[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 127 (Friday, July 2, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40520-40528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-15117]



[[Page 40519]]

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

Part V





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 25



Miscellaneous Flight Requirements; Powerplant Installation 
Requirements; Public Address System; Trim Systems and Protective 
Breathing Equipment; and Powerplant Controls; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 127 / Friday, July 2, 2004 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 40520]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket Nos. FAA-2002-13859, FAA-2002-11272, FAA-2002-11271, FAA-2002-
13438, FAA-2002-12244; Amendment No. 25-115]
RIN 2120-AI35


Miscellaneous Flight Requirements; Powerplant Installation 
Requirements; Public Address System; Trim Systems and Protective 
Breathing Equipment; and Powerplant Controls

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA amends the regulations governing airworthiness 
standards for transport category airplanes in six areas: miscellaneous 
flight requirements; powerplant installations; the public address 
system; trim systems; protective breathing equipment (PBE); and design 
requirements for powerplant valves controlled from the flight deck. 
Adoption of these amendments eliminates the regulatory differences 
between the airworthiness standards of the U.S. and the Joint Aviation 
Requirements (JAR) of Europe. Currently, airplane manufacturers must 
satisfy both the U.S. and European airworthiness requirements to 
certificate transport category airplanes in the U.S. and Europe. 
Because U.S. manufacturers of transport category airplanes already meet 
the more stringent requirements of the JAR, adoption of these 
amendments will not affect current industry design practices.

DATES: This amendment becomes effective August 2, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dionne Krebs, FAA, Transport Standards 
Staff, ANM-110, Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane 
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 
Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone 425-227-2250; facsimile 425-227-1100, 
e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    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 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 thirteen sections of the 
regulations governing airworthiness standards for transport category 
airplanes concerning: miscellaneous flight requirements; powerplant 
installations; the public address system; trim systems; protective 
breathing equipment (PBE); and design requirements for powerplant 
valves controlled from the flight deck. The FAA proposed these changes 
in five notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The notices and the 
affected sections are listed in the table below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               Federal Register publication/publication
     Change No.              14 CFR section No.                Section title               Notice No.                            date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................  Sec.   25.111(c)(4)                Takeoff path...............  02-01                   67 FR 1846 01/14/2002
2..................  Sec.   25.147(c)(2)                Directional and lateral      ......................  ...........................................
                                                         control (lateral control;
                                                         general)..
3..................  Sec.   25.161(c)(2)                Trim (longitudinal)........  ......................  ...........................................
4..................  Sec.   25.161(e)                   Trim (airplanes with four    ......................  ...........................................
                                                         or more engines)..
5..................  Sec.   25.175(d)                   Static longitudinal          ......................  ...........................................
                                                         stability (landing)..
6..................  Sec.   25.945(b)(5)                Thrust or power              02-02                   67 FR 4856 01/31/2002
                                                         augmentation system (fluid
                                                         tanks)..
7..................  Sec.   25.973(d)                   Fuel tank filler             ......................  ...........................................
                                                         connection..
8..................  Sec.   25.1181(b)                  Designated fire zones;       ......................  ...........................................
                                                         regions included..
9..................  Sec.   25.1305(a)(7) and (d)(2)    Powerplant instruments (for  ......................  ...........................................
                                                         all airplanes); (for
                                                         turbojet engine powered
                                                         airplanes)..
10.................  Sec.   25.1423                     Public address system......  02-18                   67 FR 70510 11/22/2002
11.................  Sec.   25.677                      Trim systems...............  02-15                   67 FR 61836 10/02/2002
12.................  Sec.   25.1439                     Protective breathing         ......................  ...........................................
                                                         equipment..
13.................  Sec.   25.1141                     Powerplant controls;         02-08                   67 FR 30820 05/08/2002
                                                         general..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In these notices you will find a history of the problems and 
discussions of the safety considerations supporting this rule. You also 
will find a discussion of the current requirements and why they do not 
adequately address the problem. The NPRMs refer to the ARAC 
recommendations upon which we relied in developing the proposed rules. 
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 NPRMs contains the basis and 
rationale for this rule and, except where we have specifically expanded 
on the background elsewhere in this preamble, supports this final rule 
as if it were contained here. We refer inquiries regarding the intent 
of the requirements to the background in the NPRMs as though it was in 
the final rule itself. It is therefore not necessary to repeat the 
background in this document.

[[Page 40521]]

History

    Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 25 contains 
the airworthiness standards for type certification of transport 
category airplanes. 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 agreement. Manufacturers of transport category airplanes must 
show that each airplane they produce of a different type design 
complies with the applicable part 25 standards.
    Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR)-25 contains the European 
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 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 toward harmonization, the FAA and 
JAA soon realized that traditional methods of rulemaking and 
accommodating different administrative procedures was insufficient to 
make noticeable progress toward 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 a large number of 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 complete 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. This rulemaking has been identified as a 
``fast track'' project.
    Further details on ARAC, and its role in 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

Miscellaneous Flight Requirements, RIN 2120-AH39

    On January 14, 2002, the FAA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (Notice No. 02-01, 67 FR 1846) entitled ``Miscellaneous 
Flight Requirements.'' The NPRM proposed to amend five sections of 14 
CFR part 25 regarding transport category airplanes miscellaneous flight 
requirements. The amendments harmonize these standards with the 
comparable JAR-25 standards. The affected sections are:

Sec.  25.111(c)(4), ``Takeoff path''
Sec.  25.147(c)(2), ``Directional and lateral control''
Sec.  25.161(c)(2), ``Trim (longitudinal)''
Sec.  25.161(e), ``Trim (four or more engines)''
Sec.  25.175(d), ``Static longitudinal stability''

    The FAA received one comment in response to the proposed rule. The 
commenter fully supports the proposal.
    On November 26, 2002, the FAA published a final rule (67 FR 70812) 
entitled, ``1-g Stall Speed as the Basis for Compliance With Part 25 of 
the Federal Aviation Regulations.'' This final rule amended the 
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes to redefine 
the reference stall speed as a speed not less than the 1-g stall speed, 
instead of the minimum speed obtained in a stalling maneuver. The rule 
became effective December 26, 2002.
    Included in the amendment were changes to operating speeds in Sec.  
25.161(c)(2), and Sec.  25.175(d)(4), to reflect the redefinition of 
the reference stall speed, specifically:

Sec.  25.161(c)(2), the expression, ``1.4 VS1'' revised to 
read ``1.3 VSR1.''
Sec.  25.175(d)(4), the expression, ``1.4 VS0'' revised to 
read ``1.3 VSR0.''

    The FAA adopts the changes as proposed in the NPRM, Notice No. 02-
01, revised to reflect the reference stall speed adopted by the 1-g 
stall speed final rule.

Revisions to Various Powerplant Installation Requirements for Transport 
Category Airplanes, RIN 2120-AH37

    On January 31, 2002, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Notice No. 02-02, 67 FR 4856) entitled, ``Revisions to 
Various Powerplant Installation Requirements for Transport Category 
Airplanes.'' The FAA proposed to amend four sections of 14 CFR part 25 
regarding airworthiness standards for powerplant installations on 
transport category airplanes. The amendments will harmonize these 
standards with the comparable JAR-25 standards. The affected sections 
are:

Sec.  25.945(b)(5) Thrust or power augmentation system
Sec.  25.973(d) Fuel tank filler connection
Sec.  25.1181(b) Designated fire zones; regions included
Sec.  25.1305(a)(7) and (d)(2) Powerplant instruments
General Comments
    Three commenters responded including a U.S. airplane manufacturer, 
a foreign airworthiness authority, and a U.S. industry association 
representing many groups in the aviation industry. The U.S. airplane 
manufacturer agreed with the proposed rule without further comment. The 
other two commenters disagreed with portions of the proposal and 
provided the following comments and recommendations for change.

[[Page 40522]]

Section-by-Section Discussion

Section 25.1181(b) Designated Fire Zones; Regions Included
    Comment: One commenter, a foreign airworthiness authority, opposes 
the inclusion of Sec.  25.863 to the existing cross-reference list 
contained in Sec.  25.1181(b). The commenter believes the agency is 
trying to bolster regulatory deficiencies in Sec.  25.1185 ``Flammable 
fluids'' by making the general ``Flammable fluid fire protection'' 
requirements of Sec.  25.863 applicable to ``Designated Fire Zones.'' 
The commenter suggests amending Sec.  25.1185 rather than cross-
referencing Sec.  25.863 in Sec.  25.1181(b). The commenter states that 
``a gradual implementation of fire protection measures should be 
commensurate with hazards.'' The commenter believes the proposed cross-
reference would lessen the distinction between the flammable fluid fire 
protection provisions required for ``Designated Fire Zones'' and those 
required for other flammable fluid leakage zones. The commenter 
believes that because of this loss of distinction, one could argue that 
meeting the general objective requirements of Sec.  25.863 provides an 
equivalent level of safety to meeting the more specific prescriptive 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  25.1185 through 25.1203. The commenter 
provides the following as an example:

``Sec.  25.863(c) If action is required to prevent or counteract a 
fluid fire [ * * * ] quick acting means must be provided to alert the 
crew.''
``Sec.  25.1203(a) There must be approved, quick acting fire or 
overheat detectors [ * * * ] in numbers and locations ensuring prompt 
detection of fire in those zones.''

    FAA Reply: The FAA uses the following definitions in our response:
    Designated Fire Zone (DFZ). The areas listed in Sec.  25.1181:
     The engine power section;
     Except for reciprocating engines, any complete powerplant 
compartment in which no isolation is provided between the engine power 
section and the engine accessory section;
     The engine accessory section;
     The APU compartment;
     Any fuel burning heater (or combustion equipment described 
in Sec.  25.859);
     The compressor and accessory sections of turbine engines; 
and
     The combustor, turbine and tailpipe sections of turbine 
engine installations that contain lines or components carrying 
flammable fluids.
    Fire Zone. A flammable fluid leakage zone that contains a nominal 
ignition source and is not a DFZ.
    Flammable Fluid Leakage Zone. Any area where flammable liquids or 
vapors are not intended to be present, but where they might exist due 
to leakage from flammable fluid-carrying components (e.g., leakage from 
tanks, lines, etc.).
    The purpose of the proposal is not to change the applicability of 
Sec.  25.863 but rather to make it clear that Sec.  25.863, by its 
wording and nature, is applicable to any area subject to flammable 
fluid leakage, including DFZs. The requirements of Sec.  25.863 are 
applicable to DFZs in addition to, not instead of, the requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  25.1185 through 25.1203. Consequently, applying the 
requirements of Sec.  25.863 to DFZs, especially the requirement for a 
``means to minimize the likelihood of ignition,'' increases the level 
of safety. It is neither appropriate nor necessary to repeat this 
existing, generally applicable requirement in Sec.  25.1185 as proposed 
by the commenter.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter's statement, ``a gradual 
implementation of fire protection measures should be commensurate with 
hazards.'' The ``minimization'' nature of Sec.  25.863 accomplishes 
this goal. For example, Sec.  25.863 clearly requires more fire 
protection measures in a fire zone, measures similar to those of a DFZ, 
than in a flammable fluid leakage zone. The ARAC recently submitted 
recommended advisory material to the FAA that provides more detailed 
guidance regarding what ``flammable fluid fire protection'' is 
acceptable when demonstrating compliance with Sec. Sec.  25.863 and 
25.1187. The FAA is reviewing this proposed advisory material and may 
publish a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register when the AC is 
issued.
    Changes: No changes were made as a result of this comment.
Section 25.1305(d)(2) Powerplant Instruments
    Comment: A U.S. industry association raises concerns about the 
human factors aspects of the proposed revision to Sec.  25.1305(d)(2), 
``Powerplant instruments.''
    The proposed revision, requiring a means to indicate to the 
flightcrew when the thrust reversing device is not in the selected 
position, is in addition to the current requirement to indicate when 
the device is in the reverse thrust position. The commenter does not 
object to the aspect of the proposed change requiring an indication 
when the stowed position is selected and the device is not stowed. This 
accounts for the situation where the device is not completely in the 
forward thrust position, but has not reached the reverse thrust 
position either.
    This commenter does not find the proposed change requiring an 
indication that the thrust reverse device is not deployed, although the 
deployed position is selected, would result in the anticipated safety 
improvement (enhanced crew awareness). In fact, the commenter contends 
that such indication may result in a safety reduction because 
flightcrews are already familiar with existing means used to notify the 
flightcrew of the condition of the thrust reversing device.
    The commenter further notes that many current airplanes include 
airplane flight manual (AFM) and training procedures specifying that 
the crew check the reverse thrust position indication to verify 
reverser deployment. These procedures are also backed-up with a 
mechanical means that prevents application of reverse thrust above idle 
until the reverser is deployed. By specifying the need for an 
additional requirement, the proposed rule change would not allow the 
use of this method currently used in many airplanes and familiar to 
flightcrews. This commenter finds there are some safety concerns 
related to the human factors interaction between the flightcrew and the 
provision for two different thrust reverser indications. A cockpit 
indication that the reverser has deployed when commanded and another 
that it has not deployed as commanded may lead to flightcrew confusion 
and the potential for inappropriate crew action or response. This is 
particularly the case when considering previous crew experience and 
training on similar airplanes that do not incorporate the new 
indication.
    Therefore, this commenter recommends one of the following actions: 
Conduct human factor studies to evaluate the safety benefits of the 
proposed change. Revise the proposed change to require an indication 
only when the forward thrust position is selected and the device is not 
in the appropriate position.
    FAA Reply: The JAR 25.1305(d)(2) was identical with 14 CFR 
25.1305(d)(2) until Change 5 of the JAR, dated January 1, 1979. At 
Change 5, the JAR added the 25.1305(d)(2)(i) requirement to indicate 
when the thrust reversing device is not in the selected position. 
During the decades of experience with the JAR requirement, none of the 
problems mentioned by the commenter have been noted.
    The JAA further confirms that this requirement was added to provide 
more direct, continuous, and effective situational awareness than that

[[Page 40523]]

provided by combining the required ``deployed'' indication and 
associated AFM procedures. Consequently, relying on the crew to use the 
lack of a reverser ``deployed'' indication to establish that the 
reverser has not deployed as commanded does not meet the intent of the 
harmonized JAR 25.1305(d)(2)(i) and 14 CFR 25.1305(d)(2)(i) requirement 
adopted by this rule.
    Conversely, the FAA and JAA have agreed the inherent ``tactile 
feedback'' provided by traditional reverser/throttle interlock features 
can be shown to meet the intent of this rule. That is, when the pilot 
is unable to command reverse thrust above idle, he is inherently and 
continuously aware when the reverser is not in the selected position.
    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. 02-02.

Public Address System, RIN 2120-AH30

    On November 22, 2002, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Notice No. 02-18, 67 FR 70510) entitled, ``Public Address 
System.'' The FAA proposed to amend an airworthiness standard for the 
public address system on transport category airplanes to harmonize the 
standards with the comparable JAR-25 standards. This amendment requires 
that the public address system be capable of operation within 3-seconds 
from the time a microphone is removed from its stowage.
General Comments
    The FAA received four comments. All the commenters generally 
support the proposed changes. These comments include five suggested 
changes, as discussed below.
    Comment 1: The commenter, a U.S. airplane manufacturer, believes 
that this section, under Miscellaneous Equipment, should address only 
design compliance requirements. It should not address flight attendant 
operations. Also, they state the requirement for location and 
accessibility of the handset is sufficiently covered in Sec.  
25.1423(g). They suggest the following change to the language of the 
rule to clarify the intent of the rule as a design standard:

Sec.  25.1423(b) Be capable of operation within 3-seconds from the time 
a microphone is removed from its stowage.

    FAA Reply: The FAA agrees with the commenter.
    Changes: Section 25.1423(b) is changed to reflect the comment 
discussed above.
    Comment 2: One commenter supports the proposal, but disagrees with 
the use of ``flight crewmember'' in the summary of the proposed rule. 
They believe this excludes the flight attendant, whom the proposed rule 
change would affect.
    FAA Reply: The FAA partially agrees with this comment. The use of 
``flight crewmember'' in the summary of the proposed rule might cause 
readers to interpret that the rule excludes flight attendants.
    Changes: The language in the proposed rule, `` * * * after a flight 
crewmember removes the microphone from its stowage,'' is changed to 
read, ``* * * from the time a microphone is removed from its stowage,'' 
to reflect the comment as discussed above.
    Comment 3: One commenter suggests that Sec.  25.1423(g) should 
read, ``at each exit with an adjacent flight attendant seat.''
    FAA Reply: The FAA does not concur. The commenter's proposed 
wording would expand the scope of the requirement to non-floor level 
exits, as well as any exit in excess of the number required when a 
flight attendant seat was installed next to it. This could actually 
discourage installation of flight attendant seats since doing so would 
require Public Address system access. In addition, the intent of this 
change is to harmonize requirements between the FAA and the JAA, and 
this proposal would result in a lack of harmonization.
    Changes: No changes were made as a result of this comment.
    Comment 4: One commenter suggests amending 14 CFR part 121 to 
reflect similar changes.
    FAA Reply: The suggested changes to 14 CFR part 121 are outside the 
scope of this proposed rule and the fast track harmonization rulemaking 
activity.
    Changes: No changes were made as a result of this comment.
    FAA Disposition of Comments: Except as noted previously, the FAA 
adopts the changes as proposed in the NPRM, Notice No. 02-18.

Trim Systems and Protective Breathing Equipment, RIN 2120-AH40

    On October 2, 2002, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Notice No. 02-15, 67 FR 61836) entitled, ``Trim Systems and 
Protective Breathing Equipment.'' The FAA proposed to amend 
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes concerning 
trim systems and protective breathing equipment (PBE). For trim 
systems, the proposal would establish the minimum design standard. For 
PBE, the proposal would define design and installation requirements for 
portable and stationary protective breathing equipment. These 
amendments would harmonize the airworthiness standards for trim systems 
and PBE with those of JAR-25.
General Comments
    The FAA received five comments in response to the proposal. One 
commenter supports the proposed rule without further comment. The other 
commenters generally support the proposed changes. These comments 
include four suggested changes, as discussed below.

Section-by-Section Discussion

Section 25.677(b) Trim Systems
    Comment 1: A U.S. airplane manufacturer suggested removal or 
clarification of the phrase, ``adjacent to trim control.'' They state 
the phrase is obsolete for stabilizer trim because most airplanes no 
longer have mechanical trim wheels and cables.
    FAA Reply: We do not agree with the commenter's suggestion. Use of 
the phrase, ``adjacent to trim control,'' in this regulation, requires 
the trim indication to be located near the actuation switch where the 
indication can be readily viewed by the pilot to prevent confusion and 
unintended operation. The phrase, ``adjacent to trim control,'' used in 
the broadest sense, means the trim indication must be placed somewhere 
near the trim actuation switch. The location should allow both trim 
settings and movement indications to be found easily and viewed by the 
pilot, in coordination with use of the switch, to prevent confusion and 
unintended operation.
    Changes: No changes were made as a result of this comment.
    Comment 2: The commenter suggests we revise the language of the 
rule to clarify whether the rule is applicable only to stabilizer trim, 
or to rudder and lateral trim as well. They state the text concerning 
``safe takeoff range'' has traditionally been applied to only 
stabilizer trim, and not to aileron or rudder trim. However, this is 
not specified in the proposed rule.
    FAA Reply: The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request to 
clarify the applicability of the rule. The FAA finds that a change is 
not necessary to clarify the rule. The proposed rule, as written, 
provides acceptable trim system requirements without providing 
unnecessary restrictions on future designs. Also, this represents a 
harmonized position with the JAA rule. The rule addresses all flight 
control trim systems, not just stabilizer trim. There are two 
``ranges'' specified by the harmonized rule; one being the range of

[[Page 40524]]

adjustment for all trim systems (i.e., full range of travel), and the 
other being the range at which takeoffs have been demonstrated to be 
safe for the range of center of gravity positions approved for takeoff 
(i.e., takeoff ``green band''). All trims systems must provide a clear, 
visible means to indicate the position of the trim device with respect 
to the range of adjustment. A safe takeoff range must be marked on the 
trim system indicator where it has been demonstrated that takeoff is 
safe for all center of gravity positions approved for takeoff.
    Changes: No changes were made as a result of this comment.
Section 25.1439(a) Protective Breathing Equipment
    Comment 3: The commenter suggests adding the language, ``other than 
the flight deck'' to paragraph (a) so it reads:
    ``In addition, portable protective breathing equipment must be 
installed for the use of appropriate crewmembers for fighting fires in 
compartments accessible in flight other than the flight deck. This 
includes isolated * * *''
    The commenter believes the additional text clearly specifies the 
last sentence of proposed Sec.  25.1439(a), which requires protective 
breathing equipment (PBE) for the maximum number of occupants, does NOT 
apply to the flight deck. The FAA has previously interpreted this part 
of the rule as not applying to the flight deck. However, if taken 
literally, the proposed requirement could apply to the flight deck, 
thus requiring up to four PBE's on the flight deck; this clearly is not 
the intent of the rule.
    FAA Reply: The FAA agrees with the requested change. The first 
sentence of Sec.  25.1439(a) applies to the flight deck and the last 
sentence applies to other compartments and not the flight deck.
    Changes: Section 25.1439(a) is changed to reflect the comment 
discussed above.
Section 25.1439(b)(5) Protective Breathing Equipment
    Comment 4: A foreign airplane manufacturer suggests the following 
revision to the language of Sec.  25.1439(b)(5):
    ``* * * If a continuous flow open circuit protective breathing 
system is used, a flow rate of * * * Continuous flow open circuit 
systems must not increase the ambient oxygen content of the local 
atmosphere above that of demand systems. If a closed circuit protective 
breathing system is used, compliance to the performance requirements 
stated in Technical Standard Order (TSO) C116 for 15 minutes is 
considered to satisfy the required 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).''
    This commenter contends that, historically, a larger supply of 
oxygen was considered necessary when an open circuit continuous flow 
oxygen mask was used, relative to a demand oxygen mask, because the 
continuous flow mask has no means to adjust for a momentary inhalation 
rate that exceeded the continuous flow rate. Accordingly, the 
continuous flow rate was set higher, so the flow would be sufficient in 
the event of a momentary excursion.
    By contrast, in a closed circuit rebreather system, in principle, 
the rate at which oxygen must be supplied is not equal to the breathing 
rate. If the closed circuit device has sufficient reservoir capacity to 
accommodate the demand for added breathing volume during a momentary 
excursion, the actual oxygen flow rate required is only the quantity 
necessary to replace the oxygen that was consumed by metabolic activity 
or lost through leakage.
    In the case of TSO C116 compliant PBE, the user's breathing rate 
may correspond to 30 liters per minute for 15 minutes or 450 liters 
BTPD, but the actual oxygen flow required might be only one to two 
liters per minute normal temperature pressure dry (NTPD). In a closed 
circuit rebreather, a 600 liter oxygen supply for 15 minutes duration 
would be equal to a metabolic demand of 40 liters per minute, which is 
well outside the range of human metabolic capacity, and thus excessive. 
To the best of the commenter's knowledge, none of the currently 
certificated TSO C116 compliant portable closed circuit PBE units would 
be capable of delivering 600 liters of oxygen, but all would readily 
accommodate a breathing rate of 30 liters per minute BTPD at 8,000 feet 
pressure altitude.
    This commenter believes the proposed language could be interpreted 
as requiring a closed circuit portable PBE to have an oxygen supply 
much larger than is necessary.
    FAA Reply: The FAA partially concurs with the commenter. The intent 
of the existing Sec.  25.1439(b)(5) has not changed with the proposed 
rule. The intent is that the PBE 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.
    We agree that the portion of the rule that specifies 600 liters of 
oxygen at 70 [deg]F, and 760 mm. Hg., is only applicable to continuous 
flow open circuit protective breathing systems.
    We do not agree that it is appropriate to reference the TSO C116 in 
the regulation. The TSO may change in the future and may not remain 
compatible with the part 25 regulations. Also, we do not agree that it 
is necessary to restrict the requirement to not increase the ambient 
oxygen content of the local atmosphere to only continuous flow open 
circuit systems. If a continuous flow system does not allow oxygen into 
the local atmosphere it would comply with the regulation.
    Changes: To reflect the comment of this commenter, as discussed 
above, section 25.1439(b)(5) is changed to read:
    ``* * * If a continuous flow open circuit protective breathing 
system is used, a flow rate of 60 liters per minute * * *''
    FAA Disposition of Comments: Except as noted previously, the FAA 
adopts the changes as proposed in the NPRM, Notice No. 02-15.

Powerplant Controls on Transport Category Airplanes, General, RIN 2120-
AH65

    On May 8, 2002, the FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(Notice No. 02-08, 67 FR 30820) entitled, ``Powerplant Controls on 
Transport Category Airplanes, General.'' The FAA proposed to amend 
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes concerning 
design requirements for powerplant valves controlled from the flight 
deck. The proposed rule would clarify the requirements for a means to 
select the intended position of the valve, to indicate the selected 
position, and to indicate if the valve has not attained the selected 
position. These amendments would harmonize the airworthiness standards 
for trim systems and PBE with those of JAR-25.
    One commenter, a U.S. airplane manufacturer, responded to the 
proposed rule. The commenter includes two suggested changes, discussed 
below.
Section 25.1141(f) Powerplant Controls; General
    Comment 1: The commenter states that proposed Sec.  25.1141(f), as 
written, would require the ``valve controls to provide the means'' to 
the flightcrew. They suggest it should be revised to allow for an 
``independent means'' to provide indication to the flightcrew. Also, 
they contend the wording, ``* * * provide the flightcrew the means to 
indicate, * * *'' is misleading. They suggest it should be revised to 
require

[[Page 40525]]

``a means to indicate to the flightcrew: * * *''
    FAA Reply: The FAA agrees with the intent of the comment.
    Changes: Section 25.1141(f) is being changed to read as follows:
    (f) For powerplant valve controls located in the flight deck there 
must be a means for the flightcrew to select each intended position or 
function of the valve; and to indicate to the flightcrew: the selected 
position or function of the valve; and, when the valve has not 
responded as intended to the selected position or function.
Section 25.1141(f)(1) Powerplant Controls: General
    Comment 2: The commenter suggests the deletion of Sec.  
25.1141(f)(1). They state that if paragraph (f) is revised according to 
their previous comment, proposed paragraph (f)(1) would be redundant to 
other parts of Sec.  25.1141. They also suggest that, although it is 
acceptable to have redundant information in a regulation, the existing 
first paragraph of Sec.  25.1141 more completely defines the 
requirement than does proposed paragraph (f)(1).
    FAA Reply: The existing first paragraph of Sec.  25.1141 requires 
``each powerplant control'' be located, arranged, designed and marked 
in accordance with certain referenced general standards for ``cockpit 
controls.'' Neither this paragraph, nor the other standards it 
references would directly require powerplant valve controls located in 
the flight deck to provide the flightcrew with means to select each 
intended position or function of the valve as does the proposed revised 
section (f)(1). Consequently, the proposed rule is neither redundant 
nor does the existing first paragraph more completely define the 
requirement.
    Changes: No changes were made as a result of this comment.
    FAA Disposition of Comment: Except as noted previously, the FAA 
adopts the changes as proposed in the NPRM, Notice No. 02-08.

What Regulatory Analyses and Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?

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

    Proposed 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. 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 agencies to consider 
international standards and, where appropriate, use them as the basis 
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4) 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, FAA has determined that this final 
rule:
    1. Has benefits that do justify its costs, is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866, 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. Will not reduce barriers to international trade; and
    4. Does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector. These analyses, available in the 
docket, are summarized below.
    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 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, and the 
fact that no comments were received to the contrary, 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 requirements 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 
aircraft development, and making the certification process more 
efficient, the FAA, JAA, and aircraft manufacturers have been working 
to create a single set of certification requirements accepted in both 
the United States and Europe. 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 rule requires:
    1. Revising Sec. Sec.  25.111, 25.147, 25.161, and 25.175 to 
incorporate the more stringent requirements currently in those same 
sections of JAR-25;
    2. Revising Sec. Sec.  25.945, 25.973, 25.1181, and 25.1305 to meet 
the more stringent requirements of the parallel JAR;
    3. Revising Sec.  25.1423 to require that the public address system 
must be capable of operation within 3-seconds from the time a 
microphone is removed from its stowage;
    4. Revising Sec.  25.677 and 25.1439 to establish the minimum 
design standard for trim systems, to define design and installation 
requirements for portable and stationary protective breathing 
equipment, to eliminate the regulatory differences between the 
airworthiness standards of the U.S. and the Joint Aviation Requirements 
(JAR) of Europe; and,
    5. Revising Sec.  25.1141 to clarify the requirements for a means 
to select the intended position of the valve, and to indicate if the 
valve has not attained the selected position, for powerplant valves 
controlled from the flight deck.
    Because this rule will not reduce or increase the requirements 
beyond those already met by U.S. manufacturers to satisfy European 
airworthiness standards, 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.

[[Page 40526]]

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) directs the FAA to fit 
regulatory requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, 
and governmental jurisdictions subject to the 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 they are defined in the Act.
    If we find that the action will have a significant impact, we must 
do a ``regulatory flexibility analysis.'' If, however, we find that 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 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 this standard, as well as the existing part 
25 requirement.
    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 minimally cost-
relieving and there are no small entity manufacturers of part 25 
airplanes, the FAA Administrator certifies that this 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.
    The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this rulemaking and 
has determined that it is consistent with the statute's requirements by 
using European international standards as the basis for U.S. standards 
and supports the Administration's policy on free trade.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), is intended, 
among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded 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 an 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 there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that 
correspond to these regulations.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under 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, and therefore does not have federalism implications.

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 English

    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 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 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 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this rulemaking under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not 
a ``significant energy action'' under the

[[Page 40527]]

executive order because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under Executive Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Safety, Transportation.

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.  25.111 by revising paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.111  Takeoff path.

* * * * *
    (c)* * *
    (4) Except for gear retraction and automatic propeller feathering, 
the airplane configuration may not be changed, and no change in power 
or thrust that requires action by the pilot may be made, until the 
airplane is 400 feet above the takeoff surface.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  25.147 by redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as 
paragraphs (e) and (f), and by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.147  Directional and lateral control.

* * * * *
    (d) Lateral control; roll capability. With the critical engine 
inoperative, roll response must allow normal maneuvers. Lateral control 
must be sufficient, at the speeds likely to be used with one engine 
inoperative, to provide a roll rate necessary for safety without 
excessive control forces or travel.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  25.161 by revising paragraph (c)(2), and by revising 
paragraph (e) as follows:


Sec.  25.161  Trim.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Either a glide with power off at a speed not more than 1.3 
VSR1, or an approach within the normal range of approach 
speeds appropriate to the weight and configuration with power settings 
corresponding to a 3 degree glidepath, whichever is the most severe, 
with the landing gear extended, the wing flaps (i) retracted and (ii) 
extended, and with the most unfavorable combination of center of 
gravity position and weight approved for landing; and
* * * * *
    (e) Airplanes with four or more engines. Each airplane with four or 
more engines must also maintain trim in rectilinear flight with the 
most unfavorable center of gravity and at the climb speed, 
configuration, and power required by Sec.  25.123(a) for the purpose of 
establishing the en route flight paths with two engines inoperative.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  25.175 by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.175(d)  Demonstration of static longitudinal stability.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) The airplane trimmed at 1.3 VSR0 with--
    (i) Power or thrust off, and
    (ii) Power or thrust for level flight.
* * * * *

0
6. 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 takeoff is safe for all center of gravity 
positions approved for takeoff.
* * * * *

0
7. Add a new paragraph (b)(5) to Sec.  25.945 to read as follows:


Sec.  25.945  Thrust or power augmentation system.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Each tank must have an expansion space of not less than 2 
percent of the tank capacity. It must be impossible to fill the 
expansion space inadvertently with the airplane in the normal ground 
attitude.
* * * * *

0
8. Republish the introductory text and revise paragraph (d) of Sec.  
25.973 to read as follows:


Sec.  25.973  Fuel tank filler connection.

    Each fuel tank filler connection must prevent the entrance of fuel 
into any part of the airplane other than the tank itself. In addition--
* * * * *
    (d) Each fuel filling point must have a provision for electrically 
bonding the airplane to ground fueling equipment.

0
9. Amend section 25.1141 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.1141  Powerplant controls: general.

* * * * *
    (f) For powerplant valve controls located in the flight deck there 
must be a means:
    (1) For the flightcrew to select each intended position or function 
of the valve; and
    (2) To indicate to the flightcrew:
    (i) The selected position or function of the valve; and
    (ii) When the valve has not responded as intended to the selected 
position or function.

0
10. Revise paragraph (b) of Sec.  25.1181 to read as follows:


Sec.  25.1181  Designated fire zones; regions included.

* * * * *
    (b) Each designated fire zone must meet the requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  25.863, 25.865, 25.867, 25.869, and 25.1185 through 25.1203.

0
11. Republish the introductory text and revise paragraphs (a)(7) and 
(d)(2) of Sec.  25.1305 to read as follows:


Sec.  25.1305  Powerplant instruments.

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

0
12. 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.
* * * * *

[[Page 40528]]


0
13. 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 other than the flight deck. 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 760 mm. Hg. pressure is considered to be of 15-minute 
duration at the prescribed altitude and minute volume. If a continuous 
flow open circuit protective breathing system is used, 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 June 24, 2004.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 04-15117 Filed 7-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P