Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
Occupant Safety Issue Area Cabin Safety Harmonization Working Group Task 3 – Compliance Reflectance Measurements Overwing Escape Route
Task Assignment
[Federal Register: November 26, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 227)] [Notices] [Page 66522-66524] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26no99-123]
======------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Transport Airplane and Engine Issues--New and Revised Tasks
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of new and revised task assignments for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC).
------
SUMMARY: Notice is given of new tasks assigned to and accepted by the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) and of revisions to a number of existing tasks. This notice informs the public of the activities of ARAC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dorenda Baker, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service (ANM-110), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98055; phone (425) 227-2109; fax (425) 227- 1320.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The FAA has established an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee to provide advice and recommendations to the FAA Administrator, through the Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification, on the full range of the FAA's rulemaking activities with respect to aviation- related issues. This includes obtaining advice and recommendations on the FAA's commitment to harmonize its Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) and practices with its trading partners in Europe and Canada. One area ARAC deals with is transport airplane and engine issues. These issues involve the airworthiness standards for transport category
[[Page 66523]] airplanes and engines in 14 CFR parts 25, 33, and 35 and parallel provisions in 14 CFR parts 121 and 135. The corresponding Canadian standards are contained in Parts V, VI, and VII of the Canadian Aviation Regulations. The corresponding European standards are contained in Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) 25, JAR-E, JAR-P, JAR- OPS-Part 1, and JAR-26. As proposed by the U.S. and European aviation industry, and as agreed between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), an accelerated process to reach harmonization has been adopted. This process is based on two procedures: (1) Accepting the more stringent of the regulations in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (FAR), Part 25, and the Joint Airworthiness Requirements (JAR); and (2) Assigning approximately 41 already-tasked significant regulatory differences (SRD), and certain additional part 25 regulatory differences, to one of three categories:
The Revised Tasks
ARAC will review the rules identified in the ``FAR/JAR 25 Differences List,'' dated June 30, 1999, and identify changes to the regulations necessary to harmonize part 25 and JAR 25. ARAC will submit a technical report on each rule. Each report will include the cost information that has been requested by the FAA. The tasks currently underway in ARAC to harmonize the listed rules are superseded by this tasking.
New Tasks
The FAA has submitted a number of new tasks for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC), Transport Airplane and Engine Issues. As agreed by ARAC, these tasks will be accomplished by existing harmonization working groups. The tasks are regulatory differences identified in the above-referenced differences list as Rule type = P- SRD.
New Working Group
In addition to the above new tasks, a newly established Cabin Safety Harmonization Working Group will review several FAR/JAR paragraphs as follows: ARAC will review the following rules and identify changes to the regulations necessary to harmonize part 25 and JAR:
(1) Section 25.787; (2) Section 25.791(a) to (d); (3) Section 25.810; (4) Section 25.811; (5) Section 25.819; and (6) Section 25.813(c).
ARAC will submit a technical report on each rule. Each report will include the cost information that has been requested by the FAA. The Cabin Safety Harmonization Working Group would be expected to complete its work for the first five items (identified as Category 1 or 2) before completing item 6 (identified as Category 3).
Schedule
Within 120 days of tasking/retasking:
ARAC Acceptance of Tasks
ARAC has accepted the new tasks and has chosen to assign all but one of them to existing harmonization working groups. A new Cabin Safety Harmonization Working Group will be formed to complete the remaining tasks. The working groups serve as staff to ARAC to assist ARAC in the analysis of the assigned tasks. Working group recommendations must be reviewed and approved by ARAC. If ARAC accepts a working group's recommendations, it forwards them to the FAA and ARAC recommendations.
Working Group Activity
All working groups are expected to comply with the procedures adopted by ARAC. As part of the procedures, the working groups are expected to accomplish the following: 1. Document their decisions and discuss areas of disagreement, including options, in a report. A report can be used both for the enveloping and for the harmonization processes. 2. If requested by the FAA, provide support for disposition of the comments received in response to the NPRM or review the FAA's prepared disposition of comments. If support is requested, the Working Group will review comments/disposition and prepare a report documenting their recommendations, agreement, or disagreement. This report will be submitted by ARAC back to the FAA. 3. Provide a status report at each meeting of ARAC held to consider Transport Airplane and Engine Issues.
Partcipation in the Working Groups
Membership on existing working groups will remain the same, with the formation of subtask groups, if appropriate. The Cabin Safety Harmonization Working Group will be composed of technical experts having an interest in the assigned task. A working group member need not be a representative of a member of the full committee. An individual who has expertise in the subject matter and wishes to become a member of the Cabin Safety Harmonization Working Group should write to the person listed under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT expressing that desire, describing his or her interest in the tasks, and stating the expertise he or she would bring to the working group. All requests to participate must be received no later than December 30, 1999. The requests will be reviewed by the assistant chair, the assistant executive director, and the working group chair, and the individuals will be advised whether or not the request can be accommodated. Individuals chosen for membership on the Cabin Safety Harmonization Working Group will be expected to represent their aviation community segment and participate actively in the working group (e.g., attend all meetings, provide written comments when requested to do so, etc.). They also will be expected to devote the resources necessary to ensure the ability of the working group to meet any assigned deadline(s). Members are expected to keep their management chain advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure that the agreed technical solutions do not conflict with their sponsoring organization's position when the subject being negotiated is presented to ARAC for a vote. Once the working group has begun deliberations, members will not be added or substituted without the approval of the assistant chair, the assistant executive director, and the working group chair. The Secretary of Transportation has determined that the formation and use of ARAC are necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.
[[Page 66524]]
Meetings of ARAC will be open to the public. Meetings of the working groups will not be open to the public, except to the extent that individuals with an interest and expertise are selected to participate. No public announcement of working group meetings will be made.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November 19, 1999. Anthony F. Fazio, Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee. [FR Doc. 99-30774 Filed 11-24-99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Recommendation Letter
Billy M. Glover The Boeing Compa ly Director Airplane Er1'Jironmentc.i PO Box 3707 Me 9U-KR Pertormance Strategy Seattle, WA 98124-:~207 Commercial Airplanes Group
May 8, 2001 B-K700-BMG-OI-008
Anthony F. Fazio Executive Director Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee BOEING Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591
Subject: Cabin Safety Harmonization Working Group Recommendations
At the March 29, 2001 meeting of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Occupant Safety Issues Group (OSIG), the Cabin Safety Harmonization Working Group (PSWG) presented recommendations concerning the harmonization of FAR Part 25 .. 810. This was in response to a tasking made by the FAA in December 1999.
OSIG members agreed to forward this CSWG recommendation to the FAA. The CSWG report is enclosed. ~~9&~--- ;;:i~M. Glover Assistant Chair of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Occupant Safety Issues Group
Enclosure (1) 1) ARAC CSHWG Report
cc: John McGraw OSIG members and associates
Recommendation
Enclosure 1) to B-K700-BMG-01-008 Page 1 of 13
ARAC CSHWG Report FAR/JAR 25.810 (Category litem)
1 - What is underlying safety issue addressed by the FAR/JAR? [Explain the underlying safety rationale for the requirement. Why does the requirement exist?]
- The safe and expedient evacuation of aircraft occupants to the ground in an emergency (for example fire in the cabin), by the application of design criteria for emergency egress assist means and escape routes.
2 - What are the current FAR and JAR standards?
Current FAR text: § 25.810 Emergency egress assist means and escape routes
(a) Each non over-wing Type A, Type B or Type C exit, and any other non over wing landplane emergency exit more than 6 feet from the ground with the airplane on the ground and the landing gear extended, must have an approved means to assist the occupants in descending to the ground.
(1) The assisting means for each passenger emergency exit must be a self supporting slide or equivalent; and, in the case of Type A or Type B exits, it must be capable of carrying simultaneously two parallel lines of evacuees. In addition, the assisting means must be designed to meet the following requirements-
(i) It must be automatically deployed and deployment must begin during the interval between the time the exit opening means is actuated from inside the airplane and the time the exit is fully opened. However, each passenger emergency exit which is also a passenger entrance door or a service door must be provided with means to prevent deployment of the assisting means when it is opened from either the inside or the outside under non-emergency conditions for normal use.
(ii) Except for assisting means installed at Type C exits, it must be automatically erected within 6 seconds after deployment is begun. Assisting means installed at Type C exits must be automatically erected within 10 seconds from the time the opening means of the exit is actuated.
FAR/JAR 25.810 CSHWG Report - Issue 1 - 30 January 2001 -----~-----~--
(iii) It must be of such length after full deployment that the 10Yfer end is self supporting on the ground and provides safe evacuation of occupants to the ground after collapse of one or more legs of the landing gear.
(iv) It must have the capability, in 25-knot winds directed from the most critical angle, to deploy and, with the assistance of only one person, to remain usable after full deployment to evacuate occupants safely to the ground.
(v) For each system installation (mockup or airplane installed), five consecutive deployment and inflation tests must be conducted (per exit) without failure, and at least three tests of each such five-test series must be conducted using a single representative sample of the device. The sample devices must be deployed and inflated by the system's primary means after being subjected to the inertia forces specified in § 25.561(b). If any part of the system fails or does not function properly during the required tests, the cause of the failure or malfunction must be corrected by positive means and after that, the full series of five consecutive deployment and inflation tests must be conducted without failure.
(2) The assisting means for flightcrew emergency exits may be a rope or any other means demonstrated to be suitable for the purpose. If the assisting means is a rope, or an approved device equivalent to a rope, it must be-
(i) Attached to the fuselage structure at or above the top of the emergency exit opening, or, for a device at a pilot's emergency exit window, at another approved location if the stowed device, or its attachment, would reduce the pilot's view in flight;
(ii) Able (with its attachment) to withstand a 400-pound static load.
(b) Assist means from the cabin to the wing are required for each Type A or Type B exit located above the wing and having a stepdown unless the exit without an assist means can be shown to have a rate of passenger egress at least equal to that of the same type of non over-wing exit. If an assist means is required, it must be automatically deployed and automatically erected concurrent with the opening of the exit. In the case of assist means installed at Type C exits, it must be self-supporting within 10 seconds from the opening means of the exits is actuated. For all other exit types, it must be self supporting 6 seconds after deployment is begun.
(c) An escape route must be established from each overwing emergency exit, and (except for flap surfaces suitable as slides) covered with a slip resistant surface. Except where a means for channeling the flow of evacuees is provided-
(1) The escape route from each Type A or Type B passenger emergency exit, or any common escape route from Type III passenger emergency exits, must be at least 42 inches wide; that from any other passenger emergency exit must be at least 24 inches wide; and
FAR/JAR 25.810 CSHWG Report - Issue 1 - 30 January 2001 2 (2) The escape route surface must have a reflectance of at least 80 percent, and must be defined by markings with a surface-to-marking contrast ratio of at least 5: 1.
(d) Means must be provided to assist evacuees to reach the ground for all Type C exits located over the wing and, if the place on the airplane structure at which the escape route required in paragraph (c) of this section terminates is more than 6 feet from the ground with the airplane on the ground and the landing gear extended, for all other exit types.
(1) If the escape route is over the flap, the height of the terminal edge must be measured with the flap in the takeoff or landing position, whichever is higher from the ground.
(2) The assisting means must be usable and self-supporting with one or more landing gear legs collapsed and under a 25-knot wind directed from the most critical angle.
(3) The assisting means provided for each escape route leading from a Type A or B emergency exit must be capable of carrying simultaneously two parallel lines of evacuees; and, the assisting means leading from any other exit type must be capable of carrying as many parallel lines of evacuees as there are required escape routes.
(4) The assisting means provided for each escape route leading from a Type C exit must be automatically erected within 10 seconds from the time the opening means of the exit is actuated, and that provided for the escape route leading from any other exit type must be automatically erected within 10 seconds after actuation of the erection system.
NOTE: The NPRM for amendment 25-88 (Notice No. 90-4) the following paragraph that was not contained in the final rule. After reviewing the disposition of comments to the NPRM that are included in the final rule we have determined that the paragraph was dropped inadvertently.
If the place on the airplane structure at which the escape route required in § 25.81O(c) terminates is more than 6 feet from the ground and the landing gear extended, means must be provided to assist evacuees (who have used the overwing exits) to reach the ground. If the escape route is over the flap, the height of the terminal edge must be measured with the flap in the takeoff or landing position, whichever is higher from the ground. The assisting means must be of such length that the lower end is self-supporting on the ground after collapse of anyone or more landing gear legs and must be automatically erected within 10 seconds after actuation of the inflation system. For Type C exits located over the wings, assisting means must be provided irrespective of the distance above the ground and the landing gear extended. Additionally, the assisting means must be automatically erected within 10 seconds from the time the opening means of the exit is actuated.
FAR/JAR 25.810 CSHWG Report - Issue 1 - 30 January 2001 3 Current JAR text: JAR 25.810 Emergency egress assist means and escape routes
(a) Each non-over-wing landplane emergency exit more than 6 feet from the ground with the aeroplane on the ground and the landing gear extended and each non over-wing Type A must have an approved means to assist the occupants in descending to the ground.
(1) The assisting means for each passenger emergency exit must be a self supporting slide or equivalent; and, in the case of Type A exit, it must be capable of carrying simultaneously two parallel lines of evacuees. In addition, the assisting means must be designed to meet the following requirements.
(i) It must be automatically deployed and deployment must begin during the interval between the time the exit opening means is actuated from inside the aeroplane and the time the exit is fully opened. However, each passenger emergency exit which is also a passenger entrance door or a service door must be provided with means to prevent deployment of the assisting means when it is opened from either the inside or the outside under non-emergency conditions for normal use.
(ii) It must be automatically erected within 10 after deployment is begun.
(iii) It must be of such length after full deployment that the lower end is self supporting on the ground and provides safe evacuation of occupants to the ground after collapse of one or more legs of the landing gear.
(iv) It must have the capability, in 25-knot winds directed from the most critical angle, to deploy and, with the assistance of only one person, to remain usable after full deployment to evacuate occupants safely to the ground.
(v) For each system installation (mockup or airplane installed), five consecutive deployment and inflation tests must be conducted (per exit) without failure, and at least three tests of each such five-test series must be conducted using a single representative sample of the device. The sample devices must be deployed and inflated by the system's primary means after being subjected to the inertia forces specified in JAR 25.561(b). If any part of the system fails or does not function properly during the required tests, the cause of the failure or malfunction must be corrected by positive means and after that, the full series of five consecutive deployment and inflation tests must be conducted without failure.
(2) The assisting means for flightcrew emergency exits may be a rope or any other means demonstrated to be suitable for the purpose. If the assisting means is a rope, or an approved device equivalent to a rope, it must be-
FAR/JAR 25.810 CSHWG Report - Issue 1 - 30 January 2001 4 ------~------
(i) Attached to the fuselage structure at or above the top of the emergency exit opening, or, for a device at a pilot's emergency exit window, at another approved location if the stowed device, or its attachment, would reduce the pilot's view in flight;
(ii) Able (with its attachment) to withstand a 400 lb (181.6 kg) static load.
(b) Assist means from the cabin to the wing are required for each Type A exit located above the wing and having a step down unless the exit without an assist-means can be shown to have a rate of passenger egress at least equal to that of the same type of non over-wing exit. If an assist means is required, it must be automatically deployed and automatically erected concurrent with the opening of the exit and self-supporting within 10 seconds.
(c) An escape route must be established from each overwing emergency exit, and (except for flap surfaces suitable as slides) covered with a slip resistant surface. Except where a means for channeling the flow of evacuees is provided-
(1) The escape route must be at least 42 inches (1.067 m) wide at Type A passenger emergency exit and must be at least 2 feet (609.6 mm) wide at all other passenger emergency exits, and
(2) The escape route surface must have a reflectance of at least 80 percent, and must be defined by markings with a surface-to-marking contrast ratio of at least 5: 1. (See ACJ 25.81O(c)(2).)
(d) If the place on the aeroplane structure at which the escape route required in sub-paragraph (c) of the paragraph terminates, is more than 6 feet (1.829 m) from the ground with the aeroplane on the ground and the landing gear extended, means to reach the ground must be provided to assist evacuees who have used the escape route. If the escape route is over a flap, the height of the terminal edge must be measured with the flap in the take-off or landing position, whichever is higher from the ground. The assisting means must be usable and self-supporting with one or more landing gear legs collapsed and under a 25-knot wind directed from the most critical angle. The assisting means provided for each escape route leading from a Type A emergency exit must be capable of carrying simultaneously two parallel lines of evacuees. For other than Type A exits, the assist means must be capable of carrying simultaneously as many parallel lines of evacuees as there are required escape routes.
3 - What are the differences in the standards and what do these differences result in?: [Explain the differences in the standards, and what these differences result in relative to (as applicable) design features/capability, safety margins, cost, stringency, etc.]
There are several differences between the subject FAR and JAR.
FAR/JAR 25.810 CSHWG Report - Issue 1 - 30 January 2001 5 ------
Firstly, the FAR includes two types of exits (B and C) which are not included in the JAR (exit types are defined in FAR/JAR 25.807).
The Type B exit has a smaller opening than the Type A exit. All of the other features contained in this regulation are the same for Type A and Type B exits. Therefore, wherever Type A exits are identified, the JAR needs to be revised to include the Type B exit. The Type C exit is an oversized Type I exit with a means to assist the occupants in descending to the ground. JAR needs to be revised to include Type C exits ..
The JAA have committed to revising JAR 25.807 to adopt the additional types of exits (Types B and C) included in FAR 25.807. That activity must be completed prior to, or at the same time as, the present action.
Secondly, the FAR (at its latest revision) has reduced the time for the assist means to be automatically erected from 10 seconds down to 6 seconds, except for the Type C assist means which remains at 10 seconds from the time the opening means of the exit is actuated. This decrease in exit preparation time is the result of improvements in the state of art for the design of inflatable escape slides. The JAR has a single standard of 10 seconds for all assist means.
Thirdly, the FAR and JAR differ in their requirement regarding the width of common escape routes to dual Type III exits. The FAR allows 42 inches (the same as for Type A and B exits that are dual lane Exits), while the JAR does not have such a provision (though the JAA has accepted this approach in the past).
4 - What, if any, are the differences in the means of compliance? [Provide a brief explanation of any differences in the compliance criteria or methodology, including any differences in either criteria, methodology, or application that result in a difference in stringency between the standards.]
-None
5 - What is the proposed action? [Is the proposed action to harmonize on one of the two standards, a mixture of the two standards, propose a new standard, or to take some other action? Explain what action is being proposed (not the regulatory text, but the underlying rationale) and why that direction was chosen.]
- Revise the current FAR 25.810 Amendment 25-88 to include the intent of the NPRM 90-4 and the pre-amble material contained in Amendment 25-88. Amendment 25-88 added the Type Band C exits however several requirements that were included in the NPRM 90-4 were inadvertently dropped from the requirements or unclear when Amendment 25-88 was adopted. Also, adopting industry practice for the application assist means performance requirements for over-wing systems that is required by regulation for non over-wing assist means. The industry practices follow the intent of previous amendments to the regulations. The JAR would be revised to adopt this new FAR 25.810.
FAR/JAR 25.810 CSHWG Report - Issue 1 - 30 January 2001 6 6 - What should the harmonized standard be? [Insert the proposed text of the harmonized standard here]
§ 25.810 Emergency egress assist means and escape routes.
(a) Each non over-wing landplane emergency exit more than 6 feet from the ground with the airplane on the ground and the landing gear extended, and each non over-wing Type A, Type B or Type C exit irrespective of the distance above the ground must have an approved means to assist the occupants in descending to the ground.
(1) The assisting means for each passenger emergency exit must be a self-supporting slide or equivalent; and, in the case of a Type A or Type B exit, it must be capable of carrying simultaneously two parallel lines of evacuees. In addition, the assisting means must be designed to meet the following requirements--
(i) It must be automatically deployed and deployment must begin during the interval between the time the exit opening means is actuated from inside the airplane and the time the ex.it is fully opened. However, each passenger emergency exit which is also a passenger entrance door or a service door must be provided with means to prevent deployment of the assisting means when it is opened from either the inside or the outside under non-emergency conditions for normal use.
(ii) Assisting means must be automatically erected within 10 seconds from the time the opening means of the exit is actuated.
(iii) It must be of such length after full deployment that the lower end is self-supporting on the ground and provides safe evacuation of occupants to the ground after collapse of one or more legs of the landing gear.
(iv) It must have the capability, in 25-knot winds directed from the most critical angle, to fully deploy and, with the assistance of only one person, to remain usable after full deployment to evacuate occupants safely to the ground.
(v) For each system installation (mockup or airplane installed), five consecutive full deployment tests must be conducted (per exit) without failure, and at least three tests of each such five-test series must be conducted using a single representative sample of the device. The sample devices must be deployed by the system's primary means after being subjected to the inertia forces specified in Sec. 25.561 (b). If any part of the system fails or does not function properly during the required tests, the cause of the failure or malfunction must be corrected by positive means and after that, the full series of five consecutive deployment tests must be conducted without failure.
(2) The assisting means for flightcrew emergency exits may be a rope or any other means demonstrated to be suitable for the purpose. If the assisting means is a rope, or an approved device equivalent to a rope, it must be--
FAR/JAR 25.810 CSHWG Report - Issue 1 - 30 January 2001 7 (i) Attached to the fuselage structure at or above the top of the emergency exit opening, or, for a device at a pilot's emergency exit window, at another approved location if the stowed device, or its attachment, would reduce the pilot's view in flight;
(ii) Able (with its attachment) to withstand a 400-pound static load.
(b) Assist means from the cabin to the wing are required for each Type A or Type B exit located above the wing and having a stepdown (as defined in Sec 25.807) unless the exit without an assist-means can be shown to have a rate of passenger egress at least equal to that of the same type of non over-wing exit. If an assist means is required, it must be automatically erected and self-supporting within 10 seconds from the time the opening means of the exits is actuated.
(1) It must have the capability, in 25-knot winds directed from the most critical angle, to fully deploy and, with the assistance of only one person, to remain usable after full deployment to evacuate occupants safely to the wing.
(2) For each system installation (mockup or airplane installed), five consecutive full deployment tests must be conducted (per assist means installation) without failure, and at least three tests of each such five-test series must be conducted using a single representative sample of the device. The sample devices must be deployed by the system's primary means after being subjected to the inertia forces specified in Sec. 25 .561 (b). If any part of the system fails or does not function properly during the required tests, the cause of the failure or malfunction must be corrected by positive means and after that, the full series of five consecutive deployment tests must be conducted without failure.
(c) An escape route must be established from each over-wing emergency exit, and (except for flap surfaces suitable as slides) covered with a slip resistant surface. Except where a means for channeling the flow of evacuees is provided--
( 1) The escape route from each Type A or Type B passenger emergency exit, or any common escape route from two Type III passenger emergency exits, must be at least 42 inches wide; that from any other passenger emergency exit must be at least 24 inches wide; and
(2) The escape route surface must have a reflectance of at least 80 percent, and must be defined by markings with a surface-to-marking contrast ratio of at least 5: 1.
(d) If the place on the airplane structure at which the escape route required in sec. 25 .8lO(c) terminates is more than six feet from the ground with the airplane on the ground and the landing gear extended, means must be provided to assist evacuees (who have used the over-wing exits) to reach the ground. If the escape route is over a flap, the height of the terminal edge must be measured with the flap in the takeoff or landing position, whichever is higher from the ground. The assisting means provided for each escape route leading from a Type A or B emergency exit, or any common escape route from two Type III passenger emergency exits, must be capable of
FAR/JAR 25.810 CSHWG Report - Issue 1 - 30 January 2001 8 carrying simultaneously two parallel lines of evacuees. The assisting means provided for each escape route leading from any other exit type must be capable of carrying as many parallel lines of evacuees as there are required escape routes.
(1) The assisting means must be automatically erected within 10 seconds after actuation of the inflation system. For Type C exits located over the wings, assisting means must be provided irrespective of the distance above the ground with the airplane on the ground and the landing gear extended. Additionally it must be automatically erected within 10 seconds from the time the opening means of the exit is actuated.
(2) The assisting means must be of such length after full deployment that the lower end is self supporting on the ground and provides safe evacuation of occupants to the ground after collapse of one or more legs of the landing gear.
(3) The assisting means must have the capability, in 25-knot winds directed from the most critical angle, to deploy and, with the assistance of only one person, to remain usable after full deployment to evacuate occupants safely to the ground.
(4) For each system installation (mockup or airplane installed), five consecutive deployment tests must be conducted (per assist means installation) without failure, and at least three tests of each such five-test series must be conducted using a single representative sample of the device. The sample devices must be deployed by the system's primary means after being subjected to the inertia forces specified in Sec. 25.561 (b). If any part of the system fails or does not function properly during the required tests, the cause of the failure or malfunction must be corrected by positive means and after that, the full series of five consecutive deployment tests must be conducted without failure.
7 - How does this proposed standard address the underlying safety issue (identified under #1)? [Explain how the proposed standard ensures that the underlying safety issue is taken care of.]
The addition of the design requirements for assist means provided for exits located over the wing that include repeatability testing and inertia loading testing of the assist means has increased the level of safety for both the FAR and JAR.
The current regulations require the exit be opened within 10 seconds from the opening means of the exit is actuated. The deployment of the assist means must begin within this time. The assist means must be erected within 6 seconds from deployment of the assist means. These requirements would allow up to 16 seconds from the opening means of the exit is actuated to the assist means being fully erected. The proposed standard would reduce this time to 10 seconds. This has increased the level of safety for both the FAR and JAR.
FAR/JAR 25.810 CSHWG Report - Issue 1 - 30 January 2001 9 8 - Relative to the current FAR, does the proposed standard increase, decrease, or maintain the same level of safety? Explain. [Explain how each element of the proposed change to the standards affects the level of safety relative to the current FAR. It is possible that some portions of the proposal may reduce the level of safety even though the proposal as a whole may increase the level of safety.]
- Maintains the same level of safety that was envisioned by NPRM 90-4 and the pre amble to Amendment 25-88. FAR 25.81O(d) when adopted at Amendment 25-88 was missing several requirements or unclear.
The addition of the design requirements for assist means provided for exits located over the wing that include repeatability testing and inertia loading testing of the assist means has increased the level of safety for the FAR.
The current regulations require the exit be opened within 10 seconds from the opening means of the exit is actuated. The deployment of the assist means must begin within this time. The assist means must be erected within 6 seconds from deployment of the assist means. These requirements would allow up to 16 seconds from the opening means of the exit is actuated to the assist means being fully erected. The proposed standard would reduce this time to 10 seconds. This has increased the level of safety for the FAR.
9 - Relative to current industry practice, does the proposed standard increase, decrease, or maintain the same level of safety? Explain. [Since industry practice may be different than what is required by the FAR (e.g., general industry practice may be more restrictive), explain how each element of the proposed change to the standards affects the level of safety relative to current industry practice. Explain wh(:ther current industry practice is in compliance with the proposed standard.]
- For FAR-certificated airplanes: maintains the same level of safety. - For JAR-only certificated airplanes: mandates a higher level of safety by reducing overall deployment time for most assist means, which will provide additional time for evacuation of the occupants.
10 - What other options have been considered and why were they not selected?: [Explain what other options were considered, and why they were not selected (e.g., cost/benefit, unacceptable decrease in the level of safety, lack of consensus, etc.]
- None.
11 - Who would be affected by the proposed change? [Identify the parties that would be materially affected by the rule change - airplane manufacturers, airplane operators, etc.]
- Airplane manufacturers and modifiers, and escape slide manufacturers.
FAR/JAR 25.810 CSHWG Report - Issue 1 - 30 January 2001 10 the side of the airplane the actuation of the inflation system would be considered the first movement of the compartment door.
e. guidance material concerning inertia loading of assist means, as first used in paragraph (a)(1)(v) of the proposed regulation needs to be provided. It is not required that each deployment in the repeatability have an assist means that has been subjected to one or more of the inertia forces specified in § 25.561(b). The intent was that all of the inertia forces must be applied to an assist means the is used for the repeatability testing. It is acceptable to combine inertia forces specified into two test that have resultant vector forces. For example a test that combines the forward, downward and inward inertia forces specified in § 25.561 into a resultant forces would be acceptable. The remaining inertia forces would be combine into a second resultant vector inertia force that could be tested.
14 - How does the proposed standard compare to the current ICAO standard? [Indicate whether the proposed standard complies with or does not comply with the applicable ICAO standards (if any)]
No specific ICAO Standard exists relative to this regulation.
15 - Does the proposed standard affect other HWG's? [Indicate whether the proposed standard should be reviewed by other harmonization working groups and why.]
- Not to this WG's knowledge.
16 - What is the cost impact of complying with the proposed standard? [Please provide information that will assist in estimating the change in cost (either positive or negative) ofthe proposed rule. For example, if new tests or designs are required, what is known with respect to the testing or engineering costs? If new equipment is required, what can be reported relative to purchase, installation, and maintenance costs? In contrast, if the proposed rule relieves industry of testing or other costs, please provide any known estimate of costs.]
The industry would estimate the cost burden being at a neutral level for the harmonization of this paragraph.
There are apparent administrative savings for the relevant Airworthiness Authorities. The industry has an initial administrative burden associated with adoption to the relevant certification procedures, e.g. the need to review certification documents and standard publications and adapt necessary changes.
17 - Does the HWG want to review the draft NPRM at "Phase 4" prior to publication in the Federal Register?
- Yes
18 - In light of the information provided in this report, does the HWG consider that the "Fast Track" process is appropriate for this rulemaking project, or is the project too complex or
FAR/JAR 25.810 CSHWG Report - Issue 1 - 30 January 2001 12 controversial for the Fast Track Process. Explain. [A negative answer to this question will prompt the FAA to pull the project out of the Fast Track process and forward the issues to the FAA's Rultmaking Management Council for consideration as a "significant" project.]
- Yes. Technical agreement has been reached.
FAR/JAR 25.810 CSHWG Report - Issue 1 - 30 January 2001 13 Thursday, June 19, 2003
Part III
Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25 Lower Deck Service Compartments on Transport Category Airplanes; Final Rule
VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:27 Jun 18, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\19JNR2.SGM 19JNR2 36880 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 118 / Thursday, June 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm.cfm manufactured in the U.S. that are type Government Printing Office’s web page certificated to JAR–25 standards for Federal Aviation Administration at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/ export to Europe. aces/aces140.html. 14 CFR Part 25 What is ‘‘Harmonization’’ and How Did You can also get a copy by submitting it Start? a request to the Federal Aviation [Docket No. FAA–2002–11346; Amendment Although part 25 and JAR–25 are very No. 110] Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue similar, they are not identical in every RIN 2120–AH38 SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by respect. When airplanes are type calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to certificated to both sets of standards, the Lower Deck Service Compartments on differences between part 25 and JAR–25 Transport Category Airplanes identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number of this can result in substantial additional costs AGENCY: Federal Aviation rulemaking. to manufacturers and operators. These Administration (FAA), DOT. additional costs, however, frequently do Small Business Regulatory Enforcement not bring about an increase in safety. In ACTION: Final rule. Fairness Act many cases, part 25 and JAR–25 may SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation The Small Business Regulatory contain different requirements to Administration amends the Enforcement Fairness Act (SFREFA) of accomplish the same safety intent. airworthiness standards for transport 1996 requires FAA to comply with Consequently, manufacturers are category airplanes concerning lower small entity requests for information or usually burdened with meeting the deck service compartments. This advice about compliance with statutes requirements of both sets of standards, amendment requires that two-way voice and regulations within its jurisdiction. although the level of safety is not communication systems between lower Therefore, any small entity that has a increased correspondingly. deck service compartments and the question regarding this document may Recognizing that a common set of flightdeck remain available following contact their local FAA official or the standards would not only benefit the loss of the normal electrical power person listed under FOR FURTHER aviation industry economically, but also generating system. It also clarifies the INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out maintain the necessary high level of requirements for seats installed in the more about SBREFA on the Internet at safety, the FAA and the JAA began an lower deck service compartment. our site, http://www.gov/avr/arm/ effort in 1988 to ‘‘harmonize’’ their Adoption of this amendment eliminates sbrefa.htm. For more information on respective aviation standards. The goal regulatory differences between the SBREFA, e-mail us at 9–AWA– of the harmonization effort is to ensure airworthiness standards of the U.S. and [email protected]. that, where possible, standards do not the Joint Aviation Requirements of require domestic and foreign parties to Background Europe, without affecting current manufacture or operate to different industry design practices. What Are the Relevant Airworthiness standards for each country involved; and the standards adopted are mutually EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 2003. Standards in the United States? acceptable to the FAA and the foreign FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In the United States, the airworthiness aviation authorities. Jayson Claar, FAA, Airframe/Cabin standards for type certification of The FAA and JAA have identified a Safety Branch, ANM–115, Transport transport category airplanes are number of significant regulatory Airplane Directorate, Aircraft contained in Title 14, Code of Federal differences between the wording of part Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue Regulations (CFR) part 25. 25 and JAR–25. Both the FAA and the SW., Renton, WA 98055–4056; Manufacturers of transport category JAA consider ‘‘harmonization’’ of the telephone 425–227–2194; facsimile airplanes must show that each airplane two sets of standards a high priority. 425–227–1320, e-mail they produce of a different type design [email protected]. complies with the appropriate part 25 What Is ARAC and What Role Does It Play in Harmonization? SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: standards. These standards apply to airplanes manufactured within the U.S. After initiating the first steps towards Availability of Rulemaking Documents for use by U.S.-registered operators, and harmonization, the FAA and JAA soon You can get an electronic copy using airplanes manufactured in other realized that traditional methods of the Internet by taking the following countries and imported to the U.S. rulemaking and accommodating steps: under a bilateral airworthiness different administrative procedures was (1) Go to the search function of the agreement. neither sufficient nor adequate to make Department of Transportation’s appreciable progress towards fulfilling What Are the Relevant Airworthiness electronic Docket Management System the goal of harmonization. The FAA Standards in Europe? (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/ then identified the Aviation Rulemaking search). In Europe, the airworthiness Advisory Committee (ARAC) as an ideal (2) On the search page type in the last standards for type certification of vehicle for assisting in resolving four digits of the Docket number shown transport category airplanes are harmonization issues, and, in 1992, the at the beginning of this notice. Click on contained in Joint Aviation FAA tasked ARAC to undertake the ‘‘search.’’ Requirements (JAR)–25, which are entire harmonization effort. (3) On the next page, which contains based on part 25. These were developed The FAA had formally established the Docket summary information for the by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) ARAC in 1991, to provide advice and Docket you selected, click on the of Europe to provide a common set of recommendations concerning the full document number of the item you wish airworthiness standards within the range of the FAA’s safety-related to view. European aviation community. Twenty- rulemaking activity (56 FR 2190, You can also get an electronic copy three European countries accept January 22, 1991). The FAA sought this using the Internet through the Office of airplanes type certificated to the JAR–25 advice to develop better rules in less Rulemaking’s web page at http:// standards, including airplanes overall time and using fewer FAA
VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:27 Jun 18, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JNR2.SGM 19JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 118 / Thursday, June 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 36881
resources than previously needed. The ‘‘less stringent,’’ this could potentially Further, this amendment does not have committee provides the FAA firsthand mean adopting a lower level of safety. a significant economic impact on a information and insight from interested The FAA considered the proposal, to substantial number of small entities, parties regarding potential new rules or be the most appropriate method of reduces barriers to international trade, revisions of existing rules. ensuring that the highest level of safety and does not impose an Unfunded There are 73 member organizations on is achieved and fulfilling the objectives Mandate on state, local, or tribal the committee, representing a wide of harmonizing the U.S. and European governments, or on the private sector. range of interests within the aviation standards. The DOT Order 2100.5 prescribes community. Meetings of the committee policies and procedures for are open to the public, except as Is Existing FAA Advisory Material simplification, analysis, and review of authorized by section 10(d) of the Adequate? regulations. If it is determined that the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The FAA does consider that current expected impact is so minimal that the The ARAC establishes working groups guidance on this subject is adequate and amendment does not warrant a full to develop recommendations for that additional advisory material is not evaluation, a statement to that effect and resolving specific airworthiness issues. necessary as a result of this amendment. the basis for it is included in the Tasks assigned to working groups are amendment. Accordingly, the FAA has published in the Federal Register. What Comments Were Received in determined that the expected impact of Although working group meetings are Response to the Proposal? this amendment is so minimal (no not generally open to the public, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking substantial costs) that the amendment FAA solicits participation in working (NPRM) 02–06, was published in the does not warrant a full evaluation. We groups from interested members of the Federal Register on January 24, 2002 provide the basis for this determination public who possess knowledge or (67 FR 3456). The comment period as follows. experience in the task areas. Working closed on March 25, 2002. Only one Currently, airplane manufacturers groups report directly to the ARAC, and commenter responded to the request for must satisfy both part 25 and the the ARAC must accept a working group comments. That commenter states that European JAR–25 standards to proposal before ARAC presents the they have no comments at this time. certificate transport category airplanes proposal to the FAA as an advisory in both the United States and Europe. committee recommendation. What Regulatory Analyses and Meeting two sets of certification The activities of the ARAC will not, Assessments Has the FAA Conducted? requirements raises the cost of however, circumvent the public Regulatory Evaluation Summary developing a new transport category rulemaking procedures; nor is the FAA airplane often with no increase in limited to the rule language Changes to Federal regulations must safety. In the interest of fostering ‘‘recommended’’ by ARAC. If the FAA undergo several economic analyses. international trade, lowering the cost of accepts an ARAC recommendation, the First, Executive Order 12866 directs that airplane development, and making the agency proceeds with the normal public each Federal agency shall propose or certification process more efficient, the rulemaking procedures. Any ARAC adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned FAA, JAA, and airplane manufacturers participation in a rulemaking package is determination that the benefits of the have been working to create, to the fully disclosed in the public docket. intended regulation justify its costs. maximum possible extent, a single set of Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act certification requirements accepted in What Did the FAA Propose? of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the both the United States and Europe. As The FAA proposed to amend § 25.819 economic effect of regulatory changes explained in detail previously, these by incorporating the ‘‘more stringent’’ on small entities. Third, the Trade efforts are referred to as requirements of the current JAR Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531–2533) ‘‘harmonization.’’ standard. The proposed amendment prohibits agencies from setting This amendment revises the FAA would require that two-way voice standards that create unnecessary requirements for lower deck service communication systems between lower obstacles to the foreign commerce of the compartments on transport category deck service compartments and the United States. In developing U.S. airplanes that are not certified to be flightdeck remain available following standards, this Trade Agreements Act occupied during takeoff and landing. As loss of the normal electrical power also requires the consideration of explained previously in this preamble, generating system, and seats installed in international standards and, where this amendment revises part 25 to the lower deck compartment meet the appropriate, that they be the basis of include the following ‘‘more stringent’’ requirements of § 25.785(d). U.S. standards. And fourth, the requirements of the JAR standards: (1) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 § 25.819(b), two-way voice What Other Options Have Been requires agencies to prepare a written communication systems between lower Considered and Why Were They Not assessment of the costs, benefits, and deck service compartments and the Selected? other effects of proposed or final rules flightdeck remain available following The FAA considered two alternatives that include a Federal mandate likely to loss of the normal electrical power to this proposal: (1) No change to the result in the expenditure by State, local, generating system; and (2) § 25.819(f), existing standards. The FAA did not or tribal governments, in the aggregate, seats installed in the lower deck select this option because it would or by the private sector of $100 million compartment meet the requirements of mean that the standards would continue or more annually (adjusted for § 25.785(d), which include safety belt to be ‘‘unharmonized’’ and inflation). and either a shoulder harness, and/or manufacturers would continue to meet The FAA has determined that this energy absorbing rest, and/or two different sets of standards when amendment has no substantial costs, elimination of injurious objects in the certificating their airplanes, and (2) The and that it is not ‘‘a significant head strike path. JAA could unilaterally adopt the regulatory action’’ as defined in This amendment results from the standards of part 25. The FAA did not Executive Order 12866, nor FAA’s acceptance of recommendations seriously consider this option, however, ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s made by ARAC. We have concluded because where the part 25 standards are Regulatory Policies and Procedures. that, for the reasons previously
VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:27 Jun 18, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JNR2.SGM 19JNR2 36882 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 118 / Thursday, June 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations
discussed in the preamble, the adoption airplane manufacturers meet just one What Other Assessments Has the FAA of the amendment in 14 CFR part 25 is certification requirement, rather than Conducted? the most efficient way to harmonize different standards for the United States Executive Order 13132, Federalism these sections and, in so doing, the and Europe. Airplane manufacturers existing level of safety will be already meet or expect to meet this The FAA has analyzed this preserved. standard as well as the existing 14 CFR amendment and the principles and There was consensus within the part 25 requirement. Second, all U.S. criteria of Executive Order 13132, ARAC members, comprised of transport category airplane Federalism. The FAA has determined representatives of the affected industry, manufacturers exceed the Small that this action would not have a that the requirements of the amendment Business Administration small-entity substantial direct effect on the States, on do not impose additional costs on U.S. criteria of 1,500 employees for airplane the relationship between the national manufacturers of part 25 airplanes. manufacturers. The current U.S. part 25 Government and the States, or on the Concerning the cost impact of airplane manufacturers include: Boeing, distribution of power and complying with the standard, ARAC Cessna Aircraft, Gulfstream Aerospace, responsibilities among the various states there are apparent administrative Learjet (owned by Bombardier), levels of government. Therefore, the savings for the relevant airworthiness Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas (a FAA has determined that this authorities and indirect savings for the wholly-owned subsidiary of The Boeing amendment does not have federalism general public. In fact, ARAC believes Company), Raytheon Aircraft, and implications. that the industry would estimate the Sabreliner Corporation. Paperwork Reduction Act cost burden being at a neutral level. We Given that this amendment is have reviewed the cost analysis minimally cost-relieving and that there The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 provided by industry through the ARAC are no small entity manufacturers of (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the process. Based on this analysis, we part 25 airplanes, the FAA certifies that FAA consider the impact of paperwork consider that a full regulatory this amendment does not have a and other information collection evaluation is not necessary. significant impact on a substantial burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there are no new Regulatory Flexibility Determination number of small entities. information collection requirements The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) International Trade Impact Assessment associated with this amendment. of 1980, 50 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, establishes ‘‘as a principle of regulatory The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 International Compatibility prohibits Federal agencies from issuance that agencies shall endeavor, In keeping with U.S. obligations engaging in any standards or related consistent with the objective of the rule under the Convention on International activities that create unnecessary and of applicable statutes, to fit Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to obstacles to the foreign commerce of the regulatory and informational comply with International Civil United States. Legitimate domestic requirements to the scale of the Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards objectives, such as safety, are not business, organizations, and and Recommended Practices to the considered unnecessary obstacles. The governmental jurisdictions subject to maximum extent practicable. The FAA statute also requires consideration of regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, determined that there are no ICAO international standards and, where the RFA requires agencies to solicit and Standards and Recommended Practices appropriate, that they be the basis for consider flexible regulatory proposals that correspond to this amendment. and to explain the rationale for their U.S. standards. actions. In accordance with the above statute, Environmental Analysis Agencies must perform a review to the FAA has assessed the potential FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA determine whether a proposed or final effect of this amendment and has actions that may be categorically rule will have a significant impact on a determined that it complies with the excluded from preparation of a National substantial number of small entities. If Act because this rule would use Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) the determination is that the rule will, European international standards as the environmental impact statement. In the Agency must prepare a regulatory basis for U.S. standards. accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, flexibility analysis as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this RFA. amendment qualifies for a categorical However, if an agency determines that Title II of the Unfunded Mandates exclusion. a proposed or final rule is not expected Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), codified to have a significant economic impact in 2 U.S.C. sections 1532–1538, enacted Energy Impact on a substantial number of small as Public Law 104–4 on March 22, 1995, The energy impact of the amendment entities, section 605(b) of the RFA requires each Federal agency, to the has been assessed in accordance with provides that the head of the agency extent permitted by law, to prepare a the Energy Policy and Conservation Act may so certify and a regulatory written assessment of the effects of any (EPCA) and Public Law 94–163, as flexibility analysis is not required. The Federal mandate in a proposed or final amended (43 U.S.C. 6362), and FAA certification must include a statement agency rule that may result in the Order 1053.1. It has been determined providing the factual basis for this expenditure by State, local, and tribal that it is not a major regulatory action determination, and the reasoning should governments, in the aggregate, or by the under the provisions of the EPCA. be clear. private sector, of $100 million or more The FAA considers that this (adjusted annually for inflation) in any Regulations Affecting Intrastate amendment does not have a significant one year. Aviation in Alaska impact on a substantial number of small This amendment does not contain a Section 1205 of the FAA entities for two reasons. First, the net Federal intergovernmental or private Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. effect of this amendment is minimum sector mandate that exceeds $100 3213) requires the Administrator, when regulatory cost relief. The amendment million in any year; therefore, the modifying regulations in Title 14 of the requires that new transport category requirements of the Act do not apply. CFR in a manner affecting intrastate
VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:27 Jun 18, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JNR2.SGM 19JNR2 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 118 / Thursday, June 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 36883
aviation in Alaska, to consider the the clarity of FAA communications that § 25.819 Lower deck surface extent to which Alaska is not served by affect you. You can get more compartments (including galleys). transportation modes other than information about the Presidential * * * * * aviation, and to establish such memorandum and the plain language (b) There must be a means for two- regulatory distinctions as he or she initiative at http:// way voice communication between the considers appropriate. Because this www.plainlanguage.gov. flight deck and each lower deck service amendment applies to the certification of future designs of transport category List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 compartment, which remains available airplanes and their subsequent Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting following loss of normal electrical operation, it could, if adopted, affect and recordkeeping requirements. power generating system. intrastate aviation in Alaska. The FAA * * * * * The Amendment has determined that there is no (f) For each occupant permitted in a justification for applying the ■ In consideration of the foregoing, the lower deck service compartment, there amendment differently to intrastate Federal Aviation Administration must be a forward or aft facing seat operations in Alaska. amends part 25 of Title 14, Code of Fed- which meets the requirements of Plain Language eral Regulations, as follows: § 25.785(d), and must be able to In response to the June 1, 1998, withstand maximum flight loads when PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS occupied. Presidential memorandum regarding the STANDARDS: TRANSPORT issue of plain language, the FAA re- CATEGORY AIRPLANES * * * * * examined the writing style currently Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 6, ■ used in the development of regulations. 1. The authority citation for part 25 2003. The memorandum requires Federal continues to read as follows: agencies to communicate clearly with Vi Lipski, Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, the public. We are interested in your 44702 and 44704. comments on whether the style of this Aircraft Certification Service. document is clear, and in any other ■ 2. Amend § 25.819 by revising para- [FR Doc. 03–15532 Filed 6–18–03; 8:45 am] suggestions you might have to improve graphs (b) and (f) to read as follows: BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:27 Jun 18, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19JNR2.SGM 19JNR2 3456 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 16 / Thursday, January 24, 2002 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION public dockets on the Internet at http:/ www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm or the /dms.dot.gov. Government Printing Office’s Web page Federal Aviation Administration FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/ Jayson Claar, FAA, Airframe/Cabin aces/aces140.html. 14 CFR Part 25 Safety Branch, ANM–115, Transport You can also get a copy by submitting Airplane Directorate, Aircraft a request to the Federal Aviation [Docket No. FAA–2002–11346; Notice No. Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 02–06] Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055–4056; ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue RIN 2120–AH38 telephone 425–227–2194; facsimile SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 425–227–1320, e-mail calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to Lower Deck Service Compartments on [email protected]. identify the docket number, notice Transport Category Airplanes number, or amendment number of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: rulemaking. AGENCY: Federal Aviation How Do I Submit Comments to This Administration (FAA), DOT. What Are the Relevant Airworthiness NPRM? Standards in the United States? ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. Interested persons are invited to In the United States, the airworthiness SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation participate in the making of the standards for type certification of Administration proposes to amend the proposed action by submitting such transport category airplanes are airworthiness standards for transport written data, views, or arguments, as contained in Title 14, Code of Federal category airplanes concerning lower they may desire. Comments relating to Regulations (CFR) part 25. deck service compartments. The the environmental, energy, federalism, Manufacturers of transport category proposed amendment would require or economic impact that might result airplanes must show that each airplane that two-way voice communication from adopting the proposals in this they produce of a different type design systems between lower deck service document are also invited. Substantive complies with the appropriate part 25 compartments and the flightdeck remain comments should be accompanied by standards. These standards apply to: available following loss of the normal cost estimates. Comments must identify • Airplanes manufactured within the electrical power generating system. It the regulatory docket number and be U.S. for use by U.S.-registered operators, also would clarify the requirements for submitted in duplicate to the DOT Rules and seats installed in the lower deck service Docket address specified above. • Airplanes manufactured in other compartment. Adopting this proposal All comments received, as well as a countries and imported to the U.S. would eliminate regulatory differences report summarizing each substantive under a bilateral airworthiness between the airworthiness standards of public contact with FAA personnel agreement. the U.S. and the Joint Aviation concerning this proposed rulemaking, What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Requirements of Europe, without will be filed in the docket. The docket Standards in Europe? affecting current industry design is available for public inspection before practices. and after the comment closing date. In Europe, the airworthiness We will consider all comments standards for type certification of DATES: Send your comments on or received on or before the closing date transport category airplanes are before March 25, 2002. before taking action on this proposed contained in Joint Aviation ADDRESSES: Address your comments to rulemaking. Comments filed late will be Requirements (JAR)–25, which are Dockets Management System, U.S. considered as far as possible without based on part 25. These were developed Department of Transportation Dockets, incurring expense or delay. The by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street proposals in this document may be of Europe to provide a common set of SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. You changed in light of the comments airworthiness standards within the must identify the Docket No. FAA– received. European aviation community. Twenty- 2002–11346 at the beginning of your three European countries accept How Can I Obtain a Copy of This comments, and you should submit two airplanes type certificated to the JAR–25 NPRM? copies of your comments. If you wish to standards, including airplanes receive confirmation that the FAA has You can get an electronic copy using manufactured in the U.S. that are type received your comments, please include the Internet by taking the following certificated to JAR–25 standards for a self-addressed, stamped postcard on steps: export to Europe. which the following statement is made: (1) Go to the search function of the ‘‘Comments to Docket No. FAA–2002 Department of Transportation’s What Is ‘‘Harmonization’’ and How Did –XXXX.’’ We will date-stamp the electronic Docket Management System It Start? postcard and mail it back to you. (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/ Although part 25 and JAR–25 are very You also may submit comments search). similar, they are not identical in every electronically to the following Internet (2) On the search page type in the last respect. When airplanes are type address: http://dms.dot.gov. four digits of the Docket number shown certificated to both sets of standards, the You may review the public docket at the beginning of this notice. Click on differences between part 25 and JAR–25 containing comments to this proposed ‘‘search.’’ can result in substantial additional costs regulation at the Department of (3) On the next page, which contains to manufacturers and operators. These Transportation (DOT) Dockets Office, the Docket summary information for the additional costs, however, frequently do located on the plaza level of the Nassif Docket you selected, click on the not bring about an increase in safety. In Building at the above address. You may document number of the item you wish many cases, part 25 and JAR–25 may review the public docket in person at to view. contain different requirements to this address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., You can also get an electronic copy accomplish the same safety intent. Monday through Friday, except Federal using the Internet through the Office of Consequently, manufacturers are holidays. Also, you may review the Rulemaking’s Web page at http:// usually burdened with meeting the
VerDate 11
requirements of both sets of standards, Although working group meetings are harmonization would be reached by although the level of safety is not not generally open to the public, the accepting the more stringent of the two increased correspondingly. FAA solicits participation in working standards. Thus, the more stringent Recognizing that a common set of groups from interested members of the requirement of one standard would be standards would not only benefit the public who possess knowledge or ‘‘enveloped’’ into the other standard. In aviation industry economically, but also experience in the task areas. Working some cases, it may be necessary to maintain the necessary high level of groups report directly to the ARAC, and incorporate parts of both the part 25 and safety, the FAA and the JAA began an the ARAC must accept a working group JAR standard to achieve the final, more effort in 1988 to ‘‘harmonize’’ their proposal before ARAC presents the stringent standard. (This may respective aviation standards. The goal proposal to the FAA as an advisory necessitate that each authority revises of the harmonization effort is to ensure committee recommendation. its current standard to incorporate more that: The activities of the ARAC will not, stringent provisions of the other.) • Where possible, standards do not however, circumvent the public Category 2: Completed or near require domestic and foreign parties to rulemaking procedures; nor is the FAA complete—For these standards, ARAC manufacture or operate to different limited to the rule language has reached, or has nearly reached, standards for each country involved; ‘‘recommended’’ by ARAC. If the FAA technical agreement or consensus on the and accepts an ARAC recommendation, the new wording of the proposed • The standards adopted are mutually agency proceeds with the normal public harmonized standards. acceptable to the FAA and the foreign rulemaking procedures. Any ARAC Category 3: Harmonize—For these aviation authorities. participation in a rulemaking package is standards, ARAC is not near technical The FAA and JAA have identified a fully disclosed in the public docket. agreement on harmonization, and the number of significant regulatory parallel part 25 and JAR–25 standards differences (SRD) between the wording What Is the Status of the Harmonization Effort Today? cannot be ‘‘enveloped’’ (as described of part 25 and JAR–25. Both the FAA under Category 1) for reasons of safety and the JAA consider ‘‘harmonization’’ Despite the work that ARAC has or unacceptability. A standard of the two sets of standards a high undertaken to address harmonization, developed under Category 3 would be priority. there remain a large number of mutually acceptable to the FAA and regulatory differences between part 25 What Is ARAC and What Role Does It JAA, with a consistent means of and JAR–25. The current harmonization Play in Harmonization? compliance. process is extremely costly and time- Further details on the Fast Track After initiating the first steps towards consuming for industry, the FAA, and Program can be found in the tasking harmonization, the FAA and JAA soon the JAA. Industry has expressed a strong statement (64 FR 66522, November 26, realized that traditional methods of desire to conclude the harmonization 1999) and the first NPRM published rulemaking and accommodating program as quickly as possible to under this program, Fire Protection different administrative procedures was alleviate the drain on their resources Requirements for Powerplant neither sufficient nor adequate to make and to finally establish one acceptable Installations on Transport Category appreciable progress towards fulfilling set of standards. Airplanes (65 FR 36978, June 12, 2000). the goal of harmonization. The FAA Recently, representatives of the Under this program, the FAA then identified the Aviation Rulemaking aviation industry (including Aerospace provides ARAC with an opportunity to Advisory Committee (ARAC) as an ideal Industries Association of America, Inc. review, discuss, and comment on the vehicle for assisting in resolving (AIA), General Aviation Manufacturers FAA’s draft NPRM. In the case of this harmonization issues, and, in 1992, the Association (GAMA), and European rulemaking, ARAC suggested one minor FAA tasked ARAC to undertake the Association of Aerospace Industries editorial change, which has been entire harmonization effort. (AECMA)) proposed an accelerated incorporated into this NPRM. The FAA had formally established process to reach harmonization. ARAC in 1991 (56 FR 2190, January 22, Discussion of the Proposal 1991), to provide advice and What Is the ‘‘Fast Track Harmonization How Does This Proposed Regulation recommendations concerning the full Program’’? Relate to ‘‘Fast Track’’? range of the FAA’s safety-related In light of a general agreement among rulemaking activity. The FAA sought the affected industries and authorities to This proposed regulation results from this advice to develop better rules in expedite the harmonization program, the recommendations of ARAC less overall time and using fewer FAA the FAA and JAA in March 1999 agreed submitted under the FAA’s Fast Track resources than previously needed. The upon a method to achieve these goals. Harmonization Program. In this NPRM, committee provides the FAA firsthand This method, which the FAA has titled the FAA proposes to amend § 25.819, information and insight from interested ‘‘The Fast Track Harmonization concerning lower deck service parties regarding potential new rules or Program,’’ is aimed at expediting the compartments on transport category revisions of existing rules. rulemaking process for harmonizing not airplanes. A lower deck service There are 64 member organizations on only the 42 standards that are currently compartment as used in § 25.819 is the committee, representing a wide tasked to ARAC for harmonization, but defined as follows: ‘‘A lower deck range of interests within the aviation approximately 80 additional standards service compartment is a galley or other community. Meetings of the committee for part 25 airplanes. service compartment located below the are open to the public, except as The FAA initiated the Fast Track main passenger deck that is accessible authorized by section 10(d) of the program on November 26, 1999 (64 FR during flight by crewmembers. A Federal Advisory Committee Act. 66522). This program involves grouping lavatory is not considered a lower deck The ARAC establishes working groups all of the standards needing service compartment and therefore is to develop recommendations for harmonization into three categories: not covered by this regulation. resolving specific airworthiness issues. Category 1: Envelope—For these Occupancy is not permitted during taxi, Tasks assigned to working groups are standards, parallel part 25 and JAR–25 takeoff and landing. Also, it is limited published in the Federal Register. standards would be compared, and to crewmembers only.’’ This action has
VerDate 11
been identified as a Category 1 requirements of § 25.785(c) and must be able requirements of JAR 25.785 (d) and must be (Envelope) project under the Fast Track to withstand maximum flight loads when able to withstand maximum flight loads program. occupied. when occupied. (g) For each powered lift system installed (g) For each powered lift system installed What Is the Underlying Safety Issue between a lower deck service compartment between a lower deck service compartment Addressed by the Current Standards? and the main deck for the carriage of persons and the main deck for the carriage of persons or equipment, or both, the system must meet or equipment, or both, the system must meet The standards ensure the safety of the following requirements: the following requirements: occupants of lower deck service (1) Each lift control switch outside the lift, (1) Each lift control switch outside the lift, compartments that are not certified to be except emergency stop buttons, must be except emergency stop buttons, must be occupied during takeoff and landing. designed to prevent the activation of the lift designed to prevent the activation of the lift The standards apply design criteria if the lift door, or the hatch required by if the lift door, or the hatch required by relative to evacuation routes and various paragraph (g)(3) of this section, or both are paragraph (g)(3) of this section, or both are items of safety equipment. Many of the open. open. (2) An emergency stop button, that when (2) An emergency stop button, that when regulations that provide evacuation activated will immediately stop the lift, must activated will immediately stop the lift, must requirements and safety equipment be installed within the lift and at each be installed within the lift and at each address passenger and flightcrew entrance to the lift. entrance to the lift. compartments, but do not include lower (3) There must be a hatch capable of being (3) There must be a hatch capable of being deck service compartments. used for evacuating persons from the lift that used for evacuating persons from the lift that is openable from inside and outside the lift is openable from inside and outside the lift What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR without tools, with the lift in any position. without tools, with the lift in any position. Standards? The current text of JAR paragraph What Are the Differences in the The current text of 14 CFR 25.819 25.819 (Change 15, Amendment Standards and What Do Those (Amendment 25–53 (45 FR 41593, June 25/96/1, October 2000) is: Differences Result in? 19, 1980)) is: JAR 25.819 Lower deck service There are two substantive differences Section 25.819 Lower deck service compartments (including galleys). between the standards: compartments (including galleys). For aeroplanes with a service compartment First, the JAR requires that two-way located below the main deck, which may be voice communication between the flight For airplanes with a service compartment occupied during taxi or flight but not during located below the main deck, which may be takeoff or landing, the following apply: deck and each lower deck service occupied during taxi or flight but not during (a) There must be at least two emergency compartment remain available following takeoff or landing, the following apply: evacuation routes, one at each end of each loss of the normal electrical power (a) There must be at least two emergency lower deck service compartment or two generating system. Part 25 does not evacuation routes, one at each end of each having sufficient separation within each contain such a requirement. This results lower deck service compartment or two compartment, which could be used by each in system power on those airplanes having sufficient separation within each occupant or the lower deck service certificated under the JAR being compartment, which could be used by each compartment to rapidly evacuate to the main supplied from the essential bus; occupant or the lower deck service deck under normal and emergency lighting compartment to rapidly evacuate to the main conditions. The routes must provide for the whereas, system power on airplanes deck under normal and emergency lighting evacuation of incapacitated persons, with certificated under part 25 may be conditions. The routes must provide for the assistance. The use of the evacuation routes supplied from a nonessential bus. evacuation of incapacitated persons, with may not be dependent on any powered Second, the requirements for the seats assistance. The use of the evacuation routes device. The routes must be designed to located in the lower deck compartment may not be dependent on any powered minimize the possibility of blockage which are different between the part 25 and the device. The routes must be designed to might result from fire, mechanical or JAR. Section 25.819(f) of part 25 minimize the possibility of blockage which structural failure, or persons standing on top requires that installed seats must meet might result from fire, mechanical or of or against the escape routes. In the event the requirements of § 25.785(c), while structural failure, or persons standing on top the airplane’s main power system or JAR paragraph 25.819(f) requires that of or against the escape routes. In the event compartment main lighting system should the airplane’s main power system or fail, emergency illumination for each lower installed seats must comply with the compartment main lighting system should deck service compartment must be requirements of JAR paragraph fail, emergency illumination for each lower automatically provided. 25.785(d). At the current amendment deck service compartment must be (b) There must be a means for two-way levels, § 25.785(c) and JAR paragraph automatically provided. voice communication between the flight deck 25.785(d) present different (b) There must be a means for two-way and each lower deck service compartment, requirements, although at one time voice communication between the flight deck which remains available following loss of (prior to Amendment 25–72) they were and each lower deck service compartment. normal electrical power generating system. the same. This apparently is due to a (c) There must be an aural emergency (c) There must be an aural emergency renumbering error that occurred at alarm system, audible during normal and alarm system, audible during normal and emergency conditions, to enable emergency conditions, to enable Amendment 25–72, in which paragraph crewmembers on the flight deck and at each crewmembers on the flight deck and at each (c) of § 25.785 became paragraph (d), required floor level emergency exit to alert required floor level emergency exit to alert and there was no associated change to occupants of each lower deck service occupants of each lower deck service the reference in § 25.819(f). Thus, by compartment of an emergency situation. compartment of an emergency situation. referring to § 25.785(c), § 25.819(f) (d) There must be a means, readily (d) There must be a means, readily currently requires only that seats be detectable by occupants of each lower deck detectable by occupants of each lower deck ‘‘approved,’’ which is not what was service compartment, that indicates when service compartment, that indicates when intended. The intent is that seat designs seat belts should be fastened. seat belts should be fastened. must comply with the specific design (e) If a public address system is installed (e) If a public address system is installed in the airplane, speakers must be provided in in the airplane, speakers must be provided in safety criteria that is described in each lower deck service compartment. each lower deck service compartment. § 25.785(d) (including a safety belt and (f) For each occupant permitted in a lower (f) For each occupant permitted in a lower either a shoulder harness, an energy deck service compartment, there must be a deck service compartment, there must be a absorbing rest, or no injurious objects forward or aft facing seat which meets the forward or aft facing seat which meets the present in the head strike path, as
VerDate 11
appropriate). The correct reference in ‘‘unharmonized’’ and manufacturers The FAA has determined that this § 25.819 should be to § 25.785(d). would continue to meet two different proposal has no substantial costs, and sets of standards when certificating their that it is not ‘‘a significant regulatory What, If Any, Are the Differences in the airplanes. action’’ as defined in Executive Order Means of Compliance? 2. The JAA could unilaterally adopt 12866, nor ‘‘significant’’ as defined in Currently, U.S. manufacturers must the standards of part 25. The FAA did DOT’s Regulatory Policies and comply with the more stringent JAR not seriously consider this option, Procedures. Further, this proposed rule requirements if they intend to sell their however, because where the part 25 would not have a significant economic airplanes in Europe. Future certificated standards are ‘‘less stringent,’’ this impact on a substantial number of small airplanes also are expected to meet the could potentially mean adopting a lower entities, would reduce barriers to existing JAR requirements. level of safety. international trade, and would not impose an Unfunded Mandate on state, What Is the Proposed Action? The FAA considers the proposal, as contained in this NPRM, to be the most local, or tribal governments, or on the The FAA proposes to amend § 25.819 appropriate method of ensuring that the private sector. by incorporating the ‘‘more stringent’’ highest level of safety is achieved and The DOT Order 2100.5 prescribes requirements of the current JAR fulfilling the objectives of harmonizing policies and procedures for standard. The proposed amendment the U.S. and European standards. simplification, analysis, and review of would require that: regulations. If it is determined that the • Two-way voice communication Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed expected impact is so minimal that the systems between lower deck service Change? proposed rule does not warrant a full compartments and the flight deck Manufacturers of transport category evaluation, a statement to that effect and remain available following loss of the airplanes, as well as airplane modifiers the basis for it is included in the normal electrical power generating potentially would be affected by the proposed regulation. Accordingly, the system. proposed amendment. FAA has determined that the expected • Seats installed in the lower deck impact of this proposed rule is so compartment meet the requirements of Is Existing FAA Advisory Material minimal that the proposed rule does not § 25.785(d). Adequate? warrant a full evaluation. We provide The FAA does consider that current the basis for this determination as How Does This Proposed Standard follows: Address the Underlying Safety Issue? guidance on this subject is adequate and that additional advisory material is not Currently, airplane manufacturers The proposed standard would necessary as a result of the proposed must satisfy both part 25 and the continue to address the original rule. European JAR–25 standards to underlying safety issue. It would ensure certificate transport category aircraft in the safety of occupants of lower deck What Regulatory Analyses and both the United States and Europe. service compartments that are not Assessments Has the FAA Conducted? Meeting two sets of certification certified to be occupied during takeoff Regulatory Evaluation Summary requirements raises the cost of and landing. developing a new transport category Proposed changes to Federal airplane often with no increase in What Is the Effect of the Proposed regulations must undergo several safety. In the interest of fostering Standard Relative to the Current economic analyses. First, Executive international trade, lowering the cost of Regulations? Order 12866 directs that each Federal aircraft development, and making the By requiring the more stringent agency shall propose or adopt a certification process more efficient, the standards of the JAR, the proposed regulation only upon a reasoned FAA, JAA, and aircraft manufacturers amendment would mandate a higher determination that the benefits of the have been working to create, to the level of safety than that provided by the intended regulation justify its costs. maximum possible extent, a single set of currently applicable requirements. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act certification requirements accepted in of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the both the United States and Europe. As What Is the Effect of the Proposed economic effect of regulatory changes explained in detail previously, these Standard Relative to Current Industry on small entities. Third, the Trade efforts are referred to as Practice? Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. section ‘‘harmonization.’’ In current practice, U.S. 2531–2533) prohibits agencies from This proposal would revise the FAA manufacturers already are complying setting standards that create requirements for lower deck service with the more stringent JAR unnecessary obstacles to the foreign compartments on transport category requirements in order to sell their commerce of the United States. In airplanes that are not certified to be airplanes in Europe. Future certificated developing U.S. standards, this Trade occupied during takeoff and landing. As airplanes also are expected to meet the Act also requires the consideration of explained previously in this preamble, existing JAR requirements, and this international standards and, where this proposal would revise part 25 to proposed rule would simply adopt those appropriate, that they be the basis of include the following ‘‘more stringent’’ same requirements. U.S. standards. And fourth, the requirements of the JAR standards: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 • § 25.819(b): two-way voice What Other Options Have Been requires agencies to prepare a written communication systems between lower Considered and Why Were They Not assessment of the costs, benefits, and deck service compartments and the Selected? other effects of proposed or final rules flight deck remain available following The FAA considered two alternatives that include a Federal mandate likely to loss of the normal electrical power to this proposal: result in the expenditure by State, local, generating system; and 1. No change to the existing or tribal governments, in the aggregate, • § 25.819(f): seats installed in the standards. The FAA did not select this or by the private sector of $100 million lower deck compartment meet the option because it would mean that the or more annually (adjusted for requirements of § 25.785(d), which standards would continue to be inflation). include safety belt and either a shoulder
VerDate 11
harness, and/or energy absorbing rest, may so certify and a regulatory extent permitted by law, to prepare a and/or elimination of injurious objects flexibility analysis is not required. The written assessment of the effects of any in the head strike path. certification must include a statement Federal mandate in a proposed or final This proposed rule results from the providing the factual basis for this agency rule that may result in the FAA’s acceptance of recommendations determination, and the reasoning should expenditure by State, local, and tribal made by ARAC. We have concluded be clear. governments, in the aggregate, or by the that, for the reasons previously The FAA considers that this proposed private sector, of $100 million or more discussed in the preamble, the adoption rule would not have a significant impact (adjusted annually for inflation) in any of the proposed requirements in 14 CFR on a substantial number of small entities one year. part 25 is the most efficient way to for two reasons: This proposed rule does not contain harmonize these sections and, in so First, the net effect of the proposed a Federal intergovernmental or private doing, the existing level of safety will be rule is minimum regulatory cost relief. sector mandate that exceeds $100 preserved. The proposed rule would require that million in any year; therefore, the There was consensus within the new transport category airplane requirements of the Act do not apply. ARAC members, comprised of manufacturers meet just one representatives of the affected industry, What Other Assessments Has the FAA certification requirement, rather than Conducted? that the requirements of the proposed different standards for the United States rule will not impose additional costs on and Europe. Airplane manufacturers Executive Order 13132, Federalism U.S. manufacturers of part 25 airplanes. already meet or expect to meet this The FAA has analyzed this proposed Concerning the cost impact of standard as well as the existing 14 CFR rule and the principles and criteria of complying with the proposed standard, part 25 requirement. Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The ARAC states there are apparent Second, all U.S. transport category FAA has determined that this action administrative savings for the relevant airplane manufacturers exceed the would not have a substantial direct airworthiness authorities and indirect Small Business Administration small- effect on the States, on the relationship savings for the general public. In fact, entity criteria of 1,500 employees for between the national Government and ARAC believes that the industry would airplane manufacturers. The current the States, or on the distribution of estimate the cost burden being at a U.S. part 25 airplane manufacturers power and responsibilities among the neutral level. We have reviewed the cost include: Boeing, Cessna Aircraft, various levels of government. Therefore, analysis provided by industry through Gulfstream Aerospace, Learjet (owned the FAA has determined that this notice the ARAC process. A copy is available by Bombardier), Lockheed Martin, of proposed rulemaking would not have through the public docket. Based on this McDonnell Douglas (a wholly-owned federalism implications. analysis, we consider that a full subsidiary of The Boeing Company), regulatory evaluation is not necessary. Raytheon Aircraft, and Sabreliner Paperwork Reduction Act We invite comments with supporting Corporation. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 documentation regarding the regulatory Given that this proposed rule is (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the evaluation statements based on ARAC’s minimally cost-relieving and that there FAA consider the impact of paperwork proposal. are no small entity manufacturers of and other information collection Initial Regulatory Flexibility part 25 airplanes, the FAA certifies that burdens imposed on the public. We Determination this proposed rule would not have a have determined that there are no new significant impact on a substantial information collection requirements The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) number of small entities. associated with this proposed rule. of 1980, 50 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, establishes ‘‘as a principle of regulatory International Trade Impact Assessment International Compatibility issuance that agencies shall endeavor, The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 In keeping with U.S. obligations consistent with the objective of the rule prohibits Federal agencies from under the Convention on International and of applicable statutes, to fit engaging in any standards or related Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to regulatory and informational activities that create unnecessary comply with International Civil requirements to the scale of the obstacles to the foreign commerce of the Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards business, organizations, and United States. Legitimate domestic and Recommended Practices to the governmental jurisdictions subject to objectives, such as safety, are not maximum extent practicable. The FAA regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, considered unnecessary obstacles. The determined that there are no ICAO the RFA requires agencies to solicit and statute also requires consideration of Standards and Recommended Practices consider flexible regulatory proposals international standards and, where that correspond to this proposed and to explain the rationale for their appropriate, that they be the basis for regulation. actions. U.S. standards. Agencies must perform a review to In accordance with the above statute, Environmental Analysis determine whether a proposed or final the FAA has assessed the potential FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA rule will have a significant impact on a effect of the proposed rule and has actions that may be categorically substantial number of small entities. If determined that it complies with the excluded from preparation of a National the determination is that the rule will, Act because this rule would use Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) the Agency must prepare a regulatory European international standards as the environmental impact statement. In flexibility analysis as described in the basis for U.S. standards. accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, RFA. appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this Unfunded Mandates Reform Act However, if an agency determines that proposed rulemaking action qualifies for a proposed or final rule is not expected Title II of the Unfunded Mandates a categorical exclusion. to have a significant economic impact Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), codified on a substantial number of small in 2 U.S.C. 1532–1538, enacted as Energy Impact entities, section 605(b) of the RFA Public Law 104–4 on March 22, 1995, The energy impact of the proposed provides that the head of the agency requires each Federal agency, to the rule has been assessed in accordance
VerDate 11
with the Energy Policy and 2. Amend § 25.819 by revising and §§ 542.20 through 542.23 of this Conservation Act (EPCA) and Public paragraphs (b) and (f) to read as follows: part. Law 94–163, as amended (43 U.S.C. (2) Tier B gaming operations must 6362), and FAA Order 1053.1. It has § 25.819 Lower deck surface comply with §§ 542.1 through 542.18, compartments (including galleys). been determined that it is not a major and §§ 542.30 through 542.33 of this regulatory action under the provisions * * * * * part. of the EPCA. (b) There must be a means for two- (3) Tier C gaming operations must way voice communication between the comply with §§ 542.1 through 542.18, Regulations Affecting Intrastate flight deck and each lower deck service and §§ 542.40 through 542.43 of this Aviation in Alaska compartment, which remains available part. following loss of normal electrical Section 1205 of the FAA * * * * * Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. power generating system. 3213) requires the Administrator, when * * * * * Dated: January 9, 2002. modifying regulations in Title 14 of the (f) For each occupant permitted in a Montie R. Deer, CFR in a manner affecting intrastate lower deck service compartment, there Chairman. aviation in Alaska, to consider the must be a forward or aft facing seat Elizabeth L. Homer, extent to which Alaska is not served by which meets the requirements of Vice-Chair. transportation modes other than § 25.785(d), and must be able to Teresa E. Poust, aviation, and to establish such withstand maximum flight loads when Commissioner. regulatory distinctions as he or she occupied. [FR Doc. 02–882 Filed 1–23–02; 8:45 am] considers appropriate. Because this * * * * * BILLING CODE 7565–01–P proposed rule would apply to the Issued in Renton, Washington, on January certification of future designs of 8, 2002. transport category airplanes and their Ali Bahrami, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY subsequent operation, it could, if adopted, affect intrastate aviation in Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. Internal Revenue Service Alaska. The FAA therefore specifically [FR Doc. 02–1766 Filed 1–23–02; 8:45 am] requests comments on whether there is 26 CFR Part 1 justification for applying the proposed BILLING CODE 4910–13–P rule differently to intrastate operations [REG–125638–01] in Alaska. NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING RIN 1545–BA00 Plain Language COMMISSION Guidance Regarding Deduction and In response to the June 1, 1998, Capitalization of Expenditures Presidential memorandum regarding the 25 CFR Part 542 issue of plain language, the FAA re- RIN 3141–AA24 AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), examined the writing style currently Treasury. used in the development of regulations. Minimum Internal Control Standards; ACTION: Advance notice of proposed The memorandum requires Federal Correction rulemaking. agencies to communicate clearly with AGENCY: the public. We are interested in your National Indian Gaming SUMMARY: This document describes and comments on whether the style of this Commission. explains rules and standards that the document is clear, and in any other ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. IRS and Treasury Department expect to suggestions you might have to improve propose in 2002 in a notice of proposed SUMMARY: This document corrects part the clarity of FAA communications that rulemaking that will clarify the 542 of a proposed rule published in the affect you. You can get more application of section 263(a) of the Federal Register on December 26, 2001, information about the Presidential Internal Revenue Code to expenditures regarding the Minimum Internal Control memorandum and the plain language incurred in acquiring, creating, or Standards. This correction remedies initiative at http:// enhancing certain intangible assets or formatting changes made to the www.plainlanguage.gov. benefits. This document also invites proposed rule and clarifies with which comments from the public regarding List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 sections Tribal gaming operations are to these standards. All materials submitted Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting comply. will be available for public inspection and recordkeeping requirements. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and copying. Michele F. Mitchell, 202–632–7003. The Proposed Amendment DATES: Written and electronic comments Correction must be submitted by March 25, 2002. In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration In the proposed rule FR Doc. ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: proposes to amend part 25 of Title 14, 01–30788, beginning on page 66500 in CC:ITA:RU (REG–125638–01), room Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: the issue of December 26, 2001, make 5226, Internal Revenue Service, POB the following correction: 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS 1. On page 66506, in the second DC 20044. Submissions may be hand STANDARDS: TRANSPORT column, correct § 542.3(a)(1) to read as delivered Monday through Friday CATEGORY AIRPLANES follows: between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to: CC:ITA:RU (REG–125638–01), 1. The authority citation for part 25 § 542.3 How do I comply with this part? Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue continues to read as follows: (a) Compliance based upon tier. Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, (1) Tier A gaming operations must Washington, DC. Alternatively, 44702 and 44704. comply with §§ 542.1 through 542.18, taxpayers may send submissions
VerDate 11