[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 19, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79706-79710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-32320]



[[Page 79705]]

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

Part VII





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 25



Fire Protection Requirements for Powerplant Installations on Transport 
Category; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 19, 2000 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 79706]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No.: FAA-2000-7471; Amendment No. 25-101]
RIN 2120-AG94


Fire Protection Requirements for Powerplant Installations on 
Transport Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration amends the airworthiness 
standards for transport category airplanes to establish a new 
requirement for fire protection of powerplant installations. This 
amendment requires that components within a designated fire zone must 
be fireproof if, when exposed to or damaged by fire, they could pose a 
hazard to the airplane. Issuing this amendment eliminates regulatory 
differences between the airworthiness standards of the U.S. and the 
Joint Aviation Requirements of Europe, without affecting current 
industry design practices.

DATES: Effective January 18, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. McRae, Propulsion/
Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 
Lind Avenue S.W., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-
2133; facsimile (425) 227-1320; e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    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 for the item 
you wish to view.
    You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through 
FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm.htm or the Federal 
Register's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/ su_docs/ aces/
aces140.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending 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 amendment number or docket number of this 
rulemaking.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a question regarding 
this document may contact their local FAA official, or the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more 
about SBRFA on the Internet at our site, http://www.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm. For more information on SBREFA, e-mail us at [email protected].

Background

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Standards in the United States?

    In the United States, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
part 25 contains the airworthiness standards for type certification of 
transport category airplanes. Manufactures 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, Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR)-25 contains the 
airworthiness standards for type certification of transport category 
airplanes. The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe developed 
these standards, which are based on part 25, 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 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 added costs to manufacturers and operators. These added 
costs, however, often do not bring about an increase in safety. In many 
cases, part 25 and JAR-25 may contain different requirements to 
accomplish the same safety intent. Consequently, manufacturers are 
usually burdened with meeting the requirements of both sets of 
standards, although the level of safety is not increased 
correspondingly.
    Recognizing that a common set of standards would not only benefit 
the aviation industry economically, but also preserve 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 many 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 beginning the first steps towards harmonization, the FAA and 
JAA soon realized that traditional methods of rulemaking and 
accommodating different administration procedures was neither 
sufficient nor adequate to make noticeable progress towards fulfilling 
the goal of harmonization. The FAA then identified the Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) as an ideal vehicle for helping to 
resolve 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 on 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

[[Page 79707]]

previously needed. The committee provides the FAA firsthand information 
and insight from interested parties on 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 authorization by section 
10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    The ARAC sets up 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 invites 
participation in working groups from interested members of the public 
who have 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 continues with the normal public rulemaking procedures. Any 
ARAC participation in a rule making 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 many regulatory differences between part 25 and JAR-25. 
The current harmonization process is costly and time-consuming for 
industry, the FAA, and the JAA. Industry has expressed a strong desire 
to finish the harmonization program as quickly as possible to relieve 
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 speed up the harmonization program, the FAA and JAA in 
March 1999 agreed on a method to achieve these goals. This method, 
titled ``The Fast Track Harmonization Program,'' seeks to speed up the 
rulemaking process for harmonizing not only the 42 standards that are 
currently tasked to ARAC for harmonization, but nearly 80 additional 
standards for part 25 airplanes.
    The FAA launched the Fast Track program on November 26, 1999 (64 FR 
66522). This program involves grouping all 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. Occasionally, it may be necessary to incorporate parts 
of both the part 25 and JAR standard to achieve the final, more 
stringent standard. (This may call for each authority revising 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 for 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 preamble to 
the notice for this amendment (65 FR 36978, June 12, 2000).

How Does This Amendment Relate to ``Fast Track''?

    This amendment results from recommendations that ARAC submitted to 
the FAA under the FAA's Fast Track Harmonization Program. This 
rulemaking project has been identified as a Category 2 item.

What Did the FAA Propose?

    On June 1, 2000 (65 FR 36983, June 12, 2000), the FAA proposed to 
revise Sec. 25.1183 to include an extra paragraph that currently 
appears in the parallel JAR 25.1183 as paragraph (c). That paragraph 
states:
    ``(c) components, including ducts, within a designated fire zone 
must be fireproof if, when exposed to or damaged by fire, they could--
    (1) Result in fire spreading to other regions of the airplane; or
    (2) Cause unintentional operation of, or inability to operate, 
essential services or equipment.''
    The FAA considers adding this paragraph to part 25 necessary to:
     Harmonize the text of part 25 with the JAR on this 
particular issue,
     Clarify the intent of the part 25 regulation, and
     Provide extra assurance that all ``components'' that need 
to be fireproof will be identified and qualified during certification.
    Adding Sec. 25.1183(c) in part 25 aligns the U.S. regulations with 
their European counterparts, and the words of both airworthiness 
standards will be exactly parallel. Adoption of this amendment benefits 
the public interest by standardizing the requirements, concepts, and 
procedures contained in the U.S. and European airworthiness standards 
without reducing the current level of safety.

What Is the Effect of This New Requirement on Other Current 
Regulations?

    The FAA recognizes that this added requirement might seem redundant 
to other existing part 25 sections, including:
    1. Section 25.1181 (``Designated fire zones; regions included''): 
This section identifies which areas of the powerplant installation are 
``fire zones,'' including the engine power section, the engine 
accessory section, and the auxiliary power unit (APU) compartment. It 
also requires that each of these fire zones meet the fire protection 
requirements of:
     Sec. 25.867 (pertaining to components of the nacelles); 
and
     Sec. 25.1185 through Sec. 25.1203 (pertaining to flammable 
fluids, drainage and ventilation of fire zones, means of fuel shutoff, 
fire extinguishing systems and agents, fire detection systems, etc.).
    2. Section 25.1191 (``Firewalls''): This section requires that each 
engine, APU, fuel-burning heater, and other components and areas of the 
(turbine) engine be isolated from the rest of the airplane by firewalls 
or other equivalent means. It also requires that each firewall be:
     Fireproof,
     Leakproof (so no hazardous quantity of air, fluid, or 
flame can pass from the compartment),
     Sealed (so all openings are sealed with close fitting 
fireproof fasteners), and

[[Page 79708]]

     Protected against corrosion.
    3. Section 25.901(c) (``Powerplant, General--Installation''): This 
section requires that each powerplant and APU installation be designed 
so no single failure, malfunction, or combination of failures will 
jeopardize the safe operation of the airplane. (It also specifies that 
the failure of structural elements need not be considered if the 
applicant determines the probability of such failure to be extremely 
remote.)
    While these regulations may seem redundant in effect to the new 
paragraph 25.1183(c), the FAA considers it valuable to clarify the 
objective of these rules by adding the new paragraph.
    Further, the only difference between these current sections and the 
new Sec. 25.1183(c) is that the new paragraph addresses fire protection 
specifically at the ``component level,'' while the other requirements 
address fire protection at the ``zone level'' and the ``installation 
level.''
    To meet the ``zone level'' or ``installation level'' objectives 
currently within part 25, the components of the installation must be 
sufficiently fireproof to comply with Sec. 25.1183(c). Therefore, the 
FAA considers that the ``component level'' requirement is met 
inherently by meeting:
     The more general ``zone level'' requirements of 
Sec. 25.1181 and Sec. 25.1191, and
     The ``installation level'' requirements of Sec. 25.901(c).
    In other words, the requirements of Sec. 25.1183(c) essentially are 
met already when an applicant properly shows compliance with 
Sec. 25.1181, Sec. 25.1191, Sec. 25.901(c), and other part 25 [subpart 
E (``Powerplant'')] regulations.

What Is the Effect of the Amendment on Current Industry Practice?

    The amendment neither adds any new or different objective to the 
current regulations, nor changes the way that any current certification 
practice is applied. Instead, the new added paragraph clarifies and 
codifies the way the FAA traditionally has applied the related rules. 
Specifying the fire protection requirement at all three levels--zone, 
installation, and component--in the regulations will help to ensure 
that, by looking at the same problem in many ways, an applicant will 
not overlook anything during design development and certification.

What Other Options Were Considered and Why Were They Not Selected?

    The FAA has not considered another alternative. Revising part 25 to 
include the new paragraph eliminates an identified Significant 
Regulatory Difference (SRD) between the wording of part 25 and JAR-25, 
without affecting currently accepted industry design practices. The 
benefits of eliminating an SRD such as this are:
     More consistent interpretations of the rules can be 
expected,
     Harmonization goals are fulfilled, and
     The relations between regulatory authorities may be 
improved.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    There currently is no formal advisory material specifically about 
Sec. 25.1183. FAA Advisory Circular 20-135, ``Powerplant Installation 
and Propulsion System Component Fire Protection Test Methods, 
Standards, and Criteria,'' does reference Sec. 25.1183 in some of its 
guidance. At this time, however, the FAA does not consider that further 
guidance material is needed.

What Comments Were Received in Response to the Proposal?

    The FAA received four comments in response to the proposal. All of 
the commenters support the proposal.
    One of these commenters also requests that the FAA change proposed 
paragraph 25.1183(c)(1) to clarify the phrase ``other regions of the 
airplane.'' The proposed text states that components must be fireproof 
if, when exposed to fire, they could result in fire spreading to 
``other regions of the airplane.'' The commenter does not consider that 
this wording clearly means ``other regions beyond the designated fire 
zone,'' not merely to other regions within the fire zone.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter's interpretation of the intent of 
the rule; however, we do not agree that a change to the rule text is 
necessary. The proposed text of the rule is identical to that of the 
current JAR 25.1183(c), and we are not unaware of any confusion that 
there has been on this issue with regard to JAR 25.1183(c). Therefore, 
to attain harmonization, the rule is adopted as proposed.

What Regulatory Analyses and Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, directs the 
FAA to assess both the costs and benefits of a regulatory change. We 
are not allowed to propose or adopt a regulation unless we make a 
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. Our assessment of this amendment indicates that its 
economic impact is minimal. Since its costs and benefits do not make it 
a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Order, we have 
not prepared a ``regulatory impact analysis.'' Similarly, we have not 
prepared a ``regulatory evaluation,'' which is the written cost/benefit 
analysis ordinarily required for all rulemaking proposals under the DOT 
Regulatory and Policies and Procedures. We do not need to do the latter 
analysis where the economic impact of a proposal is minimal.

Economic Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact 
Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal agency to 
propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that 
the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the 
economic impact of regulatory changes or 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 agencies to consider international standards and, 
where appropriate, use them as the basis of U.S. standards. And fourth, 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a 
written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed 
or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the 
expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate or 
by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for 
inflation.)
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this rule:
    1. Has benefits that do justify its costs, is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order, and is not 
``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures;
    2. Will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities;
    3. Reduces barriers to international trade; and
    4. Does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal 
governments, or on the private sector.
    The (DOT) Order 2100.5, ``Regulatory Policies and Procedures,'' 
prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and 
review of

[[Page 79709]]

regulations. If it is determined that the expected impact is so minimal 
that the rule does not warrant a full evaluation, a statement to that 
effect and the basis for it is included in the regulation. We provide 
the basis for this minimal impact determination below. We received no 
comments that conflicted with the economic assessment of minimal impact 
published in the notice of proposed rulemaking for this action. Given 
the reasons presented below, and the fact that no comments were 
received to the contrary, we have determined that the expected impact 
of this rule is so minimal that the final rule does not warrant a full 
evaluation.
    Currently, airplane manufacturers must satisfy both the 14 CFR and 
the European JAR 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 discussed previously, these 
efforts are referred to as harmonization. This final rule results from 
the FAA's acceptance of an ARAC harmonization working group's 
recommendation. Members of the ARAC working group agreed that the 
requirements of this rule will not impose additional costs to U.S. 
manufacturers of part 25 aircraft.
    Specifically, this rule adds JAR 25.1183(c) to 14 CFR Sec. 25.1183. 
As discussed above, we have concluded that the only difference between 
the previously existing sections and new Sec. 25.1183(c) added by this 
amendment is that the new paragraph will address fire protection 
specifically at the ``component level,'' whereas the existing 
requirements address fire protection at the ``zone level'' or the 
``installation level.'' We have determined that the ``component level'' 
requirement is met inherently by meeting the more general, current 
``zone level'' requirements. We consider that this rule will neither 
reduce nor increase the requirements beyond those that are already met 
by U.S. manufacturers to satisfy European airworthiness standards.
    As this rule neither increases nor decreases certification 
requirements beyond those already in existence, we have determined 
there will be no cost associated with this rule to part 25 
manufacturers. We have not tried to quantify the benefits of this 
amendment beyond identifying the expected harmonization benefit. This 
amendment eliminates an identified significant regulatory difference 
(SRD) between the wording of part 25 and JAR-25. The elimination of the 
SRD will provide for a more consistent interpretation of the rules and, 
thus, is an element of the potentially large cost savings of 
harmonization.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-512, 
directs the FAA to fit regulatory requirements to the scale of the 
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the 
regulation. We are required to determine whether a proposed or final 
action will have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities'' as defined in the Act.
    If we find that the action will have a significant impact, we must 
do a ``regulatory flexibility analysis.'' However, if we find that the 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, we are not required to do the analysis. In 
this case, the Act requires that we include a statement that provides 
the factual basis for our determination.
    We have determined that this amendment will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for two 
reasons:
    First, the net effect of the proposed rule is minimum regulatory 
cost relief. The amendment requires that new transport category 
aircraft manufacturers meet just the ``more stringent'' European 
certification requirement, rather than both the United States and 
European standards. Airplane manufacturers already meet or expect to 
meet this standard, as well as the existing part 25 requirement.
    Second, all United States manufacturers of transport category 
airplanes exceed the Small Business Administration small entity 
criteria of 1,500 employees for aircraft manufacturers. Those U.S. 
manufacturers include:
     The Boeing Company,
     Cessna Aircraft Company,
     Gulfstream Aerospace,
     Learjet (owned by Bombardier Aerospace),
     Lockheed Martin Corporation,
     McDonnell Douglas (a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Boeing 
Company
     Raytheon Aircraft, and
     Sabreliner Corporation.
    No comments were received that differed with the assessment given 
in this section. Since this final rule is minimally cost-relieving and 
there are no small entity manufacturers of part 25 airplanes, the FAA 
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards. In addition, consistent with the Administration's belief in 
the general superiority and desirability of free trade, it is the 
policy of the Administration to remove or diminish to the extent 
feasible, barriers to international trade, including both barriers 
affecting the export of American goods and services to foreign 
countries and barriers affecting the import of foreign goods and 
services into the United States.
    In accordance with that statute and policy, we have assessed the 
potential effect of this final rule and have determined that it 
supports the Administration's free trade policy because the rule will 
use European international standards as the basis for U.S. standards.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as 
Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995, is intended, among other things, to 
curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, 
local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each 
Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of 
any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result 
in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted yearly for inflation) 
in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is considered to be 
a ``significant regulatory action.''
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the 
requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do 
not apply.

[[Page 79710]]

What Other Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Executive Order 3132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this 
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the 
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Therefore, we determined that this final rule does not have 
federalism implications.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)], the FAA has determined there are no new requirements for 
information collection associated with this amendment.

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. We determined 
there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond 
to these regulations.

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 rulemaking action qualifies for a 
categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

    The FAA has assessed the energy impact of this final rule 
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), Public 
Law 94-163, as amended (43 U.S.C. 6362), and FAA Order 1053.1 We have 
determined that the amendment 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 final 
rule would apply to the certification of future designs of transport 
category airplanes and their subsequent operation, it could affect 
intrastate aviation in Alaska.

Plain Language

    In response to the June 1, 1998, Presidential memorandum regarding 
the use 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, Safety, Transportation.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends part 25 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 
as follows:

The Amendment

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. 25.1183 by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 25.1183  Flammable fluid-carrying components.

* * * * *
    (c) All components, including ducts, within a designated fire zone 
must be fireproof if, when exposed to or damaged by fire, they could--
    (1) Result in fire spreading to other regions of the airplane; or
    (2) Cause unintentional operation of, or inability to operate, 
essential services or equipment.

    Issued in Washington DC on December 13, 2000.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-32320 Filed 12-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M