This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

38266 

Vol. 79, No. 129 

Monday, July 7, 2014 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No.: FAA–2014–0001; Notice No. 

14–06] 

RIN 2120–AK29 

Harmonization of Airworthiness 

Standards—Fire Extinguishers and 

Class B and F Cargo Compartments 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend 

certain airworthiness regulations for 

transport category airplanes by 

upgrading fire safety standards for one 

type of cargo compartment; establishing 

fire safety standards for a new type of 

cargo compartment; and updating 

related standards for fire extinguishers. 

The proposed rules are based on 

recommendations from the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) and the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB), and they address 

designs for which airworthiness 

directives have been issued by both the 

FAA and the French civil aviation 

authority, Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de 

l’Aviation Civile (DGAC). 

Adopting these proposals would 

eliminate regulatory differences 

between the airworthiness standards of 

the U.S. and the European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA), without affecting 

current industry design practices. These 

proposed changes would ensure an 

acceptable level of safety for these types 

of cargo compartments by standardizing 

certain requirements, concepts, and 

procedures. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

October 6, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2014–0001 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information the 

commenter provides. Using the search 

function of the docket Web site, anyone 

can find and read the electronic form of 

all comments received into any FAA 

docket, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), 

as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Stephen M. Happenny, 

Propulsion/Mechanical Systems Branch, 

ANM–112, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 1601 Lind Ave. SW., 

Renton, WA 98055–4056; telephone 

(425) 227–2147; facsimile (425) 227– 

1232; email: Stephen.Happenny@

faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Sean Howe, Office of 

Regional Counsel, ANM–7, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227–2591; facsimile 

(425) 227–1007; email: sean.howe@

faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 

44701, ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under 

that section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations in the interest of 

safety for the design and performance of 

aircraft; regulations and minimum 

standards in the interest of safety for 

inspecting, servicing, and overhauling 

aircraft; and regulations for other 

practices, methods, and procedures the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce. This regulation is 

within the scope of that authority 

because it prescribes new safety 

standards for the design and operation 

of transport category airplanes. 

I. Overview of Proposed Rule 

The purpose of the proposed 

rulemaking is to harmonize certain Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR) part 25 requirements for fire 

extinguishers and cargo compartments 

with the corresponding requirements in 

Book 1 of EASA Certification 

Specifications and Acceptable Means of 

Compliance for Large Airplanes (CS– 

25). 

Applicants for FAA type certification 

already use the proposed changes 

through equivalent level of safety 

findings and special conditions. 

Harmonizing these requirements with 

EASA would benefit manufacturers and 

modifiers by providing them a single set 

of requirements with which they must 

show compliance, thereby reducing the 

cost and complexity of certification and 

codifying a consistent level of safety. 

The proposed rulemaking would limit 

the size of an existing class of cargo 

compartments, define a new class of 

accessible cargo compartments without 

size limitation, update associated fire 

extinguisher requirements, update cargo 

liner and floor panel requirements and 

their material testing criteria, and 

propose associated advisory information 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 129 / Monday, July 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 38267 

for compliance. The proposed changes 

would apply to new airplane designs 

only, not to existing airplanes. 

Applicability to derivative airplanes or 

changed products would be determined 

according to 14 CFR 21.101. 

1. A new paragraph, (f), would be 

added to § 25.857 to establish 

requirements for certification of 

accessible cargo compartments without 

size limitation under a new 

classification, Class F, that must meet 

safety standards similar to those of Class 

C cargo compartments or equivalent. 

2. Section 25.851(a)(3), ‘‘Hand fire 

extinguishers,’’ would be revised to 

extend the existing fire extinguisher 

requirements for Class A, B, or E cargo 

or baggage compartments to be 

applicable to new Class F accessible 

cargo or baggage compartments defined 

in the new § 25.857(f). The amended 

requirements would specify that at least 

one readily accessible hand fire 

extinguisher be available to 

crewmembers in-flight for use in each 

Class A, B, E, or F compartment. 

3. Section 25.851(b)(2), ‘‘Built-in fire 

extinguishers,’’ would be revised by 

adding a sentence to the existing 

regulation to clarify that the capacity of 

a built-in fire extinguishing/fire 

suppression system in a Class C and, if 

installed, a Class F cargo compartment 

must be adequate to respond to a fire 

that could occur in any part of the cargo 

compartment where cargo or baggage 

may be placed. The FAA is taking this 

step to harmonize our regulation to the 

EASA regulation and practice because 

FAA testing has shown that current 

methods of compliance are inadequate. 

Advisory material will provide guidance 

on acceptable means of compliance with 

this proposal. 

4. Sections 25.855(b), (c), and (h), 

‘‘Cargo or baggage compartments,’’ 

would be revised to require that new 

Class F cargo compartments have a liner 

that meets flame penetration standards 

currently required for Class C cargo 

compartments unless other means are 

provided to contain a fire and protect 

critical systems and structure. In 

addition, § 25.855(h)(3) would be 

revised to add a required demonstration 

of compliance of the dissipation of the 

extinguishing agent in Class F cargo 

compartments with designs that 

incorporate a built-in fire 

extinguisher(s) for controlling a fire. 

5. Section 25.857(b)(1), ‘‘Cargo 

compartment classification,’’ would be 

revised to indirectly limit the size of a 

Class B cargo compartment by requiring 

a defined firefighting access point. 

6. Part I of appendix F to part 25, 

‘‘Test Criteria and Procedures for 

Showing Compliance with § 25.853 or 

§ 25.855,’’ paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and 

(a)(2)(iii) would be revised to add a 

reference to Class F cargo compartment 

floor panels. Other changes to appendix 

F to part 25 are being considered as part 

of a separate rulemaking that may result 

in a different, but technically 

equivalent, change. 

II. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

Part 25 prescribes airworthiness 

standards for type certification of 

transport category airplanes for products 

certified in the United States. EASA CS– 

25 Book 1 prescribes the corresponding 

airworthiness standards for products 

certified in Europe. While part 25 and 

CS–25 are similar, they differ in several 

respects. To improve certification 

efficiency, the FAA tasked ARAC to 

review existing cargo compartments and 

fire extinguisher regulations and to 

recommend changes that would 

eliminate differences between U.S. and 

European airworthiness standards, 

while maintaining or improving the 

level of safety in the current regulations. 

ARAC established the Cargo 

Standards Harmonization Working 

Group (CSHWG), assigning it the task of 

developing new or revised requirements 

for Class B cargo compartments of 

transport category airplanes. ARAC also 

established the Mechanical Systems 

Harmonization Working Group 

(MSHWG), assigning it the task of 

developing new or revised requirements 

for a built-in fire extinguishing system 

for existing or new cargo compartment 

classifications. Each working group was 

to document its work as a draft NPRM 

with supporting material or collateral 

documents, such as advisory circulars. 

The scope of these taskings included 

developing similar proposed regulations 

to amend Joint Aviation Requirements 

(JAR)–25, the precursor to CS–25, as 

necessary to achieve harmonization 

between the FAA and the Joint Aviation 

Authorities (JAA), the predecessor of 

EASA. EASA incorporated the ARAC 

working groups’ recommendations into 

the CS–25 requirements via 

Amendments 4 and 8, on December 27, 

2007, and December 18, 2009, 

respectively. The FAA agrees with 

ARAC’s recommendations to harmonize 

U.S. airworthiness standards for cargo 

compartments and associated fire 

extinguishers with corresponding EASA 

regulations and proposes to amend part 

25 accordingly. The proposals are not 

expected to be controversial and should 

reduce certification costs to industry 

without adversely affecting safety. The 

complete analyses for the proposed 

changes made in response to ARAC 

recommendations can be found in the 

ARAC recommendation reports, located 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

B. History 

On November 27, 1987, a fire 

occurred in the Class B cargo 

compartment of a Boeing Model 747– 

244B airplane operated by South 

African Airways. The airplane was on a 

scheduled flight between Taipei, 

Taiwan, to Johannesburg, South Africa. 

It was carrying both passengers and 

cargo on the main deck, a configuration 

known as a ‘‘combi’’ and classified as a 

Class B cargo compartment. The 

airplane crashed in the Indian Ocean 

about 140 miles northeast of Mauritius. 

All people aboard the airplane perished. 

The South African Board of Inquiry 

reported that (1) there was clear 

indication that a fire broke out in a right 

hand front pallet (one of six) in the main 

deck cargo hold, and (2) the fire could 

not be controlled and consequently led 

to the crash. The South African Board 

unanimously agreed with the following 

findings and conclusions of the FAA 

Review Team: 

1. Existing rules, policies, and 

procedures being applied to the 

certification of Class B cargo or baggage 

compartments for smoke and fire 

protection, the required quantity of fire 

extinguishing agent, and the number of 

portable fire extinguishers are 

inadequate. 

2. The use of pallets to carry cargo in 

Class B compartments is no longer 

acceptable. 

3. While entry into the cargo 

compartment is available, not all cargo 

is accessible. 

4. The reliance on crew members to 

fight a cargo fire must be discontinued. 

In response to the South African 

Airways accident, the FAA issued 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 89–18–12 

(54 FR 34762, August 21, 1989), which 

required a number of changes in the 

standards for Class B cargo 

compartments located on the main deck 

of certain large airplanes. The affected 

airplane models included Boeing Model 

707, 727, 737, 747, and 757 series 

airplanes, and McDonnell Douglas DC– 

8, DC–9, and DC–10 series airplanes. 

That AD was superseded twice. The first 

supersedure, AD 91–10–02 (56 FR 

20529, May 6, 1991) was issued after 

operators and manufacturers reported 

design and logistics problems in 

complying with AD 89–18–12. The 

second AD supersedure was in response 

to comments received following 

issuance of the first AD supersedure and 

the publication of new test data 

provided by the FAA William J. Hughes 

Technical Center (57 FR 36918, August 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38268 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 129 / Monday, July 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1AD 93–07–15 Boeing and McDonnell Douglas: 

Amendment 39–8547. Docket No. 92–NM–67–AD. 

17, 1992). The current AD, AD 93–07– 

15 1 (58 FR 21243, April 20, 1993), 

requires operational and procedural 

changes, additional equipment, and 

enhanced fire detection and suppression 

systems on applicable large main-deck 

combi airplanes. The enhanced fire 

detection and suppression system 

standards require modification of the 

Class B cargo compartment to either 

comply with the requirements for a 

Class C cargo compartment, as defined 

in §§ 25.855 (Amendment 25–60), 

25.857(c), and 25.858 (Amendment 25– 

54), or to incorporate other specified 

safeguards. A similar airworthiness 

directive was issued by the French 

airworthiness authority, DGAC, AD 92– 

113(B)R1. These ADs provided options 

to the operators of the affected airplanes 

for achieving an adequate level of safety. 

These are encompassed in the proposed 

regulations and associated guidance 

material. 

C. National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) Recommendations 

NTSB investigated the South African 

747–244B accident and on May 16, 

1988, issued the following Safety 

Recommendations: 

1. A–88–61. Until fire detection and 

suppression methods for Class B cargo 

compartment fires are evaluated and 

revised, as necessary, the NTSB 

recommended that the FAA require all 

cargo carried in Class B cargo 

compartments of U.S.-registered 

transport category airplanes be carried 

in fire resistant containers. 

The FAA responded to this 

recommendation with the current AD 

93–07–15. These proposed revisions to 

the related regulations and to part I of 

appendix F to part 25 for fire testing 

requirements also address this 

recommendation. 

2. A–88–62. The NTSB recommended 

that the FAA conduct research to 

establish the fire detection and 

suppression methods needed to protect 

transport category airplanes from 

catastrophic fires in Class B 

compartments. 

To address this recommendation, both 

the FAA and the JAA conducted 

research to determine whether Class B 

cargo compartments might be unsafe. 

Both authorities concluded that entering 

the compartment to combat a fire is 

ineffective for cargo compartments 

larger than 200 cubic feet in volume. 

They agreed on the need to conduct 

tests with actual fires to try to more 

closely establish the maximum safe 

Class B cargo compartment size. In 

coordination with the CSHWG, the Fire 

Safety Branch of the FAA Technical 

Center conducted a number of ground 

tests using an airplane hull with a cargo 

compartment located in the rear of the 

passenger cabin. The simulated 

compartment had smoke detection, 

ventilation rates, and air balance 

approximately the same as would be 

encountered in a flight, and an entry 

door similar to those in the 

compartments of smaller transport 

category airplanes. 

Based on that testing, the FAA 

Technical Center made several 

observations. During actual fire testing 

conducted in a simulated Class B cargo 

compartment with a volume of 175 

cubic feet, flight attendants equipped 

with protective breathing equipment 

and a hand fire extinguisher, but 

without protective clothing, were 

unwilling to enter the cargo 

compartment when a fire was present. 

This result led the CSHWG to conclude 

that reliance on a flight attendant to 

physically enter the cargo compartment 

to extinguish a fire was unrealistic, and 

that a standard based on such an 

expectation was undesirable. 

During other tests, trained fire 

fighters, dressed in full firefighting gear, 

found it unnecessary to enter the 

compartment to extinguish the fire. 

They were able to extinguish the fire 

from the doorway. 

Based on these findings, the CSHWG 

recognized that a fire could be 

effectively combated by direct access, 

but without entry, to some of these 

compartments. The CSHWG decided it 

would not be appropriate to specify a 

maximum allowable volume for a cargo 

compartment. Instead, the CSHWG 

proposal stipulated that, when standing 

at an access point, the person fighting 

the fire must be able to reach any part 

of the compartment with the contents of 

a hand fire extinguisher. Under the 

CSHWG proposal, access would be a 

function of how the compartment was 

configured rather than volume. In 

determining access, the CSHWG 

proposal stipulated that it would not be 

appropriate to pull baggage or cargo on 

to the floor of the passenger 

compartment to gain access to the seat 

of the fire; such action may introduce a 

safety hazard to the occupants. 

3. A–88–63. The NTSB recommended 

that the FAA establish fire resistant 

requirements for the ceiling and 

sidewall liners in Class B cargo 

compartments of transport category 

airplanes that equal or exceed the 

requirements for Class C as set forth in 

14 CFR part 25, appendix F, part III. 

The current AD and the proposed 

revisions to cargo compartment 

classifications address this 

recommendation. 

III. Discussion of the Proposal 

A. Revise ‘‘Fire Extinguishers’’ (§ 25.851) 

1. ‘‘Hand Fire Extinguishers’’ 

(§ 25.851(a)) 

Introduction of a new Class F cargo or 

baggage compartment via § 25.857(f) 

necessitates an amendment of 

§ 25.851(a)(3) to require at least one 

readily accessible hand fire extinguisher 

for use in each new Class F cargo or 

baggage compartment that is accessible 

to crewmembers in flight. This is the 

same requirement currently for Class A, 

B, or E cargo or baggage compartments. 

2. ‘‘Built-In Fire Extinguishers’’ 

(§ 25.851(b)) 

Section 25.851(b)(2) requires that the 

capacity of a built-in fire extinguishing 

system be adequate for any fire likely to 

occur in the compartment where used, 

and section 25.21 requires that an 

applicant prove compliance with the 

requirements of part 25. The FAA 

proposes to clarify when a system is 

‘‘adequate,’’ and also proposes new 

guidance governing an acceptable 

means of demonstrating compliance. 

EASA implements its requirement CS 

25.851(b) to ensure that the system is 

adequate to control any fire likely to 

occur anywhere within the 

compartment. We propose to add a 

sentence to § 25.851(b) to harmonize 

with EASA’s application of the rule. 

This new sentence would clarify that an 

adequate capacity would provide 

sufficient quantity of agent to combat a 

fire anywhere baggage or cargo is placed 

within the cargo compartment and be 

available for the time required to land 

and evacuate the airplane. 

The key point of this proposed new 

sentence is that, because of the inability 

to know in advance the contents of 

cargo and baggage placed within a cargo 

compartment, it must be assumed that 

each piece of baggage or cargo is a 

potential fuel source and a potential 

ignition point. This clarification is 

predicated on the basis that all baggage 

and cargo placed on board the airplane 

is done in accordance with the FAAand EASA-approved manufacturer and 

operator airplane weights and balance 

manuals. In addition, placement of all 

baggage and cargo must be in 

accordance with all appropriate national 

civil aviation authority requirements 

and the manufacturer’s loading 

instructions and limitations. 

One effect of this proposed revision 

would be that the means of compliance 

that allow averaging of the individual 

extinguishing agent concentration 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 129 / Monday, July 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 38269 

sensors would typically no longer be 

compliant. The current averaging 

technique allows different applicants to 

use different test standards for 

determining the success of 

extinguishing agents, as opposed to CS 

certification methods, which are 

consistent for all applicants. 

Current EASA policy does not accept 

averaging methods but requires that 

each individual sensor display the 

required concentration. The 

corroborating factors that harmonized 

the EASA/FAA position included 

consideration of available test data. In 

addition, testing at the FAA Technical 

Center and other data from standardized 

fire extinguishing evaluation tests 

indicates that the use of averaging 

techniques may not show whether 

adequate concentration levels of fire 

extinguishing agent exist throughout the 

compartment to effectively suppress a 

cargo fire. If a cargo fire occurred, and 

was subsequently suppressed by Halon 

1301, the core of the fire could remain 

hot for a period of time. If the local 

concentration of Halon 1301 in the 

vicinity of the fire core dropped below 

3 percent by volume and sufficient 

oxygen was available, re-ignition could 

occur. FAA testing and other industry 

testing have shown that when the Halon 

1301 concentration level drops below 3 

percent by volume and the cargo fire reignites, the convective stirring caused 

by the heat of the fire may be 

insufficient to raise the local 

concentration of Halon 1301 in the 

vicinity of the fire. 

The proposed guidance would suggest 

means by which gaseous extinguishing 

agent concentrations could be measured 

and how the discrete measured data 

could be interpreted. Also, the proposed 

guidance would describe a means of 

compliance that would demonstrate that 

a ‘‘suppressed environment’’ is 

maintained in the cargo compartment 

through landing to enable passengers 

and crew to evacuate the airplane. 

The guidance would contain 

recommendations regarding markings 

and placards in the cargo compartment 

as a means of ensuring that baggage 

loading personnel do not load baggage 

and cargo above the safe limit certified 

by testing. 

Section 25.851 provides requirements 

for built-in fire extinguishing systems 

regardless of the extinguishing agent or 

delivery system used. Therefore, it is 

not limited to halon gaseous agents or 

any specific agent delivery system 

provided that such a system is effective 

in extinguishing/suppressing fire threats 

in the cargo compartment. Currently 

industry and the FAA Technical Center 

are investigating alternative halon 

replacement agents and other types of 

delivery systems and extinguishing/

suppression systems. 

The advisory material would establish 

guidance for evaluating brief excursions 

in the concentration readings and if the 

data from a single measuring point 

could be time-averaged. Additional 

laboratory testing is recommended only 

if critical issues requiring advisory 

clarification cannot be resolved by other 

means. 

B. Revise ‘‘Cargo or Baggage 

Compartments’’ (§ 25.855), ‘‘Cargo 

Compartment Classification’’ (25.857), 

and ‘‘Test Criteria and Procedures for 

Showing Compliance With § 25.853 or 

§ 25.855’’ (Part I of Appendix F to Part 

25) 

1. Proposed Amendment to Class B 

Cargo Compartments 

We propose to revise the existing 

airworthiness requirements for the Class 

B cargo compartment in § 25.857(b)(1) to 

indirectly limit the depth, width, and 

size of Class B cargo compartments by 

requiring a defined firefighting access 

point. 

Currently, Class B cargo 

compartments incorporate a separate, 

approved smoke or fire detection system 

to give a fire warning at the pilot or 

flight engineer station. Class B cargo 

compartments must have sufficient 

access in flight to enable a crewmember 

to effectively reach any part of the 

compartment with the contents of a 

hand fire extinguisher. These 

compartments must be designed so that 

no hazardous quantity of smoke, flames, 

or extinguishing agent may enter any 

compartment occupied by the crew or 

passengers. To protect adjacent 

structures, Class B cargo compartments 

must also have a liner meeting the flame 

penetration standards of § 25.855 and 

part I of appendix F to part 25. Section 

25.858, which was added in 

Amendment 25–54 (45 FR 66173, 

September 11, 1980), requires that fire 

detection systems of Class B cargo 

compartments provide a visual 

indication to the flightcrew within one 

minute after the start of a fire. In 

addition, the system must be capable of 

detecting the fire at a temperature 

significantly below that at which the 

structural integrity of the airplane is 

safely decreased. 

These standards were initially 

developed when cargo compartments 

were relatively small and airplanes were 

powered by reciprocating engines. With 

the advent of larger turbine-powered 

airplanes, cargo compartment sizes, 

operating altitudes, and route lengths 

increased. In addition, combination 

passenger/cargo configurations, or 

‘‘combis,’’ were introduced that were 

designed to carry both passengers and 

cargo on the main deck. These 

passenger and cargo compartments are 

separated by a barrier intended to 

prevent smoke and gasses from entering 

occupied areas. In some combis, the 

barrier is movable to change the 

available cargo and passenger capacity 

as needed for specific operational 

requirements. 

There are currently no limitations on 

the size or the volume of current Class 

B cargo compartments. For domestic jet 

transport airplanes, these compartments 

can range from approximately 200 cubic 

feet for business jets to 17,000 cubic feet 

for large transport airplanes. 

Based on tests conducted at the FAA 

Technical Center (57 FR 36918, August 

17, 1992), the proposed requirements 

would effectively limit the size of new 

design Class B cargo compartments by 

requiring that a crewmember, standing 

at any one access point and without 

stepping into the compartment, be able 

to extinguish a fire using a hand fire 

extinguisher. Class B cargo 

compartments, under the proposed 

amendment to § 25.857(b)(1), would be 

smaller than most current compartments 

because the current rule allows a 

compartment so large as to require a 

crewmember to enter the compartment 

in order to reach and extinguish the fire. 

The FAA proposes applicable guidance 

material in the AC associated with this 

rule. 

The requirements in § 25.857(b)(2) 

and (b)(3) will remain unchanged and 

will continue to require exclusion of 

hazardous quantities of smoke, flames, 

or extinguishing agent from any 

compartment occupied by the crew or 

passengers, as well as provision of a 

separate, approved smoke detector or 

fire detector system to give warning at 

the pilot or flight engineer station. 

2. New Class F Cargo Compartments 

(a) We propose to add a new 

paragraph, § 25.857(f), to establish a 

new cargo compartment category, Class 

F. The new Class F accessible cargo 

compartments would not be sizelimited. There would, however, need to 

be a means to control or extinguish a 

fire without requiring a crewmember to 

enter the compartment to conduct 

manual firefighting. Other fire safety 

features proposed for Class F cargo 

compartments would include: (1) A fire 

detection system that meets § 25.858, 

and (2) a means to exclude cargo 

compartment smoke and fumes from 

entering occupied spaces. As discussed 

in paragraph 2(b) of this section, a liner 

may be necessary, which would be 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38270 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 129 / Monday, July 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2A copy of AD 93–07–15 is included in the 

docket. 

required to meet part III of appendix F 

to part 25 or an equivalent standard. 

The proposed Class F accessible cargo 

compartments would accommodate the 

carriage of more baggage and cargo in a 

combi configuration (passengers and 

cargo on the main deck) and in larger 

volumes than allowed by the proposed 

amendment to Class B compartments. In 

reviewing the existing Class B cargo 

compartments in transport category 

airplanes, the CSHWG noted that 

several combi configurations do not 

satisfy the concerns about fighting a fire 

without personnel entering the cargo 

compartment. However, such combi 

configurations are necessary to sustain 

those geographic areas with no means of 

supply other than air cargo, such as 

small isolated towns and villages in 

Alaska and Northern Canada. In 

considering this issue, ARAC 

recommended that the FAA propose a 

new Class F cargo compartment that 

would allow for flexibility in new 

airplane designs while ensuring 

adequate fire control. 

Unlike the requirements for Class C 

cargo Compartments, the proposed Class 

F would not necessarily be required to 

have either a built-in fire extinguishing 

system or a means to control ventilation 

and drafts within the compartment. 

Instead, the proposed § 25.857(f)(2) 

would require that these compartments 

use either a crewmember to access the 

compartment with a hand fire 

extinguisher without entering the 

compartment or other means of 

controlling the fire (e.g., a built-in fire 

extinguisher/suppression system, fire 

containment covers, or other means that 

would be discussed in the proposed 

draft AC 25.857–X). The proposed 

§ 25.857(f)(1) and (f)(3) are identical to 

the existing § 25.857(c)(1) and (c)(3) 

applicable to Class C cargo 

compartments, respectively, and are 

intended to require the provision of a 

separate approved smoke detector or fire 

detector system to give warning at the 

pilot or flight engineer station as well as 

exclusion of hazardous quantities of 

smoke, flames, or extinguishing agent 

from any compartment occupied by the 

crew or passengers. In addition, for 

Class F cargo compartment designs that 

incorporate a built-in fire 

extinguisher(s) for controlling fire, 

§§ 25.851(b) and 25.855(h)(3) would be 

modified. 

(b) The introduction of Class F 

accessible cargo compartments 

necessitates revising § 25.855(b) and (c), 

which currently require a liner or other 

means of fire protection for Class B 

through E cargo compartments. We 

propose to revise § 25.855(b) and (c) to 

require that new Class F cargo 

compartments have a liner meeting 

flame penetration standards currently 

required for Class C cargo 

compartments. Class F cargo 

compartments would not have to have 

such liners if other means were 

provided to contain a fire and protect 

critical systems and structure. The 

proposed revision would result in 

retaining the same level of safety 

regarding fire protection. 

Section 25.855(b) would require Class 

F accessible compartments to have a 

liner, unless other means provide the 

necessary fire containment. The 

CSHWG considered two potential 

methods for relieving Class F 

compartments from the liner 

requirements. These would be included 

in the proposed AC associated with this 

proposed rule. One method is to use 

existing approved (e.g., Class C cargo 

compartment) containers carried inside 

the proposed new Class F cargo 

compartment. The containers 

themselves suppress fire. This design 

would provide a means of compliance 

similar to that offered in one of the 

options in the combi AD.2 To ensure use 

of appropriate containers, the 

requirement for use of the Class C cargo 

compartment containers would have to 

be identified as part of any loading 

restrictions in the airplane flight manual 

(AFM). 

A second method, already used in 

accordance with the combi AD, uses a 

system to distribute the contents of a 

hand fire extinguisher throughout the 

compartment. An external nozzle in the 

compartment wall or liner connects 

with the hand fire extinguisher. Internal 

plumbing carries the extinguishing 

agent throughout the compartment. This 

allows the certification of airplanes with 

compartments with less expensive 

hardware and does not require a flight 

crewmember to enter the compartment. 

The AFM would have to limit 

operations to a route structure that 

ensured the airplane could land before 

the available fire extinguishing 

capability was exhausted. 

(c) The introduction of Class F 

accessible cargo compartments 

necessitates revising paragraph (a)(1)(ii) 

of part I of appendix F to part 25. That 

paragraph currently requires selfextinguishing floor panels or other 

approved equivalent means of fire 

protection to contain a fire and protect 

critical systems and structure. We 

propose to revise paragraph (a)(1)(ii) 

and (a)(2)(iii) to require the floor panels 

in new Class F cargo compartments 

meet the flame penetration standards 

currently required for Class B, C, or E 

cargo compartments. The proposed 

revision would result in Class F cargo 

compartments meeting the same level of 

safety. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 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 proposed 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 a statement to that effect and 

the basis for it to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this proposed rule. The reasoning for 

this determination follows: 

The FAA tasked the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC) through the Cargo Standards 

Harmonization Working Group 

(CSHWG) and the Mechanical Systems 

Harmonization Working Group 

(MSHWG) to review existing cargo 

compartments and fire extinguisher 

regulations and to recommend changes 

that would eliminate differences 

between the U.S. and the European 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 129 / Monday, July 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 38271 

airworthiness standards, while 

maintaining or improving the level of 

safety in the current regulations. 

The FAA agrees with the ARAC 

recommendations to harmonize 

airworthiness standards for cargo 

compartments and associated fire 

extinguishers with the corresponding 

EASA regulations and proposes to 

amend part 25 accordingly. The 

proposed changes would eliminate 

differences between the U.S. and 

European airworthiness standards. 

These efforts are referred to as 

harmonization. 

This proposal is for changes in the 

standards in part 25 for new airplane 

designs only. The proposed changes 

will not apply to existing airplanes. This 

proposed rule would revise §§ 25.851, 

‘‘Fire extinguishers;’’ 25.855, ‘‘Cargo or 

baggage compartments;’’ 25.857, ‘‘Cargo 

compartment classification;’’ and 

appendix F, part I, ‘‘Test Criteria and 

Procedures for Showing Compliance 

with § 25.853, or § 25.855.’’ 

The FAA estimates that there are 

higher safety standards and no costs 

associated with this proposal. A review 

of current manufacturers of transport 

category airplanes certificated under 

part 25 has revealed that all such future 

airplanes are expected to be certificated 

under part 25 of both U.S. and EASA 

(CS–25) airworthiness regulations. Since 

future certificated transport category 

airplanes are expected to meet the 

existing EASA CS–25 Book 1 

requirements, and this rule adopts the 

same EASA requirements, 

manufacturers would incur no 

additional cost resulting from this 

proposal. This proposal may even 

reduce cost. Without harmonization the 

manufacturers would meet two sets of 

standards (EASA and FAA). Meeting 

two sets of certification requirements 

raises the cost of developing a new 

transport category airplane, often with 

no increase in safety. EASA regulations 

and associated compliance in the areas 

affected by the changes in this NPRM 

are more stringent than FAA regulations 

and compliance. These safety 

requirements are increased with no 

costs, or perhaps at lower costs. 

The FAA concludes that the proposed 

changes would eliminate regulatory 

differences between the airworthiness 

standards of the FAA and EASA 

without affecting current industry 

design practices resulting in potential 

cost savings and maintaining current 

levels of safety. The FAA requests 

comments with supporting 

documentation in regard to the 

conclusions contained in this section. 

The FAA has, therefore, determined 

that this proposed rule is not an 

economically ‘‘significant regulatory 

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

Executive Order 12866. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

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

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

§ 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. 

As noted above, the proposed changes 

to part 25 are cost-relieving because this 

proposed rule creates a single 

certification standard and removes the 

burden of having to meet two sets of 

certification requirements. The FAA 

believes that this proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The net effect of the proposed rule is 

minimum regulatory cost relief. 

Airplane manufacturers already meet or 

expect to meet this standard. The FAA 

uses the size standards from the Small 

Business Administration for Aircraft 

Manufacturing that specify companies 

having less than 1,500 employees are 

small entities. Given that this proposed 

rule is cost-relieving and there are no 

small entity manufacturers of part 25 

airplanes with less than 1,500 

employees, this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The FAA requests comments regarding 

this determination. If an agency 

determines that a rulemaking will not 

result in a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

head of the agency may so certify under 

§ 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as 

provided in § 605(b), the head of the 

FAA certifies that this rulemaking will 

not result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Please provide detailed 

economic analysis to support any cost 

differences. 

C. 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 proposed rule 

and has determined that the rule is in 

accord with the Trade Agreements Act 

as the proposed rule uses European 

standards as the basis for United States 

regulation. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151 

million in lieu of $100 million. This 

proposed rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there would 

be no new requirement for information 

collection associated with this proposed 

rule. 

F. International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38272 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 129 / Monday, July 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these proposed regulations. 

Executive Order (EO) 13609, 

Promoting International Regulatory 

Cooperation, [77 FR 26413, May 4, 

2012] promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policy and agency 

responsibilities of Executive Order 

13609, Promoting International 

Regulatory Cooperation. The agency has 

determined that this action would 

eliminate differences between U.S. 

aviation standards and those of other 

civil aviation authorities by creating a 

single set of certification requirements 

for transport category airplanes that 

would be acceptable in both the United 

States and Europe. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f of Order 1050.1E and 

involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has determined that this action 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 

therefore, would not have Federalism 

implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

agency has determined that it would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

the proposals in this document. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the proposal, explain 

the reason for any recommended 

change, and include supporting data. To 

ensure the docket does not contain 

duplicate comments, commenters 

should send only one copy of written 

comments, or if comments are filed 

electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, the FAA will consider 

all comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. The agency may 

change this proposal in light of the 

comments it receives. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information: Commenters should not 

file proprietary or confidential business 

information in the docket. Such 

information must be sent or delivered 

directly to the person identified in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this document, and marked as 

proprietary or confidential. If submitting 

information on a disk or CD–ROM, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD–ROM, and 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is proprietary or confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, the agency does not 

place it in the docket. It is held in a 

separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and the FAA places a 

note in the docket that it has received 

it. If the FAA receives a request to 

examine or copy this information, it 

treats it as any other request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). The FAA processes such a request 

under Department of Transportation 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

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

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. 

Copies may also be obtained 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. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Life-limited 

parts, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend chapter I of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT 

CATEGORY AIRPLANES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44702, 44704. 

■ 2. Amend § 25.851 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 25.851 Fire extinguishers. 

(a) * * * 

(3) At least one readily accessible 

hand fire extinguisher must be available 

for use in each Class A or Class B cargo 

or baggage compartment and in each 

Class E or Class F cargo or baggage 

compartment that is accessible to 

crewmembers in flight. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 129 / Monday, July 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 38273 

(2) The capacity of each required 

built-in fire extinguishing system must 

be adequate for any fire likely to occur 

in the compartment where used, 

considering the volume of the 

compartment and the ventilation rate. 

For purposes of this section, a system is 

adequate if there is sufficient quantity of 

agent to extinguish the fire or suppress 

the fire anywhere baggage or cargo is 

placed within the cargo compartment 

for the duration required to land and 

evacuate the airplane. 

■ 3. Amend § 25.855 by revising 

paragraphs (b), (c), and (h)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 25.855 Cargo or baggage compartments. 

* * * * * 

(b) Each of the following cargo or 

baggage compartments, as defined in 

§ 25.857, must have a liner that is 

separate from, but may be attached to, 

the airplane structure: 

(1) Any Class B through Class E cargo 

or baggage compartment, and 

(2) Any Class F cargo or baggage 

compartment, unless other means of 

containing a fire and protecting critical 

systems and structure are provided. 

(c) Ceiling and sidewall liner panels 

of Class C cargo or baggage 

compartments, and ceiling and sidewall 

liner panels in Class F cargo or baggage 

compartments, if installed to meet the 

requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section, must meet the test requirements 

of part III of appendix F of this part or 

other approved equivalent methods. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(3) The dissipation of the 

extinguishing agent in all Class C 

compartments or, if applicable, in any 

Class F compartments. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 25.857 by revising 

paragraph (b)(1) and adding a new 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 25.857 Cargo compartment 

classification. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) There is sufficient access in flight 

to enable a crewmember, standing at 

any one access point and without 

stepping into the compartment, to 

extinguish a fire occurring in any part 

of the compartment using a hand fire 

extinguisher. 

* * * * * 

(f) Class F. A Class F cargo or baggage 

compartment is located on the main 

deck, readily accessible in flight, and is 

one in which— 

(1) There is a separate approved 

smoke detector or fire detector system to 

give warning at the pilot or flight 

engineer station; 

(2) There are means to extinguish or 

control a fire without requiring a 

crewmember to enter the compartment; 

and 

(3) There are means to exclude 

hazardous quantities of smoke, flames, 

or extinguishing agent from any 

compartment occupied by the crew or 

passengers. 

■ 5. Amend part I of appendix F to part 

25 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and 

(a)(2)(iii) to read as follows: 

Appendix F to Part 25 

Part I—Test Criteria and Procedures for 

Showing Compliance with § 25.853 or 

§ 25.855. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Floor covering, textiles (including 

draperies and upholstery), seat cushions, 

padding, decorative and nondecorative 

coated fabrics, leather, trays and galley 

furnishings, electrical conduit, air ducting, 

joint and edge covering, liners of Class B and 

E cargo or baggage compartments, floor 

panels of Class B, C, E, or F cargo or baggage 

compartments, cargo covers and 

transparencies, molded and thermoformed 

parts, air ducting joints, and trim strips 

(decorative and chafing), that are constructed 

of materials not covered in paragraph 

(a)(1)(iv) of part I of this appendix, must be 

self-extinguishing when tested vertically in 

accordance with the applicable portions of 

part I of this appendix or other approved 

equivalent means. The average burn length 

may not exceed 8 inches, and the average 

flame time after removal of the flame source 

may not exceed 15 seconds. Drippings from 

the test specimen may not continue to flame 

for more than an average of 5 seconds after 

falling. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) A cargo or baggage compartment 

defined in § 25.857 as Class B, C, E, or F must 

have floor panels constructed of materials 

which meet the requirements of paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of part I of this appendix and which 

are separated from the airplane structure 

(except for attachments). Such panels must 

be subjected to the 45 degree angle test. The 

flame may not penetrate (pass through) the 

material during application of the flame or 

subsequent to its removal. The average flame 

time after removal of the flame source may 

not exceed 15 seconds, and the average glow 

time may not exceed 10 seconds. 

* * * * * 

Issued under the authority provided by 49 

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

Washington, DC, on June 26, 2014. 

Frank P. Paskiewicz, 

Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15789 Filed 7–3–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0312; FRL–9911–92– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Ventura County 

Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Ventura County Air 

Pollution Control District portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions concern volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions 

from aerospace assembly and 

component manufacturing and marine 

coating operations. We are proposing to 

approve local rules to regulate these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by August 6, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0312, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS