26942 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–2001–9633; Notice No. 01–

03]

RIN 2120–AH29

Electrical Cables

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

cables. This proposal would harmonize

part 25 and JAR–25 requirements

concerning cable installations and

clarify the cable design requirements

ensuring that the designer considers the

critical conditions, routings, and

markings of a proper installation.

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–

2001–9633 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–

9633.’’ 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:

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.

Consequently, manufacturers are

usually burdened with meeting the

requirements of both sets of standards,

although the level of safety is not

increased correspondingly.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules 26943

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 § 25.1353,

concerning electrical cables.

What Is the Underlying Safety Issue

Addressed by the Current Standards?

This requirement gives design

requirements relating to the proper

installation of aircraft electrical

equipment, controls, wiring, cables, and

storage batteries. The operation of any

one unit or system of units must not

affect the operations of any other

electrical unit or 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

addresses the proper installation of

26944 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules

electrical equipment, controls, wiring,

cables, and storage batteries to prevent

any hazardous effect on the airplane

structure or essential systems.

There is no current text for 14 CFR

25.1353(d).

The current text of JAR–25.1353

contains an additional requirement in

paragraph (d), which states:

JAR 25.1353 Electrical equipment and

installations

* * * (d) Electrical cables and cable

installations must be designed and installed

as follows:

(1) The electrical cables used must be

compatible with the circuit protection

devices required by JAR 25.1357, such that

a fire or smoke hazard cannot be created

under temporary or continuous fault

conditions.

(2) Means of permanent identification must

be provided for electrical cables, connectors

and terminals.

(3) Electrical cables must be installed such

that the risk of mechanical damage and/or

damage caused by fluids, vapors, or sources

of heat, is minimized.

What Are the Differences in the

Standards and What Do Those

Differences Result In?

Section 25.1353(a), (b), (c) of part 25

does not address the aircraft installation

design requirements of electrical cables.

JAR 25.1353(d), however, provides very

explicit aircraft installation design

requirements for electrical cables.

What, if Any, Are the Differences in the

Means of Compliance?

Part 25 does not have a specific

requirement for installation design

requirements for electrical cables.

However, installation designs approved

under part 25 typically meet the JAR

requirement. The JAR states specific

requirements for cable installations that

must be met. Installation designers,

through experience, have adopted the

practice of permanent identification,

protection, and installation routing to

minimize the risk of damage to

electrical cables.

What Is the Proposed Action?

The proposed action is to revise part

25 by adopting the text of JAR–

25.1353(d) in its entirety. The proposed

revision would specify a design action

to be taken, and remove the possibility

that a designer may not consider a

critical installation design condition. It

is in line with current best design

practices.

How Does This Proposed Standard

Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

The new § 25.1353(d) would clarify

the cable design requirements, in the

same manner as the current JAR, by

ensuring that the designer considers the

critical conditions, routings, and

markings of a proper installation.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed

Standard Relative to the Current

Regulations?

The proposed standard is more

stringent in that it adds a requirement

that is not currently in § 25.1353.

However, current industry practice is to

comply with both standards.

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.

What Other Options Have Been

Considered and Why Were They Not

Selected?

The FAA has not considered another

option. The FAA considers the adoption

of JAR 25.1353(d) in its entirety the

most appropriate way to maintain the

level of safety.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed

Change?

The proposed standard is in line with

current design practices and the effect of

the change is considered to be minimal

for aircraft operators, modification

centers, service centers, and

manufacturers.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material

Adequate?

There is no advisory material for

either part 25 or the JAR. The FAA

considers developing new advisory

material to be unnecessary.

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. §§ 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).

In conducting these analyses, the FAA

has determined that this proposal has

benefits, but 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. The FAA

provides the basis for this minimal

impact determination below.

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.’’

This proposal would harmonize

§ 25.1353 to the JAR by adopting JAR

25.1353(d) in its entirety. The JAR

requirement states specific requirements

for cable installations. This section

clarifies the cable design requirements

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules 26945

ensuring that the designer considers the

critical conditions, routings, and

markings of proper installations.

Industry practice is to use the JAR

requirements for installation, and

therefore, the addition of this language

to part 25 will not add a burden to the

manufacturers. Aircraft manufacturers

currently use several approved

standards or specifications to ensure

that design and installation of electrical

cables are in compliance with the JAR

standards.

Standards used by the manufacturing

industry, for example, are based on

MIL–W–5088L or SAE ARP 5088 and

FAA guidance material which includes

AC 25–16 and AC 43.13–1B. These

standards provide guidance for the

design process from wire specification

through the installation of wiring and

wiring devices used in airplanes.

(Wiring within that specification is

defined as wires, cables, groups,

harnesses and bundles, and their

terminations, associated hardware, and

support installed on aircraft.)

It is standard industry practice for

aircraft and wiring manufacturers to test

electrical cables before installation and

the aircraft manufacturer also tests the

electrical cables upon installation.

Manufacturers are also using the JAR

and § 25.1357 as a means of ensuring

that the electrical cables and wiring

used are compatible with the circuit

protection devices required by that

regulation to prevent a fire or smoke

hazard created under temporary or

continuous fault conditions.

The FAA has concluded that, for the

reasons previously discussed in the

preamble, the adoption of these JAR

requirements into 14 CFR part 25 is the

most efficient way to harmonize these

sections. Additionally, adopting this

proposal would neither reduce nor

increase the requirements beyond those

that exist in the current FAA published

regulations.

Thus, the FAA expects that there

would be no additional costs to part 25

manufacturers, and the level of safety

would be maintained. The FAA requests

comments to the contrary, identifying

additional testing, time, procedures,

paperwork and cost estimates.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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. 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

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

3507(d)), the FAA has determined there

are no requirements for information

26946 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 15, 2001 / Proposed Rules

collection 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 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 communication 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 adding

paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 25.1353 Electrical equipment and

installations.

* * * * *

(d) Electrical cables and cable

installations must be designed and

installed as follows:

(1) The electrical cables used must be

compatible with the circuit protection

devices required by § 25.1357 such that

a fire or smoke hazard cannot be created

under temporary or continuous fault

conditions.

(2) Means of permanent identification

must be provided for electrical cables,

connectors and terminals.

(3) Electrical cables must be installed

such that the risk of mechanical damage

and/or damage caused by fluids, vapors,

or sources of heat, is minimized.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 3,

2001.

Lirio Liu Nelson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–12105 Filed 5–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U