26956 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–2001–9638; 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

steve.slotte@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 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:

• 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 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.

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

• 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 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 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 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 §25.1431,

Electronic equipment, concerning the

design and installation of electronic

equipment on transport category

airplanes.

26958 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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?

• 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.

• 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 § 25.1431. However,

those requirements are already implicit

in other current sections of part 25,

specifically:

• 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;

• 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

• 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 § 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 § 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 § 25.1431

and not adopt the JAR text. However,

the FAA decided against this for two

reasons:

First, adopting § 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 § 25.1431(d)

essentially are met already when an

applicant properly demonstrates

compliance with § 25.1309(e),

§ 25.1351(b), and § 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,

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

26960 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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 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 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:

§ 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