Decompression Criteria for Interior Compartments, 21733-21738 [2019-09823]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 15, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
impact of the rules upon a substantial
number of such small entities. Congress
further provided that the plan shall
provide for review of the relevant rules
within ten years of their publication as
final rules.4
In 2010, Congress established the
Bureau through the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act (Dodd-Frank Act).5 The Bureau is
now publishing this plan because it
anticipates performing reviews in the
coming years to comply with section
610 of the RFA (herein ‘‘610 reviews’’).
Although the Bureau is not required to
do so, it is also requesting comment on
its 610 review plan.6
The Bureau’s 610 reviews will
generally be separate from and in
addition to other Bureau reviews of its
regulations. In March 2018, the Bureau
issued a request for information (RFI) to
seek public input regarding the
substance of inherited regulations (those
transferred to the Bureau), and issued
another RFI for adopted regulations
(those issued by the Bureau), including
whether the Bureau should issue
additional rules.7 The Bureau also
conducts an assessment, pursuant to
section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act,
of each significant rule or order adopted
by the Bureau under Federal consumer
financial law and publishes a report of
each assessment not later than five years
after the effective date of the subject rule
or order.8 The Bureau has also
announced as part of the semi-annual
Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory
and Deregulatory Actions a long-term
action to review inherited regulations
for the purpose of ensuring that
outdated, unnecessary, or unduly
burdensome regulations are regularly
identified and addressed and stated that
it expects to focus its initial review on
4 The statute also contains certain additional
requirements for rules that existed on the effective
date of the RFA, which was January 1, 1981. Id.
Those requirements are not applicable to the
Bureau’s reviews.
5 Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 2081 (2010).
6 Notice and comment is not required because the
RFA provides that a plan may be amended by the
agency at any time by publishing the revision in the
Federal Register. 5 U.S.C. 610(a). Furthermore, the
plan is a procedural rule under the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, and therefore it is
exempt from its notice and comment requirements.
7 83 FR 12281 (March 21, 2018), 83 FR 12286
(March 21, 2018).
8 To date, the Bureau has published three such
assessment reports concerning, respectively, the
Bureau’s rules for remittance transfers, mortgage
servicing, and ability to repay and qualified
mortgage standards. These reports are available at
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/
research-reports/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 May 14, 2019
Jkt 247001
subparts B and G of Regulation Z, which
implements the Truth in Lending Act.9
I. Review Plan
Each year, the Bureau plans to initiate
610 reviews of final rules. The Bureau
intends to commence the review
roughly nine years after each rule’s
publication.10 For each rule, the Bureau
will first assess whether it is having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities and
so is subject to 610 review. The Bureau
may also decide to exercise its
discretion to review rules issued by the
Bureau or by the Bureau’s predecessor
agencies that may not otherwise be
subject to 610 review. The Bureau will
then publish in the Federal Register a
list of rules which the Bureau plans to
review within the upcoming plan year.
In addition to this list, the Bureau will
publish, consistent with section 610(c)
of the RFA,11 a notice for each rule to
be reviewed that will include a brief
description of the rule, as well as the
need for and legal basis of, the rule.
Each of these notices will invite public
comment on the rule, and the public
may submit relevant data and other
information to support any submitted
positions.
For each rule, the Bureau intends to
conduct a review based on information
on hand, relevant literature, and
information submitted by the public in
response to the Bureau’s request for
comment. As circumstances warrant,
the Bureau may exercise its discretion to
request additional data from relevant
parties on a voluntary basis or otherwise
obtain data from other sources, for
example, by purchasing data from a
third-party vendor.
Consistent with section 610(a) of the
RFA, the purpose of the review will be
to determine whether the rule should be
continued without change, or should be
amended or rescinded, consistent with
the stated objectives of any applicable
statutes, to minimize any significant
economic impact of the rules upon a
substantial number of small entities.12
As set forth in section 610(b) of the
RFA, the Bureau will consider several
factors:
1. The continued need for the rule;
2. The nature of public complaints or
comments on the rule;
3. The complexity of the rule;
9 See https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201810&RIN=3170AA73.
10 As permitted by section 605(c) of the RFA, the
Bureau may consider a series of closely related
rules as one rule for the purposes of section 610.
5 U.S.C. 605(c).
11 5 U.S.C. 610(c).
12 5 U.S.C. 610(a).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21733
4. The extent to which the rule
overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with
Federal, state, or other rules; and
5. The time since the rule was
evaluated or the degree to which
technology, market conditions, or other
factors have changed the relevant
market.13
The Bureau will complete each
review within ten years of the
publication of the relevant rule as a final
rule. The Bureau intends to
subsequently announce the
determinations made as to follow-on
rulemaking activities in the Unified
Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions or through other
appropriate methods.
The Bureau may amend this review
plan at any time by publishing the
revision in the Federal Register.
Dated: May 6, 2019.
Kathleen L. Kraninger,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection.
[FR Doc. 2019–09813 Filed 5–14–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No.: FAA–2019–0343; Notice No.
19–04]
RIN 2120–AL11
Decompression Criteria for Interior
Compartments
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to revise
its standards for pressurized
compartment loads such that partitions
located immediately adjacent to a
decompression hole need not be
designed to withstand certain
decompression conditions. This action
is necessary because, in some cases, it
is not practical to design partitions in
certain airplane compartments to
withstand a large decompression event
that occurs within that compartment.
Even though individual partition failure
would be allowed, continued safe flight
and landing would still be required.
DATES: Send comments on or before
June 14, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified
by docket number FAA–2019–0343
using any of the following methods:
SUMMARY:
13 5
U.S.C. 610(b).
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
21734
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 15, 2019 / Proposed Rules
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
• Mail: Send comments to Docket
Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Room W12–140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC
20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take
comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12–140 of the West Building
Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: Fax comments to Docket
Operations at 202–493–2251.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking
process. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL–
14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
Docket: Background documents or
comments received may be read at
https://www.regulations.gov at any time.
Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket
Operations in Room W12–140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions concerning this action,
contact Todd Martin, Airframe and
Cabin Safety Section, AIR–675,
Transport Standards Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft
Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th
Street, Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax (206) 231–3210; email
Todd.Martin@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA’s authority to issue rules 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 rulemaking is issued 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 regulations and minimum
standards for the design and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 May 14, 2019
Jkt 247001
performance of aircraft that the
Administrator finds necessary for safety
in air commerce. This regulation is
within the scope of that authority as it
prescribes new safety standards for the
design and performance of transport
category airplanes.
I. Overview of Proposed Rule
The FAA proposes to revise § 25.365,
‘‘Pressurized compartment loads,’’ in
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) Part 25, ‘‘Airworthiness
Standards: Transport Category
Airplanes.’’
The airworthiness standards in
§ 25.365 address the safety effects of
decompression. When the fuselage skin
or another part of the pressurized
boundary of an airplane fails for any
reason, a decompression occurs if the
cabin pressure is greater than the
outside air pressure. When a
decompression occurs, the pressurized
air inside the airplane exits the hole, or
opening, in the fuselage until
equilibrium is reached. This can result
in potentially high air loads on floors,
partitions, and bulkheads.
Section 25.365(e) addresses the
structural integrity of the airplane by
requiring that the airplane be capable of
continued safe flight and landing
following a sudden release of pressure
through an opening in any compartment
(i.e., a ‘‘sudden decompression’’).
Section 25.365(g) requires applicants
to design bulkheads, floors, and
partitions, in pressurized compartments
for occupants, to withstand the sudden
decompression conditions specified in
paragraph (e). Section 25.365(g) also
requires applicants to take reasonable
design precautions to minimize the
probability of parts becoming detached
and injuring seated occupants.
For certain smaller compartments on
the airplane, such as lavatories, private
suites, and crew rest areas, it may be
difficult to achieve compliance with
§ 25.365(g) because a large
decompression hole, of the size
specified in § 25.365(e)(2), occurring in
one of these compartments would result
in very high air loads on the partitions
that form the compartment. Thus,
strengthening the partitions to sustain
such high loads has been shown to be
impractical in many cases for these
smaller compartments because it could
adversely affect the structural integrity
of the aircraft and continued safe flight
and landing. Further, alternative design
strategies may impede the
compartment’s intended function.
Therefore, due to the difficulty of
safely designing partitions around small
compartments to withstand the
decompression without adversely
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
affecting the safety of the airplane or the
compartment’s intended function, the
FAA proposes to revise § 25.365(g) to
allow the failure of partitions that are
immediately adjacent to the
decompression hole. This allowance
would only apply to the formula
decompression hole specified in
§ 25.365(e)(2). A hole of this size is
typically the most severe decompression
load design requirement for small
compartments, such as lavatories,
private suites, and crew rest areas.
Finally, partition failure would only be
allowed if (1) failure of the partition
would not interfere with continued safe
flight and landing, and (2) meeting the
decompression condition in paragraph
(e)(2) would be impractical.
II. Background
A. Statement of the Problem
As previously noted, for
compartments such as lavatories,
private suites, and crew rest areas,
compliance with the partition strength
requirements of § 25.365(g) may be
difficult for applicants to achieve and
could potentially reduce the safety of
the airplane since the current regulation
requires all partitions to withstand all
decompression events. Therefore,
designing compliant lavatories, private
suites, and crew rest areas may not be
practical unless the FAA grants relief,
such as an exemption in accordance
with 14 CFR part 11 or an equivalent
level of safety finding in accordance
with 14 CFR 21.21.
B. History
Amendment 25–54 to § 25.365, 45 FR
60154, September 11, 1980, introduced
the requirement that bulkheads, floors,
and partitions be designed to withstand
the decompression conditions specified
in the rule.
In amendment 25–71 to § 25.365, 55
FR 13474, April 10, 1990, the specific
references to ‘‘bulkheads, floors, and
partitions’’ were moved from paragraph
(e) to paragraph (g) to stipulate the
passenger protection criteria related to
failure of these structures in occupied
compartments, regardless of whether
their failure could interfere with safe
flight and landing.
The current rule requires that the
applicant consider partition failure in
terms of the effects on occupant safety.
However, in developing this
requirement, the FAA recognized that
structural integrity might not be
maintained near the decompression
hole. The preamble of the NPRM for
amendment 25–71, 53 FR 8742, March
16, 1988, states, ‘‘The loss of structural
integrity at the opening location or
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 15, 2019 / Proposed Rules
physiological effects on occupants are
not considerations of the proposed
rule,’’ which indicates the FAA was
aware of and accepted this risk to the
occupant next to the opening location.
The FAA has certified numerous
airplanes for which the partition
strength criteria in § 25.365(e) at
amendment 25–54 or § 25.365(g) at
amendment 25–71 were included in the
certification basis. Since the issuance of
amendment 25–54, the FAA has found
compliance on several projects to install
small compartments on these airplanes
based on a finding of equivalent level of
safety (ELOS) to § 25.365(e) at
amendment 25–54 or § 25.365(g) at
amendment 25–71 (as applicable) in
accordance with 14 CFR 21.21, the first
of which was made in 1989.1
The FAA notes, however, that it has
not consistently applied the rule and
applicants have raised questions about
the intent of the rule during recent
certification programs.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Discussion of the Proposal
Section 25.365 addresses the safety
effects of decompression. When the
fuselage skin or another part of the
pressurized boundary of an airplane
fails for any reason, a decompression
occurs if the cabin pressure is greater
than the outside air pressure.
Decompressions can occur due to a
number of causes, such as a fatigue
failure, an engine rotor burst, or an
explosive or incendiary device. When a
decompression occurs, the pressurized
air inside the airplane exits the hole, or
opening, in the fuselage until
equilibrium is reached. This can result
in potentially high air loads on floors,
partitions, and bulkheads. The
magnitude of these forces depends on
the size of the hole, its location, and the
initial pressure differential between the
cabin and the outside air.
Section 25.365(e) requires structural
integrity of the airplane following a
sudden decompression. The rule
specifies that the design be able to
withstand the following sudden
decompression conditions:
Paragraph (e)(1)—penetration of any
pressurized compartment by a portion
of an engine following engine
disintegration;
1 An ELOS finding is made when the design does
not comply with the applicable airworthiness
provisions, but compensating factors, such as
incorporating mitigating features (e.g., lanyards to
restrain loose parts, and frangible structure to cause
structural failure in a direction away from the
seated occupant), provide an equivalent level of
safety in accordance with 14 CFR 21.21(b)(1) for
small compartment design. The FAA documents an
ELOS finding in an ELOS memorandum that
communicates to the public the rationale for the
FAA’s determination of equivalency to the level of
safety intended by the regulations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 May 14, 2019
Jkt 247001
Paragraph (e)(2)—an opening up to a
‘‘formula’’ size calculated from the
diameter of the airplane’s fuselage; and
Paragraph (e)(3)—any other opening
caused by failures not shown to be
extremely improbable.
Section 25.365(g) addresses occupant
safety in that it requires applicants to
design bulkheads, floors, and partitions,
in pressurized compartments for
occupants, to withstand the sudden
decompression conditions specified in
paragraph (e). Section 25.365(g) also
requires applicants to take reasonable
design precautions to minimize the
probability of parts becoming detached
and injuring seated occupants.
For certain smaller compartments on
the airplane, such as lavatories, private
suites, and crew rest areas, it may be
difficult to achieve compliance with
§ 25.365(g) because a large
decompression hole, of the size
specified in § 25.365(e)(2), occurring in
one of these compartments would result
in very high air loads on the partitions
that form the compartment. Compliance
is typically demonstrated by either: 1)
Strengthening the partition to the extent
that it would not fail, or 2) adding
sufficient venting to reduce the loads on
the partition, or some combination
thereof. In some cases, both of these
approaches have been shown to be
impractical because the design cannot
maintain the airplane’s structural
integrity or the partition’s intended
function, or a combination thereof. For
example, strengthening the partition to
the extent that it would not fail can
actually increase the loads on the floor,
thereby causing a potentially more
serious floor failure, which could
jeopardize continued safe flight either
through structural failure or by
damaging control systems routed
through the floor. Adding venting
would reduce loads on the partition, but
in some cases, it is not possible to add
enough venting and also maintain the
intended purpose of the compartment.
Additionally, if a large decompression
hole occurs in one of these
compartments, the risk to occupants of
that compartment from the
decompression itself is likely to be
significant, and exceed any risk from the
partition collapse.
Therefore, due to the difficulty of
safely designing partitions around small
compartments to withstand the
decompression without adversely
affecting the safety of the airplane, the
FAA proposes to revise § 25.365(g) to
allow the failure of partitions. This
proposed change would not impact
safety because it conforms the
regulatory text to longstanding FAA
practice established through equivalent
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21735
level of safety findings and methods of
compliance for small compartment
design. This proposed change would
also improve certification efficiency by
eliminating the need for design-bydesign equivalent level of safety
analyses and findings to allow for such
partition design. Accordingly, the FAA
proposes to revise § 25.365(g) to state
that partitions adjacent to the opening
specified in paragraph (e)(2) need not be
designed to withstand that condition if
(1) failure of the partition would not
interfere with continued safe flight and
landing, and (2) meeting this
decompression condition would be
impractical.
The proposed rule would only apply
to partitions, meaning any nonstructural wall, non-structural floor, or
non-structural ceiling panel, the failure
of which would not compromise the
structural integrity of the airplane. The
term ‘‘floor’’ means a structural floor,
such as a passenger or cargo floor that
carries airplane structural loads. The
floor of an overhead crew rest area,
which is elevated above the main floor,
would not be a structural floor because
it does not carry airplane structural
loads. This type of non-structural floor
is a partition. The term ‘‘bulkhead,’’ as
used in the proposed regulation, means
a structural pressure bulkhead. The
FAA considers a non-structural, nonpressure bulkhead to be a partition
because it does not carry airplane
structural loads. The applicability of
this rule is limited to partitions because
the integrity of bulkheads and floors
must be maintained to ensure continued
safe flight and landing.
The proposed rule would only allow
failure of partitions for the
decompression condition specified in
§ 25.365(e)(2). This decompression
condition, referred to as the ‘‘formula’’
hole size, is typically the most severe
condition required by § 25.365(e).
Partition failure due to the other
decompression conditions specified in
§ 25.365(e) would continue to be
prohibited because it is practical to
design partitions to withstand those less
significant decompression events.
The exception provided in proposed
§ 25.365(g)(2) only applies to the
occupant safety provision of
§ 25.365(g)(1). All partitions would still
be required to meet the requirements in
§ 25.365(e), which requires continued
safe flight and landing. For example, if
flight control cables run through a
particular partition, and failure of that
partition would cause a hazardous or
catastrophic flight control system
failure, then that partition would still be
required to withstand all the
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
21736
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 15, 2019 / Proposed Rules
decompression conditions specified in
§ 25.365(e).
The proposed rule would also only
allow failure of partitions for the
‘‘formula hole’’ decompression
condition of paragraph (e)(2) if the
applicant can show that withstanding
that condition is impractical (i.e., there
is no way to design the partitions to
withstand the decompression condition
of paragraph (e)(2) without adversely
affecting safety or without affecting the
functionality of the compartment). In
some cases, depending on the particular
partition configuration and the formula
decompression hole size for the
airplane, it may be practical to design
all partitions to meet the decompression
condition specified in paragraph (e)(2),
regardless of their location. For
example, the applicant may be able to
add venting or make other changes to
relieve the decompression loads on the
partitions. Under the proposed rule, the
applicant would only be allowed to
design for partition failure if there is no
practical way to design the partitions to
withstand the decompression condition
of paragraph (e)(2).
For a compartment such as a lavatory,
remote crew rest, or private suite,
having a solid door is a fundamental
feature for the intended use of the
compartment. While using a curtain in
place of a solid door would greatly
improve the decompression capability
of the compartment and is physically
practical for the purpose of compliance
with § 25.365(g), the FAA accepts that
changing the door to a curtain in these
instances would be impractical because
the resulting design would not fulfill the
purpose of the compartment.
The second sentence of § 25.365(g)
requires that applicants take reasonable
design precautions to minimize the
probability of parts becoming detached
and injuring occupants while in their
seats. This proposal would not change
that requirement. Therefore, in those
cases where partitions are not required
to withstand the decompression
condition of § 25.365(e)(2), the applicant
must nevertheless take reasonable
design precautions to minimize the
probability that a failed partition will
injure an occupant in the compartment.
For example, the applicant can employ
lanyards or other devices to reduce the
chance that a failed partition will
impact the occupant. The applicant, in
this situation, must also add venting, as
a reasonable design precaution, to the
extent practical to reduce the chance the
partition will fail as a result of smaller
decompression hole sizes.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 May 14, 2019
Jkt 247001
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
A. Regulatory Evaluation
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.
This proposed rule would only have
impact on transport category airplanes.
All United States transport category
aircraft manufacturers exceed the Small
Business Administration small-entity
criteria of 1,500 employees.
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,
based on the foregoing analysis, 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.
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 proposed rule.
This proposed rule would codify
current practice and would not result in
additional costs or significant benefits to
airplane manufacturers. As noted
previously, in some cases, the FAA
accepted the possibility of local
partition failure based on a finding of
equivalent level of safety. This proposed
rule would relieve type certification
applicants who might otherwise be
required to submit requests for an
equivalent level of safety under
§ 21.21(b)(1). However, cost savings for
the FAA would be minimal because the
FAA received only two such type
certification applications in the past 5
years, and would not expect numerous
similar applications in the future. Cost
savings for industry would be minimal
because the cost of administration of the
FAA’s finding of equivalent safety on
each applicable certification project is
not high, even though it is applied
several times per year. The FAA,
therefore, has determined that this
proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 15, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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 proposed rule
and determined that it would impose no
costs on domestic and international
entities and thus has a neutral trade
impact.
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 $155
million in lieu of $100 million. This
proposed 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 would
be no new requirement for information
collection associated with this proposed
rule.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
F. International Compatibility
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 determined that there are no ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed
regulations.
G. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1F 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 May 14, 2019
Jkt 247001
categorical exclusion identified in
paragraph 5–6.6 of FAA Order 1050.1F
and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.
V. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed
rule under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism.’’
The agency has determined that this
action would 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,
would not have Federalism
implications.
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this proposed 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
would not be a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ under the executive order and
would not be likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
C. Executive Order 13609, International
Cooperation
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.
D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This proposed rule is an Executive
Order 13771 deregulatory action. Details
on the regulatory relief provided by this
proposed rule can be found in the
Regulatory Evaluation section.
VI. Additional Information
E. Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to
participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written comments, data, or
views. The agency also invites
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21737
comments relating to the economic,
environmental, energy, or federalism
impacts that might result from adopting
the proposals in this document. The
most helpful comments reference a
specific portion of the proposal, explain
the reason for any recommended
change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all
comments it receives, as well as a report
summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning
this proposed rulemaking. Before acting
on this proposal, the FAA will consider
all comments it receives on or before the
closing date for comments. The FAA
will consider comments filed after the
comment period has closed if it is
possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. The agency may
change this proposal in light of the
comments it receives.
Proprietary or Confidential Business
Information: Commenters should not
file proprietary or confidential business
information in the docket. Such
information must be sent or delivered
directly to the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this document, and marked as
proprietary or confidential. If submitting
information on a disk or CD ROM, mark
the outside of the disk or CD ROM, and
identify electronically within the disk or
CD ROM the specific information that is
proprietary or confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is
aware of proprietary information filed
with a comment, the agency does not
place it in the docket. It is held in a
separate file to which the public does
not have access, and the FAA places a
note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to
examine or copy this information, it
treats it as any other request under the
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.
552). The FAA processes such a request
under Department of Transportation
procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
F. Availability of Rulemaking
Documents
An electronic copy of rulemaking
documents may be obtained from the
internet by—
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (https://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and
Policies web page at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
21738
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 15, 2019 / Proposed Rules
3. Accessing the Government Printing
Office’s web page at https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
Copies may also be obtained by
sending 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. Commenters
must identify the docket or notice
number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in
developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and
technical reports, may be accessed from
the internet through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.
Issued under authority provided by 49
U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in
Washington, DC, on May 3, 2019.
Earl Lawrence,
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification
Service.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25
Hot Springs National Park; Bicycling
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(f), 106(g), 40113,
44701, 44702 and 44704.
2. Amend § 25.365 by revising
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
■
Pressurized compartment loads.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(g)(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(g)(2) of this section, bulkheads, floors,
and partitions in pressurized
compartments for occupants must be
designed to withstand the conditions
specified in paragraph (e) of this
section. In addition, reasonable design
precautions must be taken to minimize
the probability of parts becoming
detached and injuring occupants while
in their seats.
(2) Partitions adjacent to the opening
specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this
section need not be designed to
withstand that condition provided—
(i) Failure of the partition would not
interfere with continued safe flight and
landing; and
(ii) The applicant shows that
designing the partition to withstand the
condition specified in paragraph (e)(2)
of this section would be impractical.
Jkt 247001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tokey Boswell, Chief of Planning and
Compliance, Midwest Regional Office,
601 Riverfront Drive, Omaha, Nebraska
68102. Phone: 402–661–1534, Email:
tokey_boswell@nps.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
National Park Service
Background
36 CFR Part 7
People have long recognized the
unique thermal waters that flow from
the base of Hot Springs Mountain in Hot
Springs, Arkansas. For thousands of
years before it became a favored
vacation destination in the 18th century,
and prior to the arrival of early
European explorers journeying west of
the Mississippi River, Native Americans
from around the region traveled to the
springs and surrounding rocky
mountain slopes, quarrying novaculite
from the hilltops for their tools and
weapons, and drinking and bathing in
the mineral rich waters bubbling from
the ground. The first permanent settlers
to reach the Hot Springs area in 1807
were quick to realize the springs’
potential as a health resort, and a
bustling town grew up around the hot
springs to provide services for health
seekers.
To protect this unique national
resource and preserve it for the use of
the public, Congress set aside the
springs and adjoining mountains as a
federal reservation in 1832, making it
the oldest unit of the National Park
System. Over the next 50 years, the area
transformed from a rough frontier town
to an elegant and thriving spa city. In
1921, Congress designated the
reservation as Hot Springs National Park
(the Park). Today, the 5,500-acre Park
contains vegetation, thermal waters,
cold-water springs, bathhouses and
associated cultural features, nearly 26
miles of hiking and equestrian trails,
and prehistoric and historic novaculite
quarries. The National Park Service
(NPS) preserves and manages the
natural and cultural resources of the
Park for more than 1.5 million annual
visitors. The City of Hot Springs, with
an approximate population of 37,000, is
located next to the Park.
[NPS–HOSP–27423;PPMWMWROW2/
PMP00UP05.YP0000]
RIN 1024–AE50
National Park Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
The National Park Service
proposes to amend the special
regulations for Hot Springs National
Park to allow bicycle use on a new trail
connection between the Park and
property owned by the City of Hot
Springs, Arkansas. The new 0.65-mile
trail would provide local residents and
visitors with access in and across the
Park to an extensive network of
recreational trails in the City’s
Northwoods Urban Forest Park. The
new natural surface, multi-use trail
connection would be open to both
pedestrian and bicycle use. National
Park Service regulations require
promulgation of a special regulation to
designate new trails for bicycle use off
park roads and outside developed areas.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule
must be received by 11:59 p.m. EST on
July 15, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by Regulation Identifier
Number (RIN) 1024–AE50, by either of
the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
(2) By hard copy: Mail or hand deliver
to: Superintendent, Hot Springs
National Park, 101 Reserve Street, Hot
Springs, AR 71901.
Instructions: Comments will not be
accepted by fax, email, or in any way
other than those specified above. All
submissions received must include the
words ‘‘National Park Service’’ or
‘‘NPS’’ and must include the docket
number or RIN (1024–AE50) for this
rulemaking. Comments received may be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
SUMMARY:
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend chapter I of title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
16:43 May 14, 2019
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ACTION:
The Proposed Amendment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
AGENCY:
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
§ 25.365
[FR Doc. 2019–09823 Filed 5–14–19; 8:45 am]
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Pullman Avenue Trail Connection/
Environmental Assessment
The NPS proposes to create a new
0.65-mile natural surface trail within the
Park. This new Pullman Avenue Trail
Connection would extend north from a
trailhead at Pullman Avenue and
connect the Park with ongoing trail
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 15, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21733-21738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09823]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No.: FAA-2019-0343; Notice No. 19-04]
RIN 2120-AL11
Decompression Criteria for Interior Compartments
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to revise its standards for pressurized
compartment loads such that partitions located immediately adjacent to
a decompression hole need not be designed to withstand certain
decompression conditions. This action is necessary because, in some
cases, it is not practical to design partitions in certain airplane
compartments to withstand a large decompression event that occurs
within that compartment. Even though individual partition failure would
be allowed, continued safe flight and landing would still be required.
DATES: Send comments on or before June 14, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0343
using any of the following methods:
[[Page 21734]]
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
https://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this action,
contact Todd Martin, Airframe and Cabin Safety Section, AIR-675,
Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft
Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax (206) 231-3210;
email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules 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 rulemaking is issued 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 regulations and minimum
standards for the design and performance of aircraft that the
Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it prescribes new
safety standards for the design and performance of transport category
airplanes.
I. Overview of Proposed Rule
The FAA proposes to revise Sec. 25.365, ``Pressurized compartment
loads,'' in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 25,
``Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes.''
The airworthiness standards in Sec. 25.365 address the safety
effects of decompression. When the fuselage skin or another part of the
pressurized boundary of an airplane fails for any reason, a
decompression occurs if the cabin pressure is greater than the outside
air pressure. When a decompression occurs, the pressurized air inside
the airplane exits the hole, or opening, in the fuselage until
equilibrium is reached. This can result in potentially high air loads
on floors, partitions, and bulkheads.
Section 25.365(e) addresses the structural integrity of the
airplane by requiring that the airplane be capable of continued safe
flight and landing following a sudden release of pressure through an
opening in any compartment (i.e., a ``sudden decompression'').
Section 25.365(g) requires applicants to design bulkheads, floors,
and partitions, in pressurized compartments for occupants, to withstand
the sudden decompression conditions specified in paragraph (e). Section
25.365(g) also requires applicants to take reasonable design
precautions to minimize the probability of parts becoming detached and
injuring seated occupants.
For certain smaller compartments on the airplane, such as
lavatories, private suites, and crew rest areas, it may be difficult to
achieve compliance with Sec. 25.365(g) because a large decompression
hole, of the size specified in Sec. 25.365(e)(2), occurring in one of
these compartments would result in very high air loads on the
partitions that form the compartment. Thus, strengthening the
partitions to sustain such high loads has been shown to be impractical
in many cases for these smaller compartments because it could adversely
affect the structural integrity of the aircraft and continued safe
flight and landing. Further, alternative design strategies may impede
the compartment's intended function.
Therefore, due to the difficulty of safely designing partitions
around small compartments to withstand the decompression without
adversely affecting the safety of the airplane or the compartment's
intended function, the FAA proposes to revise Sec. 25.365(g) to allow
the failure of partitions that are immediately adjacent to the
decompression hole. This allowance would only apply to the formula
decompression hole specified in Sec. 25.365(e)(2). A hole of this size
is typically the most severe decompression load design requirement for
small compartments, such as lavatories, private suites, and crew rest
areas. Finally, partition failure would only be allowed if (1) failure
of the partition would not interfere with continued safe flight and
landing, and (2) meeting the decompression condition in paragraph
(e)(2) would be impractical.
II. Background
A. Statement of the Problem
As previously noted, for compartments such as lavatories, private
suites, and crew rest areas, compliance with the partition strength
requirements of Sec. 25.365(g) may be difficult for applicants to
achieve and could potentially reduce the safety of the airplane since
the current regulation requires all partitions to withstand all
decompression events. Therefore, designing compliant lavatories,
private suites, and crew rest areas may not be practical unless the FAA
grants relief, such as an exemption in accordance with 14 CFR part 11
or an equivalent level of safety finding in accordance with 14 CFR
21.21.
B. History
Amendment 25-54 to Sec. 25.365, 45 FR 60154, September 11, 1980,
introduced the requirement that bulkheads, floors, and partitions be
designed to withstand the decompression conditions specified in the
rule.
In amendment 25-71 to Sec. 25.365, 55 FR 13474, April 10, 1990,
the specific references to ``bulkheads, floors, and partitions'' were
moved from paragraph (e) to paragraph (g) to stipulate the passenger
protection criteria related to failure of these structures in occupied
compartments, regardless of whether their failure could interfere with
safe flight and landing.
The current rule requires that the applicant consider partition
failure in terms of the effects on occupant safety. However, in
developing this requirement, the FAA recognized that structural
integrity might not be maintained near the decompression hole. The
preamble of the NPRM for amendment 25-71, 53 FR 8742, March 16, 1988,
states, ``The loss of structural integrity at the opening location or
[[Page 21735]]
physiological effects on occupants are not considerations of the
proposed rule,'' which indicates the FAA was aware of and accepted this
risk to the occupant next to the opening location.
The FAA has certified numerous airplanes for which the partition
strength criteria in Sec. 25.365(e) at amendment 25-54 or Sec.
25.365(g) at amendment 25-71 were included in the certification basis.
Since the issuance of amendment 25-54, the FAA has found compliance on
several projects to install small compartments on these airplanes based
on a finding of equivalent level of safety (ELOS) to Sec. 25.365(e) at
amendment 25-54 or Sec. 25.365(g) at amendment 25-71 (as applicable)
in accordance with 14 CFR 21.21, the first of which was made in
1989.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An ELOS finding is made when the design does not comply with
the applicable airworthiness provisions, but compensating factors,
such as incorporating mitigating features (e.g., lanyards to
restrain loose parts, and frangible structure to cause structural
failure in a direction away from the seated occupant), provide an
equivalent level of safety in accordance with 14 CFR 21.21(b)(1) for
small compartment design. The FAA documents an ELOS finding in an
ELOS memorandum that communicates to the public the rationale for
the FAA's determination of equivalency to the level of safety
intended by the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA notes, however, that it has not consistently applied the
rule and applicants have raised questions about the intent of the rule
during recent certification programs.
III. Discussion of the Proposal
Section 25.365 addresses the safety effects of decompression. When
the fuselage skin or another part of the pressurized boundary of an
airplane fails for any reason, a decompression occurs if the cabin
pressure is greater than the outside air pressure. Decompressions can
occur due to a number of causes, such as a fatigue failure, an engine
rotor burst, or an explosive or incendiary device. When a decompression
occurs, the pressurized air inside the airplane exits the hole, or
opening, in the fuselage until equilibrium is reached. This can result
in potentially high air loads on floors, partitions, and bulkheads. The
magnitude of these forces depends on the size of the hole, its
location, and the initial pressure differential between the cabin and
the outside air.
Section 25.365(e) requires structural integrity of the airplane
following a sudden decompression. The rule specifies that the design be
able to withstand the following sudden decompression conditions:
Paragraph (e)(1)--penetration of any pressurized compartment by a
portion of an engine following engine disintegration;
Paragraph (e)(2)--an opening up to a ``formula'' size calculated
from the diameter of the airplane's fuselage; and
Paragraph (e)(3)--any other opening caused by failures not shown to
be extremely improbable.
Section 25.365(g) addresses occupant safety in that it requires
applicants to design bulkheads, floors, and partitions, in pressurized
compartments for occupants, to withstand the sudden decompression
conditions specified in paragraph (e). Section 25.365(g) also requires
applicants to take reasonable design precautions to minimize the
probability of parts becoming detached and injuring seated occupants.
For certain smaller compartments on the airplane, such as
lavatories, private suites, and crew rest areas, it may be difficult to
achieve compliance with Sec. 25.365(g) because a large decompression
hole, of the size specified in Sec. 25.365(e)(2), occurring in one of
these compartments would result in very high air loads on the
partitions that form the compartment. Compliance is typically
demonstrated by either: 1) Strengthening the partition to the extent
that it would not fail, or 2) adding sufficient venting to reduce the
loads on the partition, or some combination thereof. In some cases,
both of these approaches have been shown to be impractical because the
design cannot maintain the airplane's structural integrity or the
partition's intended function, or a combination thereof. For example,
strengthening the partition to the extent that it would not fail can
actually increase the loads on the floor, thereby causing a potentially
more serious floor failure, which could jeopardize continued safe
flight either through structural failure or by damaging control systems
routed through the floor. Adding venting would reduce loads on the
partition, but in some cases, it is not possible to add enough venting
and also maintain the intended purpose of the compartment.
Additionally, if a large decompression hole occurs in one of these
compartments, the risk to occupants of that compartment from the
decompression itself is likely to be significant, and exceed any risk
from the partition collapse.
Therefore, due to the difficulty of safely designing partitions
around small compartments to withstand the decompression without
adversely affecting the safety of the airplane, the FAA proposes to
revise Sec. 25.365(g) to allow the failure of partitions. This
proposed change would not impact safety because it conforms the
regulatory text to longstanding FAA practice established through
equivalent level of safety findings and methods of compliance for small
compartment design. This proposed change would also improve
certification efficiency by eliminating the need for design-by-design
equivalent level of safety analyses and findings to allow for such
partition design. Accordingly, the FAA proposes to revise Sec.
25.365(g) to state that partitions adjacent to the opening specified in
paragraph (e)(2) need not be designed to withstand that condition if
(1) failure of the partition would not interfere with continued safe
flight and landing, and (2) meeting this decompression condition would
be impractical.
The proposed rule would only apply to partitions, meaning any non-
structural wall, non-structural floor, or non-structural ceiling panel,
the failure of which would not compromise the structural integrity of
the airplane. The term ``floor'' means a structural floor, such as a
passenger or cargo floor that carries airplane structural loads. The
floor of an overhead crew rest area, which is elevated above the main
floor, would not be a structural floor because it does not carry
airplane structural loads. This type of non-structural floor is a
partition. The term ``bulkhead,'' as used in the proposed regulation,
means a structural pressure bulkhead. The FAA considers a non-
structural, non-pressure bulkhead to be a partition because it does not
carry airplane structural loads. The applicability of this rule is
limited to partitions because the integrity of bulkheads and floors
must be maintained to ensure continued safe flight and landing.
The proposed rule would only allow failure of partitions for the
decompression condition specified in Sec. 25.365(e)(2). This
decompression condition, referred to as the ``formula'' hole size, is
typically the most severe condition required by Sec. 25.365(e).
Partition failure due to the other decompression conditions specified
in Sec. 25.365(e) would continue to be prohibited because it is
practical to design partitions to withstand those less significant
decompression events.
The exception provided in proposed Sec. 25.365(g)(2) only applies
to the occupant safety provision of Sec. 25.365(g)(1). All partitions
would still be required to meet the requirements in Sec. 25.365(e),
which requires continued safe flight and landing. For example, if
flight control cables run through a particular partition, and failure
of that partition would cause a hazardous or catastrophic flight
control system failure, then that partition would still be required to
withstand all the
[[Page 21736]]
decompression conditions specified in Sec. 25.365(e).
The proposed rule would also only allow failure of partitions for
the ``formula hole'' decompression condition of paragraph (e)(2) if the
applicant can show that withstanding that condition is impractical
(i.e., there is no way to design the partitions to withstand the
decompression condition of paragraph (e)(2) without adversely affecting
safety or without affecting the functionality of the compartment). In
some cases, depending on the particular partition configuration and the
formula decompression hole size for the airplane, it may be practical
to design all partitions to meet the decompression condition specified
in paragraph (e)(2), regardless of their location. For example, the
applicant may be able to add venting or make other changes to relieve
the decompression loads on the partitions. Under the proposed rule, the
applicant would only be allowed to design for partition failure if
there is no practical way to design the partitions to withstand the
decompression condition of paragraph (e)(2).
For a compartment such as a lavatory, remote crew rest, or private
suite, having a solid door is a fundamental feature for the intended
use of the compartment. While using a curtain in place of a solid door
would greatly improve the decompression capability of the compartment
and is physically practical for the purpose of compliance with Sec.
25.365(g), the FAA accepts that changing the door to a curtain in these
instances would be impractical because the resulting design would not
fulfill the purpose of the compartment.
The second sentence of Sec. 25.365(g) requires that applicants
take reasonable design precautions to minimize the probability of parts
becoming detached and injuring occupants while in their seats. This
proposal would not change that requirement. Therefore, in those cases
where partitions are not required to withstand the decompression
condition of Sec. 25.365(e)(2), the applicant must nevertheless take
reasonable design precautions to minimize the probability that a failed
partition will injure an occupant in the compartment. For example, the
applicant can employ lanyards or other devices to reduce the chance
that a failed partition will impact the occupant. The applicant, in
this situation, must also add venting, as a reasonable design
precaution, to the extent practical to reduce the chance the partition
will fail as a result of smaller decompression hole sizes.
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 proposed rule.
This proposed rule would codify current practice and would not
result in additional costs or significant benefits to airplane
manufacturers. As noted previously, in some cases, the FAA accepted the
possibility of local partition failure based on a finding of equivalent
level of safety. This proposed rule would relieve type certification
applicants who might otherwise be required to submit requests for an
equivalent level of safety under Sec. 21.21(b)(1). However, cost
savings for the FAA would be minimal because the FAA received only two
such type certification applications in the past 5 years, and would not
expect numerous similar applications in the future. Cost savings for
industry would be minimal because the cost of administration of the
FAA's finding of equivalent safety on each applicable certification
project is not high, even though it is applied several times per year.
The FAA, therefore, has determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866.
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.
This proposed rule would only have impact on transport category
airplanes. All United States transport category aircraft manufacturers
exceed the Small Business Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500
employees.
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, based on the foregoing analysis, 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
[[Page 21737]]
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 proposed
rule and determined that it would impose no costs on domestic and
international entities and thus has a neutral trade impact.
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 $155 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed 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 would be no new requirement for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.
F. International Compatibility
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
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed regulations.
G. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1F 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 5-6.6 of FAA Order 1050.1F and
involves no extraordinary circumstances.
V. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism.'' The agency has
determined that this action would 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, would not have
Federalism implications.
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this proposed 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 would not be a ``significant energy action'' under
the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
C. Executive Order 13609, International Cooperation
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.
D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This proposed rule is an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
Details on the regulatory relief provided by this proposed rule can be
found in the Regulatory Evaluation section.
VI. Additional Information
E. Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in
light of the comments it receives.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should
not file proprietary or confidential business information in the
docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting
information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is proprietary or confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information,
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
F. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
internet by--
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
[[Page 21738]]
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
Copies may also be obtained by sending 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.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.
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 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(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and
44704.
0
2. Amend Sec. 25.365 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.365 Pressurized compartment loads.
* * * * *
(g)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(2) of this section,
bulkheads, floors, and partitions in pressurized compartments for
occupants must be designed to withstand the conditions specified in
paragraph (e) of this section. In addition, reasonable design
precautions must be taken to minimize the probability of parts becoming
detached and injuring occupants while in their seats.
(2) Partitions adjacent to the opening specified in paragraph
(e)(2) of this section need not be designed to withstand that condition
provided--
(i) Failure of the partition would not interfere with continued
safe flight and landing; and
(ii) The applicant shows that designing the partition to withstand
the condition specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this section would be
impractical.
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
and 44703 in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2019.
Earl Lawrence,
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-09823 Filed 5-14-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
