[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4856-4863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-1002]



[[Page 4855]]

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

Part V





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 25



Revisions to Various Powerplant Installation Requirements for Transport 
Category Airplanes; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67 , No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 4856]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2002-11272; Notice No. 02-02]
RIN 2120-AH37


Revisions to Various Powerplant Installation Requirements for 
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 
powerplant installations. Specifically, the proposed rule would affect 
the standards applicable to thrust or power augmentation systems; fuel 
filling points; designated fire zones; and powerplant instruments. 
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 April 1, 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 
number FAA-2002-11272 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-2002-11272.'' 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 that 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: Michael McRae, Propulsion/and 
Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 
98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2133; fax (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.

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 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

[[Page 4857]]

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, however, ARAC did not request the opportunity to 
review the draft prior to publication.

Discussion of the Proposal

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

    This proposed regulation results from the recommendations of ARAC 
submitted under the FAA's Fast Track Harmonization Program. In this 
notice, the FAA proposes to amend four sections of 14 CFR part 25, 
specifically:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Change #                                Section No.                         Section title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.....................................  Sec.  25.945(b)(5)......................  Thrust or power augmentation
                                                                                   system.
2.....................................  Sec.  25.973(d).........................  Fuel tank filler connection.
3.....................................  Sec.  25.1181(b)........................  Designated fire zones; regions
                                                                                   included.

[[Page 4858]]

 
4.....................................  Sec.  25.1305(a)(7) and (d)(2)..........  Powerplant instruments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have identified this proposed rulemaking project as a Category 1 
project under the criteria of the Fast Track Harmonization Program. 
Each of the proposed changes would adopt the ``more stringent'' 
requirements of the parallel JAR.

How Is This Preamble Organized?

    Each of the four proposed changes to the standards is discussed 
separately below. Although the reader may find much of the information 
repetitious, we consider it important that the public be provided the 
full explanation and reasoning behind each of the four proposed 
changes.

Change 1: Sec. 25.945, Thrust or Power Augmentation System

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

    Currently, JAR 25.945 contains a paragraph, which requires that:
     each augmentation system fluid tank must have an expansion 
space of not less than 2% of the tank capacity, and
     it must be impossible to fill the expansion space 
inadvertently while the airplane is in the normal ground attitude.
    These requirements are intended to prevent the inadvertent 
discharge overboard of thrust or power augmentation fluids.
    The parallel part 25 section does not contain this standard. 
However, the requirements of JAR 25.945(b)(5) are equivalent to those 
of Sec. 25.969 (``Fuel tank expansion space'') and Sec. 25.1013(b)(2) 
(``Oil tanks''), which address preventing the inadvertent discharge 
overboard of fuel and engine oil, respectively. (The JAR contains these 
same sections.) Both of those sections of part 25 require that there be 
a 2% expansion space in the tank to accommodate the likely volumetric 
expansion of the fluid when the airplane is exposed to hot day 
conditions, after the fluids are initially replenished in cold 
conditions.
    The current requirements of both part 25 and JAR-25 do not specify 
the location of any augmentation fluid tank vent outlets, so it is not 
possible to be certain that adverse effects will not occur if fluid is 
discharged. However, depending on the type of augmentation fluid used, 
the adverse effects could include fire, corrosion, and freezing of 
controls or equipment. The 2% expansion space ensures that the risk of 
discharge of commonly-used augmentation fluids (typically water, or a 
mix of water and methanol) is unlikely to occur during typical 
operation of the airplane within its normal operating temperature 
envelope.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

    There currently is no paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 25.945 in 14 CFR.
    The current text of JAR 25.945(b)(5) (Change 15, amendment 25/ 96/
1) is:

    JAR 25.945  Thrust or power augmentation system
* * * * *
    (b) Fluid tanks. Each augmentation system fluid tank must meet 
the following requirements:
    * * *
    (5) Each tank must have an expansion space of not less than 2% 
of the tank capacity. It must be impossible to fill the expansion 
space inadvertently with the aeroplane in the normal ground 
attitude.

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

    As explained above, the requirements of JAR 25.945(b)(5) for the 2% 
expansion space ensure that the risk of discharge of commonly-used 
augmentation fluids is unlikely to occur during typical operation of 
the airplane under typical operating temperatures. Because JAR-25 
contains this specific requirement in section 25.945, but part 25 does 
not, the JAR is considered ``more stringent.'' However, although there 
is no equivalent standard specifically in Sec. 25.945, the requirement 
is basically covered separately under other sections of part 25.

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

    Currently, U.S. manufacturers must comply with the ``more 
stringent'' requirements of JAR 25.945(b)(5) if they intend to sell 
their airplanes in Europe. Future certificated airplanes also are 
expected to meet the existing JAR requirements. In actual practice, 
however, U.S. manufacturers and other applicants already are meeting 
the ``more stringent'' JAR requirements by complying with Secs. 25.969 
and Sec. 25.1013(b)(2).
    Further, compliance with the JAR 25.945(b)(5) requirement rarely 
involves much additional design or manufacturing resources; in 
principle, it should be fairly simple to meet the design requirement of 
a tank that is 2% larger. Augmentation fluid tanks are small in 
comparison to fuel tanks and it is unlikely that design constraints 
would be encountered.

What Is the Proposed Action?

    We propose to amend Sec. 25.945 by incorporating the ``more 
stringent'' requirements of the JAR in a new paragraph (b)(5). The new 
paragraph would be identical (with some minor editorial differences) to 
the existing JAR 25.945(b)(5).

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    The proposed standard would continue to address the original 
underlying safety issue. The new Sec. 25.945(b)(5) would control the 
identified adverse effects in the same way as the current JAR-25 
requirement.

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

    The proposed standard would maintain, and may increase, the level 
of safety currently provided by part 25.

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

    Industry practice has been based upon the existing JAR-25 
requirement. Currently, U.S. manufacturers are either already 
complying, or fully intend to comply, 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.

Change 2: Sec. 25.973, Fuel Tank Filler Connection

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

    The current standards provide for a means by which the build-up of 
unwanted electrostatic charge can be prevented. Static charge can build 
up wherever fuel is flowing (during refueling, for example), and 
precautions are needed to dissipate that charge. Failure to do so could 
result in adverse effects such as uncontrolled sparking and arcing.

[[Page 4859]]

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

    The current text of 14 CFR 25.973(d) [amendment 25-72 (55 FR 29785, 
July 20, 1990)] is:

Section 25.973 Fuel tank filler connection.

    Each fuel tank filler connection must prevent the entrance of fuel 
into any part of the airplane other than the tank itself. In addition--
* * * * *
    (d) Each fuel filling point, except pressure fueling connection 
points, must have a provision for electrically bonding the airplane 
to ground fueling equipment.
    The current text of JAR 25.973(d) (Change 15, amendment 25/ 96/
1) is:
    JAR 25.973  Fuel tank filler connection
    Each fuel tank filler connection must prevent the entrance of 
fuel into any part of the aeroplane other than the tank itself. In 
addition-
* * * * *
    (d) Each fuel filling point must have a provision for 
electrically bonding the aeroplane to ground fueling equipment.

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

    Currently, Sec. 25.973(d) requires that each fuel filling point--
except the pressure fueling connection points--must have a provision 
for electrically bonding the airplane to ground fueling equipment. We 
have traditionally assumed that, whenever pressure refueling equipment 
is used, there is always a metallic connection between the aircraft 
fueling receptacle and the end of the refueling hose; this creates the 
electrical bonding that the standard requires. Thus, we included the 
exception in this section because pressure fueling connection points 
are considered to inherently provide adequate bonding.
    The parallel JAR 25.973(d) does not make such an exception; it 
requires all fuel filling points to have a provision for electrically 
bonding the airplane to ground fueling equipment. On airplanes with 
pressure refueling connection points, this requirement can be met if 
the aircraft refueling receptacle is bonded to the airframe.
    Because the JAR standard does not provide for an exception, it can 
be considered ``more stringent.'' In actuality, however, both standards 
ensure that the pressure fueling connection points provide adequate 
bonding.

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

    In current practice, both the part 25 and the JAR standards have 
been applied to require bonding of pressure refueling connections. As 
stated previously, although the FAA standard includes the exception, we 
have applied the standard assuming that pressure fueling connection 
points naturally provide adequate bonding because there is always a 
metallic connection between the aircraft fueling receptacle and the end 
of the refueling hose.

What Is the Proposed Action?

    We propose to adopt the ``more stringent'' requirements of the JAR 
by deleting the words ``except pressure fueling connection points'' 
from Sec. 25.973(d). The requirements of the amended section would 
pertain to all fuel filling points. This change would make the part 25 
and JAR-25 standards identical.

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    The proposed standard would continue to address the original 
underlying safety issue. The new Sec. 25.973(d) would control the 
identified adverse effects in the same way as the current JAR 25.973(d) 
requirement.

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

    The proposed standard would maintain, and may increase, the level 
of safety currently provided by part 25.

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

    Industry practice has been based upon the existing JAR-25 
requirement. Currently, U.S. manufacturers are either already 
complying, or fully intend to comply, 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.

Change 3: Sec. 25.1181, Designated Fire Zones

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

    Section 25.1181 of both part 25 and JAR-25 defines which regions of 
the airplane are ``Designated Fire Zones.'' Paragraph (b) of that 
section defines a set of requirements that each Designated Fire Zone 
must meet so that the required level of powerplant fire protection can 
be achieved.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

    The current text of 14 CFR 25.1181(b) [amendment 25-72, (55 FR 
29785, July 20, 1990)] is:

Section 25.1181 Designated fire zones; regions included.

* * * * *
    (b) Each designated fire zone must meet the requirements of 
Secs. 25.867 and 25.1185 through 25.1203.

    The current text of JAR 25.1181(b) (Change 15, amendment 25/96/1) 
is:

    JAR 25.1181  Designated fire zones: regions included (See ACJ 
25.1181.)
* * * * *
    (b) Each designated fire zone must meet the requirements of JAR 
25.867, 25.869, and 25.1185 to 25.1203.

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

    The requirements of Sec. 25.1181(b) and JAR 25.1181(b) are 
essentially identical: Both standards require that each designated fire 
zone must meet the requirements of sections 25.867 (``Fire protection: 
other components''), 25.1185 (``Flammable fluids''), and 25.1203 
(``Fire detector system''). However, JAR 25.1181(b) contains an 
additional reference to 25.869 (``Fire protection: systems'').
    Amendment 25-72 of part 25 introduced Sec. 25.869 that, among other 
things, cross-referenced a number of Subpart E regulations related to 
systems situated in a Designated Fire Zone. However, there was no 
revision to any of the cross-referenced regulations in Subpart E (such 
as Sec. 25.1181) to reference the new Sec. 25.869.
    When JAR-25 was revised at Change 14, it included the equivalent 
new JAR 25.869 requirement. In that action, JAR 25.1181(b) (in Subpart 
E) also was revised to add a reference to the new JAR 25.869.

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

    There are no differences in the means of compliance with the two 
parallel standards. The only differences in the standards are the 
cross-references each contains to other related standards. The cross-
references in this section are meant only to draw the applicant's 
attention to the fact that there are some associated fire protection 
requirements to consider that are located elsewhere in the standards. 
Regardless of whether the cross-references are contained in 
Sec. 25.1181, applicants will have to consider the requirements of the 
cross-referenced standards in any case when

[[Page 4860]]

designing powerplant fire protection systems.

What Is the Proposed Action?

    Section 25.1181(b) would be revised by adding an additional 
reference to Sec. 25.869. Besides achieving harmonization between the 
two sets of standards, this change to Sec. 25.1181(b) will clarify to 
applicants showing compliance with the powerplant fire protection 
requirements of part 25, Subpart E, that there are some associated fire 
protection requirements in Sec. 25.869.
    In addition, we propose to add references to Sec. 25.863 
(``Flammable fluid fire protection'') and to Sec. 25.865 (``Fire 
protection of flight controls, engine mounts, and other flight 
structure'') in Sec. 25.1181(b). (The JAA plans to take similar 
action.) These additional references will document the applicability of 
these two sections to fire zone standards. (This action is related to a 
separate harmonization project concerning flammable fluid fire 
protection.)
    There is no legal standard concerning the use of ``cross-
references'' in regulations. Even though one regulation may not contain 
a cross-reference to a second pertinent regulation, affected applicants 
are still expected to comply with both regulations as appropriate. In 
the case of this proposed change, applicants already have to consider 
the requirements of Secs. 25.863, 25.865, and 25.869 in any case when 
designing powerplant fire protection systems.

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    The proposed standard would continue to address the safety issue 
and to maintain the current level of safety. It also would provide a 
more complete cross-referencing to other related rules.

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

    The basic effect of the proposed changes to Sec. 25.1181(b) is 
editorial--it merely provides a more complete cross-referencing of 
applicable standards. As stated previously, in actual practice, 
applicants already consider the requirements of all of the cross-
referenced sections in any case when designing powerplant fire 
protection systems.

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

    If the proposed standard is adopted, there would be no change to 
industry practice. However, the accurate cross-reference will enable 
applicants to clearly understand and comply with the standard.

Change 4: Sec. 25.1305, Powerplant Instruments

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

    The current standards specify the need for a indication on the 
flight deck to alert the flightcrew as to engine fire conditions and 
the position of the thrust reverser.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

    The current texts of 14 CFR 25.1305(a)(7) and (d)(2) [amendment 25-
72 (55 FR 29785, July 20, 1990)] are:

Section 25.1305 Powerplant instruments.

    The following are required powerplant instruments:
    (a) For all airplanes.
    * * *
    (7) Fire-warning indicators.
* * * * *
    (d) For turbojet engine powered airplanes. In addition to the 
powerplant instruments required by paragraphs (a) and (c) of this 
section, the following powerplant instruments are required:
    * * *
    (2) A position indicating means to indicate to the flightcrew 
when the thrust reversing device is in the reverse thrust position, 
for each engine using a thrust reversing device.
* * * * *
    The current texts of JAR 25.1305(a)(7) and (d)(2) (Change 15, 
amendment 25/96/1) are:

    JAR 25.1305  Powerplant instruments
    The following are required powerplant instruments:
    (a) For all aeroplanes
    * * *
    (7) Fire-warning devices that provide visual and audible 
warning.
* * * * *
    (d) For turbo-jet engine-powered aeroplanes. In addition to the 
powerplant instruments required by sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of 
this paragraph, the following powerplant instruments are required:
    * * *
    (2) A means to indicate to the flight crew when the thrust 
reversing device--
    (i) Is not in the selected position, and
    (ii) Is in the reverse thrust position, for each engine using a 
thrust reversing device.

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

    Both the FAA and JAA identify the need for positive annunciation 
directing the flightcrew's attention both to engine fire conditions and 
to thrust reverser positioning. However, the part 25 and JAR-25 
requirements for such annunciation, as presented in Sec. 25.1305, 
differ as follows:
    1. Paragraph (a)(7): This requirement specifies the need for a 
flight deck warning of engine fire conditions.
     The part 25 standard requires ``[engine] fire warning 
indicators'' (which implies a visual means), but does not specifically 
require an audible warning.
     The JAR-25 standard specifies that the engine fire warning 
devices must provide both a visual and an audible warning. A warning 
that has both visual and audible aspects can be assumed to have 
enhanced ``attention getting'' capability.
    2. Paragraph (d)(2): This requirement specifies the need for a 
flight deck indication of the position of the thrust reverser.
     Both the part 25 and JAR-25 standards require an 
indication of when the thrust reverser is deployed.
     The JAR-25 standard also requires an indication of when 
the thrust reverser is not in its selected position (for example, when 
the reverser has been commanded to deploy, but remains stowed).
    In both paragraph (a)(7) and (d)(2), the JAR standard is considered 
the ``more stringent'' because it requires additional means to address 
the safety issue.

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

    Complying with the JAR standard requires that applicants design 
flight deck systems with means to provide additional indications to the 
flightcrew. Currently, U.S. manufacturers must comply with these ``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?

    We recognize the higher level of safety provided by the JAR 
regulations and propose to revise Sec. 25.1305 to adopt the more 
stringent requirements of JAR 25.1305(a)(7) and (d)(2).

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    The proposed standard would continue to address the safety issue by 
ensuring that the flightcrew would be provided with additional 
indications to enhance their awareness of the condition of the engines 
and thrust reversers.

[[Page 4861]]

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

    The proposed standard would maintain, and may increase, the level 
of safety currently provided by part 25.

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

    Industry practice has been based upon the existing JAR-25 
requirement. Currently, U.S. manufacturers must comply with the ``more 
stringent'' requirements of JAR 25.1305 if they intend 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.

General Information About the Proposal

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

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

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Changes?

    Applicants for new, amended, or supplemental type certificates 
(which typically include manufacturers and modifiers) who have not 
previously applied for JAA certification would potentially be affected 
by the proposed amendment. However, as stated throughout this preamble, 
the aviation industry is either already complying, or fully intends to 
comply, with the more stringent standards as a means of obtaining joint 
FAA/JAA certification. Industry practice has been based upon the 
existing JAR-25 requirement and it is anticipated that there will be 
minimal impact to the industry if the proposed changes are adopted.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    We do not consider that advisory material is necessary for any of 
the changes proposed.

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. The FAA provides the basis for this minimal impact 
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 Secs. 25.945, 25.973, 25.1181 and 
25.1305 of 14 CFR to incorporate the ``more stringent'' requirements 
currently in those same sections of JAR-25. 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. 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

[[Page 4862]]

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 one certification 
requirement, rather than different standards for the United States and 
Europe. Airplane manufacturers already meet or expect to meet this 
standard as well as the existing 14 CFR part 25 requirement.
    Second, all U.S. transport-aircraft category manufacturers exceed 
the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 
employees for aircraft manufacturers. The current U.S. part 25 airplane 
manufacturers include: Boeing, Cessna Aircraft, Gulfstream Aerospace, 
Learjet (owned by Bombardier), Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas (a 
wholly-owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company), Raytheon Aircraft, and 
Sabreliner Corporation.
    Given that this proposed rule is minimally cost-relieving and that 
there are no small entity manufacturers of part 25 airplanes, the FAA 
certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards. In addition, consistent with the Administration's belief in 
the general superiority and desirability of free trade, it is the 
policy of the Administration to remove or diminish to the extent 
feasible, barriers to international trade, including both barriers 
affecting the export of American goods and services to foreign 
countries and barriers affecting the import of foreign goods and 
services into the United States.
    In accordance with the above statute and policy, the FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of the proposed rule and has determined 
that it supports the Administration's free trade policy because this 
rule would use European international standards as the basis for U.S. 
standards.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
codified in 2 U.S.C. 1532-1538, enacted as Public Law 104-4 on March 
22, 1995, requires each Federal agency, to the extent permitted by law, 
to prepare a written assessment of the effects of any Federal mandate 
in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in the expenditure 
by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation) in any one year.
    This proposed rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental or 
private sector mandate that exceeds $100 million in any year; 
therefore, the requirements of the Act do not apply.

What Other Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

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

[[Page 4863]]

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. Add a new paragraph (b)(5) to Sec. 25.945 to read as follows:


Sec. 25.945  Thrust or power augmentation system.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Each tank must have an expansion space of not less than 2% of 
the tank capacity. It must be impossible to fill the expansion space 
inadvertently with the airplane in the normal ground attitude.
* * * * *
    3. Republish the introductory text and revise paragraph (d) of 
Sec. 25.973 to read as follows:


Sec. 25.973  Fuel tank filler connection.

    Each fuel tank filler connection must prevent the entrance of fuel 
into any part of the airplane other than the tank itself. In addition--
* * * * *
    (d) Each fuel filling point must have a provision for electrically 
bonding the airplane to ground fueling equipment.
    4. Revise paragraph (b) of Sec. 25.1181 to read as follows:


Sec. 25.1181  Designated fire zones; regions included.

* * * * *
    (b) Each designated fire zone must meet the requirements of 
Secs. 25.863, 25.865, 25.867, 25.869, and 25.1185 through 25.1203.
    5. Republish the introductory text and revise paragraphs (a)(7) and 
(d)(2) of Sec. 25.1305 to read as follows:


Sec. 25.1305  Powerplant instruments

    The following are required powerplant instruments:
    (a) * * *
    (7) Fire-warning devices that provide visual and audible warning.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) A position indicating means to indicate to the flight crew when 
the thrust reversing device--
    (i) Is not in the selected position, and
    (ii) Is in the reverse thrust position, for each engine using a 
thrust reversing device.
* * * * *

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 18, 2001.
Vi Lipski,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-1002 Filed 1-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U