[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 118 (Thursday, June 19, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36880-36883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-15532]



[[Page 36879]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 25



Lower Deck Service Compartments on Transport Category Airplanes; Final 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 118 / Thursday, June 19, 2003 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 36880]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2002-11346; Amendment No. 110]
RIN 2120-AH38


Lower Deck Service Compartments on Transport Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration amends the airworthiness 
standards for transport category airplanes concerning lower deck 
service compartments. This amendment requires that two-way voice 
communication systems between lower deck service compartments and the 
flightdeck remain available following loss of the normal electrical 
power generating system. It also clarifies the requirements for seats 
installed in the lower deck service compartment. Adoption of this 
amendment eliminates regulatory differences between the airworthiness 
standards of the U.S. and the Joint Aviation Requirements of Europe, 
without affecting current industry design practices.

EFFECTIVE DATE:  July 21, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayson Claar, FAA, Airframe/Cabin 
Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; 
telephone 425-227-2194; facsimile 425-227-1320, e-mail 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the 
following steps:
    (1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's 
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search).
    (2) On the search page type in the last four digits of the Docket 
number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information 
for the Docket you selected, click on the document number of the item 
you wish to view.
    You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the 
Office of Rulemaking's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm.cfm 
Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
    You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number 
of this rulemaking.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SFREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a question regarding 
this document may contact their local FAA official or the person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more about 
SBREFA on the Internet at our site, http://www.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm. 
For more information on SBREFA, e-mail us at [email protected].

Background

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Standards in the United States?

    In the United States, the airworthiness standards for type 
certification of transport category airplanes are contained in Title 
14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 25. Manufacturers of 
transport category airplanes must show that each airplane they produce 
of a different type design complies with the appropriate part 25 
standards. These standards apply to airplanes manufactured within the 
U.S. for use by U.S.-registered operators, and airplanes manufactured 
in other countries and imported to the U.S. under a bilateral 
airworthiness agreement.

What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Standards in Europe?

    In Europe, the airworthiness standards for type certification of 
transport category airplanes are contained in Joint Aviation 
Requirements (JAR)-25, which are based on part 25. These were developed 
by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe to provide a common 
set of airworthiness standards within the European aviation community. 
Twenty-three European countries accept airplanes type certificated to 
the JAR-25 standards, including airplanes manufactured in the U.S. that 
are type certificated to JAR-25 standards for export to Europe.

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

    Although part 25 and JAR-25 are very similar, they are not 
identical in every respect. When airplanes are type certificated to 
both sets of standards, the differences between part 25 and JAR-25 can 
result in substantial additional costs to manufacturers and operators. 
These additional costs, however, frequently do not bring about an 
increase in safety. In many cases, part 25 and JAR-25 may contain 
different requirements to accomplish the same safety intent. 
Consequently, manufacturers are usually burdened with meeting the 
requirements of both sets of standards, although the level of safety is 
not increased correspondingly.
    Recognizing that a common set of standards would not only benefit 
the aviation industry economically, but also maintain the necessary 
high level of safety, the FAA and the JAA began an effort in 1988 to 
``harmonize'' their respective aviation standards. The goal of the 
harmonization effort is to ensure that, where possible, standards do 
not require domestic and foreign parties to manufacture or operate to 
different standards for each country involved; and the standards 
adopted are mutually acceptable to the FAA and the foreign aviation 
authorities.
    The FAA and JAA have identified a number of significant regulatory 
differences 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, to provide advice 
and recommendations concerning the full range of the FAA's safety-
related rulemaking activity (56 FR 2190, January 22, 1991). The FAA 
sought this advice to develop better rules in less overall time and 
using fewer FAA

[[Page 36881]]

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 73 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 Did the FAA Propose?

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

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

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

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

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

What Comments Were Received in Response to the Proposal?

    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 02-06, was published in the 
Federal Register on January 24, 2002 (67 FR 3456). The comment period 
closed on March 25, 2002. Only one commenter responded to the request 
for comments. That commenter states that they have no comments at this 
time.

What Regulatory Analyses and Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Regulatory Evaluation Summary
    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. 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 
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).
    The FAA has determined that this amendment 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 amendment does 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, reduces barriers to international trade, and does 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 amendment 
does not warrant a full evaluation, a statement to that effect and the 
basis for it is included in the amendment. Accordingly, the FAA has 
determined that the expected impact of this amendment is so minimal (no 
substantial costs) that the amendment does not warrant a full 
evaluation. We provide the basis for this determination as follows.
    Currently, airplane manufacturers must satisfy both part 25 and the 
European JAR-25 standards to certificate transport category airplanes 
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 airplane development, and 
making the certification process more efficient, the FAA, JAA, and 
airplane 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 amendment revises the FAA requirements for lower deck service 
compartments on transport category airplanes that are not certified to 
be occupied during takeoff and landing. As explained previously in this 
preamble, this amendment revises part 25 to include the following 
``more stringent'' requirements of the JAR standards: (1) Sec.  
25.819(b), two-way voice communication systems between lower deck 
service compartments and the flightdeck remain available following loss 
of the normal electrical power generating system; and (2) Sec.  
25.819(f), seats installed in the lower deck compartment meet the 
requirements of Sec.  25.785(d), which include safety belt and either a 
shoulder harness, and/or energy absorbing rest, and/or elimination of 
injurious objects in the head strike path.
    This amendment results from the FAA's acceptance of recommendations 
made by ARAC. We have concluded that, for the reasons previously

[[Page 36882]]

discussed in the preamble, the adoption of the amendment 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 
amendment do not impose additional costs on U.S. manufacturers of part 
25 airplanes. Concerning the cost impact of complying with the 
standard, ARAC states there are apparent administrative savings for the 
relevant airworthiness authorities and indirect savings for the general 
public. In fact, ARAC believes that the industry would estimate the 
cost burden being at a neutral level. We have reviewed the cost 
analysis provided by industry through the ARAC process. Based on this 
analysis, we consider that a full regulatory evaluation is not 
necessary.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, 50 U.S.C. 601-612, as 
amended, establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that 
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and 
of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational 
requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and 
governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.'' To achieve that 
principle, the RFA requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible 
regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. If the determination is that the rule will, the Agency 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the 
head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis 
is not required. The certification must include a statement providing 
the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    The FAA considers that this amendment does not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities for two reasons. 
First, the net effect of this amendment is minimum regulatory cost 
relief. The amendment requires that new transport category airplane 
manufacturers meet just one certification requirement, rather than 
different standards for the United States and Europe. Airplane 
manufacturers already meet or expect to meet this standard as well as 
the existing 14 CFR part 25 requirement. Second, all U.S. transport 
category airplane manufacturers exceed the Small Business 
Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 employees for airplane 
manufacturers. The current U.S. part 25 airplane manufacturers include: 
Boeing, Cessna Aircraft, Gulfstream Aerospace, Learjet (owned by 
Bombardier), Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas (a wholly-owned 
subsidiary of The Boeing Company), Raytheon Aircraft, and Sabreliner 
Corporation.
    Given that this amendment is minimally cost-relieving and that 
there are no small entity manufacturers of part 25 airplanes, the FAA 
certifies that this amendment does not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards.
    In accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the 
potential effect of this amendment and has determined that it complies 
with the Act because this rule would use European international 
standards as the basis for U.S. standards.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
codified in 2 U.S.C. sections 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 amendment 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 amendment 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 amendment does 
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 
amendment.

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 amendment.
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 amendment qualifies for a categorical 
exclusion.
Energy Impact
    The energy impact of the amendment 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

[[Page 36883]]

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 amendment applies 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 has 
determined that there is no justification for applying the amendment 
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 Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration 
amends part 25 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Amend Sec.  25.819 by revising paragraphs (b) and (f) to read as 
follows:


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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 6, 2003.
Vi Lipski,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 03-15532 Filed 6-18-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P