[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38377-38382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12416]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 38377]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No.: FAA-2019-0343; Amdt. No. 25-149]
RIN 2120-AL11


Decompression Criteria for Interior Compartments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending its standards for pressurized compartment 
loads such that partitions located adjacent to a decompression hole 
need not be designed to withstand a certain decompression condition. 
This rulemaking is necessary because, in some cases, it is not 
practical to design partitions in certain airplane compartments to 
withstand this decompression condition if it occurs within that 
compartment.

DATES: Effective August 14, 2023.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking 
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How 
to Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this action, contact Todd Martin, Airframe Section, AIR-622, Technical 
Policy Branch, Policy and Standards Division, Aircraft Certification 
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des 
Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax (206) 231-3210; email 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. 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 FAA's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated 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 and performance of 
aircraft that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air 
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it 
prescribes new safety standards for the design and performance of 
transport category airplanes.

II. Overview of Final Rule

    The FAA is amending Sec.  25.365, ``Pressurized compartment 
loads,'' in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25, 
``Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes.'' 
Specifically, the FAA is revising Sec.  25.365(g) to allow the failure 
of partitions that are adjacent to the decompression hole. This 
allowance only applies to the formula decompression hole specified in 
Sec.  25.365(e)(2). The ability to withstand a hole of this size is 
typically the most severe decompression load design requirement for 
small compartments, such as lavatories, private suites, and crew rest 
areas. With this revision, partition failure is only allowed if (1) 
failure of the partition would not interfere with continued safe flight 
and landing, and (2) meeting the decompression condition in paragraph 
(e)(2) would be impractical.
    This final rule codifies current practice and will not result in 
additional costs or significant benefits to airplane manufacturers, but 
will relieve applicants of some administrative burden--see Regulatory 
Evaluation below.

III. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    The airworthiness standards in Sec.  25.365 address the safety 
effects of decompression. When the fuselage skin or another part of the 
pressurized boundary of an airplane fails for any reason, a 
decompression occurs if the cabin pressure is greater than the outside 
air pressure. When a decompression occurs, the pressurized air inside 
the airplane exits the hole, or opening, in the fuselage until 
equilibrium is reached. This can result in potentially high air loads 
on floors, partitions, and bulkheads.
    Section 25.365(g) requires applicants to design bulkheads, floors, 
and partitions, in pressurized compartments for occupants, to withstand 
the sudden decompression conditions specified in paragraph (e). Section 
25.365(g) also requires applicants to take reasonable design 
precautions to minimize the probability of parts becoming detached and 
injuring seated occupants.
    For certain smaller compartments on the airplane, such as 
lavatories, private suites, and crew rest areas, it has been difficult 
for applicants to achieve compliance with Sec.  25.365(g), because a 
large decompression hole, of the size specified in Sec.  25.365(e)(2), 
occurring in one of these compartments would result in very high air 
loads on the partitions that form the compartment. Strengthening the 
partitions to sustain such high loads has been shown to be impractical 
in many cases for these smaller compartments because doing so could 
adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane and its 
continued safe flight and landing. Further, alternative design 
strategies may impede the compartment's intended function.

B. History

    Amendment 25-54 to Sec.  25.365 (45 FR 60154, Sept. 11, 1980), 
introduced the requirement, in revised paragraph (e), that bulkheads, 
floors, and partitions be designed to withstand the decompression 
conditions specified in the rule.
    In amendment 25-71 to Sec.  25.365 (55 FR 13474, Apr. 10, 1990), 
the specific references to ``bulkheads, floors, and partitions'' were 
moved from paragraph (e) to paragraph (g) to provide the required 
passenger protection criteria related to failure of these structures in 
occupied compartments, regardless of whether their failure could 
interfere with safe flight and landing.
    Prior to this final rule, Sec.  25.365 required that the applicant 
consider partition failure in terms of the effects on occupant safety. 
However, the FAA has long recognized that structural integrity might 
not be maintained near the decompression hole. The Notice of

[[Page 38378]]

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for amendment 25-71 (53 FR 8742, Mar. 16, 
1988) stated that loss of structural integrity at the opening location, 
or physiological effects on occupants, were not considerations of that 
rule. Thus, at that time the FAA was aware of and accepted this risk to 
an occupant next to the opening location.
    The FAA has certified numerous airplane designs for which the 
partition strength criteria in Sec.  25.365(e) at amendment 25-54 or 
Sec.  25.365(g) at amendment 25-71 were included in the project's 
certification basis. Since the issuance of amendment 25-54, the FAA has 
made several equivalent level of safety (ELOS) findings to Sec.  
25.365(e) (at amendment 25-54) or Sec.  25.365(g) (at amendment 25-71, 
as applicable) in accordance with 14 CFR 21.21.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An ELOS finding is made when the design does not comply with 
the applicable airworthiness provisions, but compensating factors, 
such as the incorporation of mitigating features (e.g., lanyards to 
restrain loose parts, or frangible structure to cause structural 
failure in a direction away from the seated occupant), provide an 
equivalent level of safety in accordance with 14 CFR 21.21(b)(1). 
The FAA documents an ELOS finding in an ELOS memorandum that 
communicates to the public the rationale for the FAA's determination 
of the design's equivalency to the level of safety intended by the 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Summary of the NPRM and Final Rule

    The FAA published an NPRM on May 15, 2019 (84 FR 21733), that 
proposed revisions to the partition failure criteria in Sec.  
25.365(g). The NPRM described the decompression criteria in Sec.  
25.365 and explained the difficulty of designing certain partitions to 
withstand a decompression condition. The NPRM proposed changes to Sec.  
25.365 that would allow partition failure if it would not interfere 
with continued safe flight and landing and the applicant shows that 
designing the partition to meet the decompression load condition of 
Sec.  25.365(e)(2) would be impractical. This action finalizes the 
proposal with minor clarifying changes.

D. General Overview of Comments

    The FAA received comments from the Boeing Company (Boeing), Airbus, 
Bombardier Aerospace (Bombardier), the European Union Aviation Safety 
Agency (EASA), and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association 
(GAMA). Commenters were generally in favor of the proposal but 
requested additional flexibility in several aspects of the final rule. 
All of the commenters requested clarification of terminology used in 
the proposed rule.

IV. Discussion of Comments and the Final Rule

A. Affected Decompression Conditions

    The NPRM proposed to revise Sec.  25.365(g) to allow failure of 
partitions for the decompression condition specified in Sec.  
25.365(e)(2). This decompression condition, referred to as the 
``formula'' hole size, is typically the most severe condition required 
by Sec.  25.365(e).
    Airbus and Boeing commented that partition failure should also be 
allowed for the decompression condition specified in Sec.  
25.365(e)(1): penetration of any pressurized compartment by a portion 
of an engine following engine disintegration. Airbus suggested that 
partition failure should also be allowed for the decompression 
condition specified in Sec.  25.365(e)(3): any other opening caused by 
failures not shown to be extremely improbable. Both commenters noted 
that the hole size specified in these other subparagraphs may, in some 
cases, be greater than the formula hole size specified in Sec.  
25.365(e)(2); and therefore, their position is that the same 
impracticality issues exist for these other decompression conditions.
    The FAA disagrees with both suggested changes. The FAA has not seen 
evidence to suggest that designing partitions to withstand the 
decompression conditions in Sec.  25.365(e)(1) and (e)(3) is 
impractical. Unlike the decompression condition specified in Sec.  
25.365(e)(2), the FAA has not granted exemptions, or issued equivalent 
level of safety findings, that allow partition failure for these other 
two conditions.
    With regard to the engine rotor burst example presented by Airbus 
and Boeing in support of their request for relief from Sec.  
25.365(e)(1), the FAA finds that partition failure should not be 
allowed in this instance. Since a decompression that occurs as a result 
of a rotor burst would be limited to an area of the fuselage near the 
engines, affected compartments could be placed outside this area if 
needed. Also, this condition would likely only result in a hole that is 
larger than the formula hole if the decompression was the result of a 
tangential strike to the fuselage. That is, the rotor disk penetrates 
the fuselage laterally at a tangential angle either towards the top or 
bottom of the fuselage, resulting in a long narrow decompression hole. 
By its nature, such a hole would not likely be limited to a single 
compartment.
    The decompression condition suggested for addition by Airbus, and 
specified in Sec.  25.365(e)(3), covers the maximum opening caused by 
airplane or equipment failures not shown to be extremely improbable. 
The FAA concludes that partition failure should not be allowed for this 
decompression condition. The FAA would not expect any situation in 
which the size of such an opening would exceed that of the formula 
hole. If there were such a condition, then the FAA concludes that the 
rule should require partitions be designed for that condition, or 
design changes made to reduce the size of the anticipated decompression 
hole.

B. Use of ``Impractical'' Standard

    The NPRM proposed to allow partition failure only if the applicant 
could show, in addition to the failure's lack of interference with 
continued safe flight and landing, that designing the partition to 
withstand the specified decompression condition (formula hole) of Sec.  
25.365(e)(2) is impractical.
    GAMA commented that requiring an applicant to show impracticality 
could lead to inconsistent applications of the regulation, and 
therefore that this requirement should be removed. GAMA proposed 
instead that the passenger protection criteria of Sec.  25.365(g), 
which currently apply to all three of the decompression conditions of 
paragraph (e), should only apply to the effects of the smaller hole 
sizes determined under Sec.  25.365(e)(3) (those due to failures not 
shown to be extremely improbable), and that such partitions would 
therefore be excepted from (e)(2). The FAA does not agree. To remove 
the decompression conditions under Sec.  25.365(e)(2) from having to 
meet the passenger protection criteria of Sec.  25.365(g) would 
constitute a reduction in safety. To ensure that the required element 
of impracticality does not lead to inconsistent application of the 
regulation, the FAA explains the intended meaning of ``impractical'' 
later in this discussion.

C. Safety Analysis of Potential Floor Failure

    As part of its rationale, the NPRM noted that strengthening a 
partition, to the extent it would not fail, could increase loads on the 
floor and thereby the risk of floor failure, thus jeopardizing 
continued safe flight and landing.
    EASA commented that in these cases, reinforcing the floor may be a 
practical solution, and therefore, partition failure should not be 
allowed. The FAA partially agrees. To show compliance with the rule, 
the applicant must show that the floor be designed to withstand the 
decompression conditions specified in Sec.  25.365(e). If the 
applicant's analysis shows that the floor could fail if a

[[Page 38379]]

partition does not fail after decompression, then, in order to obtain 
the relief provided by this final rule, the applicant could revise 
their proposed design to increase venting as far as practical within 
the affected compartment. If the applicant shows that floor failure 
would still occur with those design changes in place, then the FAA 
would likely consider reinforcement of the floor to be impractical.

D. Addressing Potential Skin Bay Failure

    Airbus asked the FAA to clarify whether a failure of the standard 
skin bay (the area between two adjacent stringers and two adjacent 
frames) would be an ``opening'' within the meaning of Sec.  
25.365(e)(3)--the maximum opening not shown to be extremely 
improbable--and therefore one that the airplane must be designed to 
withstand. The FAA currently has no guidance as to whether a standard 
skin bay failure should be assumed under Sec.  25.365(e)(3). Airbus is 
requesting guidance on compliance with Sec.  25.365(e)(3), which is 
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    Airbus also asked whether a skin bay failure should be considered 
as an opening of the maximum size expected to be confined to a small 
compartment, in accordance with Sec.  25.365(e)(2), and therefore 
covered under Sec.  25.365(g)(2). The FAA explains the meaning of 
``small compartments,'' as used in Sec.  25.365(e)(2), later in this 
discussion. No change was made to the final rule as a result of these 
comments.

E. Required Design Precautions To Protect Occupants

    Section 25.365(g) requires that reasonable design precautions be 
taken to minimize the probability of parts becoming detached and 
injuring occupants while in their seats. The FAA did not propose any 
changes to this language in the NPRM.
    Boeing commented that these design precautions should no longer 
apply to partitions that are allowed to fail. Boeing noted that once a 
partition is allowed to fail, it is structurally difficult to restrain 
that partition. GAMA noted that there was no practical design standard 
for this requirement.
    As explained in the NPRM, it may not be practical to design the 
partitions of certain compartments to withstand the decompression 
condition specified in Sec.  25.365(e)(2) if it occurs within that 
compartment. The rule would allow partition failure in these cases, if 
the applicant also shows that such failure would not interfere with 
continued safe flight and landing. However, even in these cases, 
``reasonable design precautions'' must still be made to protect 
occupants. Also, this is a performance-based design standard. 
Accordingly, applicants for type certificates have flexibility to 
satisfy the standard through a variety of means. For example, an 
applicant may propose lanyards or other devices to reduce the chance 
that a failed partition or part will impact an occupant, or may design 
the partition such that it fails in a direction away from seated 
occupants.
    Boeing also proposed that the FAA remove the discussion in the NPRM 
that indicated that applicants must add venting, as a reasonable design 
precaution, to the extent practical to reduce the chance the partition 
will fail as a result of smaller decompression hole sizes.
    The discussion in the NPRM regarding the continuing requirement to 
take reasonable design precautions to protect occupants remains valid. 
However, the FAA clarifies that Sec.  25.365(e)(2) requires evaluation 
of decompression hole sizes ``up to'' the formula hole size, so new 
Sec.  25.365(g)(2), which references that requirement, also requires 
evaluation of decompression hole sizes up to the formula hole size. 
This includes smaller sizes for which the FAA finds that applicants 
will be able to add venting to the extent practical to reduce the 
chance the partition will fail.

F. Need for Additional Guidance Material

    EASA and GAMA proposed that the FAA issue an advisory circular (AC) 
or policy statement to accompany the proposed rule change to clarify 
terminology and application of the rule. The FAA does not find that an 
AC or policy statement is necessary. The FAA finds that the discussions 
in the NPRM and this final rule provide sufficient guidance on how an 
applicant can comply with the new rule.

G. Crew Rest Compartments

    EASA proposed that the FAA provide further guidance to that 
provided in the NPRM on how to maximize the safety of occupants 
situated under and within crew rest compartments. EASA reasoned that 
the lower sections of such compartments are a significant contributor 
to ensuring all masses and occupants within those compartments are 
retained. The FAA finds that specific guidance is not needed for crew 
rest areas. The intent of the rule and the rule change are clear, and 
specific guidance for every conceivable configuration and compartment 
type is not possible or necessary.

H. Project-Specific Review

    EASA commented that compliance with the proposed requirement should 
be subject to a project-specific (``case-by-case'') review for each 
proposed compartment because it may be possible to show compliance 
without failure of partitions for some larger compartments. The FAA 
agrees and intends to conduct a project-specific review for each 
compartment. This final rule does not allow partition failure unless 
the applicant shows that designing the partition to withstand the 
condition specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this section is impractical, 
and that such failure would not interfere with continued safe flight 
and landing.

I. Clarification of Terms

    Several commenters suggested that the FAA clarify terms in Sec.  
25.365. Airbus and Bombardier requested clarification of the term 
``impractical;'' Boeing, EASA and GAMA requested clarification of 
``adjacent;'' Bombardier requested clarification of the term 
``bulkheads;'' and Bombardier and EASA requested clarification of 
``small compartments'' as specified in Sec.  25.365(e)(2). Bombardier 
also requested clarification of the term ``seated occupants'' as used 
in the NPRM as compared to ``occupants while in their seats'' as used 
in Sec.  25.365(g). The FAA provides the following clarification of 
these terms:
    Impractical. New Sec.  25.365(g)(2) allows partition failure if 
designing the partition to withstand the specified decompression 
condition would be ``impractical.'' As explained in the NPRM, designing 
a partition to withstand the decompression condition specified in Sec.  
25.365(e)(2) would be impractical, in the context of this rule, if (1) 
doing so would adversely affect the structural integrity of surrounding 
primary structure, including floors; or (2) the design changes would 
invalidate the compartment's intended function. The following is an 
example of the latter. Having a solid door is a fundamental feature for 
the intended use of some compartments, such as lavatories. While using 
a curtain in place of a solid door would greatly improve the 
decompression capability of such a compartment and is physically 
practical for the purpose of compliance with Sec.  25.365(g), the FAA 
accepts that changing the lavatory door to a curtain in such cases 
would be impractical because the resulting design would invalidate the 
compartment's intended function.

[[Page 38380]]

    As previously noted, Sec.  25.365(e)(2), which has not been revised 
in this rulemaking, defines a decompression condition as an opening 
``up to'' the formula hole size defined in that paragraph. Therefore, 
while partition failure may be accepted as impractical for the maximum 
hole size specified in Sec.  25.365(e)(2), this regulation means that 
the applicant must evaluate smaller hole sizes, up to the maximum 
formula hole size, and where practical, design all partitions to 
withstand those smaller hole sizes.
    Adjacent. Section 25.365(g)(2) allows failure of partitions 
``adjacent'' to the opening specified in Sec.  25.365(e)(2). In this 
context, adjacent partitions are those that form the compartment 
exposed to the decompression hole.
    Partitions, Floors and Bulkheads. This rule only applies to 
partitions--meaning, in the context of this rule, any non-structural 
wall, non-structural floor, or non-structural ceiling panel--the 
failure of which would not compromise the structural integrity of the 
airplane.
    In the context of this rule, the term ``floor'' means a structural 
floor, such as a passenger or cargo floor that carries airplane 
structural loads. The floor of an overhead crew rest area, which is 
elevated above the main floor, would not be a structural floor unless 
it carries airplane structural loads. However, if partition failure is 
allowed to occur in such a compartment, then to protect the safety of 
the persons in the compartment and below it, only partitions other than 
the crew rest floor should be designed to fail, rather than the floor 
itself. As previously stated, Sec.  25.365(g) requires the applicant to 
take all reasonable design precautions to protect occupants.
    The term ``bulkhead,'' as used in this rulemaking, means a 
structural pressure bulkhead or other wall that carries airframe 
structural loads. The FAA considers a non-structural, non-pressure 
bulkhead to be a partition because it does not carry airplane 
structural loads. The applicability of this rule is limited to 
partitions because the integrity of bulkheads and floors must be 
maintained to ensure continued safe flight and landing.
    Small compartments. This final rule revises Sec.  25.365(g) to 
allow failure of partitions for the decompression condition specified 
in Sec.  25.365(e)(2). Section 25.365(e)(2), which was not changed as a 
result of this rulemaking, states that small compartments may be 
combined with an adjacent pressurized compartment and both considered 
as a single compartment for openings that cannot reasonably be expected 
to be confined to the small compartment. This regulation was added at 
amendment 25-71 to Sec.  25.365 (55 FR 13474, Apr. 10, 1990). The FAA 
defines ``small compartment'' as a compartment with an exposed fuselage 
surface area of two times the formula hole size, or less. Applicants 
may propose alternative definitions.
    As indicated in the final rule preamble for amendment 25-71, if an 
applicant is using the small-compartment exception, then two conditions 
must be evaluated: (1) The small compartment is combined with an 
adjacent pressurized compartment and both considered as a single 
compartment for the maximum size opening specified by the formula; and 
(2) An opening of the maximum size expected to remain confined in the 
small compartment would be considered in the small compartment. In 
keeping with the definition of ``small compartment,'' the FAA defines 
``the maximum size expected to remain confined'' in any compartment 
evaluated under Sec.  25.365(e)(2) to be one-half of the exposed 
fuselage area of that compartment.
    Seated occupant: The FAA considers the term ``seated occupants,'' 
as used in the preamble of the NPRM and this final rule, to be 
synonymous with the regulatory (Sec.  25.365(g)) term of ``occupants 
while in their seats.''

J. Safety Factors of Sec.  25.365(d)

    Airbus commented that the FAA should introduce a discussion of 
removing the 1.33 safety factor specified in Sec.  25.365(d) in the 
context of a general update to Sec.  25.365. This comment is unrelated 
to the change to Sec.  25.365(g), and is outside the scope of this 
rulemaking.

K. Miscellaneous

    This final rule omits the proposed words ``The applicant shows 
that'' from Sec.  25.365(g)(2)(ii) because such language is unnecessary 
given the 14 CFR 21.20(a) requirement for applicants for a type 
certificate to show compliance with all applicable regulations.

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Federal agencies consider impacts of regulatory actions under a 
variety of executive orders and other requirements. 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 the 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) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. 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 that may 
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The current 
threshold after adjustment for inflation is $176 million using the most 
current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. 
This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the 
economic impacts of this rule.
    This final rule codifies current practice and will not result in 
additional costs or significant benefits to airplane manufacturers. As 
noted previously, in some cases, the FAA accepted the possibility of 
local partition failure based on a finding of equivalent level of 
safety. This final rule will relieve the administrative burden for type 
certification applicants who might otherwise be required to submit 
requests for an equivalent level of safety under Sec.  21.21(b)(1). 
However, cost savings for the FAA will be minimal because the FAA 
received only two such type certification applications in the past 5 
years and does not expect numerous similar applications in the future. 
Cost savings for industry will be minimal because the cost of 
administration of the FAA's finding of equivalent safety on each 
applicable certification project is not high, even though it is applied 
several times per year. The FAA, therefore, has determined that this 
final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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

[[Page 38381]]

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 will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the 
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required.
    This final rule will only have impact on applicants for type 
certification of transport category airplanes. All such United States 
transport category airplane manufacturers exceed the Small Business 
Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 employees.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. 
Therefore, based on the foregoing analysis, as provided in section 
605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not 
result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

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 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it 
will impose no costs on domestic and international entities and thus 
has a neutral trade impact.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    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 that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The 
current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $177 million using 
the most current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic 
Product. This final 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 is no new requirement for information collection associated with 
this final 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 regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f for regulations and involves 
no extraordinary circumstances.

VI. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, Federalism. The FAA has 
determined that this action will 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, will not have 
federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Consistent with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,70 and FAA Order 1210.20, 
American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and 
Procedures,71 the FAA ensures that Federally Recognized Tribes (Tribes) 
are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely input 
regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to affect 
uniquely or significantly their respective Tribes. At this point, the 
FAA has not identified any unique or significant effects, environmental 
or otherwise, on tribes resulting from this proposed rule.

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The FAA has determined that it is 
not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
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 will have no 
effect on international regulatory cooperation.

VII. Additional Information

A. Electronic Access and Filing

    A copy of the NPRM, all comments received, this final rule, and all 
background material may be viewed online at www.regulations.gov using 
the docket number listed above. A copy of this final rule will be 
placed in the docket. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are 
available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days 
each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded

[[Page 38382]]

from the Office of the Federal Register's website at 
www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website 
at www.govinfo.gov. A copy may also be found at the FAA's Regulations 
and Policies website at www.faa.gov/regulations_policies.
    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) 267-9677. 
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this 
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this final rule, 
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed in 
the electronic docket for this rulemaking.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for 
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations 
within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this 
document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the 
preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Navigation (air), Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends chapter I 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 Sec.  25.365 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.365  Pressurized compartment loads.

* * * * *
    (g)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(2) of this section, 
bulkheads, floors, and partitions in pressurized compartments for 
occupants must be designed to withstand the conditions specified in 
paragraph (e) of this section. In addition, reasonable design 
precautions must be taken to minimize the probability of parts becoming 
detached and injuring occupants while in their seats.
    (2) Partitions adjacent to the opening specified in paragraph 
(e)(2) of this section need not be designed to withstand that condition 
provided--
    (i) Failure of the partition would not interfere with continued 
safe flight and landing; and
    (ii) Designing the partition to withstand the condition specified 
in paragraph (e)(2) of this section would be impractical.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701(a) 
in Washington, DC, on or about June 6, 2023
Billy Nolen,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-12416 Filed 6-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P