[Federal Register: November 22, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 226)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 70509-70513]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22no02-31]
[[Page 70509]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Part 25
Public Address System; Proposed Rule
[[Page 70510]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. FAA-2002-13859; Notice No. 02-18]
RIN 2120-AH30
Public Address System
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend an
airworthiness standard for the public address system on transport
category airplanes. The proposal would shorten from 10 seconds to 3
seconds, the time allowed for the system to become active after a
flight crewmember removes the microphone from its stowage. A time
requirement is imposed to assure the system is rapidly usable for
emergency announcements. 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 January 21, 2003.
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-2002-13859 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-2002-13859.'' 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: Kirk Baker, FAA, Systems and Equipment
Branch, ANM-130L, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712;
telephone 562-627-5345; facsimile 562-627-5210, e-mail
kirk.baker@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.
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:
[sbull] Airplanes manufactured within the U.S. for use by U.S.-
registered operators, and
[sbull] 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 70511]]
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 2 the JAA began an effort in 1988 to
``harmonize'' their respective aviation standards. The goal of the
harmonization effort is to ensure that:
[sbull] Where possible, standards do not require domestic and
foreign parties to manufacture or operate to different standards for
each country involved; and
[sbull] 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.
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 made no changes to this NPRM.
Discussion of the Proposal
What Is the Underlying Safety Issue Addressed by the Current Standards?
The public address system assures the operational availability
within a specified time for passenger announcements in the event of an
emergency situation. The system must be powerable in flight or on the
ground to allow communication with all passengers at all times.
What Are the Current 14 CFR and JAR Standards?
The current text of 14 CFR 25.1423 is:
Sec. 25.1423 Public address system
(b) Be capable of operation within 10-seconds by a flight
attendant at those stations in the passenger compartment from which
the system is accessible.
The current text of JAR-25.1423 (Change 15, amendment 25/96/1) is:
JAR-25.1423 Public address system
(b) The system must be capable of operation within 3-seconds
from the time a microphone is removed from its stowage by a flight
attendant at those stations in the passenger compartment from which
its use is accessible.
What Are the Differences in the Standards and What Do Those Differences
Result in?
The JAR requirement is very specific in that the system must be
operational within 3 seconds from the time the flight attendant removes
the microphone from its stowage position. Part 25 specifies that the
system must be operational within 10 seconds, but does not specify the
start of the 10-second time period.
What, If Any, Are the Differences in the Means of Compliance?
Under the JAR requirements, a system must operate within three
seconds from the time the microphone is removed from its stowed
position. Under the part 25 requirements, the system can be approved if
it is operational within 10 seconds by a flight attendant at those
stations in the passenger compartment from which its use is accessible.
Currently, the technology that is used in the amplifiers for the public
address system is in compliance with the 3-seconds delay requirement.
The old vacuum tube technology required 10 seconds for heating to be
operational, whereas the technology used today does not require
heating. The proposed 3-seconds delay is in line with current
technology.
What Is the Proposed Action?
The proposed action is to revise part 25 by adopting the text of
JAR 25.1423(b) in its entirety. The proposed revision would specify the
3-seconds operational compliance time and is in line with current
technology.
How Does This Proposed Standard Address the Underlying Safety Issue?
The proposed standard would harmonize part 25 and the JAR by
removing the 10 second requirement from Sec. 25.1423, and inserting
the JAR text. The new Sec. 25.1423 will impose a 3-second operational
requirement from the time the microphone is removed from its stowage
position.
What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to the Current
Regulations?
The proposed standard would maintain the same level of safety since
current technology meets the 3-seconds requirement. The proposed
standard would also clarify the requirement by specifying the start and
end of the 3-seconds timeframe.
What Is the Effect of the Proposed Standard Relative to Current
Industry Practice?
Current industry practice is for systems to be designed to meet
both part 25 and the JAR requirements. For these systems, the proposed
standard would maintain the same level of safety.
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 25.1423(b) in its entirety the most appropriate way to
fulfill
[[Page 70512]]
harmonization goals while maintaining 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 equipment
manufacturers. For new equipment, it is not a problem since technology
meets the 3-seconds standard.
Is Existing FAA Advisory Material Adequate?
The FAA considers developing new advisory material to be
unnecessary.
What Regulatory Analyses and Assessments Has the FAA Conducted? What
Other 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 as amended
requires agencies to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes
on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act prohibits agencies
from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade
Agreements Act requires agencies to consider 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 costs, and that it is not ``a significant
regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This
proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, reduces barriers to international trade, and
imposes no unfunded mandates on State, local, or tribal governments, or
the private sector.
Because there are no apparent costs associated with this proposal,
it does not warrant the preparation of a full economic evaluation for
placement in the docket. The FAA estimates that there are no costs
associated this proposal. A review of current manufacturers of
transport category aircraft has revealed that all such future aircraft
are expected to be certificated under part 25 of both 14 CFR and JAR.
Since future certificated transport-category aircraft are expected to
meet the existing section 25.1423(b) of the JAR requirement and this
rule simply adopts the same JAR requirement, manufacturers would incur
no additional cost resulting from this proposal. Current technology
enables compliance with the requirement that the public address system
be operational within 3 seconds. In fact, manufacturers are expected to
receive cost-savings by a reduction in the FAA/JAA certification
requirements for new aircraft. The cost-savings of this proposed rule
is a potential reduction in paperwork required for certification. The
FAA, however, has not attempted to quantify the cost savings that may
accrue due to this specific proposal, beyond noting that while they may
be minimal, they contribute to a large potential harmonization savings.
The agency concludes that because there is consensus among potentially
impacted airplane manufacturers that savings will result, further
analysis is not required.
The FAA requests comments with supporting documentation in regard
to the conclusions contained in this section.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 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
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 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 requires 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 requirement.
Secondly, all United States transport-aircraft category manufacturers
exceed the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500
employees for aircraft manufacturers. United States 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 will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979, 19 U.S.C. et seq., 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 accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the
potential effect of the proposed rule and has determined that it is
consistent with the statutes requirements by using 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), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538, 1571, requires each Federal agency, to the extent
permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of the effects of any
Federal mandate in a
[[Page 70513]]
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.
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 had determined there are no requirements for
information 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 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. Amend Sec. 25.1423 by republishing the introductory text and
revising the text of paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.1423 Public address system.
A public address system required by this chapter must--
* * * * *
(b) Be capable of operation within 3-seconds from the time a
microphone is removed from its stowage by a flight attendant at those
stations in the passenger compartment from which its use is accessible.
* * * * *
Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 8, 2002.
Vi L. Lipski,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-29668 Filed 11-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P