[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38377-38382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12416]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 38377]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No.: FAA-2019-0343; Amdt. No. 25-149]
RIN 2120-AL11
Decompression Criteria for Interior Compartments
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is amending its standards for pressurized compartment
loads such that partitions located adjacent to a decompression hole
need not be designed to withstand a certain decompression condition.
This rulemaking is necessary because, in some cases, it is not
practical to design partitions in certain airplane compartments to
withstand this decompression condition if it occurs within that
compartment.
DATES: Effective August 14, 2023.
ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How
to Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Todd Martin, Airframe Section, AIR-622, Technical
Policy Branch, Policy and Standards Division, Aircraft Certification
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des
Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax (206) 231-3210; email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. 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 FAA's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
Requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations and minimum standards for the design and performance of
aircraft that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it
prescribes new safety standards for the design and performance of
transport category airplanes.
II. Overview of Final Rule
The FAA is amending Sec. 25.365, ``Pressurized compartment
loads,'' in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25,
``Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes.''
Specifically, the FAA is revising Sec. 25.365(g) to allow the failure
of partitions that are adjacent to the decompression hole. This
allowance only applies to the formula decompression hole specified in
Sec. 25.365(e)(2). The ability to withstand a hole of this size is
typically the most severe decompression load design requirement for
small compartments, such as lavatories, private suites, and crew rest
areas. With this revision, partition failure is only allowed if (1)
failure of the partition would not interfere with continued safe flight
and landing, and (2) meeting the decompression condition in paragraph
(e)(2) would be impractical.
This final rule codifies current practice and will not result in
additional costs or significant benefits to airplane manufacturers, but
will relieve applicants of some administrative burden--see Regulatory
Evaluation below.
III. Background
A. Statement of the Problem
The airworthiness standards in Sec. 25.365 address the safety
effects of decompression. When the fuselage skin or another part of the
pressurized boundary of an airplane fails for any reason, a
decompression occurs if the cabin pressure is greater than the outside
air pressure. When a decompression occurs, the pressurized air inside
the airplane exits the hole, or opening, in the fuselage until
equilibrium is reached. This can result in potentially high air loads
on floors, partitions, and bulkheads.
Section 25.365(g) requires applicants to design bulkheads, floors,
and partitions, in pressurized compartments for occupants, to withstand
the sudden decompression conditions specified in paragraph (e). Section
25.365(g) also requires applicants to take reasonable design
precautions to minimize the probability of parts becoming detached and
injuring seated occupants.
For certain smaller compartments on the airplane, such as
lavatories, private suites, and crew rest areas, it has been difficult
for applicants to achieve compliance with Sec. 25.365(g), because a
large decompression hole, of the size specified in Sec. 25.365(e)(2),
occurring in one of these compartments would result in very high air
loads on the partitions that form the compartment. Strengthening the
partitions to sustain such high loads has been shown to be impractical
in many cases for these smaller compartments because doing so could
adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane and its
continued safe flight and landing. Further, alternative design
strategies may impede the compartment's intended function.
B. History
Amendment 25-54 to Sec. 25.365 (45 FR 60154, Sept. 11, 1980),
introduced the requirement, in revised paragraph (e), that bulkheads,
floors, and partitions be designed to withstand the decompression
conditions specified in the rule.
In amendment 25-71 to Sec. 25.365 (55 FR 13474, Apr. 10, 1990),
the specific references to ``bulkheads, floors, and partitions'' were
moved from paragraph (e) to paragraph (g) to provide the required
passenger protection criteria related to failure of these structures in
occupied compartments, regardless of whether their failure could
interfere with safe flight and landing.
Prior to this final rule, Sec. 25.365 required that the applicant
consider partition failure in terms of the effects on occupant safety.
However, the FAA has long recognized that structural integrity might
not be maintained near the decompression hole. The Notice of
[[Page 38378]]
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for amendment 25-71 (53 FR 8742, Mar. 16,
1988) stated that loss of structural integrity at the opening location,
or physiological effects on occupants, were not considerations of that
rule. Thus, at that time the FAA was aware of and accepted this risk to
an occupant next to the opening location.
The FAA has certified numerous airplane designs for which the
partition strength criteria in Sec. 25.365(e) at amendment 25-54 or
Sec. 25.365(g) at amendment 25-71 were included in the project's
certification basis. Since the issuance of amendment 25-54, the FAA has
made several equivalent level of safety (ELOS) findings to Sec.
25.365(e) (at amendment 25-54) or Sec. 25.365(g) (at amendment 25-71,
as applicable) in accordance with 14 CFR 21.21.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An ELOS finding is made when the design does not comply with
the applicable airworthiness provisions, but compensating factors,
such as the incorporation of mitigating features (e.g., lanyards to
restrain loose parts, or frangible structure to cause structural
failure in a direction away from the seated occupant), provide an
equivalent level of safety in accordance with 14 CFR 21.21(b)(1).
The FAA documents an ELOS finding in an ELOS memorandum that
communicates to the public the rationale for the FAA's determination
of the design's equivalency to the level of safety intended by the
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Summary of the NPRM and Final Rule
The FAA published an NPRM on May 15, 2019 (84 FR 21733), that
proposed revisions to the partition failure criteria in Sec.
25.365(g). The NPRM described the decompression criteria in Sec.
25.365 and explained the difficulty of designing certain partitions to
withstand a decompression condition. The NPRM proposed changes to Sec.
25.365 that would allow partition failure if it would not interfere
with continued safe flight and landing and the applicant shows that
designing the partition to meet the decompression load condition of
Sec. 25.365(e)(2) would be impractical. This action finalizes the
proposal with minor clarifying changes.
D. General Overview of Comments
The FAA received comments from the Boeing Company (Boeing), Airbus,
Bombardier Aerospace (Bombardier), the European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA), and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association
(GAMA). Commenters were generally in favor of the proposal but
requested additional flexibility in several aspects of the final rule.
All of the commenters requested clarification of terminology used in
the proposed rule.
IV. Discussion of Comments and the Final Rule
A. Affected Decompression Conditions
The NPRM proposed to revise Sec. 25.365(g) to allow failure of
partitions for the decompression condition specified in Sec.
25.365(e)(2). This decompression condition, referred to as the
``formula'' hole size, is typically the most severe condition required
by Sec. 25.365(e).
Airbus and Boeing commented that partition failure should also be
allowed for the decompression condition specified in Sec.
25.365(e)(1): penetration of any pressurized compartment by a portion
of an engine following engine disintegration. Airbus suggested that
partition failure should also be allowed for the decompression
condition specified in Sec. 25.365(e)(3): any other opening caused by
failures not shown to be extremely improbable. Both commenters noted
that the hole size specified in these other subparagraphs may, in some
cases, be greater than the formula hole size specified in Sec.
25.365(e)(2); and therefore, their position is that the same
impracticality issues exist for these other decompression conditions.
The FAA disagrees with both suggested changes. The FAA has not seen
evidence to suggest that designing partitions to withstand the
decompression conditions in Sec. 25.365(e)(1) and (e)(3) is
impractical. Unlike the decompression condition specified in Sec.
25.365(e)(2), the FAA has not granted exemptions, or issued equivalent
level of safety findings, that allow partition failure for these other
two conditions.
With regard to the engine rotor burst example presented by Airbus
and Boeing in support of their request for relief from Sec.
25.365(e)(1), the FAA finds that partition failure should not be
allowed in this instance. Since a decompression that occurs as a result
of a rotor burst would be limited to an area of the fuselage near the
engines, affected compartments could be placed outside this area if
needed. Also, this condition would likely only result in a hole that is
larger than the formula hole if the decompression was the result of a
tangential strike to the fuselage. That is, the rotor disk penetrates
the fuselage laterally at a tangential angle either towards the top or
bottom of the fuselage, resulting in a long narrow decompression hole.
By its nature, such a hole would not likely be limited to a single
compartment.
The decompression condition suggested for addition by Airbus, and
specified in Sec. 25.365(e)(3), covers the maximum opening caused by
airplane or equipment failures not shown to be extremely improbable.
The FAA concludes that partition failure should not be allowed for this
decompression condition. The FAA would not expect any situation in
which the size of such an opening would exceed that of the formula
hole. If there were such a condition, then the FAA concludes that the
rule should require partitions be designed for that condition, or
design changes made to reduce the size of the anticipated decompression
hole.
B. Use of ``Impractical'' Standard
The NPRM proposed to allow partition failure only if the applicant
could show, in addition to the failure's lack of interference with
continued safe flight and landing, that designing the partition to
withstand the specified decompression condition (formula hole) of Sec.
25.365(e)(2) is impractical.
GAMA commented that requiring an applicant to show impracticality
could lead to inconsistent applications of the regulation, and
therefore that this requirement should be removed. GAMA proposed
instead that the passenger protection criteria of Sec. 25.365(g),
which currently apply to all three of the decompression conditions of
paragraph (e), should only apply to the effects of the smaller hole
sizes determined under Sec. 25.365(e)(3) (those due to failures not
shown to be extremely improbable), and that such partitions would
therefore be excepted from (e)(2). The FAA does not agree. To remove
the decompression conditions under Sec. 25.365(e)(2) from having to
meet the passenger protection criteria of Sec. 25.365(g) would
constitute a reduction in safety. To ensure that the required element
of impracticality does not lead to inconsistent application of the
regulation, the FAA explains the intended meaning of ``impractical''
later in this discussion.
C. Safety Analysis of Potential Floor Failure
As part of its rationale, the NPRM noted that strengthening a
partition, to the extent it would not fail, could increase loads on the
floor and thereby the risk of floor failure, thus jeopardizing
continued safe flight and landing.
EASA commented that in these cases, reinforcing the floor may be a
practical solution, and therefore, partition failure should not be
allowed. The FAA partially agrees. To show compliance with the rule,
the applicant must show that the floor be designed to withstand the
decompression conditions specified in Sec. 25.365(e). If the
applicant's analysis shows that the floor could fail if a
[[Page 38379]]
partition does not fail after decompression, then, in order to obtain
the relief provided by this final rule, the applicant could revise
their proposed design to increase venting as far as practical within
the affected compartment. If the applicant shows that floor failure
would still occur with those design changes in place, then the FAA
would likely consider reinforcement of the floor to be impractical.
D. Addressing Potential Skin Bay Failure
Airbus asked the FAA to clarify whether a failure of the standard
skin bay (the area between two adjacent stringers and two adjacent
frames) would be an ``opening'' within the meaning of Sec.
25.365(e)(3)--the maximum opening not shown to be extremely
improbable--and therefore one that the airplane must be designed to
withstand. The FAA currently has no guidance as to whether a standard
skin bay failure should be assumed under Sec. 25.365(e)(3). Airbus is
requesting guidance on compliance with Sec. 25.365(e)(3), which is
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Airbus also asked whether a skin bay failure should be considered
as an opening of the maximum size expected to be confined to a small
compartment, in accordance with Sec. 25.365(e)(2), and therefore
covered under Sec. 25.365(g)(2). The FAA explains the meaning of
``small compartments,'' as used in Sec. 25.365(e)(2), later in this
discussion. No change was made to the final rule as a result of these
comments.
E. Required Design Precautions To Protect Occupants
Section 25.365(g) requires that reasonable design precautions be
taken to minimize the probability of parts becoming detached and
injuring occupants while in their seats. The FAA did not propose any
changes to this language in the NPRM.
Boeing commented that these design precautions should no longer
apply to partitions that are allowed to fail. Boeing noted that once a
partition is allowed to fail, it is structurally difficult to restrain
that partition. GAMA noted that there was no practical design standard
for this requirement.
As explained in the NPRM, it may not be practical to design the
partitions of certain compartments to withstand the decompression
condition specified in Sec. 25.365(e)(2) if it occurs within that
compartment. The rule would allow partition failure in these cases, if
the applicant also shows that such failure would not interfere with
continued safe flight and landing. However, even in these cases,
``reasonable design precautions'' must still be made to protect
occupants. Also, this is a performance-based design standard.
Accordingly, applicants for type certificates have flexibility to
satisfy the standard through a variety of means. For example, an
applicant may propose lanyards or other devices to reduce the chance
that a failed partition or part will impact an occupant, or may design
the partition such that it fails in a direction away from seated
occupants.
Boeing also proposed that the FAA remove the discussion in the NPRM
that indicated that applicants must add venting, as a reasonable design
precaution, to the extent practical to reduce the chance the partition
will fail as a result of smaller decompression hole sizes.
The discussion in the NPRM regarding the continuing requirement to
take reasonable design precautions to protect occupants remains valid.
However, the FAA clarifies that Sec. 25.365(e)(2) requires evaluation
of decompression hole sizes ``up to'' the formula hole size, so new
Sec. 25.365(g)(2), which references that requirement, also requires
evaluation of decompression hole sizes up to the formula hole size.
This includes smaller sizes for which the FAA finds that applicants
will be able to add venting to the extent practical to reduce the
chance the partition will fail.
F. Need for Additional Guidance Material
EASA and GAMA proposed that the FAA issue an advisory circular (AC)
or policy statement to accompany the proposed rule change to clarify
terminology and application of the rule. The FAA does not find that an
AC or policy statement is necessary. The FAA finds that the discussions
in the NPRM and this final rule provide sufficient guidance on how an
applicant can comply with the new rule.
G. Crew Rest Compartments
EASA proposed that the FAA provide further guidance to that
provided in the NPRM on how to maximize the safety of occupants
situated under and within crew rest compartments. EASA reasoned that
the lower sections of such compartments are a significant contributor
to ensuring all masses and occupants within those compartments are
retained. The FAA finds that specific guidance is not needed for crew
rest areas. The intent of the rule and the rule change are clear, and
specific guidance for every conceivable configuration and compartment
type is not possible or necessary.
H. Project-Specific Review
EASA commented that compliance with the proposed requirement should
be subject to a project-specific (``case-by-case'') review for each
proposed compartment because it may be possible to show compliance
without failure of partitions for some larger compartments. The FAA
agrees and intends to conduct a project-specific review for each
compartment. This final rule does not allow partition failure unless
the applicant shows that designing the partition to withstand the
condition specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this section is impractical,
and that such failure would not interfere with continued safe flight
and landing.
I. Clarification of Terms
Several commenters suggested that the FAA clarify terms in Sec.
25.365. Airbus and Bombardier requested clarification of the term
``impractical;'' Boeing, EASA and GAMA requested clarification of
``adjacent;'' Bombardier requested clarification of the term
``bulkheads;'' and Bombardier and EASA requested clarification of
``small compartments'' as specified in Sec. 25.365(e)(2). Bombardier
also requested clarification of the term ``seated occupants'' as used
in the NPRM as compared to ``occupants while in their seats'' as used
in Sec. 25.365(g). The FAA provides the following clarification of
these terms:
Impractical. New Sec. 25.365(g)(2) allows partition failure if
designing the partition to withstand the specified decompression
condition would be ``impractical.'' As explained in the NPRM, designing
a partition to withstand the decompression condition specified in Sec.
25.365(e)(2) would be impractical, in the context of this rule, if (1)
doing so would adversely affect the structural integrity of surrounding
primary structure, including floors; or (2) the design changes would
invalidate the compartment's intended function. The following is an
example of the latter. Having a solid door is a fundamental feature for
the intended use of some compartments, such as lavatories. While using
a curtain in place of a solid door would greatly improve the
decompression capability of such a compartment and is physically
practical for the purpose of compliance with Sec. 25.365(g), the FAA
accepts that changing the lavatory door to a curtain in such cases
would be impractical because the resulting design would invalidate the
compartment's intended function.
[[Page 38380]]
As previously noted, Sec. 25.365(e)(2), which has not been revised
in this rulemaking, defines a decompression condition as an opening
``up to'' the formula hole size defined in that paragraph. Therefore,
while partition failure may be accepted as impractical for the maximum
hole size specified in Sec. 25.365(e)(2), this regulation means that
the applicant must evaluate smaller hole sizes, up to the maximum
formula hole size, and where practical, design all partitions to
withstand those smaller hole sizes.
Adjacent. Section 25.365(g)(2) allows failure of partitions
``adjacent'' to the opening specified in Sec. 25.365(e)(2). In this
context, adjacent partitions are those that form the compartment
exposed to the decompression hole.
Partitions, Floors and Bulkheads. This rule only applies to
partitions--meaning, in the context of this rule, any non-structural
wall, non-structural floor, or non-structural ceiling panel--the
failure of which would not compromise the structural integrity of the
airplane.
In the context of this rule, the term ``floor'' means a structural
floor, such as a passenger or cargo floor that carries airplane
structural loads. The floor of an overhead crew rest area, which is
elevated above the main floor, would not be a structural floor unless
it carries airplane structural loads. However, if partition failure is
allowed to occur in such a compartment, then to protect the safety of
the persons in the compartment and below it, only partitions other than
the crew rest floor should be designed to fail, rather than the floor
itself. As previously stated, Sec. 25.365(g) requires the applicant to
take all reasonable design precautions to protect occupants.
The term ``bulkhead,'' as used in this rulemaking, means a
structural pressure bulkhead or other wall that carries airframe
structural loads. The FAA considers a non-structural, non-pressure
bulkhead to be a partition because it does not carry airplane
structural loads. The applicability of this rule is limited to
partitions because the integrity of bulkheads and floors must be
maintained to ensure continued safe flight and landing.
Small compartments. This final rule revises Sec. 25.365(g) to
allow failure of partitions for the decompression condition specified
in Sec. 25.365(e)(2). Section 25.365(e)(2), which was not changed as a
result of this rulemaking, states that small compartments may be
combined with an adjacent pressurized compartment and both considered
as a single compartment for openings that cannot reasonably be expected
to be confined to the small compartment. This regulation was added at
amendment 25-71 to Sec. 25.365 (55 FR 13474, Apr. 10, 1990). The FAA
defines ``small compartment'' as a compartment with an exposed fuselage
surface area of two times the formula hole size, or less. Applicants
may propose alternative definitions.
As indicated in the final rule preamble for amendment 25-71, if an
applicant is using the small-compartment exception, then two conditions
must be evaluated: (1) The small compartment is combined with an
adjacent pressurized compartment and both considered as a single
compartment for the maximum size opening specified by the formula; and
(2) An opening of the maximum size expected to remain confined in the
small compartment would be considered in the small compartment. In
keeping with the definition of ``small compartment,'' the FAA defines
``the maximum size expected to remain confined'' in any compartment
evaluated under Sec. 25.365(e)(2) to be one-half of the exposed
fuselage area of that compartment.
Seated occupant: The FAA considers the term ``seated occupants,''
as used in the preamble of the NPRM and this final rule, to be
synonymous with the regulatory (Sec. 25.365(g)) term of ``occupants
while in their seats.''
J. Safety Factors of Sec. 25.365(d)
Airbus commented that the FAA should introduce a discussion of
removing the 1.33 safety factor specified in Sec. 25.365(d) in the
context of a general update to Sec. 25.365. This comment is unrelated
to the change to Sec. 25.365(g), and is outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
K. Miscellaneous
This final rule omits the proposed words ``The applicant shows
that'' from Sec. 25.365(g)(2)(ii) because such language is unnecessary
given the 14 CFR 21.20(a) requirement for applicants for a type
certificate to show compliance with all applicable regulations.
V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
Federal agencies consider impacts of regulatory actions under a
variety of executive orders and other requirements. 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 the costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. 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 that may
result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The current
threshold after adjustment for inflation is $176 million using the most
current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product.
This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the
economic impacts of this rule.
This final rule codifies current practice and will not result in
additional costs or significant benefits to airplane manufacturers. As
noted previously, in some cases, the FAA accepted the possibility of
local partition failure based on a finding of equivalent level of
safety. This final rule will relieve the administrative burden for type
certification applicants who might otherwise be required to submit
requests for an equivalent level of safety under Sec. 21.21(b)(1).
However, cost savings for the FAA will be minimal because the FAA
received only two such type certification applications in the past 5
years and does not expect numerous similar applications in the future.
Cost savings for industry will be minimal because the cost of
administration of the FAA's finding of equivalent safety on each
applicable certification project is not high, even though it is applied
several times per year. The FAA, therefore, has determined that this
final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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
[[Page 38381]]
covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-
for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
This final rule will only have impact on applicants for type
certification of transport category airplanes. All such United States
transport category airplane manufacturers exceed the Small Business
Administration small-entity criteria of 1,500 employees.
If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA.
Therefore, based on the foregoing analysis, as provided in section
605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not
result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it
will impose no costs on domestic and international entities and thus
has a neutral trade impact.
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
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 that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The
current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $177 million using
the most current (2022) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic
Product. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this final rule.
F. International Compatibility
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 regulations.
G. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6f for regulations and involves
no extraordinary circumstances.
VI. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, Federalism. The FAA has
determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, will not have
federalism implications.
B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Consistent with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,70 and FAA Order 1210.20,
American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and
Procedures,71 the FAA ensures that Federally Recognized Tribes (Tribes)
are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely input
regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to affect
uniquely or significantly their respective Tribes. At this point, the
FAA has not identified any unique or significant effects, environmental
or otherwise, on tribes resulting from this proposed rule.
C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The FAA has determined that it is
not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
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 will have no
effect on international regulatory cooperation.
VII. Additional Information
A. Electronic Access and Filing
A copy of the NPRM, all comments received, this final rule, and all
background material may be viewed online at www.regulations.gov using
the docket number listed above. A copy of this final rule will be
placed in the docket. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are
available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days
each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded
[[Page 38382]]
from the Office of the Federal Register's website at
www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website
at www.govinfo.gov. A copy may also be found at the FAA's Regulations
and Policies website at www.faa.gov/regulations_policies.
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) 267-9677.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this final rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed in
the electronic docket for this rulemaking.
B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this
document may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the
preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Navigation (air), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and
44704.
0
2. Amend Sec. 25.365 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.365 Pressurized compartment loads.
* * * * *
(g)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(2) of this section,
bulkheads, floors, and partitions in pressurized compartments for
occupants must be designed to withstand the conditions specified in
paragraph (e) of this section. In addition, reasonable design
precautions must be taken to minimize the probability of parts becoming
detached and injuring occupants while in their seats.
(2) Partitions adjacent to the opening specified in paragraph
(e)(2) of this section need not be designed to withstand that condition
provided--
(i) Failure of the partition would not interfere with continued
safe flight and landing; and
(ii) Designing the partition to withstand the condition specified
in paragraph (e)(2) of this section would be impractical.
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701(a)
in Washington, DC, on or about June 6, 2023
Billy Nolen,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-12416 Filed 6-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P