[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5130-5138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2084]




[[Page 5129]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 23, et al.



Airworthiness Standards; Final Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 1996 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 5130]]


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. 27804; Amendment No. 23-51]
RIN 2120-AE60


Airworthiness Standards; Powerplant Rules Based on European Joint 
Aviation Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the powerplant airworthiness standards 
for normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter category airplanes. This 
amendment completes a portion of the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) and the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) effort to 
harmonize the Federal Aviation Regulations and the Joint Aviation 
Requirements (JAR) for airplanes certificated in these categories. This 
amendment will provide nearly uniform powerplant airworthiness 
standards for airplanes certificated in the United States under 14 CFR 
part 23 and in the JAA countries under Joint Aviation Requirements 23, 
simplifying international airworthiness approval.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 11, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Norman Vetter, ACE-111, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th 
Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 426-5688.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This amendment is based on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) No. 
94-19 (59 FR 33822). All comments received in response to Notice 94-19 
have been considered in adopting this amendment.
    This amendment completes part of an effort to harmonize the 
requirements of part 23 and JAR 23. The revisions to part 23 in this 
amendment pertain to powerplants. Three other final rules are being 
issued in this Federal Register that pertain to airworthiness standards 
for systems and equipment flight, and airframe. These related 
rulemakings are also part of the harmonization effort. Interested 
persons should review all four final rules to ensure that all revisions 
to part 23 are recognized.
    The harmonization effort was initiated at a meeting in June 1990 of 
the JAA Council (consisting of JAA members from European countries) and 
the FAA, during which the FAA Administrator committed the FAA to 
support the harmonization of the U.S. regulations with the JAR that 
were being developed. In response to the commitment, the FAA Small 
Airplane Directorate established an FAA Harmonization Task Force to 
work with the JAR 23 Study Group to harmonize part 23 with the proposed 
JAR 23. The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) also 
established a JAR 23 and part 23 committee to provide technical 
assistance.
    The FAA, JAA, GAMA, and the Association Europeene des Constructeurs 
de Material Aerospatial (AECMA), an organization of European airframe 
manufacturers, met on several occasions in a continuing harmonization 
effort.
    Near the end of the effort to harmonize the normal, utility, and 
acrobatic category airplane airworthiness standards, the JAA requested 
and received recommendations from its member countries on proposed 
airworthiness standards for commuter category airplanes. Subsequent JAA 
and FAA meetings on this issue resulted in proposals that were 
reflected in Notice 94-19 to revise portions of the part 23 commuter 
category airworthiness standards. Accordingly, this final rule adopts 
the powerplant airworthiness standards for all part 23 airplanes.
    In January 1991, the FAA established the Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee (ARAC) (56 FR 2190, January 22, 1991). At an FAA/JAA 
Harmonization Conference in Canada in June 1992, the FAA announced that 
it would consolidate the harmonization effort within the ARAC 
structure. The FAA assigned to ARAC the rulemakings related to JAR and 
part 23 harmonization, which ARAC assigned to the JAR 23/FAR 23 
Harmonization Working Group. The proposals for powerplant airworthiness 
standards contained in Notice No. 94-19 were a result of both the 
working group's efforts and the efforts at harmonization that occurred 
before the formation of the working group.
    The JAA submitted comments to the FAA on January 20, 1994, in 
response to the four draft proposals for harmonization of the part 23 
airworthiness standards. The JAA submitted comments again during the 
comment period of the NPRM. At the April 26, 1995, ARAC JAR/FAR 23 
Harmonization Working Group meeting, the JAA noted that many of the 
comments in the January 20 letter had been satisfied or were no longer 
relevant. The few remaining items concern issues that are considered 
beyond the scope of this rulemaking, and, therefore, will be dealt with 
at future FAA/JAA Harmonization meetings.

Discussion of Comments

General

    Interested persons were invited to participate in the development 
of these final rules by submitting written data, views, or arguments to 
the regulatory docket on or before October 28, 1994. Four commenters 
responded to Notice 94-19. Two commenters (Transport Canada and the Air 
Line Pilots Association) expressed overall support for the proposed 
changes. The JAA stated its overall support while commenting on 
specific proposed changes. The fourth commenter (Beechcraft) commented 
on several specific sections. The specific comments of JAA and 
Beechcraft are discussed in detail in this document and include an FAA 
response and a description of any changes to the final rule language. 
Other minor technical and editorial changes have been made to the 
proposed rules based on relevant comments received, consultation with 
the ARAC, and further review by the FAA.

Discussion of Amendments

Section 23.777  Cockpit Controls

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.777(c)(2) so that for single-
engine airplanes designed for a single cockpit occupant, the powerplant 
controls would be located in the same position as they are for 
airplanes with tandem seats.
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.779  Motion and Effect of Cockpit Controls

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.779(b)(1) by adding a new item, 
``fuel,'' to the ``motion and effect'' table to require that any fuel 
shutoff control other than mixture must move forward to open.
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.901  Installation

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.901(d)(1), which concerns 
turbine engine installation and vibration characteristics that do not 
exceed those established during the type certification of the engine. 
The FAA proposed to add the word ``carcass'' before vibration in this 
paragraph in order to restrict analyses to those vibrations that are 
caused by external excitation to the 

[[Page 5131]]
main engine frame or ``carcass.'' While the word ``carcass'' has not 
traditionally been used in this context in the United States, it is 
used in Europe and was proposed in the interest of harmonization.
    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.901(d)(2) by deleting the last 
sentence, which reads: ``The engine must accelerate and decelerate 
safely following stabilized operations under these rain conditions.'' 
This requirement is already provided for in the first sentence of 
paragraph (d)(2), which states that the turbine engine must be 
constructed and arranged to provide ``continued safe operation.''
    The FAA proposed to revise paragraph (e) of this section by adding 
the word ``powerplant'' in front of ``installation'' to make clear that 
it pertains to all powerplant installations. The FAA proposed to revise 
paragraph (e)(1) by adding the word ``installation'' in front of 
``instruction'' to make clear which instructions are applicable.
    The FAA proposed that new paragraph (e)(1)(i) contain the 
requirement for an engine type certificate currently set forth in 
paragraph (e)(1). The FAA proposed that paragraph (e)(1)(ii) continue 
the current requirement for a propeller type certificate, and to allow 
an equivalency finding for certain propellers not type certificated in 
the United States. This revision was proposed to be consistent with the 
proposed revisions to Sec. 23.905, Propellers.
    No comments were received on the proposals. However, as discussed 
below, the FAA has determined that the proposed amendment to 
Sec. 23.905(a) concerning propellers should be withdrawn. Consequently, 
proposed revisions to Sec. 23.901(e) are no longer appropriate and are 
being withdrawn.
    The proposal is adopted with the above change.

Section 23.903  Engines

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.903 (c) and (g) by adding the 
headings ``Engine isolation'' and ``Restart capability,'' respectively, 
in order to identify the subjects of these paragraphs as is done for 
the other paragraphs in this section. The FAA also proposed to change 
the heading of paragraph (f) from ``Restart capability'' to ``Restart 
envelope'' since the paragraph addresses the altitude and airspeed 
envelope for restarting the engines in flight.
    No comments were received on the proposals, and they are adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.905  Propellers

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.905(a) to permit approval, on 
part 23 airplanes, of propellers by a means other than the currently 
required type certificate.
    Comment: Beechcraft objects to what it characterizes as ``an 
unknown method of compliance.'' Beechcraft states that it appears that 
the economic burden of certification would be placed on the end user of 
the propeller without any guidance as to the means of compliance. 
Beechcraft asserts that experience indicates that equivalent level of 
safety findings are very subjective, that propellers would be 
certificated to various standards, and that this creates a liability 
for the aircraft manufacturer. Beechcraft believes that uniform 
airworthiness standards should be maintained and that ``an aircraft 
manufacturer could not, for economic and liability reasons, afford to 
purchase a propeller without a type certificate, U.S. or foreign.''
    FAA Response: The FAA re-evaluated the proposal and determined that 
public interest would be best served if the proposal were withdrawn. 
Therefore, the FAA is withdrawing the proposal and will consider it for 
future rulemaking action.

Section 23.907  Propeller Vibration

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.907(a) to require that 
propellers ``other than a conventional fixed-pitch wooden propeller'' 
be evaluated for vibration. Fixed-pitch wooden propellers are not 
highly stressed, as are all metal and most composite propeller blades.
    No comments were received on this proposal and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.925  Propeller Clearance

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.925 to require that propeller 
clearance must be evaluated with the airplane at the most adverse 
combination of weight and center of gravity, and with the propeller in 
the most adverse pitch position. This revision would make the 
requirement consistent with current certification practice.
    Comment: The JAA pointed out that, under the JAR, the clearances 
provided in this section are intended to represent minimum values and 
that it had previously rejected the introductory text language that 
states ``Unless smaller clearances are substantiated * * *.''
    FAA Response: The language quoted by the JAA is in present 
Sec. 23.925 and would not be affected by the proposed change. The FAA 
acknowledges that the introductory language cited by the JAA has been 
previously identified as an area of known disharmony between the two 
sets of regulations that would not be affected by the proposed 
revisions.
    No comments other than the JAA acknowledgment of disharmony were 
received on the changes proposed for this section in Notice 94-19, and 
the proposal is adopted as proposed.

Section 23.929  Engine Installation Ice Protection

    The FAA proposed to replace the word ``power'' in Sec. 23.929 in 
the phrase ``without appreciable loss of power'' with the word 
``thrust'' because ``thrust'' is more descriptive of the loss 
experienced when ice forms on a propeller.
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.933  Reversing Systems

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.933(a)(1) so that these 
provisions correspond to the turbojet and turbofan reversing system 
airworthiness standards of part 25.
    The FAA also proposed to delete as unnecessary the word ``forward'' 
from paragraph (a)(3).
    No comments were received on the proposals, and they are adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.955  Fuel Flow

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.955(a) by deleting the word 
``and'' where it occurs between the subparagraphs. Each of the four 
paragraphs is independent and all of them apply under paragraph (a).
    The FAA also proposed to revise Sec. 23.955(a)(3) by adding the 
word ``probable'' so that the requirement would read as follows: ``If 
there is a flow meter without a bypass, it must not have any probable 
failure mode * * *.'' The addition of the word ``probable'' would 
clarify the intent of the requirement that only probable failures need 
be analyzed.
    No comments were received on the proposals, and they are adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.959  Unusable Fuel Supply

    The FAA proposed that the text of Sec. 23.959 be redesignated as 
paragraph (a), and proposed the addition of a new paragraph (b) to 
require that the effect of any fuel pump failure on the unusable fuel 
supply be established. This change would not require any change in the 
fuel quantity indicator marking required by Sec. 23.1553.
    No comments were received on the proposals, and they are adopted as 
proposed.

[[Page 5132]]


Section 23.963  Fuel Tanks: General

    The FAA proposed to clarify Sec. 23.963(b), which concerns fuel 
tank liners, by replacing the phrase ``must be of an acceptable kind'' 
with the phrase ``must be shown to be suitable for the particular 
application.'' Also, the FAA proposed to revise the cross reference in 
this section to coincide with the proposed revision of Sec. 23.959 
discussed above.
    No comments were received on the proposals, and they are adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.965  Fuel Tank Tests

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.965(b)(3)(i) by changing the 
phrase ``the test frequency of vibration cycles per minute is obtained 
by * * *'' to ``the test frequency of vibration is the number of cycles 
per minute obtained by * * *'' to clarify that it is the number of 
cycles per minute that is to be used during testing of a fuel tank.
    No comments were received on the proposal. After further review of 
the proposal, however, the FAA determined that the second portion of 
paragraph (b)(3)(i), which includes the test frequency vibration 
cycles, should be redesignated as paragraphs (b)(3)(i) (A) and (B), and 
that the phrase ``except that'' should be removed and the word ``and'' 
added in its place. This would not be a substantive revision.
    The proposal is adopted with the above change.

Section 23.973  Fuel Tank Filler Connection

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.973(f) by removing the language 
that limits its applicability so that the regulation would apply to all 
airplanes with turbine engines, including turbine engines that are 
equipped with pressure fueling systems.
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.975  Fuel Tank Vents and Carburetor Vents

    The FAA proposed to revise the first sentence of Sec. 23.975(a)(5) 
to clarify that there may be no point in any vent line where moisture 
can accumulate unless drainage is provided. The FAA explained that the 
intent of this requirement is to allow low spots in the fuel tank vent 
system if a drain is provided for each low spot.
    Comment: No comments were received concerning the proposed revision 
of the first sentence of Sec. 23.975(a)(5). However, the JAA submitted 
a comment on the second sentence, for which no change was proposed. 
That sentence currently reads, ``Any drain valve installed in the vent 
lines must discharge clear of the airplane and be accessible for 
drainage.'' The JAA's comment is threefold. First, JAA states that, in 
smaller, less complex part 23 airplanes, whether a vent will remain 
clear in all phases of operation cannot be guaranteed. Second, JAA 
states that, on more complex part 23 airplanes, ``considerations of 
inaccessibility during operation of an aircraft when the need for a 
drain valve has been considered essential, has very often resulted in 
the acceptance of automatic valves that drain back into the fuel 
tank.'' Finally, JAA states that drainage/discharge clear of the 
airplane is not in accord with environmental concerns.
    FAA Response: The FAA has concluded after reviewing the JAA comment 
and after discussions within the ARAC working group that further 
clarification of this drainage requirement is appropriate, since the 
rule language was never intended to limit discharge to an external 
drain valve. Therefore, the last sentence of Sec. 23.975(a)(5), as 
adopted, reads ``Any drain valve installed must be accessible for 
drainage.''

Section 23.979  Pressure Fueling Systems

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.979(b) to require, for commuter 
category airplanes, an indication at each fueling station of failure of 
the automatic shutoff means. This revision would make the commuter 
category automatic shutoff means requirements similar to the 
requirements for transport category airplanes in Sec. 25.979.
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.1001  Fuel Jettisoning System

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.1001(b)(2) to redefine the speed 
at which the fuel jettisoning system tests should be conducted by 
referencing Sec. 23.69(b). The JAA states that a comparable change will 
be made to JAR 23.
    No other comments were received, and this proposal is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.1013  Oil Tanks

    The FAA proposed to delete the word ``crankcase'' in 
Sec. 23.1013(d)(1) to make this paragraph applicable to all engine 
installations.
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.1041  General

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.1041, under the ``Cooling'' 
heading, to require, for all airplanes regardless of engine type, a 
demonstration of adequate cooling at one maximum ambient atmosphere 
temperature for which approval is requested.
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.1043  Cooling Tests

    The FAA stated in the preamble to Notice 94-19 that it proposed to 
revise Sec. 23.1043(a)(3) to show that the minimum grade fuel 
requirement applies to both turbine and reciprocating engines and that 
the lean mixture requirement applies to reciprocating engines only.
    The FAA proposed to simplify the introductory text of paragraph (a) 
by deleting the requirement that compliance must be shown ``under 
critical ground, water, and flight operating conditions to the maximum 
altitude for which approval is requested'' since this requirement is 
already contained in Sec. 23.1041.
    The FAA proposed to improve the organization of the section by 
moving to paragraph (a)(4) the requirement in the introductory text of 
paragraph (a) that for turbocharged engines, each turbocharger must be 
operated through the part of the climb profile for which turbocharger 
operation is requested.
    The FAA proposed a non-substantive change to paragraph (a)(1) to 
make it consistent with proposed changes to Sec. 23.1041.
    The FAA proposed to reword paragraph (a)(2) without substantive 
change to make this language identical to the JAR.
    The FAA proposed to revise paragraph (a)(3) to clarify that the 
requirement for mixture settings applies to reciprocating engines and 
that the mixture settings must be the leanest recommended for the 
climb. The FAA pointed out that the ``leanest recommended for climb'' 
mixture setting is considered a normal operating condition.
    The FAA proposed to remove paragraph (a)(5) because water taxi 
tests are already required by Sec. 23.1041 as amended by Amendment 23-
43 (58 FR 18958, April 9, 1993).
    The FAA proposed to revise paragraphs (c) and (d) by adding the 
requirement that cooling correction factors be determined for the 
appropriate altitude. This proposed change was intended to codify 
current certification practice and increase safety by ensuring that the 
proper correction factor is determined.

[[Page 5133]]

    Comment: Beechcraft comments that the minimum fuel requirement of 
present paragraph (a)(3) should be deleted for turbine engines since 
there are not real measurable differences for turbine engine fuel as 
there are for reciprocating engine fuel.
    FAA Response: The proposed rule did not contain any change to the 
minimum fuel grade requirements and the preamble statement may be 
unclear. The FAA agrees with the Beechcraft statement that today, 
turbine engine fuels are not graded. Since no change was proposed in 
this wording in the NPRM and since the present wording has not effect 
on the use of turbine engine fuels, no change is made for this final 
rule. However, after discussion within the ARAC Working Group, the FAA 
has determined that paragraph (a)(3) can be clarified by moving the 
second part of the sentence concerning mixture settings for 
reciprocating engines to a new paragraph (a)(5). This is not considered 
a substantive change to the proposed language, but a clarification of a 
current requirement.
    The only comment received on the changes proposed for Sec. 23.1043 
concerned paragraph (a)(3), and that paragraph is adopted as explained 
above. The remaining changes are adopted as proposed.

Section 23.1045  Cooling Test Procedures for Turbine Engine Powered 
Airplanes

    The FAA proposed to clarify Sec. 23.1045(a) by stating more 
generally that (1) compliance with Sec. 23.1041 must be shown for all 
phases of operations, not only the four listed phases: takeoff, climb, 
enroute, and landing; and that (2) the airplane must be flown in the 
configuration, at the speeds, and following the procedures recommended 
in the Airplane Flight Manual for the relative stage of flight that 
corresponds to the applicable performance requirements critical to 
cooling.
    No comments were received on the proposals, and they are adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.1047  Cooling Test Procedures for Reciprocating Engine 
Powered Airplanes

    The FAA proposed to revise the cooling test procedures in 
Sec. 23.1047 for reciprocating engine powered airplanes by deleting the 
specific procedures because experience has shown that some of the 
listed detailed procedures are not directly applicable to certain 
engine configurations and certain operating conditions.
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.1091  Air Induction System

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.1091(c)(2) to require that air 
induction system design protect against foreign matter, from whatever 
source, ``during takeoff, landing, and taxiing'' rather than be 
limited, as is the present rule, to foreign material located on the 
runway, taxiway, or other airport operating surfaces.
    Comment: Beechcraft comments that increasing the scope of the 
foreign material environment poses very difficult technical questions 
and potentially costly solutions. Beechcraft states that it is 
extremely difficult to compensate for and protect against airborne 
debris and also states its concern that the proposed rule language 
gives no guidance as to the levels of protection that are necessary.
    FAA Response: As stated in the NPRM preamble, the proposed language 
is consistent with current certification practice and, therefore, would 
not be a significant new burden on aircraft manufacturers. However, it 
was not the FAA's intent to create an opportunity for an extreme 
interpretation of this rule, as suggested by Beechcraft. To clarify the 
intent, and after discussion within the ARAC Working Group, the FAA has 
added the words ``hazard of'' to the second sentence of 
Sec. 23.1091(c)(2) to make it clear that the intent of the rule is to 
minimize the hazard of ingestion of foreign matter rather than to 
require zero ingestion.
    This proposal is adopted with the change explained above.

Section 23.1093  Induction System Icing Protection

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.1093(c) by adding the heading 
``Reciprocating engines with superchargers'' so that this paragraph 
would be consistent with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, which 
have headings.
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.1105  Induction System Screens

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.1105 to include fuel injection 
systems, since some reciprocating engines incorporate a fuel injection 
system and the same provisions required for a carburetor are necessary 
for a fuel injection system.
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.1107  Induction System Filters

    The FAA proposed to revise the introductory text of Sec. 23.1107 by 
deleting the reference to reciprocating engine installations to make 
the section applicable to airplanes with either reciprocating or 
turbine engines.
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.1121  General

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.1121(g) by adding standards for 
APU exhaust systems because these standards were overlooked when APU 
standards were introduced into part 23 by Amendment 23-43 (58 FR 18958, 
April 9, 1993).
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.1141  Powerplant Controls: General

    The FAA proposed to clarify Sec. 23.1141(b), which concerns 
flexible controls, by replacing the phrase ``must be of an acceptable 
kind'' with the phrase ``must be shown to be suitable for the 
particular application.''
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.1143  Engine Controls

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.1143(f) to add a requirement 
that a fuel control (other than a mixture control) must have a means to 
prevent the inadvertent movement of the control into the shutoff 
position.
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.1153  Propeller Feathering Controls

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.1153 to require that it be 
possible to feather each propeller separately, in order to prevent 
inadvertent operation.
    After further review of the proposal, the FAA decided to remove the 
phrase ``whether or not they are separate from the propeller speed and 
pitch controls'' and add the word ``installed'' in its place. The 
meaning is maintained without the deleted phrase, which would be 
redundant.
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.1181  Designated Fire Zones; Regions Included

    The FAA proposed new Sec. 23.1181(b)(3) to add as a designated fire 
zone for turbine engines ``any complete powerplant compartment in which 
there is no isolation between compressor, accessory, combustor, turbine 
and tailpipe sections.''
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

[[Page 5134]]


Section 23.1183  Lines, Fittings, and Components

    The FAA proposed to clarify the intent of Sec. 23.1183(a), which 
concerns the approval of flexible hose assemblies, by replacing the 
word ``approved'' with the words ``shown to be suitable for the 
particular application.''
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.1191  Firewalls

    The FAA proposed to amend Sec. 23.1191(b) to require that each 
``firewall or shroud must be constructed so that no hazardous quantity 
of liquid, gas, or flame can pass from the compartment created by the 
firewall or shroud to other parts of the airplane.'' The intent of the 
proposed change was to clarify that the requirement applies to any 
compartment created by a firewall or shroud.
    Comment: The JAA states that the additional wording proposed to be 
added to paragraph (b) is superfluous and will not be proposed for JAR 
23.
    FAA Response: The FAA has determined that the proposed change to 
Sec. 23.1191(b) is needed to retain the intent of the rule and that it 
will not create a technical disharmony between the two bodies of 
regulation.
    This proposal is adopted as proposed.

Section 23.1203  Fire Detector System

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.1203(e), which concerns the 
wiring and other components of each fire detector system in an engine 
compartment, by replacing the words ``fire zone'' with ``designated 
fire zone'' to make the wording consistent with Sec. 23.1181.
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Section 23.1305  Powerplant Instruments

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec. 23.1305(b)(3), concerning cylinder 
head temperature indicators, by deleting paragraph (b)(3)(ii), which 
refers to compliance with Sec. 23.1041 at a speed higher than VY, 
to be consistent with a general deletion of the requirements for a 
determination of the VY speed.
    No comments were received on the proposal. However, after further 
review, the FAA has determined that it would be simpler to remove the 
text of paragraph (b)(3)(ii) and to reserve paragraph (b)(3)(ii) for 
future use in order to avoid confusion that could come from 
redesignation of paragraph (b)(3)(iii).
    The proposal is adopted as explained above.

Section 23.1337  Powerplant Instruments

    The FAA proposed to change the reference in Sec. 23.1337(b) to 
``Sec. 23.959'' to ``Sec. 23.959(a)'' to conform the reference to a 
revision of Sec. 23.959 made elsewhere in this document.
    No comments were received on the proposal, and it is adopted as 
proposed.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, and Trade 
Impact Assessment

    Changes to federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal agencies to 
promulgate new regulations or modify existing regulations only if the 
potential benefits to society justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the economic 
impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Finally, the Office of 
Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effects of 
regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting these 
assessments, the FAA has determined that this rule: (1) Will generate 
benefits exceeding its costs and is ``significant'' as defined in 
Executive Order 12866; (2) is ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Policies and Procedures; (3) will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities; and (4) will not constitute a 
barrier to international trade. These analyses, available in the 
docket, are summarized below.

Comments Related to the Economics of the Proposed Rule

    Two comments were received regarding the economic impact of the 
proposals; one concerning an existing regulation (Sec. 23.1043 Cooling 
tests) and one concerning a new proposal (Sec. 23.1091 Air induction 
systems). Both of these comments, as well as the FAA's responses, are 
included above in the section ``Discussion of Amendments.''

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    The FAA has determined that the benefits of the final rule, though 
not directly quantifiable, will exceed the expected costs. Minor costs, 
ranging from $240 to $6,000 per certification, are projected for four 
of the provisions. No costs are attributed to the other provisions. The 
benefits of the final rule are considered below in four categories: (1) 
Harmonization, (2) safety, (3) reduced need for special conditions, and 
(4) clarification.

Harmonization

    These changes, in concert with other rulemaking and policy actions, 
will provide nearly uniform powerplant airworthiness standards for 
airplanes certificated in the United States and the JAA member 
countries. The resulting greater uniformity of standards simplifies 
airworthiness approval for import and export purposes.

Safety

    In addition to the harmonization benefits, five provisions of the 
rule provide additional safety benefits. First, the final rule revises 
Sec. 23.933(a)(1) to more closely agree with the corresponding turbojet 
and turbofan reversing system airworthiness standards of part 25. The 
FAA estimates that this provision will necessitate an additional 100 
hours of failure mode and effects analysis at an assumed cost rate of 
$60 per hour, including labor and overhead. The estimated $6,000 cost 
applies to each certification. The FAA projects that no additional 
production or operating costs will result from this provision.
    The primary potential benefit of the provision is the additional 
safety that could result from analyzing the feasible range of reverser 
system failures, the effects of those failures, and the corresponding 
capabilities necessary to correct the failure or circumvent its 
effects. Such an analysis could reduce the possibility that an 
unanticipated condition with catastrophic potential would remain in the 
system. In addition to the safety benefit, it is expected that 
operating benefits and manufacturing economies will result from the 
uniformity of standards between parts 23 and 25. The FAA is not able to 
quantify the potential benefits of this provision but has determined 
that the benefits will exceed the expected minor costs.
    Second, the final rule adds a new paragraph (b) to Sec. 23.959 
requiring that the effect of any fuel pump failure on the unusable fuel 
supply be determined. Though not previously required, it has been 
industry practice to include this information in the Airplane Flight 
Manual. The FAA estimates that the nominal cost of making this 
determination will be $240 per certification (4 hours at $60 per hour). 
In addition, an insignificant cost ($1) will be incurred in adding a 
table entry to the manual for each airplane that is produced. The fact 
that this requirement is already standard practice supports the FAA's 
position that the potential benefit of the provision exceed the minor 
costs. The safety benefits of this provision 

[[Page 5135]]
derive from the assurance that this vital information will continue to 
be provided for future airplane models.
    Third, under Sec. 23.979, the final rule adds the requirement for 
commuter category airplanes that an indication be provided at each 
fueling station in the event of a failure of the shutoff means to stop 
fuel flow at the maximum level. The FAA estimates that the required 
device will necessitate an incremental design and development cost of 
$3,000 per certification (50 hours at $60 per hour) and an additional 
nominal manufacturing cost of $10 per airplane. The benefit of the 
provision is the avoidance of a potentially catastrophic condition 
whereby excess fuel could unknowingly be forced out of the contained 
fuel system by the pressure fueling system. The FAA has determined that 
these potential benefits will exceed the minor associated costs.
    Fourth, Sec. 23.1041 establishes the requirement that the 
powerplant cooling system must be able to maintain the temperature of 
the powerplant components and fluids. The ambient temperature for 
testing reciprocating engine airplanes is currently required to be 
corrected to show the capacity of the cooling system at 100 deg.F. 
Under the amendment, this temperature standard is revised to the 
``maximum ambient temperature conditions for which approval is 
requested.''
    No costs are attributed to this provision. Reciprocating engine 
airplane manufacturers will continue to have the option to request 
approval for operations at the existing 100 deg.F temperature. A 
decision to request approval for a higher temperature would necessitate 
demonstration of the capability of the cooling system at that 
temperature. That choice, however, will be made at the manufacturer's 
discretion and will be based on its decision that any associated 
incremental cooling system costs would be recovered in the marketplace 
or offset by other considerations. The potential benefit of this 
provision is the reduced likelihood that an inadequate cooling system 
would be relied on during high temperature operations.
    Finally, paragraph (a) of Sec. 23.1045 is revised to state more 
generally that compliance with the cooling margin requirements of 
Sec. 23.1041 must be shown for all phases of operation, as compared to 
the four phases of flight currently listed. In effect, the amendment 
adds the taxi phase.
    The FAA estimates that the specific addition of the taxi phase will 
necessitate an incremental 5 hours of engineering analysis valued at 
$60 per hour, for a total of $300 per certification. The potential 
benefit of this provision is the enhanced safety that could result from 
evaluating the efficacy of the cooling system during the taxi phase of 
operation. In the taxi phase of operation, engine power settings and 
heat production may be generally lower than that experienced during 
flight, but available air circulation might also be lower. The heat 
mechanics of the two conditions are distinct and warrant separate 
evaluation. The FAA has determined that the potential benefits of this 
provision will exceed the nominal associated costs.

Reduced Need for Special Conditions

    The final rule includes five provisions that will replace the need 
for ``special conditions'' processing of certain parts or materials 
that were previously considered as novel or unusual design features. 
The subjects of these provisions include composite propellers, fuel 
injection systems for reciprocating engines, induction filters on 
turbine engines, fuel shutoff controls other than mixture controls, and 
auxiliary power units. No additional costs are attributed to these 
provisions. Formalization of the equivalent safety standards and 
requirements for these subjects obviates the need for special 
conditions actions and simplifies the certification process for 
manufacturers.

Clarification

    Several unclear provisions of part 23 were revealed during the 
harmonization review. In response to this finding, the final rule 
includes a number of no-cost, editorial revisions that clarify the 
existing requirements. These changes benefit manufacturers by removing 
potential confusion about the specific standards and requirements 
necessary for certification.
    In summary, the FAA has determined that each of the amendments, as 
well as the final rule as a whole, will be cost beneficial.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by 
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or 
disproportionately burdened by Government regulations. The RFA requires 
a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a rule would have a significant 
economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial 
number of small entities. Based on implementing FAA Order 2100.14A, 
Regulatory Flexibility Criteria and Guidance, the FAA has determined 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

Trade Impact Assessment

    The final rule will not constitute a barrier to international 
trade, including the export of American airplanes to foreign countries 
and the import of foreign airplanes into the United States. Instead, 
the amended powerplant airworthiness standards have been harmonized 
with foreign aviation authorities and will reduce restraints on trade.

Federalism Implications

    The regulations herein will not have substantial direct effects 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, in accordance with Executive 
Order 12612, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment.

Conclusion

    The FAA is revising the airworthiness standards to provide 
propulsion standards for normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter 
category airplanes to harmonize them with the standards that have been 
adopted for the same category airplanes by the Joint Aviation 
Authorities in Europe. The revisions will reduce the regulatory burden 
on the United States and European airplane manufacturers by relieving 
them of the need to show compliance with different standards each time 
they seek certification approval of an airplane in the United States or 
in a country that is a member of the JAA.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the 
findings in the Regulatory Evaluation, the FAA has determined that this 
rule is significant under Executive Order 12866. In addition, the FAA 
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact, 
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under 
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule is considered 
significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, 
February 26, 1979). A regulatory evaluation of the rule has been placed 
in the docket. A copy may be obtained by contacting the person 
identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.
    
[[Page 5136]]


The Amendments

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends 14 CFR part 23 as follows:

PART 23--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND 
COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES

    1. The authority citation for part 23 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.


Sec. 23.777  [Amended]

    2. Section 23.777(c)(2) is amended by adding the words ``single 
and'' between the words ``for'' and ``tandem''.
    3. The table in Sec. 23.779(b)(1) is amended by adding a new item 
between the items ``mixture'' and ``carburetor air heat or alternate 
air'' to read as follows:


Sec. 23.779  Motion and effect of cockpit controls.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

                                                                        
                                               Motion and effect        
                                                                        
(1) Powerplant controls:                                                
                                                                        
                  *        *        *        *        *                 
  Fuel..............................  Forward for open.                 
                                                                        
                  *        *        *        *        *                 
                                                                        

    4. Section 23.901 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(1) and 
(d)(2) to read as follows:


Sec. 23.901  Installation.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Result in carcass vibration characteristics that do not exceed 
those established during the type certification of the engine.
    (2) Provide continued safe operation without a hazardous loss of 
power or thrust while being operated in rain for at least three minutes 
with the rate of water ingestion being not less than four percent, by 
weight, of the engine induction airflow rate at the maximum installed 
power or thrust approved for takeoff and at flight idle.
* * * * *
    5. Section 23.903 is amended by adding headings to paragraphs (c) 
and (g), and by revising the heading of paragraph (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 23.903  Engines.

* * * * *
    (c) Engine isolation. * * *
* * * * *
    (f) Restart envelope. * * *
    (g) Restart capability. * * *


Sec. 23.907  [Amended]

    6. Section 23.907(a) introductory text is amended by removing the 
phrase ``with metal blades or highly stressed metal components'' and 
adding the phrase ``other than a conventional fixed-pitch wooden 
propeller'' in its place.
    7. Section 23.925 introductory text is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 23.925  Propeller clearance.

    Unless smaller clearances are substantiated, propeller clearances, 
with the airplane at the most adverse combination of weight and center 
of gravity, and with the propeller in the most adverse pitch position, 
may not be less than the following:
* * * * *


Sec. 23.929  [Amended]

    8. Section 23.929 is amended by removing the word ``power'' and 
adding, in its place, the word ``thrust''.
    9. Section 23.933 is amended by removing the word ``forward'' in 
the two instances in which it is used in paragraph (a)(3); by removing 
the reference in paragraph (b)(2) that reads ``(a)(1)'' and adding the 
reference ``(b)(1)'' in its place; and by revising paragraph (a)(1) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 23.933  Reversing systems.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Each system intended for ground operation only must be designed 
so that, during any reversal in flight, the engine will produce no more 
than flight idle thrust. In addition, it must be shown by analysis or 
test, or both, that--
    (i) Each operable reverser can be restored to the forward thrust 
position; or
    (ii) The airplane is capable of continued safe flight and landing 
under any possible position of the thrust reverser.
* * * * *
    10. Section 23.955 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(a)(4) to read as follows:


Sec. 23.955  Fuel flow.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The quantity of fuel in the tank may not exceed the amount 
established as the unusable fuel supply for that tank under 
Sec. 23.959(a) plus that quantity necessary to show compliance with 
this section.
    (2) If there is a fuel flowmeter, it must be blocked during the 
flow test and the fuel must flow through the meter or its bypass.
    (3) If there is a flowmeter without a bypass, it must not have any 
probable failure mode that would restrict fuel flow below the level 
required for this fuel demonstration.
    (4) The fuel flow must include that flow necessary for vapor return 
flow, jet pump drive flow, and for all other purposes for which fuel is 
used.
* * * * *
    11. Section 23.959 is amended by designating the current text of 
the section as paragraph (a) and by adding a new paragraph (b) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 23.959  Unusable fuel supply.

* * * * *
    (b) The effect on the usable fuel quantity as a result of a failure 
of any pump shall be determined.
    12. Section 23.963 is amended by removing the reference in 
paragraph (e) that reads ``Sec. 23.959'' and adding the reference 
``Sec. 23.959(a)'' in its place, and by revising paragraph (b) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 23.963  Fuel tanks: general.

* * * * *
    (b) Each flexible fuel tank liner must be shown to be suitable for 
the particular application.
* * * * *
    13. Section 23.965 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3)(i) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 23.965  Fuel tank tests.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) If no frequency of vibration resulting from any rpm within the 
normal operating range of engine or propeller speeds is critical, the 
test frequency of vibration is:
    (A) The number of cycles per minute obtained by multiplying the 
maximum continuous propeller speed in rpm by 0.9 for propeller-driven 
airplanes, and
    (B) For non-propeller driven airplanes the test frequency of 
vibration is 2,000 cycles per minute.
* * * * *
    14. Section 23.973(f) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 23.973  Fuel tank filler connection.

* * * * *
    (f) For airplanes with turbine engines, the inside diameter of the 
fuel filler opening must be no smaller than 2.95 inches.
    15. Section 23.975(a)(5) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 23.975  Fuel tank vents and carburetor vapor vents.

    (a) * * *
    (5) There may be no point in any vent line where moisture can 
accumulate with the airplane in either the ground or level flight 
attitudes, unless drainage is 

[[Page 5137]]
provided. Any drain valve installed must be accessible for drainage;
* * * * *
    16. Section 23.979(b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 23.979  Pressure fueling systems.

* * * * *
    (b) An automatic shutoff means must be provided to prevent the 
quantity of fuel in each tank from exceeding the maximum quantity 
approved for that tank. This means must--
    (1) Allow checking for proper shutoff operation before each fueling 
of the tank; and
    (2) For commuter category airplanes, indicate at each fueling 
station, a failure of the shutoff means to stop the fuel flow at the 
maximum quantity approved for that tank.
* * * * *
    17. Section 23.1001(b)(2) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 23.1001  Fuel jettisoning system.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) A climb, at the speed at which the one-engine-inoperative 
enroute climb data have been established in accordance with 
Sec. 23.69(b), with the critical engine inoperative and the remaining 
engines at maximum continuous power; and
* * * * *


Sec. 23.1013  [Amended]

    18. Section 13.1013(d)(1) is amended by removing the word 
``crankcase''.


Sec. 23.1041  [Amended]

    19. Section 23.1041 is amended by adding the phrase ``and maximum 
ambient atmospheric temperature conditions'' between the phrases 
``maximum altitude'' and ``for which approval''.
    20. Section 23.1043 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c), and 
(d) to read as follows:


Sec. 23.1043  Cooling tests.

    (a) General. Compliance with Sec. 23.1041 must be shown on the 
basis of tests, for which the following apply:
    (1) If the tests are conducted under ambient atmospheric 
temperature conditions deviating from the maximum for which approval is 
requested, the recorded powerplant temperatures must be corrected under 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, unless a more rational 
correction method is applicable.
    (2) No corrected temperature determined under paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section may exceed established limits.
    (3) The fuel used during the cooling tests must be of the minimum 
grade approved for the engine.
    (4) For turbocharged engines, each turbocharger must be operated 
through that part of the climb profile for which operation with the 
turbocharger is requested.
    (5) For a reciprocating engine, the mixture settings must be the 
leanest recommended for climb.
* * * * *
    (c) Correction factor (except cylinder barrels). Temperatures of 
engine fluids and powerplant components (except cylinder barrels) for 
which temperature limits are established, must be corrected by adding 
to them the difference between the maximum ambient atmospheric 
temperature for the relevant altitude for which approval has been 
requested and the temperature of the ambient air at the time of the 
first occurrence of the maximum fluid or component temperature recorded 
during the cooling test.
    (d) Correction factor for cylinder barrel temperatures. Cylinder 
barrel temperatures must be corrected by adding to them 0.7 times the 
difference between the maximum ambient atmospheric temperature for the 
relevant altitude for which approval has been requested and the 
temperature of the ambient air at the time of the first occurrence of 
the maximum cylinder barrel temperature recorded during the cooling 
test.
    21. Section 23.1045(a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 23.1045  Cooling test procedures for turbine engine powered 
airplanes.

    (a) Compliance with Sec. 23.1041 must be shown for all phases of 
operation. The airplane must be flown in the configurations, at the 
speeds, and following the procedures recommended in the Airplane Flight 
Manual for the relevant stage of flight, that correspond to the 
applicable performance requirements that are critical to cooling.
* * * * *
    22. Section 23.1047 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 23.1047  Cooling test procedures for reciprocating engine powered 
airplanes.

    Compliance with Sec. 23.1041 must be shown for the climb (or, for 
multiengine airplanes with negative one-engine-inoperative rates of 
climb, the descent) stage of flight. The airplane must be flown in the 
configurations, at the speeds and following the procedures recommended 
in the Airplane Flight Manual, that correspond to the applicable 
performance requirements that are critical to cooling.
    23. Section 23.1091(c)(2) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 23.1091  Air induction system.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) The airplane must be designed to prevent water or slush on the 
runway, taxiway, or other airport operating surfaces from being 
directed into the engine or auxiliary power unit air intake ducts in 
hazardous quantities. The air intake ducts must be located or protected 
so as to minimize the hazard of ingestion of foreign matter during 
takeoff, landing, and taxiing.


Sec. 23.1093  [Amended]

    24. Section 23.1093 is amended by adding the heading 
``Reciprocating engines with Superchargers'' to paragraph (c).
    25. Section 23.1105(a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 23.1105  Induction system screens.

* * * * *
    (a) Each screen must be upstream of the carburetor or fuel 
injection system.
* * * * *
    26. Section 23.1107 introductory text is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 23.1107  Induction system filters.

    If an air filter is used to protect the engine against foreign 
material particles in the induction air supply--
* * * * *
    27. Section 23.1121(g) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 23.1121  General.

* * * * *
    (g) If significant traps exist, each turbine engine and auxiliary 
power unit exhaust system must have drains discharging clear of the 
airplane, in any normal ground and flight attitude, to prevent fuel 
accumulation after the failure of an attempted engine or auxiliary 
power unit start.
* * * * *
    28. Section 23.1141(b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 23.1141  Powerplant controls: general.

* * * * *
    (b) Each flexible control must be shown to be suitable for the 
particular application.
* * * * *
    29. Section 23.1143(f) is amended by revising the introductory text 
to read as follows:


Sec. 23.1143  Engine controls.

* * * * *
    (f) If a power, thrust, or a fuel control (other than a mixture 
control) 

[[Page 5138]]
incorporates a fuel shutoff feature, the control must have a means to 
prevent the inadvertent movement of the control into the off position. 
The means must--
* * * * *
    30. Section 23.1153 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 23.1153  Propeller feathering controls.

    If there are propeller feathering controls installed, it must be 
possible to feather each propeller separately. Each control must have a 
means to prevent inadvertent operation.
    31. Section 23.1181 is amended by adding a new paragraph (b)(3) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 23.1181  Designated fire zones; regions included.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Any complete powerplant compartment in which there is no 
isolation between compressor, accessory, combustor, turbine, and 
tailpipe sections.
* * * * *


Sec. 23.1183  [Amended]

    32. Section 23.1183(a) is amended by removing the word ``approved'' 
in the next to the last sentence, and adding the phrase ``shown to be 
suitable for the particular application'' in its place.
    33. Section 23.1191(b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 23.1191  Firewalls.

* * * * *
    (b) Each firewall or shroud must be constructed so that no 
hazardous quantity of liquid, gas, or flame can pass from the 
compartment created by the firewall or shroud to other parts of the 
airplane.
* * * * *
    34. Section 23.1203(e) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 23.1203  Fire detector system.

* * * * *
    (e) Wiring and other components of each fire detector system in a 
designated fire zone must be at least fire resistant.
* * * * *


Sec. 23.1305  [Amended]

    35. Section 23.1305(b)(3)(ii) is removed and reserved.


Sec. 23.1337  [Amended]

    36. Section 23.1337(b)(1) is amended by removing the reference 
``Sec. 23.959'' and adding the reference ``Sec. 23.959(a)'' in its 
place.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 29, 1996.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-2084 Filed 2-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M