[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 16, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12526-12530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-5892]



[[Page 12525]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 25



Electrical Equipment and Installations, Storage Battery Installation; 
Electronic Equipment; and Fire Protection of Electrical System 
Components on Transport Category Airplanes; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 16, 2004 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 12526]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2001-9634, FAA-2001-9633, FAA-2001-9638, FAA-2001-9637; 
Amendment No. 25-113]
RIN 2120-AI21


Electrical Equipment and Installations, Storage Battery 
Installation; Electronic Equipment; and Fire Protection of Electrical 
System Components on Transport Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA amends the regulations governing airworthiness 
standards for transport category airplanes concerning: electrical 
equipment; nickel cadmium battery installation and storage; electrical 
cables; design and installation of electronic equipment; and fire 
protection of electrical system components. Adoption of these 
amendments eliminates significant regulatory differences between the 
airworthiness standards of the U.S. and the Joint Aviation Requirements 
of Europe, without affecting current industry design practices.

DATES: This amendment becomes effective April 15, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Slotte, FAA, Airplane and 
Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Federal Aviation Administration, 
Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone 425-227-2315; 
facsimile 425-227-1320, e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Obtain a Copy of This Final Rule?

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
    (1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket 
Management System (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search);
    (2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfm; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
    You can also request a copy from the Federal Aviation 
Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC 20591 [(202) 267-9680]. Be sure to identify the 
amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

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

Background

    This final rule responds to recommendations of the Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) submitted under the FAA's Fast 
Track Harmonization Program. It amends six sections of the regulations 
governing airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes 
concerning: electrical installation, nickel cadmium battery 
installation and storage; electrical cables; design and installation of 
electronic equipment; and fire protection of electrical system 
components. The FAA proposed these changes in four notices of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM). The notices and the affected sections are listed in 
the table below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                14 CFR section                         Notice    Federal Register  publication/
          Change No.                 No.            Section title       No.             publication date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................  Sec.             Electrical equipment    01-04  66 FR 27582, 05/17/2001.
                                25.1353(a).      and installations.
2............................  Sec.             Storage batteries
                                25.1353(c)(5).
3............................  Sec.             Storage batteries
                                25.1353(c)(6).
4............................  Sec.             Electrical cables       01-03  66 FR 26942, 05/15/2001.
                                25.1353(d).      and cable
                                                 installations.
5............................  Sec.             Electronic equipment    01-07  66 FR 26956, 05/15/2001.
                                25.1431(d).
6............................  Sec.             Fire protection         01-06  66 FR 26964, 05/15/2001.
                                25.869(a)(4).    systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In these notices you will find a history of the problems and 
discussions of the safety considerations supporting our course of 
action. You also will find a discussion of the current requirements and 
why they do not adequately address the problem. We also refer to the 
recommendations of the ARAC we relied on in developing the proposed 
rule. The NPRMs also discuss each alternative that we considered and 
the reasons for rejecting the ones we did not adopt.
    The background material in the NPRM also contains the basis and 
rationale for these requirements and, except where we have specifically 
expanded on the background elsewhere in this preamble, supports this 
final rule as if it were contained here. That is, any future 
discussions regarding the intent of the requirements may refer to the 
background in the NPRM as though it was in the final rule itself. It is 
therefore not necessary to repeat the background in this document.

History

    In the United States, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
part 25 contains the airworthiness standards for type certification of 
transport category airplanes. Manufacturers of transport category 
airplanes must show that each airplane they produce of a different type 
design complies with the appropriate part 25 standards.
    In Europe, Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR)-25 contains the 
airworthiness standards for type certification of transport category 
airplanes. The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe developed 
these standards, which are based on part 25, to provide a common set of 
airworthiness standards within the European aviation community. Thirty-
seven 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.
    Although part 25 and JAR-25 are 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

[[Page 12527]]

can result in substantial added costs to manufacturers and operators. 
These added costs, however, often do not bring about an increase in 
safety.
    Recognizing that a common set of standards would not only benefit 
the aviation industry economically but also preserve the necessary 
high-level of safety, the FAA and the JAA began an effort in 1988 to 
``harmonize'' their respective aviation standards.
    After beginning 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 noticeable progress towards fulfilling 
the harmonization goal. The FAA identified the ARAC as an ideal vehicle 
for helping to resolve harmonization issues, and in 1992, the FAA 
tasked ARAC to undertake the entire harmonization effort.
    Despite the work that ARAC has undertaken to address harmonization, 
there remain many regulatory differences between part 25 and JAR-25. 
The current harmonization process is costly and time-consuming for 
industry, the FAA, and the JAA. Industry has expressed a strong desire 
to finish the harmonization program as quickly as possible to alleviate 
the drain on their resources and finally to establish one acceptable 
set of standards.
    Recently, representatives of the FAA and JAA proposed an 
accelerated process to reach harmonization, the ``Fast Track 
Harmonization Program.'' The FAA initiated the Fast Track Harmonization 
Program on November 26, 1999 (64 FR 66522). This rulemaking has been 
identified as a ``fast track'' project.
    Further details on ARAC, and its role in the harmonization 
rulemaking activity, and the Fast Track Harmonization Program can be 
found in the tasking statement (64 FR 66522, November 26, 1999) and the 
first NPRM published under this program, Fire Protection Requirements 
for Powerplant Installations on Transport Category Airplanes (65 FR 
36978, June 12, 2000).

Related Activity

    The new European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA) was established 
and formally came into being on September 28, 2003. The JAA worked with 
the European Commission (EC) to develop a plan to ensure a smooth 
transition from JAA to the EASA. As part of the transition, the EASA 
will absorb all functions and activities of the JAA, including its 
efforts to harmonize JAA regulations with those of the U.S. This rule 
is a result of the FAA and JAA harmonization rulemaking activities. It 
adopts the more stringent requirements of the JAR standards. These JAR 
standards have already been incorporated into the EASA ``Certification 
Specifications for Large Aeroplanes'' CS-25, in similar if not 
identical language. The EASA CS-25 became effective on October 17, 
2003.

Discussion of the Comments

Electrical Installation, Nickel Cadmium Battery Installation, and 
Nickel Cadmium Battery Storage, RIN 2120-AH27

    On May 17, 2001, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(Notice No. 01-04, 66 FR 27582) entitled, ``Electrical Installation, 
Nickel Cadmium Battery Installation, and Nickel Cadmium Battery 
Storage.'' In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend three sections of 14 
CFR part 25 regarding airworthiness standards for transport category 
airplanes concerning electrical equipment and installations to 
harmonize the standards with those of the associated JAR-25. In the 
NPRM, the proposed title of Sec.  25.1353 is incorrect. This final rule 
corrects the title of Sec.  25.1353 to read ``Electrical equipment and 
installations.'' For electrical equipment installations, the FAA 
proposed to add text from the associated JAR to harmonize the 
requirements, and to clarify the intent of this regulation. For nickel 
cadmium batteries, the FAA proposed to expand the applicability of the 
regulation to all nickel cadmium battery sizes, regardless of their 
capabilities. In addition, the FAA proposed to adopt the associated JAR 
Advisory Circular Joint (ACJ) material for both electrical equipment 
and nickel cadmium battery installations.
General Comment
    The FAA received four comments in response to the proposed rule. 
Two of the four commenters support the proposed changes. The other two 
commenters disagreed with the cost estimates in the proposal, as 
discussed below.
    Comment: The third and fourth commenters submitted their comments 
through the Air Transport Association of America (ATA). The ATA 
provided comments that ``indicate the cost estimates in the proposal 
are flawed because they do not address the cost of compliance when 
installing new equipment in existing airplanes.''
    FAA Reply: The FAA does not concur. The cost and technical impacts 
on existing aircraft due to harmonization of these rules are expected 
to be minimal because of the following:
    1. These harmonized rules will, in general, not be applicable to 
existing airplanes or modifications to existing airplanes that were 
certified to earlier amendment levels as defined on the Type 
Certificate Data sheet. An exception may be new derivative airplane 
models or modifications to existing models that are deemed significant 
enough to require application of later amendment levels per 14 CFR 
21.101.
    2. It is anticipated that any modifications or retrofit changes 
that require a showing of compliance to the harmonized rules for nickel 
cadmium batteries Sec. Sec.  25.1353(c)(5) and (c)(6) will, in general, 
not require compliance to later amendments.
    3. The requirements for temperature sensing, monitoring, and 
warning, in general apply to batteries that have high enough energy 
sources to be a hazard, and are typically main airplane batteries or 
APU start type batteries. Main airplane batteries (which have engine 
ignition as a stand-by load) or APU start batteries already are 
required to have this sensing and monitoring functionality.
    4. This regulation will not be applicable to flashlights or 
emergency lighting equipment (dry cell type batteries as they generally 
have low energy-charging type systems (trickle charge)); unless there 
were to be new designs or new technologies that warrant this type of 
battery monitoring and sensing due to potentially hazardous effects.
    5. Harmonization of Sec.  25.1353(a) with JAR 25.1353(a) provides 
consistency with existing rules, Sec.  25.1431, and with the harmonized 
Sec.  25.1309. The intent of both rules is the same in that the 
airplane is required to be designed with electrical interference 
effects that have no unsafe effects on the airplane, systems, or 
occupants. This rule provides further definition in terms of the level 
of safety or probability of failure that is required. The main 
difference between Sec.  25.1353(a) and JAR 25.1353(a) is the use of 
the term ``extremely remote,'' which is defined as follows:

    Extremely Remote Failure Condition: a failure condition that is 
not anticipated to occur to each airplane during its total life, but 
which may occur a few times when considering the total operational 
life of all airplanes of the type. [Note: The term ``extremely 
remote'' has been used previously within 14 CFR part 25 to describe 
a condition so remote that it is not anticipated to occur in service 
on any transport category airplane (i.e., ``extremely improbable''). 
However, for the purposes of this regulation, the term ``extremely 
remote'' will have the meaning specified above.]


[[Page 12528]]


    This is further supported by the Advisory Circular Joint (ACJ) 
25.1353(a), ``Acceptable Means of Compliance and Interpretation,'' 
Section Two of the Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR-25).
    The FAA has adopted the JAR ACJ material as an acceptable means of 
showing compliance with the revision to Sec.  25.1353(a) and has 
developed an Advisory Circular (AC). The FAA will publish a Notice of 
Availability in the Federal Register after the AC is issued.
    Changes: No changes were made as a result of this comment.
    FAA Disposition of Comments: The FAA adopts the changes as proposed 
in the NPRM, Notice No. 01-04.

Electrical Cables, RIN 2120-AH29

    On May 15, 2001, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(Notice No. 01-03, 66 FR 26942) entitled, ``Electrical Cables.'' In the 
NPRM, the FAA proposed harmonizing the standards by revising the 
regulation to adopt the text of the associated JAR-25. The proposed 
revision would specify a design action to be taken, and remove the 
possibility that a designer may not consider a critical installation 
design condition.
General Comment
    The FAA received one comment to both Notice No. 01-03 and Notice 
No. 01-07. The commenter fully supports the proposal.
    Comment: The commenter fully supports the adoption of these 
amendments to reduce the differences between part 25 and JAR-25. 
Further, the commenter states that the fruits of the ARAC's 
considerable efforts should enable the FAA to complete this rulemaking 
quickly.
    Changes: No changes were made as a result of this comment.
    FAA Disposition of Comment: The FAA adopts the changes as proposed 
in the NPRM, Notice No. 01-03.

Design and Installation of Electronic Equipment on Transport Category 
Airplanes, RIN 2120-AH28

    On May 15, 2001, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(Notice No. 01-07, 66 FR 26956) entitled, ``Design and Installation of 
Electronic Equipment on Transport Category Airplanes.'' In the NPRM, 
the FAA proposed to revise Sec.  25.1431 to add a new paragraph (d) 
that would be parallel to JAR-25.1431(d). The proposal would provide 
one location in the regulations that explicitly addresses requirements 
related to electrical power supply transients, clarify the objective of 
the other related regulations in part 25, and harmonize 14 CFR part 25 
with the associated JAR-25.
General Comment
    The FAA received one comment to both Notice No. 01-03 and Notice 
No. 01-07. The commenter fully supports the proposal.
    Comment: See Comment under ``Electrical Cables'' above.
    Changes: No changes to the rule as proposed are necessary.
    FAA Disposition of Comment: The FAA adopts the changes as proposed 
in the NPRM, Notice No. 01-07.

Fire Protection of Electrical System Components on Transport Category 
Airplanes, RIN 2120-AG92.

    On May 15, 2001, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(Notice No. 01-06, 66 FR 26964) entitled, ``Fire Protection of 
Electrical System Components on Transport Category Airplanes.'' In the 
NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise Sec.  25.869(a), concerning the 
protection of electrical system components, to adopt the more stringent 
language in the parallel JAR-25.
General Comment
    The FAA received three comments in response to the proposed rule. 
Two of the commenters agree with the proposal and recommend its 
adoption. The third commenter suggested a change to the applicability 
of the rule, as discussed below.
    Comment: The commenter states, ``Regulatory changes should apply to 
airplanes or electrical components manufactured after the date the CFR 
is changed. The CFR change should not be retroactive to airplanes 
manufactured before this new regulation is enacted.''
    FAA Reply: The harmonized Sec.  25.869(a) and JAR 25.869(a) will be 
incorporated into later revisions of 14 CFR part 25 and are not 
retroactive. Therefore, these harmonized rules will, in general, not be 
applicable to existing airplanes or electrical components that were 
certified to earlier amendment levels as defined on the Type 
Certificate Data sheet for the airplane models in question. An 
exception may be new derivative airplane models or modifications to 
existing models that are deemed significant enough to require 
application of later amendment levels per 14 CFR 21.101.
    There is currently no FAA advisory material related to the 
standard. However, the FAA has developed AC 25.869-1X, ``Electrical 
System Fire and Smoke Protection.'' It contains guidance on this 
subject and includes, with some modification, the material currently in 
the JAA's ACJ 25.869. The FAA will publish a Notice of Availability in 
the Federal Register after the AC is issued.
    Changes: No changes were made as a result of this comment.
    FAA Disposition of Comment: The FAA adopts the changes as proposed 
in the NPRM, Notice No. 01-06.

What Regulatory Analyses and Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Economic Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact 
Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal agency to 
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 impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the 
Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. section 2531-2533) prohibits agencies 
from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade 
Act also requires agencies to consider international standards and, 
where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. 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 
final rule:
    1. Has benefits that do justify its costs, is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order, and is not 
``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures;
    2. will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities;
    3. reduces barriers to international trade; and,
    4. imposes no unfunded mandates on State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector.
    The (DOT) Order 2100.5, ``Regulatory Policies and Procedures,'' 
prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and 
review of regulations. If it is determined that the expected impact is 
so minimal that the rule does not warrant a full evaluation, a 
statement to that effect and the basis

[[Page 12529]]

for it is included in the regulation. We provide the basis for this 
minimal impact determination below. We received no comments that 
conflicted with the economic assessment of minimal impact published in 
the notices of proposed rulemaking for this action. Given the reasons 
presented below, we have determined that the expected impact of this 
rule is so minimal that the final rule does not warrant a full 
evaluation.
    Currently, airplane manufacturers must satisfy both the 14 CFR and 
the European JAR certification standards to market transport category 
airplanes in both the United States and Europe. Meeting two sets of 
certification requirements raises the cost of developing new transport 
category airplanes 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 discussed previously, 
these efforts are referred to as harmonization. This final rule results 
from the FAA's acceptance of ARAC harmonization working group 
recommendations. Members of the ARAC working groups agreed that the 
requirements of this rule will not impose additional costs to U.S. 
manufacturers of part 25 airplanes.
    Specifically, this final rule requires:
    1. Revising Sec. Sec.  25.1353(a), (c)(5), and (c)(6), and 
25.869(a) to adopt the ``more stringent'' requirements currently in 
those same sections of JAR-25;
    2. adding Sec.  25.1353(d) to adopt JAR 25.1353(d) in its entirety; 
and,
    3. adding a new Sec.  25.1431(d) to incorporate the ``more 
stringent'' requirement of paragraph 25.1431(d) of the JAR.
    We consider that this rule will neither reduce nor increase the 
requirements beyond those that are already met by U.S. manufacturers to 
satisfy European airworthiness standards.
    As this rule neither increases nor decreases certification 
requirements beyond those already in existence, we have determined 
there will be no cost associated with this rule to part 25 
manufacturers. We have not tried to quantify the benefits of this 
amendment beyond identifying the expected harmonization benefit. This 
amendment eliminates an identified significant regulatory difference 
(SRD) between part 25 and JAR-25 wording. Eliminating the SRD will 
provide for a more consistent interpretation of the rules and, thus, is 
an element of the potentially large cost savings of harmonization.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) directs the FAA to fit 
regulatory requirements to the sale of the business, organizations, and 
governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. We are required to 
determine whether a proposed or final action will have a ``significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities'' as defined 
in the Act.
    If we find the action will have a significant impact, we must do a 
``regulatory flexibility analysis.'' If, however, we find the action 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities, we are not required to do the analysis. In this case, 
the Act requires that we include a statement that provides the factual 
basis for our determination.
    We have determined that this amendment will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for two 
reasons:
    First, the net effect of the final rule is regulatory cost relief. 
The amendment requires that new transport category airplane 
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 part 25 requirements.
    Second, all United States manufacturers of transport category 
airplanes exceed the Small Business Administration small-entity 
criteria of 1,500 employees for airplane manufacturers. Those U.S. 
manufacturers include: The Boeing Company, Cessna Aircraft Company, 
Gulfstream Aerospace, Learjet (owned by Bombardier Aerospace), Lockheed 
Martin Corporation, McDonnell Douglas (a wholly owned subsidiary of The 
Boeing Company), Raytheon Aircraft, and Sabreliner Corporation.
    The FAA received no comments that differed with the assessment 
given in this section. Since this final rule is cost relieving and 
there are no small entity manufacturers of part 25 airplanes, the FAA 
Administrator certifies that this final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
establishing any standards or engaging in 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.
    This rule is consistent with the Trade Agreement Act as the 
European standards are the basis for these U.S. regulations.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), is intended, 
among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfounded Federal 
mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act 
requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing 
the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule 
that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted 
annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.''
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements 
of Title II of the Act, therefore, do not apply.

What Other Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, there 
are no current or new requirements for information collection 
associated with this final 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 has 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these regulations.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

[[Page 12530]]

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 final 
rule applies to the certification of future designs of transport 
category airplanes and their subsequent operation, it could affect 
intrastate aviation in Alaska. Because no comments were received 
regarding this regulation affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, we 
will apply the rule in the same way that it is being applied 
nationally.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) requires each 
agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. We 
invite your comments on how to make these regulations easier to 
understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
     Are the requirements in the regulations clearly 
stated?
     Do the regulations contain unnecessary technical 
language or jargon that interferes with their clarity?
     Would the regulations be easier to understand if 
they were divided into more (but shorter) sections?
     Is the description in the final rule preamble 
helpful in understanding the regulations?
    Please send your comments to the address specified in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 final rule qualifies for a categorical 
exclusion.

Energy Impact

    The FAA has assessed the energy impact of this final rule 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. 
We have determined that the final rule is not a major regulatory action 
under the provisions of the EPCA.

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.  25.869 by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.869  Fire protection: systems.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Insulation on electrical wire and electrical cable installed in 
any area of the airplane must be self-extinguishing when tested in 
accordance with the applicable portions of part I, appendix F of this 
part.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  25.1353 by revising paragraphs (a), (c)(5), and (c)(6), 
and by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.1353  Electrical equipment and installations.

    (a) Electrical equipment, controls, and wiring must be installed so 
that operations of any one unit or system of units will not adversely 
affect the simultaneous operation of any other electrical unit or 
system essential to the safe operation. Any electrical interference 
likely to be present in the airplane must not result in hazardous 
effects upon the airplane or its systems except under extremely remote 
conditions.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) Each nickel cadmium battery installation must have provisions 
to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential systems that 
may be caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery can generate 
during a short circuit of the battery or of individual cells.
    (6) Nickel cadmium battery installations must have--
    (i) A system to control the charging rate of the battery 
automatically so as to prevent battery overheating; or
    (ii) A battery temperature sensing and over-temperature warning 
system with a means for disconnecting the battery from its charging 
source in the event of an over-temperature condition; or
    (iii) A battery failure sensing and warning system with a means for 
disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of 
battery failure.
    (d) Electrical cables and cable installations must be designed and 
installed as follows:
    (1) The electrical cables used must be compatible with the circuit 
protection devices required by Sec.  25.1357 of this part, such that a 
fire or smoke hazard cannot be created under temporary or continuous 
fault conditions.
    (2) Means of permanent identification must be provided for 
electrical cables, connectors and terminals.
    (3) Electrical cables must be installed such that the risk of 
mechanical damage and/or damage caused by fluids, vapors, or sources of 
heat, is minimized.

0
4. Amend Sec.  25.1431 by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.1431  Electronic equipment.

* * * * *
    (d) Electronic equipment must be designed and installed such that 
it does not cause essential loads to become inoperative as a result of 
electrical power supply transients or transients from other causes.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 9, 2004.
Franklin Tiangsing,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 04-5892 Filed 3-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P