[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26942-26946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12105]



[[Page 26941]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 25



Electrical Cables; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 26942]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2001-9633; Notice No. 01-03]
RIN 2120-AH29


Electrical Cables

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend the 
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes concerning 
electrical cables. This proposal would harmonize part 25 and JAR-25 
requirements concerning cable installations and clarify the cable 
design requirements ensuring that the designer considers the critical 
conditions, routings, and markings of a proper installation. Adopting 
this proposal would eliminate regulatory differences between the 
airworthiness standards of the U.S. and the Joint Aviation Requirements 
of Europe, without affecting current industry design practices.

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

ADDRESSES: Address your comments to Dockets Management System, U.S. 
Department of Transportation Dockets, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket 
number FAA-2001-9633 at the beginning of your comments, and you should 
submit two copies of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation 
that the FAA has received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: 
``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2001-9633.'' We will date-stamp the 
postcard and mail it back to you.
    You also may submit comments electronically to the following 
Internet address: http://dms.dot.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing comments to this 
proposed regulation at the Department of Transportation (DOT) Dockets 
Office, located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the above 
address. You may review the public docket in person at this address 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. Also, you may review the public dockets on the Internet at 
http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Slotte, FAA, Airplane and 
Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-
4056; telephone 425-227-2315 facsimile 425-227-1320, e-mail 
[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 may download an electronic copy of this document using a modem 
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section 
of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-
3339); the Government Printing Office (GPO)'s electronic bulletin board 
service (telephone: 202-512-1661); or, if applicable, the FAA's 
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee bulletin board service 
(telephone: 800-322-2722 or 202-267-5948).
    Internet users may access recently published rulemaking documents 
at the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or 
the GPO's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
    You may obtain a copy of this document by submitting a request to 
the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or by calling 202-267-
9680. Communications must identify the docket number of this NPRM.
    Any person interested in being placed on the mailing list for 
future rulemaking documents should request from the above office a copy 
of Advisory Circular 11-2A, ``Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
Distribution System,'' which describes the application procedure.

Background

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Standards in the United States?

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

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Standards in Europe?

    In Europe, the airworthiness standards for type certification of 
transport category airplanes are contained in Joint Aviation 
Requirements (JAR)-25, which are based on part 25. These were developed 
by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe to provide a common 
set of airworthiness standards within the European aviation community. 
Twenty-three European countries accept airplanes type certificated to 
the JAR-25 standards, including airplanes manufactured in the U.S. that 
are type certificated to JAR-25 standards for export to Europe.

What Is ``Harmonization'' and How Did It Start?

    Although part 25 and JAR-25 are very similar, they are not 
identical in every respect. When airplanes are type certificated to 
both sets of standards, the differences between part 25 and JAR-25 can 
result in substantial additional costs to manufacturers and operators. 
These additional costs, however, frequently do not bring about an 
increase in safety. In many cases, part 25 and JAR-25 may contain 
different requirements to accomplish the same safety intent. 
Consequently, manufacturers are usually burdened with meeting the 
requirements of both sets of standards, although the level of safety is 
not increased correspondingly.

[[Page 26943]]

    Recognizing that a common set of standards would not only benefit 
the aviation industry economically, but also maintain the necessary 
high level of safety, the FAA and the JAA began an effort in 1988 to 
``harmonize'' their respective aviation standards. The goal of the 
harmonization effort is to ensure that:
     Where possible, standards do not require domestic and 
foreign parties to manufacture or operate to different standards for 
each country involved; and
     The standards adopted are mutually acceptable to the FAA 
and the foreign aviation authorities.
    The FAA and JAA have identified a number of significant regulatory 
differences (SRD) between the wording of part 25 and JAR-25. Both the 
FAA and the JAA consider ``harmonization'' of the two sets of standards 
a high priority.

What Is ARAC and What Role Does It Play in Harmonization?

    After initiating the first steps towards harmonization, the FAA and 
JAA soon realized that traditional methods of rulemaking and 
accommodating different administrative procedures was neither 
sufficient nor adequate to make appreciable progress towards fulfilling 
the goal of harmonization. The FAA then identified the Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) as an ideal vehicle for assisting 
in resolving harmonization issues, and, in 1992, the FAA tasked ARAC to 
undertake the entire harmonization effort.
    The FAA had formally established ARAC in 1991 (56 FR 2190, January 
22, 1991), to provide advice and recommendations concerning the full 
range of the FAA's safety-related rulemaking activity. The FAA sought 
this advice to develop better rules in less overall time and using 
fewer FAA resources than previously needed. The committee provides the 
FAA firsthand information and insight from interested parties regarding 
potential new rules or revisions of existing rules.
    There are 64 member organizations on the committee, representing a 
wide range of interests within the aviation community. Meetings of the 
committee are open to the public, except as authorized by section 10(d) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    The ARAC establishes working groups to develop recommendations for 
resolving specific airworthiness issues. Tasks assigned to working 
groups are published in the Federal Register. Although working group 
meetings are not generally open to the public, the FAA solicits 
participation in working groups from interested members of the public 
who possess knowledge or experience in the task areas. Working groups 
report directly to the ARAC, and the ARAC must accept a working group 
proposal before ARAC presents the proposal to the FAA as an advisory 
committee recommendation.
    The activities of the ARAC will not, however, circumvent the public 
rulemaking procedures; nor is the FAA limited to the rule language 
``recommended'' by ARAC. If the FAA accepts an ARAC recommendation, the 
agency proceeds with the normal public rulemaking procedures. Any ARAC 
participation in a rulemaking package is fully disclosed in the public 
docket.

What Is the Status of the Harmonization Effort Today?

    Despite the work that ARAC has undertaken to address harmonization, 
there remain a large number of regulatory differences between part 25 
and JAR-25. The current harmonization process is extremely costly and 
time-consuming for industry, the FAA, and the JAA. Industry has 
expressed a strong desire to conclude the harmonization program as 
quickly as possible to alleviate the drain on their resources and to 
finally establish one acceptable set of standards.
    Recently, representatives of the aviation industry (including 
Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. (AIA), General 
Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and European Association of 
Aerospace Industries (AECMA)) proposed an accelerated process to reach 
harmonization.

What Is the ``Fast Track Harmonization Program''?

    In light of a general agreement among the affected industries and 
authorities to expedite the harmonization program, the FAA and JAA in 
March 1999 agreed upon a method to achieve these goals. This method, 
which the FAA has titled ``The Fast Track Harmonization Program,'' is 
aimed at expediting the rulemaking process for harmonizing not only the 
42 standards that are currently tasked to ARAC for harmonization, but 
approximately 80 additional standards for part 25 airplanes.
    The FAA initiated the Fast Track program on November 26, 1999 (64 
FR 66522). This program involves grouping all of the standards needing 
harmonization into three categories:
    Category 1: Envelope--For these standards, parallel part 25 and 
JAR-25 standards would be compared, and harmonization would be reached 
by accepting the more stringent of the two standards. Thus, the more 
stringent requirement of one standard would be ``enveloped'' into the 
other standard. In some cases, it may be necessary to incorporate parts 
of both the part 25 and JAR standard to achieve the final, more 
stringent standard. (This may necessitate that each authority revises 
its current standard to incorporate more stringent provisions of the 
other.)
    Category 2: Completed or near complete--For these standards, ARAC 
has reached, or has nearly reached, technical agreement or consensus on 
the new wording of the proposed harmonized standards.
    Category 3: Harmonize--For these standards, ARAC is not near 
technical agreement on harmonization, and the parallel part 25 and JAR-
25 standards cannot be ``enveloped'' (as described under Category 1) 
for reasons of safety or unacceptability. A standard developed under 
Category 3 would be mutually acceptable to the FAA and JAA, with a 
consistent means of compliance.
    Further details on the Fast Track Program can be found in the 
tasking statement (64 FR 66522, November 26, 1999) and the first NPRM 
published under this program, Fire Protection Requirements for 
Powerplant Installations on Transport Category Airplanes (65 FR 36978, 
June 12, 2000).
    Under this program, the FAA provides ARAC with an opportunity to 
review, discuss, and comment on the FAA's draft NPRM. In the case of 
this rulemaking, ARAC suggested a number of editorial changes, which 
have been incorporated into this NPRM.

Discussion of the Proposal

How Does This Proposed Regulation Relate to ``Fast Track''?

    This proposed regulation results from the recommendations of ARAC 
submitted under the FAA's Fast Track Harmonization Program. In this 
notice, the FAA proposes to amend Sec. 25.1353, concerning electrical 
cables.

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

    This requirement gives design requirements relating to the proper 
installation of aircraft electrical equipment, controls, wiring, 
cables, and storage batteries. The operation of any one unit or system 
of units must not affect the operations of any other electrical unit or 
system essential to the safe operation of the airplane.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

    The current text of 14 CFR 25.1353 addresses the proper 
installation of

[[Page 26944]]

electrical equipment, controls, wiring, cables, and storage batteries 
to prevent any hazardous effect on the airplane structure or essential 
systems.
    There is no current text for 14 CFR 25.1353(d).
    The current text of JAR-25.1353 contains an additional requirement 
in paragraph (d), which states:

JAR 25.1353 Electrical equipment and installations

    * * * (d) Electrical cables and cable installations must be 
designed and installed as follows:
    (1) The electrical cables used must be compatible with the 
circuit protection devices required by JAR 25.1357, such that a fire 
or smoke hazard cannot be created under temporary or continuous 
fault conditions.
    (2) Means of permanent identification must be provided for 
electrical cables, connectors and terminals.
    (3) Electrical cables must be installed such that the risk of 
mechanical damage and/or damage caused by fluids, vapors, or sources 
of heat, is minimized.

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

    Section 25.1353(a), (b), (c) of part 25 does not address the 
aircraft installation design requirements of electrical cables. JAR 
25.1353(d), however, provides very explicit aircraft installation 
design requirements for electrical cables.

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

    Part 25 does not have a specific requirement for installation 
design requirements for electrical cables. However, installation 
designs approved under part 25 typically meet the JAR requirement. The 
JAR states specific requirements for cable installations that must be 
met. Installation designers, through experience, have adopted the 
practice of permanent identification, protection, and installation 
routing to minimize the risk of damage to electrical cables.

What Is the Proposed Action?

    The proposed action is to revise part 25 by adopting the text of 
JAR-25.1353(d) in its entirety. The proposed revision would specify a 
design action to be taken, and remove the possibility that a designer 
may not consider a critical installation design condition. It is in 
line with current best design practices.

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    The new Sec. 25.1353(d) would clarify the cable design 
requirements, in the same manner as the current JAR, by ensuring that 
the designer considers the critical conditions, routings, and markings 
of a proper installation.

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

    The proposed standard is more stringent in that it adds a 
requirement that is not currently in Sec. 25.1353. However, current 
industry practice is to comply with both standards.

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

    The proposed standard would maintain the same level of safety since 
current industry practice is to comply with both standards.

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

    The FAA has not considered another option. The FAA considers the 
adoption of JAR 25.1353(d) in its entirety the most appropriate way to 
maintain the level of safety.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Change?

    The proposed standard is in line with current design practices and 
the effect of the change is considered to be minimal for aircraft 
operators, modification centers, service centers, and manufacturers.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    There is no advisory material for either part 25 or the JAR. The 
FAA considers developing new advisory material to be unnecessary.

What Regulatory Analyses and Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Regulatory Evaluation Summary
    Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several 
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each 
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its 
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies 
to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. Secs. 2531-2533) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, this Trade Act also requires the consideration of 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
of U.S. standards. And fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation).
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
proposal has benefits, but no substantial costs, and that it is not ``a 
significant regulatory action'' as defined in Executive Order 12866, 
nor ``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures. Further, this proposed rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, would reduce 
barriers to international trade, and would not impose an Unfunded 
Mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private 
sector.
    The DOT Order 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for 
simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If it is 
determined that the expected impact is so minimal that the proposed 
rule does not warrant a full evaluation, a statement to that effect and 
the basis for it is included in the proposed regulation. Accordingly, 
the FAA has determined that the expected impact of this proposed rule 
is so minimal that the proposed rule does not warrant a full 
evaluation. The FAA provides the basis for this minimal impact 
determination below.
    Currently, airplane manufacturers must satisfy both part 25 and the 
European JAR-25 standards to certificate transport category aircraft in 
both the United States and Europe. Meeting two sets of certification 
requirements raises the cost of developing a new transport category 
airplane often with no increase in safety. In the interest of fostering 
international trade, lowering the cost of aircraft development, and 
making the certification process more efficient, the FAA, JAA, and 
aircraft manufacturers have been working to create, to the maximum 
possible extent, a single set of certification requirements accepted in 
both the United States and Europe. As explained in detail previously, 
these efforts are referred to as ``harmonization.''
    This proposal would harmonize Sec. 25.1353 to the JAR by adopting 
JAR 25.1353(d) in its entirety. The JAR requirement states specific 
requirements for cable installations. This section clarifies the cable 
design requirements

[[Page 26945]]

ensuring that the designer considers the critical conditions, routings, 
and markings of proper installations.
    Industry practice is to use the JAR requirements for installation, 
and therefore, the addition of this language to part 25 will not add a 
burden to the manufacturers. Aircraft manufacturers currently use 
several approved standards or specifications to ensure that design and 
installation of electrical cables are in compliance with the JAR 
standards.
    Standards used by the manufacturing industry, for example, are 
based on MIL-W-5088L or SAE ARP 5088 and FAA guidance material which 
includes AC 25-16 and AC 43.13-1B. These standards provide guidance for 
the design process from wire specification through the installation of 
wiring and wiring devices used in airplanes. (Wiring within that 
specification is defined as wires, cables, groups, harnesses and 
bundles, and their terminations, associated hardware, and support 
installed on aircraft.)
    It is standard industry practice for aircraft and wiring 
manufacturers to test electrical cables before installation and the 
aircraft manufacturer also tests the electrical cables upon 
installation. Manufacturers are also using the JAR and Sec. 25.1357 as 
a means of ensuring that the electrical cables and wiring used are 
compatible with the circuit protection devices required by that 
regulation to prevent a fire or smoke hazard created under temporary or 
continuous fault conditions.
    The FAA has concluded that, for the reasons previously discussed in 
the preamble, the adoption of these JAR requirements into 14 CFR part 
25 is the most efficient way to harmonize these sections. Additionally, 
adopting this proposal would neither reduce nor increase the 
requirements beyond those that exist in the current FAA published 
regulations.
    Thus, the FAA expects that there would be no additional costs to 
part 25 manufacturers, and the level of safety would be maintained. The 
FAA requests comments to the contrary, identifying additional testing, 
time, procedures, paperwork and cost estimates.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, 50 U.S.C. 601-612, as 
amended, establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that 
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and 
of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational 
requirements to the sale of the business, organizations, and 
governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.'' To achieve that 
principle, the RFA requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible 
regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. If the determination is that the rule will, the Agency 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the 
head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis 
is not required. The certification must include a statement providing 
the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    The FAA considers that this proposed rule would not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for two 
reasons:
    First, the net effect of the proposed rule is minimum regulatory 
cost relief. The proposed rule would require that new transport 
category aircraft manufacturers meet just the ``more stringent'' 
European certification requirement, rather than both the United States 
and European standards. Airplane manufacturers already meet or expect 
to meet this standard as well as the existing 14 CFR part 25 
requirement.
    Second, all U.S. transport-aircraft category manufacturers exceed 
the Small Business Administration 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.

International Trade Impact Assessment

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
codified in 2 U.S.C. 1532-1538, enacted as Public Law 104-4 on March 
22, 1995, requires each Federal agency, to the extent permitted by law, 
to prepare a written assessment of the effects of any Federal mandate 
in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in the expenditure 
by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule does not contain a 
Federal intergovernmental or private sector mandate that exceeds $100 
million in any year; therefore, the requirements of the Act do not 
apply.

What Other Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule and the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The FAA has determined 
that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, on the relationship between the national Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Therefore, the FAA has determined that 
this notice of proposed rulemaking would not have federalism 
implications.
Paperwork Reduction Act
    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), the FAA has determined there are no requirements for 
information

[[Page 26946]]

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

    1. The authority citation for Part 25 continues to read as follows:

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

    2. Amend Sec. 25.1353 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec. 25.1353  Electrical equipment and installations.

* * * * *
    (d) Electrical cables and cable installations must be designed and 
installed as follows:
    (1) The electrical cables used must be compatible with the circuit 
protection devices required by Sec. 25.1357 such that a fire or smoke 
hazard cannot be created under temporary or continuous fault 
conditions.
    (2) Means of permanent identification must be provided for 
electrical cables, connectors and terminals.
    (3) Electrical cables must be installed such that the risk of 
mechanical damage and/or damage caused by fluids, vapors, or sources of 
heat, is minimized.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 3, 2001.
Lirio Liu Nelson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 01-12105 Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U