Interior Parts and Components Fire Protection for Transport Category Airplanes, 31747-31769 [2019-13646]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
gather data, and prepare their responses,
with the need to proceed expeditiously
to consider comments and determine
whether to issue a proposed rule. The
Bureau expects the 2018 HMDA Data to
be released in late summer. In light of
these factors, the Bureau believes that
an extension of the ANPR comment
period to October 15, 2019 is
appropriate and will allow interested
parties adequate time to consider the
2018 HMDA Data before submitting
their comments on the ANPR. The
Bureau does not, however, believe it is
necessary or appropriate to reissue the
ANPR with a new 90-day comment
period. The ANPR comment period will
now close October 15, 2019.
Dated: June 24, 2019.
Kathleen L. Kraninger,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection.
[FR Doc. 2019–14174 Filed 7–2–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 25, 27, 29, 91, 121, 125,
and 135
[Docket No.: FAA–2019–0491; Notice No.
19–09]
RIN 2120–AK34
Interior Parts and Components Fire
Protection for Transport Category
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA is proposing to
amend certain airworthiness regulations
for fire protection of interior
compartments on transport category
airplanes. This proposal would convert
those flammability regulations from
detailed, prescriptive requirements into
simpler, performance-based standards.
This proposal would divide these
standards into two categories: Those
designed to protect the airplane and its
occupants from the hazards of in-flight
fires, and those designed to protect the
airplane and its occupants from the
hazards caused by post-crash fires. In
addition, this proposal would remove
test methods from the regulations and
allow applicants, in certain cases, to
demonstrate compliance either without
conducting tests or by providing
independent substantiation of the
flammability characteristics of a
proposed material. This action is
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
necessary to eliminate unnecessary
testing, increase standardization, and
improve safety. This proposal includes
conforming changes to parts 27, 29, 91,
121, 125, and 135.
DATES: Send comments on or before
October 1, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified
by docket number FAA–2019–0491
using any of the following methods:
• 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 Jeff Gardlin, AIR–600, Policy
and Innovation Division, Aircraft
Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th
Street, Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax (206) 231–3146; email
Jeff.Gardlin@faa.gov.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31747
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, material,
construction, quality of work, and
performance of aircraft that the
Administrator finds necessary for safety
in air commerce. This regulation is
within the scope of that authority. It
revises the safety standards for the
flammability characteristics, and thus
the design, material, and construction,
of transport category airplanes.
Table of Contents
I. Overview of the Proposed Rule
II. Background
A. Statement of the Problem
B. History
C. Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee
III. Discussion of the Proposal
A. Flammability Testing Requirements
1. Bunsen Burner Test (Current § 25.853(a)
and Part I of Appendix F to Part 25)
2. Oil Burner Test for Seat Cushions
(Current § 25.853(c) and Part II of
Appendix F to Part 25)
3. Heat Release Rate Test (Current
§ 25.853(d) and Part IV of Appendix F to
Part 25)
4. Smoke Emissions Test (Current
§ 25.853(d) and Part V of Appendix F to
Part 25)
5. Oil Burner Test for Cargo Compartment
Liners (Current § 25.855(c) and Part III of
Appendix F to Part 25)
6. Radiant Panel Test for Thermal/Acoustic
Insulation (Current § 25.856(a) and Part
VI of Appendix F to Part 25)
7. Oil Burner Test for Thermal/Acoustic
Insulation (Current § 25.856(b) and Part
VII of Appendix F to Part 25)
8. Radiant Heat Resistance Test for Escape
Slides (§ 25.853(d)(5))
9. Fire Containment Compliance of Waste
Receptacles (Current § 25.853(h))
10. Extensively Used Materials in
Inaccessible Areas (Proposed
§ 25.853(c)(2)(i))
11. Exclusions from Testing (Proposed
§ 25.853(e))
12. Pass/Fail Criteria
B. Reorganization of Appendix F to Part 25
1. General Structure
2. Hierarchy of Tests
C. Conformal and Editorial Changes
D. Advisory Material
E. Application of §§ 21.17
F. Application of §§ 21.101
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
1. Summary of Costs and Benefits
2. Who is potentially affected by this
proposed rule?
3. Assumptions:
4. Benefits of This Rule
5. Costs of This Proposed Rule
6. Minimal to No Cost Provisions Including
Conforming Changes
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
31748
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
1. A Description of the Reasons Why the
Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
2. A Succinct Statement of the Objectives
of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed
Rule
3. Description and, Where Feasible, an
Estimate of the Number of Small Entities
to Which the Proposed Rule Would
Apply
4. A Description of the Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements of the Proposed Rule,
Including an Estimate of the Classes of
Small Entities That Will Be Subject to
the Requirement and the Types of
Professional Skills Necessary for
Preparation of the Report or Record
5. An Identification, to the Extent
Practicable, of All Relevant Federal
Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or
Conflict With the Proposed Rule
6. A Description of any Significant
Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. International Compatibility
G. Environmental Analysis
V. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
C. Executive Order 13771, Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
VI. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
I. Overview of the Proposed Rule
This proposed amendment would
eliminate and modify certain
flammability and fire protection
requirements of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 25. The
proposed changes would organize these
requirements based on the type of fire—
in-flight or post-crash—that is likely to
affect a given component, part, or
material, rather than basing such
standards on the part’s composition or
function. In addition, the proposal
would extend the fire protection
requirements to any extensively used
material 1 located in inaccessible areas.
The FAA proposes to convert the
testing methods in appendix F to part 25
from regulations into guidance material.
The proposal would also eliminate
redundant or non-value-added tests
when a more severe test is acceptable.
This proposal would replace
mandatory testing methods with
performance-based standards for
flammability and fire protection. This
change would improve safety and
standardization and would be
applicable to materials currently used to
construct parts and components as well
as to new materials that become
available in the future. As discussed in
section III.E of the NPRM, all of the
proposed changes are interrelated.
These proposals to remove or simplify
requirements are only possible, from a
safety perspective, because of other
proposed changes that would
compensate for removing requirements.
These revised regulations would
affect applicants seeking new type
certificates for transport category
airplanes. These revised regulations
would not apply to transport category
airplanes currently in production under
existing type certificates, unless the
FAA approves a manufacturer’s request
to comply with an amendment level that
incorporates these proposed changes, or
a manufacturer triggers the requirement
via an application for a significant
product-level change under § 21.101.
Over a 19-year period of analysis, the
FAA estimates the total present value
costs of this proposed rule to be $71.1
million at a seven percent discount rate,
with annualized costs of $6.9 million
due to the extension of fire protection
requirements to extensively used
material in inaccessible areas. Over the
same 19-year period, the FAA estimates
the total quantified cost savings of this
proposed rule to be $119.8 million at a
seven percent discount rate, with
annualized cost savings of $11.6
million. The cost savings would result
from the elimination and streamlining
of some tests, which would be made
possible by the extension of fire
protection requirements to inaccessible
areas. Over the same 19-year period, the
proposed rule would result in a net cost
savings (cost savings minus costs) of
$48.7 million at a seven percent
discount rate, with annualized net cost
savings of $4.8 million. The following
table summarizes the costs and cost
savings of this proposed rule.
COSTS AND SAVINGS OF THE PROPOSED RULE
19-year total present value
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
7%
Annualized
3%
7%
3%
Cost Savings ............................................................................
Costs ........................................................................................
$119,848,146
71,105,318
$178,395,887
80,387,114
$11,595,669
6,879,654
$12,454,509
5,612,136
Total Cost Savings ...........................................................
48,742,829
98,008,773
4,716,016
6,842,373
Airplane occupant safety benefits
were not quantified. However, the
proposed new safety requirements to
extend the fire protection requirements
to any extensively used material located
in inaccessible areas would result in a
safety benefit by reducing the likelihood
of a fatal accident from a fire in an
inaccessible area. FAA testing has
indicated that typical in-service ducts
can quickly spread fire from a small fire
source in an inaccessible area, while
ducts that would meet the new
requirement can resist that small size
fire and not propagate flames. Thus, the
FAA believes there are safety benefits to
this proposed rule in addition to cost
savings.
Current part 25 regulations organize
fire protection requirements for
components in airplane interior
compartments by the function, and
sometimes composition, of each
component. Appendix F to part 25
details comprehensive, mandatory
testing methods. Each part of appendix
F provides the test method required for
a specific type of part or material, with
the exception of part I, which applies to
nearly all parts and materials and
contains multiple test methods. While
this method of organization is useful in
standardizing the applicable tests and
ensuring consistency among test results,
regardless of the testing facility, it can
create difficulties when an applicant
wishes to deviate from the detailed test
provisions, for example to implement
improvements. Also, a given component
1 Extensively used materials, for the purpose of
this rulemaking, means any parts or system of parts
that could permit a fire to propagate and grow to
a hazardous level, for example, air ducting,
electrical wiring/sleeving, thermal/acoustic
insulation, and composite fuselage structure.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
II. Background
A. Statement of the Problem
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
can be subject to multiple regulatory
requirements depending on the
component’s composition, and the
requirements may conflict with one
another. In addition, it can be difficult
to determine the applicable
requirements, especially when
applicants propose new components or
materials that are not listed in § 25.853
and for which testing methods have not
yet been developed. A final problem is
that, with the exception of thermal/
acoustic insulation and electrical
wiring, the current fire protection
requirements only apply to components
and materials in occupiable areas or
cargo compartments. The current
requirements do not apply to
components, parts, and materials in
other areas, even if extensively used,
and such components can be critical for
fire safety.
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
B. History
The regulations governing the
flammability of materials on transport
category airplanes have evolved
significantly since their adoption in
1964.2 When initially adopted, these
regulations mandated the most fireresistant materials practically available
at that time, without consideration of
the types of fires to which each material
might be exposed. The regulations
described flammability requirements in
terms of the objective—materials had to
be at least flash resistant,3 and certain
types of parts had to be flame resistant,4
a more stringent requirement. Until
1984, FAA flammability regulations
only required applicants to demonstrate
that proposed materials could resist
small ignition sources such as a lit
match or cigarette. The flammability
requirements only applied to materials
in compartments that could be occupied
by passengers or crew.
Beginning with the 1984 adoption of
improved flammability standards for
seat cushions, the FAA revised the
flammability requirements for other
specific parts and components,
including large surface areas, cargo
compartment liners, and thermal/
acoustic insulation. The FAA also
2 Published in the Federal Register on December
24, 1964 (29 FR 18289) and available on the internet
at https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_
Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/861ae0b1f7efc3ee
85256453007b0e8a/beee068568b285ea
86256cc900543c9f!OpenDocument.
3 Flash resistant is defined as having a burn rate
of no more than 20 inches per minute when
exposed to a Bunsen burner flame. See FAA Flight
Standards Service Release No. 453, dated November
9, 1961; and Advisory Circular (AC) 25–17A,
Change 1, ‘‘Transport Airplane Cabin Interiors
Crashworthiness Handbook,’’ dated May 24, 2016.
4 Flame resistant is defined as having a burn rate
of no more than 4 inches per minute when exposed
to a Bunsen burner flame.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
revised and expanded mandatory test
methods to ensure consistency in testing
methodology and results. The FAA
based these revised requirements on the
type of fire threat (in-flight and postcrash) expected for a given component.
However, the regulations continued to
set standards for specific components,
based on their function or construction.
Since the adoption of those
flammability requirements, research
into fire safety identified significant
differences between the hazards posed
by a post-crash fire and those posed by
an in-flight fire.
Post-crash fires, or ‘‘fuel fires’’ since
they are primarily fed by spilled
aviation fuel, present two primary
hazards to the airplane’s occupants.
First, a fuel fire can be a significant
source of smoke and toxic gases. If these
gases enter the cabin, they can cause
injury and significantly reduce
survivability. Second, a fuel fire can
ignite cabin materials, which can
accelerate the fire’s growth. Research 5
by the FAA has found that the best way
to prevent the first hazard—smoke and
toxic gases—is to prevent the fire from
penetrating the fuselage. The best way
to prevent the second hazard—ignition
of cabin materials—is to minimize the
heat release 6 of cabin materials, so that
they do not contribute significant energy
to the fire. Post-crash fires can also
reduce the time available for evacuation.
The FAA studied the time necessary to
complete evacuation and determined
that roughly 90 percent of actual
evacuations are completed within 5
minutes.7 This proposal specifically
references that 5-minute time when
discussing protection under post-crash
5 See ‘‘Application of Full-Scale Fire Tests to
Characterize and Improve the Aircraft Postcrash
Fire Environment,’’ Constantine P. Sarkos,
International Colloquium on Advances in
Combustion Toxicology, April 11–13, 1995,
available on the internet at https://
www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/fsr-0196.pdf; and FAA
Report No. DOT/FAA/AR–TN11/8, ‘‘Improvements
in Aircraft Fire Safety Derived from FAA Research
over the Last Decade,’’ dated May 2011, available
on the internet at https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/
TN11-8.pdf. Both of these reports are also available
in the Docket.
6 Heat release is the amount of heat energy
created by a material when burned. The maximum
heat release occurs when the material is burning
most intensely. Also, see ‘‘Improved Flammability
Standards for Materials Used in the Interiors of
Transport Category Airplane Cabins,’’ published in
the Federal Register on July 21, 1986 (51 FR 26206)
and available on the internet at https://rgl.faa.gov/
Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/
0/E2F0F4B91D02ADFB862568E7005C097C?
OpenDocument.
7 See FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/AR–09/18,
‘‘Determination of Evacuation and Firefighting
Times Based on an Analysis of Aircraft Accident
Fire Survivability Data,’’ dated May 2009, available
in the Docket and on the internet at https://
www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/09-18.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31749
fire conditions. Proposed § 25.853(d)
would add general flammability
requirements to provide occupants time
to evacuate during post-crash fires.
In contrast, the primary hazard from
in-flight fires is to the continued safe
flight and landing of the airplane. Inflight fires have historically only been a
direct hazard to continued safe flight
and landing when they begin in an area
inaccessible to a person with a handheld fire extinguisher. These areas tend
to be in cargo compartments or behind
interior panels, such as sidewalls or
ceilings. The principal risk with such
fires is that they grow and spread
without the ability of the flightcrew to
access and combat them, and then
degrade critical systems and occupant
survivability. The components, parts,
and materials with the most potential to
contribute to an in-flight fire hazard are
the most extensive, including
insulation, wiring, air ducts, and
structure. FAA research determined that
materials that self-extinguish and do not
propagate a flame provide an acceptable
level of safety. In-flight fires in areas
that are readily accessible to a person
with a hand-held fire extinguisher are
still a concern, but are much less likely
to evolve into a threat to the airplane.
Therefore, these two types of fires (inflight and post-crash) require different
flammability standards.
Several elements of fire safety
research were involved in the
development of these flammability
requirements. First, the FAA analyzed
accident and incident data to identify
the nature of the fire and its potential to
affect the airplane and its occupants.
Next, the threat was replicated (to the
extent possible), and detailed
measurements were made to
characterize the key parameters 8 of the
type of fire and its potential effect on
the airplane and occupants. Finally, a
laboratory test was developed that
correlated with, and was derived from,
the type of fire, so that repeatable and
reproducible results could be obtained
to assess the adequacy of proposed
designs. This latter step was an
evolutionary process as test protocols
(test methods and test equipment) were
continuously refined. Once the results
for a particular protocol were reliable
and repeatable, the FAA selected that
test protocol, even though
improvements in methods and
equipment are expected to continue. A
key consideration in this proposal is the
availability of approved test methods in
8 For example, temperature, radiant heat flux,
flame kinetic energy.
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
31750
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
advisory material 9 to support all of the
proposed requirements.
addresses the open issues raised by the
MFWG.
C. Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee
In light of the problems with the
current part 25 regulations previously
discussed, the FAA recognized that it
needs a new approach to the regulatory
structure of flammability requirements.
Since amendments to the regulations
since the 1980s had been based on an
assessment of the type of fire, but not
structured that way in the regulatory
text, the FAA determined that the
regulations should align with the type of
fire that could threaten the airplane.
However, because of the scope of the
change under consideration, the FAA
tasked the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (ARAC) 10 to
review the FAA’s proposed approach
and provide recommendations. ARAC
assigned the task to the Materials
Flammability Working Group (MFWG)
under the Transport Airplane and
Engines Issues Group (TAEIG), an
ARAC subcommittee. The MFWG
reviewed the proposed concept and, in
a report 11 dated July 2012,
recommended its adoption along with
several associated advisory circulars
(ACs). The MFWG also raised several
questions that required FAA resolution
prior to rulemaking, including
consideration of an approved materials
list, availability of advisory material,
and means to address so-called rogue
failures.
When drafting the NPRM, the FAA
determined that a more comprehensive
estimate of costs and benefits was
necessary. Therefore, the FAA put the
rulemaking project on hold and retasked ARAC 12 to provide an estimate
of costs and benefits. The FAA provided
assumptions to use in making those
estimates. ARAC reassigned the task to
the MFWG. The MFWG completed the
task and submitted a report 13 in October
2015. This proposal is based on
recommendations and information
provided in both MFWG reports and
III. Discussion of the Proposal
The current regulatory structure in the
primary regulations that this action
proposes to amend, §§ 25.853, 25.855,
25.856, and 25.1713, organizes the
flammability requirements by the type
of testing required for a specific part or
component. Section 25.853 applies to
parts and components that are located
in compartments that can be occupied
by crew or passengers, and requires
compliance with the applicable parts of
appendix F to part 25. Section 25.855
states similar requirements that are
applicable to cargo or baggage
compartments; § 25.856 provides
requirements for thermal/acoustic
insulation materials; and § 25.1713
addresses electrical wiring components.
Each of these sections requires
compliance with a particular test
method in appendix F.
For example, § 25.853(a) requires that
all materials used in occupiable
compartments meet the test criteria
(Bunsen burner) in part I of appendix F
to part 25. Section 25.853(d) requires
certain interior components, including
partitions, ceilings, and wall panels, to
also meet the heat release rate (HRR) 14
and smoke emission test requirements
in parts IV and V of appendix F. This
proposal would eliminate the
requirement to meet the tests in part I
of appendix F for components required
to comply with § 25.853(d), since the
Bunsen burner tests do not add any
level of safety for components that meet
part IV of appendix F.
This proposed amendment would
revise § 25.853 to apply to general
categories of parts or components rather
than to specific items. For example,
§ 25.853(d)(1) would apply to large
surface area components, rather than to
partitions, ceilings, and wall panels. It
would set performance standards for
those components based on the type of
fire the component is likely to be
exposed to and whether or not its
location is accessible during flight.
Stating the requirements as
performance standards would make
them applicable to parts and materials
that are not listed in the current
regulations and to new materials in
emerging areas of aviation design. These
include materials used in inaccessible
portions of the fuselage, escape slides,
and the use of flammable metals in the
cabin.
The mandatory testing methods in
appendix F to part 25 would be
9 This advisory material will take the form of
several proposed ACs, as discussed in section III.D
of this NPRM.
10 Published in the Federal Register on August
27, 2010 (75 FR 52807) and available on the internet
at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-201008-27/pdf/2010-21333.pdf.
11 See ‘‘Materials Flammability Working Group
Report,’’ dated July 9, 2012, available in the Docket
and on the internet at https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/
materials.asp.
12 Published in the Federal Register on January
20, 2015 (80 FR 2772) and available on the internet
at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-201501-20/pdf/2015-00749.pdf.
13 See ‘‘Materials Flammability Working Group
Continuation of Task Report,’’ dated October 7,
2015, available in the Docket.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
14 The heat release rate test measures both total
heat release and peak heat release rate.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
removed. Instead, appendix F would
allow applicants to omit certain tests if
the material passes certain more severe
tests. Advisory material would provide
the details of approved test methods. By
moving compliance testing methods to
advisory material, applicants would
have more flexibility to propose
alternative methods, and the FAA
would have more flexibility to approve
improved testing methods.
This proposal would also standardize
the required number of test samples,
and pass rate, among the various tests.
Proposed § 25.853(b) would require a
minimum of three specimen sets for any
test used to show compliance.
Because fewer post-crash
flammability requirements currently
apply to airplanes designed to carry 19
or fewer passengers, many of the
proposed simplifications would only
apply to larger airplanes. For the same
reason, for airplanes designed to carry
19 or fewer passengers, fewer in-flight
flammability tests would be eliminated
by meeting post-crash flammability test
requirements. Thus, applicants for type
certification of airplanes with 19 or
fewer passengers might not benefit from
the same degree of simplified testing, as
would applicants seeking approval of
larger airplanes.
A. Flammability Testing Requirements
1. Bunsen Burner Test (Current
§ 25.853(a) and Part I of Appendix F to
Part 25)
Sections 25.853 and 25.855 require
Bunsen burner testing of all materials
used in interior compartments, and in
certain parts of cargo compartments,
even if an additional, more severe test
is required. Bunsen burner tests,
detailed in part I of the current
appendix F to part 25, have multiple
variations that are used to determine the
resistance of materials to flame, flame
penetration, or flame propagation.
Although Bunsen burner tests would be
an acceptable means of compliance for
several requirements, this proposal
would eliminate the requirement for
Bunsen burner testing when a required
test method simulates a post-crash fire.
Bunsen burner testing to address inflight fire threats would be less
frequently required, since extensively
used materials would be required to
meet a more stringent standard, and
materials and parts that are not
extensively used may show their inflight fire resistance by more than one
means.
Two other requirements intended to
protect the airplane from in-flight fires,
proposed § 25.853(c)(1)(i) regarding
parts or components that are accessible
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
to the flightcrew during flight, and
proposed § 25.853(c)(2)(iv) regarding
floor liners in cargo compartments,
would require that those parts,
components, and materials be selfextinguishing when exposed to a small
flame,15 unless another regulation
requires the materials to meet a higher
standard, such as a post-crash test.
Applicants would typically use the 12second vertical Bunsen burner test to
show that the materials are selfextinguishing. This proposal would
eliminate the requirement for materials
to pass horizontal Bunsen burner tests
because other requirements would
ensure acceptable flammability
characteristics of any other materials for
which that test is currently applied.
This includes parts currently listed in
appendix F, part I, paragraph (a)(1)(iv)
of part 25, such as clear plastic windows
and signs, which would fall under one
of the proposed requirements for a more
stringent test, unless the applicant is
able to show the part or material serves
a necessary function and has no suitable
substitute material.
For post-crash fires on transport
category airplanes with 19 or fewer
passengers, this proposal would, as a
practical matter, retain the requirement,
currently in appendix F, part I,
paragraph (b)(4) of part 25, that the
applicant conduct a 60-second vertical
Bunsen burner test for large surface
interior materials. That test, unlike the
12-second vertical test, screens out
materials, such as certain
thermoplastics, that have unacceptable
flammability performance, even though
the test method is not specifically
designed to represent post-crash fires.
Because of the greater evacuation
capability inherent in these smaller
airplanes, they are not, and would not
under this proposal, be subject to the
more severe post-crash, fire-based
standards for interior materials and
lower lobe 16 fire penetration proposed
in §§ 25.853(d)(2) and 25.856(b),
respectively.
This proposal would also continue to
require, in § 25.853(c)(1)(i), that waste
receptacles (compartments) and cargo
compartment liners resist fire
penetration. One means of compliance
would continue to be the 45-degree
orientation Bunsen burner test, which is
currently described in part I of appendix
F to part 25, but would be removed from
part 25 and made available in guidance
material. However, if an applicant
proposes to construct waste
compartments from the same materials
as will be used for other interior features
that are required to meet the HRR test,17
no Bunsen burner test would be
required. The fire containment test for
the waste compartments would still be
required. Most cargo compartment
liners, as components in an inaccessible
area, would still be required by
proposed § 25.853(c)(2) to meet the
flammability performance standard
currently encompassed by the oil burner
test in part III of appendix F. Exceptions
would include liners on the floor and
certain aspects of Class E cargo
compartment liners, which would only
need to pass the 45-degree Bunsen
burner test, i.e., resist penetration by a
small flame (proposed § 25.853(c)(iv)).
Finally, for materials that must be
self-extinguishing under current
regulations, the FAA has reviewed the
detailed pass/fail criteria for the vertical
Bunsen burner test in appendix F, part
I, paragraph (b)(4) of part 25 and
concluded that those criteria could also
be simplified. The current pass/fail
criteria are regulatory and involve burn
length, after-flame time, extinguishing
time of any drips, and, in some cases,
after-glow time. These criteria would no
longer be regulatory. Instead, proposed
AC 25.853–4X would describe one
means of compliance that incorporates
only the criteria of burn length and that
the material be self-extinguishing. The
self-extinguishing criteria would apply
to drips as well as the test sample.
2. Oil Burner Test for Seat Cushions
(Current § 25.853(c) and Part II of
Appendix F to Part 25)
Currently, § 25.853(c) requires that
seat cushions, except those on flight
crewmember seats, meet the test
requirements of part II of appendix F to
part 25, which involves the use of an oil
burner. The oil burner test for cushions
simulates the effect of a post-crash fire
by exposing the material to a highintensity open flame to evaluate its burn
resistance and other characteristics.
This proposal would extend this level
of flammability performance to any
cushion, including flight crewmember
seats and mattresses on berths. When
the FAA adopted its current
flammability rule 18 for seat cushions,
the materials available to applicants
were limited, and it was not clear that
flightcrew could achieve the posture
and comfort necessary to safely operate
the airplane using materials that
25, appendix F, part IV.
in the Federal Register on October
26, 1984 (49 FR 43188) and available on the internet
at https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_
Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/0/31FBF691A3BCE
69C86256825004F9E02?OpenDocument.
by a flame from a Bunsen burner.
16 For the purpose of this NPRM, ‘‘lower lobe’’
refers to the geometric lower half of the airplane
fuselage.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
complied with the oil burner test.
However, since that time, advances in
cushion materials have essentially
eliminated this issue and any reason for
different treatment of flight
crewmember seats. Mattresses or other
cushions on berths should meet the
same standards. The omission of
cushions on berths in the current
§ 25.853(c) was largely an oversight in
the way the FAA worded the rule.19
Proposed § 25.853(d)(3) would create
a performance-based standard for the
flammability of seat cushions. In the
event that a post-crash fire enters the
airplane, the seat cushions would have
to resist involvement in that fire, and
not propagate it. (Resist, for the
purposes of this proposed rule, means to
not become involved in a fire to the
extent that survivability is adversely
affected, commensurate with the
historical benefit provided by the oil
burner test. Involvement, for the
purposes of this proposed rule, means
ignition, pyrolysis, or combustion.)
Since the oil burner test represents the
hazard posed by a post-crash fire, it
would continue to be, in most cases, an
acceptable test to show compliance with
this proposed rule. However, in certain
applications, an applicant could show
compliance with the HRR test. The oil
burner test measures both flame spread
and material consumption rates, and the
HRR test only measures the latter.
Therefore, an applicant’s use of the HRR
test will generally be limited to designs
where flame spread does not affect
safety, and would, in most
circumstances, apply to small cushions
or cushions such as padding on an
angled surface. Proposed appendix F to
part 25 would allow this substitution of
one test method for another.
The proposed revisions to § 25.853
would no longer require cushions to
meet a Bunsen burner test because the
oil burner test, which most applicants
would use to demonstrate the
flammability performance of their
cushions, is more severe. Although the
Bunsen burner test would not be
required for seat cushions, applicants
could still choose to generate Bunsen
burner test data, where that data may be
used to support substitution of
upholstery (dress covers) under the
provisions of proposed § 25.853(e)(3).
This proposal would also remove the
mandatory and detailed testing methods
from appendix F to part 25. Instead, AC
25.853–2X, would provide guidance on
17 Part
18 Published
15 Represented
31751
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19 Section 25.853(c) specifically referred to
‘‘seats,’’ whereas elsewhere in the regulations, seats
and berths are both mentioned when requirements
apply to both. From a fire safety standpoint, there
is no distinction.
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
31752
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
acceptable tests, including the oil
burner test and use of the HRR test.
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Heat Release Rate Test (Current
§ 25.853(d) and Part IV of Appendix F
to Part 25)
Currently, the requirements to
conduct the HRR test, in § 25.853(d) and
part IV of appendix F to part 25, apply
to specific interior features: Interior
ceiling and wall panels, partitions,
galley structures, large cabinets, and
cabin stowage compartments that are in
a passenger compartment that may be
occupied during takeoff and landing.
This proposal would replace this
requirement with performance-based
standards in § 25.853(d)(2) applicable to
any large 20 surface area in the same
compartment, based on the type of fire
it may be exposed to, and without
regard to whether a particular surface is
associated with a specific feature. These
revisions, therefore, would extend the
flammability requirements to all large
surface areas within the portions of the
fuselage currently covered by the HRR
tests. This proposal would remove the
details of HRR tests from appendix F to
part 25. HRR tests would be one means
of compliance, and detailed in proposed
AC 25.853–1A.
A design development that the FAA
did not anticipate following the 1986
adoption of part IV of appendix F to part
25, which details the HRR test, and a
change to § 25.853(a) to require the HRR
test (at amendment 25–61 21), was
industry’s use of large area panels on
seat assemblies.22 Because § 25.853(d) at
amendment 25–83 23 (paragraph (a) at
amendment 25–61) does not list seats,
the FAA has applied special conditions
to address fire protection of these largearea parts. The proposed revisions to
§ 25.853 would eliminate the need for
these special conditions, since the
revisions would apply to any
component or part that is a large surface
within the fuselage.
The FAA also proposes, however, that
this broader standard only apply to
20 For purposes of this proposed rule, ‘‘large’’
excludes surfaces that are less than 1 square foot
and includes all surfaces that are 2 square feet and
greater, with square footage in between as explained
in amendment 25–83 (60 FR 6615, February 2,
1995), which is available on the internet at https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1995-02-02/pdf/
95-2114.pdf.
21 Published in the Federal Register on July 21,
1986 (51 FR 26206).
22 In this context, seat assemblies include the seat
and furniture associated with that seat. The
furniture need not be an airplane sidewall or
bulkhead to affect the overall post-crash
flammability characteristics and therefore should
simply be treated as a large surface area.
23 Published in the Federal Register on February
2, 1995 (60 FR 6615) and available on the internet
at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-199502-02/pdf/95-2570.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
items more than 15 inches above the
floor because full-scale fire tests 24 show
that (with the exception of materials
near the fire entry point) the materials
very near the floor do not significantly
contribute to a post-crash fire until
conditions have become non-survivable.
Therefore, in order to simplify
compliance demonstrations and focus
the requirement on the most critical
components, proposed § 25.853(d)(2)(i)
would only apply to large-surface
components and parts that are more
than 15 inches from the cabin floor. For
example, a kick panel that extends
upward from the floor to 16 inches
above the floor would be required to
pass the HRR test. For airplanes with
more than one passenger deck, the 15inch dimension would apply to each
deck separately. The FAA based the 15inch dimension on test data and the
objective of such materials not adversely
affecting safety. This provision is
relieving and should reduce costs. The
proposal to exclude surfaces 15 inches
and below would not apply to large area
surfaces on seats because seats could be
located in or near a fire’s entry point
through the fuselage and, therefore,
would be more likely to be involved in
a post-crash fire. FAA full-scale fire
tests have shown that there could be an
adverse impact on safety if parts on
seats that are less than 15 inches from
the floor did not meet the heat release
requirements.25
4. Smoke Emissions Test (Current
§ 25.853(d) and Part V of Appendix F to
Part 25)
This proposal would remove the
requirement for testing of smoke
emissions. The smoke emissions test,
detailed in the current part V of
appendix F to part 25 that is required by
§ 25.853(d), measures the smoke
emissions characteristics of materials
used in cabin components. The smoke
emissions test is currently required in
addition to the HRR test. The FAA
adopted the smoke emissions test
requirement at amendment 25–66 26
24 One example is FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/
TC–13/52, ‘‘Development of a Laboratory-Scale
Flammability Test for Magnesium Alloys Used in
Aircraft Seat Construction,’’ dated February 2014,
available in the Docket and on the internet at
https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TC-13-52.pdf.
25 FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/TC–16/42, ‘‘A
Comparison of Performance of OSU-Compliant
Versus Non-OSU-Compliant Thermoplastics Used
in the Lower Area of Aircraft Seats during a
Simulated Post-Crash Fire Scenario,’’ dated
September 2017, available in the Docket and on the
internet at https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TC-1642.pdf.
26 See ‘‘Improved Flammability Standards for
Materials Used in the Interiors of Transport
Category Airplane Cabins,’’ published in the
Federal Register on August 25, 1988 (53 FR 32564)
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
after concluding that smoke may
hamper emergency egress and is,
therefore, a survivability factor in the
event of a fire. Thus, all materials, parts,
and components that must meet the
HRR test requirements are also required
to pass the smoke emissions test in
accordance with current § 25.853(d).
However, FAA research data have
also shown that, for the materials and
configurations typically used in
transport category airplanes, the heat
release of the materials used drives
occupant survivability, rather than the
materials’ smoke emission. Heat release
dictates how quickly the conditions
progress to flashover.27 Before flashover,
conditions are largely survivable. Due to
the importance of heat release, the FAA
initially adopted regulations (at
amendment 25–61) that only contained
requirements for the HRR test and did
not address smoke emission.
In fact, the data do not correlate
smoke emission test results with postcrash survivability as they do with heat
release. The FAA is unaware of any data
showing that smoke emission testing
has contributed to fire safety in an
actual accident. Although the rule has
been in effect for more than 20 years
and has prevented applicants from
using certain materials, the FAA has
concluded, pursuant to the following
discussions, that the smoke emission
testing requirement is not adding to
post-crash fire safety. The smoke
emission requirement may be
contributing to in-flight fire safety, but
the extent of that contribution is
unknown. However, by adding
standards for extensively used materials
in inaccessible areas, the potential
contribution to an in-flight fire from
materials that would no longer be
subject to the smoke emission
requirement will be minimized. For
example, the proposal would eliminate
the test that measures smoke emissions
for certain large surface area parts, such
as sidewalls. If a fire was to propagate
on ducting behind the sidewall (an
inaccessible area), it could spread to a
sidewall that had not been tested for
smoke emission, and the quantity of
smoke could become a risk to continued
safe flight and landing. If the ducting
met the flammability standard in this
proposal, the fire would not reach the
sidewall, and the quantity of smoke
would be minimal. Thus, the relief in
the smoke emission requirements for
sidewalls depends on improving the
and available on the internet at https://rgl.faa.gov/
Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/
0/7B29EAF2EAC36594862568FC005465
CD?OpenDocument.
27 A flashover is the near-simultaneous ignition of
all combustible material within an enclosed area.
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
standards for ducting. This philosophy
of interdependency is true throughout
the proposal.
The MFWG discussed smoke
emission testing at length during its
activity leading to this proposal, but the
MFWG did not reach a consensus on
whether the FAA should retain a
requirement for smoke emission testing.
Some members were concerned that the
removal of the requirement could lead
to applicants using materials with
excessive smoke emission properties, if
those materials offered weight or cost
advantages. Other members believed the
FAA could eliminate the smoke
emission test requirement because
smoke emissions had not been
correlated to post-crash survivability,
and FAA data suggested it was not
needed. Also, most airplane
manufacturers have their own design
standards that include tests for smoke
emissions. These internal manufacturer
requirements were in place before the
FAA adopted the current regulatory
requirement; therefore, the FAA expects
they would remain in use to some
extent if the regulatory requirement
were removed. Thus, the FAA
anticipates that some of the smoke
emission testing that existed before the
current regulatory requirement would
continue to take place if this proposed
amendment removed the regulatory
requirement. In other words,
manufacturers might choose to maintain
the design standards that were in place
before amendment 25–66 28 was
adopted. Amendment 25–66 imposed a
certification process that drives costs, in
terms of the quantity of tests, the
documentation necessary, and the
engineering assessments to identify the
correct tests. These costs would be
relieved by this proposed rule and are
included in the cost savings estimates.
Based on this information, the FAA
proposes to remove the requirement for
testing of smoke emissions. However,
because smoke is an important
survivability parameter, and materials
that have high smoke emission without
significant HRR are theoretically
possible, § 25.853 of this proposal
would establish a general performance
standard that components must
maintain occupant survivability during
a post-crash fire. One means of showing
compliance would be HRR testing,
described in chapter A4 of FAA Report
No. DOT/FAA/TC–17/55, ‘‘Aircraft
28 See ‘‘Improved Flammability Standards for
Materials Used in the Interiors of Transport
Category Airplane Cabins,’’ published in the
Federal Register on August 25, 1988 (53 FR 32564).
Available at https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_
Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/0/7B29EAF2EAC
36594862568FC005465CD?OpenDocument.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
Materials Fire Test Handbook,’’
Revision 3, dated June 2019. If data from
the HRR testing does not ensure the
post-crash fuel fire performance of a
given material, an applicant could show
compliance via another means. The
FAA anticipates, however, that HRR
tests will be adequate to determine the
post-crash fire performance of
components made from materials
currently in use such as phenolic,
epoxy, and thermoplastic.
5. Oil Burner Test for Cargo
Compartment Liners (Current
§ 25.855(c) and Part III of Appendix F to
Part 25)
Proposed § 25.853(c)(2) would set
performance standards requiring all
Class C, and certain Class E and F, cargo
compartment ceiling and sidewall liners
to resist penetration by a fire within that
compartment and protect the airplane’s
structure and critical systems from the
effects of those fires. The section on
cargo or baggage compartments would
include a reference (§ 25.855(c))
requiring compliance with the
applicable provisions of § 25.853(c). In
addition, as a minor editorial change,
this proposal eliminates the term
‘‘panels’’ from ‘‘liner panels,’’ the term
used in the current regulation. Most
liners are panels. However, many
components serving the role of the cargo
compartment liner are not panels, and
the term can sometimes be confusing.
The proposed rule would simply refer to
cargo compartment liners, but there
would be no change in the scope of the
requirement.
Currently, § 25.855(b) requires any
Class B through E, and certain Class F,
cargo compartments to have a liner.
Section 25.855(c) requires the ceiling
and sidewall liner panels of Class C and
F cargo compartments to meet the
requirements currently in part III of
appendix F to part 25, the oil burner test
(proving resistance to flame
penetration). The requirement for cargo
compartment liners to resist fire
penetration would be retained, as a
performance standard, in
§ 25.853(c)(2)(ii). Proposed
§ 25.853(c)(1)(iii) would continue to
require Class B cargo compartment
liners, as well as any other cargo
compartment liners, to resist
penetration from a small ignition
source. This requirement is currently
met using the less severe 45-degree
Bunsen burner test required by
appendix F, part I, paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of
part 25. A Class F cargo compartment is
not required to have a liner if it has
other means of containing a fire and
protecting critical systems and
structure, but if it does have a liner, it
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31753
is currently required by § 25.855(b)(2) to
meet the oil burner test like Class C
cargo compartments.
With this proposal, all Class E cargo
compartment liners necessary to protect
critical systems and structure would be
required to meet standards identical to
those required of Classes C and F, under
proposed § 25.853(c)(2)(iii). The FAA’s
rationale for requiring the same
performance of those cargo
compartment liners is that any cargo
compartment liner necessary to protect
the airplane structure or its systems
should also protect against in-flight
cargo fires.
The oil burner test would continue to
be an acceptable means of showing that
the liner resists penetration as that test
represents the hazard posed by in-flight
cargo fires, but this proposal would
remove the requirement to pass the test
in part III of appendix F to part 25,
which would become an optional means
of compliance under proposed AC
25.853–1A.
Other methods of meeting the
proposed performance standards for
Class E cargo compartments could be
the use of fire containment covers or
containers, or dedicated shrouds to
protect flight-critical systems. In such
cases, proposed § 25.853(c)(2)(iv) would
still require the liner to resist
penetration from a small ignition
source, which could be shown by
passing the 45-degree Bunsen burner
test, which also would be described in
proposed AC 25.853–1A.
In addition, application of § 25.855(c)
has often resulted in multiple tests for
a given liner configuration or slight
variants of the configuration. This
regulation would be replaced by the
performance standards discussed
previously, and proposed AC 25.855–1X
would provide guidance on simplified
methods that should reduce the testing
required to show compliance.
Lastly, this proposal would eliminate
the requirement in § 25.855(d) to test the
flammability of materials used in the
construction of items such as cargo
covers and tiedown equipment within a
Class C cargo compartment. Section
25.855(d) currently applies to all other
materials used in the construction of the
cargo or baggage compartment and
requires testing according to part I of
appendix F to part 25, the Bunsen
burner tests, for any such materials.
This proposal would add an exception
to § 25.855(d) for materials located
entirely within a Class C cargo or
baggage compartment. The rationale for
this proposed relief is that Class C
compartments are already required by
§ 25.857(c) to withstand and contain a
fire from cargo or baggage of arbitrary
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
31754
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
flammability characteristics, and these
compartments must have a fire
suppression system. Materials used
within the Class C compartment would
be no more flammable than the cargo
itself. Since the cargo makes up most of
the potential fire load, requiring all of
these materials or components to be
tested does not add to safety. However,
this proposal would not provide similar
relief for other classifications of cargo
compartments because those
compartments use different approaches
to fire protection.
These proposed changes would apply
to cargo compartments, not cargo
containers, even though the National
Transportation Safety Board has
recommended improved flammability
standards for cargo containers. Cargo
containers 29 are used in a variety of
applications, including within Class C
cargo compartments. Unlike the cargo
compartments that house them, cargo
containers are usually not part of the
airplane type design, and so are not
directly affected by the requirements of
part 25. The FAA often approves cargo
containers in accordance with Technical
Standard Order (TSO) C90d, ‘‘Cargo
Pallets, Nets and Containers (Unit Load
Devices),’’ which contains minimum
performance standards for the container
itself, without regard to the type of
compartment where the container will
be used. The FAA’s analysis of potential
regulatory actions with respect to cargo
containers is ongoing and independent
of this proposal.
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
6. Radiant Panel Test for Thermal/
Acoustic Insulation (Current § 25.856(a)
and Part VI of Appendix F to Part 25)
Thermal/acoustic insulation protects
the airplane and occupants from
temperature and acoustic extremes, and
it is often located in places not
accessible to the flightcrew during
flight. This proposal would remove the
requirement for radiant panel testing of
thermal/acoustic insulation, currently in
§ 25.856(a) and part VI of appendix F to
part 25. This proposal would instead
require that thermal/acoustic insulation
comply with proposed § 25.853(c)(2)(i),
which would set performance standards
for all extensively used parts,
components, and assemblies that are not
accessible to the flightcrew during
flight. The proposed performance is that
the parts not propagate the largest fire
that, by itself, would not be a hazard to
the airplane. The reason this standard
was selected, originally by the MFWG,
29 Cargo containers are portable devices that are
carried within airplane cargo compartments to
transport cargo or baggage. They are used to
facilitate loading and maximize use of space.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
is to prevent the risk that a fire that is
any larger would be a hazard to the
airplane and its occupants, regardless of
the materials used.
One means of showing compliance
with the proposed performance
standards for inaccessible materials
would be the radiant panel test method,
which determines the flammability and
flame propagation characteristics of
thermal/acoustic insulation when it is
exposed to both a radiant heat source
and a flame. This method would be
detailed in proposed AC 25.856–1A.
In contrast, thermal/acoustic
insulation that is accessible to the
flightcrew during flight would only be
required to be self-extinguishing when
exposed to a small flame, as set forth in
proposed § 25.853(c)(1)(i).
7. Oil Burner Test for Thermal/Acoustic
Insulation (Current § 25.856(b) and Part
VII of Appendix F to Part 25)
For airplanes with a passenger
capacity of 20 or more, this proposal
would revise § 25.856(b) to state two
performance standards, that thermal/
acoustic insulation installed in the
lower half of the fuselage resist
penetration of a post-crash fuel fire and
provide at least 5 minutes of
survivability in the occupied portions of
the airplane. Section 25.856(b) currently
requires that thermal/acoustic
insulation installed in the lower half of
the fuselage meet the burnthrough
resistance (or oil burner) test in part VII
of appendix F to part 25 unless the FAA
determines that the insulation would
not contribute to fire penetration
resistance. If thermal/acoustic
insulation is not installed, there is
currently no requirement that the
airplane resist post-crash fire
penetration.
The MFWG recommended that the
FAA expand the applicability of the
burnthrough resistance requirement
beyond just insulation, to require a
means of providing post-crash fire
penetration protection. For some
airplane designs, that approach could
require some other type of fire barrier,
in areas where insulation is not
installed, that would have to meet the
same performance standards as thermal/
acoustic insulation.
The FAA is not proposing to adopt
the MFWG recommendation to expand
the applicability of the burnthrough
resistance requirement. It is difficult to
quantify the benefits of requiring a fire
penetration barrier, since the majority of
in-production airplanes are largely
insulated in the lower lobe. Adding a
fire barrier to areas not traditionally
insulated, such as the wing box or
certain cargo areas, would provide
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
some, albeit limited, fire safety benefit.
In addition, with the increased use of
composite skin structure, some airplane
models have fire penetration resistance
without using insulation. However, if
the FAA were to separately require fire
penetration resistance for the entire
lower lobe, applicants would incur
substantial development costs,
including increased testing, and more
significantly, increased airplane weight.
The FAA cannot, at present, justify
these costs against the potential benefits
they would provide. Instead, proposed
§ 25.856(b) would allow for another
means of providing fire penetration
resistance, and proposed AC 25.856–2B
would address the use of fuselage
structure in an equivalent means of
providing fire penetration resistance.
These provisions should reduce the
administrative actions necessary if an
applicant chooses to provide a fire
penetration barrier by means other than
insulation.
8. Radiant Heat Resistance Test for
Escape Slides (§ 25.853(d)(5))
Proposed § 25.853(d)(5) would
incorporate a requirement from TSO–
C69C, ‘‘Emergency Evacuation Slides,
Ramps, Ramp/Slides, and Slide/Rafts,’’
for applicants to conduct tests to ensure
the continued functioning of escape
systems when those systems are
exposed to the effects of radiant heat
from a post-crash fuel fire. Since all
escape slides currently comply with the
radiant heat resistance requirement of
TSO–C69C, this proposal would add no
compliance burden. Compliance with
TSO–C69C would also provide the
necessary data for compliance with the
new part 25 requirement. Proposed AC
25.853–6X would contain details of the
radiant heat test method and pass/fail
criteria and would include refinements
developed since the TSO–C69C was last
updated.
9. Fire Containment Compliance of
Waste Receptacles (Current § 25.853(h))
The fire containment requirements for
waste receptacles would remain the
same with this proposal. However,
because of the reorganization of
§ 25.853, this proposal would move the
waste receptacle requirements from
§ 25.853(h) to proposed
§ 25.853(c)(1)(ii). In addition, proposed
§ 25.853(c)(1)(ii) would require at least
one test specimen to show compliance.
This change is necessary because
proposed § 25.853(b) adds a general test
requirement that three specimen sets be
used to show compliance with proposed
§§ 25.853(c) and (d). Requiring one test
specimen for waste receptacles is
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
consistent with the current § 25.853(h),
which requires demonstration by test.
Waste receptacles face the threat of an
in-flight fire occurring within the
receptacle. The current § 25.853(h)
addresses this threat, but the
requirement does not specify a test
method from appendix F to part 25 as
do the other paragraphs of the current
§ 25.853. AC 25–17A, Change 1,
‘‘Transport Airplane Cabin Interiors
Crashworthiness Handbook,’’ dated May
24, 2016, currently summarizes an
acceptable method of compliance for
waste receptacles. This method would
be updated in chapter B1 of FAA Report
No. DOT/FAA/TC–17/55, in order to
reflect current knowledge about in-flight
fire sources and typical waste materials.
10. Extensively Used Materials in
Inaccessible Areas (Proposed
§ 25.853(c)(2)(i))
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
The FAA is proposing new fire safety
standards that would apply to all
materials that are extensively used
within and including the fuselage but
are not accessible in flight. Proposed
§ 25.853(c) would set a performance
standard of prohibiting the flammability
characteristics of parts, components,
and materials involved in an in-flight
fire from creating a hazard to the
occupants or to the continued safe flight
of the airplane. For the purposes of this
proposed rule, the ‘‘flammability
characteristics’’ of a part, component, or
assembly (or the materials from which
they are made) are all of the ways those
items respond to a particular fire threat.
Such flammability characteristics
include the material’s ease of ignition,
its tendency to propagate a flame, and
its HRR, as well as other parameters
correlated with heat release, including
the emission of smoke and toxic gases.
Proposed § 25.853(c)(2)(i) would set
the performance standard that
extensively used parts, components, and
assemblies must not propagate the
largest fire that, by itself, would not be
a hazard to the airplane.
When the FAA adopted the
flammability requirements for thermal/
acoustic insulation in 2003 (amendment
25–111),30 the FAA’s regulatory
evaluation estimated that the
requirements would mitigate 31 roughly
half the potentially catastrophic in-flight
fires that might occur over a 20-year
30 See ‘‘Improved Flammability Standards for
Thermal/Acoustic Insulation Materials Used in
Transport Category Airplanes,’’ published in the
Federal Register on July 31, 2003 (68 FR 45045) and
available on the internet at https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2003-07-31/pdf/
03-18612.pdf.
31 I.e., prevent the fire from becoming
catastrophic.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
period. In order to more completely
address the risk due to in-flight fire, the
FAA determined that all extensively
used materials in inaccessible areas
should have the same level of fire
resistance as thermal/acoustic
insulation, currently addressed in
§ 25.856(a). Therefore, proposed
§ 25.853(c)(2)(i) would set the same
performance standard for extensively
used parts in inaccessible areas that is
in the current § 25.856(a).
To further explain the reason for this
proposal, the parts and materials of
primary concern in inaccessible areas
are electrical wiring, ducting, and
composite structure. Each of these is
‘‘extensively used,’’ in the meaning set
forth in this proposal, and could permit
a fire to propagate inside the airplane.
Since the areas in question are not
accessible by the flightcrew, there is no
effective way to fight the fire, so the
flammability (flame propagation)
resistance of the materials is paramount
in in-flight fire safety. This proposal
would also revise § 25.856(a), which
states the requirements for thermal/
acoustic insulation, to require the same
performance standards as
§ 25.853(c)(2)(i). This would have the
effect of limiting the applicability of the
in-flight flame propagation requirement
to thermal/acoustic insulation that is
located in an area that is inaccessible in
flight. Proposed AC 25.853–5X would
provide additional detail on the types of
components that are affected by this
requirement, as well as methods of
compliance.
Section 25.1713, ‘‘Fire protection:
EWIS,’’ applies to electrical wire and
cable wherever it is used. Materials used
in any electrical wire and cable
insulation, including protective
shrouds, are considered extensively
used. This proposal would restate the
current fire protection requirements
relative to whether the wire is installed
within or outside the fuselage. For
electrical wiring interconnected systems
(EWIS) components installed within the
fuselage, under proposed § 25.1713(c)(2)
the insulation would have to meet the
performance standards in proposed
§ 25.853(c), which includes different
standards for installations in areas that
are accessible and inaccessible in-flight,
and in a post-crash environment. For
EWIS installed outside the fuselage,
because such areas are inaccessible,
proposed § 25.1713(c)(1) would require
that such components not propagate the
largest fire that, by itself, would not be
a hazard to the airplane. This proposal
would also add a new paragraph (d) to
§ 25.853 to require testing, except for
wiring installations that would not pose
a risk to fire safety. Proposed AC
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31755
25.853–5X would provide accepted test
methods for showing compliance with
the new performance standards.
Other extensively used materials
include nonmetallic or flammable
metals used in some fuselage
construction today. Since the use of
these materials in this manner
constitutes a novel or unusual design
feature, the FAA has addressed the issue
of in-flight fire safety for designs using
these materials through special
conditions. Those special conditions are
intended to ensure that the use of
nonmetallic or flammable metal
structure does not reduce the level of inflight fire safety from the level that
would have been provided with a
traditional metallic fuselage. Proposed
§ 25.853(a) would include the fuselage
in the fire protection requirements
regardless of the type of material used
in its construction and would eliminate
the need for such special conditions.
Proposed § 25.853(d)(4) would require
that flammable metals used in cabin
construction be able to resist a postcrash fire, and that they be readily
extinguishable. ‘‘Readily
extinguishable,’’ in this instance, means
that a fire extinguishing system in
common use in aviation (including a
hand-held fire extinguisher or airport
emergency response) can promptly
extinguish the materials, rather than
spreading the fire or otherwise making
the fire worse.
Under § 25.853(c)(2) of this proposal,
the back sides of many existing interior
features (e.g., galleys, sidewalls,
ceilings) would meet the definition of
extensively used and would, therefore,
be required to show by test their fire
propagation resistance. However, the
FAA has assessed the performance of
these materials, both in service and in
testing. Since the materials’ fire
propagation resistance has been
satisfactory, and because they are
subject to other flammability
requirements, the FAA does not see a
need to require additional tests for the
portion of these parts that face
inaccessible areas. Therefore, proposed
appendix F to part 25 and proposed AC
25.853–1A would summarize conditions
under which methods of compliance
other than testing would be acceptable
in order to meet the in-flight fire
requirements for inaccessible areas.
Proposed § 25.853(c)(2)(v) would
require that all other parts, components,
and materials located in inaccessible
areas be self-extinguishing when
exposed to a small flame or electrical
arc. However, since these would by
definition be components that are not
extensively used, an applicant could
document a process whereby the
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
31756
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
flammability of parts used in
inaccessible areas is controlled to meet
the required level of safety of the
proposed rule. Specifically, an applicant
could show that its design/production
system includes provisions such that
parts used in inaccessible areas have
only known flammability
characteristics, or any parts that do have
unknown flammability characteristics
are insignificant in the event of a fire.
Proposed AC 25.853–1A would discuss
this in more detail.
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
11. Exclusions From Testing (Proposed
§ 25.853(e))
Proposed § 25.853(e) would allow
applicants to substantiate certain
components without the testing
required by § 25.853(b). Section
25.853(e) would establish five classes of
parts that would not require
certification testing in order to show
compliance. Each individual class
would be based on a combination of
factors that affect fire safety and
complexity of certification. The classes
maintain the level of safety provided in
the current regulations.
The applicant would have to prove
that the part or component meets the
criteria of one of the five classes listed
in proposed § 25.853(e), in order to
obtain the FAA’s approval to exempt
those parts from testing. Proposed AC
25.853–1A would provide examples that
would qualify for this relief and
guidance for justifying it.
The classes are as follows:
• Class 1 parts are small (each able to
fit, in its entirety, within a cube
measuring two inches on each side) and
separated from one another so that they
will not propagate a fire.
• Class 2 parts are larger than Class 1
parts and are self-extinguishing. These
parts would be limited in size to a
volume of 113 cubic inches and an
exposed area of 200 square inches.
• Class 3 parts are those that the
applicant can show, through a method
acceptable to the Administrator, are a
size, construction, or location that their
flammability characteristics do not
threaten the airplane or its occupants.
By threaten, the FAA means pose a risk
to continued safe flight and landing or
a hazard to the occupants.
• Class 4 parts are those that are
essential to the safety of the airplane, its
occupants, or the functionality 32 of the
airplane and cannot reasonably be made
from a material that meets the
flammability requirements without
compromising the part’s integrity or
32 Such necessary functionality does not include
entertainment systems but would include lavatories
and potable water tanks.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
functionality. Although this paragraph
provides an exception, the FAA expects
the proposed design would come as
closely as possible to full compliance,
including the use of best available
materials and showing that there is no
adverse effect on safety.
• Class 5 parts are those that have
already passed a more stringent test as
outlined in appendix F to part 25.
All of these provisions would apply to
testing requirements for both the inflight and post-crash fires.
The FAA is proposing these
exceptions because the current general
exclusion of small parts from testing
requirements in part I of appendix F to
part 25 has been problematic. There is
currently no definition of small parts in
the flammability regulations, only
examples. Since testing is not required,
the flammability characteristics of those
small parts can be unknown. In
addition, there is no consideration of
accessibility, extensive use, or potential
type of fire exposure. Adopting different
classes of parts would simplify the
requirements and bring standardization
to those situations where parts are not
tested. Proposed AC 25.853–1A would
provide examples that would qualify for
this relief and guidance on justifying it.
12. Pass/Fail Criteria
This proposal would remove the
detailed pass/fail criteria from appendix
F to part 25. Section 25.853(b) of this
proposal would define the number of
specimen sets required for tests that the
applicant uses to show compliance. The
applicable proposed AC would provide
approved number of passing samples for
certain testing methods.
The detailed pass/fail criteria,
currently in appendix F to part 25, are
specific to the test method. Depending
on what the test is measuring, the pass/
fail criteria relate to the key parameters
of interest (e.g., burn length,
extinguishing time, HRR) necessary to
meet the level of safety that the
requirement. The pass/fail criteria are
based on a required number of test
samples and the number of samples that
meet the specified criteria. All of the
current test methods require at least
three sets of test samples, which may
include more than one specimen
depending on the test method.
Some current test methods require the
average value of the test results to be at
or below a certain level; others require
that no sample can fail. For example,
the seat cushion test in current
appendix F to part 25 requires that two
thirds of the test samples meet certain
criteria as well as the average of all test
samples. One of the key ongoing
difficulties with these criteria is how to
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
recover from failure of a single sample,
where that sample may be an outlier.
For those methods that require an
average, simply testing more samples
improves the statistical significance of
the average, and has generally been
acceptable (although the FAA must
approve in advance the number of
additional samples to be tested). For test
methods that do not permit any sample
to exceed specified values, a failure of
one sample is problematic, since one
failure would violate the criteria no
matter how many additional samples
are tested. Such failures are often
attributed to so-called ‘‘rogue’’ samples:
Samples that have some irregular
characteristic that makes their
performance unrepresentative of the
material (part or component) in general.
While rogue samples undoubtedly
occur, it is often difficult to pinpoint
their cause.
This proposal would address this
issue in § 25.853(b) by standardizing the
number of samples and required pass
rate: 80 percent for every new or
improved test method, based on a
minimum of three test sample sets. The
effect would be that if only three
samples are tested, all must pass. If one
of the three samples fails, then at least
two additional samples would be
needed to obtain an 80 percent passing
rate. This standard would be effectively
relieving for tests on thermal/acoustic
insulation and Class C cargo
compartment liners because those
methods in part III of appendix F to part
25 currently permit no failures. In
contrast, this method could be more
stringent for Bunsen burner and HRR
tests because it could require more
samples. The method is similar to the
method currently required for testing
seat cushions. However, since this
proposal would eliminate many Bunsen
burner tests and the test for smoke
emissions (all in appendix F), even if an
applicant needed additional samples to
show compliance, the total number of
required tests should be very close to
the number required today. Also,
samples that are invalidated due to an
assignable cause could still be discarded
and replaced with new samples.
Most of the test methods currently in
use would continue to be acceptable for
certification. An applicant could choose
to use these existing methods to show
compliance with the relevant portions
of this proposal. However, the FAA
considers the revised versions of these
test methods, as documented in FAA
Report No. DOT/FAA/TC–17/55, to be
more reliable than the previous
versions. The only test methods
currently required that would not be
carried forward under this proposal are
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
the horizontal Bunsen burner test and
the test for smoke emissions. If an
applicant uses a current test method to
comply with a performance standard in
this proposal, then the applicant should
use existing pass/fail criteria (including
all measured parameters). In that case,
an applicant would be trading the lower
reliability of the older test method
against the need to prepare additional
test samples. For new tests, such as
those for extensively used materials in
inaccessible areas, at this time there are
no proven optional methods to those
presented in the proposed guidance,
which includes the 80-percent criteria.
The table below identifies each test
method; the current location of the
detailed test method in regulatory
requirements and non-regulatory
procedures; and the location where each
test method could be found, in nonregulatory procedures, if this proposal is
adopted.
Test method
Currently approved (or required) procedures
Bunsen burner ...................................................
Part I of appendix F to part 25, AMFTH,*
Chapters 1–4.
Part II of appendix F to part 25, AMFTH,*
Chapter 7.
Part III of appendix F to part 25, AMFTH,*
Chapter 8.
Part VII of appendix F to part 25 .....................
N/A ...................................................................
Part IV of appendix F to part 25, AMFTH,*
Chapter 5.
TSO C69C .......................................................
Part VI of appendix F to part 25 ......................
N/A ...................................................................
N/A ...................................................................
N/A ...................................................................
AMFTH,** Chapter A5.
AMFTH,** Chapter A6.
AMFTH,** Chapter A4.
AMFTH,* Chapter 10 .......................................
AMFTH,** Chapter B1.
Oil burner—seats ..............................................
Oil burner—cargo liner ......................................
Oil burner—insulation ........................................
Oil burner—Mg alloy .........................................
Heat release rate ..............................................
Radiant heat—escape slide ..............................
Radiant panel ....................................................
Vertical flame propagation—Wiring ..................
Vertical flame propagation—Ducting ................
Vertical flame propagation—Composite structure.
Fire containment ...............................................
31757
Non-regulatory procedures
AMFTH,** Chapters A1 and A2.
AMFTH,** Chapters A5.
AMFTH,** Chapters B2.
AMFTH,**
AMFTH,**
AMFTH,**
AMFTH,**
AMFTH,**
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
A2.
B2.
B5.
B4.
B3.
* FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/AR–00/12, ‘‘Aircraft Materials Fire Test Handbook,’’ dated April 2000.
** FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/TC–17/55, ‘‘Aircraft Materials Fire Test Handbook,’’ Revision 3, dated June 2019.
While the previous test methods, as
shown in the table above, would
continue to be acceptable, the FAA will
not continue to refine these methods to
improve their repeatability and
reproducibility. The FAA’s future focus
on refining and improving test methods
will be on the new and improved test
methods documented in FAA Report
No. DOT/FAA/TC–17/55, since these
are now the preferred methods and
would become the preferred methods of
compliance with the performance
standards of this proposal.
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Reorganization of Appendix F to Part
25
1. General Structure
The FAA is proposing to
substantively change appendix F to part
25 by removing its many specifications
for flammability tests and adding a list
of flammability test methods that
applicants can use in lieu of other test
methods. The FAA would remove and
update the detailed testing criteria from
the current appendix F, although it
would continue to be available in
advisory material. This proposal would
provide flexibility for applicants in
showing compliance with the proposed
revisions to the fire protection standards
in § 25.853.
Currently, appendix F to part 25 is
divided into seven parts, each providing
details of different test methods, with
variations for specific airplane parts,
and acceptable outcomes for each test
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
variation. Because of the importance of
maintaining standardization, these test
methods are very detailed and,
therefore, lengthy. Since appendix F to
part 25 is a regulation, applicants must
get the FAA’s approval to depart from
any of the test details. As the test
methods have become more
complicated and sophisticated over
time, following every detail has become
more important in obtaining reliable
results. Conversely, as technology
advances, providing more opportunities
to refine and improve the test methods,
requests for deviation from appendix F
to part 25 have become more frequent.
To deal with these requests, the FAA
issued a policy statement to permit use
of FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/AR–00/12
as an acceptable method of compliance
for many of the test methods in
appendix F to part 25. The FAA also
developed a method for updating the
handbook, so that improvements could
be implemented quickly and used by
industry without extensive
administrative burden.
Given this experience, the FAA has
determined that the detailed test
methods should no longer be regulatory.
In conjunction with this proposal, the
detailed test methods would be
contained in ACs (see section III.D,
‘‘Advisory Materials’’ of this NPRM),
which are easier to update than a
regulation and allow for more flexibility
as refinements and improvements to the
test methods become available. As with
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
any advisory material, the method
would not be mandatory, but applicants
would have to justify and obtain
approval of other compliance methods.
To improve the effectiveness of the
handbook approach to compliance, a
new document would serve as a
compendium of the relevant test
methods. The associated ACs would
reference this compendium, and the
FAA would update it as advances and
improvements in test methods and
equipment are developed. However, the
original version and subsequent
versions of the compendium would
remain an acceptable method of
compliance with these proposed
regulations, unless the FAA discovers a
deficiency in a given version, or changes
the regulatory requirements after notice
and comment.
2. Hierarchy of Tests
This proposal would add provisions
to appendix F to part 25 that would
allow applicants to demonstrate
compliance with a requirement in one
of the proposed paragraphs of § 25.853
via a test method at least as rigorous as
one acceptable for showing compliance
with the original requirement.
Appendix F to part 25 would contain a
table of these performance standards
indicating whether showing compliance
with one standard would be sufficient to
satisfy showing compliance with
another. This table would help
applicants determine the relative
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
31758
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
severity of the testing methods that the
FAA would find acceptable for showing
compliance and, therefore, would allow
applicants to eliminate redundant or
non-value-added testing. Since the
critical performance parameters (e.g.,
flame propagation and fire penetration)
differ according to the type of fire (inflight or post-crash fuel fire), the
proposed revisions to appendix F to part
25 would clarify which types of
compliance tests the FAA would find
acceptable as substitutions for a given
type of fire threat.
This would allow a successful result
on other, more stringent, testing to
prove that a given material will not pose
a hazard in that type of fire. For
example, appendix F to part 25 would
allow applicants to use a successful
HRR test to show compliance with the
requirement to pass a Bunsen burner
test, or to use a post-crash fire test
method, coupled with experience for
certain classes of materials, to show
compliance with an otherwise required
in-flight fire test method. The FAA has
determined that, for certain classes of
materials, complying with one
requirement provides sufficient data to
show compliance with another, subject
to certain conditions. Each instance
where compliance with the post-crash
requirements is sufficient to meet the inflight requirement would be discussed
in more detail in proposed AC 25.853–
1A.
An example of the allowable use of a
post-crash requirement to meet an inflight requirement would be for the back
sides of the large interior surfaces
(sidewalls, ceilings, floors, galleys, etc.)
not exposed to the cabin. As discussed
previously, these surfaces would be
subject to proposed § 25.853(c)(2),
which would require that, for in-flight
fires, extensively used materials in
inaccessible areas not propagate the
largest fire that, by itself, would not be
a hazard to the airplane. The vertical
flame propagation test is currently the
expected means of compliance to this
standard. However, with the exception
of floor panels, the types of materials
used for these applications have not
been a safety concern for in-flight fires,
and these materials would still have to
meet the stringent requirements related
to heat release for the post-crash
environment. With the proposed
hierarchy table in appendix F to part 25,
if these materials pass the HRR tests,
they would not also have to pass the
vertical flame propagation test.
The same allowance is true for the
back side of cargo compartment liners,
even though they are subject to a
different probable type of fire threat
(post-crash fuel fires) and required by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
appendix F to be tested using the oil
burner test. Although the oil burner and
vertical flame propagation tests are not
universal substitutes for each other, the
materials on the back of cargo
compartment liners have exhibited
satisfactory behavior in the presence of
in-flight fires, as demonstrated by FAA
testing, and should not require further
testing by the vertical flame propagation
test. Should new materials be developed
whose performance in an in-flight fire
has not been established, then the
proposed rule would provide the means
to address and allow them, and both test
methods may be necessary to
demonstrate that compliance. This
would be indicated in the note to the
table in proposed appendix F to part 25.
As a final note, the FAA recognizes
that its current regulations provide
flexibility for an applicant via the
repeated provision allowing ‘‘other
approved test methods.’’ However, this
provision does not adequately address
the need for consistency in test methods
because it is optional, and each
applicant could seek approval of a
unique alternative method. This can
result in the same material passing one
applicant’s test and failing another, even
though both test methods could be
approved by the FAA. The FAA expects
that this proposal would provide the
same level of flexibility, but increased
consistency over time as consensus on
testing methods develops.
C. Conformal and Editorial Changes
Special Federal Aviation Regulation
(SFAR) 109 to part 25 also requires
compliance with certain paragraphs of
§ 25.853 that would be changed by this
proposal. Consequently, the FAA would
modify SFAR 109 so that those
requirements continue after § 25.853 is
amended.
Certain sections of 14 CFR parts 27
and 29, for normal and transport
category rotorcraft, currently require
testing in accordance with appendix F
to part 25. Although this proposal
would remove those testing
requirements from appendix F for
transport category airplanes, the FAA
does not propose to remove or change
those requirements for normal and
transport category rotorcraft. Therefore,
this proposal would add an amendment
level to the appendix F references in
§§ 27.1365, 29.853, and 29.1359 to
continue those requirements after
appendix F is amended.
The proposed rule would also remove
certain testing requirements regarding
average burn length from paragraphs
(a)(1) and (a)(2) of § 29.853 because
those requirements are redundant with
current appendix F to part 25.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Operational rules in certain sections
of 14 CFR parts 91, 121, 125, and 135
also currently require testing in
accordance with §§ 25.853 and 25.856
and appendix F to part 25. The FAA
proposes to add the phrase ‘‘or as
subsequently amended’’ to §§ 91.613,
121.312, 121.314, 125.113, 135.169, and
135.170, so that airplanes approved in
accordance with the amendment
resulting from this proposal would be
able to comply with the operational
rules. The ‘‘or’’ in that phrase serves the
purpose of making compliance with this
proposal or a later amendment optional.
In addition, appendix L to part 121
contains information regarding
referenced sections of part 25 that have
subsequently changed through
amendments. Appendix L would also be
updated to conform to this proposal.
These changes to parts 25, 27, 29, 91,
121, 125, and 135 would have no
substantive impact on safety or the cost
of compliance.
This proposal also contains some
editorial changes to existing regulatory
language, where that language does not
reflect how the rule is applied, or its
intent. Specifically, current § 25.853(e)
excepts certain compartments from
compliance with § 25.853(d) if they are
isolated by a door that would be closed
during an emergency landing condition.
In practice, this exception has been
applied when such compartments are
isolated by a door that is closed for taxi,
takeoff, and landing, in general. The
proposal is changed accordingly and
will have no impact on the requirement.
The proposal moves this exception in
§ 25.853(e) for parts inside of
compartments isolated from the main
passenger cabin to a new
§ 25.853(d)(2)(ii).
Current § 25.853(h) requires that
disposal receptacles be made from
materials that are ‘‘fire resistant.’’ The
term ‘‘fire resistant’’ is defined in 14
CFR part 1 as having properties
equivalent to aluminum alloy
appropriate for the purpose. In practice,
the means of compliance has been by
meeting the test method specified in
current part I of appendix F for Class B
cargo compartment liners, which is to
resist penetration by a small flame. The
proposal would state the requirement in
that way to avoid any ambiguity
regarding the level of protection
required. This will also have no impact
since it aligns the rule language with
how the requirement has historically
been actually met.
This proposal contains only minor
editorial changes to the requirements
related to smoking in § 25.853(f) and (g).
The requirements would remain the
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
same, but the paragraphs would be
renumbered and restated for clarity.
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Advisory Material
The FAA is developing six new ACs
and revising three ACs that will be
published for public comment
concurrently with this NPRM. These
proposed ACs can be found in the same
public docket as this NPRM. The draft
ACs would provide guidance for
acceptable means, but not the only
means, of showing compliance with
proposed §§ 25.853, 25.855, and 25.856.
The FAA will accept public comments
on the following proposed ACs on the
‘‘Aviation Safety Draft Documents Open
for Comment’’ web page at https://
www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/:
1. AC 25.853–1A, ‘‘Flammability
Requirements for Transport Category
Airplanes.’’
2. AC 25.853–2X, ‘‘Flammability
Requirements for Aircraft Seat
Cushions.’’
3. AC 25.853–3X, ‘‘Flammability
Testing Requirements for Commonly
Constructed Parts, Construction Details,
and Materials Used on Transport
Category Airplanes.’’
4. AC 25.853–4X, ‘‘Vertical Bunsen
Burner Tests.’’
5. AC 25.853–5X, ‘‘Flammability
Requirements for Materials in
Inaccessible Areas of Transport Category
Airplanes.’’
6. AC 25.853–6X, ‘‘Flammability
Requirements for Escape System
Materials for Transport Category
Airplanes.’’
7. AC 25.855–1X, ‘‘Flammability
Requirements of Cargo Liners for
Transport Category Airplanes.’’
8. AC 25.856–1A, ‘‘Thermal/Acoustic
Insulation Flame Propagation Test
Method Details.’’
9. AC 25.856–2B, ‘‘Fuselage
Burnthrough Protection.’’
The FAA is also revising Report No.
DOT/FAA/AR–00/12 to update the test
methods contained within this report, as
described previously. This interim
report will be published concurrently
with this NPRM as FAA Report No.
DOT/FAA/TC–17/55, and it can be
found in the same public docket as this
NPRM.
E. Application of §§ 21.17
This proposal would revise the
flammability standards for transport
category airplanes, but would not
impose any requirements to retrofit
existing airplanes or conduct a
production-cut in on new airplanes.
Since this proposal would simplify or
remove some of the flammability
requirements, some applicants may
wish to use the standards of this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
proposal instead of an earlier
amendment level. Applicants may elect
to apply the later amendment under
§ 21.17 or seek exceptions in accordance
with § 21.101.
Section 21.17(e) permits an applicant
for a type certificate to elect compliance
with an amendment effective after the
date of application, as long as all
‘‘directly related’’ amendments, as
determined by the FAA, are complied
with as well.
The FAA has considered which
regulatory amendments must be
regarded as ‘‘directly related’’ and,
therefore, applied together under
§ 21.17. An analysis of what is ‘‘directly
related’’ requires examination of which
provisions have been made more
flexible and which have been made
more stringent because these factors are
often causally related. In some areas, the
additional flexibility is the result of a
requirement that has become more
stringent. The primary areas of
increased flexibility are the proposed
removal of the testing requirements in
appendix F, and the proposed removal
of the smoke emission requirement. The
removal of the appendix F testing
requirements is only possible, from a
safety perspective, because of the
additional performance standards for
inaccessible areas. The main area where
requirements would become more
stringent is extensively used
components in inaccessible regions of
the airplane. These areas are mainly
threatened by in-flight fires, although
improved flammability resistance of
materials can also benefit post-crash
safety. Therefore, the FAA considers the
entire proposal to be interrelated, such
that all the proposed changes could be
characterized as ‘‘directly related’’ to
each other. However, the FAA expects
that a practical application of the
‘‘directly related’’ provision could
simplify compliance under § 21.17 and
maximize safety, as discussed below.
Among those components that would
be subjected to new test methods under
this proposal, composite fuselage
structure is already subject to meeting
special conditions, and this proposal
would codify the requirements in those
conditions. Also, aviation-grade
electrical wiring is for the most part
already compliant with the proposed
flammability requirements. Ducting is
one area, however, where many of the
currently used parts would not meet the
proposed requirement for extensively
used materials in inaccessible areas, and
where a significant safety benefit would
accrue from the higher standard. The
type of fire that primarily threatens
ducting is in-flight. However, accidents
have shown that ducting can spread and
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31759
intensify post-crash fires. Thus, the
safety improvement that would result
from applying the proposed standards to
ducts would enhance fire safety with
regard to both types of fire, and the FAA
considers this safety enhancement
integral to the proposed changes that
would reduce or eliminate other testing.
Therefore, an applicant that elects
compliance with the amendment level
that results from this proposal, in order
to take advantage of the provisions that
reduce or eliminate tests, would also
have to ensure that ducting complies
with the new standards proposed in
§ 25.853(c)(2).
The exception to the requirement to
apply directly related changes when an
applicant elects compliance with the
later amendment would be the
substitution of tests in proposed
appendix F to part 25. Such substitution
is already allowed under the current
flammability rules, which repeatedly
allow applicants to show compliance by
‘‘other equivalent method.’’ Applicants
could apply proposed appendix F to
part 25 to models approved under
earlier certification bases without
affecting safety and without applying
other portions of the proposal. An
applicant’s selection of the amendment
that most materially contributes to
safety could eliminate the need to run
multiple tests on many parts with the
recognition that some tests are
sufficiently stringent that they would
satisfy the concerns addressed by other
tests. Substituting some tests would
neither eliminate the need to conduct
smoke emissions tests, nor alter the
applicability of current requirements.
Proposed appendix F to part 25 would
simply permit substitution of one test
method for another, where the
substitute method has been determined
to be more stringent.
• Example 1: An applicant for a
supplemental type certificate desires to
use only the new appendix F that would
result from this proposal. In this case,
the applicant would be limited to
applying the hierarchy of appendix F,
and no other relief.
• Example 2: An applicant for a
change to a type certificate (either
through amended or supplemental type
certification) desires to elect compliance
with the entire amendment that results
from this proposal. The applicant must
comply with § 25.853(c)(2)(i) as it
pertains to air ducting, even if the air
ducting is unchanged or not affected by
the proposed design change. Any other
provision of the proposed rule could
then be included at the applicant’s
choosing.
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
31760
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
F. Application of §§ 21.101
Section 21.101(a) requires design
change applicants to meet the standards
in effect on the date of application that
are applicable to the change and areas
affected by the change, unless
exceptions are requested and are
granted under the provisions of
§ 21.101(b). Section 21.101(b) allows the
applicant to show compliance with an
earlier amendment level for changes
found to be not significant, or found to
not materially contribute to safety, or
found to be impractical. The FAA does
not regard any of the standards
proposed here as impractical. The
degree to which application of these
standards would ‘‘materially contribute
to safety’’ will depend on the current
design.
As discussed previously, acceptable
wiring would be documented in
proposed AC 25.853–5X and include
wiring already widely used by
applicants; the safety of composite
fuselage structure will have been
covered by special conditions; and
ducting may comply with these
proposed standards, even though
certification testing has not been
performed. In those cases, an applicant
may be able to argue that including the
later amendment would not materially
contribute to safety, but that use of other
provisions (e.g., those that would
eliminate tests) of the proposal would
provide significant benefits to the
applicant. In that case, the FAA agrees
that compliance with the later
amendment could be acceptable to
eliminate tests, provided improved
design features used to justify the
exception are a condition of the
certification basis in the ‘‘Additional
Design Requirements and Conditions’’
section of the type certificate data sheet.
The following examples illustrate
how this could work in practice:
• Example 1: An applicant for a
significant product-level change seeks
exception, under § 21.101(b), from the
amendment that results from this
proposal on the basis that full
compliance would not materially
contribute to safety. As discussed above,
an exception would have to be based on
substantial compliance with this
proposal, such that few components are
not in compliance, and they would not
be significant from a fire safety
standpoint.
• Example 2: An applicant applies for
a fuselage length change. The change is
considered a significant product-level
change per the guidance in AC 21.101–
1B. AC 21.101–1B also states that the
simultaneous introduction of a new
cabin interior is considered related
since occupant safety considerations are
impacted by a cabin length change. The
FAA considers this proposed
amendment to be directly related to
occupant safety. As such, for a fuselage
change, this proposed amendment
would be an applicable requirement for
the airplane (e.g., changed and
unchanged areas of the airplane would
need to meet the requirement). The
applicant may request an exception
under § 21.101 by showing compliance
with this proposal to a substantial
extent, such that the few parts not in
compliance would not be significant
from a fire safety standpoint.
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 as amended)
prohibits agencies from setting
standards that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
United States. In developing U.S.
standards, the Trade Agreements 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.
We suggest readers seeking greater
detail read the full regulatory
evaluation, a copy of which we have
placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, FAA
has determined that this proposed rule:
(1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2)
is not an economically ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is not
‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4)
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities; (5) would not create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States; and (6)
would not impose an unfunded
mandate on State, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector by
exceeding the threshold identified
above. These analyses are summarized
below.
1. Summary of Costs and Benefits
By extending fire protection
requirements to any extensively used
material located in inaccessible areas
the proposal is likely to be beneficial by
reducing the likelihood of a fatal
accident. Over a 19-year period of
analysis, the FAA estimates the total
present value cost savings of this
proposed rule to be $119.8 million at a
seven percent discount rate, with
annualized cost savings of $11.6
million. The cost savings would result
from the elimination and streamlining
of some tests, which would be made
possible by the extension of fire
protection requirements to inaccessible
areas. Over the same 19-year period, the
FAA estimates the total present value
costs of this proposed rule to be $71.1
million at a seven percent discount rate,
with annualized costs of $6.9 million
due to the extension of fire protection
requirements to extensively used
material in inaccessible areas. A full
explanation of how these costs and cost
savings were estimated may be found in
the regulatory impact assessment
accompanying this NPRM. The present
value net cost savings (cost savings
minus cost) is $48.7 million, with
annualized net cost savings of $4.7
million. The following table summarizes
the costs and cost savings of this
proposed rule.
SUMMARY OF COSTS AND COST SAVINGS (2016 $)
19-year total present value
7%
Cost Savings ............................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
$119,848,146
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Annualized
3%
7%
$178,395,887
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
$11,595,669
03JYP1
3%
$12,454,509
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
31761
SUMMARY OF COSTS AND COST SAVINGS (2016 $)—Continued
19-year total present value
7%
3%
Costs ........................................................................................
71,105,318
80,387,114
6,879,654
5,612,136
Total Net Cost Savings ....................................................
48,742,828
98,008,773
4,716,015
6,842,373
2. Who is potentially affected by this
proposed rule?
Manufacturers of part 25 transport
category airplanes would be potentially
affected by the proposed rule.
3. Assumptions
• Totals converted to 2016 constant
dollars.33
• Time horizon for analysis 19
years.34
• Fifty percent of the current $42.8
million annual costs for smoke
emissions testing is incurred by
domestic airplane manufacturers.35
• Cost savings from eliminating
smoke emissions tests would increase
linearly to the level of the current cost
savings over 25 years.36
• Large transport category aircraft.37
Æ One manufacturer.
Æ Four type certificates.
Æ Twenty-seven airplanes produced
annually.
Æ Nineteen-year production period.
• Small transport category aircraft.38
Æ One manufacturer.
Æ Three type certificates.
Æ Twenty-one airplanes produced
annually.
Æ Fifteen-year production cycle.
4. Benefits of This Rule
The proposed new safety
requirements to extend the fire
protection requirements to any
extensively used material 38 located in
inaccessible areas would result in a
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Annualized
33 Calculations were presented in 2015 dollars
because most cost estimates were received in 2015
but totals were then converted to 2016 dollars to be
compliant with OMB guidance implementing
Executive Order 13771.
34 A 19-year time horizon was chosen to be
inclusive of the 19-year production cycle for large
and the 15-year production cycle for small transport
category airplanes.
35 Fifty percent is an estimate of the share of the
worldwide transport airplane market held by U.S.
manufacturers.
36 Based on manufacturers recommendation in
MFWG Report.
37 Based on FAA analysis of Boeing data, OAG
Aviation Solutions Fleet Database, FAA Type
Certificate Data Sheet database.
38 Extensively used materials, for the purpose of
this rulemaking, means any parts or system of parts
that could permit a fire to propagate and grow to
a hazardous level, for example, air ducting,
electrical wiring/sleeving, thermal/acoustic
insulation, and composite fuselage structure.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
safety benefit by reducing the likelihood
of a fatal accident from a fire in an
inaccessible area. This benefit was not
quantified. Even though there has
fortunately not been a catastrophic inflight fire of a passenger carrying
airplane since the Swissair accident in
1998, the continued occurrence of inflight fire incidents and the growing
number of devices using lithium ion
batteries increase the risk of a
catastrophic accident, a risk that this
proposal would reduce.
5. Costs of This Proposed Rule
Over a 19-year period of analysis, the
FAA estimates the total present value
costs of this proposed rule to be $71.1
million at a seven percent discount rate,
with annualized costs of $6.9 million,
which would result from extending the
standards developed for thermal/
acoustic insulation to all extensively
used materials in inaccessible areas. A
full explanation of how these costs were
estimated may be found in the
regulatory impact assessment
accompanying this NPRM.
Over the same 19-year period, the
FAA estimates the total quantified cost
savings of this proposed rule to be
$119.8 million at a seven percent
discount rate, with annualized cost
savings of $11.6 million. The cost
savings would result from the
elimination and streamlining of some
tests, which would be made possible by
the extension of fire protection
requirements to inaccessible areas. The
total net cost savings of the proposed
rule at a seven percent discount rate
would be $48.7 million, with
annualized net cost savings of $4.7
million.
6. Minimal to No Cost Provisions
Including Conforming Changes
Numerous provisions within this
proposal would result in minimal to no
cost to possibly small cost savings.
These include provisions that continue
to accept previous test methods or
current systems in addition to proposing
new ones, those that maintain current
requirements or current practice, and
small edits to maintain consistency with
the current rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7%
3%
Also included are conforming changes
to parts 27, 29, 121, 125, 135, and
appendix L to part 121. These sections
make reference to, or require testing in
accordance with, certain sections of
appendix F to part 25. Because sections
of appendix F would be removed, some
changes refer to the new location of the
requirements. The proposed changes to
these parts also include language to
operating requirements. This new
language would give operators the
choice of meeting the proposed
requirements, or complying with the old
requirements. For airplanes type
certificated in accordance with the
proposed requirements, this change
would enable them to be in compliance
with the operating rules, while allowing
aircraft manufactured under existing
type certificates and the current fleet to
comply with the old requirements.
Therefore, this proposed rule would
impose no retrofit requirements on the
current fleet or a production cut-in to
aircraft manufactured under existing
type certificates. Consequently, these
provisions would impose minimal to no
cost.
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 would have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Under Section 603 of the RFA, the FAA
has prepared an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis addressing the
following:
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
31762
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
• A description of the reasons why
the action by the agency is being
considered.
• A succinct statement of the
objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule.
• A description and, where feasible,
an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the proposed rule will
apply.
• A description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the
proposed rule, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities that would
be subject to the requirement and the
types of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
• An identification, to the extent
practicable, of all relevant federal rules
that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the proposed rule.
• A description of any significant
alternatives to the proposed rule that
accomplish the stated objectives of
applicable statutes, and that minimize
any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
1. A Description of the Reasons Why the
Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
The FAA is publishing this proposed
rule to simplify flammability regulations
and provide a higher level of safety for
transport category airplanes. The
current regulations are complicated,
sometimes conflicting, sometimes
redundant, occasionally incomplete,
and may be obsolete for dealing with
present-day airplanes. Simplifying these
regulations can lead to cost savings.
A key safety benefit of this proposed
rule is the extension of fire protection
requirements to any extensively used
material located in inaccessible areas.
FAA research found airplanes are at risk
due to flammable materials in
inaccessible areas. FAA testing has
indicated that typical in-service ducts
can quickly spread fire from a small fire
source in an inaccessible area, while
ducts that would meet the new
requirement can resist that small size
fire and not propagate flames. Also, due
to the rapidly increasing number of
events due to lithium battery fires, the
chances of a lithium battery fire in the
cabin getting to an inaccessible area are
increasing.
2. A Succinct Statement of the
Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the
Proposed Rule
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
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, material,
construction, quality of work, and
performance of aircraft that the
Administrator finds necessary for safety
in air commerce. This regulation is
within the scope of that authority. It
revises the safety standards for the
flammability characteristics, and thus
the design, material, and construction,
of transport category airplanes.
3. Description and, Where Feasible, an
Estimate of the Number of Small
Entities To Which the Proposed Rule
Would Apply
This proposed rule would affect U.S.
manufacturers of part 25 transport
category airplanes requesting a new type
certificate. According to the small
business administration, the size
standard for aircraft manufacturers
(NAICS code 336411) to be considered
a small business is 1,500 employees or
less. None of the manufacturers who
manufacture transport category
airplanes have fewer than 1,500
employees; therefore, none of them are
small businesses.
The proposed rule might also
indirectly affect businesses that modify
transport category airplanes. At this
time, the FAA has not identified any
affected small entities without larger
U.S. or foreign ownership or business
relationships. The FAA requests
comments on this finding.
4. A Description of the Projected
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the
Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of
the Classes of Small Entities That Will
be Subject to the Requirement and the
Types of Professional Skills Necessary
for Preparation of the Report or Record
Requirements are governed by 14 CFR
part 21 and are not changing with this
proposal. Applicants are required to
show compliance under § 21.20, and
this will continue to apply. Therefore,
the proposed rule would not impose
additional reporting, recordkeeping, or
other compliance requirements on small
entities.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5. An Identification, to the Extent
Practicable, of All Relevant Federal
Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or
Conflict With the Proposed Rule
There are no federal rules that may
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this
proposal.
6. A Description of any Significant
Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
The FAA considered two alternatives
to the proposed rule. The first
alternative was to not make any changes
to the fire protection requirements. This
would leave in place complicated,
conflicting, redundant, occasionally
incomplete, and obsolete regulations.
Cost savings would not be achieved.
This alternative would also not extend
fire protection requirements to
extensively used materials located in
inaccessible areas. This would leave
airplanes at risk due to flammability
materials in inaccessible areas.
The FAA also considered making only
some of the proposed changes; however,
this would provide limited benefit and
no safety improvement. This is because
the significant safety improvements
facilitate the significant simplifications
in the proposal. Without the safety
enhancements, the amount of
simplification would be limited. If the
FAA proposed only the safety
enhancements, the resulting cost would
be difficult to quantitatively balance
against the resulting safety
improvement. The proposal intends to
achieve a significant reduction in costs
and simplify the requirements, while
substantively improving safety.
The FAA expects this proposed rule
would not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The FAA
requests comments on this finding.
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
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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 does not exclude
imports that meet the safety objective.
As a result, this proposed rule is not
considered as creating an unnecessary
obstacle to foreign commerce.
The proposed rule would impose the
same costs and cost savings on domestic
and international manufacturers selling
airplanes to airlines that wish to operate
within the United States because U.S.registered transport category airplanes
must comply with part 25 in order to be
operated within the United States.
Therefore, the same cost relief would
accrue to all manufacturers selling
airplanes to airlines operating within
the U.S. However, the effect this
proposed rule would have on sales of
domestically produced airplanes
relative to airplanes produced by foreign
companies to airlines operating abroad
and not in the U.S. might be either an
advantage due to cost savings or a
disadvantage due to increased costs,
depending on the standards to which
foreign airplanes are manufactured.
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
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
$155.0 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
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 1050.1E 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 5–6.6 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31763
D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
Executive Order 13771 titled
‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs,’’ directs that, unless
prohibited by law, whenever an
executive department or agency
publicly proposes for notice and
comment or otherwise promulgates a
new regulation, it shall identify at least
two existing regulations to be repealed.
In addition, any new incremental costs
associated with new regulations shall, to
the extent permitted by law, be offset by
the elimination of existing costs. Only
those rules deemed significant under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ are
subject to these requirements.
As determined in section IV.A, above,
this is not a significant rule under
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
this rule is not subject to the
requirements of Executive Order 13771.
VI. Additional Information
A. 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
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
31764
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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.
B. 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
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
14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements
14 CFR Part 27
Aircraft, Aviation safety
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
14 CFR Part 29
Aircraft, Aviation safety
14 CFR Part 91
Air carrier, Air taxis, Air traffic
control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports,
Alaska, Aviation safety, Canada, Charter
flights, Cuba, Drug traffic control,
Ethiopia, Freight, Incorporation by
reference, Iraq, Mexico, Noise control,
North Korea, Political candidates,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Somalia, Syria,
Transportation
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol
abuse, Aviation safety, Charter flights,
Drug abuse, Drug testing, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety,
Transportation
14 CFR Part 125
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements
14 CFR Part 135
Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol
abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Drug
testing, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend chapter 1 of title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS
STANDARDS: TRANSPORT
CATEGORY AIRPLANES
1. The authority citation for part 25
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113,
44701, 44702 and 44704.
2. Amend Special Federal Aviation
Regulation No. 109 to part 25 by
revising paragraphs 12 and 14(e) to read
as follows:
■
Special Federal Aviation Regulation
No. 109
*
*
*
*
*
12. Materials for Compartment
Interiors. An applicant must comply
with the applicable provisions of
§ 25.853, except that demonstration of
compliance with § 25.853(d)(2) is not
required if the applicant can show by
test, or a combination of test and
analysis, that the maximum time for
evacuation of all occupants does not
exceed 45 seconds under the conditions
specified in appendix J to part 25.
*
*
*
*
*
14. * * *
(e) The surfaces of the galley
surrounding the cooktop that would be
exposed to a fire on the cooktop surface
or in cookware on the cooktop must be
constructed of materials that comply
with the flammability requirements of
§ 25.853(c)(2)(ii). This requirement is in
addition to the flammability
requirements typically required of the
materials in these galley surfaces.
During the selection of these materials,
an applicant must account for the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
flammability characteristics of the
materials to ensure these characteristics
will not be adversely affected by the use
of cleaning agents and utensils used to
remove cooking stains.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Revise § 25.853 to read as follows:
§ 25.853 Interior parts and components
fire protection.
(a) General. Each airplane part,
component, and assembly must protect
the airplane and its occupants from inflight and post-crash fire threats. For the
purposes of this section an airplane
part, component, or assembly is one that
is located within, and including, the
fuselage.
(b) Testing. Except as provided in
paragraph (e) of this section, an
applicant must conduct tests to show
compliance with paragraphs (c) and (d)
of this section. Except as provided in
paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, for
any tests used to show compliance, the
applicant must use a minimum of three
specimen sets.
(c) In-flight requirements. During an
in-flight fire, the flammability
characteristics of each part, component,
and assembly must not present a hazard
to the occupants and must not prevent
the continued safe flight and landing of
the airplane.
(1) Accessible areas. (i) Each part,
component, and assembly that is
accessible to the flightcrew during flight
must be self-extinguishing when
exposed to a small flame.
(ii) Each receptacle used for the
disposal of flammable waste material
must be fully enclosed, constructed of
materials that resist penetration from a
small ignition source, and must contain
fires likely to occur in it under normal
use. At least one test must show the
capability of the receptacle to contain
those fires under all probable conditions
of wear, misalignment, and ventilation
expected in service.
(iii) Each ceiling and sidewall liner of
a Class B cargo compartment must resist
penetration by a small flame.
(2) Inaccessible areas. (i) Each
extensively used airplane part,
component, and assembly that is not
accessible to the flightcrew during flight
but that could be subjected to an inflight fire must not propagate the largest
fire that, by itself, would not be a hazard
to the airplane.
(ii) Each ceiling and sidewall liner of
a Class F cargo compartment, if installed
to meet the requirements of
§ 25.855(b)(2), and of a Class C cargo
compartment must resist penetration by
a fire within that compartment and must
protect the airplane’s structure and
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
critical systems from the effects of that
fire.
(iii) Each ceiling and sidewall liner of
a Class E cargo compartment must resist
penetration by a fire within that
compartment and must protect the
airplane’s structure and critical systems
from the effects of that fire, unless the
design provides a means other than a
liner that protects the airplane’s
structure and critical systems from the
effects of that fire.
(iv) The floor liner of any class of
cargo compartment, and any ceiling and
sidewall liner of a Class E cargo
compartment, must resist penetration by
a small flame.
(v) All other parts, components, and
assemblies that are not accessible by the
flightcrew during flight must be selfextinguishing when exposed to a small
flame or electrical arc.
(d) Post-crash requirements. During a
post-crash fuel fire, the flammability
characteristics of each part, component,
and assembly must maintain survivable
cabin conditions for enough time to
allow evacuation.
(1) For airplanes with a passenger
capacity of 19 or less, each large surface
in the passenger cabin must be selfextinguishing when exposed to a small
flame for at least 60 seconds.
(2) For airplanes with a passenger
capacity of 20 or more, each large
surface in the passenger cabin must
resist involvement in a post-crash fuel
fire that has entered the fuselage,
except:
(i) A large surface, no part of which
is more than 15’’ above the floor, need
not comply with paragraph (d)(2) of this
section if it is located in such a manner
that it would not be directly exposed to
the effects of a post-crash fuel fire.
(ii) A large surface in the interior of
a compartment other than a cargo or
baggage compartment need not comply
with paragraph (d)(2) of this section if
the interior of the compartment is
isolated from the main passenger cabin
by doors or equivalent means that
would normally be closed during taxi,
takeoff, and landing.
(3) Each cushion used to support the
occupant of a seat or berth must resist
involvement in a post-crash fuel fire
that has entered the airplane, and must
not propagate that fire.
(4) In addition to resisting
involvement in a post-crash fuel fire
that has entered the airplane, each
flammable metal must be readily
extinguishable.
(5) The design must ensure the
continued function of all escape systems
when those systems are exposed to the
effects of radiant heat from a post-crash
fuel fire.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
(e) Exceptions. A part, component,
and assembly does not require testing to
meet the requirements specified in
paragraph (c) or (d) of this section if it
meets the criteria of at least one of the
following classes:
(1) Class 1. Parts, components, and
assemblies that would each fit within a
cube measuring two inches on each side
and are sufficiently separated from the
same type of part, component, or
assembly such that collectively they
will not propagate a fire.
(2) Class 2. Parts, components, and
assemblies that are not extensively used,
are made from materials that are selfextinguishing, do not individually
exceed a volume of 113 cubic inches,
have an exposed surface area not
exceeding 200 square inches, and do not
propagate a flame vertically.
(3) Class 3. Parts, components, and
assemblies that applicants can show,
through a method acceptable to the
Administrator, are a size, construction,
or location that their flammability
characteristics do not threaten the
airplane or its occupants.
(4) Class 4. Parts, components, and
assemblies that are essential to the
safety of the airplane, its occupants, or
the functionality of the airplane and
cannot reasonably be constructed of a
less flammable material without
compromising the integrity or
functionality of that part, component, or
assembly.
(5) Class 5. Parts, components, and
assemblies that have successfully met
one or more of the alternate
requirements, including any applicable
conditions, set forth in appendix F to
part 25.
(f) Smoking. (1) Smoking is not
allowed in lavatories. If smoking is
allowed in any area occupied by the
crew or passengers, an adequate number
of self-contained, removable ashtrays
must be provided in designated smoking
sections for all seated occupants.
(2) Regardless of whether smoking is
allowed in any other part of the
airplane, lavatories must have selfcontained, removable ashtrays located
conspicuously on or near the entry side
of each lavatory door, except that one
ashtray may serve more than one
lavatory door if the ashtray can be seen
readily from the cabin side of each
lavatory served.
■ 4. Amend § 25.855 by revising
paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
§ 25.855
Cargo or baggage compartments.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Cargo compartment liners must
comply with the applicable provisions
of § 25.853.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31765
(d) All other materials used in the
construction of the cargo or baggage
compartment, other than material
located entirely within a Class C cargo
or baggage compartment, must be selfextinguishing when exposed to a small
flame.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Revise § 25.856 to read as follows:
§ 25.856 Thermal/Acoustic insulation
materials.
(a) All thermal/acoustic insulation
material installed in inaccessible areas
of the fuselage must comply with
§ 25.853(c)(2)(i) unless it qualifies for
one of the exceptions in § 25.853(e).
(b) For airplanes with a passenger
capacity of 20 or more, all thermal/
acoustic insulation materials installed
in the lower half of the airplane fuselage
must resist penetration of a post-crash
fuel fire and provide a minimum of 5
minutes survivability in the occupied
portions of the airplane, unless the
applicant provides an equivalent means
of post-crash fire penetration protection.
This requirement does not apply to
thermal/acoustic insulation installations
that the Administrator finds would not
contribute to fire penetration resistance.
For the purposes of this paragraph,
thermal/acoustic insulation materials
include the means of fastening the
materials to the fuselage.
■ 6. Amend § 25.1713 by revising
paragraph (c) and adding paragraph (d)
to read as follows:
§ 25.1713
Fire protection: EWIS.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) All insulation on electrical wire
and electrical cable, and all materials
used to provide additional protection
for that wire and cable:
(1) If installed in any area outside of
the fuselage, must not propagate the
largest fire that, by itself, would not be
a hazard to the airplane, and
(2) If installed in any area within the
fuselage, must meet the requirements of
§ 25.853(c), unless it meets the
requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this
section.
(d) To show compliance with
paragraph (c) of this section, an
applicant must conduct tests, unless the
applicant can show that the insulation
and materials are of a size, location, and
quantity that their flammability
characteristics do not threaten the
airplane or its occupants. For any tests
used to show compliance, the applicant
must use a minimum of three specimen
sets.
■ 7. Revise appendix F to part 25 to read
as follows:
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
31766
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Appendix F to Part 25—Flammability
Test Hierarchy
Applicants may substitute compliance
with the standards in the first row of the
table below by meeting the standards in
the first column, as indicated at the
appropriate intersection, subject to the
noted conditions:
Substitution
Standard
Post-crash <20; small ignition resistance § 25.853(d)(1).
In-flight inaccessible; fire propagation
§ 25.853(c)(2)(i).
Post-crash ≥20; large surface fire resistance § 25.853(d)(2).
Seat
cushion
fire
resistance
§ 25.853(d)(3).
Post-crash ≥20; fire penetration resistance § 25.853(b)(2).
In-flight cargo liner fire penetration resistance § 25.853(c)(2)(ii)/(iii).
In-flight accessible; small
flame resistance
§ 25.853
(c)(1)(i)
Post-crash
<20; small ignition resistance
§ 25.853
(d)(1)
In-flight cargo
liner; small
flame penetration resistance
§ 25.853
(c)(1)(iii)
In-flight inaccessible; fire
propagation
§ 25.853
(c)(2)(i)
In-flight cargo
liner fire penetration resistance
§ 25.853
(c)(2)(ii)/(iii)
Yes ................
No ..................
No ..................
No ..................
No ..................
No.
Yes ................
Yes ................
No ..................
No ..................
No ..................
No.
Yes ................
Yes ................
No ..................
Note 1 .............
No ..................
Note 2.
Yes ................
Yes ................
No ..................
No ..................
No ..................
No.
Yes ................
Yes ................
Yes ................
No ..................
Yes ................
No.
Yes ................
Yes ................
Yes ................
Note 3 .............
No ..................
No.
Seat cushion
fire resistance
§ $25.853
(d)(3)
1 When the facesheet on the back ......(inaccessible) side of the large surface is of the same material system as the facesheet on the front
side.
2 When the cushion does not directly support the occupant and can be tested in its actual thickness.
3 When the back side of the liner is made from glass fiber reinforced epoxy and phenolic resin.
PART 27—AIRWORTHINESS
STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY
ROTORCRAFT
8. The authority citation for part 27
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113,
44701–44702, 44704.
9. Amend § 27.1365 by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 27.1365
Electric cables.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Insulation on electrical wire and
cable installed in the rotorcraft must be
self-extinguishing when tested in
accordance with appendix F, part
I(a)(3), of part 25 of this chapter at
amendment 25–138.
PART 29—AIRWORTHINESS
STANDARDS: TRANSPORT
CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
10. The authority citation for part 29
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113,
44701–44702, 44704.
11. Amend § 29.853 by revising
paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
■
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 29.853
Compartment interiors.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) The materials (including finishes
or decorative surfaces applied to the
materials) must meet the following test
criteria as applicable:
(1) Interior ceiling panels, interior
wall panels, partitions, galley structure,
large cabinet walls, structural flooring,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
and materials used in the construction
of stowage compartments (other than
underseat stowage compartments and
compartments for stowing small items
such as magazines and maps) must be
self-extinguishing when tested vertically
in accordance with the applicable
portions of appendix F to part 25 of this
chapter at amendment 25–138, or other
approved equivalent methods.
(2) Floor covering, textiles (including
draperies and upholstery), seat
cushions, padding, decorative and nondecorative coated fabrics, leather, trays
and galley furnishings, electrical
conduit, thermal and acoustical
insulation and insulation covering, air
ducting joint and edge covering, cargo
compartment liners, insulation blankets,
cargo covers, and transparencies,
molded and thermoformed parts, air
ducting joints, and trim strips
(decorative and chafing) that are
constructed of materials not covered in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, must be
self-extinguishing when tested vertically
in accordance with the applicable
portion of appendix F to part 25 of this
chapter at amendment 25–138, or other
approved equivalent methods.
(3) Acrylic windows and signs, parts
constructed in whole or in part of
elasto-metric materials, edge lighted
instrument assemblies consisting of two
or more instruments in a common
housing, seat belts, shoulder harnesses,
and cargo and baggage tiedown
equipment, including containers, bins,
pallets, etc., used in passenger or crew
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
compartments, may not have an average
burn rate greater than 2.5 inches per
minute when tested horizontally in
accordance with the applicable portions
of appendix F to part 25 of this chapter
at amendment 25–138, or other
equivalent methods that the
Administrator approves.
(4) Except for electrical wire and cable
insulation, and for small parts (such as
knobs, handles, rollers, fasteners, clips,
grommets, rub strips, pulleys, and small
electrical parts) that the Administrator
finds would not contribute significantly
to the propagation of a fire, materials in
items not specified in paragraph (a)(1),
(2), or (3) of this section may not have
a burn rate greater than 4 inches per
minute when tested horizontally in
accordance with the applicable portions
of appendix F to part 25 of this chapter
at amendment 25–138, or other
equivalent methods that the
Administrator approves.
(b) In addition to meeting the
requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, seat cushions, except those on
flight crewmember seats, must meet the
test requirements of part II of appendix
F to part 25 of this chapter at
amendment 25–138, or equivalent.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 12. Amend § 29.1359 by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 29.1359 Electrical system fire and smoke
protection.
*
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
*
03JYP1
*
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
(c) Insulation on electrical wire and
cable installed in the rotorcraft must be
self-extinguishing when tested in
accordance with appendix F, part
I(a)(3), of part 25 of this chapter at
amendment 25–138.
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND
FLIGHT RULES
13. The authority citation for part 91
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101,
40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111,
44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715,
44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316,
46504, 46506–46507, 47122, 47508, 47528–
47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114–190, 130 Stat. 615
(49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of
the Convention on International Civil
Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).
14. Amend § 91.613 by revising
paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text and
(b)(2) to read as follows:
■
§ 91.613 Materials for compartment
interiors.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) For airplanes manufactured before
September 2, 2005, when thermal/
acoustic insulation is installed in the
fuselage as replacements after
September 2, 2005, the insulation must
meet the flame propagation
requirements of § 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as
subsequently amended, if it is:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) For airplanes manufactured after
September 2, 2005, thermal/acoustic
insulation materials installed in the
fuselage must meet the flame
propagation requirements of § 25.856 of
this chapter, effective September 2,
2003, or as subsequently amended.
PART 121—OPERATING
REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG,
AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS
15. The authority citation for part 121
continues to read as follows:
■
Part 121 section
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 121.312(a)(1)(i) ..................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Authority: 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113,
40119, 41706, 42301 preceding note added
by Pub. L. 112–95, sec. 412, 126 Stat. 89,
44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–44711,
44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44729, 44732;
46105; Pub. L. 111–216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49
U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. L. 112–95 126 Stat
62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 note).
16. Amend § 121.312 by revising
paragraphs (b) introductory text, (e)(1)
introductory text, and (e)(2) and (3) to
read as follows:
■
§ 121.312
interiors.
Materials for compartment
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Seat cushions. Seat cushions,
except those on flight crewmember
seats, in each compartment occupied by
crew or passengers, must comply with
the requirements pertaining to seat
cushions in § 25.853(c) effective on
November 26, 1984; or in § 25.853(d)
effective on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE]; or as subsequently
amended, on each airplane as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) For airplanes manufactured before
September 2, 2005, when thermal/
acoustic insulation is installed in the
fuselage as replacements after
September 2, 2005, the insulation must
meet the flame propagation
requirements of § 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as
subsequently amended, if it is:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) For airplanes manufactured after
September 2, 2005, thermal/acoustic
insulation materials installed in the
fuselage must meet the flame
propagation requirements of § 25.856 of
this chapter, effective September 2,
2003, or as subsequently amended.
(3) For airplanes with a passenger
capacity of 20 or greater, manufactured
after September 2, 2009, thermal/
acoustic insulation materials installed
in the lower half of the fuselage must
meet the flame penetration resistance
Applicable aircraft
31767
requirements of § 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as
subsequently amended. If the airplane’s
type design was approved based on a
finding of equivalent level of safety to
§ 25.856 in accordance with
§ 21.21(b)(1) of this chapter, the
certificate holder is in compliance with
this section of this part as long as the
aircraft conforms to the approved type
design.
■ 17. Amend § 121.314 by revising
paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
§ 121.314 Cargo and baggage
compartments.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(2) Materials that meet the test
requirements of part 25, appendix F,
part III of this chapter effective on June
16, 1986; or the test requirements of
§ 25.853(c)(2)(ii) of this chapter effective
on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE]; or as subsequently amended; or
*
*
*
*
*
■ 18. Revise appendix L to part 121 to
read as follows:
Appendix L To Part 121—Type
Certification Regulations Made
Previously Effective
(a) Appendix L lists regulations in
this part that require compliance with
standards contained in superseded type
certification regulations that continue to
apply to certain transport category
airplanes. The table below sets out
citations to the current CFR section,
applicable aircraft, superseded type
certification regulation and applicable
time periods, and the CFR edition and
Federal Register documents where the
regulation having prior effect is found.
Copies of all superseded regulations
may be obtained at the Federal Aviation
Administration Law Library, Room 924,
800 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC.
Provisions: CFR/FR references
Transport category; or nontransport category type cer- Heat release rate testing. 14 CFR 25.853(d)(2) effective
tificated before January 1, 1965; passenger capacity
[effective date of final rule]: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59,
of 20 or more; manufactured prior to August 20, 1990.
Revised as of January 1, [Federal Register revision
year], and amended by Amdt. [amendment level and
Federal Register citation and publication date of
final rule].
Formerly 14 CFR 25.853(d) effective March 6, 1995: 14
CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January 1, 1995,
and amended by Amdt. 25–83, 60 FR 6623, February 2, 1995.
Formerly 14 CFR 25.853(a–1) effective August 20,
1986: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January
1, 1986.
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
31768
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Part 121 section
Applicable aircraft
Provisions: CFR/FR references
§ 121.312(a)(1)(ii) .................
Transport category; or nontransport category type certificated before January 1, 1965; passenger capacity
of 20 or more; manufactured after August 19, 1990.
§ 121.312(a)(2)(i) ..................
Transport category; or nontransport category type certificate before January 1, 1965; application for type
certificate filed prior to May 1, 1972; substantially
complete replacement of cabin interior on or after
May 1, 1972.
Transport category type certificated after January 1,
1958; nontransport category type certificated after
January 1, 1958, but before January 1, 1965; passenger capacity of 20 or more; substantially complete
replacement of the cabin interior on or after March 6,
1995.
Heat release rate testing. 14 CFR 25.853(d)(2) effective
[effective date of final rule]: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of January 1, [insert Federal Register revision year], and amended by Amdt. [amendment
level and Federal Register citation and publication
date of final rule].
Formerly 14 CFR 25.853(d) effective March 6, 1995: 14
CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January 1, 1995,
and amended by Amdt. 25–83, 60 FR 6623, February 2, 1995.
Formerly 14 CFR 25.853(a–1) effective September 26,
1988: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January
1, 1988, and amended by Amdt. 25–66, 53 FR
32584, August 25, 1988.
Smoke testing. 14 CFR 25.853(d) effective March 6,
1995: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January
1, 1995, and amended by Amdt. 25–83, 60 FR 6623,
February 2, 1995.
Formerly 14 CFR 25.853(a–1) effective September 26,
1988: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January
1, 1988, and amended by Amdt. 25–66, 53 FR
32584, August 25, 1988.
Provisions of 14 CFR 25.853 in effect on April 30,
1972: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January
1, 1972.
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 121.312(a)(3)(i) ..................
§ 121.312(a)(3)(ii) .................
Transport category type certificated after January 1,
1958; nontransport category type certificated after
January 1, 1958, but before January 1, 1965; passenger capacity of 20 or more; substantially complete
replacement of the cabin interior on or after August
20, 1990.
§ 121.312(b)(1) and (2) ........
Transport category airplane type certificated after January 1, 1958; nontransport category airplane type certificated after December 31, 1964.
§ 121.312(c) .........................
Airplane type certificated in accordance with SFAR No.
41; maximum certificated takeoff weight in excess of
12,500 pounds.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Heat release rate testing. 14 CFR 25.853(d) in effect
March 6, 1995: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of
January 1, 1995; and amended by Amdt. 25–83, 60
FR 6623, February 2, 1995.
Formerly 14 CFR 25.853(a–1) in effect August 20,
1986: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January
1, 1986.
Heat release rate testing. 14 CFR 25.853(d)(2) effective
[effective date of final rule]: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of January 1, [Federal Register revision
year], and amended by Amdt. [amendment level and
Federal Register citation and publication date of
final rule].
Formerly 14 CFR 25.853(d) effective March 6, 1995: 14
CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January 1, 1995,
and amended by Amdt. 25–83, 60 FR 6623, February 2, 1995.
Formerly 14 CFR 25.853(a–-1) effective September 26,
1988: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January
1, 1988, and amended by Amdt. 25–66, 53 FR
32584, August 25, 1988.
Smoke testing. 14 CFR 25.853(d) effective March 6,
1995; 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January
1, 1995; and amended by Amdt. 25–83, 60 FR 6623,
February 2, 1995.
Formerly 14 CFR 25.853(a–1) effective September 26,
1988: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January
1, 1988, and amended by Amdt. 25–66, 53 FR
32584, August 25, 1988.
Seat cushions. 14 CFR 25.853(d)(3) effective [effective
date of final rule]: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as
of January 1, [Federal Register revision year], and
amended by Amdt. [amendment level and Federal
Register citation and publication date of final rule].
Formerly 14 CFR 25.853(c) effective November 26,
1984: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January
1, 1984, and amended by Amdt. 25–59, 49 FR
43188, October 26, 1984.
Compartment interior requirements. 14 CFR 25.853(a)
in effect March 6, 1995: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January 1, 1995, and amended by Amdt.
25–83, 60 FR 6623, February 2, 1995.
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 128 / Wednesday, July 3, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Part 121 section
§ 121.314(a) .........................
Applicable aircraft
PART 125—CERTIFICATION AND
OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A
SEATING CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE
PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM
PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 6,000
POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES
GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD
SUCH AIRCRAFT
19. The authority citation for part 125
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701–
44702, 44705, 44710–44711, 44713, 44716–
44717, 44722.
20. Amend § 125.113 by revising
paragraphs (c)(1) introductory text and
(c)(2) to read as follows:
■
§ 125.113
Cabin interiors.
jspears on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) For airplanes manufactured before
September 2, 2005, when thermal/
acoustic insulation is installed in the
fuselage as replacements after
September 2, 2005, the insulation must
meet the flame propagation
requirements of § 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as
subsequently amended, if it is:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) For airplanes manufactured after
September 2, 2005, thermal/acoustic
insulation materials installed in the
fuselage must meet the flame
propagation requirements of § 25.856 of
this chapter, effective September 2,
2003, or as subsequently amended.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 02, 2019
Provisions: CFR/FR references
Transport category airplanes type certificated after January 1, 1958.
(b) For the purposes of compliance
with the sections of 14 CFR part 25
referenced in the table in paragraph (a)
of this appendix, findings of equivalent
level of safety in accordance with
§ 21.21(b)(1) of this chapter are
considered to satisfy the referenced
requirement.
Jkt 247001
Formerly 14 CFR 25.853(a), (b–1), (b–2), and (b–3) in
effect on September 26, 1978: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of January 1, 1978.
Class C or D cargo or baggage compartment definition.
14 CFR 25.853(c)(2)(ii) effective [effective date of
final rule] (part III of appendix F no longer exists): 14
CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January 1,
[Federal Register revision year], and amended by
Amdt. [amendment level and Federal Register citation and publication date of final rule].
Formerly 14 CFR 25.857 effective June 16, 1986, 14
CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised January 1, 1997, and
amended by Amdt 25–60, 51 FR 18243, May 16,
1986.
PART 135—OPERATING
REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND
ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND
RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON
BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT
21. The authority citation for part 135
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 41706,
44701–44702, 44705, 44709, 44711–44713,
44715–44717, 44722, 44730, 45101–45105;
Pub. L. 112–95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 U.S.C.
44730).
22. Amend § 135.169 by revising
paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
■
§ 135.169 Additional airworthiness
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Materials that meet the test
requirements of part 25, appendix F,
part III of this chapter effective on June
16, 1986; or the test requirements of
§ 25.853(c)(2)(ii) of this chapter effective
on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE]; or as subsequently amended; or
*
*
*
*
*
■ 23. Amend § 135.170 by revising
paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(1) introductory
text, and (c)(2) to read as follows:
§ 135.170
interiors.
Materials for compartment
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) For airplanes type certificated after
January 1, 1958, seat cushions, except
those on flight crewmember seats, in
any compartment occupied by crew or
passengers must comply with the
requirements pertaining to fire
protection of seat cushions in
§ 25.853(c) effective November 26, 1984;
or in § 25.853(d) effective on
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]; or
as subsequently amended.
(c) * * *
(1) For airplanes manufactured before
September 2, 2005, when thermal/
acoustic insulation is installed in the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
31769
Sfmt 4702
fuselage as replacements after
September 2, 2005, the insulation must
meet the flame propagation
requirements of § 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as
subsequently amended, if it is:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) For airplanes manufactured after
September 2, 2005, thermal/acoustic
insulation materials installed in the
fuselage must meet the flame
propagation requirements of § 25.856 of
this chapter, effective September 2,
2003, or as subsequently amended.
Issued under the authority provided by 49
U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in
Washington, DC, on June 12, 2019.
Chris Carter,
Acting Executive Director, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019–13646 Filed 7–1–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2019–0492; Product
Identifier 2019–NM–045–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A330–200,
A330–200 Freighter, and A330–300
series airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a determination that new
or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations are necessary. This proposed
AD would require revising the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03JYP1.SGM
03JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31747-31769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13646]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 25, 27, 29, 91, 121, 125, and 135
[Docket No.: FAA-2019-0491; Notice No. 19-09]
RIN 2120-AK34
Interior Parts and Components Fire Protection for Transport
Category Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to amend certain airworthiness
regulations for fire protection of interior compartments on transport
category airplanes. This proposal would convert those flammability
regulations from detailed, prescriptive requirements into simpler,
performance-based standards. This proposal would divide these standards
into two categories: Those designed to protect the airplane and its
occupants from the hazards of in-flight fires, and those designed to
protect the airplane and its occupants from the hazards caused by post-
crash fires. In addition, this proposal would remove test methods from
the regulations and allow applicants, in certain cases, to demonstrate
compliance either without conducting tests or by providing independent
substantiation of the flammability characteristics of a proposed
material. This action is necessary to eliminate unnecessary testing,
increase standardization, and improve safety. This proposal includes
conforming changes to parts 27, 29, 91, 121, 125, and 135.
DATES: Send comments on or before October 1, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0491
using any of the following methods:
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 Jeff Gardlin, AIR-600, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft
Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax (206) 231-3146;
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, material, construction, quality of work, and
performance of aircraft that the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority. It revises the safety standards for the flammability
characteristics, and thus the design, material, and construction, of
transport category airplanes.
Table of Contents
I. Overview of the Proposed Rule
II. Background
A. Statement of the Problem
B. History
C. Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
III. Discussion of the Proposal
A. Flammability Testing Requirements
1. Bunsen Burner Test (Current Sec. 25.853(a) and Part I of
Appendix F to Part 25)
2. Oil Burner Test for Seat Cushions (Current Sec. 25.853(c)
and Part II of Appendix F to Part 25)
3. Heat Release Rate Test (Current Sec. 25.853(d) and Part IV
of Appendix F to Part 25)
4. Smoke Emissions Test (Current Sec. 25.853(d) and Part V of
Appendix F to Part 25)
5. Oil Burner Test for Cargo Compartment Liners (Current Sec.
25.855(c) and Part III of Appendix F to Part 25)
6. Radiant Panel Test for Thermal/Acoustic Insulation (Current
Sec. 25.856(a) and Part VI of Appendix F to Part 25)
7. Oil Burner Test for Thermal/Acoustic Insulation (Current
Sec. 25.856(b) and Part VII of Appendix F to Part 25)
8. Radiant Heat Resistance Test for Escape Slides (Sec.
25.853(d)(5))
9. Fire Containment Compliance of Waste Receptacles (Current
Sec. 25.853(h))
10. Extensively Used Materials in Inaccessible Areas (Proposed
Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(i))
11. Exclusions from Testing (Proposed Sec. 25.853(e))
12. Pass/Fail Criteria
B. Reorganization of Appendix F to Part 25
1. General Structure
2. Hierarchy of Tests
C. Conformal and Editorial Changes
D. Advisory Material
E. Application of Sec. Sec. 21.17
F. Application of Sec. Sec. 21.101
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
1. Summary of Costs and Benefits
2. Who is potentially affected by this proposed rule?
3. Assumptions:
4. Benefits of This Rule
5. Costs of This Proposed Rule
6. Minimal to No Cost Provisions Including Conforming Changes
[[Page 31748]]
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
1. A Description of the Reasons Why the Action by the Agency Is
Being Considered
2. A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis
for, the Proposed Rule
3. Description and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of
Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply
4. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and
Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an
Estimate of the Classes of Small Entities That Will Be Subject to
the Requirement and the Types of Professional Skills Necessary for
Preparation of the Report or Record
5. An Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
6. A Description of any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed
Rule
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. International Compatibility
G. Environmental Analysis
V. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
C. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
VI. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
I. Overview of the Proposed Rule
This proposed amendment would eliminate and modify certain
flammability and fire protection requirements of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25. The proposed changes would
organize these requirements based on the type of fire--in-flight or
post-crash--that is likely to affect a given component, part, or
material, rather than basing such standards on the part's composition
or function. In addition, the proposal would extend the fire protection
requirements to any extensively used material \1\ located in
inaccessible areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Extensively used materials, for the purpose of this
rulemaking, means any parts or system of parts that could permit a
fire to propagate and grow to a hazardous level, for example, air
ducting, electrical wiring/sleeving, thermal/acoustic insulation,
and composite fuselage structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA proposes to convert the testing methods in appendix F to
part 25 from regulations into guidance material. The proposal would
also eliminate redundant or non-value-added tests when a more severe
test is acceptable.
This proposal would replace mandatory testing methods with
performance-based standards for flammability and fire protection. This
change would improve safety and standardization and would be applicable
to materials currently used to construct parts and components as well
as to new materials that become available in the future. As discussed
in section III.E of the NPRM, all of the proposed changes are
interrelated. These proposals to remove or simplify requirements are
only possible, from a safety perspective, because of other proposed
changes that would compensate for removing requirements.
These revised regulations would affect applicants seeking new type
certificates for transport category airplanes. These revised
regulations would not apply to transport category airplanes currently
in production under existing type certificates, unless the FAA approves
a manufacturer's request to comply with an amendment level that
incorporates these proposed changes, or a manufacturer triggers the
requirement via an application for a significant product-level change
under Sec. 21.101.
Over a 19-year period of analysis, the FAA estimates the total
present value costs of this proposed rule to be $71.1 million at a
seven percent discount rate, with annualized costs of $6.9 million due
to the extension of fire protection requirements to extensively used
material in inaccessible areas. Over the same 19-year period, the FAA
estimates the total quantified cost savings of this proposed rule to be
$119.8 million at a seven percent discount rate, with annualized cost
savings of $11.6 million. The cost savings would result from the
elimination and streamlining of some tests, which would be made
possible by the extension of fire protection requirements to
inaccessible areas. Over the same 19-year period, the proposed rule
would result in a net cost savings (cost savings minus costs) of $48.7
million at a seven percent discount rate, with annualized net cost
savings of $4.8 million. The following table summarizes the costs and
cost savings of this proposed rule.
Costs and Savings of the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19-year total present value Annualized
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% 3% 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings........................ $119,848,146 $178,395,887 $11,595,669 $12,454,509
Costs............................... 71,105,318 80,387,114 6,879,654 5,612,136
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost Savings.............. 48,742,829 98,008,773 4,716,016 6,842,373
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airplane occupant safety benefits were not quantified. However, the
proposed new safety requirements to extend the fire protection
requirements to any extensively used material located in inaccessible
areas would result in a safety benefit by reducing the likelihood of a
fatal accident from a fire in an inaccessible area. FAA testing has
indicated that typical in-service ducts can quickly spread fire from a
small fire source in an inaccessible area, while ducts that would meet
the new requirement can resist that small size fire and not propagate
flames. Thus, the FAA believes there are safety benefits to this
proposed rule in addition to cost savings.
II. Background
A. Statement of the Problem
Current part 25 regulations organize fire protection requirements
for components in airplane interior compartments by the function, and
sometimes composition, of each component. Appendix F to part 25 details
comprehensive, mandatory testing methods. Each part of appendix F
provides the test method required for a specific type of part or
material, with the exception of part I, which applies to nearly all
parts and materials and contains multiple test methods. While this
method of organization is useful in standardizing the applicable tests
and ensuring consistency among test results, regardless of the testing
facility, it can create difficulties when an applicant wishes to
deviate from the detailed test provisions, for example to implement
improvements. Also, a given component
[[Page 31749]]
can be subject to multiple regulatory requirements depending on the
component's composition, and the requirements may conflict with one
another. In addition, it can be difficult to determine the applicable
requirements, especially when applicants propose new components or
materials that are not listed in Sec. 25.853 and for which testing
methods have not yet been developed. A final problem is that, with the
exception of thermal/acoustic insulation and electrical wiring, the
current fire protection requirements only apply to components and
materials in occupiable areas or cargo compartments. The current
requirements do not apply to components, parts, and materials in other
areas, even if extensively used, and such components can be critical
for fire safety.
B. History
The regulations governing the flammability of materials on
transport category airplanes have evolved significantly since their
adoption in 1964.\2\ When initially adopted, these regulations mandated
the most fire-resistant materials practically available at that time,
without consideration of the types of fires to which each material
might be exposed. The regulations described flammability requirements
in terms of the objective--materials had to be at least flash
resistant,\3\ and certain types of parts had to be flame resistant,\4\
a more stringent requirement. Until 1984, FAA flammability regulations
only required applicants to demonstrate that proposed materials could
resist small ignition sources such as a lit match or cigarette. The
flammability requirements only applied to materials in compartments
that could be occupied by passengers or crew.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Published in the Federal Register on December 24, 1964 (29
FR 18289) and available on the internet at https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/861ae0b1f7efc3ee85256453007b0e8a/beee068568b285ea86256cc900543c9f!OpenDocument.
\3\ Flash resistant is defined as having a burn rate of no more
than 20 inches per minute when exposed to a Bunsen burner flame. See
FAA Flight Standards Service Release No. 453, dated November 9,
1961; and Advisory Circular (AC) 25-17A, Change 1, ``Transport
Airplane Cabin Interiors Crashworthiness Handbook,'' dated May 24,
2016.
\4\ Flame resistant is defined as having a burn rate of no more
than 4 inches per minute when exposed to a Bunsen burner flame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning with the 1984 adoption of improved flammability standards
for seat cushions, the FAA revised the flammability requirements for
other specific parts and components, including large surface areas,
cargo compartment liners, and thermal/acoustic insulation. The FAA also
revised and expanded mandatory test methods to ensure consistency in
testing methodology and results. The FAA based these revised
requirements on the type of fire threat (in-flight and post-crash)
expected for a given component. However, the regulations continued to
set standards for specific components, based on their function or
construction.
Since the adoption of those flammability requirements, research
into fire safety identified significant differences between the hazards
posed by a post-crash fire and those posed by an in-flight fire.
Post-crash fires, or ``fuel fires'' since they are primarily fed by
spilled aviation fuel, present two primary hazards to the airplane's
occupants. First, a fuel fire can be a significant source of smoke and
toxic gases. If these gases enter the cabin, they can cause injury and
significantly reduce survivability. Second, a fuel fire can ignite
cabin materials, which can accelerate the fire's growth. Research \5\
by the FAA has found that the best way to prevent the first hazard--
smoke and toxic gases--is to prevent the fire from penetrating the
fuselage. The best way to prevent the second hazard--ignition of cabin
materials--is to minimize the heat release \6\ of cabin materials, so
that they do not contribute significant energy to the fire. Post-crash
fires can also reduce the time available for evacuation. The FAA
studied the time necessary to complete evacuation and determined that
roughly 90 percent of actual evacuations are completed within 5
minutes.\7\ This proposal specifically references that 5-minute time
when discussing protection under post-crash fire conditions. Proposed
Sec. 25.853(d) would add general flammability requirements to provide
occupants time to evacuate during post-crash fires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See ``Application of Full-Scale Fire Tests to Characterize
and Improve the Aircraft Postcrash Fire Environment,'' Constantine
P. Sarkos, International Colloquium on Advances in Combustion
Toxicology, April 11-13, 1995, available on the internet at https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/fsr-0196.pdf; and FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-
TN11/8, ``Improvements in Aircraft Fire Safety Derived from FAA
Research over the Last Decade,'' dated May 2011, available on the
internet at https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TN11-8.pdf. Both of
these reports are also available in the Docket.
\6\ Heat release is the amount of heat energy created by a
material when burned. The maximum heat release occurs when the
material is burning most intensely. Also, see ``Improved
Flammability Standards for Materials Used in the Interiors of
Transport Category Airplane Cabins,'' published in the Federal
Register on July 21, 1986 (51 FR 26206) and available on the
internet at https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/0/E2F0F4B91D02ADFB862568E7005C097C?OpenDocument.
\7\ See FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-09/18, ``Determination of
Evacuation and Firefighting Times Based on an Analysis of Aircraft
Accident Fire Survivability Data,'' dated May 2009, available in the
Docket and on the internet at https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/09-18.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, the primary hazard from in-flight fires is to the
continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. In-flight fires have
historically only been a direct hazard to continued safe flight and
landing when they begin in an area inaccessible to a person with a
hand-held fire extinguisher. These areas tend to be in cargo
compartments or behind interior panels, such as sidewalls or ceilings.
The principal risk with such fires is that they grow and spread without
the ability of the flightcrew to access and combat them, and then
degrade critical systems and occupant survivability. The components,
parts, and materials with the most potential to contribute to an in-
flight fire hazard are the most extensive, including insulation,
wiring, air ducts, and structure. FAA research determined that
materials that self-extinguish and do not propagate a flame provide an
acceptable level of safety. In-flight fires in areas that are readily
accessible to a person with a hand-held fire extinguisher are still a
concern, but are much less likely to evolve into a threat to the
airplane. Therefore, these two types of fires (in-flight and post-
crash) require different flammability standards.
Several elements of fire safety research were involved in the
development of these flammability requirements. First, the FAA analyzed
accident and incident data to identify the nature of the fire and its
potential to affect the airplane and its occupants. Next, the threat
was replicated (to the extent possible), and detailed measurements were
made to characterize the key parameters \8\ of the type of fire and its
potential effect on the airplane and occupants. Finally, a laboratory
test was developed that correlated with, and was derived from, the type
of fire, so that repeatable and reproducible results could be obtained
to assess the adequacy of proposed designs. This latter step was an
evolutionary process as test protocols (test methods and test
equipment) were continuously refined. Once the results for a particular
protocol were reliable and repeatable, the FAA selected that test
protocol, even though improvements in methods and equipment are
expected to continue. A key consideration in this proposal is the
availability of approved test methods in
[[Page 31750]]
advisory material \9\ to support all of the proposed requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For example, temperature, radiant heat flux, flame kinetic
energy.
\9\ This advisory material will take the form of several
proposed ACs, as discussed in section III.D of this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
In light of the problems with the current part 25 regulations
previously discussed, the FAA recognized that it needs a new approach
to the regulatory structure of flammability requirements. Since
amendments to the regulations since the 1980s had been based on an
assessment of the type of fire, but not structured that way in the
regulatory text, the FAA determined that the regulations should align
with the type of fire that could threaten the airplane. However,
because of the scope of the change under consideration, the FAA tasked
the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) \10\ to review the
FAA's proposed approach and provide recommendations. ARAC assigned the
task to the Materials Flammability Working Group (MFWG) under the
Transport Airplane and Engines Issues Group (TAEIG), an ARAC
subcommittee. The MFWG reviewed the proposed concept and, in a report
\11\ dated July 2012, recommended its adoption along with several
associated advisory circulars (ACs). The MFWG also raised several
questions that required FAA resolution prior to rulemaking, including
consideration of an approved materials list, availability of advisory
material, and means to address so-called rogue failures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2010 (75 FR
52807) and available on the internet at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2010-08-27/pdf/2010-21333.pdf.
\11\ See ``Materials Flammability Working Group Report,'' dated
July 9, 2012, available in the Docket and on the internet at https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/materials.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When drafting the NPRM, the FAA determined that a more
comprehensive estimate of costs and benefits was necessary. Therefore,
the FAA put the rulemaking project on hold and re-tasked ARAC \12\ to
provide an estimate of costs and benefits. The FAA provided assumptions
to use in making those estimates. ARAC reassigned the task to the MFWG.
The MFWG completed the task and submitted a report \13\ in October
2015. This proposal is based on recommendations and information
provided in both MFWG reports and addresses the open issues raised by
the MFWG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Published in the Federal Register on January 20, 2015 (80
FR 2772) and available on the internet at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-01-20/pdf/2015-00749.pdf.
\13\ See ``Materials Flammability Working Group Continuation of
Task Report,'' dated October 7, 2015, available in the Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion of the Proposal
The current regulatory structure in the primary regulations that
this action proposes to amend, Sec. Sec. 25.853, 25.855, 25.856, and
25.1713, organizes the flammability requirements by the type of testing
required for a specific part or component. Section 25.853 applies to
parts and components that are located in compartments that can be
occupied by crew or passengers, and requires compliance with the
applicable parts of appendix F to part 25. Section 25.855 states
similar requirements that are applicable to cargo or baggage
compartments; Sec. 25.856 provides requirements for thermal/acoustic
insulation materials; and Sec. 25.1713 addresses electrical wiring
components. Each of these sections requires compliance with a
particular test method in appendix F.
For example, Sec. 25.853(a) requires that all materials used in
occupiable compartments meet the test criteria (Bunsen burner) in part
I of appendix F to part 25. Section 25.853(d) requires certain interior
components, including partitions, ceilings, and wall panels, to also
meet the heat release rate (HRR) \14\ and smoke emission test
requirements in parts IV and V of appendix F. This proposal would
eliminate the requirement to meet the tests in part I of appendix F for
components required to comply with Sec. 25.853(d), since the Bunsen
burner tests do not add any level of safety for components that meet
part IV of appendix F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The heat release rate test measures both total heat release
and peak heat release rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed amendment would revise Sec. 25.853 to apply to
general categories of parts or components rather than to specific
items. For example, Sec. 25.853(d)(1) would apply to large surface
area components, rather than to partitions, ceilings, and wall panels.
It would set performance standards for those components based on the
type of fire the component is likely to be exposed to and whether or
not its location is accessible during flight.
Stating the requirements as performance standards would make them
applicable to parts and materials that are not listed in the current
regulations and to new materials in emerging areas of aviation design.
These include materials used in inaccessible portions of the fuselage,
escape slides, and the use of flammable metals in the cabin.
The mandatory testing methods in appendix F to part 25 would be
removed. Instead, appendix F would allow applicants to omit certain
tests if the material passes certain more severe tests. Advisory
material would provide the details of approved test methods. By moving
compliance testing methods to advisory material, applicants would have
more flexibility to propose alternative methods, and the FAA would have
more flexibility to approve improved testing methods.
This proposal would also standardize the required number of test
samples, and pass rate, among the various tests. Proposed Sec.
25.853(b) would require a minimum of three specimen sets for any test
used to show compliance.
Because fewer post-crash flammability requirements currently apply
to airplanes designed to carry 19 or fewer passengers, many of the
proposed simplifications would only apply to larger airplanes. For the
same reason, for airplanes designed to carry 19 or fewer passengers,
fewer in-flight flammability tests would be eliminated by meeting post-
crash flammability test requirements. Thus, applicants for type
certification of airplanes with 19 or fewer passengers might not
benefit from the same degree of simplified testing, as would applicants
seeking approval of larger airplanes.
A. Flammability Testing Requirements
1. Bunsen Burner Test (Current Sec. 25.853(a) and Part I of Appendix F
to Part 25)
Sections 25.853 and 25.855 require Bunsen burner testing of all
materials used in interior compartments, and in certain parts of cargo
compartments, even if an additional, more severe test is required.
Bunsen burner tests, detailed in part I of the current appendix F to
part 25, have multiple variations that are used to determine the
resistance of materials to flame, flame penetration, or flame
propagation. Although Bunsen burner tests would be an acceptable means
of compliance for several requirements, this proposal would eliminate
the requirement for Bunsen burner testing when a required test method
simulates a post-crash fire. Bunsen burner testing to address in-flight
fire threats would be less frequently required, since extensively used
materials would be required to meet a more stringent standard, and
materials and parts that are not extensively used may show their in-
flight fire resistance by more than one means.
Two other requirements intended to protect the airplane from in-
flight fires, proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(1)(i) regarding parts or
components that are accessible
[[Page 31751]]
to the flightcrew during flight, and proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(iv)
regarding floor liners in cargo compartments, would require that those
parts, components, and materials be self-extinguishing when exposed to
a small flame,\15\ unless another regulation requires the materials to
meet a higher standard, such as a post-crash test. Applicants would
typically use the 12-second vertical Bunsen burner test to show that
the materials are self-extinguishing. This proposal would eliminate the
requirement for materials to pass horizontal Bunsen burner tests
because other requirements would ensure acceptable flammability
characteristics of any other materials for which that test is currently
applied. This includes parts currently listed in appendix F, part I,
paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of part 25, such as clear plastic windows and
signs, which would fall under one of the proposed requirements for a
more stringent test, unless the applicant is able to show the part or
material serves a necessary function and has no suitable substitute
material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Represented by a flame from a Bunsen burner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For post-crash fires on transport category airplanes with 19 or
fewer passengers, this proposal would, as a practical matter, retain
the requirement, currently in appendix F, part I, paragraph (b)(4) of
part 25, that the applicant conduct a 60-second vertical Bunsen burner
test for large surface interior materials. That test, unlike the 12-
second vertical test, screens out materials, such as certain
thermoplastics, that have unacceptable flammability performance, even
though the test method is not specifically designed to represent post-
crash fires. Because of the greater evacuation capability inherent in
these smaller airplanes, they are not, and would not under this
proposal, be subject to the more severe post-crash, fire-based
standards for interior materials and lower lobe \16\ fire penetration
proposed in Sec. Sec. 25.853(d)(2) and 25.856(b), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For the purpose of this NPRM, ``lower lobe'' refers to the
geometric lower half of the airplane fuselage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal would also continue to require, in Sec.
25.853(c)(1)(i), that waste receptacles (compartments) and cargo
compartment liners resist fire penetration. One means of compliance
would continue to be the 45-degree orientation Bunsen burner test,
which is currently described in part I of appendix F to part 25, but
would be removed from part 25 and made available in guidance material.
However, if an applicant proposes to construct waste compartments from
the same materials as will be used for other interior features that are
required to meet the HRR test,\17\ no Bunsen burner test would be
required. The fire containment test for the waste compartments would
still be required. Most cargo compartment liners, as components in an
inaccessible area, would still be required by proposed Sec.
25.853(c)(2) to meet the flammability performance standard currently
encompassed by the oil burner test in part III of appendix F.
Exceptions would include liners on the floor and certain aspects of
Class E cargo compartment liners, which would only need to pass the 45-
degree Bunsen burner test, i.e., resist penetration by a small flame
(proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(iv)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Part 25, appendix F, part IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, for materials that must be self-extinguishing under
current regulations, the FAA has reviewed the detailed pass/fail
criteria for the vertical Bunsen burner test in appendix F, part I,
paragraph (b)(4) of part 25 and concluded that those criteria could
also be simplified. The current pass/fail criteria are regulatory and
involve burn length, after-flame time, extinguishing time of any drips,
and, in some cases, after-glow time. These criteria would no longer be
regulatory. Instead, proposed AC 25.853-4X would describe one means of
compliance that incorporates only the criteria of burn length and that
the material be self-extinguishing. The self-extinguishing criteria
would apply to drips as well as the test sample.
2. Oil Burner Test for Seat Cushions (Current Sec. 25.853(c) and Part
II of Appendix F to Part 25)
Currently, Sec. 25.853(c) requires that seat cushions, except
those on flight crewmember seats, meet the test requirements of part II
of appendix F to part 25, which involves the use of an oil burner. The
oil burner test for cushions simulates the effect of a post-crash fire
by exposing the material to a high-intensity open flame to evaluate its
burn resistance and other characteristics.
This proposal would extend this level of flammability performance
to any cushion, including flight crewmember seats and mattresses on
berths. When the FAA adopted its current flammability rule \18\ for
seat cushions, the materials available to applicants were limited, and
it was not clear that flightcrew could achieve the posture and comfort
necessary to safely operate the airplane using materials that complied
with the oil burner test. However, since that time, advances in cushion
materials have essentially eliminated this issue and any reason for
different treatment of flight crewmember seats. Mattresses or other
cushions on berths should meet the same standards. The omission of
cushions on berths in the current Sec. 25.853(c) was largely an
oversight in the way the FAA worded the rule.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Published in the Federal Register on October 26, 1984 (49
FR 43188) and available on the internet at https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/0/31FBF691A3BCE69C86256825004F9E02?OpenDocument.
\19\ Section 25.853(c) specifically referred to ``seats,''
whereas elsewhere in the regulations, seats and berths are both
mentioned when requirements apply to both. From a fire safety
standpoint, there is no distinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Sec. 25.853(d)(3) would create a performance-based
standard for the flammability of seat cushions. In the event that a
post-crash fire enters the airplane, the seat cushions would have to
resist involvement in that fire, and not propagate it. (Resist, for the
purposes of this proposed rule, means to not become involved in a fire
to the extent that survivability is adversely affected, commensurate
with the historical benefit provided by the oil burner test.
Involvement, for the purposes of this proposed rule, means ignition,
pyrolysis, or combustion.) Since the oil burner test represents the
hazard posed by a post-crash fire, it would continue to be, in most
cases, an acceptable test to show compliance with this proposed rule.
However, in certain applications, an applicant could show compliance
with the HRR test. The oil burner test measures both flame spread and
material consumption rates, and the HRR test only measures the latter.
Therefore, an applicant's use of the HRR test will generally be limited
to designs where flame spread does not affect safety, and would, in
most circumstances, apply to small cushions or cushions such as padding
on an angled surface. Proposed appendix F to part 25 would allow this
substitution of one test method for another.
The proposed revisions to Sec. 25.853 would no longer require
cushions to meet a Bunsen burner test because the oil burner test,
which most applicants would use to demonstrate the flammability
performance of their cushions, is more severe. Although the Bunsen
burner test would not be required for seat cushions, applicants could
still choose to generate Bunsen burner test data, where that data may
be used to support substitution of upholstery (dress covers) under the
provisions of proposed Sec. 25.853(e)(3).
This proposal would also remove the mandatory and detailed testing
methods from appendix F to part 25. Instead, AC 25.853-2X, would
provide guidance on
[[Page 31752]]
acceptable tests, including the oil burner test and use of the HRR
test.
3. Heat Release Rate Test (Current Sec. 25.853(d) and Part IV of
Appendix F to Part 25)
Currently, the requirements to conduct the HRR test, in Sec.
25.853(d) and part IV of appendix F to part 25, apply to specific
interior features: Interior ceiling and wall panels, partitions, galley
structures, large cabinets, and cabin stowage compartments that are in
a passenger compartment that may be occupied during takeoff and
landing.
This proposal would replace this requirement with performance-based
standards in Sec. 25.853(d)(2) applicable to any large \20\ surface
area in the same compartment, based on the type of fire it may be
exposed to, and without regard to whether a particular surface is
associated with a specific feature. These revisions, therefore, would
extend the flammability requirements to all large surface areas within
the portions of the fuselage currently covered by the HRR tests. This
proposal would remove the details of HRR tests from appendix F to part
25. HRR tests would be one means of compliance, and detailed in
proposed AC 25.853-1A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ For purposes of this proposed rule, ``large'' excludes
surfaces that are less than 1 square foot and includes all surfaces
that are 2 square feet and greater, with square footage in between
as explained in amendment 25-83 (60 FR 6615, February 2, 1995),
which is available on the internet at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1995-02-02/pdf/95-2114.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A design development that the FAA did not anticipate following the
1986 adoption of part IV of appendix F to part 25, which details the
HRR test, and a change to Sec. 25.853(a) to require the HRR test (at
amendment 25-61 \21\), was industry's use of large area panels on seat
assemblies.\22\ Because Sec. 25.853(d) at amendment 25-83 \23\
(paragraph (a) at amendment 25-61) does not list seats, the FAA has
applied special conditions to address fire protection of these large-
area parts. The proposed revisions to Sec. 25.853 would eliminate the
need for these special conditions, since the revisions would apply to
any component or part that is a large surface within the fuselage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Published in the Federal Register on July 21, 1986 (51 FR
26206).
\22\ In this context, seat assemblies include the seat and
furniture associated with that seat. The furniture need not be an
airplane sidewall or bulkhead to affect the overall post-crash
flammability characteristics and therefore should simply be treated
as a large surface area.
\23\ Published in the Federal Register on February 2, 1995 (60
FR 6615) and available on the internet at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1995-02-02/pdf/95-2570.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA also proposes, however, that this broader standard only
apply to items more than 15 inches above the floor because full-scale
fire tests \24\ show that (with the exception of materials near the
fire entry point) the materials very near the floor do not
significantly contribute to a post-crash fire until conditions have
become non-survivable. Therefore, in order to simplify compliance
demonstrations and focus the requirement on the most critical
components, proposed Sec. 25.853(d)(2)(i) would only apply to large-
surface components and parts that are more than 15 inches from the
cabin floor. For example, a kick panel that extends upward from the
floor to 16 inches above the floor would be required to pass the HRR
test. For airplanes with more than one passenger deck, the 15-inch
dimension would apply to each deck separately. The FAA based the 15-
inch dimension on test data and the objective of such materials not
adversely affecting safety. This provision is relieving and should
reduce costs. The proposal to exclude surfaces 15 inches and below
would not apply to large area surfaces on seats because seats could be
located in or near a fire's entry point through the fuselage and,
therefore, would be more likely to be involved in a post-crash fire.
FAA full-scale fire tests have shown that there could be an adverse
impact on safety if parts on seats that are less than 15 inches from
the floor did not meet the heat release requirements.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ One example is FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-13/52,
``Development of a Laboratory-Scale Flammability Test for Magnesium
Alloys Used in Aircraft Seat Construction,'' dated February 2014,
available in the Docket and on the internet at https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TC-13-52.pdf.
\25\ FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-16/42, ``A Comparison of
Performance of OSU-Compliant Versus Non-OSU-Compliant Thermoplastics
Used in the Lower Area of Aircraft Seats during a Simulated Post-
Crash Fire Scenario,'' dated September 2017, available in the Docket
and on the internet at https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/TC-16-42.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Smoke Emissions Test (Current Sec. 25.853(d) and Part V of Appendix
F to Part 25)
This proposal would remove the requirement for testing of smoke
emissions. The smoke emissions test, detailed in the current part V of
appendix F to part 25 that is required by Sec. 25.853(d), measures the
smoke emissions characteristics of materials used in cabin components.
The smoke emissions test is currently required in addition to the HRR
test. The FAA adopted the smoke emissions test requirement at amendment
25-66 \26\ after concluding that smoke may hamper emergency egress and
is, therefore, a survivability factor in the event of a fire. Thus, all
materials, parts, and components that must meet the HRR test
requirements are also required to pass the smoke emissions test in
accordance with current Sec. 25.853(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See ``Improved Flammability Standards for Materials Used in
the Interiors of Transport Category Airplane Cabins,'' published in
the Federal Register on August 25, 1988 (53 FR 32564) and available
on the internet at https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/0/7B29EAF2EAC36594862568FC005465CD?OpenDocument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, FAA research data have also shown that, for the materials
and configurations typically used in transport category airplanes, the
heat release of the materials used drives occupant survivability,
rather than the materials' smoke emission. Heat release dictates how
quickly the conditions progress to flashover.\27\ Before flashover,
conditions are largely survivable. Due to the importance of heat
release, the FAA initially adopted regulations (at amendment 25-61)
that only contained requirements for the HRR test and did not address
smoke emission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ A flashover is the near-simultaneous ignition of all
combustible material within an enclosed area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, the data do not correlate smoke emission test results with
post-crash survivability as they do with heat release. The FAA is
unaware of any data showing that smoke emission testing has contributed
to fire safety in an actual accident. Although the rule has been in
effect for more than 20 years and has prevented applicants from using
certain materials, the FAA has concluded, pursuant to the following
discussions, that the smoke emission testing requirement is not adding
to post-crash fire safety. The smoke emission requirement may be
contributing to in-flight fire safety, but the extent of that
contribution is unknown. However, by adding standards for extensively
used materials in inaccessible areas, the potential contribution to an
in-flight fire from materials that would no longer be subject to the
smoke emission requirement will be minimized. For example, the proposal
would eliminate the test that measures smoke emissions for certain
large surface area parts, such as sidewalls. If a fire was to propagate
on ducting behind the sidewall (an inaccessible area), it could spread
to a sidewall that had not been tested for smoke emission, and the
quantity of smoke could become a risk to continued safe flight and
landing. If the ducting met the flammability standard in this proposal,
the fire would not reach the sidewall, and the quantity of smoke would
be minimal. Thus, the relief in the smoke emission requirements for
sidewalls depends on improving the
[[Page 31753]]
standards for ducting. This philosophy of interdependency is true
throughout the proposal.
The MFWG discussed smoke emission testing at length during its
activity leading to this proposal, but the MFWG did not reach a
consensus on whether the FAA should retain a requirement for smoke
emission testing. Some members were concerned that the removal of the
requirement could lead to applicants using materials with excessive
smoke emission properties, if those materials offered weight or cost
advantages. Other members believed the FAA could eliminate the smoke
emission test requirement because smoke emissions had not been
correlated to post-crash survivability, and FAA data suggested it was
not needed. Also, most airplane manufacturers have their own design
standards that include tests for smoke emissions. These internal
manufacturer requirements were in place before the FAA adopted the
current regulatory requirement; therefore, the FAA expects they would
remain in use to some extent if the regulatory requirement were
removed. Thus, the FAA anticipates that some of the smoke emission
testing that existed before the current regulatory requirement would
continue to take place if this proposed amendment removed the
regulatory requirement. In other words, manufacturers might choose to
maintain the design standards that were in place before amendment 25-66
\28\ was adopted. Amendment 25-66 imposed a certification process that
drives costs, in terms of the quantity of tests, the documentation
necessary, and the engineering assessments to identify the correct
tests. These costs would be relieved by this proposed rule and are
included in the cost savings estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See ``Improved Flammability Standards for Materials Used in
the Interiors of Transport Category Airplane Cabins,'' published in
the Federal Register on August 25, 1988 (53 FR 32564). Available at
https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/0/7B29EAF2EAC36594862568FC005465CD?OpenDocument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this information, the FAA proposes to remove the
requirement for testing of smoke emissions. However, because smoke is
an important survivability parameter, and materials that have high
smoke emission without significant HRR are theoretically possible,
Sec. 25.853 of this proposal would establish a general performance
standard that components must maintain occupant survivability during a
post-crash fire. One means of showing compliance would be HRR testing,
described in chapter A4 of FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-17/55, ``Aircraft
Materials Fire Test Handbook,'' Revision 3, dated June 2019. If data
from the HRR testing does not ensure the post-crash fuel fire
performance of a given material, an applicant could show compliance via
another means. The FAA anticipates, however, that HRR tests will be
adequate to determine the post-crash fire performance of components
made from materials currently in use such as phenolic, epoxy, and
thermoplastic.
5. Oil Burner Test for Cargo Compartment Liners (Current Sec.
25.855(c) and Part III of Appendix F to Part 25)
Proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(2) would set performance standards
requiring all Class C, and certain Class E and F, cargo compartment
ceiling and sidewall liners to resist penetration by a fire within that
compartment and protect the airplane's structure and critical systems
from the effects of those fires. The section on cargo or baggage
compartments would include a reference (Sec. 25.855(c)) requiring
compliance with the applicable provisions of Sec. 25.853(c). In
addition, as a minor editorial change, this proposal eliminates the
term ``panels'' from ``liner panels,'' the term used in the current
regulation. Most liners are panels. However, many components serving
the role of the cargo compartment liner are not panels, and the term
can sometimes be confusing. The proposed rule would simply refer to
cargo compartment liners, but there would be no change in the scope of
the requirement.
Currently, Sec. 25.855(b) requires any Class B through E, and
certain Class F, cargo compartments to have a liner. Section 25.855(c)
requires the ceiling and sidewall liner panels of Class C and F cargo
compartments to meet the requirements currently in part III of appendix
F to part 25, the oil burner test (proving resistance to flame
penetration). The requirement for cargo compartment liners to resist
fire penetration would be retained, as a performance standard, in Sec.
25.853(c)(2)(ii). Proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(1)(iii) would continue to
require Class B cargo compartment liners, as well as any other cargo
compartment liners, to resist penetration from a small ignition source.
This requirement is currently met using the less severe 45-degree
Bunsen burner test required by appendix F, part I, paragraph (a)(2)(ii)
of part 25. A Class F cargo compartment is not required to have a liner
if it has other means of containing a fire and protecting critical
systems and structure, but if it does have a liner, it is currently
required by Sec. 25.855(b)(2) to meet the oil burner test like Class C
cargo compartments.
With this proposal, all Class E cargo compartment liners necessary
to protect critical systems and structure would be required to meet
standards identical to those required of Classes C and F, under
proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(iii). The FAA's rationale for requiring the
same performance of those cargo compartment liners is that any cargo
compartment liner necessary to protect the airplane structure or its
systems should also protect against in-flight cargo fires.
The oil burner test would continue to be an acceptable means of
showing that the liner resists penetration as that test represents the
hazard posed by in-flight cargo fires, but this proposal would remove
the requirement to pass the test in part III of appendix F to part 25,
which would become an optional means of compliance under proposed AC
25.853-1A.
Other methods of meeting the proposed performance standards for
Class E cargo compartments could be the use of fire containment covers
or containers, or dedicated shrouds to protect flight-critical systems.
In such cases, proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(iv) would still require the
liner to resist penetration from a small ignition source, which could
be shown by passing the 45-degree Bunsen burner test, which also would
be described in proposed AC 25.853-1A.
In addition, application of Sec. 25.855(c) has often resulted in
multiple tests for a given liner configuration or slight variants of
the configuration. This regulation would be replaced by the performance
standards discussed previously, and proposed AC 25.855-1X would provide
guidance on simplified methods that should reduce the testing required
to show compliance.
Lastly, this proposal would eliminate the requirement in Sec.
25.855(d) to test the flammability of materials used in the
construction of items such as cargo covers and tiedown equipment within
a Class C cargo compartment. Section 25.855(d) currently applies to all
other materials used in the construction of the cargo or baggage
compartment and requires testing according to part I of appendix F to
part 25, the Bunsen burner tests, for any such materials. This proposal
would add an exception to Sec. 25.855(d) for materials located
entirely within a Class C cargo or baggage compartment. The rationale
for this proposed relief is that Class C compartments are already
required by Sec. 25.857(c) to withstand and contain a fire from cargo
or baggage of arbitrary
[[Page 31754]]
flammability characteristics, and these compartments must have a fire
suppression system. Materials used within the Class C compartment would
be no more flammable than the cargo itself. Since the cargo makes up
most of the potential fire load, requiring all of these materials or
components to be tested does not add to safety. However, this proposal
would not provide similar relief for other classifications of cargo
compartments because those compartments use different approaches to
fire protection.
These proposed changes would apply to cargo compartments, not cargo
containers, even though the National Transportation Safety Board has
recommended improved flammability standards for cargo containers. Cargo
containers \29\ are used in a variety of applications, including within
Class C cargo compartments. Unlike the cargo compartments that house
them, cargo containers are usually not part of the airplane type
design, and so are not directly affected by the requirements of part
25. The FAA often approves cargo containers in accordance with
Technical Standard Order (TSO) C90d, ``Cargo Pallets, Nets and
Containers (Unit Load Devices),'' which contains minimum performance
standards for the container itself, without regard to the type of
compartment where the container will be used. The FAA's analysis of
potential regulatory actions with respect to cargo containers is
ongoing and independent of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Cargo containers are portable devices that are carried
within airplane cargo compartments to transport cargo or baggage.
They are used to facilitate loading and maximize use of space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Radiant Panel Test for Thermal/Acoustic Insulation (Current Sec.
25.856(a) and Part VI of Appendix F to Part 25)
Thermal/acoustic insulation protects the airplane and occupants
from temperature and acoustic extremes, and it is often located in
places not accessible to the flightcrew during flight. This proposal
would remove the requirement for radiant panel testing of thermal/
acoustic insulation, currently in Sec. 25.856(a) and part VI of
appendix F to part 25. This proposal would instead require that
thermal/acoustic insulation comply with proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(i),
which would set performance standards for all extensively used parts,
components, and assemblies that are not accessible to the flightcrew
during flight. The proposed performance is that the parts not propagate
the largest fire that, by itself, would not be a hazard to the
airplane. The reason this standard was selected, originally by the
MFWG, is to prevent the risk that a fire that is any larger would be a
hazard to the airplane and its occupants, regardless of the materials
used.
One means of showing compliance with the proposed performance
standards for inaccessible materials would be the radiant panel test
method, which determines the flammability and flame propagation
characteristics of thermal/acoustic insulation when it is exposed to
both a radiant heat source and a flame. This method would be detailed
in proposed AC 25.856-1A.
In contrast, thermal/acoustic insulation that is accessible to the
flightcrew during flight would only be required to be self-
extinguishing when exposed to a small flame, as set forth in proposed
Sec. 25.853(c)(1)(i).
7. Oil Burner Test for Thermal/Acoustic Insulation (Current Sec.
25.856(b) and Part VII of Appendix F to Part 25)
For airplanes with a passenger capacity of 20 or more, this
proposal would revise Sec. 25.856(b) to state two performance
standards, that thermal/acoustic insulation installed in the lower half
of the fuselage resist penetration of a post-crash fuel fire and
provide at least 5 minutes of survivability in the occupied portions of
the airplane. Section 25.856(b) currently requires that thermal/
acoustic insulation installed in the lower half of the fuselage meet
the burnthrough resistance (or oil burner) test in part VII of appendix
F to part 25 unless the FAA determines that the insulation would not
contribute to fire penetration resistance. If thermal/acoustic
insulation is not installed, there is currently no requirement that the
airplane resist post-crash fire penetration.
The MFWG recommended that the FAA expand the applicability of the
burnthrough resistance requirement beyond just insulation, to require a
means of providing post-crash fire penetration protection. For some
airplane designs, that approach could require some other type of fire
barrier, in areas where insulation is not installed, that would have to
meet the same performance standards as thermal/acoustic insulation.
The FAA is not proposing to adopt the MFWG recommendation to expand
the applicability of the burnthrough resistance requirement. It is
difficult to quantify the benefits of requiring a fire penetration
barrier, since the majority of in-production airplanes are largely
insulated in the lower lobe. Adding a fire barrier to areas not
traditionally insulated, such as the wing box or certain cargo areas,
would provide some, albeit limited, fire safety benefit. In addition,
with the increased use of composite skin structure, some airplane
models have fire penetration resistance without using insulation.
However, if the FAA were to separately require fire penetration
resistance for the entire lower lobe, applicants would incur
substantial development costs, including increased testing, and more
significantly, increased airplane weight. The FAA cannot, at present,
justify these costs against the potential benefits they would provide.
Instead, proposed Sec. 25.856(b) would allow for another means of
providing fire penetration resistance, and proposed AC 25.856-2B would
address the use of fuselage structure in an equivalent means of
providing fire penetration resistance. These provisions should reduce
the administrative actions necessary if an applicant chooses to provide
a fire penetration barrier by means other than insulation.
8. Radiant Heat Resistance Test for Escape Slides (Sec. 25.853(d)(5))
Proposed Sec. 25.853(d)(5) would incorporate a requirement from
TSO-C69C, ``Emergency Evacuation Slides, Ramps, Ramp/Slides, and Slide/
Rafts,'' for applicants to conduct tests to ensure the continued
functioning of escape systems when those systems are exposed to the
effects of radiant heat from a post-crash fuel fire. Since all escape
slides currently comply with the radiant heat resistance requirement of
TSO-C69C, this proposal would add no compliance burden. Compliance with
TSO-C69C would also provide the necessary data for compliance with the
new part 25 requirement. Proposed AC 25.853-6X would contain details of
the radiant heat test method and pass/fail criteria and would include
refinements developed since the TSO-C69C was last updated.
9. Fire Containment Compliance of Waste Receptacles (Current Sec.
25.853(h))
The fire containment requirements for waste receptacles would
remain the same with this proposal. However, because of the
reorganization of Sec. 25.853, this proposal would move the waste
receptacle requirements from Sec. 25.853(h) to proposed Sec.
25.853(c)(1)(ii). In addition, proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(1)(ii) would
require at least one test specimen to show compliance. This change is
necessary because proposed Sec. 25.853(b) adds a general test
requirement that three specimen sets be used to show compliance with
proposed Sec. Sec. 25.853(c) and (d). Requiring one test specimen for
waste receptacles is
[[Page 31755]]
consistent with the current Sec. 25.853(h), which requires
demonstration by test.
Waste receptacles face the threat of an in-flight fire occurring
within the receptacle. The current Sec. 25.853(h) addresses this
threat, but the requirement does not specify a test method from
appendix F to part 25 as do the other paragraphs of the current Sec.
25.853. AC 25-17A, Change 1, ``Transport Airplane Cabin Interiors
Crashworthiness Handbook,'' dated May 24, 2016, currently summarizes an
acceptable method of compliance for waste receptacles. This method
would be updated in chapter B1 of FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-17/55, in
order to reflect current knowledge about in-flight fire sources and
typical waste materials.
10. Extensively Used Materials in Inaccessible Areas (Proposed Sec.
25.853(c)(2)(i))
The FAA is proposing new fire safety standards that would apply to
all materials that are extensively used within and including the
fuselage but are not accessible in flight. Proposed Sec. 25.853(c)
would set a performance standard of prohibiting the flammability
characteristics of parts, components, and materials involved in an in-
flight fire from creating a hazard to the occupants or to the continued
safe flight of the airplane. For the purposes of this proposed rule,
the ``flammability characteristics'' of a part, component, or assembly
(or the materials from which they are made) are all of the ways those
items respond to a particular fire threat. Such flammability
characteristics include the material's ease of ignition, its tendency
to propagate a flame, and its HRR, as well as other parameters
correlated with heat release, including the emission of smoke and toxic
gases.
Proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(i) would set the performance standard
that extensively used parts, components, and assemblies must not
propagate the largest fire that, by itself, would not be a hazard to
the airplane.
When the FAA adopted the flammability requirements for thermal/
acoustic insulation in 2003 (amendment 25-111),\30\ the FAA's
regulatory evaluation estimated that the requirements would mitigate
\31\ roughly half the potentially catastrophic in-flight fires that
might occur over a 20-year period. In order to more completely address
the risk due to in-flight fire, the FAA determined that all extensively
used materials in inaccessible areas should have the same level of fire
resistance as thermal/acoustic insulation, currently addressed in Sec.
25.856(a). Therefore, proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(i) would set the same
performance standard for extensively used parts in inaccessible areas
that is in the current Sec. 25.856(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See ``Improved Flammability Standards for Thermal/Acoustic
Insulation Materials Used in Transport Category Airplanes,''
published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2003 (68 FR 45045) and
available on the internet at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2003-07-31/pdf/03-18612.pdf.
\31\ I.e., prevent the fire from becoming catastrophic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To further explain the reason for this proposal, the parts and
materials of primary concern in inaccessible areas are electrical
wiring, ducting, and composite structure. Each of these is
``extensively used,'' in the meaning set forth in this proposal, and
could permit a fire to propagate inside the airplane. Since the areas
in question are not accessible by the flightcrew, there is no effective
way to fight the fire, so the flammability (flame propagation)
resistance of the materials is paramount in in-flight fire safety. This
proposal would also revise Sec. 25.856(a), which states the
requirements for thermal/acoustic insulation, to require the same
performance standards as Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(i). This would have the
effect of limiting the applicability of the in-flight flame propagation
requirement to thermal/acoustic insulation that is located in an area
that is inaccessible in flight. Proposed AC 25.853-5X would provide
additional detail on the types of components that are affected by this
requirement, as well as methods of compliance.
Section 25.1713, ``Fire protection: EWIS,'' applies to electrical
wire and cable wherever it is used. Materials used in any electrical
wire and cable insulation, including protective shrouds, are considered
extensively used. This proposal would restate the current fire
protection requirements relative to whether the wire is installed
within or outside the fuselage. For electrical wiring interconnected
systems (EWIS) components installed within the fuselage, under proposed
Sec. 25.1713(c)(2) the insulation would have to meet the performance
standards in proposed Sec. 25.853(c), which includes different
standards for installations in areas that are accessible and
inaccessible in-flight, and in a post-crash environment. For EWIS
installed outside the fuselage, because such areas are inaccessible,
proposed Sec. 25.1713(c)(1) would require that such components not
propagate the largest fire that, by itself, would not be a hazard to
the airplane. This proposal would also add a new paragraph (d) to Sec.
25.853 to require testing, except for wiring installations that would
not pose a risk to fire safety. Proposed AC 25.853-5X would provide
accepted test methods for showing compliance with the new performance
standards.
Other extensively used materials include nonmetallic or flammable
metals used in some fuselage construction today. Since the use of these
materials in this manner constitutes a novel or unusual design feature,
the FAA has addressed the issue of in-flight fire safety for designs
using these materials through special conditions. Those special
conditions are intended to ensure that the use of nonmetallic or
flammable metal structure does not reduce the level of in-flight fire
safety from the level that would have been provided with a traditional
metallic fuselage. Proposed Sec. 25.853(a) would include the fuselage
in the fire protection requirements regardless of the type of material
used in its construction and would eliminate the need for such special
conditions. Proposed Sec. 25.853(d)(4) would require that flammable
metals used in cabin construction be able to resist a post-crash fire,
and that they be readily extinguishable. ``Readily extinguishable,'' in
this instance, means that a fire extinguishing system in common use in
aviation (including a hand-held fire extinguisher or airport emergency
response) can promptly extinguish the materials, rather than spreading
the fire or otherwise making the fire worse.
Under Sec. 25.853(c)(2) of this proposal, the back sides of many
existing interior features (e.g., galleys, sidewalls, ceilings) would
meet the definition of extensively used and would, therefore, be
required to show by test their fire propagation resistance. However,
the FAA has assessed the performance of these materials, both in
service and in testing. Since the materials' fire propagation
resistance has been satisfactory, and because they are subject to other
flammability requirements, the FAA does not see a need to require
additional tests for the portion of these parts that face inaccessible
areas. Therefore, proposed appendix F to part 25 and proposed AC
25.853-1A would summarize conditions under which methods of compliance
other than testing would be acceptable in order to meet the in-flight
fire requirements for inaccessible areas.
Proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(v) would require that all other parts,
components, and materials located in inaccessible areas be self-
extinguishing when exposed to a small flame or electrical arc. However,
since these would by definition be components that are not extensively
used, an applicant could document a process whereby the
[[Page 31756]]
flammability of parts used in inaccessible areas is controlled to meet
the required level of safety of the proposed rule. Specifically, an
applicant could show that its design/production system includes
provisions such that parts used in inaccessible areas have only known
flammability characteristics, or any parts that do have unknown
flammability characteristics are insignificant in the event of a fire.
Proposed AC 25.853-1A would discuss this in more detail.
11. Exclusions From Testing (Proposed Sec. 25.853(e))
Proposed Sec. 25.853(e) would allow applicants to substantiate
certain components without the testing required by Sec. 25.853(b).
Section 25.853(e) would establish five classes of parts that would not
require certification testing in order to show compliance. Each
individual class would be based on a combination of factors that affect
fire safety and complexity of certification. The classes maintain the
level of safety provided in the current regulations.
The applicant would have to prove that the part or component meets
the criteria of one of the five classes listed in proposed Sec.
25.853(e), in order to obtain the FAA's approval to exempt those parts
from testing. Proposed AC 25.853-1A would provide examples that would
qualify for this relief and guidance for justifying it.
The classes are as follows:
Class 1 parts are small (each able to fit, in its
entirety, within a cube measuring two inches on each side) and
separated from one another so that they will not propagate a fire.
Class 2 parts are larger than Class 1 parts and are self-
extinguishing. These parts would be limited in size to a volume of 113
cubic inches and an exposed area of 200 square inches.
Class 3 parts are those that the applicant can show,
through a method acceptable to the Administrator, are a size,
construction, or location that their flammability characteristics do
not threaten the airplane or its occupants. By threaten, the FAA means
pose a risk to continued safe flight and landing or a hazard to the
occupants.
Class 4 parts are those that are essential to the safety
of the airplane, its occupants, or the functionality \32\ of the
airplane and cannot reasonably be made from a material that meets the
flammability requirements without compromising the part's integrity or
functionality. Although this paragraph provides an exception, the FAA
expects the proposed design would come as closely as possible to full
compliance, including the use of best available materials and showing
that there is no adverse effect on safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Such necessary functionality does not include entertainment
systems but would include lavatories and potable water tanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 5 parts are those that have already passed a more
stringent test as outlined in appendix F to part 25.
All of these provisions would apply to testing requirements for
both the in-flight and post-crash fires.
The FAA is proposing these exceptions because the current general
exclusion of small parts from testing requirements in part I of
appendix F to part 25 has been problematic. There is currently no
definition of small parts in the flammability regulations, only
examples. Since testing is not required, the flammability
characteristics of those small parts can be unknown. In addition, there
is no consideration of accessibility, extensive use, or potential type
of fire exposure. Adopting different classes of parts would simplify
the requirements and bring standardization to those situations where
parts are not tested. Proposed AC 25.853-1A would provide examples that
would qualify for this relief and guidance on justifying it.
12. Pass/Fail Criteria
This proposal would remove the detailed pass/fail criteria from
appendix F to part 25. Section 25.853(b) of this proposal would define
the number of specimen sets required for tests that the applicant uses
to show compliance. The applicable proposed AC would provide approved
number of passing samples for certain testing methods.
The detailed pass/fail criteria, currently in appendix F to part
25, are specific to the test method. Depending on what the test is
measuring, the pass/fail criteria relate to the key parameters of
interest (e.g., burn length, extinguishing time, HRR) necessary to meet
the level of safety that the requirement. The pass/fail criteria are
based on a required number of test samples and the number of samples
that meet the specified criteria. All of the current test methods
require at least three sets of test samples, which may include more
than one specimen depending on the test method.
Some current test methods require the average value of the test
results to be at or below a certain level; others require that no
sample can fail. For example, the seat cushion test in current appendix
F to part 25 requires that two thirds of the test samples meet certain
criteria as well as the average of all test samples. One of the key
ongoing difficulties with these criteria is how to recover from failure
of a single sample, where that sample may be an outlier. For those
methods that require an average, simply testing more samples improves
the statistical significance of the average, and has generally been
acceptable (although the FAA must approve in advance the number of
additional samples to be tested). For test methods that do not permit
any sample to exceed specified values, a failure of one sample is
problematic, since one failure would violate the criteria no matter how
many additional samples are tested. Such failures are often attributed
to so-called ``rogue'' samples: Samples that have some irregular
characteristic that makes their performance unrepresentative of the
material (part or component) in general. While rogue samples
undoubtedly occur, it is often difficult to pinpoint their cause.
This proposal would address this issue in Sec. 25.853(b) by
standardizing the number of samples and required pass rate: 80 percent
for every new or improved test method, based on a minimum of three test
sample sets. The effect would be that if only three samples are tested,
all must pass. If one of the three samples fails, then at least two
additional samples would be needed to obtain an 80 percent passing
rate. This standard would be effectively relieving for tests on
thermal/acoustic insulation and Class C cargo compartment liners
because those methods in part III of appendix F to part 25 currently
permit no failures. In contrast, this method could be more stringent
for Bunsen burner and HRR tests because it could require more samples.
The method is similar to the method currently required for testing seat
cushions. However, since this proposal would eliminate many Bunsen
burner tests and the test for smoke emissions (all in appendix F), even
if an applicant needed additional samples to show compliance, the total
number of required tests should be very close to the number required
today. Also, samples that are invalidated due to an assignable cause
could still be discarded and replaced with new samples.
Most of the test methods currently in use would continue to be
acceptable for certification. An applicant could choose to use these
existing methods to show compliance with the relevant portions of this
proposal. However, the FAA considers the revised versions of these test
methods, as documented in FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-17/55, to be more
reliable than the previous versions. The only test methods currently
required that would not be carried forward under this proposal are
[[Page 31757]]
the horizontal Bunsen burner test and the test for smoke emissions. If
an applicant uses a current test method to comply with a performance
standard in this proposal, then the applicant should use existing pass/
fail criteria (including all measured parameters). In that case, an
applicant would be trading the lower reliability of the older test
method against the need to prepare additional test samples. For new
tests, such as those for extensively used materials in inaccessible
areas, at this time there are no proven optional methods to those
presented in the proposed guidance, which includes the 80-percent
criteria.
The table below identifies each test method; the current location
of the detailed test method in regulatory requirements and non-
regulatory procedures; and the location where each test method could be
found, in non-regulatory procedures, if this proposal is adopted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently
approved (or Non[dash]regulatory
Test method required) procedures
procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bunsen burner................. Part I of AMFTH,** Chapters A1
appendix F to and A2.
part 25, AMFTH,*
Chapters 1-4.
Oil burner--seats............. Part II of AMFTH,** Chapters A5.
appendix F to
part 25, AMFTH,*
Chapter 7.
Oil burner--cargo liner....... Part III of AMFTH,** Chapters B2.
appendix F to
part 25, AMFTH,*
Chapter 8.
Oil burner--insulation........ Part VII of AMFTH,** Chapter A5.
appendix F to
part 25.
Oil burner--Mg alloy.......... N/A.............. AMFTH,** Chapter A6.
Heat release rate............. Part IV of AMFTH,** Chapter A4.
appendix F to
part 25, AMFTH,*
Chapter 5.
Radiant heat--escape slide.... TSO C69C......... AMFTH,** Chapter A2.
Radiant panel................. Part VI of AMFTH,** Chapter B2.
appendix F to
part 25.
Vertical flame propagation-- N/A.............. AMFTH,** Chapter B5.
Wiring.
Vertical flame propagation-- N/A.............. AMFTH,** Chapter B4.
Ducting.
Vertical flame propagation-- N/A.............. AMFTH,** Chapter B3.
Composite structure.
Fire containment.............. AMFTH,* Chapter AMFTH,** Chapter B1.
10.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-00/12, ``Aircraft Materials Fire Test
Handbook,'' dated April 2000.
** FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-17/55, ``Aircraft Materials Fire Test
Handbook,'' Revision 3, dated June 2019.
While the previous test methods, as shown in the table above, would
continue to be acceptable, the FAA will not continue to refine these
methods to improve their repeatability and reproducibility. The FAA's
future focus on refining and improving test methods will be on the new
and improved test methods documented in FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-17/
55, since these are now the preferred methods and would become the
preferred methods of compliance with the performance standards of this
proposal.
B. Reorganization of Appendix F to Part 25
1. General Structure
The FAA is proposing to substantively change appendix F to part 25
by removing its many specifications for flammability tests and adding a
list of flammability test methods that applicants can use in lieu of
other test methods. The FAA would remove and update the detailed
testing criteria from the current appendix F, although it would
continue to be available in advisory material. This proposal would
provide flexibility for applicants in showing compliance with the
proposed revisions to the fire protection standards in Sec. 25.853.
Currently, appendix F to part 25 is divided into seven parts, each
providing details of different test methods, with variations for
specific airplane parts, and acceptable outcomes for each test
variation. Because of the importance of maintaining standardization,
these test methods are very detailed and, therefore, lengthy. Since
appendix F to part 25 is a regulation, applicants must get the FAA's
approval to depart from any of the test details. As the test methods
have become more complicated and sophisticated over time, following
every detail has become more important in obtaining reliable results.
Conversely, as technology advances, providing more opportunities to
refine and improve the test methods, requests for deviation from
appendix F to part 25 have become more frequent. To deal with these
requests, the FAA issued a policy statement to permit use of FAA Report
No. DOT/FAA/AR-00/12 as an acceptable method of compliance for many of
the test methods in appendix F to part 25. The FAA also developed a
method for updating the handbook, so that improvements could be
implemented quickly and used by industry without extensive
administrative burden.
Given this experience, the FAA has determined that the detailed
test methods should no longer be regulatory.
In conjunction with this proposal, the detailed test methods would
be contained in ACs (see section III.D, ``Advisory Materials'' of this
NPRM), which are easier to update than a regulation and allow for more
flexibility as refinements and improvements to the test methods become
available. As with any advisory material, the method would not be
mandatory, but applicants would have to justify and obtain approval of
other compliance methods.
To improve the effectiveness of the handbook approach to
compliance, a new document would serve as a compendium of the relevant
test methods. The associated ACs would reference this compendium, and
the FAA would update it as advances and improvements in test methods
and equipment are developed. However, the original version and
subsequent versions of the compendium would remain an acceptable method
of compliance with these proposed regulations, unless the FAA discovers
a deficiency in a given version, or changes the regulatory requirements
after notice and comment.
2. Hierarchy of Tests
This proposal would add provisions to appendix F to part 25 that
would allow applicants to demonstrate compliance with a requirement in
one of the proposed paragraphs of Sec. 25.853 via a test method at
least as rigorous as one acceptable for showing compliance with the
original requirement. Appendix F to part 25 would contain a table of
these performance standards indicating whether showing compliance with
one standard would be sufficient to satisfy showing compliance with
another. This table would help applicants determine the relative
[[Page 31758]]
severity of the testing methods that the FAA would find acceptable for
showing compliance and, therefore, would allow applicants to eliminate
redundant or non-value-added testing. Since the critical performance
parameters (e.g., flame propagation and fire penetration) differ
according to the type of fire (in-flight or post-crash fuel fire), the
proposed revisions to appendix F to part 25 would clarify which types
of compliance tests the FAA would find acceptable as substitutions for
a given type of fire threat.
This would allow a successful result on other, more stringent,
testing to prove that a given material will not pose a hazard in that
type of fire. For example, appendix F to part 25 would allow applicants
to use a successful HRR test to show compliance with the requirement to
pass a Bunsen burner test, or to use a post-crash fire test method,
coupled with experience for certain classes of materials, to show
compliance with an otherwise required in-flight fire test method. The
FAA has determined that, for certain classes of materials, complying
with one requirement provides sufficient data to show compliance with
another, subject to certain conditions. Each instance where compliance
with the post-crash requirements is sufficient to meet the in-flight
requirement would be discussed in more detail in proposed AC 25.853-1A.
An example of the allowable use of a post-crash requirement to meet
an in-flight requirement would be for the back sides of the large
interior surfaces (sidewalls, ceilings, floors, galleys, etc.) not
exposed to the cabin. As discussed previously, these surfaces would be
subject to proposed Sec. 25.853(c)(2), which would require that, for
in-flight fires, extensively used materials in inaccessible areas not
propagate the largest fire that, by itself, would not be a hazard to
the airplane. The vertical flame propagation test is currently the
expected means of compliance to this standard. However, with the
exception of floor panels, the types of materials used for these
applications have not been a safety concern for in-flight fires, and
these materials would still have to meet the stringent requirements
related to heat release for the post-crash environment. With the
proposed hierarchy table in appendix F to part 25, if these materials
pass the HRR tests, they would not also have to pass the vertical flame
propagation test.
The same allowance is true for the back side of cargo compartment
liners, even though they are subject to a different probable type of
fire threat (post-crash fuel fires) and required by appendix F to be
tested using the oil burner test. Although the oil burner and vertical
flame propagation tests are not universal substitutes for each other,
the materials on the back of cargo compartment liners have exhibited
satisfactory behavior in the presence of in-flight fires, as
demonstrated by FAA testing, and should not require further testing by
the vertical flame propagation test. Should new materials be developed
whose performance in an in-flight fire has not been established, then
the proposed rule would provide the means to address and allow them,
and both test methods may be necessary to demonstrate that compliance.
This would be indicated in the note to the table in proposed appendix F
to part 25.
As a final note, the FAA recognizes that its current regulations
provide flexibility for an applicant via the repeated provision
allowing ``other approved test methods.'' However, this provision does
not adequately address the need for consistency in test methods because
it is optional, and each applicant could seek approval of a unique
alternative method. This can result in the same material passing one
applicant's test and failing another, even though both test methods
could be approved by the FAA. The FAA expects that this proposal would
provide the same level of flexibility, but increased consistency over
time as consensus on testing methods develops.
C. Conformal and Editorial Changes
Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 109 to part 25 also
requires compliance with certain paragraphs of Sec. 25.853 that would
be changed by this proposal. Consequently, the FAA would modify SFAR
109 so that those requirements continue after Sec. 25.853 is amended.
Certain sections of 14 CFR parts 27 and 29, for normal and
transport category rotorcraft, currently require testing in accordance
with appendix F to part 25. Although this proposal would remove those
testing requirements from appendix F for transport category airplanes,
the FAA does not propose to remove or change those requirements for
normal and transport category rotorcraft. Therefore, this proposal
would add an amendment level to the appendix F references in Sec. Sec.
27.1365, 29.853, and 29.1359 to continue those requirements after
appendix F is amended.
The proposed rule would also remove certain testing requirements
regarding average burn length from paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of
Sec. 29.853 because those requirements are redundant with current
appendix F to part 25.
Operational rules in certain sections of 14 CFR parts 91, 121, 125,
and 135 also currently require testing in accordance with Sec. Sec.
25.853 and 25.856 and appendix F to part 25. The FAA proposes to add
the phrase ``or as subsequently amended'' to Sec. Sec. 91.613,
121.312, 121.314, 125.113, 135.169, and 135.170, so that airplanes
approved in accordance with the amendment resulting from this proposal
would be able to comply with the operational rules. The ``or'' in that
phrase serves the purpose of making compliance with this proposal or a
later amendment optional.
In addition, appendix L to part 121 contains information regarding
referenced sections of part 25 that have subsequently changed through
amendments. Appendix L would also be updated to conform to this
proposal.
These changes to parts 25, 27, 29, 91, 121, 125, and 135 would have
no substantive impact on safety or the cost of compliance.
This proposal also contains some editorial changes to existing
regulatory language, where that language does not reflect how the rule
is applied, or its intent. Specifically, current Sec. 25.853(e)
excepts certain compartments from compliance with Sec. 25.853(d) if
they are isolated by a door that would be closed during an emergency
landing condition. In practice, this exception has been applied when
such compartments are isolated by a door that is closed for taxi,
takeoff, and landing, in general. The proposal is changed accordingly
and will have no impact on the requirement. The proposal moves this
exception in Sec. 25.853(e) for parts inside of compartments isolated
from the main passenger cabin to a new Sec. 25.853(d)(2)(ii).
Current Sec. 25.853(h) requires that disposal receptacles be made
from materials that are ``fire resistant.'' The term ``fire resistant''
is defined in 14 CFR part 1 as having properties equivalent to aluminum
alloy appropriate for the purpose. In practice, the means of compliance
has been by meeting the test method specified in current part I of
appendix F for Class B cargo compartment liners, which is to resist
penetration by a small flame. The proposal would state the requirement
in that way to avoid any ambiguity regarding the level of protection
required. This will also have no impact since it aligns the rule
language with how the requirement has historically been actually met.
This proposal contains only minor editorial changes to the
requirements related to smoking in Sec. 25.853(f) and (g). The
requirements would remain the
[[Page 31759]]
same, but the paragraphs would be renumbered and restated for clarity.
D. Advisory Material
The FAA is developing six new ACs and revising three ACs that will
be published for public comment concurrently with this NPRM. These
proposed ACs can be found in the same public docket as this NPRM. The
draft ACs would provide guidance for acceptable means, but not the only
means, of showing compliance with proposed Sec. Sec. 25.853, 25.855,
and 25.856. The FAA will accept public comments on the following
proposed ACs on the ``Aviation Safety Draft Documents Open for
Comment'' web page at https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/:
1. AC 25.853-1A, ``Flammability Requirements for Transport Category
Airplanes.''
2. AC 25.853-2X, ``Flammability Requirements for Aircraft Seat
Cushions.''
3. AC 25.853-3X, ``Flammability Testing Requirements for Commonly
Constructed Parts, Construction Details, and Materials Used on
Transport Category Airplanes.''
4. AC 25.853-4X, ``Vertical Bunsen Burner Tests.''
5. AC 25.853-5X, ``Flammability Requirements for Materials in
Inaccessible Areas of Transport Category Airplanes.''
6. AC 25.853-6X, ``Flammability Requirements for Escape System
Materials for Transport Category Airplanes.''
7. AC 25.855-1X, ``Flammability Requirements of Cargo Liners for
Transport Category Airplanes.''
8. AC 25.856-1A, ``Thermal/Acoustic Insulation Flame Propagation
Test Method Details.''
9. AC 25.856-2B, ``Fuselage Burnthrough Protection.''
The FAA is also revising Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-00/12 to update the
test methods contained within this report, as described previously.
This interim report will be published concurrently with this NPRM as
FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/TC-17/55, and it can be found in the same public
docket as this NPRM.
E. Application of Sec. Sec. 21.17
This proposal would revise the flammability standards for transport
category airplanes, but would not impose any requirements to retrofit
existing airplanes or conduct a production-cut in on new airplanes.
Since this proposal would simplify or remove some of the flammability
requirements, some applicants may wish to use the standards of this
proposal instead of an earlier amendment level. Applicants may elect to
apply the later amendment under Sec. 21.17 or seek exceptions in
accordance with Sec. 21.101.
Section 21.17(e) permits an applicant for a type certificate to
elect compliance with an amendment effective after the date of
application, as long as all ``directly related'' amendments, as
determined by the FAA, are complied with as well.
The FAA has considered which regulatory amendments must be regarded
as ``directly related'' and, therefore, applied together under Sec.
21.17. An analysis of what is ``directly related'' requires examination
of which provisions have been made more flexible and which have been
made more stringent because these factors are often causally related.
In some areas, the additional flexibility is the result of a
requirement that has become more stringent. The primary areas of
increased flexibility are the proposed removal of the testing
requirements in appendix F, and the proposed removal of the smoke
emission requirement. The removal of the appendix F testing
requirements is only possible, from a safety perspective, because of
the additional performance standards for inaccessible areas. The main
area where requirements would become more stringent is extensively used
components in inaccessible regions of the airplane. These areas are
mainly threatened by in-flight fires, although improved flammability
resistance of materials can also benefit post-crash safety. Therefore,
the FAA considers the entire proposal to be interrelated, such that all
the proposed changes could be characterized as ``directly related'' to
each other. However, the FAA expects that a practical application of
the ``directly related'' provision could simplify compliance under
Sec. 21.17 and maximize safety, as discussed below.
Among those components that would be subjected to new test methods
under this proposal, composite fuselage structure is already subject to
meeting special conditions, and this proposal would codify the
requirements in those conditions. Also, aviation-grade electrical
wiring is for the most part already compliant with the proposed
flammability requirements. Ducting is one area, however, where many of
the currently used parts would not meet the proposed requirement for
extensively used materials in inaccessible areas, and where a
significant safety benefit would accrue from the higher standard. The
type of fire that primarily threatens ducting is in-flight. However,
accidents have shown that ducting can spread and intensify post-crash
fires. Thus, the safety improvement that would result from applying the
proposed standards to ducts would enhance fire safety with regard to
both types of fire, and the FAA considers this safety enhancement
integral to the proposed changes that would reduce or eliminate other
testing.
Therefore, an applicant that elects compliance with the amendment
level that results from this proposal, in order to take advantage of
the provisions that reduce or eliminate tests, would also have to
ensure that ducting complies with the new standards proposed in Sec.
25.853(c)(2).
The exception to the requirement to apply directly related changes
when an applicant elects compliance with the later amendment would be
the substitution of tests in proposed appendix F to part 25. Such
substitution is already allowed under the current flammability rules,
which repeatedly allow applicants to show compliance by ``other
equivalent method.'' Applicants could apply proposed appendix F to part
25 to models approved under earlier certification bases without
affecting safety and without applying other portions of the proposal.
An applicant's selection of the amendment that most materially
contributes to safety could eliminate the need to run multiple tests on
many parts with the recognition that some tests are sufficiently
stringent that they would satisfy the concerns addressed by other
tests. Substituting some tests would neither eliminate the need to
conduct smoke emissions tests, nor alter the applicability of current
requirements. Proposed appendix F to part 25 would simply permit
substitution of one test method for another, where the substitute
method has been determined to be more stringent.
Example 1: An applicant for a supplemental type
certificate desires to use only the new appendix F that would result
from this proposal. In this case, the applicant would be limited to
applying the hierarchy of appendix F, and no other relief.
Example 2: An applicant for a change to a type certificate
(either through amended or supplemental type certification) desires to
elect compliance with the entire amendment that results from this
proposal. The applicant must comply with Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(i) as it
pertains to air ducting, even if the air ducting is unchanged or not
affected by the proposed design change. Any other provision of the
proposed rule could then be included at the applicant's choosing.
[[Page 31760]]
F. Application of Sec. Sec. 21.101
Section 21.101(a) requires design change applicants to meet the
standards in effect on the date of application that are applicable to
the change and areas affected by the change, unless exceptions are
requested and are granted under the provisions of Sec. 21.101(b).
Section 21.101(b) allows the applicant to show compliance with an
earlier amendment level for changes found to be not significant, or
found to not materially contribute to safety, or found to be
impractical. The FAA does not regard any of the standards proposed here
as impractical. The degree to which application of these standards
would ``materially contribute to safety'' will depend on the current
design.
As discussed previously, acceptable wiring would be documented in
proposed AC 25.853-5X and include wiring already widely used by
applicants; the safety of composite fuselage structure will have been
covered by special conditions; and ducting may comply with these
proposed standards, even though certification testing has not been
performed. In those cases, an applicant may be able to argue that
including the later amendment would not materially contribute to
safety, but that use of other provisions (e.g., those that would
eliminate tests) of the proposal would provide significant benefits to
the applicant. In that case, the FAA agrees that compliance with the
later amendment could be acceptable to eliminate tests, provided
improved design features used to justify the exception are a condition
of the certification basis in the ``Additional Design Requirements and
Conditions'' section of the type certificate data sheet.
The following examples illustrate how this could work in practice:
Example 1: An applicant for a significant product-level
change seeks exception, under Sec. 21.101(b), from the amendment that
results from this proposal on the basis that full compliance would not
materially contribute to safety. As discussed above, an exception would
have to be based on substantial compliance with this proposal, such
that few components are not in compliance, and they would not be
significant from a fire safety standpoint.
Example 2: An applicant applies for a fuselage length
change. The change is considered a significant product-level change per
the guidance in AC 21.101-1B. AC 21.101-1B also states that the
simultaneous introduction of a new cabin interior is considered related
since occupant safety considerations are impacted by a cabin length
change. The FAA considers this proposed amendment to be directly
related to occupant safety. As such, for a fuselage change, this
proposed amendment would be an applicable requirement for the airplane
(e.g., changed and unchanged areas of the airplane would need to meet
the requirement). The applicant may request an exception under Sec.
21.101 by showing compliance with this proposal to a substantial
extent, such that the few parts not in compliance would not be
significant from a fire safety standpoint.
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 as amended) prohibits agencies from setting standards
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements 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. We suggest readers seeking greater detail read the full
regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we have placed in the docket for
this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5) would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States; and (6) would not impose an unfunded mandate on
State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized
below.
1. Summary of Costs and Benefits
By extending fire protection requirements to any extensively used
material located in inaccessible areas the proposal is likely to be
beneficial by reducing the likelihood of a fatal accident. Over a 19-
year period of analysis, the FAA estimates the total present value cost
savings of this proposed rule to be $119.8 million at a seven percent
discount rate, with annualized cost savings of $11.6 million. The cost
savings would result from the elimination and streamlining of some
tests, which would be made possible by the extension of fire protection
requirements to inaccessible areas. Over the same 19-year period, the
FAA estimates the total present value costs of this proposed rule to be
$71.1 million at a seven percent discount rate, with annualized costs
of $6.9 million due to the extension of fire protection requirements to
extensively used material in inaccessible areas. A full explanation of
how these costs and cost savings were estimated may be found in the
regulatory impact assessment accompanying this NPRM. The present value
net cost savings (cost savings minus cost) is $48.7 million, with
annualized net cost savings of $4.7 million. The following table
summarizes the costs and cost savings of this proposed rule.
Summary of Costs and Cost Savings (2016 $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19-year total present value Annualized
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% 3% 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings........................ $119,848,146 $178,395,887 $11,595,669 $12,454,509
[[Page 31761]]
Costs............................... 71,105,318 80,387,114 6,879,654 5,612,136
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Net Cost Savings.......... 48,742,828 98,008,773 4,716,015 6,842,373
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Who is potentially affected by this proposed rule?
Manufacturers of part 25 transport category airplanes would be
potentially affected by the proposed rule.
3. Assumptions
Totals converted to 2016 constant dollars.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Calculations were presented in 2015 dollars because most
cost estimates were received in 2015 but totals were then converted
to 2016 dollars to be compliant with OMB guidance implementing
Executive Order 13771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time horizon for analysis 19 years.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ A 19-year time horizon was chosen to be inclusive of the
19-year production cycle for large and the 15-year production cycle
for small transport category airplanes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifty percent of the current $42.8 million annual costs
for smoke emissions testing is incurred by domestic airplane
manufacturers.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Fifty percent is an estimate of the share of the worldwide
transport airplane market held by U.S. manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost savings from eliminating smoke emissions tests would
increase linearly to the level of the current cost savings over 25
years.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Based on manufacturers recommendation in MFWG Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large transport category aircraft.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Based on FAA analysis of Boeing data, OAG Aviation
Solutions Fleet Database, FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] One manufacturer.
[cir] Four type certificates.
[cir] Twenty-seven airplanes produced annually.
[cir] Nineteen-year production period.
Small transport category aircraft.\38\
[cir] One manufacturer.
[cir] Three type certificates.
[cir] Twenty-one airplanes produced annually.
[cir] Fifteen-year production cycle.
4. Benefits of This Rule
The proposed new safety requirements to extend the fire protection
requirements to any extensively used material \38\ located in
inaccessible areas would result in a safety benefit by reducing the
likelihood of a fatal accident from a fire in an inaccessible area.
This benefit was not quantified. Even though there has fortunately not
been a catastrophic in-flight fire of a passenger carrying airplane
since the Swissair accident in 1998, the continued occurrence of in-
flight fire incidents and the growing number of devices using lithium
ion batteries increase the risk of a catastrophic accident, a risk that
this proposal would reduce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Extensively used materials, for the purpose of this
rulemaking, means any parts or system of parts that could permit a
fire to propagate and grow to a hazardous level, for example, air
ducting, electrical wiring/sleeving, thermal/acoustic insulation,
and composite fuselage structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Costs of This Proposed Rule
Over a 19-year period of analysis, the FAA estimates the total
present value costs of this proposed rule to be $71.1 million at a
seven percent discount rate, with annualized costs of $6.9 million,
which would result from extending the standards developed for thermal/
acoustic insulation to all extensively used materials in inaccessible
areas. A full explanation of how these costs were estimated may be
found in the regulatory impact assessment accompanying this NPRM.
Over the same 19-year period, the FAA estimates the total
quantified cost savings of this proposed rule to be $119.8 million at a
seven percent discount rate, with annualized cost savings of $11.6
million. The cost savings would result from the elimination and
streamlining of some tests, which would be made possible by the
extension of fire protection requirements to inaccessible areas. The
total net cost savings of the proposed rule at a seven percent discount
rate would be $48.7 million, with annualized net cost savings of $4.7
million.
6. Minimal to No Cost Provisions Including Conforming Changes
Numerous provisions within this proposal would result in minimal to
no cost to possibly small cost savings. These include provisions that
continue to accept previous test methods or current systems in addition
to proposing new ones, those that maintain current requirements or
current practice, and small edits to maintain consistency with the
current rule.
Also included are conforming changes to parts 27, 29, 121, 125,
135, and appendix L to part 121. These sections make reference to, or
require testing in accordance with, certain sections of appendix F to
part 25. Because sections of appendix F would be removed, some changes
refer to the new location of the requirements. The proposed changes to
these parts also include language to operating requirements. This new
language would give operators the choice of meeting the proposed
requirements, or complying with the old requirements. For airplanes
type certificated in accordance with the proposed requirements, this
change would enable them to be in compliance with the operating rules,
while allowing aircraft manufactured under existing type certificates
and the current fleet to comply with the old requirements. Therefore,
this proposed rule would impose no retrofit requirements on the current
fleet or a production cut-in to aircraft manufactured under existing
type certificates. Consequently, these provisions would impose minimal
to no cost.
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 would
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Under Section 603 of the RFA, the FAA has prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the following:
[[Page 31762]]
A description of the reasons why the action by the agency
is being considered.
A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis
for, the proposed rule.
A description and, where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply.
A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping,
and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities that would be subject to the
requirement and the types of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
An identification, to the extent practicable, of all
relevant federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
the proposed rule.
A description of any significant alternatives to the
proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable
statutes, and that minimize any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.
1. A Description of the Reasons Why the Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
The FAA is publishing this proposed rule to simplify flammability
regulations and provide a higher level of safety for transport category
airplanes. The current regulations are complicated, sometimes
conflicting, sometimes redundant, occasionally incomplete, and may be
obsolete for dealing with present-day airplanes. Simplifying these
regulations can lead to cost savings.
A key safety benefit of this proposed rule is the extension of fire
protection requirements to any extensively used material located in
inaccessible areas. FAA research found airplanes are at risk due to
flammable materials in inaccessible areas. FAA testing has indicated
that typical in-service ducts can quickly spread fire from a small fire
source in an inaccessible area, while ducts that would meet the new
requirement can resist that small size fire and not propagate flames.
Also, due to the rapidly increasing number of events due to lithium
battery fires, the chances of a lithium battery fire in the cabin
getting to an inaccessible area are increasing.
2. A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the
Proposed Rule
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, material, construction, quality of work, and
performance of aircraft that the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority. It revises the safety standards for the flammability
characteristics, and thus the design, material, and construction, of
transport category airplanes.
3. Description and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of Small
Entities To Which the Proposed Rule Would Apply
This proposed rule would affect U.S. manufacturers of part 25
transport category airplanes requesting a new type certificate.
According to the small business administration, the size standard for
aircraft manufacturers (NAICS code 336411) to be considered a small
business is 1,500 employees or less. None of the manufacturers who
manufacture transport category airplanes have fewer than 1,500
employees; therefore, none of them are small businesses.
The proposed rule might also indirectly affect businesses that
modify transport category airplanes. At this time, the FAA has not
identified any affected small entities without larger U.S. or foreign
ownership or business relationships. The FAA requests comments on this
finding.
4. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of
the Classes of Small Entities That Will be Subject to the Requirement
and the Types of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the
Report or Record
Requirements are governed by 14 CFR part 21 and are not changing
with this proposal. Applicants are required to show compliance under
Sec. 21.20, and this will continue to apply. Therefore, the proposed
rule would not impose additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements on small entities.
5. An Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
There are no federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with this proposal.
6. A Description of any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
The FAA considered two alternatives to the proposed rule. The first
alternative was to not make any changes to the fire protection
requirements. This would leave in place complicated, conflicting,
redundant, occasionally incomplete, and obsolete regulations. Cost
savings would not be achieved. This alternative would also not extend
fire protection requirements to extensively used materials located in
inaccessible areas. This would leave airplanes at risk due to
flammability materials in inaccessible areas.
The FAA also considered making only some of the proposed changes;
however, this would provide limited benefit and no safety improvement.
This is because the significant safety improvements facilitate the
significant simplifications in the proposal. Without the safety
enhancements, the amount of simplification would be limited. If the FAA
proposed only the safety enhancements, the resulting cost would be
difficult to quantitatively balance against the resulting safety
improvement. The proposal intends to achieve a significant reduction in
costs and simplify the requirements, while substantively improving
safety.
The FAA expects this proposed rule would not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The FAA requests comments on this finding.
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
[[Page 31763]]
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 does not exclude imports that meet the safety
objective. As a result, this proposed rule is not considered as
creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.
The proposed rule would impose the same costs and cost savings on
domestic and international manufacturers selling airplanes to airlines
that wish to operate within the United States because U.S.-registered
transport category airplanes must comply with part 25 in order to be
operated within the United States. Therefore, the same cost relief
would accrue to all manufacturers selling airplanes to airlines
operating within the U.S. However, the effect this proposed rule would
have on sales of domestically produced airplanes relative to airplanes
produced by foreign companies to airlines operating abroad and not in
the U.S. might be either an advantage due to cost savings or a
disadvantage due to increased costs, depending on the standards to
which foreign airplanes are manufactured.
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 $155.0 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 1050.1E 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 5-6.6 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
Executive Order 13771 titled ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs,'' directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an
executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment
or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least
two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new
incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent
permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only
those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' are subject to these
requirements.
As determined in section IV.A, above, this is not a significant
rule under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule is not subject
to the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
VI. Additional Information
A. 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
[[Page 31764]]
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.
B. 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
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
14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
14 CFR Part 27
Aircraft, Aviation safety
14 CFR Part 29
Aircraft, Aviation safety
14 CFR Part 91
Air carrier, Air taxis, Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen,
Airports, Alaska, Aviation safety, Canada, Charter flights, Cuba, Drug
traffic control, Ethiopia, Freight, Incorporation by reference, Iraq,
Mexico, Noise control, North Korea, Political candidates, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Somalia, Syria, Transportation
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety,
Charter flights, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety, Transportation
14 CFR Part 125
Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements
14 CFR Part 135
Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug
abuse, Drug testing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter 1 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 Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 109 to part 25 by
revising paragraphs 12 and 14(e) to read as follows:
Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 109
* * * * *
12. Materials for Compartment Interiors. An applicant must comply
with the applicable provisions of Sec. 25.853, except that
demonstration of compliance with Sec. 25.853(d)(2) is not required if
the applicant can show by test, or a combination of test and analysis,
that the maximum time for evacuation of all occupants does not exceed
45 seconds under the conditions specified in appendix J to part 25.
* * * * *
14. * * *
(e) The surfaces of the galley surrounding the cooktop that would
be exposed to a fire on the cooktop surface or in cookware on the
cooktop must be constructed of materials that comply with the
flammability requirements of Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(ii). This requirement
is in addition to the flammability requirements typically required of
the materials in these galley surfaces. During the selection of these
materials, an applicant must account for the flammability
characteristics of the materials to ensure these characteristics will
not be adversely affected by the use of cleaning agents and utensils
used to remove cooking stains.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec. 25.853 to read as follows:
Sec. 25.853 Interior parts and components fire protection.
(a) General. Each airplane part, component, and assembly must
protect the airplane and its occupants from in-flight and post-crash
fire threats. For the purposes of this section an airplane part,
component, or assembly is one that is located within, and including,
the fuselage.
(b) Testing. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section,
an applicant must conduct tests to show compliance with paragraphs (c)
and (d) of this section. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of
this section, for any tests used to show compliance, the applicant must
use a minimum of three specimen sets.
(c) In-flight requirements. During an in-flight fire, the
flammability characteristics of each part, component, and assembly must
not present a hazard to the occupants and must not prevent the
continued safe flight and landing of the airplane.
(1) Accessible areas. (i) Each part, component, and assembly that
is accessible to the flightcrew during flight must be self-
extinguishing when exposed to a small flame.
(ii) Each receptacle used for the disposal of flammable waste
material must be fully enclosed, constructed of materials that resist
penetration from a small ignition source, and must contain fires likely
to occur in it under normal use. At least one test must show the
capability of the receptacle to contain those fires under all probable
conditions of wear, misalignment, and ventilation expected in service.
(iii) Each ceiling and sidewall liner of a Class B cargo
compartment must resist penetration by a small flame.
(2) Inaccessible areas. (i) Each extensively used airplane part,
component, and assembly that is not accessible to the flightcrew during
flight but that could be subjected to an in-flight fire must not
propagate the largest fire that, by itself, would not be a hazard to
the airplane.
(ii) Each ceiling and sidewall liner of a Class F cargo
compartment, if installed to meet the requirements of Sec.
25.855(b)(2), and of a Class C cargo compartment must resist
penetration by a fire within that compartment and must protect the
airplane's structure and
[[Page 31765]]
critical systems from the effects of that fire.
(iii) Each ceiling and sidewall liner of a Class E cargo
compartment must resist penetration by a fire within that compartment
and must protect the airplane's structure and critical systems from the
effects of that fire, unless the design provides a means other than a
liner that protects the airplane's structure and critical systems from
the effects of that fire.
(iv) The floor liner of any class of cargo compartment, and any
ceiling and sidewall liner of a Class E cargo compartment, must resist
penetration by a small flame.
(v) All other parts, components, and assemblies that are not
accessible by the flightcrew during flight must be self-extinguishing
when exposed to a small flame or electrical arc.
(d) Post-crash requirements. During a post-crash fuel fire, the
flammability characteristics of each part, component, and assembly must
maintain survivable cabin conditions for enough time to allow
evacuation.
(1) For airplanes with a passenger capacity of 19 or less, each
large surface in the passenger cabin must be self-extinguishing when
exposed to a small flame for at least 60 seconds.
(2) For airplanes with a passenger capacity of 20 or more, each
large surface in the passenger cabin must resist involvement in a post-
crash fuel fire that has entered the fuselage, except:
(i) A large surface, no part of which is more than 15'' above the
floor, need not comply with paragraph (d)(2) of this section if it is
located in such a manner that it would not be directly exposed to the
effects of a post-crash fuel fire.
(ii) A large surface in the interior of a compartment other than a
cargo or baggage compartment need not comply with paragraph (d)(2) of
this section if the interior of the compartment is isolated from the
main passenger cabin by doors or equivalent means that would normally
be closed during taxi, takeoff, and landing.
(3) Each cushion used to support the occupant of a seat or berth
must resist involvement in a post-crash fuel fire that has entered the
airplane, and must not propagate that fire.
(4) In addition to resisting involvement in a post-crash fuel fire
that has entered the airplane, each flammable metal must be readily
extinguishable.
(5) The design must ensure the continued function of all escape
systems when those systems are exposed to the effects of radiant heat
from a post-crash fuel fire.
(e) Exceptions. A part, component, and assembly does not require
testing to meet the requirements specified in paragraph (c) or (d) of
this section if it meets the criteria of at least one of the following
classes:
(1) Class 1. Parts, components, and assemblies that would each fit
within a cube measuring two inches on each side and are sufficiently
separated from the same type of part, component, or assembly such that
collectively they will not propagate a fire.
(2) Class 2. Parts, components, and assemblies that are not
extensively used, are made from materials that are self-extinguishing,
do not individually exceed a volume of 113 cubic inches, have an
exposed surface area not exceeding 200 square inches, and do not
propagate a flame vertically.
(3) Class 3. Parts, components, and assemblies that applicants can
show, through a method acceptable to the Administrator, are a size,
construction, or location that their flammability characteristics do
not threaten the airplane or its occupants.
(4) Class 4. Parts, components, and assemblies that are essential
to the safety of the airplane, its occupants, or the functionality of
the airplane and cannot reasonably be constructed of a less flammable
material without compromising the integrity or functionality of that
part, component, or assembly.
(5) Class 5. Parts, components, and assemblies that have
successfully met one or more of the alternate requirements, including
any applicable conditions, set forth in appendix F to part 25.
(f) Smoking. (1) Smoking is not allowed in lavatories. If smoking
is allowed in any area occupied by the crew or passengers, an adequate
number of self-contained, removable ashtrays must be provided in
designated smoking sections for all seated occupants.
(2) Regardless of whether smoking is allowed in any other part of
the airplane, lavatories must have self-contained, removable ashtrays
located conspicuously on or near the entry side of each lavatory door,
except that one ashtray may serve more than one lavatory door if the
ashtray can be seen readily from the cabin side of each lavatory
served.
0
4. Amend Sec. 25.855 by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 25.855 Cargo or baggage compartments.
* * * * *
(c) Cargo compartment liners must comply with the applicable
provisions of Sec. 25.853.
(d) All other materials used in the construction of the cargo or
baggage compartment, other than material located entirely within a
Class C cargo or baggage compartment, must be self-extinguishing when
exposed to a small flame.
* * * * *
0
5. Revise Sec. 25.856 to read as follows:
Sec. 25.856 Thermal/Acoustic insulation materials.
(a) All thermal/acoustic insulation material installed in
inaccessible areas of the fuselage must comply with Sec.
25.853(c)(2)(i) unless it qualifies for one of the exceptions in Sec.
25.853(e).
(b) For airplanes with a passenger capacity of 20 or more, all
thermal/acoustic insulation materials installed in the lower half of
the airplane fuselage must resist penetration of a post-crash fuel fire
and provide a minimum of 5 minutes survivability in the occupied
portions of the airplane, unless the applicant provides an equivalent
means of post-crash fire penetration protection. This requirement does
not apply to thermal/acoustic insulation installations that the
Administrator finds would not contribute to fire penetration
resistance. For the purposes of this paragraph, thermal/acoustic
insulation materials include the means of fastening the materials to
the fuselage.
0
6. Amend Sec. 25.1713 by revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph
(d) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.1713 Fire protection: EWIS.
* * * * *
(c) All insulation on electrical wire and electrical cable, and all
materials used to provide additional protection for that wire and
cable:
(1) If installed in any area outside of the fuselage, must not
propagate the largest fire that, by itself, would not be a hazard to
the airplane, and
(2) If installed in any area within the fuselage, must meet the
requirements of Sec. 25.853(c), unless it meets the requirements of
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
(d) To show compliance with paragraph (c) of this section, an
applicant must conduct tests, unless the applicant can show that the
insulation and materials are of a size, location, and quantity that
their flammability characteristics do not threaten the airplane or its
occupants. For any tests used to show compliance, the applicant must
use a minimum of three specimen sets.
0
7. Revise appendix F to part 25 to read as follows:
[[Page 31766]]
Appendix F to Part 25--Flammability Test Hierarchy
Applicants may substitute compliance with the standards in the
first row of the table below by meeting the standards in the first
column, as indicated at the appropriate intersection, subject to the
noted conditions:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substitution Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-flight cargo
In-flight Post-crash <20; In-flight cargo In-flight liner fire
accessible; small small ignition liner; small flame inaccessible; fire penetration Seat cushion fire
flame resistance resistance Sec. penetration propagation Sec. resistance Sec. resistance Sec.
Sec. 25.853 25.853 (d)(1) resistance Sec. 25.853 (c)(2)(i) 25.853 (c)(2)(ii)/ $25.853 (d)(3)
(c)(1)(i) 25.853 (c)(1)(iii) (iii)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-crash <20; small ignition Yes............... No................ No................ No................ No................ No.
resistance Sec. 25.853(d)(1).
In-flight inaccessible; fire Yes............... Yes............... No................ No................ No................ No.
propagation Sec.
25.853(c)(2)(i).
Post-crash >=20; large surface Yes............... Yes............... No................ Note \1\.......... No................ Note \2\.
fire resistance Sec.
25.853(d)(2).
Seat cushion fire resistance Yes............... Yes............... No................ No................ No................ No.
Sec. 25.853(d)(3).
Post-crash >=20; fire Yes............... Yes............... Yes............... No................ Yes............... No.
penetration resistance Sec.
25.853(b)(2).
In-flight cargo liner fire Yes............... Yes............... Yes............... Note \3\.......... No................ No.
penetration resistance Sec.
25.853(c)(2)(ii)/(iii).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ When the facesheet on the back ......(inaccessible) side of the large surface is of the same material system as the facesheet on the front side.
\2\ When the cushion does not directly support the occupant and can be tested in its actual thickness.
\3\ When the back side of the liner is made from glass fiber reinforced epoxy and phenolic resin.
PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
0
8. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
0
9. Amend Sec. 27.1365 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1365 Electric cables.
* * * * *
(c) Insulation on electrical wire and cable installed in the
rotorcraft must be self-extinguishing when tested in accordance with
appendix F, part I(a)(3), of part 25 of this chapter at amendment 25-
138.
PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT
0
10. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
0
11. Amend Sec. 29.853 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 29.853 Compartment interiors.
* * * * *
(a) The materials (including finishes or decorative surfaces
applied to the materials) must meet the following test criteria as
applicable:
(1) Interior ceiling panels, interior wall panels, partitions,
galley structure, large cabinet walls, structural flooring, and
materials used in the construction of stowage compartments (other than
underseat stowage compartments and compartments for stowing small items
such as magazines and maps) must be self-extinguishing when tested
vertically in accordance with the applicable portions of appendix F to
part 25 of this chapter at amendment 25-138, or other approved
equivalent methods.
(2) Floor covering, textiles (including draperies and upholstery),
seat cushions, padding, decorative and non-decorative coated fabrics,
leather, trays and galley furnishings, electrical conduit, thermal and
acoustical insulation and insulation covering, air ducting joint and
edge covering, cargo compartment liners, insulation blankets, cargo
covers, and transparencies, molded and thermoformed parts, air ducting
joints, and trim strips (decorative and chafing) that are constructed
of materials not covered in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, must be
self-extinguishing when tested vertically in accordance with the
applicable portion of appendix F to part 25 of this chapter at
amendment 25-138, or other approved equivalent methods.
(3) Acrylic windows and signs, parts constructed in whole or in
part of elasto-metric materials, edge lighted instrument assemblies
consisting of two or more instruments in a common housing, seat belts,
shoulder harnesses, and cargo and baggage tiedown equipment, including
containers, bins, pallets, etc., used in passenger or crew
compartments, may not have an average burn rate greater than 2.5 inches
per minute when tested horizontally in accordance with the applicable
portions of appendix F to part 25 of this chapter at amendment 25-138,
or other equivalent methods that the Administrator approves.
(4) Except for electrical wire and cable insulation, and for small
parts (such as knobs, handles, rollers, fasteners, clips, grommets, rub
strips, pulleys, and small electrical parts) that the Administrator
finds would not contribute significantly to the propagation of a fire,
materials in items not specified in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of
this section may not have a burn rate greater than 4 inches per minute
when tested horizontally in accordance with the applicable portions of
appendix F to part 25 of this chapter at amendment 25-138, or other
equivalent methods that the Administrator approves.
(b) In addition to meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of
this section, seat cushions, except those on flight crewmember seats,
must meet the test requirements of part II of appendix F to part 25 of
this chapter at amendment 25-138, or equivalent.
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec. 29.1359 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 29.1359 Electrical system fire and smoke protection.
* * * * *
[[Page 31767]]
(c) Insulation on electrical wire and cable installed in the
rotorcraft must be self-extinguishing when tested in accordance with
appendix F, part I(a)(3), of part 25 of this chapter at amendment 25-
138.
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
0
13. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113,
40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715,
44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122,
47508, 47528-47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C.
44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International
Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).
0
14. Amend Sec. 91.613 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text
and (b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.613 Materials for compartment interiors.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) For airplanes manufactured before September 2, 2005, when
thermal/acoustic insulation is installed in the fuselage as
replacements after September 2, 2005, the insulation must meet the
flame propagation requirements of Sec. 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as subsequently amended, if it is:
* * * * *
(2) For airplanes manufactured after September 2, 2005, thermal/
acoustic insulation materials installed in the fuselage must meet the
flame propagation requirements of Sec. 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as subsequently amended.
PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS
0
15. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40119, 41706, 42301
preceding note added by Pub. L. 112-95, sec. 412, 126 Stat. 89,
44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722,
44729, 44732; 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C.
44701 note); Pub. L. 112-95 126 Stat 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 note).
0
16. Amend Sec. 121.312 by revising paragraphs (b) introductory text,
(e)(1) introductory text, and (e)(2) and (3) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.312 Materials for compartment interiors.
* * * * *
(b) Seat cushions. Seat cushions, except those on flight crewmember
seats, in each compartment occupied by crew or passengers, must comply
with the requirements pertaining to seat cushions in Sec. 25.853(c)
effective on November 26, 1984; or in Sec. 25.853(d) effective on
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]; or as subsequently amended, on each
airplane as follows:
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) For airplanes manufactured before September 2, 2005, when
thermal/acoustic insulation is installed in the fuselage as
replacements after September 2, 2005, the insulation must meet the
flame propagation requirements of Sec. 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as subsequently amended, if it is:
* * * * *
(2) For airplanes manufactured after September 2, 2005, thermal/
acoustic insulation materials installed in the fuselage must meet the
flame propagation requirements of Sec. 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as subsequently amended.
(3) For airplanes with a passenger capacity of 20 or greater,
manufactured after September 2, 2009, thermal/acoustic insulation
materials installed in the lower half of the fuselage must meet the
flame penetration resistance requirements of Sec. 25.856 of this
chapter, effective September 2, 2003, or as subsequently amended. If
the airplane's type design was approved based on a finding of
equivalent level of safety to Sec. 25.856 in accordance with Sec.
21.21(b)(1) of this chapter, the certificate holder is in compliance
with this section of this part as long as the aircraft conforms to the
approved type design.
0
17. Amend Sec. 121.314 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 121.314 Cargo and baggage compartments.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) Materials that meet the test requirements of part 25, appendix
F, part III of this chapter effective on June 16, 1986; or the test
requirements of Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(ii) of this chapter effective on
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]; or as subsequently amended; or
* * * * *
0
18. Revise appendix L to part 121 to read as follows:
Appendix L To Part 121--Type Certification Regulations Made Previously
Effective
(a) Appendix L lists regulations in this part that require
compliance with standards contained in superseded type certification
regulations that continue to apply to certain transport category
airplanes. The table below sets out citations to the current CFR
section, applicable aircraft, superseded type certification regulation
and applicable time periods, and the CFR edition and Federal Register
documents where the regulation having prior effect is found. Copies of
all superseded regulations may be obtained at the Federal Aviation
Administration Law Library, Room 924, 800 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provisions: CFR/FR
Part 121 section Applicable aircraft references
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 121.312(a)(1)(i)..... Transport category; Heat release rate
or nontransport testing. 14 CFR
category type 25.853(d)(2)
certificated before effective
January 1, 1965; [effective date of
passenger capacity final rule]: 14 CFR
of 20 or more; parts 1 to 59,
manufactured prior Revised as of
to August 20, 1990. January 1, [Federal
Register revision
year], and amended
by Amdt. [amendment
level and Federal
Register citation
and publication
date of final
rule].
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(d) effective
March 6, 1995: 14
CFR parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1, 1995,
and amended by
Amdt. 25-83, 60 FR
6623, February 2,
1995.
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(a-1)
effective August
20, 1986: 14 CFR
parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1, 1986.
[[Page 31768]]
Sec. 121.312(a)(1)(ii).... Transport category; Heat release rate
or nontransport testing. 14 CFR
category type 25.853(d)(2)
certificated before effective
January 1, 1965; [effective date of
passenger capacity final rule]: 14 CFR
of 20 or more; parts 1 to 59,
manufactured after Revised as of
August 19, 1990. January 1, [insert
Federal Register
revision year], and
amended by Amdt.
[amendment level
and Federal
Register citation
and publication
date of final
rule].
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(d) effective
March 6, 1995: 14
CFR parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1, 1995,
and amended by
Amdt. 25-83, 60 FR
6623, February 2,
1995.
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(a-1)
effective September
26, 1988: 14 CFR
parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1, 1988,
and amended by
Amdt. 25-66, 53 FR
32584, August 25,
1988.
Smoke testing. 14
CFR 25.853(d)
effective March 6,
1995: 14 CFR parts
1 to 59, Revised as
of January 1, 1995,
and amended by
Amdt. 25-83, 60 FR
6623, February 2,
1995.
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(a-1)
effective September
26, 1988: 14 CFR
parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1, 1988,
and amended by
Amdt. 25-66, 53 FR
32584, August 25,
1988.
Sec. 121.312(a)(2)(i)..... Transport category; Provisions of 14 CFR
or nontransport 25.853 in effect on
category type April 30, 1972: 14
certificate before CFR parts 1 to 59,
January 1, 1965; Revised as of
application for January 1, 1972.
type certificate
filed prior to May
1, 1972;
substantially
complete
replacement of
cabin interior on
or after May 1,
1972.
Sec. 121.312(a)(3)(i)..... Transport category Heat release rate
type certificated testing. 14 CFR
after January 1, 25.853(d) in effect
1958; nontransport March 6, 1995: 14
category type CFR parts 1 to 59,
certificated after Revised as of
January 1, 1958, January 1, 1995;
but before January and amended by
1, 1965; passenger Amdt. 25-83, 60 FR
capacity of 20 or 6623, February 2,
more; substantially 1995.
complete
replacement of the
cabin interior on
or after March 6,
1995.
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(a-1) in
effect August 20,
1986: 14 CFR parts
1 to 59, Revised as
of January 1, 1986.
Sec. 121.312(a)(3)(ii).... Transport category Heat release rate
type certificated testing. 14 CFR
after January 1, 25.853(d)(2)
1958; nontransport effective
category type [effective date of
certificated after final rule]: 14 CFR
January 1, 1958, parts 1 to 59,
but before January Revised as of
1, 1965; passenger January 1, [Federal
capacity of 20 or Register revision
more; substantially year], and amended
complete by Amdt. [amendment
replacement of the level and Federal
cabin interior on Register citation
or after August 20, and publication
1990. date of final
rule].
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(d) effective
March 6, 1995: 14
CFR parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1, 1995,
and amended by
Amdt. 25-83, 60 FR
6623, February 2,
1995.
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(a--1)
effective September
26, 1988: 14 CFR
parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1, 1988,
and amended by
Amdt. 25-66, 53 FR
32584, August 25,
1988.
Smoke testing. 14
CFR 25.853(d)
effective March 6,
1995; 14 CFR parts
1 to 59, Revised as
of January 1, 1995;
and amended by
Amdt. 25-83, 60 FR
6623, February 2,
1995.
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(a-1)
effective September
26, 1988: 14 CFR
parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1, 1988,
and amended by
Amdt. 25-66, 53 FR
32584, August 25,
1988.
Sec. 121.312(b)(1) and (2) Transport category Seat cushions. 14
airplane type CFR 25.853(d)(3)
certificated after effective
January 1, 1958; [effective date of
nontransport final rule]: 14 CFR
category airplane parts 1 to 59,
type certificated Revised as of
after December 31, January 1, [Federal
1964. Register revision
year], and amended
by Amdt. [amendment
level and Federal
Register citation
and publication
date of final
rule].
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(c) effective
November 26, 1984:
14 CFR parts 1 to
59, Revised as of
January 1, 1984,
and amended by
Amdt. 25-59, 49 FR
43188, October 26,
1984.
Sec. 121.312(c)........... Airplane type Compartment interior
certificated in requirements. 14
accordance with CFR 25.853(a) in
SFAR No. 41; effect March 6,
maximum 1995: 14 CFR parts
certificated 1 to 59, Revised as
takeoff weight in of January 1, 1995,
excess of 12,500 and amended by
pounds. Amdt. 25-83, 60 FR
6623, February 2,
1995.
[[Page 31769]]
Formerly 14 CFR
25.853(a), (b-1),
(b-2), and (b-3) in
effect on September
26, 1978: 14 CFR
parts 1 to 59,
Revised as of
January 1, 1978.
Sec. 121.314(a)........... Transport category Class C or D cargo
airplanes type or baggage
certificated after compartment
January 1, 1958. definition. 14 CFR
25.853(c)(2)(ii)
effective
[effective date of
final rule] (part
III of appendix F
no longer exists):
14 CFR parts 1 to
59, Revised as of
January 1, [Federal
Register revision
year], and amended
by Amdt. [amendment
level and Federal
Register citation
and publication
date of final
rule].
Formerly 14 CFR
25.857 effective
June 16, 1986, 14
CFR parts 1 to 59,
Revised January 1,
1997, and amended
by Amdt 25-60, 51
FR 18243, May 16,
1986.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) For the purposes of compliance with the sections of 14 CFR part
25 referenced in the table in paragraph (a) of this appendix, findings
of equivalent level of safety in accordance with Sec. 21.21(b)(1) of
this chapter are considered to satisfy the referenced requirement.
PART 125--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING
CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF
6,000 POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH
AIRCRAFT
0
19. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44710-
44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722.
0
20. Amend Sec. 125.113 by revising paragraphs (c)(1) introductory text
and (c)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 125.113 Cabin interiors.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) For airplanes manufactured before September 2, 2005, when
thermal/acoustic insulation is installed in the fuselage as
replacements after September 2, 2005, the insulation must meet the
flame propagation requirements of Sec. 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as subsequently amended, if it is:
* * * * *
(2) For airplanes manufactured after September 2, 2005, thermal/
acoustic insulation materials installed in the fuselage must meet the
flame propagation requirements of Sec. 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as subsequently amended.
PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT
0
21. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 41706, 44701-44702, 44705,
44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 44730, 45101-45105; Pub. L.
112-95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 U.S.C. 44730).
0
22. Amend Sec. 135.169 by revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 135.169 Additional airworthiness requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Materials that meet the test requirements of part 25, appendix
F, part III of this chapter effective on June 16, 1986; or the test
requirements of Sec. 25.853(c)(2)(ii) of this chapter effective on
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]; or as subsequently amended; or
* * * * *
0
23. Amend Sec. 135.170 by revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(1)
introductory text, and (c)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 135.170 Materials for compartment interiors.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) For airplanes type certificated after January 1, 1958, seat
cushions, except those on flight crewmember seats, in any compartment
occupied by crew or passengers must comply with the requirements
pertaining to fire protection of seat cushions in Sec. 25.853(c)
effective November 26, 1984; or in Sec. 25.853(d) effective on
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]; or as subsequently amended.
(c) * * *
(1) For airplanes manufactured before September 2, 2005, when
thermal/acoustic insulation is installed in the fuselage as
replacements after September 2, 2005, the insulation must meet the
flame propagation requirements of Sec. 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as subsequently amended, if it is:
* * * * *
(2) For airplanes manufactured after September 2, 2005, thermal/
acoustic insulation materials installed in the fuselage must meet the
flame propagation requirements of Sec. 25.856 of this chapter,
effective September 2, 2003, or as subsequently amended.
Issued under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f),
44701(a), and 44703 in Washington, DC, on June 12, 2019.
Chris Carter,
Acting Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-13646 Filed 7-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P