Revisions to Various Powerplant Installation Requirements for Transport Category Airplanes

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: January 31, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 21)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4855-4863]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31ja02-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. FAA-2002-11272; Notice No. 02-02]
RIN 2120-AH37

Revisions to Various Powerplant Installation Requirements for
Transport Category Airplanes

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
powerplant installations. Specifically, the proposed rule would affect
the standards applicable to thrust or power augmentation systems; fuel
filling points; designated fire zones; and powerplant instruments.
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 April 1, 2002.

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-2002-11272 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-2002-11272.'' 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 that address
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 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: Michael McRae, Propulsion/and
Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2133; fax (425) 227-1320, e-mail
mike.mcrae@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.

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.
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

[[Page 4857]]

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, however, ARAC did not request the opportunity to
review the draft prior to publication.

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 four sections of 14 CFR part 25,
specifically:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change # Section No. Section title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................... Sec. 25.945(b)(5)...................... Thrust or power augmentation
system.
2..................................... Sec. 25.973(d)......................... Fuel tank filler connection.
3..................................... Sec. 25.1181(b)........................ Designated fire zones; regions
included.

[[Page 4858]]

4..................................... Sec. 25.1305(a)(7) and (d)(2).......... Powerplant instruments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have identified this proposed rulemaking project as a Category 1
project under the criteria of the Fast Track Harmonization Program.
Each of the proposed changes would adopt the ``more stringent''
requirements of the parallel JAR.

How Is This Preamble Organized?

Each of the four proposed changes to the standards is discussed
separately below. Although the reader may find much of the information
repetitious, we consider it important that the public be provided the
full explanation and reasoning behind each of the four proposed
changes.

Change 1: Sec. 25.945, Thrust or Power Augmentation System

What Is the Underlying Safety Issue Addressed by the Current Standards?

Currently, JAR 25.945 contains a paragraph, which requires that:
each augmentation system fluid tank must have an expansion
space of not less than 2% of the tank capacity, and
it must be impossible to fill the expansion space
inadvertently while the airplane is in the normal ground attitude.
These requirements are intended to prevent the inadvertent
discharge overboard of thrust or power augmentation fluids.
The parallel part 25 section does not contain this standard.
However, the requirements of JAR 25.945(b)(5) are equivalent to those
of Sec. 25.969 (``Fuel tank expansion space'') and Sec. 25.1013(b)(2)
(``Oil tanks''), which address preventing the inadvertent discharge
overboard of fuel and engine oil, respectively. (The JAR contains these
same sections.) Both of those sections of part 25 require that there be
a 2% expansion space in the tank to accommodate the likely volumetric
expansion of the fluid when the airplane is exposed to hot day
conditions, after the fluids are initially replenished in cold
conditions.
The current requirements of both part 25 and JAR-25 do not specify
the location of any augmentation fluid tank vent outlets, so it is not
possible to be certain that adverse effects will not occur if fluid is
discharged. However, depending on the type of augmentation fluid used,
the adverse effects could include fire, corrosion, and freezing of
controls or equipment. The 2% expansion space ensures that the risk of
discharge of commonly-used augmentation fluids (typically water, or a
mix of water and methanol) is unlikely to occur during typical
operation of the airplane within its normal operating temperature
envelope.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

There currently is no paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 25.945 in 14 CFR.
The current text of JAR 25.945(b)(5) (Change 15, amendment 25/ 96/
1) is:

JAR 25.945 Thrust or power augmentation system
* * * * *
(b) Fluid tanks. Each augmentation system fluid tank must meet
the following requirements:
* * *
(5) Each tank must have an expansion space of not less than 2%
of the tank capacity. It must be impossible to fill the expansion
space inadvertently with the aeroplane in the normal ground
attitude.

What Are the Differences in the Standards and What Do Those Differences
Result In?

As explained above, the requirements of JAR 25.945(b)(5) for the 2%
expansion space ensure that the risk of discharge of commonly-used
augmentation fluids is unlikely to occur during typical operation of
the airplane under typical operating temperatures. Because JAR-25
contains this specific requirement in section 25.945, but part 25 does
not, the JAR is considered ``more stringent.'' However, although there
is no equivalent standard specifically in Sec. 25.945, the requirement
is basically covered separately under other sections of part 25.

What, if Any, Are the Differences in the Means of Compliance?

Currently, U.S. manufacturers must comply with the ``more
stringent'' requirements of JAR 25.945(b)(5) if they intend to sell
their airplanes in Europe. Future certificated airplanes also are
expected to meet the existing JAR requirements. In actual practice,
however, U.S. manufacturers and other applicants already are meeting
the ``more stringent'' JAR requirements by complying with Secs. 25.969
and Sec. 25.1013(b)(2).
Further, compliance with the JAR 25.945(b)(5) requirement rarely
involves much additional design or manufacturing resources; in
principle, it should be fairly simple to meet the design requirement of
a tank that is 2% larger. Augmentation fluid tanks are small in
comparison to fuel tanks and it is unlikely that design constraints
would be encountered.

What Is the Proposed Action?

We propose to amend Sec. 25.945 by incorporating the ``more
stringent'' requirements of the JAR in a new paragraph (b)(5). The new
paragraph would be identical (with some minor editorial differences) to
the existing JAR 25.945(b)(5).

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

The proposed standard would continue to address the original
underlying safety issue. The new Sec. 25.945(b)(5) would control the
identified adverse effects in the same way as the current JAR-25
requirement.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to the Current
Regulations?

The proposed standard would maintain, and may increase, the level
of safety currently provided by part 25.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to Current
Industry Practice?

Industry practice has been based upon the existing JAR-25
requirement. Currently, U.S. manufacturers are either already
complying, or fully intend to comply, with the more stringent JAR
requirements in order to sell their airplanes in Europe. Future
certificated airplanes also are expected to meet the existing JAR
requirements, and this proposed rule would simply adopt those same
requirements.

Change 2: Sec. 25.973, Fuel Tank Filler Connection

What Is the Underlying Safety Issue Addressed by the Current Standards?

The current standards provide for a means by which the build-up of
unwanted electrostatic charge can be prevented. Static charge can build
up wherever fuel is flowing (during refueling, for example), and
precautions are needed to dissipate that charge. Failure to do so could
result in adverse effects such as uncontrolled sparking and arcing.

[[Page 4859]]

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

The current text of 14 CFR 25.973(d) [amendment 25-72 (55 FR 29785,
July 20, 1990)]
is:

Section 25.973 Fuel tank filler connection.

Each fuel tank filler connection must prevent the entrance of fuel
into any part of the airplane other than the tank itself. In addition--
* * * * *
(d) Each fuel filling point, except pressure fueling connection
points, must have a provision for electrically bonding the airplane
to ground fueling equipment.
The current text of JAR 25.973(d) (Change 15, amendment 25/ 96/
1) is:
JAR 25.973 Fuel tank filler connection
Each fuel tank filler connection must prevent the entrance of
fuel into any part of the aeroplane other than the tank itself. In
addition-
* * * * *
(d) Each fuel filling point must have a provision for
electrically bonding the aeroplane to ground fueling equipment.

What Are the Differences in the Standards and What Do Those Differences
Result In?

Currently, Sec. 25.973(d) requires that each fuel filling point--
except the pressure fueling connection points--must have a provision
for electrically bonding the airplane to ground fueling equipment. We
have traditionally assumed that, whenever pressure refueling equipment
is used, there is always a metallic connection between the aircraft
fueling receptacle and the end of the refueling hose; this creates the
electrical bonding that the standard requires. Thus, we included the
exception in this section because pressure fueling connection points
are considered to inherently provide adequate bonding.
The parallel JAR 25.973(d) does not make such an exception; it
requires all fuel filling points to have a provision for electrically
bonding the airplane to ground fueling equipment. On airplanes with
pressure refueling connection points, this requirement can be met if
the aircraft refueling receptacle is bonded to the airframe.
Because the JAR standard does not provide for an exception, it can
be considered ``more stringent.'' In actuality, however, both standards
ensure that the pressure fueling connection points provide adequate
bonding.

What, if Any, Are the Differences in the Means of Compliance?

In current practice, both the part 25 and the JAR standards have
been applied to require bonding of pressure refueling connections. As
stated previously, although the FAA standard includes the exception, we
have applied the standard assuming that pressure fueling connection
points naturally provide adequate bonding because there is always a
metallic connection between the aircraft fueling receptacle and the end
of the refueling hose.

What Is the Proposed Action?

We propose to adopt the ``more stringent'' requirements of the JAR
by deleting the words ``except pressure fueling connection points''
from Sec. 25.973(d). The requirements of the amended section would
pertain to all fuel filling points. This change would make the part 25
and JAR-25 standards identical.

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

The proposed standard would continue to address the original
underlying safety issue. The new Sec. 25.973(d) would control the
identified adverse effects in the same way as the current JAR 25.973(d)
requirement.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to the Current
Regulations?

The proposed standard would maintain, and may increase, the level
of safety currently provided by part 25.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to Current
Industry Practice?

Industry practice has been based upon the existing JAR-25
requirement. Currently, U.S. manufacturers are either already
complying, or fully intend to comply, with the ``more stringent'' JAR
requirements in order to sell their airplanes in Europe. Future
certificated airplanes also are expected to meet the existing JAR
requirements, and this proposed rule would simply adopt those same
requirements.

Change 3: Sec. 25.1181, Designated Fire Zones

What Is the Underlying Safety Issue Addressed by the Current Standards?

Section 25.1181 of both part 25 and JAR-25 defines which regions of
the airplane are ``Designated Fire Zones.'' Paragraph (b) of that
section defines a set of requirements that each Designated Fire Zone
must meet so that the required level of powerplant fire protection can
be achieved.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

The current text of 14 CFR 25.1181(b) [amendment 25-72, (55 FR
29785, July 20, 1990)]
is:

Section 25.1181 Designated fire zones; regions included.

* * * * *
(b) Each designated fire zone must meet the requirements of
Secs. 25.867 and 25.1185 through 25.1203.

The current text of JAR 25.1181(b) (Change 15, amendment 25/96/1)
is:

JAR 25.1181 Designated fire zones: regions included (See ACJ
25.1181.)
* * * * *
(b) Each designated fire zone must meet the requirements of JAR
25.867, 25.869, and 25.1185 to 25.1203.

What Are the Differences in the Standards and What Do Those Differences
Result In?

The requirements of Sec. 25.1181(b) and JAR 25.1181(b) are
essentially identical: Both standards require that each designated fire
zone must meet the requirements of sections 25.867 (``Fire protection:
other components''), 25.1185 (``Flammable fluids''), and 25.1203
(``Fire detector system''). However, JAR 25.1181(b) contains an
additional reference to 25.869 (``Fire protection: systems'').
Amendment 25-72 of part 25 introduced Sec. 25.869 that, among other
things, cross-referenced a number of Subpart E regulations related to
systems situated in a Designated Fire Zone. However, there was no
revision to any of the cross-referenced regulations in Subpart E (such
as Sec. 25.1181) to reference the new Sec. 25.869.
When JAR-25 was revised at Change 14, it included the equivalent
new JAR 25.869 requirement. In that action, JAR 25.1181(b) (in Subpart
E) also was revised to add a reference to the new JAR 25.869.

What, if Any, Are the Differences in the Means of Compliance?

There are no differences in the means of compliance with the two
parallel standards. The only differences in the standards are the
cross-references each contains to other related standards. The cross-
references in this section are meant only to draw the applicant's
attention to the fact that there are some associated fire protection
requirements to consider that are located elsewhere in the standards.
Regardless of whether the cross-references are contained in
Sec. 25.1181, applicants will have to consider the requirements of the
cross-referenced standards in any case when

[[Page 4860]]

designing powerplant fire protection systems.

What Is the Proposed Action?

Section 25.1181(b) would be revised by adding an additional
reference to Sec. 25.869. Besides achieving harmonization between the
two sets of standards, this change to Sec. 25.1181(b) will clarify to
applicants showing compliance with the powerplant fire protection
requirements of part 25, Subpart E, that there are some associated fire
protection requirements in Sec. 25.869.
In addition, we propose to add references to Sec. 25.863
(``Flammable fluid fire protection'') and to Sec. 25.865 (``Fire
protection of flight controls, engine mounts, and other flight
structure'') in Sec. 25.1181(b). (The JAA plans to take similar
action.) These additional references will document the applicability of
these two sections to fire zone standards. (This action is related to a
separate harmonization project concerning flammable fluid fire
protection.)
There is no legal standard concerning the use of ``cross-
references'' in regulations. Even though one regulation may not contain
a cross-reference to a second pertinent regulation, affected applicants
are still expected to comply with both regulations as appropriate. In
the case of this proposed change, applicants already have to consider
the requirements of Secs. 25.863, 25.865, and 25.869 in any case when
designing powerplant fire protection systems.

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

The proposed standard would continue to address the safety issue
and to maintain the current level of safety. It also would provide a
more complete cross-referencing to other related rules.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to the Current
Regulations?

The basic effect of the proposed changes to Sec. 25.1181(b) is
editorial--it merely provides a more complete cross-referencing of
applicable standards. As stated previously, in actual practice,
applicants already consider the requirements of all of the cross-
referenced sections in any case when designing powerplant fire
protection systems.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to Current
Industry Practice?

If the proposed standard is adopted, there would be no change to
industry practice. However, the accurate cross-reference will enable
applicants to clearly understand and comply with the standard.

Change 4: Sec. 25.1305, Powerplant Instruments

What Is the Underlying Safety Issue Addressed by the Current Standards?

The current standards specify the need for a indication on the
flight deck to alert the flightcrew as to engine fire conditions and
the position of the thrust reverser.

What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?

The current texts of 14 CFR 25.1305(a)(7) and (d)(2) [amendment 25-
72 (55 FR 29785, July 20, 1990)]
are:

Section 25.1305 Powerplant instruments.

The following are required powerplant instruments:
(a) For all airplanes.
* * *
(7) Fire-warning indicators.
* * * * *
(d) For turbojet engine powered airplanes. In addition to the
powerplant instruments required by paragraphs (a) and (c) of this
section, the following powerplant instruments are required:
* * *
(2) A position indicating means to indicate to the flightcrew
when the thrust reversing device is in the reverse thrust position,
for each engine using a thrust reversing device.
* * * * *
The current texts of JAR 25.1305(a)(7) and (d)(2) (Change 15,
amendment 25/96/1) are:

JAR 25.1305 Powerplant instruments
The following are required powerplant instruments:
(a) For all aeroplanes
* * *
(7) Fire-warning devices that provide visual and audible
warning.
* * * * *
(d) For turbo-jet engine-powered aeroplanes. In addition to the
powerplant instruments required by sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of
this paragraph, the following powerplant instruments are required:
* * *
(2) A means to indicate to the flight crew when the thrust
reversing device--
(i) Is not in the selected position, and
(ii) Is in the reverse thrust position, for each engine using a
thrust reversing device.

What Are the Differences in the Standards and What Do Those Differences
Result In?

Both the FAA and JAA identify the need for positive annunciation
directing the flightcrew's attention both to engine fire conditions and
to thrust reverser positioning. However, the part 25 and JAR-25
requirements for such annunciation, as presented in Sec. 25.1305,
differ as follows:
1. Paragraph (a)(7): This requirement specifies the need for a
flight deck warning of engine fire conditions.
The part 25 standard requires ``[engine]
fire warning
indicators'' (which implies a visual means), but does not specifically
require an audible warning.
The JAR-25 standard specifies that the engine fire warning
devices must provide both a visual and an audible warning. A warning
that has both visual and audible aspects can be assumed to have
enhanced ``attention getting'' capability.
2. Paragraph (d)(2): This requirement specifies the need for a
flight deck indication of the position of the thrust reverser.
Both the part 25 and JAR-25 standards require an
indication of when the thrust reverser is deployed.
The JAR-25 standard also requires an indication of when
the thrust reverser is not in its selected position (for example, when
the reverser has been commanded to deploy, but remains stowed).
In both paragraph (a)(7) and (d)(2), the JAR standard is considered
the ``more stringent'' because it requires additional means to address
the safety issue.

What, if Any, Are the Differences in the Means of Compliance?

Complying with the JAR standard requires that applicants design
flight deck systems with means to provide additional indications to the
flightcrew. Currently, U.S. manufacturers must comply with these ``more
stringent'' JAR requirements if they intend to sell their airplanes in
Europe. Future certificated airplanes also are expected to meet the
existing JAR requirements.

What Is the Proposed Action?

We recognize the higher level of safety provided by the JAR
regulations and propose to revise Sec. 25.1305 to adopt the more
stringent requirements of JAR 25.1305(a)(7) and (d)(2).

How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?

The proposed standard would continue to address the safety issue by
ensuring that the flightcrew would be provided with additional
indications to enhance their awareness of the condition of the engines
and thrust reversers.

[[Page 4861]]

What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to the Current
Regulations?

The proposed standard would maintain, and may increase, the level
of safety currently provided by part 25.

What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to Current
Industry Practice?

Industry practice has been based upon the existing JAR-25
requirement. Currently, U.S. manufacturers must comply with the ``more
stringent'' requirements of JAR 25.1305 if they intend to sell their
airplanes in Europe. Future certificated airplanes also are expected to
meet the existing JAR requirements, and this proposed rule would simply
adopt those same requirements.

General Information About the Proposal

What Other Options Have Been Considered and Why Were They Not Selected?

We considered two alternatives to this proposal:
1. No change to the existing standards. We did not select this
option because it would mean that the standards would continue to be
``unharmonized'' and manufacturers would have to continue to meet two
different sets of standards when certificating their airplanes.
2. The JAA could unilaterally adopt the standards of part 25. We
did not seriously consider this option because, where the part 25
standards are ``less stringent,'' this could potentially mean adopting
a lower level of safety.
We consider the proposal, as contained in this notice, to be the
most appropriate method to:
Ensure that the highest level of safety is achieved, and
Fulfill the objectives of harmonizing the U.S. and
European standards.

Who Would Be Affected by the Proposed Changes?

Applicants for new, amended, or supplemental type certificates
(which typically include manufacturers and modifiers) who have not
previously applied for JAA certification would potentially be affected
by the proposed amendment. However, as stated throughout this preamble,
the aviation industry is either already complying, or fully intends to
comply, with the more stringent standards as a means of obtaining joint
FAA/JAA certification. Industry practice has been based upon the
existing JAR-25 requirement and it is anticipated that there will be
minimal impact to the industry if the proposed changes are adopted.

Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?

We do not consider that advisory material is necessary for any of
the changes proposed.

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. section 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).
The FAA has determined that this proposal has 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 as follows:
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 revise Secs. 25.945, 25.973, 25.1181 and
25.1305 of 14 CFR to incorporate the ``more stringent'' requirements
currently in those same sections of JAR-25. This proposed rule results
from the FAA's acceptance of recommendations made by ARAC. We have
concluded that, for the reasons previously discussed in the preamble,
the adoption of the proposed requirements in 14 CFR part 25 is the most
efficient way to harmonize these sections and in so doing, the existing
level of safety will be preserved.
There was consensus within the ARAC members, comprised of
representatives of the affected industry, that the requirements of the
proposed rule will not impose additional costs on U.S. manufacturers of
part 25 airplanes. We have reviewed the cost analysis provided by
industry through the ARAC process. A copy is available through the
public docket. Based on this analysis, we consider that a full
regulatory evaluation is not necessary.
We invite comments with supporting documentation regarding the
regulatory evaluation statements based on ARAC's proposal.
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 scale of the business, organizations, and

[[Page 4862]]

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 one certification
requirement, rather than different standards for the United States and
Europe. 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. We have 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, we have determined that this notice of
proposed rulemaking would not have federalism implications.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there
are no new information collection requirements 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 impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,
appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this proposed rulemaking action 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. We therefore
specifically request 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-

[[Page 4863]]

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

Sec. 25.945 Thrust or power augmentation system.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) Each tank must have an expansion space of not less than 2% of
the tank capacity. It must be impossible to fill the expansion space
inadvertently with the airplane in the normal ground attitude.
* * * * *
3. Republish the introductory text and revise paragraph (d) of
Sec. 25.973 to read as follows:

Sec. 25.973 Fuel tank filler connection.

Each fuel tank filler connection must prevent the entrance of fuel
into any part of the airplane other than the tank itself. In addition--
* * * * *
(d) Each fuel filling point must have a provision for electrically
bonding the airplane to ground fueling equipment.
4. Revise paragraph (b) of Sec. 25.1181 to read as follows:

Sec. 25.1181 Designated fire zones; regions included.

* * * * *
(b) Each designated fire zone must meet the requirements of
Secs. 25.863, 25.865, 25.867, 25.869, and 25.1185 through 25.1203.
5. Republish the introductory text and revise paragraphs (a)(7) and
(d)(2) of Sec. 25.1305 to read as follows:

Sec. 25.1305 Powerplant instruments

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 18, 2001.
Vi Lipski,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-1002 Filed 1-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Revisions to Various Powerplant Installation Requirements for Transport Category Airplanes

Local Navigation