[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 16 (Thursday, January 24, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3456-3461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-1766]
[[Page 3456]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. FAA-2002-11346; Notice No. 02-06]
RIN 2120-AH38
Lower Deck Service Compartments 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
lower deck service compartments. The proposed amendment would require
that two-way voice communication systems between lower deck service
compartments and the flightdeck remain available following loss of the
normal electrical power generating system. It also would clarify the
requirements for seats installed in the lower deck service compartment.
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 March 25, 2002.
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 No.
FAA-2002-11346 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-2002
-XXXX.'' 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: Jayson Claar, FAA, Airframe/Cabin
Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056;
telephone 425-227-2194; facsimile 425-227-1320, e-mail
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
How Do I Submit Comments to This NPRM?
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed action by submitting such written data, views, or arguments,
as they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy,
federalism, or economic impact that might result from adopting the
proposals in this document are also invited. Substantive comments
should be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments must identify the
regulatory docket number and be submitted in duplicate to the DOT Rules
Docket address specified above.
All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed
rulemaking, will be filed in the docket. The docket is available for
public inspection before and after the comment closing date.
We will consider all comments received on or before the closing
date before taking action on this proposed rulemaking. Comments filed
late will be considered as far as possible without incurring expense or
delay. The proposals in this document may be changed in light of the
comments received.
How Can I Obtain a Copy of This NPRM?
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the
following steps:
(1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search).
(2) On the search page type in the last four digits of the Docket
number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on ``search.''
(3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information
for the Docket you selected, click on the document number of the item
you wish to view.
You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the
Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm
or the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number
of this rulemaking.
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.
Twenty-three European countries accept airplanes type certificated to
the JAR-25 standards, including airplanes manufactured in the U.S. that
are type certificated to JAR-25 standards for export to Europe.
What Is ``Harmonization'' and How Did It Start?
Although part 25 and JAR-25 are very similar, they are not
identical in every respect. When airplanes are type certificated to
both sets of standards, the differences between part 25 and JAR-25 can
result in substantial additional costs to manufacturers and operators.
These additional costs, however, frequently do not bring about an
increase in safety. In many cases, part 25 and JAR-25 may contain
different requirements to accomplish the same safety intent.
Consequently, manufacturers are usually burdened with meeting the
[[Page 3457]]
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
time-consuming for industry, the FAA, and the JAA. Industry has
expressed a strong desire to conclude the harmonization program as
quickly as possible to alleviate the drain on their resources and to
finally establish one acceptable set of standards.
Recently, representatives of the aviation industry (including
Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. (AIA), General
Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and European Association of
Aerospace Industries (AECMA)) proposed an accelerated process to reach
harmonization.
What Is the ``Fast Track Harmonization Program''?
In light of a general agreement among the affected industries and
authorities to expedite the harmonization program, the FAA and JAA in
March 1999 agreed upon a method to achieve these goals. This method,
which the FAA has titled ``The Fast Track Harmonization Program,'' is
aimed at expediting the rulemaking process for harmonizing not only the
42 standards that are currently tasked to ARAC for harmonization, but
approximately 80 additional standards for part 25 airplanes.
The FAA initiated the Fast Track program on November 26, 1999 (64
FR 66522). This program involves grouping all of the standards needing
harmonization into three categories:
Category 1: Envelope--For these standards, parallel part 25 and
JAR-25 standards would be compared, and harmonization would be reached
by accepting the more stringent of the two standards. Thus, the more
stringent requirement of one standard would be ``enveloped'' into the
other standard. In some cases, it may be necessary to incorporate parts
of both the part 25 and JAR standard to achieve the final, more
stringent standard. (This may necessitate that each authority revises
its current standard to incorporate more stringent provisions of the
other.)
Category 2: Completed or near complete--For these standards, ARAC
has reached, or has nearly reached, technical agreement or consensus on
the new wording of the proposed harmonized standards.
Category 3: Harmonize--For these standards, ARAC is not near
technical agreement on harmonization, and the parallel part 25 and JAR-
25 standards cannot be ``enveloped'' (as described under Category 1)
for reasons of safety or unacceptability. A standard developed under
Category 3 would be mutually acceptable to the FAA and JAA, with a
consistent means of compliance.
Further details on the Fast Track Program can be found in the
tasking statement (64 FR 66522, November 26, 1999) and the first NPRM
published under this program, Fire Protection Requirements for
Powerplant Installations on Transport Category Airplanes (65 FR 36978,
June 12, 2000).
Under this program, the FAA provides ARAC with an opportunity to
review, discuss, and comment on the FAA's draft NPRM. In the case of
this rulemaking, ARAC suggested one minor editorial change, which has
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
NPRM, the FAA proposes to amend Sec. 25.819, concerning lower deck
service compartments on transport category airplanes. A lower deck
service compartment as used in Sec. 25.819 is defined as follows: ``A
lower deck service compartment is a galley or other service compartment
located below the main passenger deck that is accessible during flight
by crewmembers. A lavatory is not considered a lower deck service
compartment and therefore is not covered by this regulation. Occupancy
is not permitted during taxi, takeoff and landing. Also, it is limited
to crewmembers only.'' This action has
[[Page 3458]]
been identified as a Category 1 (Envelope) project under the Fast Track
program.
What Is the Underlying Safety Issue Addressed by the Current Standards?
The standards ensure the safety of occupants of lower deck service
compartments that are not certified to be occupied during takeoff and
landing. The standards apply design criteria relative to evacuation
routes and various items of safety equipment. Many of the regulations
that provide evacuation requirements and safety equipment address
passenger and flightcrew compartments, but do not include lower deck
service compartments.
What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?
The current text of 14 CFR 25.819 (Amendment 25-53 (45 FR 41593,
June 19, 1980)) is:
Section 25.819 Lower deck service compartments (including galleys).
For airplanes with a service compartment located below the main
deck, which may be occupied during taxi or flight but not during
takeoff or landing, the following apply:
(a) There must be at least two emergency evacuation routes, one
at each end of each lower deck service compartment or two having
sufficient separation within each compartment, which could be used
by each occupant or the lower deck service compartment to rapidly
evacuate to the main deck under normal and emergency lighting
conditions. The routes must provide for the evacuation of
incapacitated persons, with assistance. The use of the evacuation
routes may not be dependent on any powered device. The routes must
be designed to minimize the possibility of blockage which might
result from fire, mechanical or structural failure, or persons
standing on top of or against the escape routes. In the event the
airplane's main power system or compartment main lighting system
should fail, emergency illumination for each lower deck service
compartment must be automatically provided.
(b) There must be a means for two-way voice communication
between the flight deck and each lower deck service compartment.
(c) There must be an aural emergency alarm system, audible
during normal and emergency conditions, to enable crewmembers on the
flight deck and at each required floor level emergency exit to alert
occupants of each lower deck service compartment of an emergency
situation.
(d) There must be a means, readily detectable by occupants of
each lower deck service compartment, that indicates when seat belts
should be fastened.
(e) If a public address system is installed in the airplane,
speakers must be provided in each lower deck service compartment.
(f) For each occupant permitted in a lower deck service
compartment, there must be a forward or aft facing seat which meets
the requirements of Sec. 25.785(c) and must be able to withstand
maximum flight loads when occupied.
(g) For each powered lift system installed between a lower deck
service compartment and the main deck for the carriage of persons or
equipment, or both, the system must meet the following requirements:
(1) Each lift control switch outside the lift, except emergency
stop buttons, must be designed to prevent the activation of the lift
if the lift door, or the hatch required by paragraph (g)(3) of this
section, or both are open.
(2) An emergency stop button, that when activated will
immediately stop the lift, must be installed within the lift and at
each entrance to the lift.
(3) There must be a hatch capable of being used for evacuating
persons from the lift that is openable from inside and outside the
lift without tools, with the lift in any position.
The current text of JAR paragraph 25.819 (Change 15, Amendment
25/96/1, October 2000) is:
JAR 25.819 Lower deck service compartments (including galleys).
For aeroplanes with a service compartment located below the main
deck, which may be occupied during taxi or flight but not during
takeoff or landing, the following apply:
(a) There must be at least two emergency evacuation routes, one
at each end of each lower deck service compartment or two having
sufficient separation within each compartment, which could be used
by each occupant or the lower deck service compartment to rapidly
evacuate to the main deck under normal and emergency lighting
conditions. The routes must provide for the evacuation of
incapacitated persons, with assistance. The use of the evacuation
routes may not be dependent on any powered device. The routes must
be designed to minimize the possibility of blockage which might
result from fire, mechanical or structural failure, or persons
standing on top of or against the escape routes. In the event the
airplane's main power system or compartment main lighting system
should fail, emergency illumination for each lower deck service
compartment must be automatically provided.
(b) There must be a means for two-way voice communication
between the flight deck and each lower deck service compartment,
which remains available following loss of normal electrical power
generating system.
(c) There must be an aural emergency alarm system, audible
during normal and emergency conditions, to enable crewmembers on the
flight deck and at each required floor level emergency exit to alert
occupants of each lower deck service compartment of an emergency
situation.
(d) There must be a means, readily detectable by occupants of
each lower deck service compartment, that indicates when seat belts
should be fastened.
(e) If a public address system is installed in the airplane,
speakers must be provided in each lower deck service compartment.
(f) For each occupant permitted in a lower deck service
compartment, there must be a forward or aft facing seat which meets
the requirements of JAR 25.785 (d) and must be able to withstand
maximum flight loads when occupied.
(g) For each powered lift system installed between a lower deck
service compartment and the main deck for the carriage of persons or
equipment, or both, the system must meet the following requirements:
(1) Each lift control switch outside the lift, except emergency
stop buttons, must be designed to prevent the activation of the lift
if the lift door, or the hatch required by paragraph (g)(3) of this
section, or both are open.
(2) An emergency stop button, that when activated will
immediately stop the lift, must be installed within the lift and at
each entrance to the lift.
(3) There must be a hatch capable of being used for evacuating
persons from the lift that is openable from inside and outside the
lift without tools, with the lift in any position.
What Are the Differences in the Standards and What Do Those Differences
Result in?
There are two substantive differences between the standards:
First, the JAR requires that two-way voice communication between
the flight deck and each lower deck service compartment remain
available following loss of the normal electrical power generating
system. Part 25 does not contain such a requirement. This results in
system power on those airplanes certificated under the JAR being
supplied from the essential bus; whereas, system power on airplanes
certificated under part 25 may be supplied from a nonessential bus.
Second, the requirements for the seats located in the lower deck
compartment are different between the part 25 and the JAR. Section
25.819(f) of part 25 requires that installed seats must meet the
requirements of Sec. 25.785(c), while JAR paragraph 25.819(f) requires
that installed seats must comply with the requirements of JAR paragraph
25.785(d). At the current amendment levels, Sec. 25.785(c) and JAR
paragraph 25.785(d) present different requirements, although at one
time (prior to Amendment 25-72) they were the same. This apparently is
due to a renumbering error that occurred at Amendment 25-72, in which
paragraph (c) of Sec. 25.785 became paragraph (d), and there was no
associated change to the reference in Sec. 25.819(f). Thus, by
referring to Sec. 25.785(c), Sec. 25.819(f) currently requires only
that seats be ``approved,'' which is not what was intended. The intent
is that seat designs must comply with the specific design safety
criteria that is described in Sec. 25.785(d) (including a safety belt
and either a shoulder harness, an energy absorbing rest, or no
injurious objects present in the head strike path, as
[[Page 3459]]
appropriate). The correct reference in Sec. 25.819 should be to
Sec. 25.785(d).
What, If Any, Are the Differences in the Means of Compliance?
Currently, U.S. manufacturers must comply with the more stringent
JAR requirements if they intend to sell their airplanes in Europe.
Future certificated airplanes also are expected to meet the existing
JAR requirements.
What Is the Proposed Action?
The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 25.819 by incorporating the ``more
stringent'' requirements of the current JAR standard. The proposed
amendment would require that:
Two-way voice communication systems between lower deck
service compartments and the flight deck remain available following
loss of the normal electrical power generating system.
Seats installed in the lower deck compartment meet the
requirements of Sec. 25.785(d).
How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?
The proposed standard would continue to address the original
underlying safety issue. It would ensure the safety of occupants of
lower deck service compartments that are not certified to be occupied
during takeoff and landing.
What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to the Current
Regulations?
By requiring the more stringent standards of the JAR, the proposed
amendment would mandate a higher level of safety than that provided by
the currently applicable requirements.
What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to Current
Industry Practice?
In current practice, U.S. manufacturers already are complying with
the more stringent JAR requirements in order to sell their airplanes in
Europe. Future certificated airplanes also are expected to meet the
existing JAR requirements, and this proposed rule would simply adopt
those same requirements.
What Other Options Have Been Considered and Why Were They Not Selected?
The FAA considered two alternatives to this proposal:
1. No change to the existing standards. The FAA did not select this
option because it would mean that the standards would continue to be
``unharmonized'' and manufacturers would continue to meet two different
sets of standards when certificating their airplanes.
2. The JAA could unilaterally adopt the standards of part 25. The
FAA did not seriously consider this option, however, because where the
part 25 standards are ``less stringent,'' this could potentially mean
adopting a lower level of safety.
The FAA considers the proposal, as contained in this NPRM, to be
the most appropriate method of ensuring that the highest level of
safety is achieved and fulfilling the objectives of harmonizing the
U.S. and European standards.
Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Change?
Manufacturers of transport category airplanes, as well as airplane
modifiers potentially would be affected by the proposed amendment.
Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?
The FAA does consider that current guidance on this subject is
adequate and that additional advisory material is not necessary as a
result of the proposed rule.
What Regulatory Analyses and Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies
to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. section 2531-2533) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act also requires the consideration of
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. And fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation).
The FAA has determined that this proposal has no substantial costs,
and that it is not ``a significant regulatory action'' as defined in
Executive Order 12866, nor ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. Further, this proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, would reduce barriers to international trade, and would not
impose an Unfunded Mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or
on the private sector.
The DOT Order 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for
simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If it is
determined that the expected impact is so minimal that the proposed
rule does not warrant a full evaluation, a statement to that effect and
the basis for it is included in the proposed regulation. Accordingly,
the FAA has determined that the expected impact of this proposed rule
is so minimal that the proposed rule does not warrant a full
evaluation. We provide the basis for this determination as follows:
Currently, airplane manufacturers must satisfy both part 25 and the
European JAR-25 standards to certificate transport category aircraft in
both the United States and Europe. Meeting two sets of certification
requirements raises the cost of developing a new transport category
airplane often with no increase in safety. In the interest of fostering
international trade, lowering the cost of aircraft development, and
making the certification process more efficient, the FAA, JAA, and
aircraft manufacturers have been working to create, to the maximum
possible extent, a single set of certification requirements accepted in
both the United States and Europe. As explained in detail previously,
these efforts are referred to as ``harmonization.''
This proposal would revise the FAA requirements for lower deck
service compartments on transport category airplanes that are not
certified to be occupied during takeoff and landing. As explained
previously in this preamble, this proposal would revise part 25 to
include the following ``more stringent'' requirements of the JAR
standards:
Sec. 25.819(b): two-way voice communication systems
between lower deck service compartments and the flight deck remain
available following loss of the normal electrical power generating
system; and
Sec. 25.819(f): seats installed in the lower deck
compartment meet the requirements of Sec. 25.785(d), which include
safety belt and either a shoulder
[[Page 3460]]
harness, and/or energy absorbing rest, and/or elimination of injurious
objects in the head strike path.
This proposed rule results from the FAA's acceptance of
recommendations made by ARAC. We have concluded that, for the reasons
previously discussed in the preamble, the adoption of the proposed
requirements in 14 CFR part 25 is the most efficient way to harmonize
these sections and, in so doing, the existing level of safety will be
preserved.
There was consensus within the ARAC members, comprised of
representatives of the affected industry, that the requirements of the
proposed rule will not impose additional costs on U.S. manufacturers of
part 25 airplanes. Concerning the cost impact of complying with the
proposed standard, ARAC states there are apparent administrative
savings for the relevant airworthiness authorities and indirect savings
for the general public. In fact, ARAC believes that the industry would
estimate the cost burden being at a neutral level. We have reviewed the
cost analysis provided by industry through the ARAC process. A copy is
available through the public docket. Based on this analysis, we
consider that a full regulatory evaluation is not necessary.
We invite comments with supporting documentation regarding the
regulatory evaluation statements based on ARAC's proposal.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, 50 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and
of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational
requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.'' To achieve that
principle, the RFA requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible
regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities. If the determination is that the rule will, the Agency
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
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 airplane manufacturers meet just one certification
requirement, rather than different standards for the United States and
Europe. Airplane manufacturers already meet or expect to meet this
standard as well as the existing 14 CFR part 25 requirement.
Second, all U.S. transport category airplane manufacturers exceed
the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500
employees for airplane 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 accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the
potential effect of the proposed rule and has determined that it
complies with the Act 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
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
[[Page 3461]]
with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and Public Law 94-
163, as amended (43 U.S.C. 6362), and FAA Order 1053.1. It has been
determined that it is not a major regulatory action under the
provisions of the EPCA.
Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in Title
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation
modes other than aviation, and to establish such regulatory
distinctions as he or she considers appropriate. Because this proposed
rule would apply to the certification of future designs of transport
category airplanes and their subsequent operation, it could, if
adopted, affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. The FAA therefore
specifically requests comments on whether there is justification for
applying the proposed rule differently to intrastate operations in
Alaska.
Plain Language
In response to the June 1, 1998, Presidential memorandum regarding
the issue of plain language, the FAA re-examined the writing style
currently used in the development of regulations. The memorandum
requires Federal agencies to communicate clearly with the public. We
are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document
is clear, and in any other suggestions you might have to improve the
clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get more
information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language
initiative at http://www.plainlanguage.gov.
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 Sec. 25.819 by revising paragraphs (b) and (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 25.819 Lower deck surface compartments (including galleys).
* * * * *
(b) There must be a means for two-way voice communication between
the flight deck and each lower deck service compartment, which remains
available following loss of normal electrical power generating system.
* * * * *
(f) For each occupant permitted in a lower deck service
compartment, there must be a forward or aft facing seat which meets the
requirements of Sec. 25.785(d), and must be able to withstand maximum
flight loads when occupied.
* * * * *
Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 8, 2002.
Ali Bahrami,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-1766 Filed 1-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P