR 25.853(d) to seats 

with large, non-metallic panels in their 

design. 

Discussion of Comments 

Notice of proposed special conditions 

No. 25–06–13–SC, pertaining to Boeing 

Model 737 series airplanes, was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 9, 2006. Comments were 

received from Air Tran, Airbus, B/E 

Aerospace, Boeing, Delta Engineering, 

the International Coordinating Council 

of Aerospace Industries Associations 

(ICCAIA), KLM, and Weber Aircraft LP. 

Special Conditions Are Not the 

Appropriate Means To Establish These 

Requirements 

Airbus, Boeing, Delta Engineering, 

ICCAIA, and Weber suggested that the 

proposed special conditions were not 

the appropriate way to establish these 

requirements. These commenters 

suggested that either the seat technical 

standard order (TSO) be revised to 

include the requirements, or that formal 

rulemaking activity take place to amend 

Title 14 CFR part 25. 

The commenters stated that including 

the requirements in either the seat TSO 

or an amendment to part 25 would 

ensure that the requirements were 

applied equally and consistently 

throughout the FAA and industry. 

Airbus stated that if the requirements 

were located in the seat TSO it would 

reduce the overall administrative 

burden by requiring a single showing of 

compliance for a given seat design that 

may be installed in different types of 

airplanes. 

FAA Response: We believe that 

including these requirements in the 

context of special conditions is 

appropriate. The proliferation of the use 

of large, non-metallic panels in the 

construction of seats has created a need 

to issue special conditions to maintain 

the current level of safety. Special 

conditions are the best way of 

introducing these requirements until we 

determine it is necessary to amend part 

25 through the rulemaking process. 

Also, seats are not required to follow 

guidance in a TSO to be eligible for 

installation on an airplane. 

Furthermore, the proposed TSO C127b 

includes these standards as optional 

criteria. 

Request To Add Airplane Models to the 

Applicability 

Air Trans, Boeing, Delta Engineering, 

ICCAIA, and Weber all suggested that 

the applicability of the proposed special 

conditions be expanded and not limited 

to only Boeing Model 737 series 

airplanes. The commenters noted that 

other airplane models certified under 14 

CFR part 25 include the same design 

features identified as ‘‘novel or 

unusual’’ on Boeing Model 737 series 

airplanes. 

FAA Response: We agree that many 

other airplane models certified under 14 

CFR part 25 include ‘‘novel or unusual’’

design features similar to those on 

Boeing Model 737 series airplanes. We 

are developing model-specific special 

conditions for all transport category 

airplanes operating under part 121 

regulations. We will continue to issue 

special conditions regarding this subject 

until part 25 is formally amended 

through the rulemaking process. If part 

25 is amended, these requirements will 

have general applicability instead of 

model-specific applicability. We are 

currently using a similar approach for 

high intensity radiated fields (HIRF) 

special conditions. The HIRF special 

conditions will continue to be issued on 

a model-specific basis until part 25 is 

amended to include regulations 

applicable to HIRF. 

Request To Add Airplanes Operating 

Under Part 129 to the Applicability 

Delta Engineering questioned why the 

proposed special conditions would be 

applicable to airplanes operated under 

14 CFR part 121 and would not be 

applicable to airplanes operated under 

14 CFR part 129. Delta Engineering 

provided the example of an airplane 

with a foreign registration. Per the 

applicability of the proposed special 

conditions, the requirements of the 

proposed special conditions would not 

be applicable because the airplane 

would be operated in compliance with 

part 129 operating rules instead of part 

121 operating rules. 

FAA Response: As discussed 

previously, our intent in adopting these 

special conditions is to apply them to 

airplanes that are already required to 

comply with the smoke and heat release 

requirements adopted in Amendment 

25–61 and Amendment 25–66. Model 

737 airplanes with this amendment in 

their certification basis * are subject to 

these special conditions, regardless of 

the operational regulatory parts under 

which they are operated. Certain other 

airplanes operated under part 121 are 

also subject to these requirements as a 

result of § 121.312, as amended by 

Amendment 121–189, even if their 

certification basis does not include 

Amendment 25–61. However, airplanes 

with a certification basis preceding 

Amendment 25–61 and not subject to 

§ 121.312 are not required to comply 

either with § 25.853 or with these 

special conditions. 

Request To Clarify the Effects of the 

Proposed Special Conditions on the 

Existing Fleet 

Air Trans and KLM expressed 

concern that the requirements in the 

proposed special conditions would be 

retroactive and affect the existing 

airplane fleet or follow-on deliveries of 

airplanes with previously certified 

interiors. 

FAA Response: We have added a new 

special condition 4 in these special 

conditions to clarify that only airplanes 

associated with new seat certification 

programs will be affected by the 

requirements in these special 

conditions. Previously certificated 

interiors on the existing airplane fleet 

and follow-on deliveries of airplanes 

with previously certificated interiors 

will not be affected. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES
37428 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Request for Justification Regarding 

Selection of Materials and Quantitative 

Limits 

Air Tran, B/E Aerospace, and Weber 

questioned how 1.5 square feet became 

the maximum area of non-metallic 

material per seat. B/E stated that the 

proposed special conditions need 

further review because the exclusion 

does not adequately address items 

traditionally mounted on seat backs. 

B/E specifically asked if large video 

monitors would have to comply when 

installed in seat backs or large, nonmetallic panels. 

Weber stated that the proposed 

special conditions include many 

exclusions based on the size and 

location of material. Weber also stated 

that the quantitative limits for these 

exclusions do not appear to be based on 

data. Weber suggested that the proposed 

special conditions be revised to include 

justification for the quantitative limits. 

Furthermore, Weber stated that due to 

the number of passenger places, First 

Class seats are limited to a much smaller 

amount of non-compliant material than 

Tourist Class seats, despite the fact that 

there are fewer First Class seats per area 

of the passenger cabin. Larger seats with 

fewer passenger places should not have 

lower quantitative limits on noncompliant material. 

Weber also stated that, based on 

observation of airplane cabins and the 

amount of materials in a seat design, the 

following statement in the proposed 

special conditions is incorrect: ‘‘Seat 

designs have now evolved to 

occasionally include non-traditional, 

large, non-metallic panels. Taken in 

total, the surface area of these panels is 

on the same order as the sidewall and 

overhead stowage bin interior panels.’’

FAA Response: In 1993, the FAA 

published a report (DODT/FAA/CT–

TN93–13) documenting the results of 

full-scale testing using panels on seats 

that did, or did not, comply with heat 

release and smoke emissions 

requirements. Those test results showed 

that limited quantities of material on 

seats that did not meet heat release and 

smoke emissions requirements did not 

raise a safety issue. Amendment 25–83 

states that, based on this testing, 

components with exposed-surface areas 

greater than one square foot, but less 

than two square feet, must be 

considered in conjunction with the 

areas of the cabin in which they are 

installed before a determination can be 

made regarding whether or not they 

have to meet the heat release and smoke 

density regulations. Based on that 

information we determined that 1.5 feet 

of non-metallic material per seat is 

appropriate. 

In response to B/E Aerospace’s 

comment, video monitor installations 

are not affected by these special 

conditions. There are existing 

flammability regulations that cover 

those installations. 

In response to Weber’s comment 

regarding the size limitations, as noted 

above, we believe that the quantitative 

limits are justified. These size 

limitations are consistent with full-scale 

test data and the design criteria 

developed at the time Amendment 25–

61 was adopted. Also, these size 

limitations were considered during the 

rulemaking process for Amendment 25–

61. 

In response to Weber’s comment 

regarding our statement that the surface 

areas of some seat installations are 

equivalent to the amount of material in 

sidewall and overhead stowage bin 

interior panels, in our review of 

applicants’ proposed furnishings for 

passenger cabin installations, we have 

noticed an increase in the use of large, 

non-metallic material in proposed 

seating configurations. Based on those 

reviews, we believe that our statement 

is correct. 

Request To Revise the Type 

Certification Basis Section 

Boeing noted that the amendment 

levels for some of the airplanes were 

incorrectly cited in the Type 

Certification Basis section of the 

proposed special conditions. 

FAA Response: We have revised the 

Type Certification Basis section to 

incorporate Boeing’s recommended 

changes. 

Request for Clarification of the Testing 

Method in the ‘‘Clarification of 

Exposed’’ Paragraph 

B/E Aerospace asked if the nontraditional, large, non-metallic panels 

covered with traditional fabrics or 

leathers could be tested without the 

dress cover. Boeing suggested that the 

words ‘‘or method of covering 

attachment’’ be added in the last 

sentence of the ‘‘Clarification of 

Exposed’’ paragraph. 

FAA Response: We agree to revise the 

last sentence of the ‘‘Clarification of 

Exposed’’ paragraph to address B/E 

Aerospace’s question and incorporate 

Boeing’s suggestion. In these special 

conditions that sentence now states 

‘‘Non-traditional, large, non-metallic 

panels covered with traditional fabrics 

or leathers will be tested without their 

coverings or covering attachments.’’

Request for Clarification Regarding 

Fabric and Thermoplastic Panels 

Airbus requested that the FAA 

provide information regarding whether 

or not fabric covered panels are less 

threatening than thermoplastic ones. No 

justification was provided for this 

request. 

FAA Response: The standards for 

using fabric, thermoplastic, and leather 

have been previously established and 

are applied separately. 

Request for a Better Description of 

Traditional and Non-Traditional Areas/ 

Furnishings 

Airbus requested a better description 

of the console size in the ‘‘Definition of 

‘Non-Traditional, Large, Non-Metallic 

Panel’ ’’ paragraph of the proposed 

special conditions. Airbus noted that in 

the proposed special conditions ‘‘Center 

Consoles’’ are listed as ‘‘traditional 

exempted areas.’’ Airbus stated that this 

may be true for small consoles that 

‘‘* * * do not protrude the standard 

seat cushion geometries. However, it is 

understood that large consoles (which 

do also divide the forward legroom) are 

expected to comply with HRR/SD [heat 

release and smoke density] criteria.’’

Airbus suggested that this issue should 

be clarified because FAA Memorandum 

97–112–39, Guidance for Flammability 

Testing of Seat/Console Installations, 

addresses those larger, separate 

consoles. 

B/E Aerospace stated that the 

definition of non-traditional areas was 

not adequate and asked about seat 

backs, seat bottoms, and kick panels. 

This commenter also asked if fire 

blocking material is considered a 

traditional fabric. 

FAA Response: We agree and have 

revised this paragraph to include 

‘‘credenzas’’ as an additional example of 

non-traditional areas and ‘‘armreststyled center consoles’’ as an additional 

example of traditionally exempted 

areas. In this final special condition the 

revised sentences appear as follows: 

‘‘Examples of nontraditional areas 

include, but are not limited to: seat 

backs, bottoms and leg/foot rests, kick 

panels, back shells, credenzas and 

associated furniture. Examples of 

traditional exempted areas include: arm 

caps, armrest close-outs such as end 

bays and armrest-styled center consoles, 

food trays, video monitors and 

shrouds.’’

Request for Additional Testing by the 

FAA 

Airbus, Delta Engineering, ICCAIA, 

and KLM commented that the FAA 

should conduct additional testing prior 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 37429 

to implementing the proposed special 

conditions. Airbus and KLM provided 

similar statements that tests with 

different amounts of non-traditional, 

large, non-metallic panels on seats have 

never been performed to evaluate to 

what extent the increase in the 

flammability standard of those seat parts 

might influence fire safety. ICCAIA 

stated that the FAA should perform 

testing to confirm the benefit of issuing 

the proposed special conditions. 

ICCAIA noted that seat back shells may 

be made from parts created from a 

combination of different materials and 

sizes. As a result, application of the 

proposed special conditions would 

result in multiple tests to determine if 

the seat back shells were compliant, and 

the test results would be open to 

interpretation. 

Delta Engineering stated that the 

proposed special condition does not 

provide information regarding the 

smoke density and heat release aspects 

of traditional seat components and that, 

through testing, the FAA should 

establish the safety gains related to 

having the large composite panel 

compliant with the existing heat release 

and smoke density requirements. This 

commenter also stated that the smoke 

emissions from the seat cushion foam 

may negate any safety gain related to 

having the large composite panel 

compliant with smoke density 

requirements. In addition, this 

commenter also questioned whether the 

FAA conducted extensive testing to 

confirm that the regulatory standards 

now being applied to passenger seats are 

compatible with the requirements in the 

proposed special conditions. 

FAA Response: As stated in the 

proposed special conditions, the FAA 

has conducted extensive research on the 

effects of post-crash flammability in the 

passenger cabin. As a result of that 

research, combined with service 

experience, we adopted new 

airworthiness standards for interior 

surfaces associated with large surface 

area parts. The proliferation of the use 

of large, non-metallic panels in the 

construction of seats was not 

anticipated when those airworthiness 

standards were issued. This increased 

use of large, non-metallic panels in 

seating configurations has created a 

need to issue special conditions to 

provide the level of passenger 

protection intended by those 

airworthiness standards. Seat cushion 

standards are a separate consideration 

and were taken into account when these 

special conditions were created. 

Furthermore, testing is not required to 

issue special conditions. The basis for 

issuing special conditions is that the 

applicable airworthiness regulations do 

not contain adequate or appropriate 

safety standards for a ‘‘novel or 

unusual’’ design feature. 

Request for a Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Airbus, B/E Aerospace, ICCAIA, and 

Weber noted that the proposed special 

conditions did not include a cost-benefit 

analysis to support the proposed 

requirements. Airbus suggested that a 

cost-benefit analysis should be done 

through the traditional rulemaking 

process. ICCAIA stated that the costbenefit analysis should be conducted 

because the requirements in the 

proposed special conditions would be 

applied to other airplane makes and 

models. B/E Aerospace and Weber 

provided similar statements regarding 

the cost impact to seat manufacturers. 

Those commenters stated that compliant 

material is limited and expensive. 

Weber also stated that significant time 

and costs would be involved in 

modifying current designs and 

developing new materials to comply 

with the proposed special conditions. 

FAA Response: When Amendment 

25–61 went through the formal 

rulemaking process a formal economic 

regulatory analysis was provided. These 

special conditions effectively serve to 

maintain the benefits achieved in that 

amendment by providing an equivalent 

level of safety for the novel or unusual 

design feature described earlier. Under 

Executive Order 12866, these analyses 

are required only for rules of general 

applicability. A cost-benefit analysis is 

not part of the process for proposing 

special conditions, which apply only to 

a specified type certificate and are not 

rules of general applicability. 

Request To Clarify the Effective Date of 

the Proposed Special Conditions 

Air Trans and Boeing both 

commented on the effective date of the 

proposed special conditions. Air Trans 

stated that the proposed special 

conditions did not include an effective 

date. Boeing commented that these 

proposed special conditions should not 

be applicable upon publication and 

should not be applicable to the first 

delivered Model 737–900ER airplane. 

Boeing noted that it typically takes at 

least one year for seat manufacturers to 

incorporate major design changes, such 

as those required in the proposed 

special conditions. 

FAA Response: In response to Air 

Trans’ statement, under standard 

practice, the effective date of final 

special conditions is 30 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register. These special conditions 

follow this practice and will be 

applicable to all type design changes 

that include new seat approvals applied 

for after the effective date of these 

special conditions. 

In response to Boeing’s comment, as 

stated previously, the issue regarding 

large, non-metallic seats is a long 

standing one and has generated many 

discussions between the FAA and the 

aviation industry. Through the Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office the FAA has 

made Boeing aware of the requirements 

in these special conditions. Since the 

time the proposed special conditions 

were published for public comment, the 

first Boeing Model 737–900ER airplane 

was delivered; therefore, these special 

conditions are not applicable to the 

approved arrangement on that airplane. 

Request To Extend the Public Comment 

Period 

Boeing requested that the public 

comment period for the proposed 

special conditions be extended from 20 

days to 60 days. Boeing stated that the 

proposed special conditions would 

require significant design changes to 

seat components. Airframe and seat 

manufacturers would need to assess the 

economic impact of the proposed 

special conditions and communicate 

that information to the FAA. 

FAA Response: The subject of large, 

non-metallic seat panels is a long 

standing issue between the FAA and the 

aviation industry. We have had ongoing 

discussions with industry 

representatives in an effort to work out 

a solution, and the results of these 

discussions are reflected in these special 

conditions. We do not agree that an 

extension to the public comment period 

is needed or would result in further 

changes to these special conditions. 

Except as noted above, these special 

conditions are adopted as proposed. 

Applicability 

As discussed above, these special 

conditions are applicable to Boeing 

Model 737 series airplanes. Should 

Boeing apply at a later date for a change 

to the type certificate to include another 

model on the same type certificate 

incorporating the same novel or unusual 

design feature, the special conditions 

would apply to that model as well. 

Seats do not have to meet these 

special conditions when installed in 

compartments that are not otherwise 

required to meet the test requirements of 

Title 14 CFR part 25, Appendix F, parts 

IV and V. For example, airplanes that do 

not have § 25.853, Amendment 25–61 or 

later, in their certification basis and 

those airplanes that do not need to 

comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 

121.312. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES
37430 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 131 / Tuesday, July 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Only airplanes associated with new 

certification programs applied for after 

the effective date of these special 

conditions will be affected by the 

requirements in these special 

conditions. The existing airplane fleet 

and follow-on deliveries of airplanes 

with previously certified interiors are 

not affected. 

Conclusion 

This action affects only certain novel 

or unusual design features on Boeing 

Model 737 series airplanes. It is not a 

rule of general applicability. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

■ The authority citation for these 

special conditions is as follows: 

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

44702, 44704. 

The Special Conditions 

■ Accordingly, pursuant to the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the following special conditions are 

issued as part of the type certification 

basis for Boeing Model 737 series 

airplanes. 

1. Except as provided in paragraph 3 

of these special conditions, compliance 

with Title 14 CFR part 25, Appendix F, 

parts IV and V, heat release and smoke 

emission, is required for seats that 

corporate non-traditional, large, nonmetallic panels that may either be a 

single component or multiple 

components in a concentrated area in 

their design. 

2. The applicant may designate up to 

and including 1.5 square feet of nontraditional, non-metallic panel material 

per seat place that does not have to 

comply with special condition Number 

1, above. A triple seat assembly may 

have a total of 4.5 square feet excluded 

on any portion of the assembly (e.g., 

outboard seat place 1 square foot, 

middle 1 square foot, and inboard 2.5 

square feet). 

3. Seats do not have to meet the test 

requirements of Title 14 CFR part 25, 

Appendix F, parts IV and V, when 

installed in compartments that are not 

otherwise required to meet these 

requirements. Examples include: 

a. Airplanes with passenger capacities 

of 19 or less, 

b. Airplanes that do not have § 25.853, 

Amendment 25–61 or later, in their 

certification basis and are not subject to 

the requirements of 14 CFR 121.312, 

and 

c. Airplanes exempted from § 25.853, 

Amendment 25–61 or later. 

4. Only airplanes associated with new 

seat certification programs applied for 

after the effective date of these special 

conditions will be affected by the 

requirements in these special 

conditions. Previously certificated 

interiors on the existing airplane fleet 

and follow-on deliveries of airplanes 

with previously certificated interiors are 

not affected. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 29, 

2007. 

Stephen P. Boyd, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–3339 Filed 7–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–25852; Airspace 

Docket No. 06–AAL–29] 

14 CFR Part 71 

Modification to the Norton Sound Low, 

Woody Island Low, Control 1234L, and 

Control 1487L Offshore Airspace 

Areas; Alaska 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This action corrects errors in 

the legal description contained in a 

Final Rule that was published in the 

Federal Register on Friday, June 8, 2007 

(72 FR 31714), Airspace Docket No. 06–

AAL–29, FAA Docket No. FAA–2006–

25852. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, August 30, 

2007. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference action under 1 CFR part 51, 

subject to the annual revision of FAA 

Order 7400.9 and publication of 

conforming amendments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken 

McElroy, Airspace and Rules Group, 

Office of System Operations Airspace 

and AIM, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

On Friday, June 8, 2007 a final rule 

for Airspace Docket No. 06–AAL–29, 

FAA Docket No. FAA–2006–25852, was 

published in the Federal Register (72 

FR 31714). This rule modified Class E 

Offshore Airspace in southwest Alaska. 

Several errors were discovered in the 

Control 1234L Offshore Airspace area 

description. The first requires further 

controlled airspace described around 

the Sand Point Airport. The next is a 

duplication of the Eareckson Air Force 

Station description, followed by two 

incorrect designations for West 

Longitude. This action corrects these 

errors. 

Correction to Final Rule 

■ Accordingly, pursuant to the authority 

delegated to me, the airspace 

description of the Class E airspace 

published in the Federal Register on 

Friday, June 8, 2007 (72 FR 31714), 

Airspace Docket No. 06–AAL–29, FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2006–25852, is 

corrected as follows: 

PART 71—[AMENDED] 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ On page 31716, column 1, correct the 

legal description for Control 1234L to 

read as follows: 

Paragraph 6007 Offshore Airspace Areas. 

* * * * * 

Control 1234L 

That airspace extending upward from 

2,000 feet above the surface within an area 

bounded by a line beginning at lat. 58°06′57′′ 

N., long. 160°00′00′′ W., then south along 

long. 160°00′00′′ W. until it intersects the 

Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center 

(ARTCC) boundary; then southwest, 

northwest, north, and northeast along the 

Anchorage ARTCC boundary to lat. 62°35′00′′ 

N., long. 175°00′00′′ W., to lat. 59°59′57′′ N., 

long. 168°00′08′′ W., to lat. 57°45′57′′ N., 

long. 161°46′08′′ W., to the point of 

beginning; and that airspace extending 

upward from the surface within a 4.6-mile 

radius of Cold Bay Airport, AK, and within 

1.7 miles each side of the 150° bearing from 

Cold Bay Airport, AK, extending from the 

4.6-mile radius to 7.7 miles southeast of Cold 

Bay Airport, AK, and within 3 miles west 

and 4 miles east of the 335° bearing from 

Cold Bay Airport, AK, extending from the 

4.6-mile radius to 12.2 miles northwest of 

Cold Bay Airport, AK and that airspace 

extending upward from 700 feet above the 

surface within a 6.9-mile radius of Eareckson 

Air Station, AK, and within a 7-mile radius 

of Adak Airport, AK, and within 5.2 miles 

northwest and 4.2 miles southeast of the 061° 

bearing from the Mount Moffett NDB, AK, 

extending from the 7-mile radius of Adak 

Airport, AK, to 11.5 miles northeast of Adak 

Airport, AK and within a 6.5-mile radius of 

King Cove Airport, and that airspace 

extending 1.2 miles either side of the 103° 

bearing from King Cove Airport from the 6.5- 

mile radius out to 8.8 miles; and within a 6.4- 

mile radius of the Atka Airport, AK, and 

within a 6.3-mile radius of Nelson Lagoon 

Airport, AK and within a 6.4-mile radius of 

Sand Point Airport, AK, and within 3 miles 

each side of the 172° bearing from the 

Borland NDB/DME, AK, extending from the 

6.4-mile radius of Sand Point Airport, AK, to 

13.9 miles south of Sand Point Airport, AK, 

and within 5 miles either side of the 318° 

bearing from the Borland NDB/DME, AK, 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with RULES