1438 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

The Rule 

The FAA is amending the time of 

designation for R–6320 from 

‘‘Continuous’’ to ‘‘Intermittent by 

NOTAM.’’ This rule makes no other 

changes to R–6320. This action reduces 

the burden on the public by reducing 

the time of designation. Therefore, 

notice and public procedures under 5 

U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. 

Section 73.63 of Title 14 CFR part 73 

was republished in FAA Order 

7400.8M, dated January 6, 2006. 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979); and (3) does not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation as the anticipated impact is 

so minimal. Since this is a routine 

matter that will only affect air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

The FAA has determined that this 

action qualifies for categorical exclusion 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act in accordance with 311c., 

FAA Order 1050.1E, ‘‘Environmental 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures’’. This 

airspace action is not expected to cause 

any potentially significant 

environmental impacts, and no 

extraordinary circumstances exist that 

warrant preparation of an 

environmental assessment. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 

Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted 

areas. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 73.63 [Amended] 

■ 2. § 73.63 is amended as follows: 

* * * * * 

R–6320 Matagorda, TX [Amended] 

Under Time of designation, by 

removing the word ‘‘Continuous’’ and 

inserting the words ‘‘Intermittent by 

NOTAM.’’

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC on January 5, 

2007. 

Edith V. Parish, 

Manager, Airspace and Rules. 

[FR Doc. E7–392 Filed 1–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 121 

[Docket No. FAA–2006–24277; Amendment 

No. 121–330] 

RIN 2120–AI75 

Fire Penetration Resistance of 

Thermal/Acoustic Insulation Installed 

on Transport Category Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA extends, by 24 

months, the date for operators to comply 

with the fire penetration resistance 

requirements of thermal/acoustic 

insulation used in transport category 

airplanes manufactured after September 

2, 2007. This extension is from 

September 2, 2007, to September 2, 

2009. This action is necessary to allow 

airframe manufacturers enough time, 

after getting an acceptable certification 

test facility, to select and certificate 

appropriate installations. 

DATES: This amendment becomes 

effective February 12, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Gardlin, FAA, Airframe and Cabin 

Safety Branch, ANM–115, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2136, 

facsimile (425) 227–1149, e-mail: 

jeff.gardlin@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by: 

(1) Searching the Department of 

Transportation’s electronic Docket 

Management System (DMS) Web page 

(http://dms.dot.gov/search); 

(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

(3) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the amendment number or 

docket number of this rulemaking. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. If 

you are a small entity and you have a 

question regarding this document, you 

may contact its local FAA official, or the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out 

more about SBREFA on the Internet at 

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_

policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 

44701. Under that section, the FAA is 

charged with promoting safe flight of 

civil aircraft in air commerce by 

prescribing minimum standards 

required in the interest of safety for the 

design and performance of aircraft. This 

regulation is within the scope of that 

authority, because it prescribes new 

safety standards for the design of 

transport category airplanes. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 1439 

Background 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) on April 3, 2006 (71 

FR 16678) to extend the compliance 

date of 49 CFR 121.312(e)(3) because of 

unforeseen difficulties in establishing 

acceptable test equipment for showing 

compliance with that regulation. As 

discussed in the NPRM, that section 

requires that transport category 

airplanes manufactured after September 

2, 2007, comply with the provisions of 

14 CFR 25.856(b) when entering part 

121 service. Section 25.856(b), in turn, 

requires that thermal/acoustic 

insulation installed in the lower half of 

the fuselage of those airplanes resist 

penetration of an external fire. The 

performance criteria are contained in 

Appendix F, part VII of part 25. 

Based on difficulties in obtaining and 

qualifying the necessary test equipment 

that arose following publication of the 

requirement, we determined that the 

compliance date for § 121.312(e)(3) 

should be extended. This is discussed in 

detail in the NPRM. 

Discussion of Comments 

Nine commenters responded to the 

NPRM. Two commenters, DaherLhotellier and Cogebi, are affiliated 

insulation material manufacturers that 

do not support extending the 

compliance date. These commenters 

contended that materials meeting the 

rule are available and that compliance 

within the existing date is possible. 

They provided no further information. 

The basis of the proposed extension was 

that manufacturers were not able to 

show that materials that are optimized 

for cost and weight would reliably meet 

the requirement. We agree there are 

materials that satisfy the test 

requirements of the regulation, but these 

are heavier or more expensive than 

envisioned by the rule. The commenters 

did not address this point in their 

comments. We therefore do not agree 

the current compliance date should be 

maintained. 

All other commenters (Airbus, Airline 

Pilots Association (ALPA), Air 

Transport Association (ATA), 

Association of European Airlines (AEA), 

Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), 

Boeing, and Bombardier) supported an 

extension to the compliance date. 

ALPA agreed that an extension of the 

compliance date is warranted, but had 

other comments on the basic 

requirement. These comments included 

expanding the number of airplanes 

affected, and the portion of the airplane 

that must be protected with insulation 

meeting the requirement. ALPA had 

made these same comments during the 

original rulemaking. These comments 

went beyond the scope of the NPRM, 

which simply addresses the compliance 

date for newly manufactured airplanes. 

However, as discussed in the original 

rulemaking, we have determined that 

broadening the applicability of the rule 

would have a very small benefit, and 

significant cost. 

Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, AIA and 

AEA all contended the test equipment is 

still not sufficiently developed to 

support a fixed compliance date. They 

maintained the scatter in test results is 

too wide for a certification standard. 

We do not agree. The FAA William J. 

Hughes Technical Center has worked 

aggressively to resolve the issues with 

the test equipment, and has made 

significant progress in eliminating 

differences between test facilities. The 

most significant issue was the difference 

in performance between two test 

burners with slightly different 

configurations. We have developed 

small modifications that bring the two 

configurations into alignment. These 

modifications have been distributed to 

the test facilities that required them. In 

addition, we have conducted a series of 

tests with different materials to confirm 

the modifications do, in fact, work. It 

should be noted that all test methods, 

and in particular, fire test methods, have 

variability. This test method is 

consistent with other fire test methods 

in terms of the variation in results from 

one test to the next. As discussed below, 

some of the variation in test results is 

not because of the test method or 

equipment. 

We have also identified variability in 

materials that can lead to variability in 

test results. In the tests cited by these 

commenters, many of the materials 

tested were ‘‘off the shelf’’ and not 

necessarily developed to comply with 

an aviation safety standard. More recent 

efforts to develop materials whose 

properties were carefully controlled 

have shown the test results can be very 

consistent, if the material being tested is 

itself very consistent. 

Airbus, Boeing, and AIA commented 

the burner used in the test method is 

obsolete, and no longer available. They 

stated this contributes to difficulties in 

obtaining consistency among facilities 

and within a facility. 

While the burner is no longer 

commercially available; there are 

numerous burners already in industry. 

As discussed above, the FAA Technical 

Center has developed refinements to the 

burner that standardize its performance. 

However, as the supply of burners is 

limited, we have also developed an 

alternative burner that eliminates many 

of the parameters that are currently the 

source of performance variations. This 

design will be documented and the 

plans made available to anyone 

requesting them. The new burner can be 

fabricated from standard parts and 

should eliminate concerns that the old 

burner is out of production. 

Airbus commented there are no 

commercially available test facilities. At 

the time the comment was made, no 

commercial facilities had requested 

FAA acceptance. However, since the 

NPRM was published, two facilities 

have requested and received FAA 

review and would be eligible to conduct 

certification testing if they so choose. 

Airbus also commented the late 

availability of the associated advisory 

circular (AC) 25.856–2 has contributed 

to the need for further extension. Airbus 

noted the final AC was published in 

January 2006, and not concurrently with 

the final rule. They stated the lack of 

published guidance affected their ability 

to begin designing suitable solutions. 

Part of the reason the AC publication 

was delayed was to permit as much 

consideration as possible of the 

equipment issues that had arisen. We 

had to balance the need to issue the AC 

as soon as possible with the need to 

make it as comprehensive as possible. 

The absence of the AC did not, however, 

limit any manufacturer’s ability to 

propose, and gain acceptance for, 

methods of compliance. The FAA has 

worked with each affected manufacturer 

to develop methods of compliance. 

While the ideal situation would have 

been to have the AC available 

concurrent with the final rule, this 

should not have inhibited the 

development of methods of compliance. 

Bombardier, Boeing and Airbus, with 

supporting comments from AEA and 

AIA, contended there are no, or limited, 

materials available that satisfy the cost/ 

weight criteria specified in the original 

rulemaking. We believe that part of this 

comment stemmed from the prior 

problems with test equipment, and the 

potential for certain materials to pass at 

one facility, but fail at another. Since 

the material used to establish cost and 

weight in the original rulemaking is still 

available, we do not agree there are no 

materials available. However, we agree 

the scatter in test results that prompted 

this rule introduced uncertainty, and 

reluctance on the part of the 

manufacturers to commit to a material. 

Bombardier commented on specific 

areas of the airplane that may be more 

complex to address than others, as well 

as some alternative approaches to 

providing protection from flame 

penetration. These comments were not 

directly related to the subject of the 

compliance date. Nonetheless, we agree 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
1440 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

that some areas of the airplane are more 

complicated than others, but this was 

accounted for in the rulemaking. In 

terms of alternative approaches, an 

applicant is free to propose an approach 

that provides an equivalent level of 

safety. 

Boeing expressed a concern that the 

local Aircraft Certification Offices will 

not have enough information with 

which to review, and find acceptable, 

test facilities. As noted above, two 

facilities have been reviewed and 

accepted to date. The FAA plans to 

make such reviews a priority and there 

have been no unforeseen difficulties in 

successfully accomplishing the facility 

review. 

Boeing and Airbus both indicated that 

they cannot comply, even with a 12 

month extension. They stated their 

current production schedules and 

design requirements mean that 

compliance with the existing proposal 

will cause severe disruption of their 

schedules and cause them to implement 

materials that are heavier, or more 

costly than can be developed soon. This 

in turn would require them to change 

configurations twice: once to meet the 

compliance date, and again to optimize 

the materials, after they complete their 

development. They proposed an 

additional 12 month extension, for a 

total of 24 months to minimize 

disruption of their production. 

We have carefully considered these 

comments, as they are fundamental to 

the impact of the rule. When the 

original rule was promulgated, we 

determined that a four year compliance 

time was sufficient for newly 

manufactured airplanes. This 

assessment presumed that materials and 

test equipment were readily available 

and that manufacturers would begin to 

address compliance immediately. 

However, we have acknowledged the 

test equipment was not readily available 

in a condition to always provide reliable 

test results, and that this brought into 

question the suitability of certain 

materials presumed to be acceptable. 

Since this rule does add weight and cost 

to the airplane, the balance between the 

total cost impact and the safety benefit 

is very important. If the cost of 

implementating the rule is much more 

significant than anticipated, the 

justification for the rule may be 

revisited. Since we believe the rule 

provides a significant safety benefit, we 

must maintain the balance between the 

cost impact, and the safety benefit 

provided. Clearly, for various reasons, 

two major airplane manufacturers are 

not prepared to comply with the rule, 

even allowing for a 12 month extension 

from the original compliance date. 

While we do not agree that all the 

reasons for this lie with the issues 

associated with the test method, we 

believe that the current proposal will 

result in significantly greater economic 

impact than was anticipated. 

We have worked closely with each of 

the affected airplane manufacturers to 

address compliance questions and 

certification methodology. This has 

involved on-site visits and inspection of 

airplane design details, in addition to 

numerous discussions. These reviews 

give us a good appreciation of the 

magnitude of the design changes 

required to achieve compliance, which 

are substantial. Since a significant 

amount of the compliance time was 

absorbed with test equipment issues, the 

airplane manufacturers are significantly 

behind in implementing designs. Even 

though we had concluded that a 12 

month extension would be sufficient, 

the two largest airplane manufactures 

are clearly not postured to accommodate 

compliance in that timeframe using 

materials that they consider optimal and 

that they intend to use for future 

compliance. We agree that they could 

not comply within the current proposed 

timeframe without a substantial cost 

impact that we did not originally 

anticipate. 

Considering all of the above we have 

concluded that an additional 12 month 

extension, for a total of 24 months, is 

appropriate to implement this 

requirement in keeping with the original 

cost/benefit balance of the rule. In 

making this decision, we have 

considered that we would very likely 

receive petitions for exemption to 

address specific certification programs if 

the current proposal is maintained. The 

potential for further extensions is a 

significant factor in changing the 

proposal. Barring some unforeseen 

event, we do not envision any more 

changes to the compliance date. The 

final rule is changed accordingly. 

Notwithstanding the 24 month 

extension, we would expect the 

manufacturers to implement the 

required design changes as early as 

possible, to improve the safety of the 

fleet. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

There are no current or new 

requirements for information collection 

associated with this amendment. 

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 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these regulations. 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandate Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

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

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows: 

A two-year postponement of the new 

thermal acoustic insulation standards 

would spare manufactures an added 

setup cost of slightly less than $60 

million at an expected societal loss of $4 

million in benefits. The Improved 

Flammability Standards for Thermal/ 

Acoustic Insulation final regulatory 

evaluation (July, 2002) estimated the 

new insulation requirements would 

produce present value benefits of $222.6 

million with present value costs of 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 1441 

$108.4 million (Table M). The two-year 

benefit/cost delay dichotomy is because 

of large set up costs and a relatively 

short postponement of corresponding 

benefits. The benefits increase slowly 

with a gradual increase in the fleet 

because of annual deliveries of new 

production airplanes with the new 

thermal/acoustic insulation. 

As shown in the 2002 final regulatory 

evaluation nearly half of the regulatory 

evaluation estimated $108 million 

present value costs are the setup costs 

($58.1 million in present value), which 

are incurred in the two years before 

installing the improved insulation on 

new production airplanes. These setup 

costs occur because of configuration 

management, or the cost resulting from 

engineering time to change airplane 

configuration—such as fully accounting 

for all parts, tools, and shop manual 

changes. To be in compliance with the 

new requirements the industry would 

first have to install a heavier insulation, 

before lighter weight insulation becomes 

fully available. Two different types of 

insulation materials require 

configuration management costs to 

double. 

Thus this final rule results in large 

cost savings with a minor loss in social 

benefits. The FAA has, therefore, 

determined that this final rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, and is not ‘‘significant’’ as 

defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

With this rule airplane manufacturers 

will avoid incurring an added 

configuration management cost. While 

these manufacturers are not small 

entities, the small entity operators are 

expected to save fuel burn expense, as 

the one-year interim fix insulation is 

heavier. Thus this rule is cost relieving 

and does not impose a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

We did not receive comments 

following the NPRM about the cost 

impact on small entities. 

Therefore, as the FAA Administrator, 

I certify that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits Federal 

agencies from establishing any 

standards or engaging in 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. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this final rule and 

has determined that it provides the 

same cost relief to domestic and 

international entities and thus has a 

neutral trade impact. 

Unfunded Mandate Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation with the 

base year 1995) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such a 

mandate. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and therefore does 

not have federalism implications. 

Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the FAA, when 

modifying its regulations in a manner 

affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to 

consider the extent to which Alaska is 

not served by transportation modes 

other than aviation, and to establish 

appropriate regulatory distinctions. In 

the NPRM, we requested comments on 

whether the proposed rule should apply 

differently to intrastate operations in 

Alaska. We didn’t receive any 

comments, and we have determined, 

based on the administrative record of 

this rulemaking, that there is no need to 

make any regulatory distinctions 

applicable to intrastate aviation in 

Alaska. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 3f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

18, 2001). We have determined that it is 

not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, 

Transportation. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
1442 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

The Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 121—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, 

AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 121 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 

44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–44711, 

44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901, 44903–

44904, 44912, 46105. 

■ 2. Amend § 121.312 by revising 

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

§ 121.312 Materials for compartment 

interiors. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) For airplanes with a passenger 

capacity of 20 or greater, manufactured 

after September 2, 2009, thermal/ 

acoustic insulation materials installed 

in the lower half of the fuselage must 

meet the flame penetration resistance 

requirements of § 25.856 of this chapter, 

effective September 2, 2003. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 4, 

2007. 

Marion C. Blakey, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E7–338 Filed 1–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 125 and 135 

[Docket No. FAA–2004–18596; Amendment 

No. SFAR 106] 

RIN 2120–AI30 

Use of Certain Portable Oxygen 

Concentrator Devices Onboard Aircraft 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) is making minor 

technical changes to a final rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 12, 2005 (70 FR 40156). That final 

rule created Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation 106 (SFAR 106). In that final 

rule the FAA inadvertently failed to 

make conforming amendments to 

additionally apply the SFAR to parts 

125 and 135 as proposed, and to include 

references in those parts to the existence 

of SFAR 106 published in part 121. 

EFFECTIVE DATES: Effective on February 

12, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David L. Catey, Air Transportation 

Division, AFS–200, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–3732. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

published SFAR 106, ‘‘Use of Certain 

Portable Oxygen Concentrator Devices 

onboard Aircraft,’’ in the Federal 

Register on July 12, 2005 (70 FR 40156). 

We inadvertently failed to attach notes 

to parts 125 and 135 of Title 14 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

that would direct operators subject to 

those regulations to the body of SFAR 

106. When the FAA published the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

that offered the proposed SFAR to the 

public for comment, we clearly stated 

that the proposed regulation would 

apply to civil aircraft in parts 121, 125, 

and 135. The NPRM was published in 

the Federal Register on July 14, 2004 

(69 FR 42324), and in the heading we 

noted that the proposal applied to 14 

CFR Parts 121, 125, and 135. The 

applicability for an SFAR to a specific 

part of 14 CFR is not specifically cited 

in the Applicability section of the 

regulatory language, but rather cited in 

the heading of the SFAR and the parts 

affected contain an editorial note 

referring readers to the text of the SFAR. 

When the final rule was published, we 

failed to include those notes to parts 125 

and 135. This technical amendment will 

add the editorial notes to parts 125 and 

135 that direct the reader to the text of 

SFAR 106 and ensure that readers know 

the regulation applies to operations 

conducted under those parts. This 

amendment will not impose any 

additional restrictions on operators 

affected by these regulations. 

SFAR 106 permits passengers to carry 

on and use certain portable oxygen 

concentrator devices (POCs) onboard 

aircraft if the aircraft operator ensures 

that the conditions specified in the 

SFAR for their use are met. Aircraft 

operators can now offer medical oxygen 

service as they did before SFAR 106 was 

enacted, or they can arrange for 

passengers to carry on and use one of 

the devices covered in SFAR 106. SFAR 

106 is an enabling rule, which means 

that no aircraft operator is required to 

allow passengers to operate these 

devices onboard, but they may allow 

them to be operated onboard. If one of 

these devices is allowed by the aircraft 

operator to be carried on board, the 

conditions in the SFAR must be met. 

SFAR 106 allows for the use of five 

specific POC devices the FAA has found 

to be acceptable. 

Need for the Correction 

As stated above, this correction is 

needed to make clear that the conditions 

and regulations of SFAR 106 are also 

applicable to operations conducted 

under parts 125 and 135, as proposed in 

the NPRM and intended in the final 

rule. 

Technical Amendment 

The technical amendment will correct 

the omission of the editorial notes that 

direct operators under parts 125 and 135 

to SFAR 106 in part 121. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 125 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements 

14 CFR Part 135 

Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ Accordingly, Title 14 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 125 and 

135 are amended as follows: 

PART 125—CERTIFICATION AND 

OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A 

SEATING CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE 

PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM 

PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 6,000 

POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES 

GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD 

SUCH AIRCRAFT. 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 125 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44705, 44710–44711, 44713, 44716–

44717, 44722. 

■ 2. Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

No. 106 is added to part 125 to read as 

follows: 

SPECIAL FEDERAL AVIATION 

REGULATION NO. 106 

Editorial Note: For the text of SFAR No. 

106, see part 121 of this chapter. 

PART 135—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND 

ON-DEMAND OPERATIONS AND 

RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON 

BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 135 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44705, 44709, 44711–44713, 44715–

44717, 44722. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES