![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Electrical Cables
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: May 15, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 94)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26941-26946]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15my01-38]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. FAA-2001-9633; Notice No. 01-03]
RIN 2120-AH29
Electrical Cables
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend the
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes concerning
electrical cables. This proposal would harmonize part 25 and JAR-25
requirements concerning cable installations and clarify the cable
design requirements ensuring that the designer considers the critical
conditions, routings, and markings of a proper installation. Adopting
this proposal would eliminate regulatory differences between the
airworthiness standards of the U.S. and the Joint Aviation Requirements
of Europe, without affecting current industry design practices.
DATES: Send your comments on or before July 16, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Address your comments to Dockets Management System, U.S.
Department of Transportation Dockets, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket
number FAA-2001-9633 at the beginning of your comments, and you should
submit two copies of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation
that the FAA has received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made:
``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2001-9633.'' We will date-stamp the
postcard and mail it back to you.
You also may submit comments electronically to the following
Internet address: http://dms.dot.gov.
You may review the public docket containing comments to this
proposed regulation at the Department of Transportation (DOT) Dockets
Office, located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the above
address. You may review the public docket in person at this address
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. Also, you may review the public dockets on the Internet at
http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Slotte, FAA, Airplane and
Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-
4056; telephone 425-227-2315 facsimile 425-227-1320, e-mail
steve.slotte@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
How Do I Submit Comments to This NPRM?
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed action by submitting such written data, views, or arguments,
as they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy,
federalism, or economic impact that might result from adopting the
proposals in this document are also invited. Substantive comments
should be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments must identify the
regulatory docket number and be submitted in duplicate to the DOT Rules
Docket address specified above.
All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed
rulemaking, will be filed in the docket. The docket is available for
public inspection before and after the comment closing date.
We will consider all comments received on or before the closing
date before taking action on this proposed rulemaking. Comments filed
late will be considered as far as possible without incurring expense or
delay. The proposals in this document may be changed in light of the
comments received.
How Can I Obtain a Copy of This NPRM?
You may download an electronic copy of this document using a modem
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section
of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-
3339); the Government Printing Office (GPO)'s electronic bulletin board
service (telephone: 202-512-1661); or, if applicable, the FAA's
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee bulletin board service
(telephone: 800-322-2722 or 202-267-5948).
Internet users may access recently published rulemaking documents
at the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or
the GPO's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
You may obtain a copy of this document by submitting a request to
the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or by calling 202-267-
9680. Communications must identify the docket number of this NPRM.
Any person interested in being placed on the mailing list for
future rulemaking documents should request from the above office a copy
of Advisory Circular 11-2A, ``Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Distribution System,'' which describes the application procedure.
Background
What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Standards in the United States?
In the United States, the airworthiness standards for type
certification of transport category airplanes are contained in Title
14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 25. Manufacturers of
transport category airplanes must show that each airplane they produce
of a different type design complies with the appropriate part 25
standards. These standards apply to:
Airplanes manufactured within the U.S. for use by U.S.-
registered operators, and
Airplanes manufactured in other countries and imported to
the U.S. under a bilateral airworthiness agreement.
What Are the Relevant Airworthiness Standards in Europe?
In Europe, the airworthiness standards for type certification of
transport category airplanes are contained in Joint Aviation
Requirements (JAR)-25, which are based on part 25. These were developed
by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) of Europe to provide a common
set of airworthiness standards within the European aviation community.
Twenty-three European countries accept airplanes type certificated to
the JAR-25 standards, including airplanes manufactured in the U.S. that
are type certificated to JAR-25 standards for export to Europe.
What Is ``Harmonization'' and How Did It Start?
Although part 25 and JAR-25 are very similar, they are not
identical in every respect. When airplanes are type certificated to
both sets of standards, the differences between part 25 and JAR-25 can
result in substantial additional costs to manufacturers and operators.
These additional costs, however, frequently do not bring about an
increase in safety. In many cases, part 25 and JAR-25 may contain
different requirements to accomplish the same safety intent.
Consequently, manufacturers are usually burdened with meeting the
requirements of both sets of standards, although the level of safety is
not increased correspondingly.
[[Page 26943]]
Recognizing that a common set of standards would not only benefit
the aviation industry economically, but also maintain the necessary
high level of safety, the FAA and the JAA began an effort in 1988 to
``harmonize'' their respective aviation standards. The goal of the
harmonization effort is to ensure that:
Where possible, standards do not require domestic and
foreign parties to manufacture or operate to different standards for
each country involved; and
The standards adopted are mutually acceptable to the FAA
and the foreign aviation authorities.
The FAA and JAA have identified a number of significant regulatory
differences (SRD) between the wording of part 25 and JAR-25. Both the
FAA and the JAA consider ``harmonization'' of the two sets of standards
a high priority.
What Is ARAC and What Role Does It Play in Harmonization?
After initiating the first steps towards harmonization, the FAA and
JAA soon realized that traditional methods of rulemaking and
accommodating different administrative procedures was neither
sufficient nor adequate to make appreciable progress towards fulfilling
the goal of harmonization. The FAA then identified the Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) as an ideal vehicle for assisting
in resolving harmonization issues, and, in 1992, the FAA tasked ARAC to
undertake the entire harmonization effort.
The FAA had formally established ARAC in 1991 (56 FR 2190, January
22, 1991), to provide advice and recommendations concerning the full
range of the FAA's safety-related rulemaking activity. The FAA sought
this advice to develop better rules in less overall time and using
fewer FAA resources than previously needed. The committee provides the
FAA firsthand information and insight from interested parties regarding
potential new rules or revisions of existing rules.
There are 64 member organizations on the committee, representing a
wide range of interests within the aviation community. Meetings of the
committee are open to the public, except as authorized by section 10(d)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The ARAC establishes working groups to develop recommendations for
resolving specific airworthiness issues. Tasks assigned to working
groups are published in the Federal Register. Although working group
meetings are not generally open to the public, the FAA solicits
participation in working groups from interested members of the public
who possess knowledge or experience in the task areas. Working groups
report directly to the ARAC, and the ARAC must accept a working group
proposal before ARAC presents the proposal to the FAA as an advisory
committee recommendation.
The activities of the ARAC will not, however, circumvent the public
rulemaking procedures; nor is the FAA limited to the rule language
``recommended'' by ARAC. If the FAA accepts an ARAC recommendation, the
agency proceeds with the normal public rulemaking procedures. Any ARAC
participation in a rulemaking package is fully disclosed in the public
docket.
What Is the Status of the Harmonization Effort Today?
Despite the work that ARAC has undertaken to address harmonization,
there remain a large number of regulatory differences between part 25
and JAR-25. The current harmonization process is extremely costly and
time-consuming for industry, the FAA, and the JAA. Industry has
expressed a strong desire to conclude the harmonization program as
quickly as possible to alleviate the drain on their resources and to
finally establish one acceptable set of standards.
Recently, representatives of the aviation industry (including
Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. (AIA), General
Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and European Association of
Aerospace Industries (AECMA)) proposed an accelerated process to reach
harmonization.
What Is the ``Fast Track Harmonization Program''?
In light of a general agreement among the affected industries and
authorities to expedite the harmonization program, the FAA and JAA in
March 1999 agreed upon a method to achieve these goals. This method,
which the FAA has titled ``The Fast Track Harmonization Program,'' is
aimed at expediting the rulemaking process for harmonizing not only the
42 standards that are currently tasked to ARAC for harmonization, but
approximately 80 additional standards for part 25 airplanes.
The FAA initiated the Fast Track program on November 26, 1999 (64
FR 66522). This program involves grouping all of the standards needing
harmonization into three categories:
Category 1: Envelope--For these standards, parallel part 25 and
JAR-25 standards would be compared, and harmonization would be reached
by accepting the more stringent of the two standards. Thus, the more
stringent requirement of one standard would be ``enveloped'' into the
other standard. In some cases, it may be necessary to incorporate parts
of both the part 25 and JAR standard to achieve the final, more
stringent standard. (This may necessitate that each authority revises
its current standard to incorporate more stringent provisions of the
other.)
Category 2: Completed or near complete--For these standards, ARAC
has reached, or has nearly reached, technical agreement or consensus on
the new wording of the proposed harmonized standards.
Category 3: Harmonize--For these standards, ARAC is not near
technical agreement on harmonization, and the parallel part 25 and JAR-
25 standards cannot be ``enveloped'' (as described under Category 1)
for reasons of safety or unacceptability. A standard developed under
Category 3 would be mutually acceptable to the FAA and JAA, with a
consistent means of compliance.
Further details on the Fast Track Program can be found in the
tasking statement (64 FR 66522, November 26, 1999) and the first NPRM
published under this program, Fire Protection Requirements for
Powerplant Installations on Transport Category Airplanes (65 FR 36978,
June 12, 2000).
Under this program, the FAA provides ARAC with an opportunity to
review, discuss, and comment on the FAA's draft NPRM. In the case of
this rulemaking, ARAC suggested a number of editorial changes, which
have been incorporated into this NPRM.
Discussion of the Proposal
How Does This Proposed Regulation Relate to ``Fast Track''?
This proposed regulation results from the recommendations of ARAC
submitted under the FAA's Fast Track Harmonization Program. In this
notice, the FAA proposes to amend Sec. 25.1353, concerning electrical
cables.
What Is the Underlying Safety Issue Addressed by the Current Standards?
This requirement gives design requirements relating to the proper
installation of aircraft electrical equipment, controls, wiring,
cables, and storage batteries. The operation of any one unit or system
of units must not affect the operations of any other electrical unit or
system essential to the safe operation of the airplane.
What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?
The current text of 14 CFR 25.1353 addresses the proper
installation of
[[Page 26944]]
electrical equipment, controls, wiring, cables, and storage batteries
to prevent any hazardous effect on the airplane structure or essential
systems.
There is no current text for 14 CFR 25.1353(d).
The current text of JAR-25.1353 contains an additional requirement
in paragraph (d), which states:
JAR 25.1353 Electrical equipment and installations
* * * (d) Electrical cables and cable installations must be
designed and installed as follows:
(1) The electrical cables used must be compatible with the
circuit protection devices required by JAR 25.1357, such that a fire
or smoke hazard cannot be created under temporary or continuous
fault conditions.
(2) Means of permanent identification must be provided for
electrical cables, connectors and terminals.
(3) Electrical cables must be installed such that the risk of
mechanical damage and/or damage caused by fluids, vapors, or sources
of heat, is minimized.
What Are the Differences in the Standards and What Do Those Differences
Result In?
Section 25.1353(a), (b), (c) of part 25 does not address the
aircraft installation design requirements of electrical cables. JAR
25.1353(d), however, provides very explicit aircraft installation
design requirements for electrical cables.
What, if Any, Are the Differences in the Means of Compliance?
Part 25 does not have a specific requirement for installation
design requirements for electrical cables. However, installation
designs approved under part 25 typically meet the JAR requirement. The
JAR states specific requirements for cable installations that must be
met. Installation designers, through experience, have adopted the
practice of permanent identification, protection, and installation
routing to minimize the risk of damage to electrical cables.
What Is the Proposed Action?
The proposed action is to revise part 25 by adopting the text of
JAR-25.1353(d) in its entirety. The proposed revision would specify a
design action to be taken, and remove the possibility that a designer
may not consider a critical installation design condition. It is in
line with current best design practices.
How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?
The new Sec. 25.1353(d) would clarify the cable design
requirements, in the same manner as the current JAR, by ensuring that
the designer considers the critical conditions, routings, and markings
of a proper installation.
What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to the Current
Regulations?
The proposed standard is more stringent in that it adds a
requirement that is not currently in Sec. 25.1353. However, current
industry practice is to comply with both standards.
What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to Current
Industry Practice?
The proposed standard would maintain the same level of safety since
current industry practice is to comply with both standards.
What Other Options Have Been Considered and Why Were They Not Selected?
The FAA has not considered another option. The FAA considers the
adoption of JAR 25.1353(d) in its entirety the most appropriate way to
maintain the level of safety.
Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Change?
The proposed standard is in line with current design practices and
the effect of the change is considered to be minimal for aircraft
operators, modification centers, service centers, and manufacturers.
Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?
There is no advisory material for either part 25 or the JAR. The
FAA considers developing new advisory material to be unnecessary.
What Regulatory Analyses and Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies
to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. Secs. 2531-2533) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act also requires the consideration of
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. And fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation).
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
proposal has benefits, but no substantial costs, and that it is not ``a
significant regulatory action'' as defined in Executive Order 12866,
nor ``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures. Further, this proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, would reduce
barriers to international trade, and would not impose an Unfunded
Mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private
sector.
The DOT Order 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for
simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If it is
determined that the expected impact is so minimal that the proposed
rule does not warrant a full evaluation, a statement to that effect and
the basis for it is included in the proposed regulation. Accordingly,
the FAA has determined that the expected impact of this proposed rule
is so minimal that the proposed rule does not warrant a full
evaluation. The FAA provides the basis for this minimal impact
determination below.
Currently, airplane manufacturers must satisfy both part 25 and the
European JAR-25 standards to certificate transport category aircraft in
both the United States and Europe. Meeting two sets of certification
requirements raises the cost of developing a new transport category
airplane often with no increase in safety. In the interest of fostering
international trade, lowering the cost of aircraft development, and
making the certification process more efficient, the FAA, JAA, and
aircraft manufacturers have been working to create, to the maximum
possible extent, a single set of certification requirements accepted in
both the United States and Europe. As explained in detail previously,
these efforts are referred to as ``harmonization.''
This proposal would harmonize Sec. 25.1353 to the JAR by adopting
JAR 25.1353(d) in its entirety. The JAR requirement states specific
requirements for cable installations. This section clarifies the cable
design requirements
[[Page 26945]]
ensuring that the designer considers the critical conditions, routings,
and markings of proper installations.
Industry practice is to use the JAR requirements for installation,
and therefore, the addition of this language to part 25 will not add a
burden to the manufacturers. Aircraft manufacturers currently use
several approved standards or specifications to ensure that design and
installation of electrical cables are in compliance with the JAR
standards.
Standards used by the manufacturing industry, for example, are
based on MIL-W-5088L or SAE ARP 5088 and FAA guidance material which
includes AC 25-16 and AC 43.13-1B. These standards provide guidance for
the design process from wire specification through the installation of
wiring and wiring devices used in airplanes. (Wiring within that
specification is defined as wires, cables, groups, harnesses and
bundles, and their terminations, associated hardware, and support
installed on aircraft.)
It is standard industry practice for aircraft and wiring
manufacturers to test electrical cables before installation and the
aircraft manufacturer also tests the electrical cables upon
installation. Manufacturers are also using the JAR and Sec. 25.1357 as
a means of ensuring that the electrical cables and wiring used are
compatible with the circuit protection devices required by that
regulation to prevent a fire or smoke hazard created under temporary or
continuous fault conditions.
The FAA has concluded that, for the reasons previously discussed in
the preamble, the adoption of these JAR requirements into 14 CFR part
25 is the most efficient way to harmonize these sections. Additionally,
adopting this proposal would neither reduce nor increase the
requirements beyond those that exist in the current FAA published
regulations.
Thus, the FAA expects that there would be no additional costs to
part 25 manufacturers, and the level of safety would be maintained. The
FAA requests comments to the contrary, identifying additional testing,
time, procedures, paperwork and cost estimates.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, 50 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and
of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational
requirements to the sale of the business, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.'' To achieve that
principle, the RFA requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible
regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities. If the determination is that the rule will, the Agency
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the
head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis
is not required. The certification must include a statement providing
the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
The FAA considers that this proposed rule would not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for two
reasons:
First, the net effect of the proposed rule is minimum regulatory
cost relief. The proposed rule would require that new transport
category aircraft manufacturers meet just the ``more stringent''
European certification requirement, rather than both the United States
and European standards. Airplane manufacturers already meet or expect
to meet this standard as well as the existing 14 CFR part 25
requirement.
Second, all U.S. transport-aircraft category manufacturers exceed
the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500
employees for aircraft manufacturers. The current U.S. part 25 airplane
manufacturers include: Boeing, Cessna Aircraft, Gulfstream Aerospace,
Learjet (owned by Bombardier), Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas (a
wholly-owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company), Raytheon Aircraft, and
Sabreliner Corporation.
Given that this proposed rule is minimally cost-relieving and that
there are no small entity manufacturers of part 25 airplanes, the FAA
certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards. In addition, consistent with the Administration's belief in
the general superiority and desirability of free trade, it is the
policy of the Administration to remove or diminish to the extent
feasible, barriers to international trade, including both barriers
affecting the export of American goods and services to foreign
countries and barriers affecting the import of foreign goods and
services into the United States.
In accordance with the above statute and policy, the FAA has
assessed the potential effect of the proposed rule and has determined
that it supports the Administration's free trade policy because this
rule would use European international standards as the basis for U.S.
standards.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act),
codified in 2 U.S.C. 1532-1538, enacted as Public Law 104-4 on March
22, 1995, requires each Federal agency, to the extent permitted by law,
to prepare a written assessment of the effects of any Federal mandate
in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in the expenditure
by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule does not contain a
Federal intergovernmental or private sector mandate that exceeds $100
million in any year; therefore, the requirements of the Act do not
apply.
What Other Assessments Has the FAA Conducted?
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule and the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The FAA has determined
that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, the FAA has determined that
this notice of proposed rulemaking would not have federalism
implications.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), the FAA has determined there are no requirements for
information
[[Page 26946]]
collection associated with this proposed rule.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to this proposed regulation.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. In
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this
rulemaking qualifies for a categorical exclusion.
Energy Impact
The energy impact of the proposed rule has been assessed in
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and
Public Law 94-163, as amended (43 U.S.C. 6362), and FAA Order 1053.1.
It has been determined that it is not a major regulatory action under
the provisions of the EPCA.
Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in Title
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation
modes other than aviation, and to establish such regulatory
distinctions as he or she considers appropriate. Because this proposed
rule would apply to the certification of future designs of transport
category airplanes and their subsequent operation, it could, if
adopted, affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. The FAA, therefore,
specifically requests comments on whether there is justification for
applying the proposed rule differently to intrastate operations in
Alaska.
Plain Language
In response to the June 1, 1998, Presidential memorandum regarding
the issue of plain language, the FAA re-examined the writing style
currently used in the development of regulations. The memorandum
requires Federal agencies to communicate clearly with the public. We
are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document
is clear, and in any other suggestions you might have to improve the
clarity of FAA communication that affect you. You can get more
information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language
initiative at >http://www.plainlanguage.gov.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend part 25 of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
1. The authority citation for Part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704.
2. Amend Sec. 25.1353 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.1353 Electrical equipment and installations.
* * * * *
(d) Electrical cables and cable installations must be designed and
installed as follows:
(1) The electrical cables used must be compatible with the circuit
protection devices required by Sec. 25.1357 such that a fire or smoke
hazard cannot be created under temporary or continuous fault
conditions.
(2) Means of permanent identification must be provided for
electrical cables, connectors and terminals.
(3) Electrical cables must be installed such that the risk of
mechanical damage and/or damage caused by fluids, vapors, or sources of
heat, is minimized.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 3, 2001.
Lirio Liu Nelson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 01-12105 Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U