27582 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA–2001–9634; Notice No. 01–

04]

RIN 2120–AH27

Electrical Installation, Nickel Cadmium

Battery Installation, and Nickel

Cadmium Battery Storage

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 electrical

equipment and nickel cadmium battery

installations, and nickel cadmium

battery storage. 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–

2001–9634 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–

9634’’. 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, 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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 27583

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 three

sections concerning transport category

airplane electrical equipment and nickel

cadmium batteries. The three proposed

changes are described separately below.

Proposal 1: Section 25.1353(a),

‘‘Electrical Equipment Installation’’

What Is the Underlying Safety Issue

Addressed by the Current Standards?

Section 25.1353 and JAR 25.1353

require that transport category airplanes

install electrical equipment, controls,

and wiring in a manner that will not

adversely affect the simultaneous

operations of any other electrical unit or

27584 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

system essential to the safe operation of

the airplane.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR

Standards?

• The current text of 14 CFR

25.1353(a) is:

Section 25.1353 Electrical equipment and

installations

(a) 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.

• The current text of JAR–25.1353(a)

is:

JAR 25.1353 Electrical equipment and

installations

(a) Electrical equipment, controls, and

wiring must be installed so that operations 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. Any electrical

interference likely to be present in the

aeroplane must not result in hazardous

effects upon the aeroplane or its systems

except under extremely remote conditions.

(See ACJ 25.1353(a).)

What Are the Differences in the

Standards and What Do Those

Differences Result in?

Both part 25 and JAR texts require

that operation of any one unit or system

will not adversely affect the

simultaneous operation of any other

electrical unit or system essential to safe

operation under normal operating

conditions. The JAR text also considers

failure effects on the airplane or its

systems and is therefore considered to

be more stringent. JAR 25.1353(a) with

its related Advisory Circular Joint (ACJ)

25.1353(a) provides a clarification in the

intent of the requirement.

What, If Any, Are the Differences in the

Means of Compliance?

Part 25 does not give a specific means

of compliance for this regulation. The

JAR standard has a specific ACJ to

establish a list of possible sources of

interference and reference to JAR

25.1309 to be considered and used for

means of compliance. Although the

explicit standards are different, there are

no differences in the means of

compliance.

What Is the Proposed Action?

The proposed action would add both

the additional JAR text to part 25, and

also adopt the JAR ACJ material.

How Does This Proposed Standard

Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

The proposed standard would

continue to address the underlying

safety issue in the same manner, but

would add a requirement to ensure that

transport category airplanes include

failure conditions and establish a means

of compliance.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed

Standard Relative to the Current

Regulations?

The proposed standard would

increase the level of safety for transport

category airplanes by adding the

additional JAR text to address failure

effects in the airplane and its systems.

Also, the intent of this regulation would

be clarified.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed

Standard Relative to Current Industry

Practice?

The proposed standard would

maintain the same level of safety since

current industry practice is to comply

with both standards. Additionally, the

understanding of the intent of this

regulation would be clarified.

What Other Options Have Been

Considered and Why Were They Not

Selected?

Adoption of the FAA text was

considered, however, it was decided to

adopt the more stringent JAR with the

associated ACJ material. The FAA

considers the proposed action to be the

most appropriate way to fulfill

harmonization goals while maintaining

safety and without affecting current

industry practice.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed

Change?

The proposed change would have a

minimum effect for aircraft operators

and manufacturers of transport category

airplanes. However, 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 plans to adopt the JAR

advisory material as an acceptable

means of showing compliance with the

proposed revision to § 25.1353(a).

Public comments concerning the AC

material are invited by separate notice

following this NPRM.

Proposal 2: Section 25.1353(c)(5).

‘‘Nickel Cadmium Battery’’

What Is the Underlying Safety Issue

Addressed by the Current Standards?

This requirement addresses the design

and installation of nickel cadmium

storage batteries. Part 25 limits this

requirement to batteries only capable of

being used to start an engine or

auxiliary power unit.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR

Standards?

• The current text of 14 CFR

25.1353(c)(5) is:

Section 25.1353 Electrical equipment and

installations

* * * (c)(5) Each nickel cadmium battery

installation capable of being used to start an

engine or auxiliary power unit must have

provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on

structure or essential systems that may be

caused by the maximum amount of heat the

battery can generate during a short circuit of

the battery or of individual cells.

• The current text of JAR–

25.1353(c)(5) is:

JAR–25.1353 Electrical equipment and

installations

* * * (c)(5) Each nickel cadmium battery

installation must have provisions to prevent

any hazardous effect on structure or essential

systems that may be caused by the maximum

amount of heat the battery can generate

during a short circuit of the battery or of

individual cells.

What Are the Differences in the

Standards and What Do Those

Differences Result in?

Section 25.1353 requires provisions

only for the batteries capable of being

used to start an engine or auxiliary

power unit; whereas JAR 25.1353

requires provisions to prevent any

hazardous effect on structure or

essential systems by all nickel cadmium

batteries regardless of their capabilities.

What, If Any, Are the Differences in the

Means of Compliance?

Although the explicit standards are

different, there are no differences in the

means of compliance.

What Is the Proposed Action?

The proposed action would adopt the

more stringent JAR standard. This

would allow for coverage of a greater

range of battery sizes and capabilities

than is currently covered in part 25.

How Does This Proposed Standard

Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

The proposed standard would add the

additional JAR text to part 25. The level

of safety would be increased by the new

§ 25.1353(c)(5) by covering all nickel

cadmium battery sizes regardless of

their capabilities.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed

Standard Relative to the Current

Regulations?

The proposed standard would

increase the level of safety by covering

the design and installation of all nickel

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 27585

cadmium batteries regardless of their

sizes and capabilities for transport

category airplanes.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed

Standard Relative to Current Industry

Practice?

The proposed standard would

maintain the same level of safety for

aircraft main batteries used for engine or

APU starting since this is the current

industry practice, however, in relation

to all other nickel cadmium batteries,

the level of safety may be increased.

What Other Options Have Been

Considered and Why Were They Not

Selected?

The FAA considers the proposed

action to be the most appropriate way to

fulfill harmonization goals while

maintaining safety and without affecting

current industry practice. The FAA

considered deletion of the reference to

‘‘nickel cadmium’’ batteries so that the

rule would apply to all battery types.

This change was not adopted because it

would require evaluation of the impact

of other types of batteries.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed

Change?

The proposed change for main

batteries would be in line with current

design practices, and therefore, the

effect would be considered minimal.

There may be an impact on other nickel

cadmium battery installations by aircraft

operators, manufacturers and modifiers.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material

Adequate?

There is no specific advisory material

for either part 25 or the JAR. The FAA

considers developing new harmonized

advisory material to be unnecessary.

Proposal 3: Section 25.1353(c)(6),

‘‘Nickel Cadmium Battery Installation’’

What Is the Underlying Safety Issue

Addressed by the Current Standards?

This requirement is part of

§ 25.1353(c)(6) and JAR 25.1353(c)(6)

that addresses nickel cadmium battery

installations with regard to protection

against battery overheating.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR

Standards?

• The current text of 14 CFR

25.1353(c)(6) is:

Section 25.1353 Electrical equipment and

installations

* * * (c)(6) Nickel cadmium battery

installations capable of being used to start an

engine or auxiliary power unit must have—

(i) A system to control the charging rate of

the battery automatically so as to prevent

battery overheating;

(ii) A battery temperature sensing and overtemperature sensing and over-temperature

warning system with a means for

disconnecting the battery from its charging

source in the event of an over-temperature

condition; or

(iii) A battery failure sensing and warning

system with a means for disconnecting the

battery from its charging source in the event

of battery failure.

• The current text of JAR–

25.1353(c)(6) is:

JAR–25.1353 Electrical equipment and

installations

(c)(6) Nickel cadmium battery installations

that are not provided with low-energy

charging means must have—

(i) A system to control the charging rate of

the battery automatically so as to prevent

battery overheating;

(ii) A battery temperature sensing and overtemperature warning system with a means for

disconnecting the battery from its charging

source in the event of an over-temperature

condition; or

(iii) A battery failure sensing and warning

system with a means for disconnecting the

battery from its charging source in the event

of battery failure. [See ACJ 25.1353(c)(6)(ii)

and (iii).)]

What Are the Differences in the

Standards and What Do Those

Differences Result in?

The part 25 standard specifies nickel

cadmium battery installations capable of

being used to start an engine or

auxiliary power unit. The more

stringent JAR standard, with its related

ACJ 25.1353(c)(6) material, provides

requirements for all nickel cadmium

battery installations (not provided with

low-energy charging means) in addition

to those provided for engine or APU

starting.

What, If Any, Are the Differences in the

Means of Compliance?

Section 25.1353 requires only nickel

cadmium battery installations capable of

being used to start an engine to show

compliance. The JAR 25.1353 requires

all nickel cadmium battery installations

(not provided with a low energy

charging means) to show compliance to

the JAR 25.1353 requirements. The JAR

has specific ACJ material to address the

maintenance requirements of

temperature sensing and overtemperature warning devices installed

to cover the requirements of 25.1353.

What Is the Proposed Action?

The proposed action would revise

§ 25.1353(c)(6) to adopt a modified,

more stringent JAR 25.1353(c)(6) and

the associated ACJ. The modification to

the JAR is to remove the words ‘‘that are

not provided with low energy charging

means.’’ The proposed standard would

provide for greater coverage by

including all nickel cadmium battery

installations, irrespective of whether

provided for engine or APU starting.

Service experience has shown that any

battery installation can, if not carefully

controlled, result in an overheat or fire

condition. The proposed action is also

in line with current design practices.

How Does This Proposed Standard

Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

The proposed standard would expand

the requirement to cover all nickel

cadmium battery installations

addressing the underlying safety

concern of battery overheat and/or fire.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed

Standard Relative to the Current

Regulations?

The proposed revision for part 25

would expand the requirement to

include all nickel cadmium batteries

regardless of their use. The level of

safety, therefore, would be increased.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed

Standard Relative to Current Industry

Practice?

The proposed standard would be in

line with current industry practice for

aircraft main batteries used for engine or

APU starting, however, in relation to all

other nickel cadmium batteries the level

of safety may be increased.

What Other Options Have Been

Considered and Why Were They Not

Selected?

The FAA considers the proposed

action to be the most appropriate way to

fulfill harmonization goals while

maintaining safety and without affecting

current industry practices. The adoption

of § 25.1353(c)(6) was considered,

however, for the reasons stated above

the JAR was selected.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed

Change?

The proposed change is in line with

current design practices and, therefore,

the effect on batteries used for engine or

APU starting is considered to be

minimal. There may be an impact on

other nickel cadmium battery

installations by aircraft operators,

manufacturers and modifiers.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material

Adequate?

The FAA considers that adopting the

existing JAA ACJ material would be

necessary to address the means of

compliance for § 25.1353(c)(6). The FAA

recommends adopting the JAR ACJ to

25.1353(c)(6) as advisory material.

Public comments concerning this

27586 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

proposed revision are invited by

separate notice, following this NPRM.

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 the 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

replace section(s) 25.1353(a),

25.1353(c)(5), and 25.1353(c)(6) of part

25 with the ‘‘more stringent’’ section(s)

25.1353(a), 25.1353(c)(5), and

25.1353(c)(6) of JAR part 25. The FAA

has concluded for the reasons

previously discussed in the preamble

that the adoption of these JAR

requirements into 14 CFR is the most

efficient way to harmonize these

section(s) and in so doing, the existing

level of safety will be preserved.

Proposal 1: Electrical Installation,

Section 25.1353(a)

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 JAR. Since future certificated

transport category aircraft are expected

to meet the existing section 25.1353(a)

of JAR requirement and this proposed

rule simply 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, which follow 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.

Also, a new company entering the

manufacturing industry must comply

with these standards for testing

electrical systems, and therefore, the

FAA expects any additional cost

imposed by this proposal to be minimal

and the level of safety to be maintained.

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.

Proposal 2: Nickel Cadmium Battery,

Section 25.1353(c)(5)

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 JAR. Since future certificated

transport category aircraft are expected

to meet the existing section

25.1353(c)(5) of JAR requirement and

this proposed rule simply adopts the

same JAR requirement, manufacturers

would incur no additional cost resulting

from this proposal.

This proposed rulemaking would

require all nickel cadmium batteries to

be tested. The FAA believes this testing

is the current practice. For example,

engineers identified a total of 33 nickel

cadmium batteries on a typical Boeing

Model 777. In line with current industry

practice, nickel cadmium batteries used

to power the Engine and Auxiliary

Power Unit are tested to prevent any

hazardous effect on structure or

essential systems that may be caused by

overheating of the battery or its

individual cells.

This proposed rulemaking would

require that the other batteries used for

such things as the Emergency Power

Assist System (door), the Cockpit Voice

Recorder—Underwater Locator Beacon,

and the Flight Data Recorder—

Underwater Locator Beacon also be

tested according to current industry

practice. Thus, the FAA expects any

additional costs imposed by this

proposal to be minimal, and the level of

safety to be maintained. The FAA

requests comments to the contrary,

identifying additional testing, time,

procedures, paperwork, and cost

estimates.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 27587

Proposal 3: Nickel Cadmium Battery

Installation, Section 25.1353(c)(6)

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 JAR. Since future certificated

transport category aircraft are expected

to meet the existing section

25.1353(c)(6) of JAR requirement and

this proposed rule simply adopts the

same JAR requirement, manufacturers

would incur no additional cost resulting

from this proposal.

Current industry practice requires that

the nickel cadmium batteries used to

start the Engine or Auxiliary Power Unit

must have a system to control the

battery to prevent overheating, a

temperature sensing and overtemperature warning system, or a

battery failure sensing and warning

system with a means for disconnecting

the battery. Thus, the FAA expects any

additional costs imposed by this

proposal to be minimal, and the level of

safety to be maintained. The FAA

requests comments to the contrary,

identifying additional testing, time,

procedures, paperwork, and cost

estimates.

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

government 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 requirements of 14 CFR.

Second, all United States transportaircraft category 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

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 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. 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

determines 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,

27588 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 § 25.1353 by revising

paragraphs (a), (c)(5), and (c)(6) to read

as follows:

§ 25.1353 Storage battery design and

installation.

(a) Electrical equipment, controls, and

wiring must be installed so that

operations 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. Any electrical

interference likely to be present in the

airplane must not result in hazardous

effects upon the airplane or its systems

except under extremely remote

conditions.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(5) Each nickel cadmium battery

installation must have provisions to

prevent any hazardous effect on

structure or essential systems that may

be caused by the maximum amount of

heat the battery can generate during a

short circuit of the battery or of

individual cells.

(6) Nickel cadmium battery

installations must have—

(i) A system to control the charging

rate of the battery automatically so as to

prevent battery overheating; or

(ii) A battery temperature sensing and

over-temperature warning system with a

means for disconnecting the battery

from its charging source in the event of

an over-temperature condition; or

(iii) A battery failure sensing and

warning system with a means for

disconnecting the battery from its

charging source in the event of battery

failure.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 3,

2001.

Lirio Liu Nelson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–12196 Filed 5–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M