MEMORANDUM

To: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket id: OAR-2013-0602

From: Region 5, EPA

Summary: The following questions were submitted to EPA by IL EPA, WI DNR and OH EPA prior to a 7/16/14 conference call between EPA and R5 states about the proposed carbon power plan for existing power plants.

Meeting Agenda:

   1. Welcome and introductions: U.S. EPA Region 5

   2. Opening remarks: Joe Goffman, Associate Assistant Administrator, U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation

   3. Questions from states: Office of Air and Radiation staff

                            Illinois EPA Questions
              Concerning U.S. EPA Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule

                                 July 10, 2014

Rate-Based/Mass-Based Goal Computations:
   1. In order to fully understand U.S. EPA's rate-based goal determinations, can the agency provide the state with the detailed calculations used to establish Illinois' rate-based goals?

   2. Illinois EPA is interested in converting the rate-based goals to their equivalent mass-based goals ASAP.  Would it be possible for U.S. EPA to provide the state with the presumptive equivalent mass-based goals - with detailed calculations and assumptions used?  If not, what assistance can U.S. EPA provide the state to help calculate the mass emissions and by when?

   3. Can U. S. EPA provide an example of how Illinois/states take credit for retirement of high CO2 emitting units in a rate-based approach - either through subtracting reduced CO2 from numerator or adding lost generation to denominator or by some means of calculating - such as assuming lost generation is made up for by zero, low or lower emitting units?
   4. Illinois EPA would like to better understand how being a net exporter of electricity impacts its goals.  In the goal calculation (e.g., building block 4 goal calculation), how does Illinois being a net exporter of electricity factor into the goal?  Please provide the related calculations.
   5. Are all renewable energy sources allowed under the "Net power generated"?  Or only ones built prior to January 8, 2014?  Is this date only for fossil fuel fired plants?
   6. Can new EGUs subject to NSPS, like Future Gen, be part of the "net power generation" for 2020 through 2030 and beyond?
   7. Can the state receive emissions reduction credit for new natural gas combined cycle capacity that comes online after 2012?   If yes, how would that factor into the goal calculation?
At-Risk Nuclear Power Capacity:

   1. U.S. EPA reduced Illinois' baseline and subsequent goals by accounting for 5.8% of at-risk nuclear.  The 5.8% was derived by USEPA using a national average and not on a state-specific basis.  In compliance calculations by states, is there (or will there be in the final rule) a mechanism for states to show that greater than 5.8% of nuclear was at risk and due to actions taken by the state greater than 5.8% was preserved  -  and therefore states can take greater than 5.8% credit in their compliance, or back-end, calculations?

   2. Can U.S. EPA provide a sample calculation of how preserved nuclear generation is accounted for in back-end compliance calculations?

Renewable Energy/Energy Efficiency Measures:

   1. Do all entities have to be 25 MW and provide 1/3 power to the grid, for example, can we use landfill gas-to-energy plants as part of our RE?
Definitions:
   1. In the definition of "Affected entity" under 40 CFR 60.5820, does the phrase "or another entity with obligations under this subpart for the purpose of meeting the emission performance goal requirements in these emission guidelines" include the renewable energy and energy efficiency projects?

   2. Can an "affected entity" be more than one unit or source?

   3. Can an "entity" be more than one plant or unit?

   4. One clarification:  in the definition of "net energy"- recommend changing the word "facility" to "entity" for consistency purposes.

Miscellaneous:
   1. Is there a mechanism for states to take credit for actions by sources that are not affected units?  For example, if a non-affected industrial source removes coal-fired boilers and replaces them with lower CO2 emitting natural gas fired boilers?  If yes, please provide an explanation with an example of how this can be done.

                       Ohio EPA - Questions for Hub Call
                                   7/11/2014

   1. Can an inventory of units in other years besides 2012 be provided to Ohio in the same format and parsed in the same manner as used for the goal setting portion?
   2.
   3.  This would be the same format and have the same data as the TSD Excel spreadsheet tsd-plant-level-data-unit-level-inventory_App7.xlsx and tsd-egrid-methodology.xlsx.

   4. Can a spreadsheet detailing the determination of the RE goals be provided?

   5. Can a state, in a state plan, take credit for all nuclear generation, or only 5.8%?

   6. Can USEPA confirm that the shadow cost for Ohio in the IPM model was $11.30 in 2030?

   7. How was EE represented/constrained in the IPM model?

   8. Can a parsed, state specific file of initial IPM conditions be provided to Ohio?

   9. Does IPM output net or gross generation at each unit?

   10. Was any consideration given to base-load generation vs peaking generation in IPM?

   11. Can USEPA confirm that no new NGCC generation was projected for Ohio by IPM in Option 1  -  State scenario?

   12. How will shutdowns from the MATS rule be counted in the conversion to a mass based plan?

   13. If shutdowns must be accounted for in determining a mass based goal, why are these shutdowns not accounted for in the rate determination?

   14. Was "remaining useful life" accounted for in the IPM model?  How can states account for remaining useful life in examining their state goal and in developing their state plans?

   15. How were renewables/RE accounted for in IPM in the Option 1  -  State scenario?

   16. Can USEPA confirm that no new biomass was projected by IPM under scenario Option 1  -  State.

   17. Can updated capacity factor data for eGrid-2010 (2007 data) be provided? Capacity factor data is largely absent in this data set.

   18. There is a ~10% difference between heat rates in IPM and those derived following USEPA's methodology in the goal setting TSD.  What is the cause of this difference?

   19. Can parsed data for the IPM runs be provided for 2030?

   20. Can USEPA confirm that the capacity factors projected by IPM case Option  -  1 State are around 80 to 85% for coal?

Wisconsin DNR Questions/Issues for the Region 5 Hub Meeting re: Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule
                                 July 11, 2014

Related to trading programs:
   1. Would EPA consider developing a national trading program?  This would be an enormous help to the states and would considerably ease compliance.

   2. How does EPA envision using existing tracking systems for renewable energy certificates (RECs) such as M-RETS?  Could states use these existing programs, which track RECs and allow entities to purchase RECs (representing MWh of renewable electricity), as a way to demonstrate compliance with the renewable electricity parts of state goals?

   3. If EPA allows use of M-RETS and other tracking systems for compliance, would it be possible to expand these systems to track and trade energy efficiency?  Would EPA allow such an approach?

   4. Does EPA envision needing separate trading systems for pounds of CO2 and for megawatt hours of electricity avoided/generated?
Related to use of existing state programs for compliance:
   1. Does EPA plan to allow states to use tried and tested state approaches for estimating energy efficiency and renewable electricity impacts, as long as such programs meet some minimum requirements?  For example, does EPA intend to let states who have developed rigorous ways to handle lifetime of EE measures to continue using their approach?

   2. Similarly, is EPA planning to set criteria for what kinds of renewable electricity may count towards compliance or will EPA defer to decisions states have already made about this?  (This relates to decisions such as whether to count biomass-derived power, co-firing of renewables and fossil fuels, thresholds for hydro power, the shelf life of RECs, etc.)

   3. Which entity will certify individual renewable facilities as eligible for 111(d)? (i.e. EPA, states, program administrators of tracking systems).

   4. Will the EPA establish avoided CO2 per MWh of renewable energy, or let states' propose?

   5. Related to energy efficiency: does EPA plan to allow "gross" energy efficiency savings (i.e., all avoided generation/emissions) to count towards compliance or would compliance be limited to "net" savings (i.e., only those measures that are believed to have occurred as a direct effect of the program)?  Does EPA expect states to make an effort to exclude "free riders" from compliance?  Some states have methods to make these estimates, but it is a somewhat subjective distinction to make and would be hard to do so consistently between states.
Related to out-of-state RE:
   1. How is EPA planning to credit existing renewable electricity that is either owned or contracted for by utilities in another state?  It sounds like EPA plans to credit this to the state that pays for the RE, an approach we agree with.  However, this RE counted towards the baseline of the state it is located in (and thus makes their target higher or pushes them above the 15% threshold) and thus could affect compliance for the state within with the generation capacity is located.
   2. Can international trans-boundary renewables/hydro be used for compliance purposes? E.g., purchased hydro from Manitoba?

Related to permitting:
   1. At a macro level, how does EPA envision the requirements for the GHG NSPS under 111(b) for new sources, the "modified and reconstructed" proposal under 111(b) and the 111(d) requirements playing together for permitting purposes?

   2. Again, related to permitting, how will EPA address the potential triggering of NSR permitting requirements for criteria pollutants if/when a utility decides to undertake an efficiency improvement project under 111(d)?  We're hearing concerns that taking measures to improve efficiency (reduce GHGs) can very well trigger NSR for pollutants like NOx causing sources to have to take more stringent criteria pollutant limits and/or install new (potentially expensive) controls for criteria pollutants.  This appears to be potentially a disincentive.

Alternative approaches:
   1. EPA discusses (on pages 313-320 of the prepublication Preamble) an alternative approach based on application of building block 1 accompanied by reductions in coal generation (indirectly determined through building blocks 2-4).  Are there any supplemental materials available that describe this approach in more detail?  How does the overall goal determined by this approach differ from that proposed?


From: Brian Shrager To: Mary Tom Kissell C439 03 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Date: August 4, 2003 Project: Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP Re: Meeting Minutes for the July 28, 2003 Meeting Between the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and Louisiana Pacific ( L P).

I. Purpose The EPA participated in a meeting with L P on July 28, 2003 to discuss issues specific to L P's operations, including application of MACT standards to innovative process technologies and MACT for wet wet hardboard presses. The list of participants is included as Attachment 1.

II. Discussion The L P representatives provided a confidential handout that outlined several innovative process technologies that L P has developed or may develop and presented concerns about how the upcoming MACT standards would apply to these technologies. Attachment 2 is a nonconfidential discussion of L P's issues and concerns. The main point presented by L P is that the restriction in the rule that an add on air pollution control device cannot be used to meet the production based emission limits ( PBELs) is overly restrictive and does not encourage the use of innovative process technologies that reduce emissions to a level that may or may not meet the PBELs without some additional control. This restriction in the standards as proposed removes what otherwise would be a powerful incentive for investing in source reduction technologies such as those being considered by L P. The L P representatives requested that EPA remove the restriction from the rule, and noted that EPA policy and the Pollution Prevention Act require EPA to consider ways to encourage source reduction in the MACT rule. The EPA indicated that the project team needs to discuss the issue and determine, for the PCWP industry, what types of activities qualify as pollution prevention. Additional information on the specific innovative process technologies being developed or considered by L P is contained in EPA's confidential business information ( CBI) files for the PCWP project. 2 The discussion then turned to MACT for wet/ wet hardboard presses, an issue of concern for L P's Roaring River facility. A handout outlining L P's presentation on wet/ wet hardboard presses is included as Attachment 3. The L P representatives stated that wet/ wet hardboard presses should be a separate MACT subcategory, and the MACT floor for the subcategory would be no control. The justification for creating separate subcategories for wet/ wet hardboard presses and other ( wet/ dry and dry/ dry) presses includes the following: ( 1) the water content into the press is 60 percent, compared to 0 percent for both dry/ dry and wet/ dry hardboard presses; ( 2) the exhaust gas temperature from wet/ wet presses is lower; ( 3) the exhaust gas volume from wet/ wet presses is higher because of the large amount of water; ( 4) the exhaust gas HAP content ( concentration) is lower, especially for short cycle wet presses; ( 5) a large mass ( 10,000 to 12,000 lb/ hr) of water is emitted as part of the exhaust stream; and ( 6) safety within an enclosure is a concern because of the need to inspect for and free sticking boards. The L P representatives then indicated that the L P Roaring River wet/ wet hardboard presses are unique in the industry. First, the out of press board moisture content is 20 percent, compared with 0 percent for all other hardboard presses. Second, because of the remaining moisture and the short press cycle, the resin does not fully catalyze in the press, resulting in lower phenol and formaldehyde emissions. Finally, the presses are followed by bake ovens, which fully set and catalyze the resin and reduce board moisture to " bone dry." Some other presses are followed by tempering ovens, but not bake ovens. Safety is of particular concern for the L P Roaring River facility because the boards exiting the facility's presses still contain 20 percent moisture and, therefore, tend to stick to the press platens. The problem of boards sticking to the press platens is further exacerbated because the resin does not fully set and catalyze in the press. Workers must ( almost constantly) inspect the press for and free the sticking boards. L P believes that, because of the safety concerns, a permanent total enclosure is not technologically feasible for a wet/ wet hardboard press. In addition, the cost to control the high volume, high moisture, low HAP ( concentration) exhaust stream is exorbitantly high. The L P representatives added that only one of 40 hardboard presses ( dry and wet) is controlled, and wet presses are not currently controlled in the industry. Finally, L P representatives stated that the bake ovens that follow the wet presses have significant emissions and would be feasible to control as required under the rule ( as proposed).

Following L P's presentation, RTI posed several questions to the L P representatives. First, RTI asked the product thickness associated with the press and bake oven emission factors provided in L P's public comments ( 0.52 lb/ MSF and 0.46 lb/ MSF, respectively). The L P representatives responded that the emission factors are based on a 7/ 16 inch thickness. Second, RTI asked if L P realized that the PBEL for reconstituted wood products presses is based on a wet/ wet hardboard press, and if a subcategory were created for wet/ wet hardboard presses, the PBEL for all other reconstituted wood products presses would be more stringent than at proposal. The L P representatives indicated that they recognize that potential outcome of subcategorization. Third, RTI asked if L P realized that the board coolers MACT floor also could be impacted ( made more stringent) by the subcategorization. The L P representatives stated that the subcategorization would not have to carry over to board coolers since technological differences are not evident between board coolers following the various types of presses. An EPA representative added that the issue of whether wet/ wet hardboard presses should be grouped separately from other press types would be evaluated technically, regardless of the outcome for the reconstituted press PBEL or board cooler MACT floor. Fourth, RTI asked if L P had looked at the possibility of controlling digesters at the Roaring River facility and emissions averaging the digesters with the press. The L P representatives indicated that they looked at the possibility, but there are some other issues that would have to be considered. The 3 L P representatives added further that the main point of this meeting was to demonstrate that MACT controls do not apply to the presses at the Roaring River facility. Fifth, RTI asked if the 80 percent biofilter control efficiency presented in L P's comments was based on HAP or VOC. The L P representatives stated that they would have to check the basis for the control efficiency, and added that they expect higher control efficiencies for methanol than for aldehydes. Finally, RTI asked if L P was aware of a currently operating biofilter with the capacity to treat 600,000 actual cubic feet per minute of exhaust gas. The L P representatives indicated that they had knowledge of a large biofilter but they did not know the actual capacity of the unit. The L P representatives also added that because of the high exhaust stream moisture content, the Roaring River plant would have to use a wet scrubber prior to a biofilter to control press emissions, and the facility already is operating near it's permitted allowable water discharge.

Following the discussion, L P indicated that EPA could contact Mr. John Joyce with any questions specific to the Roaring River facility or Mr. Dave Harvey with any other questions or information needs. Attachment 1   List of Participants U. S. EPA K. C. Hustvedt Mary Tom Kissell Gary McAlister Candace Sorrell Lousiana Pacific Dave Harvey, L P Russ Frye, Collier Shannon Scott John Joyce, L P William Baird, L P Research Triangle Institute Katie Hanks Brian Shrager


	Current version of the Coal Prep FR Notice

	Mary Johnson

	to:

	Higgins, Cortney

	09/24/2009 02:38 PM

	Cc:

	RobertJ Wayland, Sonja Rodman, Thomas Gillis, Teresa Clemons

	Show Details

Cortney,

Per your request, attached is the current version of the Coal Prep FR

notice.  Please let me know if you have any questions/comments, or if this

concludes OMB's review..

Thanks.

Mary

Mary Johnson

Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Mail Code D 243-01

Research Triangle Park, NC  27711

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 129 (Monday, July 7, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38266-38273]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15789]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 129 / Monday, July 7, 2014 / Proposed
Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No.: FAA-2014-0001; Notice No. 14-06]
RIN 2120-AK29

Harmonization of Airworthiness Standards--Fire Extinguishers and
Class B and F Cargo Compartments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY:  The FAA proposes to amend certain airworthiness regulations
for transport category airplanes by upgrading fire safety standards for
one type of cargo compartment; establishing fire safety standards for a
new type of cargo compartment; and updating related standards for fire
extinguishers. The proposed rules are based on recommendations from the
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) and the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and they address designs for which
airworthiness directives have been issued by both the FAA and the
French civil aviation authority, Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de
l'Aviation Civile (DGAC).
    Adopting these proposals would eliminate regulatory differences
between the airworthiness standards of the U.S. and the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), without affecting current industry
design practices. These proposed changes would ensure an acceptable
level of safety for these types of cargo compartments by standardizing
certain requirements, concepts, and procedures.

DATES: Send comments on or before October 6, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0001
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://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<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://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 technical questions concerning
this action, contact Stephen M. Happenny, Propulsion/Mechanical Systems
Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton,
WA 98055-4056; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Sean Howe,
Office of Regional Counsel, ANM-7, Federal Aviation Administration,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations in the interest of safety for the design and performance of
aircraft; regulations and minimum standards in the interest of safety
for inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft; and regulations
for other practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds
necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the
scope of that authority because it prescribes new safety standards for
the design and operation of transport category airplanes.

I. Overview of Proposed Rule

    The purpose of the proposed rulemaking is to harmonize certain
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 requirements for
fire extinguishers and cargo compartments with the corresponding
requirements in Book 1 of EASA Certification Specifications and
Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large Airplanes (CS-25).
    Applicants for FAA type certification already use the proposed
changes through equivalent level of safety findings and special
conditions. Harmonizing these requirements with EASA would benefit
manufacturers and modifiers by providing them a single set of
requirements with which they must show compliance, thereby reducing the
cost and complexity of certification and codifying a consistent level
of safety.
    The proposed rulemaking would limit the size of an existing class
of cargo compartments, define a new class of accessible cargo
compartments without size limitation, update associated fire
extinguisher requirements, update cargo liner and floor panel
requirements and their material testing criteria, and propose
associated advisory information

for compliance. The proposed changes would apply to new airplane
designs only, not to existing airplanes. Applicability to derivative
airplanes or changed products would be determined according to 14 CFR
21.101.
    1. A new paragraph, (f), would be added to Sec.  25.857 to
establish requirements for certification of accessible cargo
compartments without size limitation under a new classification, Class
F, that must meet safety standards similar to those of Class C cargo
compartments or equivalent.
    2. Section 25.851(a)(3), ``Hand fire extinguishers,'' would be
revised to extend the existing fire extinguisher requirements for Class
A, B, or E cargo or baggage compartments to be applicable to new Class
F accessible cargo or baggage compartments defined in the new Sec.
25.857(f). The amended requirements would specify that at least one
readily accessible hand fire extinguisher be available to crewmembers
in-flight for use in each Class A, B, E, or F compartment.
    3. Section 25.851(b)(2), ``Built-in fire extinguishers,'' would be
revised by adding a sentence to the existing regulation to clarify that
the capacity of a built-in fire extinguishing/fire suppression system
in a Class C and, if installed, a Class F cargo compartment must be
adequate to respond to a fire that could occur in any part of the cargo
compartment where cargo or baggage may be placed. The FAA is taking
this step to harmonize our regulation to the EASA regulation and
practice because FAA testing has shown that current methods of
compliance are inadequate. Advisory material will provide guidance on
acceptable means of compliance with this proposal.
    4. Sections 25.855(b), (c), and (h), ``Cargo or baggage
compartments,'' would be revised to require that new Class F cargo
compartments have a liner that meets flame penetration standards
currently required for Class C cargo compartments unless other means
are provided to contain a fire and protect critical systems and
structure. In addition, Sec.  25.855(h)(3) would be revised to add a
required demonstration of compliance of the dissipation of the
extinguishing agent in Class F cargo compartments with designs that
incorporate a built-in fire extinguisher(s) for controlling a fire.
    5. Section 25.857(b)(1), ``Cargo compartment classification,''
would be revised to indirectly limit the size of a Class B cargo
compartment by requiring a defined firefighting access point.
    6. Part I of appendix F to part 25, ``Test Criteria and Procedures
for Showing Compliance with Sec.  25.853 or Sec.  25.855,'' paragraphs
(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2)(iii) would be revised to add a reference to Class
F cargo compartment floor panels. Other changes to appendix F to part
25 are being considered as part of a separate rulemaking that may
result in a different, but technically equivalent, change.

II. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    Part 25 prescribes airworthiness standards for type certification
of transport category airplanes for products certified in the United
States. EASA CS-25 Book 1 prescribes the corresponding airworthiness
standards for products certified in Europe. While part 25 and CS-25 are
similar, they differ in several respects. To improve certification
efficiency, the FAA tasked ARAC to review existing cargo compartments
and fire extinguisher regulations and to recommend changes that would
eliminate differences between U.S. and European airworthiness
standards, while maintaining or improving the level of safety in the
current regulations.
    ARAC established the Cargo Standards Harmonization Working Group
(CSHWG), assigning it the task of developing new or revised
requirements for Class B cargo compartments of transport category
airplanes. ARAC also established the Mechanical Systems Harmonization
Working Group (MSHWG), assigning it the task of developing new or
revised requirements for a built-in fire extinguishing system for
existing or new cargo compartment classifications. Each working group
was to document its work as a draft NPRM with supporting material or
collateral documents, such as advisory circulars. The scope of these
taskings included developing similar proposed regulations to amend
Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR)-25, the precursor to CS-25, as
necessary to achieve harmonization between the FAA and the Joint
Aviation Authorities (JAA), the predecessor of EASA. EASA incorporated
the ARAC working groups' recommendations into the CS-25 requirements
via Amendments 4 and 8, on December 27, 2007, and December 18, 2009,
respectively. The FAA agrees with ARAC's recommendations to harmonize
U.S. airworthiness standards for cargo compartments and associated fire
extinguishers with corresponding EASA regulations and proposes to amend
part 25 accordingly. The proposals are not expected to be controversial
and should reduce certification costs to industry without adversely
affecting safety. The complete analyses for the proposed changes made
in response to ARAC recommendations can be found in the ARAC
recommendation reports, located in the docket for this rulemaking.

B. History

    On November 27, 1987, a fire occurred in the Class B cargo
compartment of a Boeing Model 747-244B airplane operated by South
African Airways. The airplane was on a scheduled flight between Taipei,
Taiwan, to Johannesburg, South Africa. It was carrying both passengers
and cargo on the main deck, a configuration known as a ``combi'' and
classified as a Class B cargo compartment. The airplane crashed in the
Indian Ocean about 140 miles northeast of Mauritius. All people aboard
the airplane perished.
    The South African Board of Inquiry reported that (1) there was
clear indication that a fire broke out in a right hand front pallet
(one of six) in the main deck cargo hold, and (2) the fire could not be
controlled and consequently led to the crash. The South African Board
unanimously agreed with the following findings and conclusions of the
FAA Review Team:
    1. Existing rules, policies, and procedures being applied to the
certification of Class B cargo or baggage compartments for smoke and
fire protection, the required quantity of fire extinguishing agent, and
the number of portable fire extinguishers are inadequate.
    2. The use of pallets to carry cargo in Class B compartments is no
longer acceptable.
    3. While entry into the cargo compartment is available, not all
cargo is accessible.
    4. The reliance on crew members to fight a cargo fire must be
discontinued.
    In response to the South African Airways accident, the FAA issued
Airworthiness Directive (AD) 89-18-12 (54 FR 34762, August 21, 1989),
which required a number of changes in the standards for Class B cargo
compartments located on the main deck of certain large airplanes. The
affected airplane models included Boeing Model 707, 727, 737, 747, and
757 series airplanes, and McDonnell Douglas DC-8, DC-9, and DC-10
series airplanes. That AD was superseded twice. The first supersedure,
AD 91-10-02 (56 FR 20529, May 6, 1991) was issued after operators and
manufacturers reported design and logistics problems in complying with
AD 89-18-12. The second AD supersedure was in response to comments
received following issuance of the first AD supersedure and the
publication of new test data provided by the FAA William J. Hughes
Technical Center (57 FR 36918, August

17, 1992). The current AD, AD 93-07-15 \1\ (58 FR 21243, April 20,
1993), requires operational and procedural changes, additional
equipment, and enhanced fire detection and suppression systems on
applicable large main-deck combi airplanes. The enhanced fire detection
and suppression system standards require modification of the Class B
cargo compartment to either comply with the requirements for a Class C
cargo compartment, as defined in Sec. Sec.  25.855 (Amendment 25-60),
25.857(c), and 25.858 (Amendment 25-54), or to incorporate other
specified safeguards. A similar airworthiness directive was issued by
the French airworthiness authority, DGAC, AD 92-113(B)R1. These ADs
provided options to the operators of the affected airplanes for
achieving an adequate level of safety. These are encompassed in the
proposed regulations and associated guidance material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ AD 93-07-15 Boeing and McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-8547.
Docket No. 92-NM-67-AD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations

    NTSB investigated the South African 747-244B accident and on May
16, 1988, issued the following Safety Recommendations:
    1. A-88-61. Until fire detection and suppression methods for Class
B cargo compartment fires are evaluated and revised, as necessary, the
NTSB recommended that the FAA require all cargo carried in Class B
cargo compartments of U.S.-registered transport category airplanes be
carried in fire resistant containers.
    The FAA responded to this recommendation with the current AD 93-07-
15. These proposed revisions to the related regulations and to part I
of appendix F to part 25 for fire testing requirements also address
this recommendation.
    2. A-88-62. The NTSB recommended that the FAA conduct research to
establish the fire detection and suppression methods needed to protect
transport category airplanes from catastrophic fires in Class B
compartments.
    To address this recommendation, both the FAA and the JAA conducted
research to determine whether Class B cargo compartments might be
unsafe. Both authorities concluded that entering the compartment to
combat a fire is ineffective for cargo compartments larger than 200
cubic feet in volume. They agreed on the need to conduct tests with
actual fires to try to more closely establish the maximum safe Class B
cargo compartment size. In coordination with the CSHWG, the Fire Safety
Branch of the FAA Technical Center conducted a number of ground tests
using an airplane hull with a cargo compartment located in the rear of
the passenger cabin. The simulated compartment had smoke detection,
ventilation rates, and air balance approximately the same as would be
encountered in a flight, and an entry door similar to those in the
compartments of smaller transport category airplanes.
    Based on that testing, the FAA Technical Center made several
observations. During actual fire testing conducted in a simulated Class
B cargo compartment with a volume of 175 cubic feet, flight attendants
equipped with protective breathing equipment and a hand fire
extinguisher, but without protective clothing, were unwilling to enter
the cargo compartment when a fire was present. This result led the
CSHWG to conclude that reliance on a flight attendant to physically
enter the cargo compartment to extinguish a fire was unrealistic, and
that a standard based on such an expectation was undesirable.
    During other tests, trained fire fighters, dressed in full
firefighting gear, found it unnecessary to enter the compartment to
extinguish the fire. They were able to extinguish the fire from the
doorway.
    Based on these findings, the CSHWG recognized that a fire could be
effectively combated by direct access, but without entry, to some of
these compartments. The CSHWG decided it would not be appropriate to
specify a maximum allowable volume for a cargo compartment. Instead,
the CSHWG proposal stipulated that, when standing at an access point,
the person fighting the fire must be able to reach any part of the
compartment with the contents of a hand fire extinguisher. Under the
CSHWG proposal, access would be a function of how the compartment was
configured rather than volume. In determining access, the CSHWG
proposal stipulated that it would not be appropriate to pull baggage or
cargo on to the floor of the passenger compartment to gain access to
the seat of the fire; such action may introduce a safety hazard to the
occupants.
    3. A-88-63. The NTSB recommended that the FAA establish fire
resistant requirements for the ceiling and sidewall liners in Class B
cargo compartments of transport category airplanes that equal or exceed
the requirements for Class C as set forth in 14 CFR part 25, appendix
F, part III.
    The current AD and the proposed revisions to cargo compartment
classifications address this recommendation.

III. Discussion of the Proposal

A. Revise ``Fire Extinguishers'' (Sec.  25.851)

1. ``Hand Fire Extinguishers'' (Sec.  25.851(a))
    Introduction of a new Class F cargo or baggage compartment via
Sec.  25.857(f) necessitates an amendment of Sec.  25.851(a)(3) to
require at least one readily accessible hand fire extinguisher for use
in each new Class F cargo or baggage compartment that is accessible to
crewmembers in flight. This is the same requirement currently for Class
A, B, or E cargo or baggage compartments.
2. ``Built-In Fire Extinguishers'' (Sec.  25.851(b))
    Section 25.851(b)(2) requires that the capacity of a built-in fire
extinguishing system be adequate for any fire likely to occur in the
compartment where used, and section 25.21 requires that an applicant
prove compliance with the requirements of part 25. The FAA proposes to
clarify when a system is ``adequate,'' and also proposes new guidance
governing an acceptable means of demonstrating compliance. EASA
implements its requirement CS 25.851(b) to ensure that the system is
adequate to control any fire likely to occur anywhere within the
compartment. We propose to add a sentence to Sec.  25.851(b) to
harmonize with EASA's application of the rule. This new sentence would
clarify that an adequate capacity would provide sufficient quantity of
agent to combat a fire anywhere baggage or cargo is placed within the
cargo compartment and be available for the time required to land and
evacuate the airplane.
    The key point of this proposed new sentence is that, because of the
inability to know in advance the contents of cargo and baggage placed
within a cargo compartment, it must be assumed that each piece of
baggage or cargo is a potential fuel source and a potential ignition
point. This clarification is predicated on the basis that all baggage
and cargo placed on board the airplane is done in accordance with the
FAA- and EASA-approved manufacturer and operator airplane weights and
balance manuals. In addition, placement of all baggage and cargo must
be in accordance with all appropriate national civil aviation authority
requirements and the manufacturer's loading instructions and
limitations.
    One effect of this proposed revision would be that the means of
compliance that allow averaging of the individual extinguishing agent
concentration

sensors would typically no longer be compliant. The current averaging
technique allows different applicants to use different test standards
for determining the success of extinguishing agents, as opposed to CS
certification methods, which are consistent for all applicants.
    Current EASA policy does not accept averaging methods but requires
that each individual sensor display the required concentration. The
corroborating factors that harmonized the EASA/FAA position included
consideration of available test data. In addition, testing at the FAA
Technical Center and other data from standardized fire extinguishing
evaluation tests indicates that the use of averaging techniques may not
show whether adequate concentration levels of fire extinguishing agent
exist throughout the compartment to effectively suppress a cargo fire.
If a cargo fire occurred, and was subsequently suppressed by Halon
1301, the core of the fire could remain hot for a period of time. If
the local concentration of Halon 1301 in the vicinity of the fire core
dropped below 3 percent by volume and sufficient oxygen was available,
re-ignition could occur. FAA testing and other industry testing have
shown that when the Halon 1301 concentration level drops below 3
percent by volume and the cargo fire re-ignites, the convective
stirring caused by the heat of the fire may be insufficient to raise
the local concentration of Halon 1301 in the vicinity of the fire.
    The proposed guidance would suggest means by which gaseous
extinguishing agent concentrations could be measured and how the
discrete measured data could be interpreted. Also, the proposed
guidance would describe a means of compliance that would demonstrate
that a ``suppressed environment'' is maintained in the cargo
compartment through landing to enable passengers and crew to evacuate
the airplane.
    The guidance would contain recommendations regarding markings and
placards in the cargo compartment as a means of ensuring that baggage
loading personnel do not load baggage and cargo above the safe limit
certified by testing.
    Section 25.851 provides requirements for built-in fire
extinguishing systems regardless of the extinguishing agent or delivery
system used. Therefore, it is not limited to halon gaseous agents or
any specific agent delivery system provided that such a system is
effective in extinguishing/suppressing fire threats in the cargo
compartment. Currently industry and the FAA Technical Center are
investigating alternative halon replacement agents and other types of
delivery systems and extinguishing/suppression systems.
    The advisory material would establish guidance for evaluating brief
excursions in the concentration readings and if the data from a single
measuring point could be time-averaged. Additional laboratory testing
is recommended only if critical issues requiring advisory clarification
cannot be resolved by other means.

B. Revise ``Cargo or Baggage Compartments'' (Sec.  25.855), ``Cargo
Compartment Classification'' (25.857), and ``Test Criteria and
Procedures for Showing Compliance With Sec.  25.853 or Sec.  25.855''
(Part I of Appendix F to Part 25)

1. Proposed Amendment to Class B Cargo Compartments
    We propose to revise the existing airworthiness requirements for
the Class B cargo compartment in Sec.  25.857(b)(1) to indirectly limit
the depth, width, and size of Class B cargo compartments by requiring a
defined firefighting access point.
    Currently, Class B cargo compartments incorporate a separate,
approved smoke or fire detection system to give a fire warning at the
pilot or flight engineer station. Class B cargo compartments must have
sufficient access in flight to enable a crewmember to effectively reach
any part of the compartment with the contents of a hand fire
extinguisher. These compartments must be designed so that no hazardous
quantity of smoke, flames, or extinguishing agent may enter any
compartment occupied by the crew or passengers. To protect adjacent
structures, Class B cargo compartments must also have a liner meeting
the flame penetration standards of Sec.  25.855 and part I of appendix
F to part 25. Section 25.858, which was added in Amendment 25-54 (45 FR
66173, September 11, 1980), requires that fire detection systems of
Class B cargo compartments provide a visual indication to the
flightcrew within one minute after the start of a fire. In addition,
the system must be capable of detecting the fire at a temperature
significantly below that at which the structural integrity of the
airplane is safely decreased.
    These standards were initially developed when cargo compartments
were relatively small and airplanes were powered by reciprocating
engines. With the advent of larger turbine-powered airplanes, cargo
compartment sizes, operating altitudes, and route lengths increased. In
addition, combination passenger/cargo configurations, or ``combis,''
were introduced that were designed to carry both passengers and cargo
on the main deck. These passenger and cargo compartments are separated
by a barrier intended to prevent smoke and gasses from entering
occupied areas. In some combis, the barrier is movable to change the
available cargo and passenger capacity as needed for specific
operational requirements.
    There are currently no limitations on the size or the volume of
current Class B cargo compartments. For domestic jet transport
airplanes, these compartments can range from approximately 200 cubic
feet for business jets to 17,000 cubic feet for large transport
airplanes.
    Based on tests conducted at the FAA Technical Center (57 FR 36918,
August 17, 1992), the proposed requirements would effectively limit the
size of new design Class B cargo compartments by requiring that a
crewmember, standing at any one access point and without stepping into
the compartment, be able to extinguish a fire using a hand fire
extinguisher. Class B cargo compartments, under the proposed amendment
to Sec.  25.857(b)(1), would be smaller than most current compartments
because the current rule allows a compartment so large as to require a
crewmember to enter the compartment in order to reach and extinguish
the fire. The FAA proposes applicable guidance material in the AC
associated with this rule.
    The requirements in Sec.  25.857(b)(2) and (b)(3) will remain
unchanged and will continue to require exclusion of hazardous
quantities of smoke, flames, or extinguishing agent from any
compartment occupied by the crew or passengers, as well as provision of
a separate, approved smoke detector or fire detector system to give
warning at the pilot or flight engineer station.
2. New Class F Cargo Compartments
    (a) We propose to add a new paragraph, Sec.  25.857(f), to
establish a new cargo compartment category, Class F. The new Class F
accessible cargo compartments would not be size-limited. There would,
however, need to be a means to control or extinguish a fire without
requiring a crewmember to enter the compartment to conduct manual
firefighting. Other fire safety features proposed for Class F cargo
compartments would include: (1) A fire detection system that meets
Sec.  25.858, and (2) a means to exclude cargo compartment smoke and
fumes from entering occupied spaces. As discussed in paragraph 2(b) of
this section, a liner may be necessary, which would be

required to meet part III of appendix F to part 25 or an equivalent
standard.
    The proposed Class F accessible cargo compartments would
accommodate the carriage of more baggage and cargo in a combi
configuration (passengers and cargo on the main deck) and in larger
volumes than allowed by the proposed amendment to Class B compartments.
In reviewing the existing Class B cargo compartments in transport
category airplanes, the CSHWG noted that several combi configurations
do not satisfy the concerns about fighting a fire without personnel
entering the cargo compartment. However, such combi configurations are
necessary to sustain those geographic areas with no means of supply
other than air cargo, such as small isolated towns and villages in
Alaska and Northern Canada. In considering this issue, ARAC recommended
that the FAA propose a new Class F cargo compartment that would allow
for flexibility in new airplane designs while ensuring adequate fire
control.
    Unlike the requirements for Class C cargo Compartments, the
proposed Class F would not necessarily be required to have either a
built-in fire extinguishing system or a means to control ventilation
and drafts within the compartment. Instead, the proposed Sec.
25.857(f)(2) would require that these compartments use either a
crewmember to access the compartment with a hand fire extinguisher
without entering the compartment or other means of controlling the fire
(e.g., a built-in fire extinguisher/suppression system, fire
containment covers, or other means that would be discussed in the
proposed draft AC 25.857-X). The proposed Sec.  25.857(f)(1) and (f)(3)
are identical to the existing Sec.  25.857(c)(1) and (c)(3) applicable
to Class C cargo compartments, respectively, and are intended to
require the provision of a separate approved smoke detector or fire
detector system to give warning at the pilot or flight engineer station
as well as exclusion of hazardous quantities of smoke, flames, or
extinguishing agent from any compartment occupied by the crew or
passengers. In addition, for Class F cargo compartment designs that
incorporate a built-in fire extinguisher(s) for controlling fire,
Sec. Sec.  25.851(b) and 25.855(h)(3) would be modified.
    (b) The introduction of Class F accessible cargo compartments
necessitates revising Sec.  25.855(b) and (c), which currently require
a liner or other means of fire protection for Class B through E cargo
compartments. We propose to revise Sec.  25.855(b) and (c) to require
that new Class F cargo compartments have a liner meeting flame
penetration standards currently required for Class C cargo
compartments. Class F cargo compartments would not have to have such
liners if other means were provided to contain a fire and protect
critical systems and structure. The proposed revision would result in
retaining the same level of safety regarding fire protection.
    Section 25.855(b) would require Class F accessible compartments to
have a liner, unless other means provide the necessary fire
containment. The CSHWG considered two potential methods for relieving
Class F compartments from the liner requirements. These would be
included in the proposed AC associated with this proposed rule. One
method is to use existing approved (e.g., Class C cargo compartment)
containers carried inside the proposed new Class F cargo compartment.
The containers themselves suppress fire. This design would provide a
means of compliance similar to that offered in one of the options in
the combi AD.\2\ To ensure use of appropriate containers, the
requirement for use of the Class C cargo compartment containers would
have to be identified as part of any loading restrictions in the
airplane flight manual (AFM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A copy of AD 93-07-15 is included in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A second method, already used in accordance with the combi AD, uses
a system to distribute the contents of a hand fire extinguisher
throughout the compartment. An external nozzle in the compartment wall
or liner connects with the hand fire extinguisher. Internal plumbing
carries the extinguishing agent throughout the compartment. This allows
the certification of airplanes with compartments with less expensive
hardware and does not require a flight crewmember to enter the
compartment. The AFM would have to limit operations to a route
structure that ensured the airplane could land before the available
fire extinguishing capability was exhausted.
    (c) The introduction of Class F accessible cargo compartments
necessitates revising paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of part I of appendix F to
part 25. That paragraph currently requires self-extinguishing floor
panels or other approved equivalent means of fire protection to contain
a fire and protect critical systems and structure. We propose to revise
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2)(iii) to require the floor panels in new
Class F cargo compartments meet the flame penetration standards
currently required for Class B, C, or E cargo compartments. The
proposed revision would result in Class F cargo compartments meeting
the same level of safety.

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
directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation
only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended
regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact
of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements
Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies
to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they
be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble
summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed
rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits a statement to
that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The
reasoning for this determination follows:
    The FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)
through the Cargo Standards Harmonization Working Group (CSHWG) and the
Mechanical Systems Harmonization Working Group (MSHWG) to review
existing cargo compartments and fire extinguisher regulations and to
recommend changes that would eliminate differences between the U.S. and
the European

airworthiness standards, while maintaining or improving the level of
safety in the current regulations.
    The FAA agrees with the ARAC recommendations to harmonize
airworthiness standards for cargo compartments and associated fire
extinguishers with the corresponding EASA regulations and proposes to
amend part 25 accordingly. The proposed changes would eliminate
differences between the U.S. and European airworthiness standards.
These efforts are referred to as harmonization.
    This proposal is for changes in the standards in part 25 for new
airplane designs only. The proposed changes will not apply to existing
airplanes. This proposed rule would revise Sec. Sec.  25.851, ``Fire
extinguishers;'' 25.855, ``Cargo or baggage compartments;'' 25.857,
``Cargo compartment classification;'' and appendix F, part I, ``Test
Criteria and Procedures for Showing Compliance with Sec.  25.853, or
Sec.  25.855.''
    The FAA estimates that there are higher safety standards and no
costs associated with this proposal. A review of current manufacturers
of transport category airplanes certificated under part 25 has revealed
that all such future airplanes are expected to be certificated under
part 25 of both U.S. and EASA (CS-25) airworthiness regulations. Since
future certificated transport category airplanes are expected to meet
the existing EASA CS-25 Book 1 requirements, and this rule adopts the
same EASA requirements, manufacturers would incur no additional cost
resulting from this proposal. This proposal may even reduce cost.
Without harmonization the manufacturers would meet two sets of
standards (EASA and FAA). Meeting two sets of certification
requirements raises the cost of developing a new transport category
airplane, often with no increase in safety. EASA regulations and
associated compliance in the areas affected by the changes in this NPRM
are more stringent than FAA regulations and compliance. These safety
requirements are increased with no costs, or perhaps at lower costs.
    The FAA concludes that the proposed changes would eliminate
regulatory differences between the airworthiness standards of the FAA
and EASA without affecting current industry design practices resulting
in potential cost savings and maintaining current levels of safety. The
FAA requests comments with supporting documentation in regard to the
conclusions contained in this section.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not
an economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, Sec.  605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency
may so certify, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis
for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    As noted above, the proposed changes to part 25 are cost-relieving
because this proposed rule creates a single certification standard and
removes the burden of having to meet two sets of certification
requirements. The FAA believes that this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The net effect of the proposed rule is minimum regulatory cost
relief. Airplane manufacturers already meet or expect to meet this
standard. The FAA uses the size standards from the Small Business
Administration for Aircraft Manufacturing that specify companies having
less than 1,500 employees are small entities. Given that this proposed
rule is cost-relieving and there are no small entity manufacturers of
part 25 airplanes with less than 1,500 employees, this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The FAA requests comments regarding this determination.
If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head
of the agency may so certify under Sec.  605(b) of the RFA. Therefore,
as provided in Sec.  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. Please provide detailed economic
analysis to support any cost differences.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined that the rule
is in accord with the Trade Agreements Act as the proposed rule uses
European standards as the basis for United States regulation.

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 $151 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 reviewed the corresponding ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences
with these proposed regulations.
    Executive Order (EO) 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, [77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012] promotes international
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health,
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policy and
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, Promoting
International Regulatory Cooperation. The agency has determined that
this action would eliminate differences between U.S. aviation standards
and those of other civil aviation authorities by creating a single set
of certification requirements for transport category airplanes that
would be acceptable in both the United States and Europe.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f of Order 1050.1E 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, Actions Concerning 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.

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 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 (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    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<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Life-limited parts, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  25.851 by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(2) to read
as follows:

Sec.  25.851  Fire extinguishers.

    (a) * * *
    (3) At least one readily accessible hand fire extinguisher must be
available for use in each Class A or Class B cargo or baggage
compartment and in each Class E or Class F cargo or baggage compartment
that is accessible to crewmembers in flight.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *

    (2) The capacity of each required built-in fire extinguishing
system must be adequate for any fire likely to occur in the compartment
where used, considering the volume of the compartment and the
ventilation rate. For purposes of this section, a system is adequate if
there is sufficient quantity of agent to extinguish the fire or
suppress the fire anywhere baggage or cargo is placed within the cargo
compartment for the duration required to land and evacuate the
airplane.
0
3. Amend Sec.  25.855 by revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (h)(3) to
read as follows:

Sec.  25.855  Cargo or baggage compartments.

* * * * *
    (b) Each of the following cargo or baggage compartments, as defined
in Sec.  25.857, must have a liner that is separate from, but may be
attached to, the airplane structure:
    (1) Any Class B through Class E cargo or baggage compartment, and
    (2) Any Class F cargo or baggage compartment, unless other means of
containing a fire and protecting critical systems and structure are
provided.
    (c) Ceiling and sidewall liner panels of Class C cargo or baggage
compartments, and ceiling and sidewall liner panels in Class F cargo or
baggage compartments, if installed to meet the requirements of
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, must meet the test requirements of
part III of appendix F of this part or other approved equivalent
methods.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (3) The dissipation of the extinguishing agent in all Class C
compartments or, if applicable, in any Class F compartments.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  25.857 by revising paragraph (b)(1) and adding a new
paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  25.857  Cargo compartment classification.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) There is sufficient access in flight to enable a crewmember,
standing at any one access point and without stepping into the
compartment, to extinguish a fire occurring in any part of the
compartment using a hand fire extinguisher.
* * * * *
    (f) Class F. A Class F cargo or baggage compartment is located on
the main deck, readily accessible in flight, and is one in which--
    (1) There is a separate approved smoke detector or fire detector
system to give warning at the pilot or flight engineer station;
    (2) There are means to extinguish or control a fire without
requiring a crewmember to enter the compartment; and
    (3) There are means to exclude hazardous quantities of smoke,
flames, or extinguishing agent from any compartment occupied by the
crew or passengers.
0
5. Amend part I of appendix F to part 25 by revising paragraphs
(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2)(iii) to read as follows:

Appendix F to Part 25

    Part I--Test Criteria and Procedures for Showing Compliance with
Sec.  25.853 or Sec.  25.855.
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Floor covering, textiles (including draperies and
upholstery), seat cushions, padding, decorative and nondecorative
coated fabrics, leather, trays and galley furnishings, electrical
conduit, air ducting, joint and edge covering, liners of Class B and
E cargo or baggage compartments, floor panels of Class B, C, E, or F
cargo or baggage compartments, 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)(1)(iv) of part I of this appendix, must be
self-extinguishing when tested vertically in accordance with the
applicable portions of part I of this appendix or other approved
equivalent means. The average burn length may not exceed 8 inches,
and the average flame time after removal of the flame source may not
exceed 15 seconds. Drippings from the test specimen may not continue
to flame for more than an average of 5 seconds after falling.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) A cargo or baggage compartment defined in Sec.  25.857 as
Class B, C, E, or F must have floor panels constructed of materials
which meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of part I of
this appendix and which are separated from the airplane structure
(except for attachments). Such panels must be subjected to the 45
degree angle test. The flame may not penetrate (pass through) the
material during application of the flame or subsequent to its
removal. The average flame time after removal of the flame source
may not exceed 15 seconds, and the average glow time may not exceed
10 seconds.
* * * * *

    Issued under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f),
44701(a), and 44703 in Washington, DC, on June 26, 2014.
Frank P. Paskiewicz,
Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2014-15789 Filed 7-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53154-53155]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21524]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0885; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-18-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH Models
TAE 125-02-99 and TAE 125-02-114 Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
TAE 125-02-99 and TAE 125-02-114 reciprocating engines. This proposed
AD was prompted by an in-flight shutdown of an airplane equipped with a
TAE 125-02-99 engine. This proposed AD would require inspection of the
oil filler plug vent hole at the next scheduled maintenance or within
110 flight hours after the effective date of this AD. If chips are
found to be blocking the vent hole, additional corrective action is
required before next flight. We are proposing this AD to prevent engine
in-flight shutdown or power loss, possibly resulting in reduced control
of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 30,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14 D-09350,
Lichtenstein, Germany, telephone: +49-37204-696-0; fax: +49-37204-696-
2912; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-
238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at  http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the
same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Zink, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0885;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-18-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive No. 2012-0112, dated June 22, 2012 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    An engine in-flight shutdown has been reported on an aeroplane
equipped with a TAE 125-02-99 engine. The results of the
investigation showed that this was due to blockage of the gearbox
oil filling plug vent hole, which caused pressurisation in the
gearbox, resulting in oil leakage and a slipping clutch. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in further cases of engine
in-flight shutdown and consequent loss of control of the aeroplane.

    Further investigation revealed that the blockage to the oil cap
vent was the result of a residual chip from machining the oil cap vent
hole. The chip is from the manufacturing process and did not fall off
the oil plug. This is not the result of material in the oil system
causing the blockage. You may obtain further information including the
affected gearbox serial number list by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Thielert Aircraft Engines has issued Service Bulletin TM TAE 125-
1015 P1, Initial Issue, dated April 27, 2012. The actions described in
this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by Germany and is approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement
with Germany, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI and

service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design. The proposed AD would require inspection of the
oil filler plug vent hole at the next scheduled maintenance or within
110 flight hours after the effective date of this AD. If chips are
found to be blocking the vent hole, additional corrective action is
required before next flight.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 45 engines
installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would
take about 2.5 work-hours per product to comply with this proposed AD.
The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $30 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $10,913.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Thielert Aircraft Engines: Docket No. FAA-2012-0885; Directorate
Identifier 2012-NE-18-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 30, 2012.

(b) Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all TAE 125-09-99 and TAE 125-02-114
reciprocating engines.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by an in-flight shutdown of an airplane
equipped with an TAE 125-02-99 engine. We are issuing this AD to
prevent engine in-flight shutdown or power loss, possibly resulting
in reduced control of the airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, within 110 flight hours after the effective
date of this AD, or at the next scheduled maintenance, do the
following.
    (1) Remove the oil filler plug and check for chips blocking the
vent hole in accordance with TAE Service Bulletin (S/B) TM TAE 125-
1015 P1, Initial Issue, dated April 27, 2012.
    (2) If chips are found during the inspection in paragraph (e)(1)
of this AD, disassemble the gearbox and check the radial shaft
sealing rings (at the clutch and the propeller shaft) for leakage.
If leakage is noted, replace the gearbox before the next flight.

(f) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install a gearbox
with an S/N listed in TAE S/B TM TAE 125-1015, Initial Issued, dated
April 27, 2012, into any engine unless the oil filler plug has
passed the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Frederick Zink,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(781) 238-7199.
    (2) Refer to MCAI Airworthiness Directive No. 2012-0112, dated
June 22, 2012, and TAE S/B TM TAE 125-1015 P1, Initial Issue, dated
April 27, 2012 for related information.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14 D-09350,
Lichtenstein, Germany, telephone: +49-37204-696-0; fax: +49-37204-
696-2912; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review copies
of the referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7125.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 24, 2012.
Robert G. Mann,
Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-21524 Filed 8-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P