[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 226 (Friday, November 22, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70510-70513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-29668]



[[Page 70509]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 25



Public Address System; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 226 / Friday, November 22, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 70510]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2002-13859; Notice No. 02-18]
RIN 2120-AH30


Public Address System

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend an 
airworthiness standard for the public address system on transport 
category airplanes. The proposal would shorten from 10 seconds to 3 
seconds, the time allowed for the system to become active after a 
flight crewmember removes the microphone from its stowage. A time 
requirement is imposed to assure the system is rapidly usable for 
emergency announcements. 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 January 21, 2003.

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-2002-13859 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-2002-13859.'' 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: Kirk Baker, FAA, Systems and Equipment 
Branch, ANM-130L, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; 
telephone 562-627-5345; facsimile 562-627-5210, e-mail 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Do I Submit Comments to This NPRM?

    Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the 
proposed action by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, 
as they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy, 
federalism, or economic impact that might result from adopting the 
proposals in this document are also invited. Substantive comments 
should be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments must identify the 
regulatory docket number and be submitted in duplicate to the DOT Rules 
Docket address specified above.
    All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each 
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed 
rulemaking, will be filed in the docket. The docket is available for 
public inspection before and after the comment closing date.
    We will consider all comments received on or before the closing 
date before taking action on this proposed rulemaking. Comments filed 
late will be considered as far as possible without incurring expense or 
delay. The proposals in this document may be changed in light of the 
comments received.

How Can I Obtain a Copy of This NPRM?

    You may download an electronic copy of this document using a modem 
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section 
of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-
3339); the Government Printing Office (GPO)'s electronic bulletin board 
service (telephone: 202-512-1661); or, if applicable, the FAA's 
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee bulletin board service 
(telephone: 800-322-2722 or 202-267-5948).
    Internet users may access recently published rulemaking documents 
at the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or 
the GPO's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
    You may obtain a copy of this document by submitting a request to 
the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or by calling 202-267-
9680. Communications must identify the docket number of this NPRM.
    Any person interested in being placed on the mailing list for 
future rulemaking documents should request from the above office a copy 
of Advisory Circular 11-2A, ``Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
Distribution System,'' which describes the application procedure.

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 certificated to JAR-25 standards for export to Europe.

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

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

[[Page 70511]]

    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 2 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 made no changes to this NPRM.

Discussion of the Proposal

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

    The public address system assures the operational availability 
within a specified time for passenger announcements in the event of an 
emergency situation. The system must be powerable in flight or on the 
ground to allow communication with all passengers at all times.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

    The current text of 14 CFR 25.1423 is:

    Sec.  25.1423 Public address system
    (b) Be capable of operation within 10-seconds by a flight 
attendant at those stations in the passenger compartment from which 
the system is accessible.

    The current text of JAR-25.1423 (Change 15, amendment 25/96/1) is:

    JAR-25.1423 Public address system
    (b) The system must be capable of operation within 3-seconds 
from the time a microphone is removed from its stowage by a flight 
attendant at those stations in the passenger compartment from which 
its use is accessible.

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

    The JAR requirement is very specific in that the system must be 
operational within 3 seconds from the time the flight attendant removes 
the microphone from its stowage position. Part 25 specifies that the 
system must be operational within 10 seconds, but does not specify the 
start of the 10-second time period.

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

    Under the JAR requirements, a system must operate within three 
seconds from the time the microphone is removed from its stowed 
position. Under the part 25 requirements, the system can be approved if 
it is operational within 10 seconds by a flight attendant at those 
stations in the passenger compartment from which its use is accessible. 
Currently, the technology that is used in the amplifiers for the public 
address system is in compliance with the 3-seconds delay requirement. 
The old vacuum tube technology required 10 seconds for heating to be 
operational, whereas the technology used today does not require 
heating. The proposed 3-seconds delay is in line with current 
technology.

What Is the Proposed Action?

    The proposed action is to revise part 25 by adopting the text of 
JAR 25.1423(b) in its entirety. The proposed revision would specify the 
3-seconds operational compliance time and is in line with current 
technology.

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

    The proposed standard would harmonize part 25 and the JAR by 
removing the 10 second requirement from Sec.  25.1423, and inserting 
the JAR text. The new Sec.  25.1423 will impose a 3-second operational 
requirement from the time the microphone is removed from its stowage 
position.

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

    The proposed standard would maintain the same level of safety since 
current technology meets the 3-seconds requirement. The proposed 
standard would also clarify the requirement by specifying the start and 
end of the 3-seconds timeframe.

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

    Current industry practice is for systems to be designed to meet 
both part 25 and the JAR requirements. For these systems, the proposed 
standard would maintain the same level of safety.

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

    The FAA has not considered another option. The FAA considers the 
adoption of JAR 25.1423(b) in its entirety the most appropriate way to 
fulfill

[[Page 70512]]

harmonization goals while maintaining safety.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Change?

    The proposed standard is in line with current design practices and 
the effect of the change is considered to be minimal for equipment 
manufacturers. For new equipment, it is not a problem since technology 
meets the 3-seconds standard.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

    The FAA considers developing new advisory material to be 
unnecessary.

What Regulatory Analyses and Assessments Has the FAA Conducted? What 
Other 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 as amended 
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 requires agencies to consider international standards 
and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. And 
fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to 
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects 
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to 
result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more 
annually (adjusted for inflation).
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
proposal has benefits, but no costs, and that it is not ``a significant 
regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This 
proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, reduces barriers to international trade, and 
imposes no unfunded mandates on State, local, or tribal governments, or 
the private sector.
    Because there are no apparent costs associated with this proposal, 
it does not warrant the preparation of a full economic evaluation for 
placement in the docket. The FAA estimates that there are no costs 
associated this proposal. A review of current manufacturers of 
transport category aircraft has revealed that all such future aircraft 
are expected to be certificated under part 25 of both 14 CFR and JAR. 
Since future certificated transport-category aircraft are expected to 
meet the existing section 25.1423(b) of the JAR requirement and this 
rule simply adopts the same JAR requirement, manufacturers would incur 
no additional cost resulting from this proposal. Current technology 
enables compliance with the requirement that the public address system 
be operational within 3 seconds. In fact, manufacturers are expected to 
receive cost-savings by a reduction in the FAA/JAA certification 
requirements for new aircraft. The cost-savings of this proposed rule 
is a potential reduction in paperwork required for certification. The 
FAA, however, has not attempted to quantify the cost savings that may 
accrue due to this specific proposal, beyond noting that while they may 
be minimal, they contribute to a large potential harmonization savings. 
The agency concludes that because there is consensus among potentially 
impacted airplane manufacturers that savings will result, further 
analysis is not required.
    The FAA requests comments with supporting documentation in regard 
to the conclusions contained in this section.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 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 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 requires that new transport 
category aircraft manufacturers meet just the ``more stringent'' 
European certification requirement, rather than both the United States 
and European standards. Airplane manufacturers already meet or expect 
to meet this standard as well as the existing 14 CFR requirement. 
Secondly, all United States transport-aircraft category manufacturers 
exceed the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 
employees for aircraft manufacturers. United States part 25 airplane 
manufacturers include: 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 will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact

    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), 2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538, 1571, requires each Federal agency, to the extent 
permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of the effects of any 
Federal mandate in a

[[Page 70513]]

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.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), the FAA had determined there are no requirements for 
information collection associated with this proposed rule.

International Compatibility

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

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically 
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. In 
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this 
rulemaking qualifies for a categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

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

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

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

Plain Language

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

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

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

    2. Amend Sec.  25.1423 by republishing the introductory text and 
revising the text of paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.1423  Public address system.

    A public address system required by this chapter must--
* * * * *
    (b) Be capable of operation within 3-seconds from the time a 
microphone is removed from its stowage by a flight attendant at those 
stations in the passenger compartment from which its use is accessible.
* * * * *

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 8, 2002.
Vi L. Lipski,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-29668 Filed 11-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P