[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31747-31769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13646]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 25, 27, 29, 91, 121, 125, and 135
[Docket No.: FAA-2019-0491; Notice No. 19-09]
RIN 2120-AK34
Interior Parts and Components Fire Protection for Transport
Category Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to amend certain airworthiness
regulations for fire protection of interior compartments on transport
category airplanes. This proposal would convert those flammability
regulations from detailed, prescriptive requirements into simpler,
performance-based standards. This proposal would divide these standards
into two categories: Those designed to protect the airplane and its
occupants from the hazards of in-flight fires, and those designed to
protect the airplane and its occupants from the hazards caused by post-
crash fires. In addition, this proposal would remove test methods from
the regulations and allow applicants, in certain cases, to demonstrate
compliance either without conducting tests or by providing independent
substantiation of the flammability characteristics of a proposed
material. This action is necessary to eliminate unnecessary testing,
increase standardization, and improve safety. This proposal includes
conforming changes to parts 27, 29, 91, 121, 125, and 135.
DATES: Send comments on or before October 1, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0491
using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at (202) 493-2251.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this action,
contact Jeff Gardlin, AIR-600, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft
Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax (206) 231-3146;
email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is issued under the authority described in Subtitle
VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General Requirements.''
Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of
civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum
standards for the design, material, construction, quality of work, and
performance of aircraft that the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority. It revises the safety standards for the flammability
characteristics, and thus the design, material, and construction, of
transport category airplanes.
Table of Contents
I. Overview of the Proposed Rule
II. Background
A. Statement of the Problem
B. History
C. Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
III. Discussion of the Proposal
A. Flammability Testing Requirements
1. Bunsen Burner Test (Current Sec. 25.853(a) and Part I of
Appendix F to Part 25)
2. Oil Burner Test for Seat Cushions (Current Sec. 25.853(c)
and Part II of Appendix F to Part 25)
3. Heat Release Rate Test (Current Sec. 25.853(d) and Part IV
of Appendix F to Part 25)
4. Smoke Emissions Test (Current Sec. 25.853(d) and Part V of
Appendix F to Part 25)
5. Oil Burner Test for Cargo Compartment Liners (Current Sec.
25.855(c) and Part III of Appendix F to Part 25)
6. Radiant Panel Test for Thermal/Acoustic Insulation (Current
Sec. 25.856(a) and Part VI of Appendix F to Part 25)
7. Oil Burner Test for Thermal/Acoustic Insulation (Current
Sec. 25.856(b) and Part VII of Appendix F to Part 25)
8. Radiant Heat Resistance Test for Escape Slides (Sec.
25.853(d)(5))
9. Fire Containment Compliance of Waste Receptacles (Current
Sec. 25.853(h))
10. Extensively Used Materials in Inaccessible Areas (Proposed
Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(i))
11. Exclusions from Testing (Proposed Sec. 25.853(e))
12. Pass/Fail Criteria
B. Reorganization of Appendix F to Part 25
1. General Structure
2. Hierarchy of Tests
C. Conformal and Editorial Changes
D. Advisory Material
E. Application of Sec. Sec. 21.17
F. Application of Sec. Sec. 21.101
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
1. Summary of Costs and Benefits
2. Who is potentially affected by this proposed rule?
3. Assumptions:
4. Benefits of This Rule
5. Costs of This Proposed Rule
6. Minimal to No Cost Provisions Including Conforming Changes
[[Page 31748]]
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
1. A Description of the Reasons Why the Action by the Agency Is
Being Considered
2. A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis
for, the Proposed Rule
3. Description and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of
Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply
4. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and
Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an
Estimate of the Classes of Small Entities That Will Be Subject to
the Requirement and the Types of Professional Skills Necessary for
Preparation of the Report or Record
5. An Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
6. A Description of any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed
Rule
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. International Compatibility
G. Environmental Analysis
V. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
C. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
VI. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
I. Overview of the Proposed Rule
This proposed amendment would eliminate and modify certain
flammability and fire protection requirements of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25. The proposed changes would
organize these requirements based on the type of fire--in-flight or
post-crash--that is likely to affect a given component, part, or
material, rather than basing such standards on the part's composition
or function. In addition, the proposal would extend the fire protection
requirements to any extensively used material \1\ located in
inaccessible areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Extensively used materials, for the purpose of this
rulemaking, means any parts or system of parts that could permit a
fire to propagate and grow to a hazardous level, for example, air
ducting, electrical wiring/sleeving, thermal/acoustic insulation,
and composite fuselage structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA proposes to convert the testing methods in appendix F to
part 25 from regulations into guidance material. The proposal would
also eliminate redundant or non-value-added tests when a more severe
test is acceptable.
This proposal would replace mandatory testing methods with
performance-based standards for flammability and fire protection. This
change would improve safety and standardization and would be applicable
to materials currently used to construct parts and components as well
as to new materials that become available in the future. As discussed
in section III.E of the NPRM, all of the proposed changes are
interrelated. These proposals to remove or simplify requirements are
only possible, from a safety perspective, because of other proposed
changes that would compensate for removing requirements.
These revised regulations would affect applicants seeking new type
certificates for transport category airplanes. These revised
regulations would not apply to transport category airplanes currently
in production under existing type certificates, unless the FAA approves
a manufacturer's request to comply with an amendment level that
incorporates these proposed changes, or a manufacturer triggers the
requirement via an application for a significant product-level change
under Sec. 21.101.
Over a 19-year period of analysis, the FAA estimates the total
present value costs of this proposed rule to be $71.1 million at a
seven percent discount rate, with annualized costs of $6.9 million due
to the extension of fire protection requirements to extensively used
material in inaccessible areas. Over the same 19-year period, the FAA
estimates the total quantified cost savings of this proposed rule to be
$119.8 million at a seven percent discount rate, with annualized cost
savings of $11.6 million. The cost savings would result from the
elimination and streamlining of some tests, which would be made
possible by the extension of fire protection requirements to
inaccessible areas. Over the same 19-year period, the proposed rule
would result in a net cost savings (cost savings minus costs) of $48.7
million at a seven percent discount rate, with annualized net cost
savings of $4.8 million. The following table summarizes the costs and
cost savings of this proposed rule.
Costs and Savings of the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19-year total present value Annualized
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% 3% 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings........................ $119,848,146 $178,395,887 $11,595,669 $12,454,509
Costs............................... 71,105,318 80,387,114 6,879,654 5,612,136
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost Savings.............. 48,742,829 98,008,773 4,716,016 6,842,373
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airplane occupant safety benefits were not quantified. However, the
proposed new safety requirements to extend the fire protection
requirements to any extensively used material located in inaccessible
areas would result in a safety benefit by reducing the likelihood of a
fatal accident from a fire in an inaccessible area. FAA testing has
indicated that typical in-service ducts can quickly spread fire from a
small fire source in an inaccessible area, while ducts that would meet
the new requirement can resist that small size fire and not propagate
flames. Thus, the FAA believes there are safety benefits to this
proposed rule in addition to cost savings.
II. Background
A. Statement of the Problem
Current part 25 regulations organize fire protection requirements
for components in airplane interior compartments by the function, and
sometimes composition, of each component. Appendix F to part 25 details
comprehensive, mandatory testing methods. Each part of appendix F
provides the test method required for a specific type of part or
material, with the exception of part I, which applies to nearly all
parts and materials and contains multiple test methods. While this
method of organization is useful in standardizing the applicable tests
and ensuring consistency among test results, regardless of the testing
facility, it can create difficulties when an applicant wishes to
deviate from the detailed test provisions, for example to implement
improvements. Also, a given component
[[Page 31749]]
can be subject to multiple regulatory requirements depending on the
component's composition, and the requirements may conflict with one
another. In addition, it can be difficult to determine the applicable
requirements, especially when applicants propose new components or
materials that are not listed in Sec. 25.853 and for which testing
methods have not yet been developed. A final problem is that, with the
exception of thermal/acoustic insulation and electrical wiring, the
current fire protection requirements only apply to components and
materials in occupiable areas or cargo compartments. The current
requirements do not apply to components, parts, and materials in other
areas, even if extensively used, and such components can be critical
for fire safety.
B. History
The regulations governing the flammability of materials on
transport category airplanes have evolved significantly since their
adoption in 1964.\2\ When initially adopted, these regulations mandated
the most fire-resistant materials practically available at that time,
without consideration of the types of fires to which each material
might be exposed. The regulations described flammability requirements
in terms of the objective--materials had to be at least flash
resistant,\3\ and certain types of parts had to be flame resistant,\4\
a more stringent requirement. Until 1984, FAA flammability regulations
only required applicants to demonstrate that proposed materials could
resist small ignition sources such as a lit match or cigarette. The
flammability requirements only applied to materials in compartments
that could be occupied by passengers or crew.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Published in the Federal Register on December 24, 1964 (29
FR 18289) and available on the internet at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/861ae0b1f7efc3ee85256453007b0e8a/beee068568b285ea86256cc900543c9f!OpenDocument.
\3\ Flash resistant is defined as having a burn rate of no more
than 20 inches per minute when exposed to a Bunsen burner flame. See
FAA Flight Standards Service Release No. 453, dated November 9,
1961; and Advisory Circular (AC) 25-17A, Change 1, ``Transport
Airplane Cabin Interiors Crashworthiness Handbook,'' dated May 24,
2016.
\4\ Flame resistant is defined as having a burn rate of no more
than 4 inches per minute when exposed to a Bunsen burner flame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning with the 1984 adoption of improved flammability standards
for seat cushions, the FAA revised the flammability requirements for
other specific parts and components, including large surface areas,
cargo compartment liners, and thermal/acoustic insulation. The FAA also
revised and expanded mandatory test methods to ensure consistency in
testing methodology and results. The FAA based these revised
requirements on the type of fire threat (in-flight and post-crash)
expected for a given component. However, the regulations continued to
set standards for specific components, based on their function or
construction.
Since the adoption of those flammability requirements, research
into fire safety identified significant differences between the hazards
posed by a post-crash fire and those posed by an in-flight fire.
Post-crash fires, or ``fuel fires'' since they are primarily fed by
spilled aviation fuel, present two primary hazards to the airplane's
occupants. First, a fuel fire can be a significant source of smoke and
toxic gases. If these gases enter the cabin, they can cause injury and
significantly reduce survivability. Second, a fuel fire can ignite
cabin materials, which can accelerate the fire's growth. Research \5\
by the FAA has found that the best way to prevent the first hazard--
smoke and toxic gases--is to prevent the fire from penetrating the
fuselage. The best way to prevent the second hazard--ignition of cabin
materials--is to minimize the heat release \6\ of cabin materials, so
that they do not contribute significant energy to the fire. Post-crash
fires can also reduce the time available for evacuation. The FAA
studied the time necessary to complete evacuation and determined that
roughly 90 percent of actual evacuations are completed within 5
minutes.\7\ This proposal specifically references that 5-minute time
when discussing protection under post-crash fire conditions. Proposed
Sec. 25.853(d) would add general flammability requirements to provide
occupants time to evacuate during post-crash fires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See ``Application of Full-Scale Fire Tests to Characterize
and Improve the Aircraft Postcrash Fire Environment,'' Constantine
P. Sarkos, International Colloquium on Advances in Combustion
Toxicology, April 11-13, 1995, available on the internet at https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/fsr-0196.pdf; and FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-
TN11/8, ``Improvements in Aircraft Fire Safety Derived from FAA
Research over the Last Decade,'' dated May 2011, available on the
internet at https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TN11-8.pdf. Both of
these reports are also available in the Docket.
\6\ Heat release is the amount of heat energy created by a
material when burned. The maximum heat release occurs when the
material is burning most intensely. Also, see ``Improved
Flammability Standards for Materials Used in the Interiors of
Transport Category Airplane Cabins,'' published in the Federal
Register on July 21, 1986 (51 FR 26206) and available on the
internet at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/0/E2F0F4B91D02ADFB862568E7005C097C?OpenDocument.
\7\ See FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-09/18, ``Determination of
Evacuation and Firefighting Times Based on an Analysis of Aircraft
Accident Fire Survivability Data,'' dated May 2009, available in the
Docket and on the internet at https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/09-18.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, the primary hazard from in-flight fires is to the
continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. In-flight fires have
historically only been a direct hazard to continued safe flight and
landing when they begin in an area inaccessible to a person with a
hand-held fire extinguisher. These areas tend to be in cargo
compartments or behind interior panels, such as sidewalls or ceilings.
The principal risk with such fires is that they grow and spread without
the ability of the flightcrew to access and combat them, and then
degrade critical systems and occupant survivability. The components,
parts, and materials with the most potential to contribute to an in-
flight fire hazard are the most extensive, including insulation,
wiring, air ducts, and structure. FAA research determined that
materials that self-extinguish and do not propagate a flame provide an
acceptable level of safety. In-flight fires in areas that are readily
accessible to a person with a hand-held fire extinguisher are still a
concern, but are much less likely to evolve into a threat to the
airplane. Therefore, these two types of fires (in-flight and post-
crash) require different flammability standards.
Several elements of fire safety research were involved in the
development of these flammability requirements. First, the FAA analyzed
accident and incident data to identify the nature of the fire and its
potential to affect the airplane and its occupants. Next, the threat
was replicated (to the extent possible), and detailed measurements were
made to characterize the key parameters \8\ of the type of fire and its
potential effect on the airplane and occupants. Finally, a laboratory
test was developed that correlated with, and was derived from, the type
of fire, so that repeatable and reproducible results could be obtained
to assess the adequacy of proposed designs. This latter step was an
evolutionary process as test protocols (test methods and test
equipment) were continuously refined. Once the results for a particular
protocol were reliable and repeatable, the FAA selected that test
protocol, even though improvements in methods and equipment are
expected to continue. A key consideration in this proposal is the
availability of approved test methods in
[[Page 31750]]
advisory material \9\ to support all of the proposed requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For example, temperature, radiant heat flux, flame kinetic
energy.
\9\ This advisory material will take the form of several
proposed ACs, as discussed in section III.D of this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
In light of the problems with the current part 25 regulations
previously discussed, the FAA recognized that it needs a new approach
to the regulatory structure of flammability requirements. Since
amendments to the regulations since the 1980s had been based on an
assessment of the type of fire, but not structured that way in the
regulatory text, the FAA determined that the regulations should align
with the type of fire that could threaten the airplane. However,
because of the scope of the change under consideration, the FAA tasked
the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) \10\ to review the
FAA's proposed approach and provide recommendations. ARAC assigned the
task to the Materials Flammability Working Group (MFWG) under the
Transport Airplane and Engines Issues Group (TAEIG), an ARAC
subcommittee. The MFWG reviewed the proposed concept and, in a report
\11\ dated July 2012, recommended its adoption along with several
associated advisory circulars (ACs). The MFWG also raised several
questions that required FAA resolution prior to rulemaking, including
consideration of an approved materials list, availability of advisory
material, and means to address so-called rogue failures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2010 (75 FR
52807) and available on the internet at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-08-27/pdf/2010-21333.pdf.
\11\ See ``Materials Flammability Working Group Report,'' dated
July 9, 2012, available in the Docket and on the internet at https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/materials.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When drafting the NPRM, the FAA determined that a more
comprehensive estimate of costs and benefits was necessary. Therefore,
the FAA put the rulemaking project on hold and re-tasked ARAC \12\ to
provide an estimate of costs and benefits. The FAA provided assumptions
to use in making those estimates. ARAC reassigned the task to the MFWG.
The MFWG completed the task and submitted a report \13\ in October
2015. This proposal is based on recommendations and information
provided in both MFWG reports and addresses the open issues raised by
the MFWG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Published in the Federal Register on January 20, 2015 (80
FR 2772) and available on the internet at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-01-20/pdf/2015-00749.pdf.
\13\ See ``Materials Flammability Working Group Continuation of
Task Report,'' dated October 7, 2015, available in the Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion of the Proposal
The current regulatory structure in the primary regulations that
this action proposes to amend, Sec. Sec. 25.853, 25.855, 25.856, and
25.1713, organizes the flammability requirements by the type of testing
required for a specific part or component. Section 25.853 applies to
parts and components that are located in compartments that can be
occupied by crew or passengers, and requires compliance with the
applicable parts of appendix F to part 25. Section 25.855 states
similar requirements that are applicable to cargo or baggage
compartments; Sec. 25.856 provides requirements for thermal/acoustic
insulation materials; and Sec. 25.1713 addresses electrical wiring
components. Each of these sections requires compliance with a
particular test method in appendix F.
For example, Sec. 25.853(a) requires that all materials used in
occupiable compartments meet the test criteria (Bunsen burner) in part
I of appendix F to part 25. Section 25.853(d) requires certain interior
components, including partitions, ceilings, and wall panels, to also
meet the heat release rate (HRR) \14\ and smoke emission test
requirements in parts IV and V of appendix F. This proposal would
eliminate the requirement to meet the tests in part I of appendix F for
components required to comply with Sec. 25.853(d), since the Bunsen
burner tests do not add any level of safety for components that meet
part IV of appendix F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The heat release rate test measures both total heat release
and peak heat release rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed amendment would revise Sec. 25.853 to apply to
general categories of parts or components rather than to specific
items. For example, Sec. 25.853(d)(1) would apply to large surface
area components, rather than to partitions, ceilings, and wall panels.
It would set performance standards for those components based on the
type of fire the component is likely to be exposed to and whether or
not its location is accessible during flight.
Stating the requirements as performance standards would make them
applicable to parts and materials that are not listed in the current
regulations and to new materials in emerging areas of aviation design.
These include materials used in inaccessible portions of the fuselage,
escape slides, and the use of flammable metals in the cabin.
The mandatory testing methods in appendix F to part 25 would be
removed. Instead, appendix F would allow applicants to omit certain
tests if the material passes certain more severe tests. Advisory
material would provide the details of approved test methods. By moving
compliance testing methods to advisory material, applicants would have
more flexibility to propose alternative methods, and the FAA would have
more flexibility to approve improved testing methods.
This proposal would also standardize the required number of test
samples, and pass rate, among the various tests. Proposed Sec.
25.853(b) would require a minimum of three specimen sets for any test
used to show compliance.
Because fewer post-crash flammability requirements currently apply
to airplanes designed to carry 19 or fewer passengers, many of the
proposed simplifications would only apply to larger airplanes. For the
same reason, for airplanes designed to carry 19 or fewer passengers,
fewer in-flight flammability tests would be eliminated by meeting post-
crash flammability test requirements. Thus, applicants for type
certification of airplanes with 19 or fewer passengers might not
benefit from the same degree of simplified testing, as would applicants
seeking approval of larger airplanes.
A. Flammability Testing Requirements
1. Bunsen Burner Test (Current Sec. 25.853(a) and Part I of Appendix F
to Part 25)
Sections 25.853 and 25.855 require Bunsen burner testing of all
materials used in interior compartments, and in certain parts of cargo
compartments, even if an additional, more severe test is required.
Bunsen burner tests, detailed in part I of the current appendix F to
part 25, have multiple variations that are used to determine the
resistance of materials to flame, flame penetration, or flame
propagation. Although Bunsen burner tests would be an acceptable means
of compliance for several requirements, this proposal would eliminate
the requirement for Bunsen burner testing when a required test method
simulates a post-crash fire. Bunsen burner testing to address in-flight
fire threats would be less frequently required, since extensively used
materials would be required to meet a more stringent standard, and
materials and parts that are not extensively used may show their in-
flight fire resistance by more than one means.
Two other requirements intended to protect the airplane from in-
flight fires, proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(1)(i) regarding parts or
components that are accessible
[[Page 31751]]
to the flightcrew during flight, and proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(iv)
regarding floor liners in cargo compartments, would require that those
parts, components, and materials be self-extinguishing when exposed to
a small flame,\15\ unless another regulation requires the materials to
meet a higher standard, such as a post-crash test. Applicants would
typically use the 12-second vertical Bunsen burner test to show that
the materials are self-extinguishing. This proposal would eliminate the
requirement for materials to pass horizontal Bunsen burner tests
because other requirements would ensure acceptable flammability
characteristics of any other materials for which that test is currently
applied. This includes parts currently listed in appendix F, part I,
paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of part 25, such as clear plastic windows and
signs, which would fall under one of the proposed requirements for a
more stringent test, unless the applicant is able to show the part or
material serves a necessary function and has no suitable substitute
material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Represented by a flame from a Bunsen burner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For post-crash fires on transport category airplanes with 19 or
fewer passengers, this proposal would, as a practical matter, retain
the requirement, currently in appendix F, part I, paragraph (b)(4) of
part 25, that the applicant conduct a 60-second vertical Bunsen burner
test for large surface interior materials. That test, unlike the 12-
second vertical test, screens out materials, such as certain
thermoplastics, that have unacceptable flammability performance, even
though the test method is not specifically designed to represent post-
crash fires. Because of the greater evacuation capability inherent in
these smaller airplanes, they are not, and would not under this
proposal, be subject to the more severe post-crash, fire-based
standards for interior materials and lower lobe \16\ fire penetration
proposed in Sec. Sec. 25.853(d)(2) and 25.856(b), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For the purpose of this NPRM, ``lower lobe'' refers to the
geometric lower half of the airplane fuselage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal would also continue to require, in Sec.
25.853(c)(1)(i), that waste receptacles (compartments) and cargo
compartment liners resist fire penetration. One means of compliance
would continue to be the 45-degree orientation Bunsen burner test,
which is currently described in part I of appendix F to part 25, but
would be removed from part 25 and made available in guidance material.
However, if an applicant proposes to construct waste compartments from
the same materials as will be used for other interior features that are
required to meet the HRR test,\17\ no Bunsen burner test would be
required. The fire containment test for the waste compartments would
still be required. Most cargo compartment liners, as components in an
inaccessible area, would still be required by proposed Sec.
25.853(c)(2) to meet the flammability performance standard currently
encompassed by the oil burner test in part III of appendix F.
Exceptions would include liners on the floor and certain aspects of
Class E cargo compartment liners, which would only need to pass the 45-
degree Bunsen burner test, i.e., resist penetration by a small flame
(proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(iv)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Part 25, appendix F, part IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, for materials that must be self-extinguishing under
current regulations, the FAA has reviewed the detailed pass/fail
criteria for the vertical Bunsen burner test in appendix F, part I,
paragraph (b)(4) of part 25 and concluded that those criteria could
also be simplified. The current pass/fail criteria are regulatory and
involve burn length, after-flame time, extinguishing time of any drips,
and, in some cases, after-glow time. These criteria would no longer be
regulatory. Instead, proposed AC 25.853-4X would describe one means of
compliance that incorporates only the criteria of burn length and that
the material be self-extinguishing. The self-extinguishing criteria
would apply to drips as well as the test sample.
2. Oil Burner Test for Seat Cushions (Current Sec. 25.853(c) and Part
II of Appendix F to Part 25)
Currently, Sec. 25.853(c) requires that seat cushions, except
those on flight crewmember seats, meet the test requirements of part II
of appendix F to part 25, which involves the use of an oil burner. The
oil burner test for cushions simulates the effect of a post-crash fire
by exposing the material to a high-intensity open flame to evaluate its
burn resistance and other characteristics.
This proposal would extend this level of flammability performance
to any cushion, including flight crewmember seats and mattresses on
berths. When the FAA adopted its current flammability rule \18\ for
seat cushions, the materials available to applicants were limited, and
it was not clear that flightcrew could achieve the posture and comfort
necessary to safely operate the airplane using materials that complied
with the oil burner test. However, since that time, advances in cushion
materials have essentially eliminated this issue and any reason for
different treatment of flight crewmember seats. Mattresses or other
cushions on berths should meet the same standards. The omission of
cushions on berths in the current Sec. 25.853(c) was largely an
oversight in the way the FAA worded the rule.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Published in the Federal Register on October 26, 1984 (49
FR 43188) and available on the internet at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/0/31FBF691A3BCE69C86256825004F9E02?OpenDocument.
\19\ Section 25.853(c) specifically referred to ``seats,''
whereas elsewhere in the regulations, seats and berths are both
mentioned when requirements apply to both. From a fire safety
standpoint, there is no distinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Sec. 25.853(d)(3) would create a performance-based
standard for the flammability of seat cushions. In the event that a
post-crash fire enters the airplane, the seat cushions would have to
resist involvement in that fire, and not propagate it. (Resist, for the
purposes of this proposed rule, means to not become involved in a fire
to the extent that survivability is adversely affected, commensurate
with the historical benefit provided by the oil burner test.
Involvement, for the purposes of this proposed rule, means ignition,
pyrolysis, or combustion.) Since the oil burner test represents the
hazard posed by a post-crash fire, it would continue to be, in most
cases, an acceptable test to show compliance with this proposed rule.
However, in certain applications, an applicant could show compliance
with the HRR test. The oil burner test measures both flame spread and
material consumption rates, and the HRR test only measures the latter.
Therefore, an applicant's use of the HRR test will generally be limited
to designs where flame spread does not affect safety, and would, in
most circumstances, apply to small cushions or cushions such as padding
on an angled surface. Proposed appendix F to part 25 would allow this
substitution of one test method for another.
The proposed revisions to Sec. 25.853 would no longer require
cushions to meet a Bunsen burner test because the oil burner test,
which most applicants would use to demonstrate the flammability
performance of their cushions, is more severe. Although the Bunsen
burner test would not be required for seat cushions, applicants could
still choose to generate Bunsen burner test data, where that data may
be used to support substitution of upholstery (dress covers) under the
provisions of proposed Sec. 25.853(e)(3).
This proposal would also remove the mandatory and detailed testing
methods from appendix F to part 25. Instead, AC 25.853-2X, would
provide guidance on
[[Page 31752]]
acceptable tests, including the oil burner test and use of the HRR
test.
3. Heat Release Rate Test (Current Sec. 25.853(d) and Part IV of
Appendix F to Part 25)
Currently, the requirements to conduct the HRR test, in Sec.
25.853(d) and part IV of appendix F to part 25, apply to specific
interior features: Interior ceiling and wall panels, partitions, galley
structures, large cabinets, and cabin stowage compartments that are in
a passenger compartment that may be occupied during takeoff and
landing.
This proposal would replace this requirement with performance-based
standards in Sec. 25.853(d)(2) applicable to any large \20\ surface
area in the same compartment, based on the type of fire it may be
exposed to, and without regard to whether a particular surface is
associated with a specific feature. These revisions, therefore, would
extend the flammability requirements to all large surface areas within
the portions of the fuselage currently covered by the HRR tests. This
proposal would remove the details of HRR tests from appendix F to part
25. HRR tests would be one means of compliance, and detailed in
proposed AC 25.853-1A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ For purposes of this proposed rule, ``large'' excludes
surfaces that are less than 1 square foot and includes all surfaces
that are 2 square feet and greater, with square footage in between
as explained in amendment 25-83 (60 FR 6615, February 2, 1995),
which is available on the internet at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1995-02-02/pdf/95-2114.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A design development that the FAA did not anticipate following the
1986 adoption of part IV of appendix F to part 25, which details the
HRR test, and a change to Sec. 25.853(a) to require the HRR test (at
amendment 25-61 \21\), was industry's use of large area panels on seat
assemblies.\22\ Because Sec. 25.853(d) at amendment 25-83 \23\
(paragraph (a) at amendment 25-61) does not list seats, the FAA has
applied special conditions to address fire protection of these large-
area parts. The proposed revisions to Sec. 25.853 would eliminate the
need for these special conditions, since the revisions would apply to
any component or part that is a large surface within the fuselage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Published in the Federal Register on July 21, 1986 (51 FR
26206).
\22\ In this context, seat assemblies include the seat and
furniture associated with that seat. The furniture need not be an
airplane sidewall or bulkhead to affect the overall post-crash
flammability characteristics and therefore should simply be treated
as a large surface area.
\23\ Published in the Federal Register on February 2, 1995 (60
FR 6615) and available on the internet at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1995-02-02/pdf/95-2570.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA also proposes, however, that this broader standard only
apply to items more than 15 inches above the floor because full-scale
fire tests \24\ show that (with the exception of materials near the
fire entry point) the materials very near the floor do not
significantly contribute to a post-crash fire until conditions have
become non-survivable. Therefore, in order to simplify compliance
demonstrations and focus the requirement on the most critical
components, proposed Sec. 25.853(d)(2)(i) would only apply to large-
surface components and parts that are more than 15 inches from the
cabin floor. For example, a kick panel that extends upward from the
floor to 16 inches above the floor would be required to pass the HRR
test. For airplanes with more than one passenger deck, the 15-inch
dimension would apply to each deck separately. The FAA based the 15-
inch dimension on test data and the objective of such materials not
adversely affecting safety. This provision is relieving and should
reduce costs. The proposal to exclude surfaces 15 inches and below
would not apply to large area surfaces on seats because seats could be
located in or near a fire's entry point through the fuselage and,
therefore, would be more likely to be involved in a post-crash fire.
FAA full-scale fire tests have shown that there could be an adverse
impact on safety if parts on seats that are less than 15 inches from
the floor did not meet the heat release requirements.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ One example is FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-13/52,
``Development of a Laboratory-Scale Flammability Test for Magnesium
Alloys Used in Aircraft Seat Construction,'' dated February 2014,
available in the Docket and on the internet at https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TC-13-52.pdf.
\25\ FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-16/42, ``A Comparison of
Performance of OSU-Compliant Versus Non-OSU-Compliant Thermoplastics
Used in the Lower Area of Aircraft Seats during a Simulated Post-
Crash Fire Scenario,'' dated September 2017, available in the Docket
and on the internet at https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TC-16-42.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Smoke Emissions Test (Current Sec. 25.853(d) and Part V of Appendix
F to Part 25)
This proposal would remove the requirement for testing of smoke
emissions. The smoke emissions test, detailed in the current part V of
appendix F to part 25 that is required by Sec. 25.853(d), measures the
smoke emissions characteristics of materials used in cabin components.
The smoke emissions test is currently required in addition to the HRR
test. The FAA adopted the smoke emissions test requirement at amendment
25-66 \26\ after concluding that smoke may hamper emergency egress and
is, therefore, a survivability factor in the event of a fire. Thus, all
materials, parts, and components that must meet the HRR test
requirements are also required to pass the smoke emissions test in
accordance with current Sec. 25.853(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See ``Improved Flammability Standards for Materials Used in
the Interiors of Transport Category Airplane Cabins,'' published in
the Federal Register on August 25, 1988 (53 FR 32564) and available
on the internet at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/0/7B29EAF2EAC36594862568FC005465CD?OpenDocument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, FAA research data have also shown that, for the materials
and configurations typically used in transport category airplanes, the
heat release of the materials used drives occupant survivability,
rather than the materials' smoke emission. Heat release dictates how
quickly the conditions progress to flashover.\27\ Before flashover,
conditions are largely survivable. Due to the importance of heat
release, the FAA initially adopted regulations (at amendment 25-61)
that only contained requirements for the HRR test and did not address
smoke emission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ A flashover is the near-simultaneous ignition of all
combustible material within an enclosed area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, the data do not correlate smoke emission test results with
post-crash survivability as they do with heat release. The FAA is
unaware of any data showing that smoke emission testing has contributed
to fire safety in an actual accident. Although the rule has been in
effect for more than 20 years and has prevented applicants from using
certain materials, the FAA has concluded, pursuant to the following
discussions, that the smoke emission testing requirement is not adding
to post-crash fire safety. The smoke emission requirement may be
contributing to in-flight fire safety, but the extent of that
contribution is unknown. However, by adding standards for extensively
used materials in inaccessible areas, the potential contribution to an
in-flight fire from materials that would no longer be subject to the
smoke emission requirement will be minimized. For example, the proposal
would eliminate the test that measures smoke emissions for certain
large surface area parts, such as sidewalls. If a fire was to propagate
on ducting behind the sidewall (an inaccessible area), it could spread
to a sidewall that had not been tested for smoke emission, and the
quantity of smoke could become a risk to continued safe flight and
landing. If the ducting met the flammability standard in this proposal,
the fire would not reach the sidewall, and the quantity of smoke would
be minimal. Thus, the relief in the smoke emission requirements for
sidewalls depends on improving the
[[Page 31753]]
standards for ducting. This philosophy of interdependency is true
throughout the proposal.
The MFWG discussed smoke emission testing at length during its
activity leading to this proposal, but the MFWG did not reach a
consensus on whether the FAA should retain a requirement for smoke
emission testing. Some members were concerned that the removal of the
requirement could lead to applicants using materials with excessive
smoke emission properties, if those materials offered weight or cost
advantages. Other members believed the FAA could eliminate the smoke
emission test requirement because smoke emissions had not been
correlated to post-crash survivability, and FAA data suggested it was
not needed. Also, most airplane manufacturers have their own design
standards that include tests for smoke emissions. These internal
manufacturer requirements were in place before the FAA adopted the
current regulatory requirement; therefore, the FAA expects they would
remain in use to some extent if the regulatory requirement were
removed. Thus, the FAA anticipates that some of the smoke emission
testing that existed before the current regulatory requirement would
continue to take place if this proposed amendment removed the
regulatory requirement. In other words, manufacturers might choose to
maintain the design standards that were in place before amendment 25-66
\28\ was adopted. Amendment 25-66 imposed a certification process that
drives costs, in terms of the quantity of tests, the documentation
necessary, and the engineering assessments to identify the correct
tests. These costs would be relieved by this proposed rule and are
included in the cost savings estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See ``Improved Flammability Standards for Materials Used in
the Interiors of Transport Category Airplane Cabins,'' published in
the Federal Register on August 25, 1988 (53 FR 32564). Available at
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/0/7B29EAF2EAC36594862568FC005465CD?OpenDocument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this information, the FAA proposes to remove the
requirement for testing of smoke emissions. However, because smoke is
an important survivability parameter, and materials that have high
smoke emission without significant HRR are theoretically possible,
Sec. 25.853 of this proposal would establish a general performance
standard that components must maintain occupant survivability during a
post-crash fire. One means of showing compliance would be HRR testing,
described in chapter A4 of FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-17/55, ``Aircraft
Materials Fire Test Handbook,'' Revision 3, dated June 2019. If data
from the HRR testing does not ensure the post-crash fuel fire
performance of a given material, an applicant could show compliance via
another means. The FAA anticipates, however, that HRR tests will be
adequate to determine the post-crash fire performance of components
made from materials currently in use such as phenolic, epoxy, and
thermoplastic.
5. Oil Burner Test for Cargo Compartment Liners (Current Sec.
25.855(c) and Part III of Appendix F to Part 25)
Proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(2) would set performance standards
requiring all Class C, and certain Class E and F, cargo compartment
ceiling and sidewall liners to resist penetration by a fire within that
compartment and protect the airplane's structure and critical systems
from the effects of those fires. The section on cargo or baggage
compartments would include a reference (Sec. 25.855(c)) requiring
compliance with the applicable provisions of Sec. 25.853(c). In
addition, as a minor editorial change, this proposal eliminates the
term ``panels'' from ``liner panels,'' the term used in the current
regulation. Most liners are panels. However, many components serving
the role of the cargo compartment liner are not panels, and the term
can sometimes be confusing. The proposed rule would simply refer to
cargo compartment liners, but there would be no change in the scope of
the requirement.
Currently, Sec. 25.855(b) requires any Class B through E, and
certain Class F, cargo compartments to have a liner. Section 25.855(c)
requires the ceiling and sidewall liner panels of Class C and F cargo
compartments to meet the requirements currently in part III of appendix
F to part 25, the oil burner test (proving resistance to flame
penetration). The requirement for cargo compartment liners to resist
fire penetration would be retained, as a performance standard, in Sec.
25.853(c)(2)(ii). Proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(1)(iii) would continue to
require Class B cargo compartment liners, as well as any other cargo
compartment liners, to resist penetration from a small ignition source.
This requirement is currently met using the less severe 45-degree
Bunsen burner test required by appendix F, part I, paragraph (a)(2)(ii)
of part 25. A Class F cargo compartment is not required to have a liner
if it has other means of containing a fire and protecting critical
systems and structure, but if it does have a liner, it is currently
required by Sec. 25.855(b)(2) to meet the oil burner test like Class C
cargo compartments.
With this proposal, all Class E cargo compartment liners necessary
to protect critical systems and structure would be required to meet
standards identical to those required of Classes C and F, under
proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(iii). The FAA's rationale for requiring the
same performance of those cargo compartment liners is that any cargo
compartment liner necessary to protect the airplane structure or its
systems should also protect against in-flight cargo fires.
The oil burner test would continue to be an acceptable means of
showing that the liner resists penetration as that test represents the
hazard posed by in-flight cargo fires, but this proposal would remove
the requirement to pass the test in part III of appendix F to part 25,
which would become an optional means of compliance under proposed AC
25.853-1A.
Other methods of meeting the proposed performance standards for
Class E cargo compartments could be the use of fire containment covers
or containers, or dedicated shrouds to protect flight-critical systems.
In such cases, proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(iv) would still require the
liner to resist penetration from a small ignition source, which could
be shown by passing the 45-degree Bunsen burner test, which also would
be described in proposed AC 25.853-1A.
In addition, application of Sec. 25.855(c) has often resulted in
multiple tests for a given liner configuration or slight variants of
the configuration. This regulation would be replaced by the performance
standards discussed previously, and proposed AC 25.855-1X would provide
guidance on simplified methods that should reduce the testing required
to show compliance.
Lastly, this proposal would eliminate the requirement in Sec.
25.855(d) to test the flammability of materials used in the
construction of items such as cargo covers and tiedown equipment within
a Class C cargo compartment. Section 25.855(d) currently applies to all
other materials used in the construction of the cargo or baggage
compartment and requires testing according to part I of appendix F to
part 25, the Bunsen burner tests, for any such materials. This proposal
would add an exception to Sec. 25.855(d) for materials located
entirely within a Class C cargo or baggage compartment. The rationale
for this proposed relief is that Class C compartments are already
required by Sec. 25.857(c) to withstand and contain a fire from cargo
or baggage of arbitrary
[[Page 31754]]
flammability characteristics, and these compartments must have a fire
suppression system. Materials used within the Class C compartment would
be no more flammable than the cargo itself. Since the cargo makes up
most of the potential fire load, requiring all of these materials or
components to be tested does not add to safety. However, this proposal
would not provide similar relief for other classifications of cargo
compartments because those compartments use different approaches to
fire protection.
These proposed changes would apply to cargo compartments, not cargo
containers, even though the National Transportation Safety Board has
recommended improved flammability standards for cargo containers. Cargo
containers \29\ are used in a variety of applications, including within
Class C cargo compartments. Unlike the cargo compartments that house
them, cargo containers are usually not part of the airplane type
design, and so are not directly affected by the requirements of part
25. The FAA often approves cargo containers in accordance with
Technical Standard Order (TSO) C90d, ``Cargo Pallets, Nets and
Containers (Unit Load Devices),'' which contains minimum performance
standards for the container itself, without regard to the type of
compartment where the container will be used. The FAA's analysis of
potential regulatory actions with respect to cargo containers is
ongoing and independent of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Cargo containers are portable devices that are carried
within airplane cargo compartments to transport cargo or baggage.
They are used to facilitate loading and maximize use of space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Radiant Panel Test for Thermal/Acoustic Insulation (Current Sec.
25.856(a) and Part VI of Appendix F to Part 25)
Thermal/acoustic insulation protects the airplane and occupants
from temperature and acoustic extremes, and it is often located in
places not accessible to the flightcrew during flight. This proposal
would remove the requirement for radiant panel testing of thermal/
acoustic insulation, currently in Sec. 25.856(a) and part VI of
appendix F to part 25. This proposal would instead require that
thermal/acoustic insulation comply with proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(i),
which would set performance standards for all extensively used parts,
components, and assemblies that are not accessible to the flightcrew
during flight. The proposed performance is that the parts not propagate
the largest fire that, by itself, would not be a hazard to the
airplane. The reason this standard was selected, originally by the
MFWG, is to prevent the risk that a fire that is any larger would be a
hazard to the airplane and its occupants, regardless of the materials
used.
One means of showing compliance with the proposed performance
standards for inaccessible materials would be the radiant panel test
method, which determines the flammability and flame propagation
characteristics of thermal/acoustic insulation when it is exposed to
both a radiant heat source and a flame. This method would be detailed
in proposed AC 25.856-1A.
In contrast, thermal/acoustic insulation that is accessible to the
flightcrew during flight would only be required to be self-
extinguishing when exposed to a small flame, as set forth in proposed
Sec. 25.853(c)(1)(i).
7. Oil Burner Test for Thermal/Acoustic Insulation (Current Sec.
25.856(b) and Part VII of Appendix F to Part 25)
For airplanes with a passenger capacity of 20 or more, this
proposal would revise Sec. 25.856(b) to state two performance
standards, that thermal/acoustic insulation installed in the lower half
of the fuselage resist penetration of a post-crash fuel fire and
provide at least 5 minutes of survivability in the occupied portions of
the airplane. Section 25.856(b) currently requires that thermal/
acoustic insulation installed in the lower half of the fuselage meet
the burnthrough resistance (or oil burner) test in part VII of appendix
F to part 25 unless the FAA determines that the insulation would not
contribute to fire penetration resistance. If thermal/acoustic
insulation is not installed, there is currently no requirement that the
airplane resist post-crash fire penetration.
The MFWG recommended that the FAA expand the applicability of the
burnthrough resistance requirement beyond just insulation, to require a
means of providing post-crash fire penetration protection. For some
airplane designs, that approach could require some other type of fire
barrier, in areas where insulation is not installed, that would have to
meet the same performance standards as thermal/acoustic insulation.
The FAA is not proposing to adopt the MFWG recommendation to expand
the applicability of the burnthrough resistance requirement. It is
difficult to quantify the benefits of requiring a fire penetration
barrier, since the majority of in-production airplanes are largely
insulated in the lower lobe. Adding a fire barrier to areas not
traditionally insulated, such as the wing box or certain cargo areas,
would provide some, albeit limited, fire safety benefit. In addition,
with the increased use of composite skin structure, some airplane
models have fire penetration resistance without using insulation.
However, if the FAA were to separately require fire penetration
resistance for the entire lower lobe, applicants would incur
substantial development costs, including increased testing, and more
significantly, increased airplane weight. The FAA cannot, at present,
justify these costs against the potential benefits they would provide.
Instead, proposed Sec. 25.856(b) would allow for another means of
providing fire penetration resistance, and proposed AC 25.856-2B would
address the use of fuselage structure in an equivalent means of
providing fire penetration resistance. These provisions should reduce
the administrative actions necessary if an applicant chooses to provide
a fire penetration barrier by means other than insulation.
8. Radiant Heat Resistance Test for Escape Slides (Sec. 25.853(d)(5))
Proposed Sec. 25.853(d)(5) would incorporate a requirement from
TSO-C69C, ``Emergency Evacuation Slides, Ramps, Ramp/Slides, and Slide/
Rafts,'' for applicants to conduct tests to ensure the continued
functioning of escape systems when those systems are exposed to the
effects of radiant heat from a post-crash fuel fire. Since all escape
slides currently comply with the radiant heat resistance requirement of
TSO-C69C, this proposal would add no compliance burden. Compliance with
TSO-C69C would also provide the necessary data for compliance with the
new part 25 requirement. Proposed AC 25.853-6X would contain details of
the radiant heat test method and pass/fail criteria and would include
refinements developed since the TSO-C69C was last updated.
9. Fire Containment Compliance of Waste Receptacles (Current Sec.
25.853(h))
The fire containment requirements for waste receptacles would
remain the same with this proposal. However, because of the
reorganization of Sec. 25.853, this proposal would move the waste
receptacle requirements from Sec. 25.853(h) to proposed Sec.
25.853(c)(1)(ii). In addition, proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(1)(ii) would
require at least one test specimen to show compliance. This change is
necessary because proposed Sec. 25.853(b) adds a general test
requirement that three specimen sets be used to show compliance with
proposed Sec. Sec. 25.853(c) and (d). Requiring one test specimen for
waste receptacles is
[[Page 31755]]
consistent with the current Sec. 25.853(h), which requires
demonstration by test.
Waste receptacles face the threat of an in-flight fire occurring
within the receptacle. The current Sec. 25.853(h) addresses this
threat, but the requirement does not specify a test method from
appendix F to part 25 as do the other paragraphs of the current Sec.
25.853. AC 25-17A, Change 1, ``Transport Airplane Cabin Interiors
Crashworthiness Handbook,'' dated May 24, 2016, currently summarizes an
acceptable method of compliance for waste receptacles. This method
would be updated in chapter B1 of FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-17/55, in
order to reflect current knowledge about in-flight fire sources and
typical waste materials.
10. Extensively Used Materials in Inaccessible Areas (Proposed Sec.
25.853(c)(2)(i))
The FAA is proposing new fire safety standards that would apply to
all materials that are extensively used within and including the
fuselage but are not accessible in flight. Proposed Sec. 25.853(c)
would set a performance standard of prohibiting the flammability
characteristics of parts, components, and materials involved in an in-
flight fire from creating a hazard to the occupants or to the continued
safe flight of the airplane. For the purposes of this proposed rule,
the ``flammability characteristics'' of a part, component, or assembly
(or the materials from which they are made) are all of the ways those
items respond to a particular fire threat. Such flammability
characteristics include the material's ease of ignition, its tendency
to propagate a flame, and its HRR, as well as other parameters
correlated with heat release, including the emission of smoke and toxic
gases.
Proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(i) would set the performance standard
that extensively used parts, components, and assemblies must not
propagate the largest fire that, by itself, would not be a hazard to
the airplane.
When the FAA adopted the flammability requirements for thermal/
acoustic insulation in 2003 (amendment 25-111),\30\ the FAA's
regulatory evaluation estimated that the requirements would mitigate
\31\ roughly half the potentially catastrophic in-flight fires that
might occur over a 20-year period. In order to more completely address
the risk due to in-flight fire, the FAA determined that all extensively
used materials in inaccessible areas should have the same level of fire
resistance as thermal/acoustic insulation, currently addressed in Sec.
25.856(a). Therefore, proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(i) would set the same
performance standard for extensively used parts in inaccessible areas
that is in the current Sec. 25.856(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See ``Improved Flammability Standards for Thermal/Acoustic
Insulation Materials Used in Transport Category Airplanes,''
published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2003 (68 FR 45045) and
available on the internet at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2003-07-31/pdf/03-18612.pdf.
\31\ I.e., prevent the fire from becoming catastrophic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To further explain the reason for this proposal, the parts and
materials of primary concern in inaccessible areas are electrical
wiring, ducting, and composite structure. Each of these is
``extensively used,'' in the meaning set forth in this proposal, and
could permit a fire to propagate inside the airplane. Since the areas
in question are not accessible by the flightcrew, there is no effective
way to fight the fire, so the flammability (flame propagation)
resistance of the materials is paramount in in-flight fire safety. This
proposal would also revise Sec. 25.856(a), which states the
requirements for thermal/acoustic insulation, to require the same
performance standards as Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(i). This would have the
effect of limiting the applicability of the in-flight flame propagation
requirement to thermal/acoustic insulation that is located in an area
that is inaccessible in flight. Proposed AC 25.853-5X would provide
additional detail on the types of components that are affected by this
requirement, as well as methods of compliance.
Section 25.1713, ``Fire protection: EWIS,'' applies to electrical
wire and cable wherever it is used. Materials used in any electrical
wire and cable insulation, including protective shrouds, are considered
extensively used. This proposal would restate the current fire
protection requirements relative to whether the wire is installed
within or outside the fuselage. For electrical wiring interconnected
systems (EWIS) components installed within the fuselage, under proposed
Sec. 25.1713(c)(2) the insulation would have to meet the performance
standards in proposed Sec. 25.853(c), which includes different
standards for installations in areas that are accessible and
inaccessible in-flight, and in a post-crash environment. For EWIS
installed outside the fuselage, because such areas are inaccessible,
proposed Sec. 25.1713(c)(1) would require that such components not
propagate the largest fire that, by itself, would not be a hazard to
the airplane. This proposal would also add a new paragraph (d) to Sec.
25.853 to require testing, except for wiring installations that would
not pose a risk to fire safety. Proposed AC 25.853-5X would provide
accepted test methods for showing compliance with the new performance
standards.
Other extensively used materials include nonmetallic or flammable
metals used in some fuselage construction today. Since the use of these
materials in this manner constitutes a novel or unusual design feature,
the FAA has addressed the issue of in-flight fire safety for designs
using these materials through special conditions. Those special
conditions are intended to ensure that the use of nonmetallic or
flammable metal structure does not reduce the level of in-flight fire
safety from the level that would have been provided with a traditional
metallic fuselage. Proposed Sec. 25.853(a) would include the fuselage
in the fire protection requirements regardless of the type of material
used in its construction and would eliminate the need for such special
conditions. Proposed Sec. 25.853(d)(4) would require that flammable
metals used in cabin construction be able to resist a post-crash fire,
and that they be readily extinguishable. ``Readily extinguishable,'' in
this instance, means that a fire extinguishing system in common use in
aviation (including a hand-held fire extinguisher or airport emergency
response) can promptly extinguish the materials, rather than spreading
the fire or otherwise making the fire worse.
Under Sec. 25.853(c)(2) of this proposal, the back sides of many
existing interior features (e.g., galleys, sidewalls, ceilings) would
meet the definition of extensively used and would, therefore, be
required to show by test their fire propagation resistance. However,
the FAA has assessed the performance of these materials, both in
service and in testing. Since the materials' fire propagation
resistance has been satisfactory, and because they are subject to other
flammability requirements, the FAA does not see a need to require
additional tests for the portion of these parts that face inaccessible
areas. Therefore, proposed appendix F to part 25 and proposed AC
25.853-1A would summarize conditions under which methods of compliance
other than testing would be acceptable in order to meet the in-flight
fire requirements for inaccessible areas.
Proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(v) would require that all other parts,
components, and materials located in inaccessible areas be self-
extinguishing when exposed to a small flame or electrical arc. However,
since these would by definition be components that are not extensively
used, an applicant could document a process whereby the
[[Page 31756]]
flammability of parts used in inaccessible areas is controlled to meet
the required level of safety of the proposed rule. Specifically, an
applicant could show that its design/production system includes
provisions such that parts used in inaccessible areas have only known
flammability characteristics, or any parts that do have unknown
flammability characteristics are insignificant in the event of a fire.
Proposed AC 25.853-1A would discuss this in more detail.
11. Exclusions From Testing (Proposed Sec. 25.853(e))
Proposed Sec. 25.853(e) would allow applicants to substantiate
certain components without the testing required by Sec. 25.853(b).
Section 25.853(e) would establish five classes of parts that would not
require certification testing in order to show compliance. Each
individual class would be based on a combination of factors that affect
fire safety and complexity of certification. The classes maintain the
level of safety provided in the current regulations.
The applicant would have to prove that the part or component meets
the criteria of one of the five classes listed in proposed Sec.
25.853(e), in order to obtain the FAA's approval to exempt those parts
from testing. Proposed AC 25.853-1A would provide examples that would
qualify for this relief and guidance for justifying it.
The classes are as follows:
Class 1 parts are small (each able to fit, in its
entirety, within a cube measuring two inches on each side) and
separated from one another so that they will not propagate a fire.
Class 2 parts are larger than Class 1 parts and are self-
extinguishing. These parts would be limited in size to a volume of 113
cubic inches and an exposed area of 200 square inches.
Class 3 parts are those that the applicant can show,
through a method acceptable to the Administrator, are a size,
construction, or location that their flammability characteristics do
not threaten the airplane or its occupants. By threaten, the FAA means
pose a risk to continued safe flight and landing or a hazard to the
occupants.
Class 4 parts are those that are essential to the safety
of the airplane, its occupants, or the functionality \32\ of the
airplane and cannot reasonably be made from a material that meets the
flammability requirements without compromising the part's integrity or
functionality. Although this paragraph provides an exception, the FAA
expects the proposed design would come as closely as possible to full
compliance, including the use of best available materials and showing
that there is no adverse effect on safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Such necessary functionality does not include entertainment
systems but would include lavatories and potable water tanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 5 parts are those that have already passed a more
stringent test as outlined in appendix F to part 25.
All of these provisions would apply to testing requirements for
both the in-flight and post-crash fires.
The FAA is proposing these exceptions because the current general
exclusion of small parts from testing requirements in part I of
appendix F to part 25 has been problematic. There is currently no
definition of small parts in the flammability regulations, only
examples. Since testing is not required, the flammability
characteristics of those small parts can be unknown. In addition, there
is no consideration of accessibility, extensive use, or potential type
of fire exposure. Adopting different classes of parts would simplify
the requirements and bring standardization to those situations where
parts are not tested. Proposed AC 25.853-1A would provide examples that
would qualify for this relief and guidance on justifying it.
12. Pass/Fail Criteria
This proposal would remove the detailed pass/fail criteria from
appendix F to part 25. Section 25.853(b) of this proposal would define
the number of specimen sets required for tests that the applicant uses
to show compliance. The applicable proposed AC would provide approved
number of passing samples for certain testing methods.
The detailed pass/fail criteria, currently in appendix F to part
25, are specific to the test method. Depending on what the test is
measuring, the pass/fail criteria relate to the key parameters of
interest (e.g., burn length, extinguishing time, HRR) necessary to meet
the level of safety that the requirement. The pass/fail criteria are
based on a required number of test samples and the number of samples
that meet the specified criteria. All of the current test methods
require at least three sets of test samples, which may include more
than one specimen depending on the test method.
Some current test methods require the average value of the test
results to be at or below a certain level; others require that no
sample can fail. For example, the seat cushion test in current appendix
F to part 25 requires that two thirds of the test samples meet certain
criteria as well as the average of all test samples. One of the key
ongoing difficulties with these criteria is how to recover from failure
of a single sample, where that sample may be an outlier. For those
methods that require an average, simply testing more samples improves
the statistical significance of the average, and has generally been
acceptable (although the FAA must approve in advance the number of
additional samples to be tested). For test methods that do not permit
any sample to exceed specified values, a failure of one sample is
problematic, since one failure would violate the criteria no matter how
many additional samples are tested. Such failures are often attributed
to so-called ``rogue'' samples: Samples that have some irregular
characteristic that makes their performance unrepresentative of the
material (part or component) in general. While rogue samples
undoubtedly occur, it is often difficult to pinpoint their cause.
This proposal would address this issue in Sec. 25.853(b) by
standardizing the number of samples and required pass rate: 80 percent
for every new or improved test method, based on a minimum of three test
sample sets. The effect would be that if only three samples are tested,
all must pass. If one of the three samples fails, then at least two
additional samples would be needed to obtain an 80 percent passing
rate. This standard would be effectively relieving for tests on
thermal/acoustic insulation and Class C cargo compartment liners
because those methods in part III of appendix F to part 25 currently
permit no failures. In contrast, this method could be more stringent
for Bunsen burner and HRR tests because it could require more samples.
The method is similar to the method currently required for testing seat
cushions. However, since this proposal would eliminate many Bunsen
burner tests and the test for smoke emissions (all in appendix F), even
if an applicant needed additional samples to show compliance, the total
number of required tests should be very close to the number required
today. Also, samples that are invalidated due to an assignable cause
could still be discarded and replaced with new samples.
Most of the test methods currently in use would continue to be
acceptable for certification. An applicant could choose to use these
existing methods to show compliance with the relevant portions of this
proposal. However, the FAA considers the revised versions of these test
methods, as documented in FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-17/55, to be more
reliable than the previous versions. The only test methods currently
required that would not be carried forward under this proposal are
[[Page 31757]]
the horizontal Bunsen burner test and the test for smoke emissions. If
an applicant uses a current test method to comply with a performance
standard in this proposal, then the applicant should use existing pass/
fail criteria (including all measured parameters). In that case, an
applicant would be trading the lower reliability of the older test
method against the need to prepare additional test samples. For new
tests, such as those for extensively used materials in inaccessible
areas, at this time there are no proven optional methods to those
presented in the proposed guidance, which includes the 80-percent
criteria.
The table below identifies each test method; the current location
of the detailed test method in regulatory requirements and non-
regulatory procedures; and the location where each test method could be
found, in non-regulatory procedures, if this proposal is adopted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently
approved (or Non[dash]regulatory
Test method required) procedures
procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bunsen burner................. Part I of AMFTH,** Chapters A1
appendix F to and A2.
part 25, AMFTH,*
Chapters 1-4.
Oil burner--seats............. Part II of AMFTH,** Chapters A5.
appendix F to
part 25, AMFTH,*
Chapter 7.
Oil burner--cargo liner....... Part III of AMFTH,** Chapters B2.
appendix F to
part 25, AMFTH,*
Chapter 8.
Oil burner--insulation........ Part VII of AMFTH,** Chapter A5.
appendix F to
part 25.
Oil burner--Mg alloy.......... N/A.............. AMFTH,** Chapter A6.
Heat release rate............. Part IV of AMFTH,** Chapter A4.
appendix F to
part 25, AMFTH,*
Chapter 5.
Radiant heat--escape slide.... TSO C69C......... AMFTH,** Chapter A2.
Radiant panel................. Part VI of AMFTH,** Chapter B2.
appendix F to
part 25.
Vertical flame propagation-- N/A.............. AMFTH,** Chapter B5.
Wiring.
Vertical flame propagation-- N/A.............. AMFTH,** Chapter B4.
Ducting.
Vertical flame propagation-- N/A.............. AMFTH,** Chapter B3.
Composite structure.
Fire containment.............. AMFTH,* Chapter AMFTH,** Chapter B1.
10.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-00/12, ``Aircraft Materials Fire Test
Handbook,'' dated April 2000.
** FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-17/55, ``Aircraft Materials Fire Test
Handbook,'' Revision 3, dated June 2019.
While the previous test methods, as shown in the table above, would
continue to be acceptable, the FAA will not continue to refine these
methods to improve their repeatability and reproducibility. The FAA's
future focus on refining and improving test methods will be on the new
and improved test methods documented in FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-17/
55, since these are now the preferred methods and would become the
preferred methods of compliance with the performance standards of this
proposal.
B. Reorganization of Appendix F to Part 25
1. General Structure
The FAA is proposing to substantively change appendix F to part 25
by removing its many specifications for flammability tests and adding a
list of flammability test methods that applicants can use in lieu of
other test methods. The FAA would remove and update the detailed
testing criteria from the current appendix F, although it would
continue to be available in advisory material. This proposal would
provide flexibility for applicants in showing compliance with the
proposed revisions to the fire protection standards in Sec. 25.853.
Currently, appendix F to part 25 is divided into seven parts, each
providing details of different test methods, with variations for
specific airplane parts, and acceptable outcomes for each test
variation. Because of the importance of maintaining standardization,
these test methods are very detailed and, therefore, lengthy. Since
appendix F to part 25 is a regulation, applicants must get the FAA's
approval to depart from any of the test details. As the test methods
have become more complicated and sophisticated over time, following
every detail has become more important in obtaining reliable results.
Conversely, as technology advances, providing more opportunities to
refine and improve the test methods, requests for deviation from
appendix F to part 25 have become more frequent. To deal with these
requests, the FAA issued a policy statement to permit use of FAA Report
No. DOT/FAA/AR-00/12 as an acceptable method of compliance for many of
the test methods in appendix F to part 25. The FAA also developed a
method for updating the handbook, so that improvements could be
implemented quickly and used by industry without extensive
administrative burden.
Given this experience, the FAA has determined that the detailed
test methods should no longer be regulatory.
In conjunction with this proposal, the detailed test methods would
be contained in ACs (see section III.D, ``Advisory Materials'' of this
NPRM), which are easier to update than a regulation and allow for more
flexibility as refinements and improvements to the test methods become
available. As with any advisory material, the method would not be
mandatory, but applicants would have to justify and obtain approval of
other compliance methods.
To improve the effectiveness of the handbook approach to
compliance, a new document would serve as a compendium of the relevant
test methods. The associated ACs would reference this compendium, and
the FAA would update it as advances and improvements in test methods
and equipment are developed. However, the original version and
subsequent versions of the compendium would remain an acceptable method
of compliance with these proposed regulations, unless the FAA discovers
a deficiency in a given version, or changes the regulatory requirements
after notice and comment.
2. Hierarchy of Tests
This proposal would add provisions to appendix F to part 25 that
would allow applicants to demonstrate compliance with a requirement in
one of the proposed paragraphs of Sec. 25.853 via a test method at
least as rigorous as one acceptable for showing compliance with the
original requirement. Appendix F to part 25 would contain a table of
these performance standards indicating whether showing compliance with
one standard would be sufficient to satisfy showing compliance with
another. This table would help applicants determine the relative
[[Page 31758]]
severity of the testing methods that the FAA would find acceptable for
showing compliance and, therefore, would allow applicants to eliminate
redundant or non-value-added testing. Since the critical performance
parameters (e.g., flame propagation and fire penetration) differ
according to the type of fire (in-flight or post-crash fuel fire), the
proposed revisions to appendix F to part 25 would clarify which types
of compliance tests the FAA would find acceptable as substitutions for
a given type of fire threat.
This would allow a successful result on other, more stringent,
testing to prove that a given material will not pose a hazard in that
type of fire. For example, appendix F to part 25 would allow applicants
to use a successful HRR test to show compliance with the requirement to
pass a Bunsen burner test, or to use a post-crash fire test method,
coupled with experience for certain classes of materials, to show
compliance with an otherwise required in-flight fire test method. The
FAA has determined that, for certain classes of materials, complying
with one requirement provides sufficient data to show compliance with
another, subject to certain conditions. Each instance where compliance
with the post-crash requirements is sufficient to meet the in-flight
requirement would be discussed in more detail in proposed AC 25.853-1A.
An example of the allowable use of a post-crash requirement to meet
an in-flight requirement would be for the back sides of the large
interior surfaces (sidewalls, ceilings, floors, galleys, etc.) not
exposed to the cabin. As discussed previously, these surfaces would be
subject to proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(2), which would require that, for
in-flight fires, extensively used materials in inaccessible areas not
propagate the largest fire that, by itself, would not be a hazard to
the airplane. The vertical flame propagation test is currently the
expected means of compliance to this standard. However, with the
exception of floor panels, the types of materials used for these
applications have not been a safety concern for in-flight fires, and
these materials would still have to meet the stringent requirements
related to heat release for the post-crash environment. With the
proposed hierarchy table in appendix F to part 25, if these materials
pass the HRR tests, they would not also have to pass the vertical flame
propagation test.
The same allowance is true for the back side of cargo compartment
liners, even though they are subject to a different probable type of
fire threat (post-crash fuel fires) and required by appendix F to be
tested using the oil burner test. Although the oil burner and vertical
flame propagation tests are not universal substitutes for each other,
the materials on the back of cargo compartment liners have exhibited
satisfactory behavior in the presence of in-flight fires, as
demonstrated by FAA testing, and should not require further testing by
the vertical flame propagation test. Should new materials be developed
whose performance in an in-flight fire has not been established, then
the proposed rule would provide the means to address and allow them,
and both test methods may be necessary to demonstrate that compliance.
This would be indicated in the note to the table in proposed appendix F
to part 25.
As a final note, the FAA recognizes that its current regulations
provide flexibility for an applicant via the repeated provision
allowing ``other approved test methods.'' However, this provision does
not adequately address the need for consistency in test methods because
it is optional, and each applicant could seek approval of a unique
alternative method. This can result in the same material passing one
applicant's test and failing another, even though both test methods
could be approved by the FAA. The FAA expects that this proposal would
provide the same level of flexibility, but increased consistency over
time as consensus on testing methods develops.
C. Conformal and Editorial Changes
Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 109 to part 25 also
requires compliance with certain paragraphs of Sec. 25.853 that would
be changed by this proposal. Consequently, the FAA would modify SFAR
109 so that those requirements continue after Sec. 25.853 is amended.
Certain sections of 14 CFR parts 27 and 29, for normal and
transport category rotorcraft, currently require testing in accordance
with appendix F to part 25. Although this proposal would remove those
testing requirements from appendix F for transport category airplanes,
the FAA does not propose to remove or change those requirements for
normal and transport category rotorcraft. Therefore, this proposal
would add an amendment level to the appendix F references in Sec. Sec.
27.1365, 29.853, and 29.1359 to continue those requirements after
appendix F is amended.
The proposed rule would also remove certain testing requirements
regarding average burn length from paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of
Sec. 29.853 because those requirements are redundant with current
appendix F to part 25.
Operational rules in certain sections of 14 CFR parts 91, 121, 125,
and 135 also currently require testing in accordance with Sec. Sec.
25.853 and 25.856 and appendix F to part 25. The FAA proposes to add
the phrase ``or as subsequently amended'' to Sec. Sec. 91.613,
121.312, 121.314, 125.113, 135.169, and 135.170, so that airplanes
approved in accordance with the amendment resulting from this proposal
would be able to comply with the operational rules. The ``or'' in that
phrase serves the purpose of making compliance with this proposal or a
later amendment optional.
In addition, appendix L to part 121 contains information regarding
referenced sections of part 25 that have subsequently changed through
amendments. Appendix L would also be updated to conform to this
proposal.
These changes to parts 25, 27, 29, 91, 121, 125, and 135 would have
no substantive impact on safety or the cost of compliance.
This proposal also contains some editorial changes to existing
regulatory language, where that language does not reflect how the rule
is applied, or its intent. Specifically, current Sec. 25.853(e)
excepts certain compartments from compliance with Sec. 25.853(d) if
they are isolated by a door that would be closed during an emergency
landing condition. In practice, this exception has been applied when
such compartments are isolated by a door that is closed for taxi,
takeoff, and landing, in general. The proposal is changed accordingly
and will have no impact on the requirement. The proposal moves this
exception in Sec. 25.853(e) for parts inside of compartments isolated
from the main passenger cabin to a new Sec. 25.853(d)(2)(ii).
Current Sec. 25.853(h) requires that disposal receptacles be made
from materials that are ``fire resistant.'' The term ``fire resistant''
is defined in 14 CFR part 1 as having properties equivalent to aluminum
alloy appropriate for the purpose. In practice, the means of compliance
has been by meeting the test method specified in current part I of
appendix F for Class B cargo compartment liners, which is to resist
penetration by a small flame. The proposal would state the requirement
in that way to avoid any ambiguity regarding the level of protection
required. This will also have no impact since it aligns the rule
language with how the requirement has historically been actually met.
This proposal contains only minor editorial changes to the
requirements related to smoking in Sec. 25.853(f) and (g). The
requirements would remain the
[[Page 31759]]
same, but the paragraphs would be renumbered and restated for clarity.
D. Advisory Material
The FAA is developing six new ACs and revising three ACs that will
be published for public comment concurrently with this NPRM. These
proposed ACs can be found in the same public docket as this NPRM. The
draft ACs would provide guidance for acceptable means, but not the only
means, of showing compliance with proposed Sec. Sec. 25.853, 25.855,
and 25.856. The FAA will accept public comments on the following
proposed ACs on the ``Aviation Safety Draft Documents Open for
Comment'' web page at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/:
1. AC 25.853-1A, ``Flammability Requirements for Transport Category
Airplanes.''
2. AC 25.853-2X, ``Flammability Requirements for Aircraft Seat
Cushions.''
3. AC 25.853-3X, ``Flammability Testing Requirements for Commonly
Constructed Parts, Construction Details, and Materials Used on
Transport Category Airplanes.''
4. AC 25.853-4X, ``Vertical Bunsen Burner Tests.''
5. AC 25.853-5X, ``Flammability Requirements for Materials in
Inaccessible Areas of Transport Category Airplanes.''
6. AC 25.853-6X, ``Flammability Requirements for Escape System
Materials for Transport Category Airplanes.''
7. AC 25.855-1X, ``Flammability Requirements of Cargo Liners for
Transport Category Airplanes.''
8. AC 25.856-1A, ``Thermal/Acoustic Insulation Flame Propagation
Test Method Details.''
9. AC 25.856-2B, ``Fuselage Burnthrough Protection.''
The FAA is also revising Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-00/12 to update the
test methods contained within this report, as described previously.
This interim report will be published concurrently with this NPRM as
FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-17/55, and it can be found in the same public
docket as this NPRM.
E. Application of Sec. Sec. 21.17
This proposal would revise the flammability standards for transport
category airplanes, but would not impose any requirements to retrofit
existing airplanes or conduct a production-cut in on new airplanes.
Since this proposal would simplify or remove some of the flammability
requirements, some applicants may wish to use the standards of this
proposal instead of an earlier amendment level. Applicants may elect to
apply the later amendment under Sec. 21.17 or seek exceptions in
accordance with Sec. 21.101.
Section 21.17(e) permits an applicant for a type certificate to
elect compliance with an amendment effective after the date of
application, as long as all ``directly related'' amendments, as
determined by the FAA, are complied with as well.
The FAA has considered which regulatory amendments must be regarded
as ``directly related'' and, therefore, applied together under Sec.
21.17. An analysis of what is ``directly related'' requires examination
of which provisions have been made more flexible and which have been
made more stringent because these factors are often causally related.
In some areas, the additional flexibility is the result of a
requirement that has become more stringent. The primary areas of
increased flexibility are the proposed removal of the testing
requirements in appendix F, and the proposed removal of the smoke
emission requirement. The removal of the appendix F testing
requirements is only possible, from a safety perspective, because of
the additional performance standards for inaccessible areas. The main
area where requirements would become more stringent is extensively used
components in inaccessible regions of the airplane. These areas are
mainly threatened by in-flight fires, although improved flammability
resistance of materials can also benefit post-crash safety. Therefore,
the FAA considers the entire proposal to be interrelated, such that all
the proposed changes could be characterized as ``directly related'' to
each other. However, the FAA expects that a practical application of
the ``directly related'' provision could simplify compliance under
Sec. 21.17 and maximize safety, as discussed below.
Among those components that would be subjected to new test methods
under this proposal, composite fuselage structure is already subject to
meeting special conditions, and this proposal would codify the
requirements in those conditions. Also, aviation-grade electrical
wiring is for the most part already compliant with the proposed
flammability requirements. Ducting is one area, however, where many of
the currently used parts would not meet the proposed requirement for
extensively used materials in inaccessible areas, and where a
significant safety benefit would accrue from the higher standard. The
type of fire that primarily threatens ducting is in-flight. However,
accidents have shown that ducting can spread and intensify post-crash
fires. Thus, the safety improvement that would result from applying the
proposed standards to ducts would enhance fire safety with regard to
both types of fire, and the FAA considers this safety enhancement
integral to the proposed changes that would reduce or eliminate other
testing.
Therefore, an applicant that elects compliance with the amendment
level that results from this proposal, in order to take advantage of
the provisions that reduce or eliminate tests, would also have to
ensure that ducting complies with the new standards proposed in Sec.
25.853(c)(2).
The exception to the requirement to apply directly related changes
when an applicant elects compliance with the later amendment would be
the substitution of tests in proposed appendix F to part 25. Such
substitution is already allowed under the current flammability rules,
which repeatedly allow applicants to show compliance by ``other
equivalent method.'' Applicants could apply proposed appendix F to part
25 to models approved under earlier certification bases without
affecting safety and without applying other portions of the proposal.
An applicant's selection of the amendment that most materially
contributes to safety could eliminate the need to run multiple tests on
many parts with the recognition that some tests are sufficiently
stringent that they would satisfy the concerns addressed by other
tests. Substituting some tests would neither eliminate the need to
conduct smoke emissions tests, nor alter the applicability of current
requirements. Proposed appendix F to part 25 would simply permit
substitution of one test method for another, where the substitute
method has been determined to be more stringent.
Example 1: An applicant for a supplemental type
certificate desires to use only the new appendix F that would result
from this proposal. In this case, the applicant would be limited to
applying the hierarchy of appendix F, and no other relief.
Example 2: An applicant for a change to a type certificate
(either through amended or supplemental type certification) desires to
elect compliance with the entire amendment that results from this
proposal. The applicant must comply with Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(i) as it
pertains to air ducting, even if the air ducting is unchanged or not
affected by the proposed design change. Any other provision of the
proposed rule could then be included at the applicant's choosing.
[[Page 31760]]
F. Application of Sec. Sec. 21.101
Section 21.101(a) requires design change applicants to meet the
standards in effect on the date of application that are applicable to
the change and areas affected by the change, unless exceptions are
requested and are granted under the provisions of Sec. 21.101(b).
Section 21.101(b) allows the applicant to show compliance with an
earlier amendment level for changes found to be not significant, or
found to not materially contribute to safety, or found to be
impractical. The FAA does not regard any of the standards proposed here
as impractical. The degree to which application of these standards
would ``materially contribute to safety'' will depend on the current
design.
As discussed previously, acceptable wiring would be documented in
proposed AC 25.853-5X and include wiring already widely used by
applicants; the safety of composite fuselage structure will have been
covered by special conditions; and ducting may comply with these
proposed standards, even though certification testing has not been
performed. In those cases, an applicant may be able to argue that
including the later amendment would not materially contribute to
safety, but that use of other provisions (e.g., those that would
eliminate tests) of the proposal would provide significant benefits to
the applicant. In that case, the FAA agrees that compliance with the
later amendment could be acceptable to eliminate tests, provided
improved design features used to justify the exception are a condition
of the certification basis in the ``Additional Design Requirements and
Conditions'' section of the type certificate data sheet.
The following examples illustrate how this could work in practice:
Example 1: An applicant for a significant product-level
change seeks exception, under Sec. 21.101(b), from the amendment that
results from this proposal on the basis that full compliance would not
materially contribute to safety. As discussed above, an exception would
have to be based on substantial compliance with this proposal, such
that few components are not in compliance, and they would not be
significant from a fire safety standpoint.
Example 2: An applicant applies for a fuselage length
change. The change is considered a significant product-level change per
the guidance in AC 21.101-1B. AC 21.101-1B also states that the
simultaneous introduction of a new cabin interior is considered related
since occupant safety considerations are impacted by a cabin length
change. The FAA considers this proposed amendment to be directly
related to occupant safety. As such, for a fuselage change, this
proposed amendment would be an applicable requirement for the airplane
(e.g., changed and unchanged areas of the airplane would need to meet
the requirement). The applicant may request an exception under Sec.
21.101 by showing compliance with this proposal to a substantial
extent, such that the few parts not in compliance would not be
significant from a fire safety standpoint.
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39 as amended) prohibits agencies from setting standards
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements Act 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 (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 with base year of 1995). This portion of the
preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this
proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking greater detail read the full
regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we have placed in the docket for
this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5) would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States; and (6) would not impose an unfunded mandate on
State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized
below.
1. Summary of Costs and Benefits
By extending fire protection requirements to any extensively used
material located in inaccessible areas the proposal is likely to be
beneficial by reducing the likelihood of a fatal accident. Over a 19-
year period of analysis, the FAA estimates the total present value cost
savings of this proposed rule to be $119.8 million at a seven percent
discount rate, with annualized cost savings of $11.6 million. The cost
savings would result from the elimination and streamlining of some
tests, which would be made possible by the extension of fire protection
requirements to inaccessible areas. Over the same 19-year period, the
FAA estimates the total present value costs of this proposed rule to be
$71.1 million at a seven percent discount rate, with annualized costs
of $6.9 million due to the extension of fire protection requirements to
extensively used material in inaccessible areas. A full explanation of
how these costs and cost savings were estimated may be found in the
regulatory impact assessment accompanying this NPRM. The present value
net cost savings (cost savings minus cost) is $48.7 million, with
annualized net cost savings of $4.7 million. The following table
summarizes the costs and cost savings of this proposed rule.
Summary of Costs and Cost Savings (2016 $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19-year total present value Annualized
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% 3% 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings........................ $119,848,146 $178,395,887 $11,595,669 $12,454,509
[[Page 31761]]
Costs............................... 71,105,318 80,387,114 6,879,654 5,612,136
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Net Cost Savings.......... 48,742,828 98,008,773 4,716,015 6,842,373
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Who is potentially affected by this proposed rule?
Manufacturers of part 25 transport category airplanes would be
potentially affected by the proposed rule.
3. Assumptions
Totals converted to 2016 constant dollars.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Calculations were presented in 2015 dollars because most
cost estimates were received in 2015 but totals were then converted
to 2016 dollars to be compliant with OMB guidance implementing
Executive Order 13771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time horizon for analysis 19 years.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ A 19-year time horizon was chosen to be inclusive of the
19-year production cycle for large and the 15-year production cycle
for small transport category airplanes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifty percent of the current $42.8 million annual costs
for smoke emissions testing is incurred by domestic airplane
manufacturers.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Fifty percent is an estimate of the share of the worldwide
transport airplane market held by U.S. manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost savings from eliminating smoke emissions tests would
increase linearly to the level of the current cost savings over 25
years.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Based on manufacturers recommendation in MFWG Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large transport category aircraft.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Based on FAA analysis of Boeing data, OAG Aviation
Solutions Fleet Database, FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] One manufacturer.
[cir] Four type certificates.
[cir] Twenty-seven airplanes produced annually.
[cir] Nineteen-year production period.
Small transport category aircraft.\38\
[cir] One manufacturer.
[cir] Three type certificates.
[cir] Twenty-one airplanes produced annually.
[cir] Fifteen-year production cycle.
4. Benefits of This Rule
The proposed new safety requirements to extend the fire protection
requirements to any extensively used material \38\ located in
inaccessible areas would result in a safety benefit by reducing the
likelihood of a fatal accident from a fire in an inaccessible area.
This benefit was not quantified. Even though there has fortunately not
been a catastrophic in-flight fire of a passenger carrying airplane
since the Swissair accident in 1998, the continued occurrence of in-
flight fire incidents and the growing number of devices using lithium
ion batteries increase the risk of a catastrophic accident, a risk that
this proposal would reduce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Extensively used materials, for the purpose of this
rulemaking, means any parts or system of parts that could permit a
fire to propagate and grow to a hazardous level, for example, air
ducting, electrical wiring/sleeving, thermal/acoustic insulation,
and composite fuselage structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Costs of This Proposed Rule
Over a 19-year period of analysis, the FAA estimates the total
present value costs of this proposed rule to be $71.1 million at a
seven percent discount rate, with annualized costs of $6.9 million,
which would result from extending the standards developed for thermal/
acoustic insulation to all extensively used materials in inaccessible
areas. A full explanation of how these costs were estimated may be
found in the regulatory impact assessment accompanying this NPRM.
Over the same 19-year period, the FAA estimates the total
quantified cost savings of this proposed rule to be $119.8 million at a
seven percent discount rate, with annualized cost savings of $11.6
million. The cost savings would result from the elimination and
streamlining of some tests, which would be made possible by the
extension of fire protection requirements to inaccessible areas. The
total net cost savings of the proposed rule at a seven percent discount
rate would be $48.7 million, with annualized net cost savings of $4.7
million.
6. Minimal to No Cost Provisions Including Conforming Changes
Numerous provisions within this proposal would result in minimal to
no cost to possibly small cost savings. These include provisions that
continue to accept previous test methods or current systems in addition
to proposing new ones, those that maintain current requirements or
current practice, and small edits to maintain consistency with the
current rule.
Also included are conforming changes to parts 27, 29, 121, 125,
135, and appendix L to part 121. These sections make reference to, or
require testing in accordance with, certain sections of appendix F to
part 25. Because sections of appendix F would be removed, some changes
refer to the new location of the requirements. The proposed changes to
these parts also include language to operating requirements. This new
language would give operators the choice of meeting the proposed
requirements, or complying with the old requirements. For airplanes
type certificated in accordance with the proposed requirements, this
change would enable them to be in compliance with the operating rules,
while allowing aircraft manufactured under existing type certificates
and the current fleet to comply with the old requirements. Therefore,
this proposed rule would impose no retrofit requirements on the current
fleet or a production cut-in to aircraft manufactured under existing
type certificates. Consequently, these provisions would impose minimal
to no cost.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule would
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Under Section 603 of the RFA, the FAA has prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the following:
[[Page 31762]]
A description of the reasons why the action by the agency
is being considered.
A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis
for, the proposed rule.
A description and, where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply.
A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping,
and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities that would be subject to the
requirement and the types of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
An identification, to the extent practicable, of all
relevant federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
the proposed rule.
A description of any significant alternatives to the
proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable
statutes, and that minimize any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.
1. A Description of the Reasons Why the Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
The FAA is publishing this proposed rule to simplify flammability
regulations and provide a higher level of safety for transport category
airplanes. The current regulations are complicated, sometimes
conflicting, sometimes redundant, occasionally incomplete, and may be
obsolete for dealing with present-day airplanes. Simplifying these
regulations can lead to cost savings.
A key safety benefit of this proposed rule is the extension of fire
protection requirements to any extensively used material located in
inaccessible areas. FAA research found airplanes are at risk due to
flammable materials in inaccessible areas. FAA testing has indicated
that typical in-service ducts can quickly spread fire from a small fire
source in an inaccessible area, while ducts that would meet the new
requirement can resist that small size fire and not propagate flames.
Also, due to the rapidly increasing number of events due to lithium
battery fires, the chances of a lithium battery fire in the cabin
getting to an inaccessible area are increasing.
2. A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the
Proposed Rule
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is issued under the authority described in Subtitle
VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General Requirements.''
Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of
civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum
standards for the design, material, construction, quality of work, and
performance of aircraft that the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority. It revises the safety standards for the flammability
characteristics, and thus the design, material, and construction, of
transport category airplanes.
3. Description and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of Small
Entities To Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply
This proposed rule would affect U.S. manufacturers of part 25
transport category airplanes requesting a new type certificate.
According to the small business administration, the size standard for
aircraft manufacturers (NAICS code 336411) to be considered a small
business is 1,500 employees or less. None of the manufacturers who
manufacture transport category airplanes have fewer than 1,500
employees; therefore, none of them are small businesses.
The proposed rule might also indirectly affect businesses that
modify transport category airplanes. At this time, the FAA has not
identified any affected small entities without larger U.S. or foreign
ownership or business relationships. The FAA requests comments on this
finding.
4. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of
the Classes of Small Entities That Will be Subject to the Requirement
and the Types of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the
Report or Record
Requirements are governed by 14 CFR part 21 and are not changing
with this proposal. Applicants are required to show compliance under
Sec. 21.20, and this will continue to apply. Therefore, the proposed
rule would not impose additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements on small entities.
5. An Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
There are no federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with this proposal.
6. A Description of any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
The FAA considered two alternatives to the proposed rule. The first
alternative was to not make any changes to the fire protection
requirements. This would leave in place complicated, conflicting,
redundant, occasionally incomplete, and obsolete regulations. Cost
savings would not be achieved. This alternative would also not extend
fire protection requirements to extensively used materials located in
inaccessible areas. This would leave airplanes at risk due to
flammability materials in inaccessible areas.
The FAA also considered making only some of the proposed changes;
however, this would provide limited benefit and no safety improvement.
This is because the significant safety improvements facilitate the
significant simplifications in the proposal. Without the safety
enhancements, the amount of simplification would be limited. If the FAA
proposed only the safety enhancements, the resulting cost would be
difficult to quantitatively balance against the resulting safety
improvement. The proposal intends to achieve a significant reduction in
costs and simplify the requirements, while substantively improving
safety.
The FAA expects this proposed rule would not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The FAA requests comments on this finding.
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
[[Page 31763]]
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and
determined that it does not exclude imports that meet the safety
objective. As a result, this proposed rule is not considered as
creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.
The proposed rule would impose the same costs and cost savings on
domestic and international manufacturers selling airplanes to airlines
that wish to operate within the United States because U.S.-registered
transport category airplanes must comply with part 25 in order to be
operated within the United States. Therefore, the same cost relief
would accrue to all manufacturers selling airplanes to airlines
operating within the U.S. However, the effect this proposed rule would
have on sales of domestically produced airplanes relative to airplanes
produced by foreign companies to airlines operating abroad and not in
the U.S. might be either an advantage due to cost savings or a
disadvantage due to increased costs, depending on the standards to
which foreign airplanes are manufactured.
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) 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
(in 1995 dollars) 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.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100
million.
This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there would be no new requirement for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.
F. International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
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 proposed regulations.
G. 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 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.
V. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism.'' The agency has
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government and, therefore, would not have
Federalism implications.
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (May 18, 2001). The agency has
determined that it would not be a ``significant energy action'' under
the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
C. Executive Order 13609, International Cooperation
Executive Order 13609, ``Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation,'' promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
Executive Order 13771 titled ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs,'' directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an
executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment
or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least
two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new
incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent
permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only
those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' are subject to these
requirements.
As determined in section IV.A, above, this is not a significant
rule under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule is not subject
to the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
VI. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in
light of the comments it receives.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should
not file proprietary or confidential business information in the
docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document, and marked as
[[Page 31764]]
proprietary or confidential. If submitting information on a disk or CD
ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM, and identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is proprietary or confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information,
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
internet by--
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
14 CFR Part 27
Aircraft, Aviation safety
14 CFR Part 29
Aircraft, Aviation safety
14 CFR Part 91
Air carrier, Air taxis, Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen,
Airports, Alaska, Aviation safety, Canada, Charter flights, Cuba, Drug
traffic control, Ethiopia, Freight, Incorporation by reference, Iraq,
Mexico, Noise control, North Korea, Political candidates, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Somalia, Syria, Transportation
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety,
Charter flights, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety, Transportation
14 CFR Part 125
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements
14 CFR Part 135
Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug
abuse, Drug testing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter 1 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(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and
44704.
0
2. Amend Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 109 to part 25 by
revising paragraphs 12 and 14(e) to read as follows:
Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 109
* * * * *
12. Materials for Compartment Interiors. An applicant must comply
with the applicable provisions of Sec. 25.853, except that
demonstration of compliance with Sec. 25.853(d)(2) is not required if
the applicant can show by test, or a combination of test and analysis,
that the maximum time for evacuation of all occupants does not exceed
45 seconds under the conditions specified in appendix J to part 25.
* * * * *
14. * * *
(e) The surfaces of the galley surrounding the cooktop that would
be exposed to a fire on the cooktop surface or in cookware on the
cooktop must be constructed of materials that comply with the
flammability requirements of Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(ii). This requirement
is in addition to the flammability requirements typically required of
the materials in these galley surfaces. During the selection of these
materials, an applicant must account for the flammability
characteristics of the materials to ensure these characteristics will
not be adversely affected by the use of cleaning agents and utensils
used to remove cooking stains.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec. 25.853 to read as follows:
Sec. 25.853 Interior parts and components fire protection.
(a) General. Each airplane part, component, and assembly must
protect the airplane and its occupants from in-flight and post-crash
fire threats. For the purposes of this section an airplane part,
component, or assembly is one that is located within, and including,
the fuselage.
(b) Testing. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section,
an applicant must conduct tests to show compliance with paragraphs (c)
and (d) of this section. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of
this section, for any tests used to show compliance, the applicant must
use a minimum of three specimen sets.
(c) In-flight requirements. During an in-flight fire, the
flammability characteristics of each part, component, and assembly must
not present a hazard to the occupants and must not prevent the
continued safe flight and landing of the airplane.
(1) Accessible areas. (i) Each part, component, and assembly that
is accessible to the flightcrew during flight must be self-
extinguishing when exposed to a small flame.
(ii) Each receptacle used for the disposal of flammable waste
material must be fully enclosed, constructed of materials that resist
penetration from a small ignition source, and must contain fires likely
to occur in it under normal use. At least one test must show the
capability of the receptacle to contain those fires under all probable
conditions of wear, misalignment, and ventilation expected in service.
(iii) Each ceiling and sidewall liner of a Class B cargo
compartment must resist penetration by a small flame.
(2) Inaccessible areas. (i) Each extensively used airplane part,
component, and assembly that is not accessible to the flightcrew during
flight but that could be subjected to an in-flight fire must not
propagate the largest fire that, by itself, would not be a hazard to
the airplane.
(ii) Each ceiling and sidewall liner of a Class F cargo
compartment, if installed to meet the requirements of Sec.
25.855(b)(2), and of a Class C cargo compartment must resist
penetration by a fire within that compartment and must protect the
airplane's structure and
[[Page 31765]]
critical systems from the effects of that fire.
(iii) Each ceiling and sidewall liner of a Class E cargo
compartment must resist penetration by a fire within that compartment
and must protect the airplane's structure and critical systems from the
effects of that fire, unless the design provides a means other than a
liner that protects the airplane's structure and critical systems from
the effects of that fire.
(iv) The floor liner of any class of cargo compartment, and any
ceiling and sidewall liner of a Class E cargo compartment, must resist
penetration by a small flame.
(v) All other parts, components, and assemblies that are not
accessible by the flightcrew during flight must be self-extinguishing
when exposed to a small flame or electrical arc.
(d) Post-crash requirements. During a post-crash fuel fire, the
flammability characteristics of each part, component, and assembly must
maintain survivable cabin conditions for enough time to allow
evacuation.
(1) For airplanes with a passenger capacity of 19 or less, each
large surface in the passenger cabin must be self-extinguishing when
exposed to a small flame for at least 60 seconds.
(2) For airplanes with a passenger capacity of 20 or more, each
large surface in the passenger cabin must resist involvement in a post-
crash fuel fire that has entered the fuselage, except:
(i) A large surface, no part of which is more than 15'' above the
floor, need not comply with paragraph (d)(2) of this section if it is
located in such a manner that it would not be directly exposed to the
effects of a post-crash fuel fire.
(ii) A large surface in the interior of a compartment other than a
cargo or baggage compartment need not comply with paragraph (d)(2) of
this section if the interior of the compartment is isolated from the
main passenger cabin by doors or equivalent means that would normally
be closed during taxi, takeoff, and landing.
(3) Each cushion used to support the occupant of a seat or berth
must resist involvement in a post-crash fuel fire that has entered the
airplane, and must not propagate that fire.
(4) In addition to resisting involvement in a post-crash fuel fire
that has entered the airplane, each flammable metal must be readily
extinguishable.
(5) The design must ensure the continued function of all escape
systems when those systems are exposed to the effects of radiant heat
from a post-crash fuel fire.
(e) Exceptions. A part, component, and assembly does not require
testing to meet the requirements specified in paragraph (c) or (d) of
this section if it meets the criteria of at least one of the following
classes:
(1) Class 1. Parts, components, and assemblies that would each fit
within a cube measuring two inches on each side and are sufficiently
separated from the same type of part, component, or assembly such that
collectively they will not propagate a fire.
(2) Class 2. Parts, components, and assemblies that are not
extensively used, are made from materials that are self-extinguishing,
do not individually exceed a volume of 113 cubic inches, have an
exposed surface area not exceeding 200 square inches, and do not
propagate a flame vertically.
(3) Class 3. Parts, components, and assemblies that applicants can
show, through a method acceptable to the Administrator, are a size,
construction, or location that their flammability characteristics do
not threaten the airplane or its occupants.
(4) Class 4. Parts, components, and assemblies that are essential
to the safety of the airplane, its occupants, or the functionality of
the airplane and cannot reasonably be constructed of a less flammable
material without compromising the integrity or functionality of that
part, component, or assembly.
(5) Class 5. Parts, components, and assemblies that have
successfully met one or more of the alternate requirements, including
any applicable conditions, set forth in appendix F to part 25.
(f) Smoking. (1) Smoking is not allowed in lavatories. If smoking
is allowed in any area occupied by the crew or passengers, an adequate
number of self-contained, removable ashtrays must be provided in
designated smoking sections for all seated occupants.
(2) Regardless of whether smoking is allowed in any other part of
the airplane, lavatories must have self-contained, removable ashtrays
located conspicuously on or near the entry side of each lavatory door,
except that one ashtray may serve more than one lavatory door if the
ashtray can be seen readily from the cabin side of each lavatory
served.
0
4. Amend Sec. 25.855 by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 25.855 Cargo or baggage compartments.
* * * * *
(c) Cargo compartment liners must comply with the applicable
provisions of Sec. 25.853.
(d) All other materials used in the construction of the cargo or
baggage compartment, other than material located entirely within a
Class C cargo or baggage compartment, must be self-extinguishing when
exposed to a small flame.
* * * * *
0
5. Revise Sec. 25.856 to read as follows:
Sec. 25.856 Thermal/Acoustic insulation materials.
(a) All thermal/acoustic insulation material installed in
inaccessible areas of the fuselage must comply with Sec.
25.853(c)(2)(i) unless it qualifies for one of the exceptions in Sec.
25.853(e).
(b) For airplanes with a passenger capacity of 20 or more, all
thermal/acoustic insulation materials installed in the lower half of
the airplane fuselage must resist penetration of a post-crash fuel fire
and provide a minimum of 5 minutes survivability in the occupied
portions of the airplane, unless the applicant provides an equivalent
means of post-crash fire penetration protection. This requirement does
not apply to thermal/acoustic insulation installations that the
Administrator finds would not contribute to fire penetration
resistance. For the purposes of this paragraph, thermal/acoustic
insulation materials include the means of fastening the materials to
the fuselage.
0
6. Amend Sec. 25.1713 by revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph
(d) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.1713 Fire protection: EWIS.
* * * * *
(c) All insulation on electrical wire and electrical cable, and all
materials used to provide additional protection for that wire and
cable:
(1) If installed in any area outside of the fuselage, must not
propagate the largest fire that, by itself, would not be a hazard to
the airplane, and
(2) If installed in any area within the fuselage, must meet the
requirements of Sec. 25.853(c), unless it meets the requirements of
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(d) To show compliance with paragraph (c) of this section, an
applicant must conduct tests, unless the applicant can show that the
insulation and materials are of a size, location, and quantity that
their flammability characteristics do not threaten the airplane or its
occupants. For any tests used to show compliance, the applicant must
use a minimum of three specimen sets.
0
7. Revise appendix F to part 25 to read as follows:
[[Page 31766]]
Appendix F to Part 25--Flammability Test Hierarchy
Applicants may substitute compliance with the standards in the
first row of the table below by meeting the standards in the first
column, as indicated at the appropriate intersection, subject to the
noted conditions:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substitution Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-flight cargo
In-flight Post-crash <20; In-flight cargo In-flight liner fire
accessible; small small ignition liner; small flame inaccessible; fire penetration Seat cushion fire
flame resistance resistance Sec. penetration propagation Sec. resistance Sec. resistance Sec.
Sec. 25.853 25.853 (d)(1) resistance Sec. 25.853 (c)(2)(i) 25.853 (c)(2)(ii)/ $25.853 (d)(3)
(c)(1)(i) 25.853 (c)(1)(iii) (iii)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-crash <20; small ignition Yes............... No................ No................ No................ No................ No.
resistance Sec. 25.853(d)(1).
In-flight inaccessible; fire Yes............... Yes............... No................ No................ No................ No.
propagation Sec.
25.853(c)(2)(i).
Post-crash >=20; large surface Yes............... Yes............... No................ Note \1\.......... No................ Note \2\.
fire resistance Sec.
25.853(d)(2).
Seat cushion fire resistance Yes............... Yes............... No................ No................ No................ No.
Sec. 25.853(d)(3).
Post-crash >=20; fire Yes............... Yes............... Yes............... No................ Yes............... No.
penetration resistance Sec.
25.853(b)(2).
In-flight cargo liner fire Yes............... Yes............... Yes............... Note \3\.......... No................ No.
penetration resistance Sec.
25.853(c)(2)(ii)/(iii).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ When the facesheet on the back ......(inaccessible) side of the large surface is of the same material system as the facesheet on the front side.
\2\ When the cushion does not directly support the occupant and can be tested in its actual thickness.
\3\ When the back side of the liner is made from glass fiber reinforced epoxy and phenolic resin.
PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
0
8. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
0
9. Amend Sec. 27.1365 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1365 Electric cables.
* * * * *
(c) Insulation on electrical wire and cable installed in the
rotorcraft must be self-extinguishing when tested in accordance with
appendix F, part I(a)(3), of part 25 of this chapter at amendment 25-
138.
PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
0
10. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
0
11. Amend Sec. 29.853 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 29.853 Compartment interiors.
* * * * *
(a) The materials (including finishes or decorative surfaces
applied to the materials) must meet the following test criteria as
applicable:
(1) Interior ceiling panels, interior wall panels, partitions,
galley structure, large cabinet walls, structural flooring, and
materials used in the construction of stowage compartments (other than
underseat stowage compartments and compartments for stowing small items
such as magazines and maps) must be self-extinguishing when tested
vertically in accordance with the applicable portions of appendix F to
part 25 of this chapter at amendment 25-138, or other approved
equivalent methods.
(2) Floor covering, textiles (including draperies and upholstery),
seat cushions, padding, decorative and non-decorative coated fabrics,
leather, trays and galley furnishings, electrical conduit, thermal and
acoustical insulation and insulation covering, air ducting joint and
edge covering, cargo compartment liners, insulation blankets, cargo
covers, and transparencies, molded and thermoformed parts, air ducting
joints, and trim strips (decorative and chafing) that are constructed
of materials not covered in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, must be
self-extinguishing when tested vertically in accordance with the
applicable portion of appendix F to part 25 of this chapter at
amendment 25-138, or other approved equivalent methods.
(3) Acrylic windows and signs, parts constructed in whole or in
part of elasto-metric materials, edge lighted instrument assemblies
consisting of two or more instruments in a common housing, seat belts,
shoulder harnesses, and cargo and baggage tiedown equipment, including
containers, bins, pallets, etc., used in passenger or crew
compartments, may not have an average burn rate greater than 2.5 inches
per minute when tested horizontally in accordance with the applicable
portions of appendix F to part 25 of this chapter at amendment 25-138,
or other equivalent methods that the Administrator approves.
(4) Except for electrical wire and cable insulation, and for small
parts (such as knobs, handles, rollers, fasteners, clips, grommets, rub
strips, pulleys, and small electrical parts) that the Administrator
finds would not contribute significantly to the propagation of a fire,
materials in items not specified in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of
this section may not have a burn rate greater than 4 inches per minute
when tested horizontally in accordance with the applicable portions of
appendix F to part 25 of this chapter at amendment 25-138, or other
equivalent methods that the Administrator approves.
(b) In addition to meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of
this section, seat cushions, except those on flight crewmember seats,
must meet the test requirements of part II of appendix F to part 25 of
this chapter at amendment 25-138, or equivalent.
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec. 29.1359 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 29.1359 Electrical system fire and smoke protection.
* * * * *
[[Page 31767]]
(c) Insulation on electrical wire and cable installed in the
rotorcraft must be self-extinguishing when tested in accordance with
appendix F, part I(a)(3), of part 25 of this chapter at amendment 25-
138.
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
0
13. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113,
40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715,
44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122,
47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C.
44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International
Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).
0
14. Amend Sec. 91.613 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text
and (b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.613 Materials for compartment interiors.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) For airplanes manufactured before September 2, 2005, when
thermal/acoustic insulation is installed in the fuselage as
replacements after September 2, 2005, the insulation must meet the
flame propagation requirements of Sec. 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as subsequently amended, if it is:
* * * * *
(2) For airplanes manufactured after September 2, 2005, thermal/
acoustic insulation materials installed in the fuselage must meet the
flame propagation requirements of Sec. 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as subsequently amended.
PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS
0
15. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40119, 41706, 42301
preceding note added by Pub. L. 112-95, sec. 412, 126 Stat. 89,
44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722,
44729, 44732; 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C.
44701 note); Pub. L. 112-95 126 Stat 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 note).
0
16. Amend Sec. 121.312 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text,
(e)(1) introductory text, and (e)(2) and (3) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.312 Materials for compartment interiors.
* * * * *
(b) Seat cushions. Seat cushions, except those on flight crewmember
seats, in each compartment occupied by crew or passengers, must comply
with the requirements pertaining to seat cushions in Sec. 25.853(c)
effective on November 26, 1984; or in Sec. 25.853(d) effective on
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]; or as subsequently amended, on each
airplane as follows:
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) For airplanes manufactured before September 2, 2005, when
thermal/acoustic insulation is installed in the fuselage as
replacements after September 2, 2005, the insulation must meet the
flame propagation requirements of Sec. 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as subsequently amended, if it is:
* * * * *
(2) For airplanes manufactured after September 2, 2005, thermal/
acoustic insulation materials installed in the fuselage must meet the
flame propagation requirements of Sec. 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as subsequently amended.
(3) For airplanes with a passenger capacity of 20 or greater,
manufactured after September 2, 2009, thermal/acoustic insulation
materials installed in the lower half of the fuselage must meet the
flame penetration resistance requirements of Sec. 25.856 of this
chapter, effective September 2, 2003, or as subsequently amended. If
the airplane's type design was approved based on a finding of
equivalent level of safety to Sec. 25.856 in accordance with Sec.
21.21(b)(1) of this chapter, the certificate holder is in compliance
with this section of this part as long as the aircraft conforms to the
approved type design.
0
17. Amend Sec. 121.314 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 121.314 Cargo and baggage compartments.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) Materials that meet the test requirements of part 25, appendix
F, part III of this chapter effective on June 16, 1986; or the test
requirements of Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(ii) of this chapter effective on
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]; or as subsequently amended; or
* * * * *
0
18. Revise appendix L to part 121 to read as follows:
Appendix L To Part 121--Type Certification Regulations Made Previously
Effective
(a) Appendix L lists regulations in this part that require
compliance with standards contained in superseded type certification
regulations that continue to apply to certain transport category
airplanes. The table below sets out citations to the current CFR
section, applicable aircraft, superseded type certification regulation
and applicable time periods, and the CFR edition and Federal Register
documents where the regulation having prior effect is found. Copies of
all superseded regulations may be obtained at the Federal Aviation
Administration Law Library, Room 924, 800 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provisions: CFR/FR
Part 121 section Applicable aircraft references
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 121.312(a)(1)(i)..... Transport category; Heat release rate
or nontransport testing. 14 CFR
category type 25.853(d)(2)
certificated before effective
January 1, 1965; [effective date of
passenger capacity final rule]: 14 CFR
of 20 or more; parts 1 to 59,
manufactured prior Revised as of
to August 20, 1990. January 1, [Federal
Register revision
year], and amended
by Amdt. [amendment
level and Federal
Register citation
and publication
date of final
rule].
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(d) effective
March 6, 1995: 14
CFR parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1, 1995,
and amended by
Amdt. 25-83, 60 FR
6623, February 2,
1995.
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(a-1)
effective August
20, 1986: 14 CFR
parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1, 1986.
[[Page 31768]]
Sec. 121.312(a)(1)(ii).... Transport category; Heat release rate
or nontransport testing. 14 CFR
category type 25.853(d)(2)
certificated before effective
January 1, 1965; [effective date of
passenger capacity final rule]: 14 CFR
of 20 or more; parts 1 to 59,
manufactured after Revised as of
August 19, 1990. January 1, [insert
Federal Register
revision year], and
amended by Amdt.
[amendment level
and Federal
Register citation
and publication
date of final
rule].
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(d) effective
March 6, 1995: 14
CFR parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1, 1995,
and amended by
Amdt. 25-83, 60 FR
6623, February 2,
1995.
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(a-1)
effective September
26, 1988: 14 CFR
parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1, 1988,
and amended by
Amdt. 25-66, 53 FR
32584, August 25,
1988.
Smoke testing. 14
CFR 25.853(d)
effective March 6,
1995: 14 CFR parts
1 to 59, Revised as
of January 1, 1995,
and amended by
Amdt. 25-83, 60 FR
6623, February 2,
1995.
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(a-1)
effective September
26, 1988: 14 CFR
parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1, 1988,
and amended by
Amdt. 25-66, 53 FR
32584, August 25,
1988.
Sec. 121.312(a)(2)(i)..... Transport category; Provisions of 14 CFR
or nontransport 25.853 in effect on
category type April 30, 1972: 14
certificate before CFR parts 1 to 59,
January 1, 1965; Revised as of
application for January 1, 1972.
type certificate
filed prior to May
1, 1972;
substantially
complete
replacement of
cabin interior on
or after May 1,
1972.
Sec. 121.312(a)(3)(i)..... Transport category Heat release rate
type certificated testing. 14 CFR
after January 1, 25.853(d) in effect
1958; nontransport March 6, 1995: 14
category type CFR parts 1 to 59,
certificated after Revised as of
January 1, 1958, January 1, 1995;
but before January and amended by
1, 1965; passenger Amdt. 25-83, 60 FR
capacity of 20 or 6623, February 2,
more; substantially 1995.
complete
replacement of the
cabin interior on
or after March 6,
1995.
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(a-1) in
effect August 20,
1986: 14 CFR parts
1 to 59, Revised as
of January 1, 1986.
Sec. 121.312(a)(3)(ii).... Transport category Heat release rate
type certificated testing. 14 CFR
after January 1, 25.853(d)(2)
1958; nontransport effective
category type [effective date of
certificated after final rule]: 14 CFR
January 1, 1958, parts 1 to 59,
but before January Revised as of
1, 1965; passenger January 1, [Federal
capacity of 20 or Register revision
more; substantially year], and amended
complete by Amdt. [amendment
replacement of the level and Federal
cabin interior on Register citation
or after August 20, and publication
1990. date of final
rule].
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(d) effective
March 6, 1995: 14
CFR parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1, 1995,
and amended by
Amdt. 25-83, 60 FR
6623, February 2,
1995.
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(a--1)
effective September
26, 1988: 14 CFR
parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1, 1988,
and amended by
Amdt. 25-66, 53 FR
32584, August 25,
1988.
Smoke testing. 14
CFR 25.853(d)
effective March 6,
1995; 14 CFR parts
1 to 59, Revised as
of January 1, 1995;
and amended by
Amdt. 25-83, 60 FR
6623, February 2,
1995.
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(a-1)
effective September
26, 1988: 14 CFR
parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1, 1988,
and amended by
Amdt. 25-66, 53 FR
32584, August 25,
1988.
Sec. 121.312(b)(1) and (2) Transport category Seat cushions. 14
airplane type CFR 25.853(d)(3)
certificated after effective
January 1, 1958; [effective date of
nontransport final rule]: 14 CFR
category airplane parts 1 to 59,
type certificated Revised as of
after December 31, January 1, [Federal
1964. Register revision
year], and amended
by Amdt. [amendment
level and Federal
Register citation
and publication
date of final
rule].
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(c) effective
November 26, 1984:
14 CFR parts 1 to
59, Revised as of
January 1, 1984,
and amended by
Amdt. 25-59, 49 FR
43188, October 26,
1984.
Sec. 121.312(c)........... Airplane type Compartment interior
certificated in requirements. 14
accordance with CFR 25.853(a) in
SFAR No. 41; effect March 6,
maximum 1995: 14 CFR parts
certificated 1 to 59, Revised as
takeoff weight in of January 1, 1995,
excess of 12,500 and amended by
pounds. Amdt. 25-83, 60 FR
6623, February 2,
1995.
[[Page 31769]]
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(a), (b-1),
(b-2), and (b-3) in
effect on September
26, 1978: 14 CFR
parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1, 1978.
Sec. 121.314(a)........... Transport category Class C or D cargo
airplanes type or baggage
certificated after compartment
January 1, 1958. definition. 14 CFR
25.853(c)(2)(ii)
effective
[effective date of
final rule] (part
III of appendix F
no longer exists):
14 CFR parts 1 to
59, Revised as of
January 1, [Federal
Register revision
year], and amended
by Amdt. [amendment
level and Federal
Register citation
and publication
date of final
rule].
Formerly 14 CFR
25.857 effective
June 16, 1986, 14
CFR parts 1 to 59,
Revised January 1,
1997, and amended
by Amdt 25-60, 51
FR 18243, May 16,
1986.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) For the purposes of compliance with the sections of 14 CFR part
25 referenced in the table in paragraph (a) of this appendix, findings
of equivalent level of safety in accordance with Sec. 21.21(b)(1) of
this chapter are considered to satisfy the referenced requirement.
PART 125--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING
CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF
6,000 POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH
AIRCRAFT
0
19. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44710-
44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722.
0
20. Amend Sec. 125.113 by revising paragraphs (c)(1) introductory text
and (c)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 125.113 Cabin interiors.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) For airplanes manufactured before September 2, 2005, when
thermal/acoustic insulation is installed in the fuselage as
replacements after September 2, 2005, the insulation must meet the
flame propagation requirements of Sec. 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as subsequently amended, if it is:
* * * * *
(2) For airplanes manufactured after September 2, 2005, thermal/
acoustic insulation materials installed in the fuselage must meet the
flame propagation requirements of Sec. 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as subsequently amended.
PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT
0
21. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 41706, 44701-44702, 44705,
44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 44730, 45101-45105; Pub. L.
112-95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 U.S.C. 44730).
0
22. Amend Sec. 135.169 by revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 135.169 Additional airworthiness requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Materials that meet the test requirements of part 25, appendix
F, part III of this chapter effective on June 16, 1986; or the test
requirements of Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(ii) of this chapter effective on
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]; or as subsequently amended; or
* * * * *
0
23. Amend Sec. 135.170 by revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(1)
introductory text, and (c)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 135.170 Materials for compartment interiors.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) For airplanes type certificated after January 1, 1958, seat
cushions, except those on flight crewmember seats, in any compartment
occupied by crew or passengers must comply with the requirements
pertaining to fire protection of seat cushions in Sec. 25.853(c)
effective November 26, 1984; or in Sec. 25.853(d) effective on
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]; or as subsequently amended.
(c) * * *
(1) For airplanes manufactured before September 2, 2005, when
thermal/acoustic insulation is installed in the fuselage as
replacements after September 2, 2005, the insulation must meet the
flame propagation requirements of Sec. 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as subsequently amended, if it is:
* * * * *
(2) For airplanes manufactured after September 2, 2005, thermal/
acoustic insulation materials installed in the fuselage must meet the
flame propagation requirements of Sec. 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as subsequently amended.
Issued under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f),
44701(a), and 44703 in Washington, DC, on June 12, 2019.
Chris Carter,
Acting Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-13646 Filed 7-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P