[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61836-61842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-25055]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2002-13438; Notice No. 02-15]
RIN 2120-AH40


Trim Systems and Protective Breathing Equipment

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 
trim systems. For trim systems, the minimum design standard would be 
established. The FAA proposes to amend the airworthiness standards for 
transport category airplanes concerning protective breathing equipment 
(PBE). For PBE, the proposed standard would define design and 
installation requirements for portable and stationary protective 
breathing equipment. Adopting these proposals 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 December 2, 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-2002-13438 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. --------.'' 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: Kenneth Frey, FAA, Systems and 
Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind 
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone 425-227-2673; facsimile 
425-227-1320, e-mail [email protected], or
    Kathi Ishimaru, FAA, Propulsion/Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM-112, 
Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone 425-227-2674; 
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's (GPO) 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://faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfm or the GPO's 
web page at http://www.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
    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:
    [sbull] Airplanes manufactured within the U.S. for use by U.S.-
registered operators, and
    [sbull] 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

[[Page 61837]]

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 of the 
harmonization effort is to ensure that:
    [sbull] Where possible, standards do not require domestic and 
foreign parties to manufacture or operate to different standards for 
each country involved; and
    [sbull] 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.
    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 recommended a number of editorial changes to the 
NPRM for Sec. Sec.  25.677(b) and 25.1439 with which we agree, and one 
change to NPRM Sec.  25.1439 with which we disagree. The ARAC 
recommended change and the FAA reason for disagreeing are described 
below in the Discussion of the Proposal.

Discussion of the Proposal

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

    [sbull] For Sec.  25.677(b)
    This requirement for Sec.  25.677(b) establishes the minimum design 
standard for trim indication systems. The intent of this standard is to 
provide the flightcrew with accurate direction and position indication 
in relation to the airplane motion when the trim system is in 
operation.
    [sbull] For Sec.  25.1439
    For Sec.  25.1439, smoke, excessive carbon dioxide, or toxic gases 
on the flight deck can inhibit or prevent the flightcrew from 
performing their duties, which can lead to unsafe conditions. Also, the 
unavailability of sufficient fire fighting equipment on the flight deck 
or in accessible compartments can lead to unsafe conditions. Part 25 
and the JAR define design and installation requirements for portable 
and stationary protective breathing equipment to ensure safe operation 
if a fire or adverse environment develops.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

    [sbull] The current text of 14 CFR 25.677(b) is:
    (b) There must be means adjacent to the trim control to indicate 
the direction of the control movement relative to the airplane motion. 
In addition, there must be clearly visible means to indicate the 
position of the trim device with respect to the range of adjustment.
    [sbull] The current text of JAR-25.677(b) (Change 15) is:
    (b) There must be means adjacent to the trim control to indicate 
the direction of the control movement relative to the aeroplane motion. 
In addition, there must be clearly visible means to indicate the 
position of the trim device with respect to the range of adjustment. 
The indicator must be clearly marked with the range within which it has 
been demonstrated that take-off is safe for all centre of gravity 
position approved for take-off.
    [sbull] The current text of 14 CFR 25.1439 is: Section 25.1439 
Protective Breathing Equipment.
    (a) If there is a class A, B, or E cargo compartment, protective 
breathing equipment must be installed for the use of appropriate 
crewmembers. In addition, protective breathing equipment must be 
installed in each isolated separate compartment in the airplane, 
including upper and lower lobe galleys, in which crewmember occupancy 
is permitted during flight for the maximum number of crewmembers 
expected to be in the area during any operation.
    (b) For protective breathing equipment required by paragraph (a) of 
this section or by any operating rule of this chapter, the following 
apply:
    (1) The equipment must be designed to protect the flight crew from 
smoke, carbon dioxide, and other harmful gases while on flight deck 
duty and while combating fires in cargo compartments
    (2) The equipment must include--
    (i) Masks covering the eyes, nose, and mouth; or
    (ii) Masks covering the nose and mouth, plus accessory equipment to 
cover the eyes.

[[Page 61838]]

    (3) The equipment, while in use, must allow the flight crew to use 
the radio equipment and to communicate with each other, while at their 
assigned duty stations.
    (4) The part of the equipment protecting the eyes may not cause any 
appreciable adverse effect on vision and must allow corrective glasses 
to be worn.
    (5) The equipment must supply protective oxygen of 15 minutes 
duration per crewmember at a pressure altitude of 8,000 feet with a 
respiratory minute volume of 30 liters per minute BTPD. If a demand 
oxygen system is used, a supply of 300 liters of free oxygen at 
70[deg]F. and 760mm Hg. pressure is considered to be of 15-minute 
duration at the prescribed altitude and minute volume. If a continuous 
flow protective breathing system is used (including a mask with a 
standard rebreather bag) a flow rate of 60 liters per minute at 8,000 
feet (45 liters per minute at sea level) and a supply of 600 liters of 
free oxygen at 70[deg] F. and 760 mm. Hg. pressure is considered to be 
of 15-minute duration at the prescribed altitude and minute volume. 
BTPD refers to body temperature conditions (that is, 37[deg] C., at 
ambient pressure, dry).
    (6) The equipment must meet the requirements of paragraphs (b) and 
(c) of Sec.  25.1441.
    [sbull] The current text of JAR 25.1439 (Change 15) is: JAR 25.1439 
Protective Breathing Equipment.
    (a) Protective breathing equipment must be installed for use of 
appropriate crew members. Such equipment must be located so as to be 
available for use in compartments accessible in flight.
    (b) For protective breathing equipment required by JAR 25.1439 (a) 
or by the National Operating Regulations, the following apply:
    (1) The equipment must be designed to protect the appropriate crew 
member from smoke, carbon dioxide, and other harmful gases while on 
flight deck duty or while combating fires.
    (2) The equipment must include--
    (i) Masks covering the eyes, nose and mouth, or
    (ii) Masks covering the nose and mouth, plus accessory equipment to 
cover the eyes.
    (3) Equipment, including portable equipment, while in use must 
allow communication with other crew members. Equipment available at 
flight crew assigned duty stations must enable the flight crew to use 
radio equipment.
    (4) The part of the equipment protecting the eyes may not cause any 
appreciable adverse effect on vision and must allow corrective glasses 
to be worn.
    (5) Each dispensing equipment must supply protective oxygen of 15 
minutes duration at a pressure altitude of 8000 feet with a respiratory 
minute volume of 30 liters per minute BTPD. The equipment and system 
must be designed to prevent any leakage to the inside of the mask and 
any significant increase in the oxygen content of the local ambient 
atmosphere. (See ACJ 25.1439 (b)(5).)
    (6) The equipment must meet the requirements of JAR 25.1441.

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

    [sbull] For Sec.  25.677(b)
    The JAR imposes one additional requirement not found in part 25. 
The JAR adds a requirement to clearly mark a range on the trim 
indication system where take-off is safe for all center of gravity 
positions.
    [sbull] For Sec.  25.1439
    Paragraph (a): Section 25.1439 requires Protective Breathing 
Equipment (PBE) if there is a class A, B, or E cargo compartment. It 
also requires PBE in each isolated separate compartment where 
crewmember occupancy is permitted during flight for the maximum number 
of crewmembers expected to occupy that area during any operation. JAR 
25.1439 requires PBE to be available for use in any compartment that is 
accessible in flight, regardless of compartment classification, or 
isolation.
    Paragraph (b): Section 25.1439 and the JAR are essentially the 
same, with both regulations referring to paragraph (a) and the 
operating regulations.
    Paragraph (b)(1): Section 25.1439 specifies that the equipment must 
be designed to protect the flightcrew while on duty and while combating 
fires in cargo compartments. The JAR specifies protection for the 
appropriate crewmember (not just flightcrew) and does not limit the 
fire combating to cargo compartments.
    Paragraph (b)(2): There are no differences between the regulations.
    Paragraph (b)(3): Section 25.1439 and the JAR list essentially the 
same requirements for communication to other crewmembers and allowing 
use of radio equipment. The only difference is that the JAR clarifies 
that the standard applies to both stationary and portable equipment.
    Paragraph (b)(4): There are no differences between the regulations.
    Paragraph (b)(5): Both part 25 and the JAR state that the equipment 
must supply protective oxygen of 15-minute duration per crewmember at a 
pressure of 8,000 feet with a respiratory minute volume of 30 liters 
per minute BTPD (body temperature). Part 25 includes interpretive 
material for a 15-minute duration using demand or continuous flow 
systems, and defines BTPD. The JAR refers to ACJ 25.1439(b)(5) for the 
interpretive material, which describes the 15-minute duration using a 
demand system.
    [sbull] The current text of ACJ 25.1439(b)(5) is: ACJ 25.1439(b)(5) 
Protective Breathing Equipment (Interpretative Material And Acceptable 
Means Of Compliance) See JAR 25.1439(b)(5)
    1. If a demand system is used, a supply of 300 litres of free 
oxygen at 70[deg] and 760 mm Hg pressure is considered to be of 15 
minutes duration at the prescribed altitude and minute volume. 
(Interpretative Material.)
    2. Any other system such as a continuous flow system is acceptable 
provided that it does not result in any significant increase in the 
oxygen content of the local ambient atmosphere above that which would 
result from the use of a demand oxygen system. (Interpretative 
Material.)
    3. A system with safety over-pressure would be an acceptable means 
of preventing leakage. (Acceptable Means of Compliance.)
    4. A continuous flow system of the closed circuit rebreather type 
is an acceptable system (Acceptable Means of Compliance.).
    The JAR includes additional design requirements to prevent internal 
leakage and to prevent increased oxygen content of the local atmosphere 
due to external leakage.
    Paragraph (b)(6): The JAR specifies that the equipment must meet 
all paragraphs of Sec.  25.1441 (not just (b) and (c) as in part 25).

    Note: Sec.  25.1441 and JAR 25.1441 are not identical, but are 
essentially the same.

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

    [sbull] For Sec.  25.677(b)
    The JAR means of compliance requires the applicant to mark safe 
take-off limits on the trim indication system. Currently, part 25 does 
not have this requirement.
    [sbull] For Sec.  25.1439
    There is no difference in the means of compliance for the 
stationary type of PBE. All aircraft are equipped with a demand oxygen 
system for the flightcrew, consisting of a high pressure gaseous oxygen 
supply (minimum of 300 liters of free oxygen per person), pressure/flow 
regulation, distribution tubing, and masks (or mask and goggle 
combination if separate) that meet TSO-C99 and JTSO-C99.

[[Page 61839]]

    The means of compliance for the quantity and location of portable 
type PBE is slightly different. The JAA certified aircraft have at 
least one PBE installed in/near the flight deck and in/near each 
compartment accessible in flight. Some, but not all, FAA certified 
aircraft have portable PBE installed on the flight deck. The FAA 
certified aircraft have PBE installed in/near each class A, B, and E 
cargo compartments (as defined by Sec.  25.857). Also, PBE is installed 
in/near each isolated separate compartment for the maximum number of 
crewmembers expected to be in the area. These compartments include, but 
are not limited to, upper and lower lobe galleys. The JAA certified 
aircraft may not be equipped with as many PBE as there may be 
crewmembers in isolated compartments.
    Of course those compartments or areas with special conditions 
against them are not discussed in this proposal. The requirements and 
means of compliance are documented separately.

What Is the Proposed Action?

    [sbull] For Sec.  25.677(b)
    The proposed action would adopt the more stringent JAR requirement, 
which adds the requirement to mark the safe take-off limits on the trim 
indication system.
    [sbull] For Sec.  25.1439
    The proposed action is to merge the requirements of both part 25 
and JAR standards, and to develop a baseline set of standards and an 
acceptable means of compliance that would satisfy all authorities. The 
merged standard would combine the requirements of Sec.  25.1439 and JAR 
25.1439 into one harmonized standard and eliminate the need for ACJ 
25.1439(b)(5). The harmonization would be accomplished by enveloping 
(taking the most stringent requirement of) the two standards and adding 
some of the interpretive material from the ACJ. The result would be a 
common standard that is easy to understand.
    The ARAC working group comments that a small part 25 airplane with 
a Class A baggage compartment is not required to have a PBE installed. 
The FAA does not agree. If a small part 25 airplane is equipped with a 
Class A baggage compartment, then part 25 requires installation of a 
PBE, even if part 91 does not require the PBE.

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    [sbull] For Sec.  25.677(b)
    The proposed change to Sec.  25.677(b) would be an additional 
requirement to mark the safe take-off limits on the trim system. The 
adoption of this change would be a new minimum design standard for trim 
systems.
    [sbull] For Sec.  25.1439
    The proposed regulation clearly defines design and compliance 
criteria for stationary and portable protective breathing equipment in 
one harmonized standard. It incorporates the more stringent portions of 
the existing part 25 and JAR requirements.

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

    [sbull] For Sec.  25.677(b)
    The proposed standard would increase the level of safety by adding 
a new requirement to Sec.  25.677 to mark safe take-off limits on the 
trim indication system.
    [sbull] For Sec.  25.1439
    This standard has been changed to include the more stringent 
requirements of Sec.  25.1439 and JAR 25.1439. Paragraph (a) of the 
existing JAR requires protective breathing equipment to be installed 
for fire fighting use in all compartments accessible in flight, not 
just specific cargo compartments. Paragraph (a) of the existing Sec.  
25.1439 requires portable protective breathing equipment for each 
crewmember in isolated compartments; the JAR requires the equipment for 
use of the appropriate crewmembers. Paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) of the 
existing JAR 25.1439 are more stringent than the existing Sec.  
25.1439. The JAR paragraphs include additional leakage and design 
requirements above the existing Sec.  25.1439.
    The proposed standard may increase the safety of aircraft only 
certified to part 25 or the JAR's. For some configurations, the revised 
part 25 regulation would require additional portable PBE to be 
installed by the airframe Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). Most 
operating standards, such as Sec.  121.337 and JAR-OPS 1.780, require 
additional portable PBE above what is required for type-design 
certification. Some operating standards, such as 14 CFR part 91, may 
not require as many portable PBE as Sec.  25.1439 and JAR 25.1439. An 
increase in safety would come from the situation where the airplane's 
applicable operational requirements are the same as, or less than, the 
current Sec.  25.1439. An increase in safety would also exist if an 
airplane is only certificated to JAR-25 and does not have PBE equal to 
the number of crewmembers expected to be in the isolated compartments.

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

    [sbull] For Sec.  25.677(b)
    The proposed standard would maintain the same level of safety as 
current industry practice. Most airplanes certified under current 
requirements already mark safe take-off limits on trim indication 
systems to show compliance to JAR 25.677.
    [sbull] For Sec.  25.1439
    The current industry practice is to install PBE in accordance with 
the more stringent requirements of Sec.  25.1439 or JAR 25.1439, 
depending on which certification standards are being used, and the 
applicable operational standards. Airlines and OEMs typically configure 
the aircraft at the time of design with more PBE than is required by 
either Sec.  25.1439 or JAR 25.1439, to facilitate approval for 
operation under applicable operating rules. The proposed revision to 
the standard would maintain the same level of safety if the airplane's 
operational requirements require more portable PBE than part 25 and 
JAR-25. If the airplane's operational requirements are less stringent 
than Sec.  25.1439, then the proposed standard would increase the level 
of safety for aircraft only certified to part 25. The proposed standard 
would increase the level of safety for aircraft that are only certified 
to JAR-25 if the airplane is not equipped with enough PBE for the 
maximum number of crewmembers expected to be in isolated compartments.

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

    [sbull] For Sec.  25.677(b)
    No other option was considered because this would be a simple 
change to the current standard. The change will harmonize Sec.  25.677 
to JAR 25.677.
    [sbull] For Sec.  25.1439
    Enveloping (taking the most stringent requirement of each) Sec.  
25.1439, JAR 25.1439, Sec.  121.337, and JAR-OPS 1.780 into one 
harmonized Sec.  25.1439 and JAR 25.1439 was considered. This option 
was not selected since it would include some operational requirements 
and would likely drive changes to Sec.  121.337 and JAR-OPS 1.780. 
Changes to these requirements would take considerable effort and would 
be beyond the scope of the ARAC tasking statement.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Change?

    [sbull] For Sec.  25.677(b)
    This change would affect new type certificate applicants.

[[Page 61840]]

    [sbull] For Sec.  25.1439
    Airlines typically purchase portable PBE and flightcrew masks and 
provide them to the airframe OEMs for installation. The proposed change 
to the standard would require additional portable PBE to be installed 
on some aircraft. Additional units would increase the airlines' 
procurement costs and the airplane manufacturer's installation cost.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    [sbull] For 21 25.677(b)
    There is no advisory material for this rule and no advisory 
material is proposed.
    [sbull] For Sec.  25.1439
    No advisory material would be needed. The text of the proposed 
standard incorporates the interpretive material (paragraphs 1 and 2) 
and the acceptable means of compliance (paragraph 4) of ACJ 
25.1439(b)(5). The remainder of ACJ 25.1439(b)(5) would be eliminated.

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 prohibits agencies from setting 
standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Agreements 
Act also requires the consideration of international standards and, 
where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. And 
fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to 
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects 
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to 
result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more 
annually (adjusted for inflation).
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
proposal has benefits, but minimal costs, and that it is not ``a 
significant regulatory action'' as defined in the 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.
    Because there are minimal costs associated with this proposed rule, 
it does not warrant the preparation of a full economic evaluation for 
placement in the docket. The DOT Order 2100.5 prescribes policies and 
procedures for simplication, 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, 
because the OEMs are already meeting the higher standard, 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 below.
    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 both 14 CFR part 25 and JAR-25. 
Since future certificated transport category aircraft are expected to 
meet the existing JAR requirement and these proposed rules simply 
adopts the same JAR requirement, manufacturers would incur minimal 
costs resulting from this proposal.
    [sbull] For Sec.  25.677(b)
    This proposal would harmonize part 25 to the JAR by adding an 
additional requirement to Sec.  25.677(b). The new Sec.  25.677(b) 
would require a clearly visible means to indicate the position of the 
trim device with respect to the range of adjustment. The ARAC working 
group states the proposed change will not increase manufacturing or 
operating costs and current industry practice already mark safe take-
off limits on trim indication systems to show compliance to JAR 
25.677(b) on most airplanes certified under Sec.  25.677(b).
    [sbull] For Sec.  25.1439
    This proposal would combine the requirements of Sec.  25.1439 and 
JAR 25.1439, and the advisory material for paragraph 25.1439(b)(5) of 
the JAR into one rule. This rule would apply to the design and 
installation of stationary and portable protective breathing equipment. 
The FAA has concluded that, for the reasons previously discussed in the 
preamble, the adoption of this harmonized standard into the JAR and 14 
CFR part 25 is the most efficient way to harmonize these sections.
    The FAA estimates that there are minimal 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 the JAR. Since future certificated transport category aircraft are 
expected to meet the existing requirements of 14 CFR Sec.  25.1439 and 
section 25.1439 of the JAR, and this rule simply adopts the more 
stringent requirements of each section, manufacturers would incur 
minimal costs resulting from this proposal. In fact, manufacturers are 
expected to receive cost-savings by a reduction in the FAA/JAA 
certification requirements for new aircraft. Most operating rules, such 
as Sec.  121.337 require additional portable PBE above what is required 
for type-design certification. In addition, most airlines and OEMs 
typically configure the airplane, at the time of design, with more PBE 
than is required by Sec.  25.1439. The current industry practice is to 
install PBE in accordance with the more stringent requirements of both 
JAR-25 and part 25 and the applicable operational rules.
    [sbull] For Sec. Sec.  25.677(b) and 25.1439
    Manufacturers are expected to receive certification cost-savings 
with a single FAA/JAA certification requirement for new aircraft. The 
FAA, however, has not attempted to quantify the cost savings for this 
specific proposal, beyond noting that, while they may be minimal, they 
contribute to a large potential harmonization savings.
    The agency concludes that, since there is consensus among 
potentially affected airplane manufacturers that the benefits of 
harmonization exceed the cost, further analysis is not required.
    The FAA requests comments with supporting documentation in regard 
to the conclusions contained in this section.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, 5 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

[[Page 61841]]

and to explain the rationale for their actions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. If the determination is that the rule will, the Agency 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the 
head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis 
is not required. The certification must include a statement providing 
the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    The FAA considers that this proposed rule would not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for two 
reasons:
    First, the net effect of the proposed rule is minimum regulatory 
cost relief. The proposed rule would require that new transport 
category aircraft manufacturers meet just the ``more stringent'' 
European certification requirement, rather than both the United States 
and European standards. Airplane manufacturers already meet or expect 
to meet this standard as well as the existing 14 CFR part 25 
requirement.
    Second, all U.S. transport-aircraft category manufacturers exceed 
the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 
employees for aircraft manufacturers. The current U.S. part 25 airplane 
manufacturers include: Boeing, Cessna Aircraft, Gulfstream Aerospace, 
Learjet (owned by Bombardier), Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas (a 
wholly-owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company), Raytheon Aircraft, and 
Sabreliner Corporation.
    Given that this proposed rule is minimally cost-relieving and that 
there are no small entity manufacturers of part 25 airplanes, the FAA 
certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979, 19 U.S.C. et seq., 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 is 
consistent with the statutes requirements by using 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, 1571, 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 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 record keeping 
requirements, Safety, Transportation.

[[Page 61842]]

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.  25.677 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.677  Trim systems.

* * * * *
    (b) There must be means adjacent to the trim control to indicate 
the direction of the control movement relative to the airplane motion. 
In addition, there must be clearly visible means to indicate the 
position of the trim device with respect to the range of adjustment. 
The indicator must be clearly marked with the range within which it has 
been demonstrated that take-off is safe for all center of gravity 
positions approved for take-off.
* * * * *
    3. Revise Sec.  25.1439 to read as follows:


Sec.  25.1439  Protective breathing equipment.

    (a) Fixed (stationary, or built in) protective breathing equipment 
must be installed for the use of the flightcrew, and at least one 
portable protective breathing equipment shall be located at or near the 
flight deck for use by a flight crewmember. In addition, portable 
protective breathing equipment must be installed for the use of 
appropriate crewmembers for fighting fires in compartments accessible 
in flight. This includes isolated compartments and upper and lower lobe 
galleys, in which crewmember occupancy is permitted during flight. 
Equipment must be installed for the maximum number of crewmembers 
expected to be in the area during any operation.
    (b) For protective breathing equipment required by paragraph (a) of 
this section or by the applicable Operating Regulations:
    (1) The equipment must be designed to protect the appropriate 
crewmember from smoke, carbon dioxide, and other harmful gases while on 
flight deck duty or while combating fires.
    (2) The equipment must include--
    (i) Masks covering the eyes, nose and mouth, or
    (ii) Masks covering the nose and mouth, plus accessory equipment to 
cover the eyes.
    (3) Equipment, including portable equipment, must allow 
communication with other crewmembers while in use. Equipment available 
at flightcrew assigned duty stations must also enable the flightcrew to 
use radio equipment.
    (4) The part of the equipment protecting the eyes shall not cause 
any appreciable adverse effect on vision and must allow corrective 
glasses to be worn.
    (5) The equipment must supply protective oxygen of 15 minutes 
duration per crewmember at a pressure altitude of 8,000 feet with a 
respiratory minute volume of 30 liters per minute BTPD. The equipment 
and system must be designed to prevent any inward leakage to the inside 
of the device and prevent any outward leakage causing significant 
increase in the oxygen content of the local ambient atmosphere. If a 
demand oxygen system is used, a supply of 300 liters of free oxygen at 
70[deg] F. and 760mm Hg. pressure is considered to be of 15-minute 
duration at the prescribed altitude and minute volume. If a continuous 
flow protective breathing system is used (including a closed circuit 
rebreather type system) a flow rate of 60 liters per minute at 8,000 
feet (45 liters per minute at sea level) and a supply of 600 liters of 
free oxygen at 70[deg] F. and 760 mm. Hg. pressure is considered to be 
of 15-minute duration at the prescribed altitude and minute volume. 
Continuous flow systems must not increase the ambient oxygen content of 
the local atmosphere above that of demand systems. BTPD refers to body 
temperature conditions (that is, 37[deg] C., at ambient pressure, dry).
    (6) The equipment must meet the requirements of Sec.  25.1441.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 26, 2002.
Ali Bahrami,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-25055 Filed 10-1-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P