26964 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA–2001–9637; Notice No. 01–

06]

RIN 2120–AG92

Fire Protection of Electrical System

Components 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

protection of electrical system

components. 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–

2001–9637, 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–

9637.’’ We will date-stamp the postcard

and mail it back to you.

You also may submit comments

electronically to the following Internet

address: http://dms.dot.gov.

You may review the public docket

containing comments to this proposed

regulation at the Department of

Transportation (DOT) Dockets Office,

located on the plaza level of the Nassif

Building at the above address. You may

review the public docket in person at

this address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. Also, you may review the

public dockets on the Internet at

http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Massoud Sadeghi, FAA, Airplane and

Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM–

111, Transport Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055–4056;

telephone 425–227–2117; facsimile

425–227–1320, e-mail

massoud.sadeghi@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Do I Submit Comments to This

NPRM?

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed action by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments, as

they may desire. Comments relating to

the environmental, energy, federalism,

or economic impact that might result

from adopting the proposals in this

document are also invited. Substantive

comments should be accompanied by

cost estimates. Comments must identify

the regulatory docket number and be

submitted in duplicate to the DOT Rules

Docket address specified above.

All comments received, as well as a

report summarizing each substantive

public contact with FAA personnel

concerning this proposed rulemaking,

will be filed in the docket. The docket

is available for public inspection before

and after the comment closing date.

We will consider all comments

received on or before the closing date

before taking action on this proposed

rulemaking. Comments filed late will be

considered as far as possible without

incurring expense or delay. The

proposals in this document may be

changed in light of the comments

received.

How Can I Obtain a Copy of This

NPRM?

You can get an electronic copy using

the Internet by taking the following

steps:

(1) Go to the search function of the

Department of Transportation’s

electronic Docket Management System

(DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/

search).

(2) On the search page type in the last

four digits of the Docket number shown

at the beginning of this notice. Click on

‘‘search.’’

(3) On the next page, which contains

the Docket summary information for the

Docket you selected, click on the

document number of the item you wish

to view.

You can also get an electronic copy

using the Internet through the Office of

Rulemaking’s web page at http://

www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm or the

Federal Register’s web page at http://

www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/

aces140.html.

You can also get a copy 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. Make sure to

identify the docket number, notice

number, or amendment number of this

rulemaking.

Background

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness

Standards in the United States?

In the United States, the airworthiness

standards for type certification of

transport category airplanes are

contained in Title 14, Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) part 25.

Manufacturers of transport category

airplanes must show that each airplane

they produce of a different type design

complies with the appropriate part 25

standards. These standards apply to:

• Airplanes manufactured within the

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

and

• Airplanes manufactured in other

countries and imported to the U.S.

under a bilateral airworthiness

agreement.

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness

Standards in Europe?

In Europe, the airworthiness

standards for type certification of

transport category airplanes are

contained in Joint Aviation

Requirements (JAR)–25, which are

based on part 25. These were developed

by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA)

of Europe to provide a common set of

airworthiness standards within the

European aviation community. Twentythree European countries accept

airplanes type certificated to the JAR–25

standards, including airplanes

manufactured in the U.S. that are type

certificated to JAR–25 standards for

export to Europe.

What Is ‘‘Harmonization’’ and How Did

It Start?

Although part 25 and JAR–25 are very

similar, they are not identical in every

respect. When airplanes are type

certificated to both sets of standards, the

differences between part 25 and JAR–25

can result in substantial added costs to

manufacturers and operators. These

additional costs, however, often do not

bring about an increase in safety. In

many cases, part 25 and JAR–25 may

contain different requirements to

accomplish the same safety intent.

Consequently, manufacturers are

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules 26965

maintain the necessary high level of

safety, the FAA and the JAA began an

effort in 1988 to ‘‘harmonize’’ their

respective aviation standards. The goal

of the harmonization effort is to ensure

that:

• Where possible, standards do not

require domestic and foreign parties to

manufacture or operate to different

standards for each country involved;

and

• The standards adopted are mutually

acceptable to the FAA and the foreign

aviation authorities.

The FAA and JAA have identified a

number of significant regulatory

differences (SRD) between the words 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 timeconsuming for industry, the FAA, and

the JAA. Industry has expressed a strong

desire to conclude the harmonization

program as quickly as possible to

alleviate the drain on their resources

and to finally establish one acceptable

set of standards.

Recently, representatives of the

aviation industry [including Aerospace

Industries Association of America, Inc.

(AIA), General Aviation Manufacturers

Association (GAMA), and European

Association of Aerospace Industries

(AECMA)] proposed an accelerated

process to reach harmonization.

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 did not choose to

review the draft NPRM prior to its

publication.

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 NPRM,

the FAA proposes to amend § 25.869,

concerning fire protection of electrical

systems on transport category airplanes.

This project has been identified as a

Category 1 project under the Fast Track

program.

What Is the Underlying Safety Issue

Addressed by the Current Standards?

Section 25.869(a) of 14 CFR, and the

parallel European standard JAR–

25.869(a), address the design standards

for protecting the components of

electrical systems from fire. The

standards provide specific standards

that must be met, depending on the

location of the components and the type

of power cables.

26966 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR

Standards?

The current text of 14 CFR 25.869(a)

(amendment 25–72, 55 FR 29784, July

20, 1990) is:

(a) Electrical system components:

(1) Components of the electrical system

must meet the applicable fire and smoke

protection requirements of §§ 25.831(c) and

25.863.

(2) Electrical cables, terminals, and

equipment in designated fire zones, that are

used during emergency procedures, must be

at least fire resistant.

(3) Main power cables (including generator

cables) in the fuselage must be designed to

allow a reasonable degree of deformation and

stretching without failure and must be—

(i) Isolated from flammable fluid lines; or

(ii) Shrouded by means of electrically

insulated, flexible conduit, or equivalent,

which is in addition to the normal cable

insulation.

(4) Insulation on electrical wire and

electrical cable installed in any area of the

fuselage must be self-extinguishing when

tested in accordance with the applicable

portions of part I, appendix F of this part.

The current text of JAR–25.869(a)

(Change 14, Orange Paper 96/1) is:

(a) Electrical system components:

(1) Components of the electrical system

must meet the applicable fire and smoke

protection requirements of JAR 25.831(c) and

JAR 25.863. (See ACJ 25.869 (a)(1).)

(2) Electrical cables, terminals, and

equipment in designated fire zones, that are

used during emergency procedures, must be

at least fire resistant.

(3) Main power cables (including generator

cables) in the fuselage must be designed to

allow a reasonable degree of deformation and

stretching without failure and must be—

(i) Isolated from flammable fluid lines; or

(ii) Shrouded by means of electrically

insulated, flexible conduit, or equivalent,

which is in addition to the normal cable

insulation.

(4) Insulation on electrical wire and

electrical cable installed in any area of the

aeroplane must be self-extinguishing when

tested in accordance with the applicable

portions of Part I, Appendix F.

What Are the Differences in the

Standards and What Do Those

Differences Result In?

The current text of § 25.869(a)(4)

states that insulation on electrical wire

and cables installed in any part of the

fuselage must be self-extinguishing. The

parallel JAR–25.869(a)(4) states that

insulation on electrical wire and cables

installed in any part of the airplane

must be self-extinguishing. Thus, the

JAR is considered the more stringent of

the standards because it requires that

the self-extinguishment standard be

applied to electrical systems installed

throughout the airplane (including

engines), not just in the fuselage.

The technical need and accepted

industry practice is that all wiring

installed in the airframe and engines

(i.e., not just the wiring in the fuselage),

is self-extinguishing.

What, if Any, Are the Differences in the

Means of Compliance?

To meet the JAR standards, and

ensure that their airplanes are

certificated to operate in Europe, U.S.

manufacturers have designed the means

for protecting electrical system

components in accordance with the JAR

requirements. Doing so, meets and

surpasses the level of safety currently

required by § 25.869(a) of 14 CFR.

As for the means of compliance, the

JAA has issued specific advisory

material related to a means of

complying with 25.869(a)(1). This

material is found in Advisory Circular

Joint (ACJ) 25.869, ‘‘Electrical System

Fire and Smoke Protection

(Interpretative Material and Acceptable

Means of Compliance) [See JAR

25.869].’’ The document provides the

following guidance:

These requirements, and those of JAR

25.863 applicable to electrical equipment,

may be satisfied by the following:

1. Electrical components in regions

immediately behind firewalls and in engine

pod attachment structures should be of such

materials and at such a distance from the

firewall that they will not suffer damage that

could hazard the aeroplane if the surface of

the firewall adjacent to the fire is heated to

1100 °C for 15 minutes.

2. Electrical equipment should be so

constructed and/or installed that in the event

of failure, no hazardous quantities of toxic or

noxious (e.g. smoke) products will be

distributed in the crew or passenger

compartments.

3. Electrical equipment, which may come

into contact with flammable vapours should

be so designed and installed as to minimise

the risk of the vapours exploding under both

normal and fault conditions. This can be

satisfied by meeting the Explosion Proofness

Standards of draft ISO document TC20/SC5/

N.43, dated 1974.

The FAA has no advisory material

related to the current standards.

What Is the Proposed Action?

The FAA proposes to revise

§ 25.869(a) to adopt the more stringent

language in the parallel JAR 25.869(a).

This proposed requirement is in line

with current industry practices and in

concert with the FAA’s objectives for

the Fast Track Harmonization Program.

How Does This Proposed Standard

Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

The proposed action would continue

to address the safety issue by ensuring

the fire protection of electrical system

components on transport category

airplanes.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed

Standard Relative to the Current

Regulations?

The proposed design requirements of

revised § 25.869(a) would be expanded

to apply not only to electrical system

components in the fuselage, but

throughout the airplane (including its

engines as well). In effect, the proposed

standard would maintain the current

level of safety because U.S.

manufacturers are already complying

with it.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed

Standard Relative to Current Industry

Practice?

The effect of the proposed standard

on industry practices would be

minimal. In current practice, U.S.

manufacturers are required to comply

with the more stringent JAR

requirements if they plan to sell their

airplanes overseas. Because the

proposed standard is currently being

followed, the same level of safety will

be maintained.

What Other Options Have Been

Considered and Why Were They Not

Selected?

One option considered was for the

JAA to adopt unilaterally the standards

of 14 CFR part 25. However, because

§ 25.869(a) is ‘‘less stringent’’ than the

JAR, this could potentially mean

adopting a lower level of safety.

Additionally, it would not meet the

objectives of the Fast Track

Harmonization Program to harmonize

the requirements of part 25 and the

parallel requirements of JAR–25, while

maintaining at least the same level of

safety as in the current regulations.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed

Change?

The proposed revised standard would

affect U.S. manufacturers of transport

category airplanes and, possibly,

manufacturers of electrical systems

installed on those airplanes. However,

the FAA anticipates that the impact to

the affected entities would be minimal

because, in most cases, manufacturers

are already complying with the more

stringent standards as a means of

obtaining joint (FAA and JAA)

certification of their airplanes.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material

Adequate?

There is no current FAA advisory

material related to the proposed

standard. However, the FAA has

developed a proposed Advisory Circular

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules 26967

(AC) 25.869–1X, ‘‘Electric System Fire

and Smoke Protection.’’ It contains

guidance on this subject, and includes,

with some modification, the material

currently in the JAA’s ACJ 25.869,

referred to previously. The availability

of the proposed AC is announced

elsewhere in this Federal Register.

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 effect of regulatory changes

on small entities. Third, the Trade

Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. section

2531–2533) prohibits agencies from

setting standards that create

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign

commerce of the United States. In

developing U.S. standards, this Trade

Act also requires the consideration of

international standards and, where

appropriate, that they be the basis of

U.S. standards. And fourth, the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

requires agencies to prepare a written

assessment of the costs, benefits, and

other effects of proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate likely to

result in the expenditure by State, local,

or tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector of $100 million

or more annually (adjusted for

inflation).

The FAA has determined that this

proposal has no substantial costs, and

that it is not ‘‘a significant regulatory

action’’ as defined in Executive Order

12866, nor ‘‘significant’’ as defined in

DOT’s Regulatory Policies and

Procedures. Further, this proposed rule

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities, would reduce barriers to

international trade, and would not

impose an Unfunded Mandate on state,

local, or tribal governments, or on the

private sector.

The DOT Order 2100.5 prescribes

policies and procedures for

simplification, analysis, and review of

regulations. If it is determined that the

expected impact is so minimal that the

proposed rule does not warrant a full

evaluation, a statement to that effect and

the basis for it is included in the

proposed regulation. Accordingly, the

FAA has determined that the expected

impact of this proposed rule is so

minimal that the proposed rule does not

warrant a full evaluation. We provide

the basis for this determination as

follows:

Currently, airplane manufacturers

must satisfy both part 25 and the

European JAR–25 standards to

certificate transport category aircraft in

both the United States and Europe.

Meeting two sets of certification

requirements raises the cost of

developing a new transport category

airplane often with no increase in

safety. In the interest of fostering

international trade, lowering the cost of

aircraft development, and making the

certification process more efficient, the

FAA, JAA, and aircraft manufacturers

have been working to create, to the

maximum possible extent, a single set of

certification requirements accepted in

both the United States and Europe. As

explained in detail previously, these

efforts are referred to as

‘‘harmonization.’’

In this NPRM, the FAA proposes to

amend its regulations concerning

airworthiness standards for transport

category airplanes, as regards fire

protection of airplane systems.

U.S. manufacturers of transport

category airplanes already comply to a

large extent with the requirements of

JAR 25.869(a) because it is substantially

identical to § 25.869(a). Of the two

minor differences between the rules,

one is that the JAA rule specifically

applies to the airplane, while the FAA

rule specifically applies to the fuselage.

Because it is the ongoing common

practice of U.S. manufacturers to use the

same wiring that is specified in terms of

materials and installation by both

§ 25.869(a) and JAR 25.869(a)

throughout the entire airplane, and not

only in the fuselage, the first difference

would have no economic impact on U.S.

manufacturers.

The second minor difference is that

advisory material (ACJ 25.869), which is

specifically referenced in JAR 25.869(a),

has no FAA counterpart. This

harmonization action would include the

adoption, with modification, of this JAA

advisory material into the body of FAA

advisory material. In their report, the

ARAC Working Group set forth the text

of the proposed advisory material.

Toward this evaluation, the group

provided the information that this new

advice would be so sufficiently in line

with current industry practices that, in

following it, U.S. manufacturers would

encounter no practical change in the

procedures by which they already

comply with the requirements of

§ 25.869(a).

Finally, because this proposed new

material is advisory and not regulatory,

no cost or benefit resulting from it could

be considered the economic impact of a

proposed regulation.

The FAA expects that this proposed

rule would result in benefits in the form

of cost savings received by affected

manufacturers because they would be

able to effect compliance with both FAA

and JAA requirements in a simpler and

more direct fashion.

Compliance with one of these

harmonized rules, FAA or JAA, would

mean compliance with the other. The

FAA has not attempted to quantify the

benefits from cost savings that may

accrue because of this proposed rule

beyond noting that, while any such

savings are expected to be minimal, they

are part of a potentially large savings

from the harmonization program. The

FAA also expects that the existing level

of safety will be maintained.

Because the effect of this proposed

regulatory change would be to codify

ongoing common manufacturing

practice, no consequent substantive

change—either in practice or in the cost

of compliance—would result. Thus, the

FAA expects that any additional cost

associated with compliance with this

proposal would be negligible.

The FAA concludes that, because

there is agreement among potentially

affected airplane manufacturers that the

economic impact of this proposal would

be at most minimal, further analysis is

not required. The FAA requests that

those who believe this action would

result in a cost increase provide to the

Docket their basis for such a belief.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

of 1980, 50 U.S.C. 601–612, 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 scale 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 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.

26968 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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 considers that this proposed

rule would not have a significant 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 would require that

new transport category aircraft

manufacturers meet just one

certification requirement, rather than

different standards for the United States

and Europe. Airplane manufacturers

already meet or expect to meet this

standard as well as the existing 14 CFR

part 25 requirement.

Second, all U.S. transport-aircraft

category manufacturers exceed the

Small Business Administration smallentity criteria of 1,500 employees for

aircraft manufacturers. The current U.S.

part 25 airplane manufacturers include:

Boeing, Cessna Aircraft, Gulfstream

Aerospace, Learjet (owned by

Bombardier), Lockheed Martin,

McDonnell Douglas (a wholly-owned

subsidiary of The Boeing Company),

Raytheon Aircraft, and Sabreliner

Corporation.

Given that this proposed rule is

minimally cost-relieving and that there

are no small entity manufacturers of

part 25 airplanes, the FAA certifies that

this proposed rule would not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Initial 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 the proposed rule and

has determined that it supports the

Administration’s free trade policy

because this rule would use European

international standards as the basis for

U.S. standards.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), codified

in 2 U.S.C. 1532–1538, enacted as

Public Law 104–4 on March 22, 1995,

requires each Federal agency, to the

extent permitted by law, to prepare a

written assessment of the effects of any

Federal mandate in a proposed or final

agency rule that may result in the

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any

one year.

This proposed rule does not contain

a Federal intergovernmental or private

sector mandate that exceeds $100

million in any year; therefore, the

requirements of the Act do not apply.

What Other Assessments Has the FAA

Conducted?

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

The FAA has analyzed this proposed

rule and the principles and criteria of

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We

have 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, we

have determined that this NPRM 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. We have

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 assessment or

environmental impact statement. In

accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,

appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this

rulemaking 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 reexamined the writing style currently

used in the development of regulations.

The memorandum requires Federal

agencies to communicate clearly with

the public. We are interested in your

comments on whether the style of this

document is clear, and in any other

suggestions you might have to improve

the clarity of FAA communications that

affect you. You can get more

information about the Presidential

memorandum and the plain language

initiative at http://

www.plainlanguage.gov.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules 26969

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Safety,

Transportation.

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 25.869 by revising

paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:

§ 25.869 Fire protection: systems.

(a) * * *

(4) Insulation on electrical wire and

electrical cable installed in any area of

the airplane must be self-extinguishing

when tested in accordance with the

applicable portions of part I, appendix

F of this part.

* * * * *

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 3,

2001.

Lirio Liu Nelson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–12100 Filed 5–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P