[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 16 (Thursday, January 24, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3456-3461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-1766]



[[Page 3456]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2002-11346; Notice No. 02-06]
RIN 2120-AH38


Lower Deck Service Compartments 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 
lower deck service compartments. The proposed amendment would require 
that two-way voice communication systems between lower deck service 
compartments and the flightdeck remain available following loss of the 
normal electrical power generating system. It also would clarify the 
requirements for seats installed in the lower deck service compartment. 
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 March 25, 2002.

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 No. 
FAA-2002-11346 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-2002
-XXXX.'' 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: Jayson Claar, FAA, Airframe/Cabin 
Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; 
telephone 425-227-2194; 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 Government Printing Office'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.

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

[[Page 3457]]

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 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 one minor editorial change, which has 
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 
NPRM, the FAA proposes to amend Sec. 25.819, concerning lower deck 
service compartments on transport category airplanes. A lower deck 
service compartment as used in Sec. 25.819 is defined as follows: ``A 
lower deck service compartment is a galley or other service compartment 
located below the main passenger deck that is accessible during flight 
by crewmembers. A lavatory is not considered a lower deck service 
compartment and therefore is not covered by this regulation. Occupancy 
is not permitted during taxi, takeoff and landing. Also, it is limited 
to crewmembers only.'' This action has

[[Page 3458]]

been identified as a Category 1 (Envelope) project under the Fast Track 
program.

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

    The standards ensure the safety of occupants of lower deck service 
compartments that are not certified to be occupied during takeoff and 
landing. The standards apply design criteria relative to evacuation 
routes and various items of safety equipment. Many of the regulations 
that provide evacuation requirements and safety equipment address 
passenger and flightcrew compartments, but do not include lower deck 
service compartments.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

    The current text of 14 CFR 25.819 (Amendment 25-53 (45 FR 41593, 
June 19, 1980)) is:

Section 25.819  Lower deck service compartments (including galleys).

    For airplanes with a service compartment located below the main 
deck, which may be occupied during taxi or flight but not during 
takeoff or landing, the following apply:
    (a) There must be at least two emergency evacuation routes, one 
at each end of each lower deck service compartment or two having 
sufficient separation within each compartment, which could be used 
by each occupant or the lower deck service compartment to rapidly 
evacuate to the main deck under normal and emergency lighting 
conditions. The routes must provide for the evacuation of 
incapacitated persons, with assistance. The use of the evacuation 
routes may not be dependent on any powered device. The routes must 
be designed to minimize the possibility of blockage which might 
result from fire, mechanical or structural failure, or persons 
standing on top of or against the escape routes. In the event the 
airplane's main power system or compartment main lighting system 
should fail, emergency illumination for each lower deck service 
compartment must be automatically provided.
    (b) There must be a means for two-way voice communication 
between the flight deck and each lower deck service compartment.
    (c) There must be an aural emergency alarm system, audible 
during normal and emergency conditions, to enable crewmembers on the 
flight deck and at each required floor level emergency exit to alert 
occupants of each lower deck service compartment of an emergency 
situation.
    (d) There must be a means, readily detectable by occupants of 
each lower deck service compartment, that indicates when seat belts 
should be fastened.
    (e) If a public address system is installed in the airplane, 
speakers must be provided in each lower deck service compartment.
    (f) For each occupant permitted in a lower deck service 
compartment, there must be a forward or aft facing seat which meets 
the requirements of Sec. 25.785(c) and must be able to withstand 
maximum flight loads when occupied.
    (g) For each powered lift system installed between a lower deck 
service compartment and the main deck for the carriage of persons or 
equipment, or both, the system must meet the following requirements:
    (1) Each lift control switch outside the lift, except emergency 
stop buttons, must be designed to prevent the activation of the lift 
if the lift door, or the hatch required by paragraph (g)(3) of this 
section, or both are open.
    (2) An emergency stop button, that when activated will 
immediately stop the lift, must be installed within the lift and at 
each entrance to the lift.
    (3) There must be a hatch capable of being used for evacuating 
persons from the lift that is openable from inside and outside the 
lift without tools, with the lift in any position.

    The current text of JAR paragraph 25.819 (Change 15, Amendment 
25/96/1, October 2000) is:

    JAR 25.819 Lower deck service compartments (including galleys).
    For aeroplanes with a service compartment located below the main 
deck, which may be occupied during taxi or flight but not during 
takeoff or landing, the following apply:
    (a) There must be at least two emergency evacuation routes, one 
at each end of each lower deck service compartment or two having 
sufficient separation within each compartment, which could be used 
by each occupant or the lower deck service compartment to rapidly 
evacuate to the main deck under normal and emergency lighting 
conditions. The routes must provide for the evacuation of 
incapacitated persons, with assistance. The use of the evacuation 
routes may not be dependent on any powered device. The routes must 
be designed to minimize the possibility of blockage which might 
result from fire, mechanical or structural failure, or persons 
standing on top of or against the escape routes. In the event the 
airplane's main power system or compartment main lighting system 
should fail, emergency illumination for each lower deck service 
compartment must be automatically provided.
    (b) There must be a means for two-way voice communication 
between the flight deck and each lower deck service compartment, 
which remains available following loss of normal electrical power 
generating system.
    (c) There must be an aural emergency alarm system, audible 
during normal and emergency conditions, to enable crewmembers on the 
flight deck and at each required floor level emergency exit to alert 
occupants of each lower deck service compartment of an emergency 
situation.
    (d) There must be a means, readily detectable by occupants of 
each lower deck service compartment, that indicates when seat belts 
should be fastened.
    (e) If a public address system is installed in the airplane, 
speakers must be provided in each lower deck service compartment.
    (f) For each occupant permitted in a lower deck service 
compartment, there must be a forward or aft facing seat which meets 
the requirements of JAR 25.785 (d) and must be able to withstand 
maximum flight loads when occupied.
    (g) For each powered lift system installed between a lower deck 
service compartment and the main deck for the carriage of persons or 
equipment, or both, the system must meet the following requirements:
    (1) Each lift control switch outside the lift, except emergency 
stop buttons, must be designed to prevent the activation of the lift 
if the lift door, or the hatch required by paragraph (g)(3) of this 
section, or both are open.
    (2) An emergency stop button, that when activated will 
immediately stop the lift, must be installed within the lift and at 
each entrance to the lift.
    (3) There must be a hatch capable of being used for evacuating 
persons from the lift that is openable from inside and outside the 
lift without tools, with the lift in any position.

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

    There are two substantive differences between the standards:
    First, the JAR requires that two-way voice communication between 
the flight deck and each lower deck service compartment remain 
available following loss of the normal electrical power generating 
system. Part 25 does not contain such a requirement. This results in 
system power on those airplanes certificated under the JAR being 
supplied from the essential bus; whereas, system power on airplanes 
certificated under part 25 may be supplied from a nonessential bus.
    Second, the requirements for the seats located in the lower deck 
compartment are different between the part 25 and the JAR. Section 
25.819(f) of part 25 requires that installed seats must meet the 
requirements of Sec. 25.785(c), while JAR paragraph 25.819(f) requires 
that installed seats must comply with the requirements of JAR paragraph 
25.785(d). At the current amendment levels, Sec. 25.785(c) and JAR 
paragraph 25.785(d) present different requirements, although at one 
time (prior to Amendment 25-72) they were the same. This apparently is 
due to a renumbering error that occurred at Amendment 25-72, in which 
paragraph (c) of Sec. 25.785 became paragraph (d), and there was no 
associated change to the reference in Sec. 25.819(f). Thus, by 
referring to Sec. 25.785(c), Sec. 25.819(f) currently requires only 
that seats be ``approved,'' which is not what was intended. The intent 
is that seat designs must comply with the specific design safety 
criteria that is described in Sec. 25.785(d) (including a safety belt 
and either a shoulder harness, an energy absorbing rest, or no 
injurious objects present in the head strike path, as

[[Page 3459]]

appropriate). The correct reference in Sec. 25.819 should be to 
Sec. 25.785(d).

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

    Currently, U.S. manufacturers must comply with the more stringent 
JAR requirements if they intend to sell their airplanes in Europe. 
Future certificated airplanes also are expected to meet the existing 
JAR requirements.

What Is the Proposed Action?

    The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 25.819 by incorporating the ``more 
stringent'' requirements of the current JAR standard. The proposed 
amendment would require that:
     Two-way voice communication systems between lower deck 
service compartments and the flight deck remain available following 
loss of the normal electrical power generating system.
     Seats installed in the lower deck compartment meet the 
requirements of Sec. 25.785(d).

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    The proposed standard would continue to address the original 
underlying safety issue. It would ensure the safety of occupants of 
lower deck service compartments that are not certified to be occupied 
during takeoff and landing.

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

    By requiring the more stringent standards of the JAR, the proposed 
amendment would mandate a higher level of safety than that provided by 
the currently applicable requirements.

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

    In current practice, U.S. manufacturers already are complying with 
the more stringent JAR requirements in order to sell their airplanes in 
Europe. Future certificated airplanes also are expected to meet the 
existing JAR requirements, and this proposed rule would simply adopt 
those same requirements.

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

    The FAA considered two alternatives to this proposal:
    1. No change to the existing standards. The FAA did not select this 
option because it would mean that the standards would continue to be 
``unharmonized'' and manufacturers would continue to meet two different 
sets of standards when certificating their airplanes.
    2. The JAA could unilaterally adopt the standards of part 25. The 
FAA did not seriously consider this option, however, because where the 
part 25 standards are ``less stringent,'' this could potentially mean 
adopting a lower level of safety.
    The FAA considers the proposal, as contained in this NPRM, to be 
the most appropriate method of ensuring that the highest level of 
safety is achieved and fulfilling the objectives of harmonizing the 
U.S. and European standards.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Change?

    Manufacturers of transport category airplanes, as well as airplane 
modifiers potentially would be affected by the proposed amendment.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    The FAA does consider that current guidance on this subject is 
adequate and that additional advisory material is not necessary as a 
result of the proposed rule.

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.''
    This proposal would revise the FAA requirements for lower deck 
service compartments on transport category airplanes that are not 
certified to be occupied during takeoff and landing. As explained 
previously in this preamble, this proposal would revise part 25 to 
include the following ``more stringent'' requirements of the JAR 
standards:
     Sec. 25.819(b): two-way voice communication systems 
between lower deck service compartments and the flight deck remain 
available following loss of the normal electrical power generating 
system; and
     Sec. 25.819(f): seats installed in the lower deck 
compartment meet the requirements of Sec. 25.785(d), which include 
safety belt and either a shoulder

[[Page 3460]]

harness, and/or energy absorbing rest, and/or elimination of injurious 
objects in the head strike path.
    This proposed rule results from the FAA's acceptance of 
recommendations made by ARAC. We have concluded that, for the reasons 
previously discussed in the preamble, the adoption of the proposed 
requirements in 14 CFR part 25 is the most efficient way to harmonize 
these sections and, in so doing, the existing level of safety will be 
preserved.
    There was consensus within the ARAC members, comprised of 
representatives of the affected industry, that the requirements of the 
proposed rule will not impose additional costs on U.S. manufacturers of 
part 25 airplanes. Concerning the cost impact of complying with the 
proposed standard, ARAC states there are apparent administrative 
savings for the relevant airworthiness authorities and indirect savings 
for the general public. In fact, ARAC believes that the industry would 
estimate the cost burden being at a neutral level. We have reviewed the 
cost analysis provided by industry through the ARAC process. A copy is 
available through the public docket. Based on this analysis, we 
consider that a full regulatory evaluation is not necessary.
    We invite comments with supporting documentation regarding the 
regulatory evaluation statements based on ARAC's proposal.

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.
    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 airplane 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 category airplane manufacturers exceed 
the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 
employees for airplane 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 accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the 
potential effect of the proposed rule and has determined that it 
complies with the Act 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

    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 
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 impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, 
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

[[Page 3461]]

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. 25.819 by revising paragraphs (b) and (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 25.819  Lower deck surface compartments (including galleys).

* * * * *
    (b) There must be a means for two-way voice communication between 
the flight deck and each lower deck service compartment, which remains 
available following loss of normal electrical power generating system.
* * * * *
    (f) For each occupant permitted in a lower deck service 
compartment, there must be a forward or aft facing seat which meets the 
requirements of Sec. 25.785(d), and must be able to withstand maximum 
flight loads when occupied.
* * * * *

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 8, 2002.
Ali Bahrami,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-1766 Filed 1-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P