[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26964-26969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12100]



[[Page 26963]]

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

Part VI





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 25



Fire Protection of Electrical System Components on Transport Category 
Airplanes; Proposed Rule



Proposed Advisory Circular 25.869-1X, Electrical System Fire and Smoke 
Protection; Notice

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

[[Page 26964]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2001-9637; Notice No. 01-06]
RIN 2120-AG92


Fire Protection of Electrical System Components 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 the 
protection of electrical system components. Adopting this proposal 
would eliminate regulatory differences between the airworthiness 
standards of the U.S. and the Joint Aviation Requirements of Europe, 
without affecting current industry design practices.

DATES: Send your comments on or before July 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Address your comments to Dockets Management System, U.S. 
Department of Transportation Dockets, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket 
number, FAA-2001-9637, at the beginning of your comments, and you 
should submit two copies of your comments. If you wish to receive 
confirmation that the FAA has received your comments, please include a 
self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is 
made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2001-9637.'' 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: Massoud Sadeghi, FAA, Airplane and 
Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-
4056; telephone 425-227-2117; 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 Federal Register'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.

Background

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Standards in the United States?

    In the United States, the airworthiness standards for type 
certification of transport category airplanes are contained in Title 
14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 25. Manufacturers of 
transport category airplanes must show that each airplane they produce 
of a different type design complies with the appropriate part 25 
standards. These standards apply to:
     Airplanes manufactured within the U.S. for use by U.S.-
registered operators, and
     Airplanes manufactured in other countries and imported to 
the U.S. under a bilateral airworthiness agreement.

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Standards in Europe?

    In Europe, the airworthiness standards for type certification of 
transport category airplanes are contained in Joint Aviation 
Requirements (JAR)-25, which are based on part 25. These were developed 
by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe to provide a common 
set of airworthiness standards within the European aviation community. 
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 added costs to manufacturers and operators. These 
additional 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

[[Page 26965]]

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 words 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 did not choose to review the draft NPRM prior to 
its publication.

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. 25.869, concerning fire protection 
of electrical systems on transport category airplanes. This project has 
been identified as a Category 1 project under the Fast Track program.

What Is the Underlying Safety Issue Addressed by the Current Standards?

    Section 25.869(a) of 14 CFR, and the parallel European standard 
JAR-25.869(a), address the design standards for protecting the 
components of electrical systems from fire. The standards provide 
specific standards that must be met, depending on the location of the 
components and the type of power cables.

[[Page 26966]]

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

    The current text of 14 CFR 25.869(a) (amendment 25-72, 55 FR 29784, 
July 20, 1990) is:

    (a) Electrical system components:
    (1) Components of the electrical system must meet the applicable 
fire and smoke protection requirements of Secs. 25.831(c) and 
25.863.
    (2) Electrical cables, terminals, and equipment in designated 
fire zones, that are used during emergency procedures, must be at 
least fire resistant.
    (3) Main power cables (including generator cables) in the 
fuselage must be designed to allow a reasonable degree of 
deformation and stretching without failure and must be--
    (i) Isolated from flammable fluid lines; or
    (ii) Shrouded by means of electrically insulated, flexible 
conduit, or equivalent, which is in addition to the normal cable 
insulation.
    (4) Insulation on electrical wire and electrical cable installed 
in any area of the fuselage must be self-extinguishing when tested 
in accordance with the applicable portions of part I, appendix F of 
this part.

    The current text of JAR-25.869(a) (Change 14, Orange Paper 96/1) 
is:

    (a) Electrical system components:
    (1) Components of the electrical system must meet the applicable 
fire and smoke protection requirements of JAR 25.831(c) and JAR 
25.863. (See ACJ 25.869 (a)(1).)
    (2) Electrical cables, terminals, and equipment in designated 
fire zones, that are used during emergency procedures, must be at 
least fire resistant.
    (3) Main power cables (including generator cables) in the 
fuselage must be designed to allow a reasonable degree of 
deformation and stretching without failure and must be--
    (i) Isolated from flammable fluid lines; or
    (ii) Shrouded by means of electrically insulated, flexible 
conduit, or equivalent, which is in addition to the normal cable 
insulation.
    (4) Insulation on electrical wire and electrical cable installed 
in any area of the aeroplane must be self-extinguishing when tested 
in accordance with the applicable portions of Part I, Appendix F.

What Are the Differences in the Standards and What Do Those Differences 
Result In?

    The current text of Sec. 25.869(a)(4) states that insulation on 
electrical wire and cables installed in any part of the fuselage must 
be self-extinguishing. The parallel JAR-25.869(a)(4) states that 
insulation on electrical wire and cables installed in any part of the 
airplane must be self-extinguishing. Thus, the JAR is considered the 
more stringent of the standards because it requires that the self-
extinguishment standard be applied to electrical systems installed 
throughout the airplane (including engines), not just in the fuselage.
    The technical need and accepted industry practice is that all 
wiring installed in the airframe and engines (i.e., not just the wiring 
in the fuselage), is self-extinguishing.

What, if Any, Are the Differences in the Means of Compliance?

    To meet the JAR standards, and ensure that their airplanes are 
certificated to operate in Europe, U.S. manufacturers have designed the 
means for protecting electrical system components in accordance with 
the JAR requirements. Doing so, meets and surpasses the level of safety 
currently required by Sec. 25.869(a) of 14 CFR.
    As for the means of compliance, the JAA has issued specific 
advisory material related to a means of complying with 25.869(a)(1). 
This material is found in Advisory Circular Joint (ACJ) 25.869, 
``Electrical System Fire and Smoke Protection (Interpretative Material 
and Acceptable Means of Compliance) [See JAR 25.869].'' The document 
provides the following guidance:

    These requirements, and those of JAR 25.863 applicable to 
electrical equipment, may be satisfied by the following:
    1. Electrical components in regions immediately behind firewalls 
and in engine pod attachment structures should be of such materials 
and at such a distance from the firewall that they will not suffer 
damage that could hazard the aeroplane if the surface of the 
firewall adjacent to the fire is heated to 1100  deg.C for 15 
minutes.
    2. Electrical equipment should be so constructed and/or 
installed that in the event of failure, no hazardous quantities of 
toxic or noxious (e.g. smoke) products will be distributed in the 
crew or passenger compartments.
    3. Electrical equipment, which may come into contact with 
flammable vapours should be so designed and installed as to minimise 
the risk of the vapours exploding under both normal and fault 
conditions. This can be satisfied by meeting the Explosion Proofness 
Standards of draft ISO document TC20/SC5/N.43, dated 1974.

    The FAA has no advisory material related to the current standards.

What Is the Proposed Action?

    The FAA proposes to revise Sec. 25.869(a) to adopt the more 
stringent language in the parallel JAR 25.869(a). This proposed 
requirement is in line with current industry practices and in concert 
with the FAA's objectives for the Fast Track Harmonization Program.

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    The proposed action would continue to address the safety issue by 
ensuring the fire protection of electrical system components on 
transport category airplanes.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to the Current 
Regulations?

    The proposed design requirements of revised Sec. 25.869(a) would be 
expanded to apply not only to electrical system components in the 
fuselage, but throughout the airplane (including its engines as well). 
In effect, the proposed standard would maintain the current level of 
safety because U.S. manufacturers are already complying with it.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to Current 
Industry Practice?

    The effect of the proposed standard on industry practices would be 
minimal. In current practice, U.S. manufacturers are required to comply 
with the more stringent JAR requirements if they plan to sell their 
airplanes overseas. Because the proposed standard is currently being 
followed, the same level of safety will be maintained.

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

    One option considered was for the JAA to adopt unilaterally the 
standards of 14 CFR part 25. However, because Sec. 25.869(a) is ``less 
stringent'' than the JAR, this could potentially mean adopting a lower 
level of safety. Additionally, it would not meet the objectives of the 
Fast Track Harmonization Program to harmonize the requirements of part 
25 and the parallel requirements of JAR-25, while maintaining at least 
the same level of safety as in the current regulations.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Change?

    The proposed revised standard would affect U.S. manufacturers of 
transport category airplanes and, possibly, manufacturers of electrical 
systems installed on those airplanes. However, the FAA anticipates that 
the impact to the affected entities would be minimal because, in most 
cases, manufacturers are already complying with the more stringent 
standards as a means of obtaining joint (FAA and JAA) certification of 
their airplanes.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    There is no current FAA advisory material related to the proposed 
standard. However, the FAA has developed a proposed Advisory Circular

[[Page 26967]]

(AC) 25.869-1X, ``Electric System Fire and Smoke Protection.'' It 
contains guidance on this subject, and includes, with some 
modification, the material currently in the JAA's ACJ 25.869, referred 
to previously. The availability of the proposed AC is announced 
elsewhere in this Federal Register.

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.''
    In this NPRM, the FAA proposes to amend its regulations concerning 
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes, as regards 
fire protection of airplane systems.
    U.S. manufacturers of transport category airplanes already comply 
to a large extent with the requirements of JAR 25.869(a) because it is 
substantially identical to Sec. 25.869(a). Of the two minor differences 
between the rules, one is that the JAA rule specifically applies to the 
airplane, while the FAA rule specifically applies to the fuselage. 
Because it is the ongoing common practice of U.S. manufacturers to use 
the same wiring that is specified in terms of materials and 
installation by both Sec. 25.869(a) and JAR 25.869(a) throughout the 
entire airplane, and not only in the fuselage, the first difference 
would have no economic impact on U.S. manufacturers.
    The second minor difference is that advisory material (ACJ 25.869), 
which is specifically referenced in JAR 25.869(a), has no FAA 
counterpart. This harmonization action would include the adoption, with 
modification, of this JAA advisory material into the body of FAA 
advisory material. In their report, the ARAC Working Group set forth 
the text of the proposed advisory material. Toward this evaluation, the 
group provided the information that this new advice would be so 
sufficiently in line with current industry practices that, in following 
it, U.S. manufacturers would encounter no practical change in the 
procedures by which they already comply with the requirements of 
Sec. 25.869(a).
    Finally, because this proposed new material is advisory and not 
regulatory, no cost or benefit resulting from it could be considered 
the economic impact of a proposed regulation.
    The FAA expects that this proposed rule would result in benefits in 
the form of cost savings received by affected manufacturers because 
they would be able to effect compliance with both FAA and JAA 
requirements in a simpler and more direct fashion.
    Compliance with one of these harmonized rules, FAA or JAA, would 
mean compliance with the other. The FAA has not attempted to quantify 
the benefits from cost savings that may accrue because of this proposed 
rule beyond noting that, while any such savings are expected to be 
minimal, they are part of a potentially large savings from the 
harmonization program. The FAA also expects that the existing level of 
safety will be maintained.
    Because the effect of this proposed regulatory change would be to 
codify ongoing common manufacturing practice, no consequent substantive 
change--either in practice or in the cost of compliance--would result. 
Thus, the FAA expects that any additional cost associated with 
compliance with this proposal would be negligible.
    The FAA concludes that, because there is agreement among 
potentially affected airplane manufacturers that the economic impact of 
this proposal would be at most minimal, further analysis is not 
required. The FAA requests that those who believe this action would 
result in a cost increase provide to the Docket their basis for such a 
belief.
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.

[[Page 26968]]

    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the 
head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis 
is not required. The certification must include a statement providing 
the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    The FAA considers that this proposed rule would not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for two 
reasons:
    First, the net effect of the proposed rule is minimum regulatory 
cost relief. The proposed rule would require that new transport 
category aircraft manufacturers meet just 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-aircraft category manufacturers exceed 
the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 
employees for aircraft manufacturers. The current U.S. part 25 airplane 
manufacturers include: Boeing, Cessna Aircraft, Gulfstream Aerospace, 
Learjet (owned by Bombardier), Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas (a 
wholly-owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company), Raytheon Aircraft, and 
Sabreliner Corporation.
    Given that this proposed rule is minimally cost-relieving and that 
there are no small entity manufacturers of part 25 airplanes, the FAA 
certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.
Initial International Trade Impact Assessment
    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards. In addition, consistent with the Administration's belief in 
the general superiority and desirability of free trade, it is the 
policy of the Administration to remove or diminish to the extent 
feasible, barriers to international trade, including both barriers 
affecting the export of American goods and services to foreign 
countries and barriers affecting the import of foreign goods and 
services into the United States.
    In accordance with the above statute and policy, the FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of the proposed rule and has determined 
that it supports the Administration's free trade policy because this 
rule would use European international standards as the basis for U.S. 
standards.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
codified in 2 U.S.C. 1532-1538, enacted as Public Law 104-4 on March 
22, 1995, requires each Federal agency, to the extent permitted by law, 
to prepare a written assessment of the effects of any Federal mandate 
in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in the expenditure 
by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation) in any one year.
    This proposed rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental or 
private sector mandate that exceeds $100 million in any year; 
therefore, the requirements of the Act do not apply.

What Other Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule and the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We have 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, we have determined that this NPRM 
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. We have 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to this proposed regulation.
Environmental Analysis
    FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically 
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. In 
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this 
rulemaking qualifies for a categorical exclusion.
Energy Impact
    The energy impact of the proposed rule has been assessed in 
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and 
Public Law 94-163, as amended (43 U.S.C. 6362), and FAA Order 1053.1. 
It has been determined that it is not a major regulatory action under 
the provisions of the EPCA.
Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in Title 
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to 
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation 
modes other than aviation, and to establish such regulatory 
distinctions as he or she considers appropriate. Because this proposed 
rule would apply to the certification of future designs of transport 
category airplanes and their subsequent operation, it could, if 
adopted, affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. The FAA therefore 
specifically requests comments on whether there is justification for 
applying the proposed rule differently to intrastate operations in 
Alaska.
Plain Language
    In response to the June 1, 1998, Presidential memorandum regarding 
the issue of plain language, the FAA 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.

[[Page 26969]]

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Safety, Transportation.

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 section 25.869 by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 25.869  Fire protection: systems.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Insulation on electrical wire and electrical cable installed in 
any area of the airplane must be self-extinguishing when tested in 
accordance with the applicable portions of part I, appendix F of this 
part.
* * * * *

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 3, 2001.
Lirio Liu Nelson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 01-12100 Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P