Requirements for Chemical Oxygen Generators Installed on Transport Category Airplanes, 13515-13519 [2014-05291]

Download as PDF mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations (iv) Loan losses (dollar amount and as a percentage of average portfolio balance) in the aggregate and by subportfolio, including: domestic closed-end first-lien mortgages; domestic junior lien mortgages and home equity lines of credit; commercial and industrial loans; commercial real estate loans; credit card exposures; other consumer loans; and all other loans; and (v) Pro forma regulatory capital ratios and the tier 1 common ratio and any other capital ratios specified by the Board; (4) An explanation of the most significant causes for the changes in regulatory capital ratios and the tier 1 common ratio; and (5) With respect to a stress test conducted pursuant to section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act by an insured depository institution that is a subsidiary of the covered company and that is required to disclose a summary of its stress tests results under applicable regulations, changes in regulatory capital ratios and any other capital ratios specified by the Board of the depository institution subsidiary over the planning horizon, including an explanation of the most significant causes for the changes in regulatory capital ratios. (c) Content of results. (1) The following disclosures required under paragraph (b) of this section must be on a cumulative basis over the planning horizon: (i) Pre-provision net revenue and other revenue; (ii) Provision for loan and lease losses, realized losses/gains on available-forsale and held-to-maturity securities, trading and counterparty losses, and other losses or gains; (iii) Net income before taxes; and (iv) Loan losses in the aggregate and by subportfolio. (2) The disclosure of pro forma regulatory capital ratios, the tier 1 common ratio, and any other capital ratios specified by the Board that is required under paragraph (b) of this section must include the beginning value, ending value, and minimum value of each ratio over the planning horizon. ■ 7. Subparts G and H are removed and reserved. ■ 8. Subparts J through U are added and reserved. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 4, 2014. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 2014–05053 Filed 3–10–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210–01–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:00 Mar 10, 2014 Jkt 232001 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA–2012–0812; Amendment No. 25–138] RIN 2120–AK36 Requirements for Chemical Oxygen Generators Installed on Transport Category Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: This final rule amends the type certification requirements for chemical oxygen generators installed on transport category airplanes so the generators are secure and not subject to misuse. This rule increases the level of security for future transport category airplane designs but does not directly affect the existing fleet of those airplanes. SUMMARY: This action becomes effective May 12, 2014. ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking documents and other information related to this final rule, see ‘‘How to Obtain Additional Information’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning this action, contact Jeff Gardlin, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM–115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone: (425) 227– 2136; email: jeff.gardlin@faa.gov. For legal questions concerning this action, contact Douglas Anderson, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Regional Counsel, ANM–7, Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone: (425) 227–2166; email: douglas.anderson@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DATES: Authority for This Rulemaking The FAA’s authority to issue regulations on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency’s authority. This final rule is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 13515 Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum standards required in the interest of safety for the design and performance of aircraft; regulations and minimum standards in the interest of safety for inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft; and regulations for other practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it revises the safety standards for design and operation of transport category airplanes. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document AD Airworthiness Directive ARAC Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee COG Chemical Oxygen Generator LOARC Lavatory Oxygen Aviation Rulemaking Committee SFAR Special Federal Aviation Regulation I. Overview of Final Rule This final rule adopts new standards for chemical oxygen generators (COG) installed in transport category airplanes. These new standards, based on the recommendations of the Lavatory Oxygen Aviation Rulemaking Committee (LOARC), pertain to future applications for type certificates, address potential security vulnerabilities with COG installations, and provide performance-based options for acceptable methods of compliance. II. Background The FAA became aware of security vulnerabilities with certain types of oxygen systems installed inside the lavatories of most transport category airplanes. To address the underlying security issues, the FAA chartered an aviation rulemaking committee (ARC) to make recommendations regarding new standards for oxygen system installations, as well as how to implement those standards. Specifically, the LOARC was tasked to: • Establish criteria for in-service, new production and new type design airplanes, preferably in the form of performance standards, for safe and secure installation of lavatory oxygen systems; • Determine whether the same criteria should apply to the existing fleet and to new production and type designs; • Establish what type of safety assessment approach should be used, for example, in accordance with Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) E:\FR\FM\11MRR1.SGM 11MRR1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES 13516 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations International Document ARP5577 1 or Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.1309, as well as define content and procedures of the safety assessment; • Determine whether tamper resistance, active tamper evidence, or different system design characteristics are equivalent options; • Develop guidance as necessary to satisfy the recommended criteria for each system design characteristic as appropriate; and • Consider the advantages and disadvantages of different implementation options and recommend a schedule(s) for implementation. The LOARC identified five key subjects to focus on to develop its recommendations and fulfill its charter. Those subjects were: • Design considerations—identifying and characterizing the design constraints and key factors affecting an installation. • Security standards—identifying the necessary components of a secure installation, in terms of both new designs and for retrofit. • System performance—identifying the factors that affect system performance in general and how modifications to enhance security might affect system performance. • Implementation considerations— identifying the major factors to implement the new requirements into the fleet as expeditiously as practicable, as well as assessing how long certain actions will take. • Other affected areas—characterizing the parameters that resulted in the determination of a security vulnerability for lavatory COG installations and establishing criteria for evaluating other installations against those characteristics. The ARC submitted its recommendations to the FAA. Those recommendations are the basis for these new standards. On January 9, 2013, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Notice No. 13–01, entitled Requirements for Chemical Oxygen Generators Installed on Transport Category Airplanes in the Federal Register (78 FR 1765). The comment period for the NPRM closed on March 11, 2013. Additional background and historical information is contained in the NPRM. (See the docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov.) 1 Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) 5577, Aircraft Lightning Direct Effects Certification, dated September 30, 2002. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:00 Mar 10, 2014 Jkt 232001 III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule The FAA received comments from four commenters regarding the NPRM for this final rule. Those commenters were the Association of Flight Attendants, The Boeing Company (hereafter referred to as ‘‘Boeing’’), Bombardier, and an individual commenter. Support for the NPRM The Association of Flight Attendants and Bombardier concurred with the proposal without further comment. Requests To Revise Applicability Boeing commented that the proposed rule should be limited to lavatory installations and indicated that this would be consistent with the LOARC’s recommendation. We disagree. The LOARC generalized its recommendations to apply to any COG installation. The effect of these new regulations on any given COG installation will vary. For most interior arrangements, lavatories are the only installation where design changes will be necessary. We did not change this final rule based on this comment. Boeing proposed that we modify the applicability of the proposed rule to correspond with Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011–04–09, Amendment 39–16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011), such that all-cargo airplanes and airplanes operating under Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts other than part 121 operations would not be affected. We disagree. While the final rule is intended to address the security of COGs on primarily passenger-carrying airplanes operating under part 121, all types of operations will benefit to some degree. Once installations are defined for an airplane type, the airplane could be operated under any operating regulation and would not require changes. This approach also accommodates future changes in operating requirements by making the COG standards a basic design requirement. Also, § 25.1450 contains a provision that excludes compliance with the new standards for airplanes approved using Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 109. We did not change this final rule based on this comment. An individual commented that the inservice fleet should be modified for any COG installation and not just lavatories. We disagree. The proposed rule did not address in-service airplanes, so adding retrofit requirements would be beyond the scope of the proposal. However, the FAA has taken action to revise COG PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 installations that have a known unsafe condition by issuing AD 2011–04–09, Amendment 39–16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011) and AD 2012–11–09, Amendment 39–17072 (77 FR 38000, June 26, 2012). If we identify additional unsafe conditions on in-service airplanes, we will issue additional ADs. We did not change this final rule based on this comment. The same individual also proposed that the requirements apply to newlyproduced airplanes, in addition to new type certificates. We disagree. As discussed above, the FAA has already taken action on installations identified as being potentially unsafe. The referenced ADs apply to newly produced airplanes, as well as existing airplanes. This final rule raises the level of safety for future type certificates, but it is not meant to affect current airplanes in production. We did not change this final rule based on this comment. Request To Revise Economic Analysis Boeing commented that if the proposed rule applies to all COG installations, the economic analysis was not accurate, since it assumes there will be little cost impact. We disagree. As previously noted, all COG installations are affected by this final rule, but the vast majority of installations will not require any design changes because they are located where it would be immediately obvious if anyone attempted to access them. In those cases, the installation complies with the rule because of its location and would not require any physical changes to the generator or method of installation. In addition, because this rule applies to new applications for type certification, any design changes to existing approaches that might be needed can readily be accommodated during the design process. Therefore, the economic assessment is valid. We did not change this final rule based on this comment. Boeing also commented that if the requirements of this rule were imposed as a result of § 21.101, the cost ramifications would be more significant and that this was not accounted for in the economic evaluation. We disagree. It is true that these requirements could be imposed on significant product-level design changes. However, as noted in the ‘‘Benefits’’ discussion of the Type Certification Procedures for Changed Products (65 FR 36244, June 7, 2000) final rule, compliance is required with all later regulations where such compliance will materially contribute to the level of safety. The provisions of § 21.101 do not require compliance with later requirements under specified E:\FR\FM\11MRR1.SGM 11MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations circumstances. In particular, where the costs involved would not be commensurate with the safety benefit achieved. Therefore, the incremental costs for changed products have already been justified by the benefits and are not attributable to this final rule. Accordingly, no change was made to this final rule as a result of this comment. Comments on Design Considerations An individual commented on the detailed technical merits any such system should have, as well as the processes necessary to ensure such systems can be maintained and produced. We agree that most of the comments are worthwhile design considerations, but they are beyond the scope of this rulemaking effort, which defines a minimum performance standard for COG installations. The commenter also addressed the economics of product development and marketing, which is also beyond the scope of the notice. We did not change this final rule based on the individual’s comments. Request To Maintain Paragraph Numbering Boeing suggested that the current paragraph numbering be maintained in the CFR, such that § 25.795(d) is retained as ‘‘exceptions.’’ Boeing suggested this would assist future applicants administratively, since the amendment level would not affect which paragraph contained a requirement. We partially agree. While we understand the reason for the comment, an applicant must always specify the certification basis when applying for a design change, so the paragraph numbering should not be an issue. Furthermore, for consistency with existing regulations, a paragraph covering exceptions should come after the substantive requirements of the section. We did not change this final rule based on this comment. IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES A. Regulatory Evaluation Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:00 Mar 10, 2014 Jkt 232001 Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate 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 with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule. Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows: This final rule adopts new standards for future type certificate applications pertaining to COGs installed on transport category airplanes. The new standards are intended to eliminate potential security vulnerabilities. Consequently, the primary benefit of this rule is that air carriers may continue to provide supplemental oxygen to individuals in lavatories during emergencies while ensuring that individuals in lavatories cannot tamper with the supplemental oxygen system. The rule will affect future certifications, but as the newest certificated airplanes are in compliance with this final rule, these costs are expected to be minimal. The Boeing Model 787 and the Airbus A350 established an acceptable design, or received type certification between 3 and 5 years ago (hence predating this rule). The FAA expects that these systems can be incorporated into future type certificated airplanes at a minimal cost. Secondly, the ‘‘newer’’ oxygen systems (such as those on the Boeing Model 787 and the Airbus A350) are cost efficient in comparison to the more PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 13517 traditional COGs.2 The ‘‘newer’’ systems weigh less and deliver oxygen more effectively than the traditional COGs. The lesser weight of the materials used to construct the newer systems, combined with a reduction in the amount of oxygen required per passenger, translates into fuel cost savings over an airplane’s lifespan. The design standards for secure oxygen systems apply to future transport category airplane type certificates only. Airplanes currently in production, or already in the existing fleet, are excluded from this rule. Thus, there are no costs to the existing fleet or airplanes in production. For these reasons this final rule is expected to have a minimal impact with positive net benefits, and a regulatory evaluation was not prepared. The FAA has therefore determined that this final rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies and Procedures. B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.’’ To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.’’ The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the 2 http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ 20050518005123/en/Boeing-Selects-AerospacesPulse-Oxygen-System-Outfit. E:\FR\FM\11MRR1.SGM 11MRR1 13518 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. The Small Business Administration (SBA) small-entity size standard for aircraft manufacturers is 1,500 employees or less. No U.S. manufacturers of transport category airplanes are small entities; thus, this final rule will not affect small entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared. If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. C. International Trade Impact Assessment The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it would improve a safety objective and therefore is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to international trade. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not contain such a VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:00 Mar 10, 2014 Jkt 232001 mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply. E. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule. F. International Compatibility and Cooperation In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences with these regulations. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation. G. Environmental Analysis FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances. V. Executive Order Determinations A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, or the relationship between the federal government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism implications. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under the executive order and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. VI. How To Obtain Additional Information A. Rulemaking Documents An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by using the Internet— 1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and Policies Web page at http:// www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 3. Access the Government Printing Office’s Web page at http:// www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by amendment or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267–9680. B. Comments Submitted to the Docket Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of the FAA’s dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http:// www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ rulemaking/sbre_act/. E:\FR\FM\11MRR1.SGM 11MRR1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Federal Aviation Administration The Amendments 14 CFR Part 39 In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704. 2. Amend § 25.795 by redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as (e) and (f) respectively, and by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows: ■ Security considerations. * * * * * (d) Each chemical oxygen generator or its installation must be designed to be secure from deliberate manipulation by one of the following: (1) By providing effective resistance to tampering, (2) By providing an effective combination of resistance to tampering and active tamper-evident features, (3) By installation in a location or manner whereby any attempt to access the generator would be immediately obvious, or (4) By a combination of approaches specified in paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section that the Administrator finds provides a secure installation. * * * * * 3. Amend § 25.1450 by adding a new paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: ■ Chemical oxygen generators. * * * * (b) * * * (3) Except as provided in SFAR 109, each chemical oxygen generator installation must meet the requirements of § 25.795(d). * * * * * mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES * Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2014. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2014–05291 Filed 3–10–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:00 Mar 10, 2014 Jkt 232001 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: 1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows: ■ § 25.1450 RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Type Certificate Previously Held by Eurocopter France) (Airbus Helicopters) PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES § 25.795 [Docket No. FAA–2013–0872; Directorate Identifier 2013–SW–012–AD; Amendment 39–17784; AD 2014–05–11] We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, EC225LP, and SA330J helicopters with a certain tail rotor control turnbuckle (turnbuckle) installed. This AD requires inspecting the turnbuckles for corrosion or a crack, and depending on the results, either replacing the turnbuckle or treating the turnbuckle for corrosion. This AD was prompted by a report that a turnbuckle had failed because of corrosion. The actions of this AD are intended to detect corrosion or a crack on a turnbuckle and prevent the failure of a turnbuckle, loss of control of the tail rotor and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. This AD is effective April 15, 2014. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of April 15, 2014. ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641–0000 or (800) 232–0323; fax (972) 641–3775; or at http://www.airbus helicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. DATES: Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation, Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800– 647–5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5110; email robert.grant@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion SUMMARY: PO 00000 13519 On October 24, 2013, at 78 FR 63429, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Eurocopter France (now Airbus Helicopters) Model AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, EC225LP, and SA330J helicopters with a turnbuckle, part number (P/N) 330A27–5031–20, installed. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting the turnbuckles for corrosion or a crack, and depending on the results, either replacing the turnbuckle or treating the turnbuckle for corrosion. The proposed requirements were intended to detect corrosion or a crack on a turnbuckle and prevent the failure of a turnbuckle, loss of control of the tail rotor and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2013–0081, dated March 26, 2013, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA published AD No. 2013–0081 to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Model SA330J, AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, EC225LP helicopters equipped with tail rotor control turnbuckles, part number 330A27– 5031–20. EASA advises that one of the two turnbuckles installed on the tail rotor’s yaw flight control cables failed on a helicopter because of corrosion. The subsequent investigation revealed a lack of Mastinox sealant coating between both sides of the turnbuckle’s internal tappings and the interface screws of the end-fitting components of the yaw flight control cables. To address this condition, EASA issued AD No. 2013–0081, which requires repetitive inspections of each turnbuckle and, depending on the results, either replacing the turnbuckle or treating the turnbuckle for corrosion. EASA revised its AD and issued AD No. 2013–0081R1, dated June 20, 2013, to clarify some of the requirements. E:\FR\FM\11MRR1.SGM 11MRR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13515-13519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05291]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0812; Amendment No. 25-138]
RIN 2120-AK36


Requirements for Chemical Oxygen Generators Installed on 
Transport Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the type certification requirements for 
chemical oxygen generators installed on transport category airplanes so 
the generators are secure and not subject to misuse. This rule 
increases the level of security for future transport category airplane 
designs but does not directly affect the existing fleet of those 
airplanes.

DATES: This action becomes effective May 12, 2014.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this action, contact Jeff Gardlin, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, 
ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, 
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: (425) 227-2136; 
email: jeff.gardlin@faa.gov.
    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Douglas 
Anderson, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Regional 
Counsel, ANM-7, Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 
Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: (425) 227-2166; email: 
douglas.anderson@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue regulations on aviation safety is 
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's 
authority.
    This final rule is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting 
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum 
standards required in the interest of safety for the design and 
performance of aircraft; regulations and minimum standards in the 
interest of safety for inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft; 
and regulations for other practices, methods, and procedures the 
Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This 
regulation is within the scope of that authority because it revises the 
safety standards for design and operation of transport category 
airplanes.

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document

AD Airworthiness Directive
ARAC Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
COG Chemical Oxygen Generator
LOARC Lavatory Oxygen Aviation Rulemaking Committee
SFAR Special Federal Aviation Regulation

I. Overview of Final Rule

    This final rule adopts new standards for chemical oxygen generators 
(COG) installed in transport category airplanes. These new standards, 
based on the recommendations of the Lavatory Oxygen Aviation Rulemaking 
Committee (LOARC), pertain to future applications for type 
certificates, address potential security vulnerabilities with COG 
installations, and provide performance-based options for acceptable 
methods of compliance.

II. Background

    The FAA became aware of security vulnerabilities with certain types 
of oxygen systems installed inside the lavatories of most transport 
category airplanes. To address the underlying security issues, the FAA 
chartered an aviation rulemaking committee (ARC) to make 
recommendations regarding new standards for oxygen system 
installations, as well as how to implement those standards. 
Specifically, the LOARC was tasked to:
     Establish criteria for in-service, new production and new 
type design airplanes, preferably in the form of performance standards, 
for safe and secure installation of lavatory oxygen systems;
     Determine whether the same criteria should apply to the 
existing fleet and to new production and type designs;
     Establish what type of safety assessment approach should 
be used, for example, in accordance with Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE)

[[Page 13516]]

International Document ARP5577 \1\ or Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR) 25.1309, as well as define content and procedures 
of the safety assessment;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) 5577, Aircraft 
Lightning Direct Effects Certification, dated September 30, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Determine whether tamper resistance, active tamper 
evidence, or different system design characteristics are equivalent 
options;
     Develop guidance as necessary to satisfy the recommended 
criteria for each system design characteristic as appropriate; and
     Consider the advantages and disadvantages of different 
implementation options and recommend a schedule(s) for implementation.
    The LOARC identified five key subjects to focus on to develop its 
recommendations and fulfill its charter. Those subjects were:
     Design considerations--identifying and characterizing the 
design constraints and key factors affecting an installation.
     Security standards--identifying the necessary components 
of a secure installation, in terms of both new designs and for 
retrofit.
     System performance--identifying the factors that affect 
system performance in general and how modifications to enhance security 
might affect system performance.
     Implementation considerations--identifying the major 
factors to implement the new requirements into the fleet as 
expeditiously as practicable, as well as assessing how long certain 
actions will take.
     Other affected areas--characterizing the parameters that 
resulted in the determination of a security vulnerability for lavatory 
COG installations and establishing criteria for evaluating other 
installations against those characteristics.
    The ARC submitted its recommendations to the FAA. Those 
recommendations are the basis for these new standards. On January 9, 
2013, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Notice 
No. 13-01, entitled Requirements for Chemical Oxygen Generators 
Installed on Transport Category Airplanes in the Federal Register (78 
FR 1765). The comment period for the NPRM closed on March 11, 2013. 
Additional background and historical information is contained in the 
NPRM. (See the docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov.)

III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

    The FAA received comments from four commenters regarding the NPRM 
for this final rule. Those commenters were the Association of Flight 
Attendants, The Boeing Company (hereafter referred to as ``Boeing''), 
Bombardier, and an individual commenter.

Support for the NPRM

    The Association of Flight Attendants and Bombardier concurred with 
the proposal without further comment.

Requests To Revise Applicability

    Boeing commented that the proposed rule should be limited to 
lavatory installations and indicated that this would be consistent with 
the LOARC's recommendation. We disagree. The LOARC generalized its 
recommendations to apply to any COG installation. The effect of these 
new regulations on any given COG installation will vary. For most 
interior arrangements, lavatories are the only installation where 
design changes will be necessary. We did not change this final rule 
based on this comment.
    Boeing proposed that we modify the applicability of the proposed 
rule to correspond with Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-04-09, 
Amendment 39-16630 (76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011), such that all-cargo 
airplanes and airplanes operating under Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) parts other than part 121 operations would not be affected. We 
disagree. While the final rule is intended to address the security of 
COGs on primarily passenger-carrying airplanes operating under part 
121, all types of operations will benefit to some degree. Once 
installations are defined for an airplane type, the airplane could be 
operated under any operating regulation and would not require changes. 
This approach also accommodates future changes in operating 
requirements by making the COG standards a basic design requirement. 
Also, Sec.  25.1450 contains a provision that excludes compliance with 
the new standards for airplanes approved using Special Federal Aviation 
Regulation (SFAR) 109. We did not change this final rule based on this 
comment.
    An individual commented that the in-service fleet should be 
modified for any COG installation and not just lavatories. We disagree. 
The proposed rule did not address in-service airplanes, so adding 
retrofit requirements would be beyond the scope of the proposal. 
However, the FAA has taken action to revise COG installations that have 
a known unsafe condition by issuing AD 2011-04-09, Amendment 39-16630 
(76 FR 12556, March 8, 2011) and AD 2012-11-09, Amendment 39-17072 (77 
FR 38000, June 26, 2012). If we identify additional unsafe conditions 
on in-service airplanes, we will issue additional ADs. We did not 
change this final rule based on this comment.
    The same individual also proposed that the requirements apply to 
newly-produced airplanes, in addition to new type certificates. We 
disagree. As discussed above, the FAA has already taken action on 
installations identified as being potentially unsafe. The referenced 
ADs apply to newly produced airplanes, as well as existing airplanes. 
This final rule raises the level of safety for future type 
certificates, but it is not meant to affect current airplanes in 
production. We did not change this final rule based on this comment.

Request To Revise Economic Analysis

    Boeing commented that if the proposed rule applies to all COG 
installations, the economic analysis was not accurate, since it assumes 
there will be little cost impact. We disagree. As previously noted, all 
COG installations are affected by this final rule, but the vast 
majority of installations will not require any design changes because 
they are located where it would be immediately obvious if anyone 
attempted to access them. In those cases, the installation complies 
with the rule because of its location and would not require any 
physical changes to the generator or method of installation. In 
addition, because this rule applies to new applications for type 
certification, any design changes to existing approaches that might be 
needed can readily be accommodated during the design process. 
Therefore, the economic assessment is valid. We did not change this 
final rule based on this comment.
    Boeing also commented that if the requirements of this rule were 
imposed as a result of Sec.  21.101, the cost ramifications would be 
more significant and that this was not accounted for in the economic 
evaluation. We disagree. It is true that these requirements could be 
imposed on significant product-level design changes. However, as noted 
in the ``Benefits'' discussion of the Type Certification Procedures for 
Changed Products (65 FR 36244, June 7, 2000) final rule, compliance is 
required with all later regulations where such compliance will 
materially contribute to the level of safety.
    The provisions of Sec.  21.101 do not require compliance with later 
requirements under specified

[[Page 13517]]

circumstances. In particular, where the costs involved would not be 
commensurate with the safety benefit achieved. Therefore, the 
incremental costs for changed products have already been justified by 
the benefits and are not attributable to this final rule. Accordingly, 
no change was made to this final rule as a result of this comment.

Comments on Design Considerations

    An individual commented on the detailed technical merits any such 
system should have, as well as the processes necessary to ensure such 
systems can be maintained and produced. We agree that most of the 
comments are worthwhile design considerations, but they are beyond the 
scope of this rulemaking effort, which defines a minimum performance 
standard for COG installations. The commenter also addressed the 
economics of product development and marketing, which is also beyond 
the scope of the notice. We did not change this final rule based on the 
individual's comments.

Request To Maintain Paragraph Numbering

    Boeing suggested that the current paragraph numbering be maintained 
in the CFR, such that Sec.  25.795(d) is retained as ``exceptions.'' 
Boeing suggested this would assist future applicants administratively, 
since the amendment level would not affect which paragraph contained a 
requirement. We partially agree. While we understand the reason for the 
comment, an applicant must always specify the certification basis when 
applying for a design change, so the paragraph numbering should not be 
an issue. Furthermore, for consistency with existing regulations, a 
paragraph covering exceptions should come after the substantive 
requirements of the section. We did not change this final rule based on 
this comment.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct 
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon 
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. 
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of 
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act 
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create 
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In 
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of 
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that 
include a Federal mandate 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 with 
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's 
analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning 
for this determination follows:
    This final rule adopts new standards for future type certificate 
applications pertaining to COGs installed on transport category 
airplanes. The new standards are intended to eliminate potential 
security vulnerabilities. Consequently, the primary benefit of this 
rule is that air carriers may continue to provide supplemental oxygen 
to individuals in lavatories during emergencies while ensuring that 
individuals in lavatories cannot tamper with the supplemental oxygen 
system.
    The rule will affect future certifications, but as the newest 
certificated airplanes are in compliance with this final rule, these 
costs are expected to be minimal. The Boeing Model 787 and the Airbus 
A350 established an acceptable design, or received type certification 
between 3 and 5 years ago (hence predating this rule). The FAA expects 
that these systems can be incorporated into future type certificated 
airplanes at a minimal cost.
    Secondly, the ``newer'' oxygen systems (such as those on the Boeing 
Model 787 and the Airbus A350) are cost efficient in comparison to the 
more traditional COGs.\2\ The ``newer'' systems weigh less and deliver 
oxygen more effectively than the traditional COGs. The lesser weight of 
the materials used to construct the newer systems, combined with a 
reduction in the amount of oxygen required per passenger, translates 
into fuel cost savings over an airplane's lifespan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20050518005123/en/Boeing-Selects-Aerospaces-Pulse-Oxygen-System-Outfit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The design standards for secure oxygen systems apply to future 
transport category airplane type certificates only. Airplanes currently 
in production, or already in the existing fleet, are excluded from this 
rule. Thus, there are no costs to the existing fleet or airplanes in 
production.
    For these reasons this final rule is expected to have a minimal 
impact with positive net benefits, and a regulatory evaluation was not 
prepared. The FAA has therefore determined that this final rule is not 
a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation.'' To achieve this principle, agencies are 
required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to 
explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals 
are given serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small 
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and 
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the 
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the

[[Page 13518]]

factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) small-entity size standard 
for aircraft manufacturers is 1,500 employees or less. No U.S. 
manufacturers of transport category airplanes are small entities; thus, 
this final rule will not affect small entities, and a regulatory 
flexibility analysis was not prepared.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. 
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies 
that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it 
would improve a safety objective and therefore is not considered an 
unnecessary obstacle to international trade.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100 
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, 
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that 
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with 
this final rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and 
has identified no differences with these regulations.
    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet 
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, 
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent 
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has 
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of 
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have 
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined 
that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the 
states, or the relationship between the federal government and the 
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism 
implications.

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

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

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by 
using the Internet--
    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by 
amendment or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 
Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the 
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic 
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name 
of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if 
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

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

[[Page 13519]]

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Amendments

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704.


0
2. Amend Sec.  25.795 by redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as (e) 
and (f) respectively, and by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.795  Security considerations.

* * * * *
    (d) Each chemical oxygen generator or its installation must be 
designed to be secure from deliberate manipulation by one of the 
following:
    (1) By providing effective resistance to tampering,
    (2) By providing an effective combination of resistance to 
tampering and active tamper-evident features,
    (3) By installation in a location or manner whereby any attempt to 
access the generator would be immediately obvious, or
    (4) By a combination of approaches specified in paragraphs (d)(1), 
(d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section that the Administrator finds provides 
a secure installation.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  25.1450 by adding a new paragraph (b)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.1450  Chemical oxygen generators.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Except as provided in SFAR 109, each chemical oxygen generator 
installation must meet the requirements of Sec.  25.795(d).
* * * * *

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), 
and 44703 in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2014.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-05291 Filed 3-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P