[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27582-27588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12196]



[[Page 27581]]

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

Part V





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 25



Electrical Installation, Nickel Cadmium Battery Installation, and 
Nickel Cadmium Battery Storage; Proposed Rule



Advisory Circular, Electrical Equipment and Installation; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 27582]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2001-9634; Notice No. 01-04]
RIN 2120-AH27


Electrical Installation, Nickel Cadmium Battery Installation, and 
Nickel Cadmium Battery Storage

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 equipment and nickel cadmium battery installations, and 
nickel cadmium battery storage. 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-2001-9634 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-2001-9634''. 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 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 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, 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.
    Recognizing that a common set of standards would not only benefit 
the

[[Page 27583]]

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 three sections concerning transport 
category airplane electrical equipment and nickel cadmium batteries. 
The three proposed changes are described separately below.

Proposal 1: Section 25.1353(a), ``Electrical Equipment 
Installation''

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

    Section 25.1353 and JAR 25.1353 require that transport category 
airplanes install electrical equipment, controls, and wiring in a 
manner that will not adversely affect the simultaneous operations of 
any other electrical unit or

[[Page 27584]]

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(a) is:

Section 25.1353  Electrical equipment and installations

    (a) Electrical equipment, controls, and wiring must be installed 
so that operation of any one unit or system of units will not 
adversely affect the simultaneous operation of any other electrical 
unit or system essential to the safe operation.
     The current text of JAR-25.1353(a) is:

JAR 25.1353  Electrical equipment and installations

    (a) Electrical equipment, controls, and wiring must be installed 
so that operations of any one unit or system of units will not 
adversely affect the simultaneous operation of any other electrical 
unit or system essential to the safe operation. Any electrical 
interference likely to be present in the aeroplane must not result 
in hazardous effects upon the aeroplane or its systems except under 
extremely remote conditions. (See ACJ 25.1353(a).)

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

    Both part 25 and JAR texts require that operation of any one unit 
or system will not adversely affect the simultaneous operation of any 
other electrical unit or system essential to safe operation under 
normal operating conditions. The JAR text also considers failure 
effects on the airplane or its systems and is therefore considered to 
be more stringent. JAR 25.1353(a) with its related Advisory Circular 
Joint (ACJ) 25.1353(a) provides a clarification in the intent of the 
requirement.

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

    Part 25 does not give a specific means of compliance for this 
regulation. The JAR standard has a specific ACJ to establish a list of 
possible sources of interference and reference to JAR 25.1309 to be 
considered and used for means of compliance. Although the explicit 
standards are different, there are no differences in the means of 
compliance.

What Is the Proposed Action?

    The proposed action would add both the additional JAR text to part 
25, and also adopt the JAR ACJ material.

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    The proposed standard would continue to address the underlying 
safety issue in the same manner, but would add a requirement to ensure 
that transport category airplanes include failure conditions and 
establish a means of compliance.

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

    The proposed standard would increase the level of safety for 
transport category airplanes by adding the additional JAR text to 
address failure effects in the airplane and its systems. Also, the 
intent of this regulation would be clarified.

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. 
Additionally, the understanding of the intent of this regulation would 
be clarified.

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

    Adoption of the FAA text was considered, however, it was decided to 
adopt the more stringent JAR with the associated ACJ material. The FAA 
considers the proposed action to be the most appropriate way to fulfill 
harmonization goals while maintaining safety and without affecting 
current industry practice.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Change?

    The proposed change would have a minimum effect for aircraft 
operators and manufacturers of transport category airplanes. However, 
since the proposed change does not result in any practical changes in 
requirements or practice, there would not be any significant effect.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    The FAA plans to adopt the JAR advisory material as an acceptable 
means of showing compliance with the proposed revision to 
Sec. 25.1353(a). Public comments concerning the AC material are invited 
by separate notice following this NPRM.

Proposal 2: Section 25.1353(c)(5). ``Nickel Cadmium Battery''

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

    This requirement addresses the design and installation of nickel 
cadmium storage batteries. Part 25 limits this requirement to batteries 
only capable of being used to start an engine or auxiliary power unit.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

     The current text of 14 CFR 25.1353(c)(5) is:

Section 25.1353  Electrical equipment and installations

    * * * (c)(5) Each nickel cadmium battery installation capable of 
being used to start an engine or auxiliary power unit must have 
provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential 
systems that may be caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery 
can generate during a short circuit of the battery or of individual 
cells.

     The current text of JAR-25.1353(c)(5) is:

JAR-25.1353  Electrical equipment and installations

    * * * (c)(5) Each nickel cadmium battery installation must have 
provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential 
systems that may be caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery 
can generate during a short circuit of the battery or of individual 
cells.

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

    Section 25.1353 requires provisions only for the batteries capable 
of being used to start an engine or auxiliary power unit; whereas JAR 
25.1353 requires provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on 
structure or essential systems by all nickel cadmium batteries 
regardless of their capabilities.

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

    Although the explicit standards are different, there are no 
differences in the means of compliance.

What Is the Proposed Action?

    The proposed action would adopt the more stringent JAR standard. 
This would allow for coverage of a greater range of battery sizes and 
capabilities than is currently covered in part 25.

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    The proposed standard would add the additional JAR text to part 25. 
The level of safety would be increased by the new Sec. 25.1353(c)(5) by 
covering all nickel cadmium battery sizes regardless of their 
capabilities.

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

    The proposed standard would increase the level of safety by 
covering the design and installation of all nickel

[[Page 27585]]

cadmium batteries regardless of their sizes and capabilities for 
transport category airplanes.

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

    The proposed standard would maintain the same level of safety for 
aircraft main batteries used for engine or APU starting since this is 
the current industry practice, however, in relation to all other nickel 
cadmium batteries, the level of safety may be increased.

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

    The FAA considers the proposed action to be the most appropriate 
way to fulfill harmonization goals while maintaining safety and without 
affecting current industry practice. The FAA considered deletion of the 
reference to ``nickel cadmium'' batteries so that the rule would apply 
to all battery types. This change was not adopted because it would 
require evaluation of the impact of other types of batteries.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Change?

    The proposed change for main batteries would be in line with 
current design practices, and therefore, the effect would be considered 
minimal. There may be an impact on other nickel cadmium battery 
installations by aircraft operators, manufacturers and modifiers.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

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

Proposal 3: Section 25.1353(c)(6), ``Nickel Cadmium Battery 
Installation''

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

    This requirement is part of Sec. 25.1353(c)(6) and JAR 
25.1353(c)(6) that addresses nickel cadmium battery installations with 
regard to protection against battery overheating.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

     The current text of 14 CFR 25.1353(c)(6) is:

Section 25.1353  Electrical equipment and installations

    * * * (c)(6) Nickel cadmium battery installations capable of 
being used to start an engine or auxiliary power unit must have--
    (i) A system to control the charging rate of the battery 
automatically so as to prevent battery overheating;
    (ii) A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature sensing 
and over-temperature warning system with a means for disconnecting 
the battery from its charging source in the event of an over-
temperature condition; or
    (iii) A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means 
for disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event 
of battery failure.

     The current text of JAR-25.1353(c)(6) is:

JAR-25.1353  Electrical equipment and installations

    (c)(6) Nickel cadmium battery installations that are not 
provided with low-energy charging means must have--
    (i) A system to control the charging rate of the battery 
automatically so as to prevent battery overheating;
    (ii) A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning 
system with a means for disconnecting the battery from its charging 
source in the event of an over-temperature condition; or
    (iii) A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means 
for disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event 
of battery failure. [See ACJ 25.1353(c)(6)(ii) and (iii).)]

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

    The part 25 standard specifies nickel cadmium battery installations 
capable of being used to start an engine or auxiliary power unit. The 
more stringent JAR standard, with its related ACJ 25.1353(c)(6) 
material, provides requirements for all nickel cadmium battery 
installations (not provided with low-energy charging means) in addition 
to those provided for engine or APU starting.

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

    Section 25.1353 requires only nickel cadmium battery installations 
capable of being used to start an engine to show compliance. The JAR 
25.1353 requires all nickel cadmium battery installations (not provided 
with a low energy charging means) to show compliance to the JAR 25.1353 
requirements. The JAR has specific ACJ material to address the 
maintenance requirements of temperature sensing and over-temperature 
warning devices installed to cover the requirements of 25.1353.

What Is the Proposed Action?

    The proposed action would revise Sec. 25.1353(c)(6) to adopt a 
modified, more stringent JAR 25.1353(c)(6) and the associated ACJ. The 
modification to the JAR is to remove the words ``that are not provided 
with low energy charging means.'' The proposed standard would provide 
for greater coverage by including all nickel cadmium battery 
installations, irrespective of whether provided for engine or APU 
starting. Service experience has shown that any battery installation 
can, if not carefully controlled, result in an overheat or fire 
condition. The proposed action is also in line with current design 
practices.

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    The proposed standard would expand the requirement to cover all 
nickel cadmium battery installations addressing the underlying safety 
concern of battery overheat and/or fire.

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

    The proposed revision for part 25 would expand the requirement to 
include all nickel cadmium batteries regardless of their use. The level 
of safety, therefore, would be increased.

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

    The proposed standard would be in line with current industry 
practice for aircraft main batteries used for engine or APU starting, 
however, in relation to all other nickel cadmium batteries the level of 
safety may be increased.

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

    The FAA considers the proposed action to be the most appropriate 
way to fulfill harmonization goals while maintaining safety and without 
affecting current industry practices. The adoption of 
Sec. 25.1353(c)(6) was considered, however, for the reasons stated 
above the JAR was selected.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Change?

    The proposed change is in line with current design practices and, 
therefore, the effect on batteries used for engine or APU starting is 
considered to be minimal. There may be an impact on other nickel 
cadmium battery installations by aircraft operators, manufacturers and 
modifiers.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    The FAA considers that adopting the existing JAA ACJ material would 
be necessary to address the means of compliance for Sec. 25.1353(c)(6). 
The FAA recommends adopting the JAR ACJ to 25.1353(c)(6) as advisory 
material. Public comments concerning this

[[Page 27586]]

proposed revision are invited by separate notice, following this NPRM.

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 impact 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 requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. 
standards. 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, in any one year (adjusted for inflation).
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
proposed rulemaking has benefits, but no costs, and that it is not ``a 
significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866. This proposed rulemaking would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, reduces barriers to 
international trade, and imposes no unfunded mandates on State, local, 
or tribal governments, or the private sector.
    Because there are no apparent costs associated with this proposal, 
it does not warrant the preparation of a full economic evaluation for 
placement in the docket. The basis of this statement and for the above 
determinations is summarized in this section of the preamble. The FAA 
requests comments with supporting documentation in regard to the 
conclusions contained in this section.
    Presently, airplane manufacturers must satisfy both the Title 14, 
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) and the European Joint Aviation 
Requirements (JAR) certification standards to market 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. These 
efforts are referred to as harmonization.
    This proposed rulemaking would replace section(s) 25.1353(a), 
25.1353(c)(5), and 25.1353(c)(6) of part 25 with the ``more stringent'' 
section(s) 25.1353(a), 25.1353(c)(5), and 25.1353(c)(6) of JAR part 25. 
The FAA has concluded for the reasons previously discussed in the 
preamble that the adoption of these JAR requirements into 14 CFR is the 
most efficient way to harmonize these section(s) and in so doing, the 
existing level of safety will be preserved.

Proposal 1: Electrical Installation, Section 25.1353(a)

    The FAA estimates that there are no costs associated with this 
proposal. A review of current manufacturers of transport category 
aircraft certificated under part 25 has revealed that all such future 
aircraft are expected to be certificated under part 25 of both 14 CFR 
and JAR. Since future certificated transport category aircraft are 
expected to meet the existing section 25.1353(a) of JAR requirement and 
this proposed rule simply adopts the same JAR requirement, 
manufacturers would incur no additional cost resulting from this 
proposal.
    Furthermore, this proposed rulemaking is in line with current 
industry practices, which follow Radio Technology Commission for 
Aeronautics (RTCA) DO-160D, Environmental Conditions and Test 
Procedures. The DO-160D sets forth the standard procedures and 
environmental test criteria for testing airborne equipment for the 
entire spectrum of aircraft from light general aviation aircraft and 
helicopters through the ``Jumbo Jets'' and SST categories of aircraft. 
Examples of tests covered include vibration, power input radio 
frequency susceptibility, lightning, and electrostatic discharge. This 
standard is an internationally recognized standard of testing.
    Also, a new company entering the manufacturing industry must comply 
with these standards for testing electrical systems, and therefore, the 
FAA expects any additional cost imposed by this proposal to be minimal 
and the level of safety to be maintained. In fact, manufacturers are 
expected to receive cost-savings by a reduction in the FAA/JAA 
certification requirements for new aircraft.
    The FAA, however, has not attempted to quantify the cost savings 
that may accrue due to this specific proposed rulemaking, beyond noting 
that while they may be minimal, they contribute to a large potential 
harmonization savings. The agency concludes that because there is 
consensus among potentially impacted airplane manufacturers that 
savings will result, further analysis is not required.

Proposal 2: Nickel Cadmium Battery, Section 25.1353(c)(5)

    The FAA estimates that there are no costs associated with this 
proposal. A review of current manufacturers of transport category 
aircraft certificated under part 25 has revealed that all such future 
aircraft are expected to be certificated under part 25 of both 14 CFR 
and JAR. Since future certificated transport category aircraft are 
expected to meet the existing section 25.1353(c)(5) of JAR requirement 
and this proposed rule simply adopts the same JAR requirement, 
manufacturers would incur no additional cost resulting from this 
proposal.
    This proposed rulemaking would require all nickel cadmium batteries 
to be tested. The FAA believes this testing is the current practice. 
For example, engineers identified a total of 33 nickel cadmium 
batteries on a typical Boeing Model 777. In line with current industry 
practice, nickel cadmium batteries used to power the Engine and 
Auxiliary Power Unit are tested to prevent any hazardous effect on 
structure or essential systems that may be caused by overheating of the 
battery or its individual cells.
    This proposed rulemaking would require that the other batteries 
used for such things as the Emergency Power Assist System (door), the 
Cockpit Voice Recorder--Underwater Locator Beacon, and the Flight Data 
Recorder--Underwater Locator Beacon also be tested according to current 
industry practice. Thus, the FAA expects any additional costs imposed 
by this proposal to be minimal, and the level of safety to be 
maintained. The FAA requests comments to the contrary, identifying 
additional testing, time, procedures, paperwork, and cost estimates.

[[Page 27587]]

Proposal 3: Nickel Cadmium Battery Installation, Section 
25.1353(c)(6)

    The FAA estimates that there are no costs associated with this 
proposal. A review of current manufacturers of transport category 
aircraft certificated under part 25 has revealed that all such future 
aircraft are expected to be certificated under part 25 of both 14 CFR 
and JAR. Since future certificated transport category aircraft are 
expected to meet the existing section 25.1353(c)(6) of JAR requirement 
and this proposed rule simply adopts the same JAR requirement, 
manufacturers would incur no additional cost resulting from this 
proposal.
    Current industry practice requires that the nickel cadmium 
batteries used to start the Engine or Auxiliary Power Unit must have a 
system to control the battery to prevent overheating, a temperature 
sensing and over-temperature warning system, or a battery failure 
sensing and warning system with a means for disconnecting the battery. 
Thus, the FAA expects any additional costs imposed by this proposal to 
be minimal, and the level of safety to be maintained. The FAA requests 
comments to the contrary, identifying additional testing, time, 
procedures, paperwork, and cost estimates.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) of 1980 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 government 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 economic 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 believes that this proposed rule would 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 proposed rule 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 requirements of 14 CFR. 
Second, all United States transport-aircraft category manufacturers 
exceed the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 
employees for aircraft manufacturers. United States part 25 airplane 
manufacturers include: The Boeing Company, 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 only minimally cost-relieving and 
that there are no small entity manufacturers of part 25 airplanes, the 
FAA certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact

    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 this proposed rule and determined that 
it supports the Administration's free trade policy because this 
proposed 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), 
enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal 
agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment 
of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency 
rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This 
proposed rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental or private 
sector mandate that exceeds $100 million in any year, therefore the 
requirements of the act do not apply.

What Other Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there 
are no new information collection requirements associated with this 
proposed rule.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA 
determines that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to this proposed regulation.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically 
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,

[[Page 27588]]

appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this proposed rulemaking action qualifies 
for a categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

    The energy impact of the proposed rule has been assessed in 
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and 
Public Law 94-163, as amended (43 U.S.C. 6362), and FAA Order 1053.1. 
It has been determined that it is not a major regulatory action under 
the provisions of the EPCA.

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in Title 
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to 
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation 
modes other than aviation, and to establish such regulatory 
distinctions as he or she considers appropriate. Because this proposed 
rule would apply to the certification of future designs of transport 
category airplanes and their subsequent operation, it could, if 
adopted, affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. The FAA therefore 
specifically requests comments on whether there is justification for 
applying the proposed rule differently to intrastate operations in 
Alaska.

Plain Language

    In response to the June 1, 1998, Presidential memorandum regarding 
the issue of plain language, the FAA re-examined the writing style 
currently used in the development of regulations. The memorandum 
requires Federal agencies to communicate clearly with the public. We 
are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document 
is clear, and in any other suggestions you might have to improve the 
clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get more 
information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language 
initiative at http://www.plainlanguage.gov.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

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

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

    2. Amend Sec. 25.1353 by revising paragraphs (a), (c)(5), and 
(c)(6) to read as follows:


Sec. 25.1353  Storage battery design and installation.

    (a) Electrical equipment, controls, and wiring must be installed so 
that operations of any one unit or system of units will not adversely 
affect the simultaneous operation of any other electrical unit or 
system essential to the safe operation. Any electrical interference 
likely to be present in the airplane must not result in hazardous 
effects upon the airplane or its systems except under extremely remote 
conditions.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) Each nickel cadmium battery installation must have provisions 
to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential systems that 
may be caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery can generate 
during a short circuit of the battery or of individual cells.
    (6) Nickel cadmium battery installations must have--
    (i) A system to control the charging rate of the battery 
automatically so as to prevent battery overheating; or
    (ii) A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning 
system with a means for disconnecting the battery from its charging 
source in the event of an over-temperature condition; or
    (iii) A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means for 
disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of 
battery failure.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 3, 2001.
Lirio Liu Nelson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 01-12196 Filed 5-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M