[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26956-26961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12102]



[[Page 26955]]

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

Part V





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 25



Design and Installation of Electronic Equipment on Transport Category 
Airplanes; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed 
Rules

[[Page 26956]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2001-9638; Notice No. 01-07]
RIN 2120-AH28


Design and Installation of Electronic Equipment on Transport 
Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend the 
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes concerning the 
design and installation of electronic equipment. The proposal would 
require that such equipment be designed and installed so that it does 
not cause essential loads to become inoperative as a result of 
electrical power supply transients or transients from other causes. 
Adopting this proposal would eliminate regulatory differences between 
the airworthiness standards of the U.S. and the Joint Aviation 
Requirements of Europe, without affecting current industry design 
practices.

DATES: Send your comments on or before July 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Address your comments to Dockets Management System, U.S. 
Department of Transportation Dockets, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket 
number FAA-2001-9638 at the beginning of your comments, and you should 
submit two copies of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation 
that the FAA has received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: 
``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2001-9638.'' We will date-stamp the 
postcard and mail it back to you.
    You also may submit comments electronically to the following 
Internet address: http://dms.dot.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing comments to this 
proposed regulation at the Department of Transportation (DOT) Dockets 
Office, located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the above 
address. You may review the public docket in person at this address 
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. Also, you may review the public dockets on the Internet at 
http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Slotte, FAA, Airplane and 
Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-
4056; telephone 425-227-2315; facsimile 425-227-1320, e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#66151203100348150a091212032600070748010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80f3f4e5f6e5aef3eceff4f4e5c0e6e1e1aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Do I Submit Comments to This NPRM?

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

How Can I Obtain a Copy of This NPRM?

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

Background

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Standards in the United States?

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

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Standards in Europe?

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

What is ``Harmonization'' and How Did it Start?

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

[[Page 26957]]

Consequently, manufacturers are usually burdened with meeting the 
requirements of both sets of standards, although the level of safety is 
not increased correspondingly.
    Recognizing that a common set of standards would not only benefit 
the aviation industry economically, but also maintain the necessary 
high level of safety, the FAA and the JAA began an effort in 1988 to 
``harmonize'' their respective aviation standards. The goal of the 
harmonization effort is to ensure that:
    <bullet> Where possible, standards do not require domestic and 
foreign parties to manufacture or operate to different standards for 
each country involved; and
    <bullet> The standards adopted are mutually acceptable to the FAA 
and the foreign aviation authorities.
    The FAA and JAA have identified a number of significant regulatory 
differences (SRD) between the wording of part 25 and JAR-25. Both the 
FAA and the JAA consider ``harmonization'' of the two sets of standards 
a high priority.

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

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

What Is the Status of the Harmonization Effort Today?

    Despite the work that ARAC has undertaken to address harmonization, 
there remain a large number of regulatory differences between part 25 
and JAR-25. The current harmonization process is extremely costly and 
time-consuming for industry, the FAA, and the JAA. Industry has 
expressed a strong desire to conclude the harmonization program as 
quickly as possible to alleviate the drain on their resources and to 
finally establish one acceptable set of standards.
    Recently, representatives of the aviation industry [including 
Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. (AIA), General 
Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and European Association of 
Aerospace Industries (AECMA)] proposed an accelerated process to reach 
harmonization.

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

    In light of a general agreement among the affected industries and 
authorities to expedite the harmonization program, the FAA and JAA in 
March 1999 agreed upon a method to achieve these goals. This method, 
which the FAA has titled ``The Fast Track Harmonization Program,'' is 
aimed at expediting the rulemaking process for harmonizing not only the 
42 standards that are currently tasked to ARAC for harmonization, but 
approximately 80 additional standards for part 25 airplanes.
    The FAA initiated the Fast Track program on November 26, 1999 (64 
FR 66522). This program involves grouping all of the standards needing 
harmonization into three categories:
Category 1: Envelope
    For these standards, parallel part 25 and JAR-25 standards would be 
compared, and harmonization would be reached by accepting the more 
stringent of the two standards. Thus, the more stringent requirement of 
one standard would be ``enveloped'' into the other standard. In some 
cases, it may be necessary to incorporate parts of both the part 25 and 
JAR standard to achieve the final, more stringent standard. (This may 
necessitate that each authority revises its current standard to 
incorporate more stringent provisions of the other.)
Category 2: Completed or Near Complete
    For these standards, ARAC has reached, or has nearly reached, 
technical agreement or consensus on the new wording of the proposed 
harmonized standards.
Category 3: Harmonize
    For these standards, ARAC is not near technical agreement on 
harmonization, and the parallel part 25 and JAR-25 standards cannot be 
``enveloped'' (as described under Category 1) for reasons of safety or 
unacceptability. A standard developed under Category 3 would be 
mutually acceptable to the FAA and JAA, with a consistent means of 
compliance.
    Further details on the Fast Track Program can be found in the 
tasking statement (64 FR 66522, November 26, 1999) and the first NPRM 
published under this program, Fire Protection Requirements for 
Powerplant Installations on Transport Category Airplanes (65 FR 36978, 
June 12, 2000).
    Under this program, the FAA provides ARAC with an opportunity to 
review, discuss, and comment on the FAA's draft NPRM. In the case of 
this rulemaking, ARAC suggested a number of editorial changes, which 
have been incorporated into this NPRM.

Discussion of the Proposal

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

    This proposed regulation results from the recommendations of ARAC 
submitted under the FAA's Fast Track Harmonization Program. In this 
notice, the FAA proposes to amend Sec. 25.1431, Electronic equipment, 
concerning the design and installation of electronic equipment on 
transport category airplanes.

[[Page 26958]]

What Is the Underlying Safety Issue Addressed by the Current Standards?

    The current standards address the critical environmental conditions 
that must be considered in the design and installation of radio and 
electronic equipment. The requirements are meant to ensure that 
electrical power is available to essential equipment without 
interruption, and that the malfunction of one unit or system of units 
will not adversely affect the operation of the other unit(s).

What are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

    <bullet> The current text of 14 CFR 25.1431 is:

    (a) In showing compliance with Sec. 25.1309 (a) and (b) with 
respect to radio and electronic equipment and their installations, 
critical environmental conditions must be considered.
    (b) Radio and electronic equipment must be supplied with power 
under the requirements of Sec. 25.1355(c).
    (c) Radio and electronic equipment, controls, and wiring must be 
installed so that operation of any one unit or system of units will 
not adversely affect the simultaneous operation of any other radio 
or electronic unit, or system of units, required by this chapter.

    <bullet> The current text of JAR-25.1431 is:

    (a) In showing compliance with JAR 25.1309 (a) and (b) with 
respect to radio and electronic equipment and their installations, 
critical environmental conditions must be considered.
    (b) Radio and electronic equipment must be supplied with power 
under the requirements of JAR 25.1355 (c).
    (c) Radio and electronic equipment, controls and wiring must be 
installed so that operation of any one unit or system of units will 
not adversely affect the simultaneous operation of any other radio 
or electronic unit, or system of units, required by this JAR-25.
    (d) Electronic equipment must be designed and installed such 
that it does not cause essential loads to become inoperative as a 
result of electrical power supply transients or transients from 
other causes.

What Are the Differences in the Standards?

    JAR-25.1431 contains paragraph (d) that requires verification that 
any electronic equipment will not cause essential loads to become 
inoperative as a result of electrical power supply transients or 
transients from other causes.
    Part 25 does not contain this specific requirement in Sec. 25.1431. 
However, those requirements are already implicit in other current 
sections of part 25, specifically:
    <bullet> Section 25.1309(e) (Equipment, systems, and 
installations), which states that each installation whose functioning 
is required and that requires a power supply is considered an 
``essential load'' on the power supply. It requires that the power 
sources and the system must be able to continue to supply power loads 
under probable critical operating combinations and for probable 
durations;
    <bullet> Section 25.1351(b) (Electrical systems and equipment--
General), which requires, among other things, that electrical 
generating systems must be designed so that no failure or malfunction 
of any power source can create a hazard or impair the ability of 
remaining sources to supply essential loads; and
    <bullet> Section 25.1353(a) (Electrical equipment and 
installations), which requires that electrical equipment, controls, and 
wiring must be installed so that operation of any one unit or system of 
units will not adversely affect the simultaneous operation of any other 
electrical unit or system essential to the safe operation.

What, If Any, Are the Differences in the Means of Compliance?

    Manufacturers in the U.S. who apply for type certification of their 
products by the JAA must ensure that there are provisions in the type 
design to address the requirements contained in JAR-25.1431(d). By 
complying with the other sections of part 25 listed above, those 
manufacturers are, in effect, also complying with the requirements of 
JAR-25.1431(d).

What Is the Proposed Action?

    The FAA proposes to revise Sec. 25.1431 to add a new paragraph (d) 
that would be parallel to JAR-25.1431(d).

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    The proposed standard continues to address the underlying safety 
issue by requiring that electrical power be available for electrical 
equipment on transport category airplanes. As stated previously, the 
requirements of the proposed standard are already included in other 
sections of part 25.

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

    The addition of proposed Sec. 25.1431(d) would have little effect 
on the current regulations. As stated above, its requirements are 
essentially already in effect because they are currently implicit in 
other sections of part 25. However, the FAA considers that the addition 
of the new paragraph would be beneficial in three ways:
    1. The proposed standard would provide one location in the 
regulations that explicitly addresses requirements related to 
electrical power supply transients by stating that any electronic 
equipment installed on the aircraft shall not cause essential loads to 
become inoperative due to electrical power supply transients or 
transients from other causes.
    2. The proposed standard may serve to clarify the objective of the 
other related regulations in part 25, described above.
    3. With the addition of the proposed new paragraph, part 25 would 
be harmonized with JAR-25.

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

    The proposed action is in line with current industry practices. 
Manufacturers of U.S. products are already meeting the proposed 
requirement by complying with other current standards in part 25.

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

    The only other option considered was to retain the current text of 
Sec. 25.1431 and not adopt the JAR text. However, the FAA decided 
against this for two reasons:
    First, adopting Sec. 25.1431(d) would have no significant 
additional impact on the cost of type certification, since it is 
consistent with standard design practices currently used to meet other 
part 25 regulations relevant to electrical installations. In other 
words, the requirements of proposed Sec. 25.1431(d) essentially are met 
already when an applicant properly demonstrates compliance with 
Sec. 25.1309(e), Sec. 25.1351(b), and Sec. 25.1353(a). Adopting the 
proposal would neither reduce nor increase the requirements beyond 
those that exist in the currently published regulations.
    Second, adopting the proposal would eliminate an identified 
Significant Regulatory Difference (SRD) between the wording of part 25 
and JAR-25, without affecting currently accepted industry design 
practices. The benefits of eliminating an SRD such as this are that 
more consistent interpretations of the rules can be expected, and the 
relations between regulatory authorities may be improved.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Change?

    The proposed change could affect manufacturers and operators of 
transport category airplanes. However,

[[Page 26959]]

since the proposed change does not result in any practical changes in 
requirements or practice, there would not be any significant effect.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    The FAA does not consider that additional advisory material is 
necessary.

What Regulatory Analyses and Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Regulatory Evaluation Summary
    Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several 
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each 
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its 
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies 
to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. section 2531-2533) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, this Trade Act 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 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 in any one year (adjusted for inflation.)
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
proposed rulemaking has benefits, but no costs, and that it is not ``a 
significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866. This proposed rulemaking would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, reduces barriers to 
international trade, and imposes no unfunded mandates on State, local, 
or tribal governments, or the private sector.
    Because there are no apparent costs associated with this proposal, 
it does not warrant the preparation of a full economic evaluation for 
placement in the docket. The basis of this statement and for the above 
determinations is summarized in this section of the preamble. The FAA 
requests comments with supporting documentation in regard to the 
conclusions contained in this section.
    Presently, airplane manufacturers must satisfy both part 25 of 
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) and the European joint 
aviation requirements (JAR) certification standards to market transport 
category aircraft in both the United States and Europe. Meeting two 
sets of certification requirements raises the cost of developing a new 
transport category airplane often with no increase in safety. In the 
interest of fostering international trade, lowering the cost of 
aircraft development, and making the certification process more 
efficient, the FAA, JAA, and aircraft manufacturers have been working 
to create to the maximum possible extent a single set of certification 
requirements accepted in both the United States and Europe. These 
efforts are referred to as harmonization.
    This proposed rulemaking would add a new Sec. 25.1431(d) to part 
25, to incorporate the ``more stringent'' requirement of paragraph 
25.1431(d) of the JAR. The FAA has concluded for the reasons previously 
discussed in the preamble that the adoption of these JAR requirements 
into part 25 is the most efficient way to harmonize these section(s) 
and in so doing, the existing level of safety will be preserved.
    The FAA estimates that there are no costs associated with this 
proposal. A review of current manufacturers of transport category 
aircraft certificated under part 25 has revealed that all such future 
aircraft are expected to be certificated under part 25 of both 14 CFR 
and the JAR. Since future certificated transport category aircraft are 
expected to meet the existing section 25.1431(d) of the JAR requirement 
and this proposed rulemaking adopts the same JAR requirement, 
manufacturers would incur no additional cost resulting from this 
proposal. Furthermore, this proposed rulemaking is in line with current 
industry practices as stated in the Radio Technology Commission for 
Aeronautics (RTCA) DO-160D, Environmental Conditions and Test 
Procedures. The DO-160D sets forth the standard procedures and 
environmental test criteria for testing airborne equipment for the 
entire spectrum of aircraft from light general aviation aircraft and 
helicopters through the ``Jumbo Jets'' and SST categories of aircraft. 
Examples of tests covered include vibration, power input, radio 
frequency susceptibility, lightning and electrostatic discharge. This 
standard is an internationally recognized standard of testing. Thus, 
the FAA expects any additional cost imposed by this proposal to be 
minimal. In fact, manufacturers are expected to receive cost-savings by 
a reduction in the FAA/JAA certification requirements for new aircraft. 
The FAA, however, has not attempted to quantify the cost savings that 
may accrue due to this specific proposed rulemaking, beyond noting that 
while they may be minimal, they contribute to a large potential 
harmonization savings. The agency concludes that because there is 
consensus among potentially impacted airplane manufacturers that 
savings will result, further analysis is not required.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), of 1980 as amended, 
establishes as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the sale 
of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject 
to regulation. To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to 
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the 
rationale for their actions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the determination is that the rule will, 
the Agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described 
in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the 
head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis 
is not required. The certification must include a statement providing 
the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    The FAA believes that this proposed rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
for two reasons. First, the net effect of the proposed rule is minimum 
regulatory cost relief. The proposed rule requires that new transport 
category aircraft manufacturers meet just the ``more stringent'' 
European certification requirement, rather than both the United States 
and European standards. Airplane manufacturers already meet or expect 
to meet this standard as well as the existing part 25 of 14 CFR 
requirement. Secondly, all United States transport-aircraft category

[[Page 26960]]

manufacturers exceed the Small Business Administration small-entity 
criteria of 1,500 employees for aircraft manufacturers. United States 
part 25 airplane manufacturers include: The Boeing Company, Cessna 
Aircraft, Gulfstream Aerospace, Learjet (owned by Bombardier), Lockheed 
Martin, McDonnell Douglas (a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Boeing 
Company), Raytheon Aircraft, and Sabreliner Corporation. Given that 
this proposed rule is only minimally cost-relieving and that there are 
no small entity manufacturers of part 25 airplanes, the FAA certifies 
that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards. In addition, consistent with the Administration's belief in 
the general superiority and desirability of free trade, it is the 
policy of the Administration to remove or diminish to the extent 
feasible, barriers to international trade, including both barriers 
affecting the export of American goods and services to foreign 
countries and barriers affecting the import of foreign goods and 
services into the United States.
    In accordance with the above statute and policy, the FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that 
it supports the Administration's free trade policy because this 
proposed rule would use European international standards as the basis 
for U.S. standards.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal 
agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment 
of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency 
rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This 
final rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental or private 
sector mandate that exceeds $100 million in any year; therefore the 
requirements of the act do not apply.

What Other Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule and the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The FAA has determined 
that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, on the relationship between the national Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Therefore, the FAA has determined that 
this notice of proposed rulemaking would not have federalism 
implications.
Paperwork Reduction Act
    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. We have determined that there 
are no new information collection requirements associated with this 
proposed rule.
International Compatibility
    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to this proposed regulation.
Environmental Analysis
    FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically 
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, 
appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this proposed rulemaking action qualifies 
for a categorical exclusion.
Energy Impact
    The energy impact of the proposed rule has been assessed in 
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and 
Public Law 94-163, as amended (43 U.S.C. 6362), and FAA Order 1053.1. 
It has been determined that it is not a major regulatory action under 
the provisions of the EPCA.
Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in Title 
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to 
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation 
modes other than aviation, and to establish such regulatory 
distinctions as he or she considers appropriate. Because this proposed 
rule would apply to the certification of future designs of transport 
category airplanes and their subsequent operation, it could, if 
adopted, affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. The FAA therefore 
specifically requests comments on whether there is justification for 
applying the proposed rule differently to intrastate operations in 
Alaska.
Plain Language
    In response to the June 1, 1998, Presidential memorandum regarding 
the issue of plain language, the FAA re-examined the writing style 
currently used in the development of regulations. The memorandum 
requires Federal agencies to communicate clearly with the public. We 
are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document 
is clear, and in any other suggestions you might have to improve the 
clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get more 
information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language 
initiative at 
http://www.plainlanguage.gov.

[[Page 26961]]

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Electronic equipment, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend part 25 of Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations, as follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

    1. The authority citation for Part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704.

    2. Amend section 25.1431 by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 25.1431  Electronic equipment

* * * * *
    (d) Electronic equipment must be designed and installed such that 
it does not cause essential loads to become inoperative as a result of 
electrical power supply transients or transients from other causes.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 3, 2001.
Lirio Liu Nelson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service, ANM-100.
[FR Doc. 01-12102 Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


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