[Federal Register: May 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 88)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21533-21544]
[DOCID:fr08my09-1]

========================================================================
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.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28250, SFAR No. 109]
RIN 2120-A161

Special Requirements for Private Use Transport Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This special federal aviation regulation (SFAR) amends the
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes by adding new
cabin interior criteria for operators of private use, not for hire, not
for common carriage airplanes. These standards may be used instead of
the specific requirements that affect transport category airplanes
operated by air carriers. These standards supplement the requirements
for operation under the air traffic and general operating rules. This
SFAR provides alternative criteria for transport category airplanes
that are operated for private use while continuing to provide an
acceptable level of safety for those operations.

DATES: These amendments become effective June 8, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this SFAR, contact Alan Sinclair, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch
(ANM-115), Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions concerning this final rule,
contact Douglas Anderson, Office of Regional Council (ANM-7), 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<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 promoting
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum
standards required in the interest of safety for the design and
performance of aircraft; regulations and minimum standards in the
interest of aviation safety for inspecting, servicing, and overhauling
aircraft; and regulations for other practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for safety of air commerce. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority because it
prescribes--
     New safety standards for the design of transport category
airplanes; and
     New requirements necessary for safety for the design,
production, operation and maintenance of those airplanes.

Background

    Transport category airplanes are required to comply with the
standards of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 to
be eligible for a type certificate (TC) in this category. To the extent
considered appropriate for safety, part 25 requirements contain
different provisions based on passenger capacity discriminants. These
requirements do not distinguish between airplanes operated in air
carrier service and airplanes operated for private use.
    Aviation industry representatives have stated that the part 25
standards are written with only air carrier operation in mind, and have
questioned whether the one level of airworthiness requirements for
transport category airplanes is, in fact, appropriate for all types of
operation. This SFAR addresses airworthiness standards related to cabin
interiors for transport category airplanes in private use passenger
operation. It provides new cabin interior criteria for operators of
private use airplanes. These standards may be used as an alternative to
specific requirements that affect transport category airplanes under
the air traffic and general operating rules. This SFAR provides an
acceptable level of safety for those operations.
    No cost is associated with this SFAR, which is a voluntary
alternative means for certificating the cabin of transport category
private use airplanes. People who choose to use these alternative means
may incur minor incremental costs for more fire extinguishers, cooktop
design criteria, and a potential cost for a flight attendant, compared
to the existing cabin certification method. The established potential
benefit of this SFAR is time and cost savings for the cabin
certification process.
    With limited exception, the type certification (TC) requirements
for transport category airplanes have historically been separate from,
and independent of, operational standards. That is, the TC requirements
do not consider the type of operation intended for the airplane. Title
14 CFR 91.501(b) describes operational requirements for large and
turbine powered multi-engine airplanes not required to be operated
under 14 CFR parts 121 and 135.
    The aviation industry asked the FAA to consider differentiating
between the airworthiness requirements related to cabin interiors for
different types of operation. Title 49 United States Code (49 U.S.C.
44701(d)) directs the FAA to consider differences between air
transportation and other air commerce. This provision does not require
the FAA to adopt regulations that always provide a higher level of
safety for air carriers than for other operations. It does, however,
establish the principle that our regulations should set a higher level
of safety for air carriers whenever appropriate.

Summary of the NPRM

    On July 13, 2007, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Notice No. 07-13, entitled
``Special Requirements for Private Use Transport Category Airplanes''
(72 FR 38732). That NPRM is the basis for this final rule.
    In the NPRM, we proposed to amend the airworthiness standards for
transport category airplanes by adding new cabin interior criteria for
operators of private use airplanes. These

standards may be used instead of the specific requirements that affect
transport category airplanes operated by air carriers. They would
supplement the requirements for operation under the air traffic and
general operating rules. The NPRM was intended to provide alternative
criteria for transport category airplanes that are operated for private
use, while continuing to provide an acceptable level of safety for
those operations.
    Amendments 25-127 and 121-341, Security Related Considerations in
the Design and Operation of Transport Category Airplanes (73 FR 6386,
October 28, 2008), is not applicable to airplanes operated for private
use. Although we specifically sought input on this subject, we received
no comments on it. We subsequently published the NPRM for this
rulemaking, which proposed certain alternative requirements for private
use airplanes, but did not include the security requirements. In this
SFAR we determine that the requirements of Sec.  25.795, for security
considerations, are not intended to apply to airplanes operated for
private use.
    The NPRM contains additional background and rationale for this
rulemaking and, except where we have made revisions in this SFAR,
should be referred to for that information.

Summary of Comments

    The FAA received 116 comments from 14 commenters. All of the
commenters generally support the proposed changes. Comments include
suggested changes, more fully described in the discussion below.
    The FAA received comments on the following general areas of the
proposal:
     General Operations/Part 135 Crossover Operations.
     60 Passenger Upper Limit.
     Flight Attendant Requirement.
     Pre-flight Briefing.
     Operations Placard.
     Equipment and Design General.
     Firm Handholds.
     Occupant Protection/Side-Facing Seats Criteria.
     Direct View.
     Distance Between Exits, Exit Deactivation, and 60-Foot
Rule.
     Emergency Exit Signs.
     Emergency Lighting.
     Interior Doors.
     Width of Aisle.
     Materials for Compartment Interiors.
     Fire Detection.
     Cooktop Requirements.
     Hand-Held Fire Extinguishers.
     Design for Security.
     Other Subjects.

Discussion of the Final Rule

General Operations/Part 135 Crossover Operations

    This SFAR was written to address transport category airplanes
operated in private use, not for hire, not for common carriage. As
discussed in the NPRM, private use operations differ significantly from
air carrier operations. Typically, private use operations have lower
passenger capacities and different demands for passenger amenities and
functionality. This is why different standards can apply to the same
airplane type, depending on how it is operated.
    Several commenters, including General Aviation Manufacturing
Association (GAMA), Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier and the International
Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industries Associations (ICCAIA),
requested that airplanes approved using the SFAR be allowed to operate
under part 135. These commenters cited several reasons for this
request, including the ability to offset costs by allowing the airplane
to generate revenue. Some commenters proposed that certain provisions
of the SFAR should not be carried into part 135 operations, but others
should.
    This SFAR permits design features--such as the installation of
interior doors and reduced flammability standards--that would make
airplanes approved under this SFAR non-compliant with part 135
requirements. The limitation on the type of operation permitted under
this SFAR is consistent with the NPRM and has not been changed.
    As discussed in the NPRM, Title 49 United States Code (49 U.S.C.
44701(d)) directs the FAA to consider differences between air
transportation and other air commerce. This provision establishes the
principle that our regulations should set a higher level of safety for
air carriers whenever appropriate. The airworthiness standards for
operation under part 135 are already established and, before this SFAR
is adopted, were effectively the same as for private use. This SFAR
creates a standard focused on private use, not for hire, not for common
carriage operation which did not previously exist. Extending the
provisions of the SFAR to part 135 is both beyond the scope of the
proposed rule, and not in keeping with the statutory mandate. The fare-
paying flying public expects the same level of safety regardless of
which airplane they are flying on. Persons flying on airplanes approved
using the SFAR typically have more knowledge, familiarity, and choice
in doing so. Since an airplane approved under the SFAR would not meet
all of the minimum requirements of parts 25 and 135, allowing operation
in part 135 would additionally create an uneven playing field for those
airplanes that have been certificated to meet the full requirements of
parts 25 and 135. This SFAR will not allow airplanes to operate under
part 135 that do not meet all applicable requirements of part 135.
    However, it does not prohibit operation in part 135, provided the
aircraft meets all the existing requirements of that part. Some
airworthiness standards of part 25, for which this SFAR grants relief,
are not required for airplanes operated under part 135 (that is, part
135 also allows operation of airplanes meeting the standards of part
23, which in some cases are less stringent than part 25).
    As noted above, some commenters suggested that the provisions of
the SFAR be identified as acceptable for part 135 operation, or not.
These commenters also suggested that the applicant identify the
modifications required in order for the airplane to be eligible for
part 135 operation. We agree that the operator should be made aware of
what is necessary in order to operate in part 135. In order for an
operator to switch from private use to part 135 operations, limitations
would be needed to identify necessary changes to meet the additional
part 135 requirements (see Table 1). For example, doors that may be
closed for private use would have to be disabled and secured open for
part 135 operations. A new paragraph 2(g) has been added to clarify
this issue.
    If the possibility exists that the airplane may be placed in part
135 or part 121 service, we recommend that the Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM) be modified to include those areas that would need to be
addressed before the airplane would be permitted in part 135
operations. For example, interior doors must be deactivated and locked
out such that a maintenance action will be required to reactivate the
door. Following is a table identifying the alternative airworthiness
standards allowed under this SFAR and whether they are acceptable for
operations under part 135.

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           SFAR provision                     Acceptable in 135?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4(a) Firm Handhold..................  No.
4(b) Side-facing Seats..............  Yes, for single place seats only.
5. Direct View......................  No.
6. Passenger Information Signs......  Yes.
7. Distance Between Exits...........  No.
8. Emergency Exit Signs.............  Yes.
9(a) Emergency Lighting.............  No.
9(b) Floor Proximity Escape Path      Yes.
 Markings.
9(c) Transverse Separation of the     No.
 Fuselage.
10.(a)-(f) Interior Doors...........  No.
11. Width of Aisles.................  No.
12. Materials for Compartment         No.
 Interiors.
13. Fire Detection..................  Yes.
14. Cooktops........................  Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

60-Passenger Upper Limit

    Paragraph 2(a) of the SFAR restricts the maximum passenger count to
60, as proposed in the NPRM. The majority of the commenters requested
that no upper limit be placed on the maximum number of passengers
allowed. As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA concluded that a passenger
capacity limit was necessary, considering the number of modifications
to the certification standards this SFAR permits. As the number of
passengers increases, and the complexity of the interior increases as
allowed by the SFAR, it is more difficult to predict safety issues that
can arise and not be accounted for in standardized evacuation
demonstrations. The larger airplanes operated in private use (e.g.,
Boeing 737, Airbus A320) have an average passenger seating
configuration of 25. As the passenger count increases beyond 60, the
complexity of the interior takes the airplane outside the intended
scope of the SFAR and more FAA oversight is required to ensure that an
appropriate level of safety is maintained.
    While the FAA has approved private use airplanes with passenger
capacities greater than 60, these are the exception. In those cases
there are generally additional safety issues regarding evacuation, fire
protection and project-specific installations. Because of that, we
would need to evaluate such configurations on an individual basis to
determine whether exemptions or special conditions are appropriate. The
60-passenger limitation in this SFAR would not preclude certification
of these larger airplanes, but it would enable us to evaluate these
issues and impose additional requirements necessary for safety.
Therefore, the FAA is adopting this limitation as proposed.
    Bombardier commented that airplanes sometimes have more seats than
passengers, and not all seats are usable for takeoff and landing. In
this case, they question how the SFAR will be applied. To clarify, the
60-passenger limit in the SFAR applies to the actual passenger capacity
of the specific airplane. If extra passenger seats are installed and
are accessible to passengers, then design considerations must be
addressed. If the seats are not appropriate for occupancy during taxi,
takeoff and landing, e.g., do not meet the strength requirements of
Sec.  25.561 or, if applicable, Sec.  25.562, then each such seat must
be clearly marked that it is not to be occupied during taxi, takeoff
and landing. Such marking may be in the form of a placard mounted at a
suitable location easily readable by any approaching passenger. If the
seats could be occupied during taxi, takeoff and landing, i.e., they
meet all the applicable strength and human injury criteria, then there
must be a limitation in the Limitations Section of the Airplane Flight
Manual to note that although there are more than 60 seats installed, no
more than 60 passengers may be on the airplane. Additionally, as a
continuous reminder to crew and passengers, placards must be installed
at each door that can be used to board passengers, stating that the
maximum passenger capacity is 60. The placards must be designed and
located such that they are clearly legible to passengers entering
through the door. The rule text has been revised to clarify the
requirements should extra passenger seats be installed.

Flight Attendant Requirement

    Paragraph 2(b)(2) of the SFAR requires at least one flight
attendant for those airplanes that were initially type certified with
75 or more passengers and have interior doors irrespective of the
seating capacity of the airplane in private use. The NPRM proposed that
a flight attendant be required when interior doors are installed, for
passenger seating arrangements of 10-50.\1\ The majority of the
commenters objected to the ten-passenger criterion and noted that none
of the current FAA exemptions issued for doors between passenger
compartments require a flight attendant. The commenters requested that
the FAA withdraw the flight attendant requirement and simply rely on
the requirements currently listed in Sec.  91.533. The proposed
requirement would have effectively lowered the threshold for a required
flight attendant from 20 (as specified in Sec.  91.533) to 10. Based on
the comments received and after further consideration, we agree that
this is overly stringent and not in keeping with past practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Paragraph 2(b) of the NPRM also proposed to require two
flight attendants for airplanes with passenger capacities exceeding
50. We received no comments on this proposal, and paragraph 2(b)(1)
contains this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The intent of the proposed requirement was to address the
additional complexity in monitoring interior configurations with
partitioned and isolated occupant compartments. This in turn is
predicated on the original capacity of the airplane and, by
association, its size. We have reviewed this issue in more detail and
have revised the SFAR to limit the flight attendant requirement to
those airplanes originally type certificated with relatively large
maximum seating capacities, i.e., 75 or more passengers. For smaller
airplanes, the requirements in Sec.  91.533 are acceptable because the
cabins are smaller and typically less complex than those being
installed in the large transport airplanes. As a result, it is less
likely that someone will become trapped or lost during an emergency
evacuation, and there is less

need to have a flight attendant. The criterion of 75 or more passengers
demarcates the large commercial jets from the small to medium regional
and business jets where interior configurations are likely to be less
complex. Therefore, the SFAR has been revised to restrict the
additional requirement for at least one flight attendant to those
airplane types whose original maximum type certificated passenger
capacity is 75 or more.

Pre-Flight Briefing

    Paragraph 2(c) of the SFAR requires that the AFM include a
limitation requiring passenger briefing on the relevant airplane
features specifically required to comply with the SFAR. As proposed,
the requirement would have applied directly to an operator. Bombardier,
Embraer and ICCAIA commented that, to be consistent, the SFAR should
impose a requirement on the applicant for a TC. We agree and paragraph
2(c) is revised to require an AFM limitation. They also commented that,
as proposed, the briefing requirement was open to very broad
interpretation, and could be taken to require a briefing on every
aspect of the SFAR. They recommend that the briefing be limited to only
those features the passengers need to be aware of to maintain the
intended level of safety, such as frangible features in interior doors,
or moving seats to their intended position for taxi, takeoff and
landing. We agree and the SFAR has been revised to reflect this intent.

Operations Placard

    Paragraph 2(e) of the SFAR requires a placard stating: ``Operations
involving the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire
are prohibited,'' to be located in the area around the airworthiness
certificate holder at the entrance to the cockpit. Paragraph 2(d) of
the SFAR requires the same limitation to be included in the AFM. These
restrictions have not changed from the NPRM; however, the location of
the placard has been revised from the proposal that it be ``located in
conspicuous view of the pilot-in-command.'' Airbus, Bombardier, ICCAIA,
and Fokker Services requested that the placard requirement be removed.
They state that a placard installation is not directly related to
airplane safety and that a competing number of placards are already
installed, for which the information value is questionable. They
believe an AFM limitation is sufficient, since the crew is required to
follow the AFM when operating. While it is certainly true that the crew
is required to follow the AFM, an AFM limitation is not conspicuous.
The proposed placard requirement was intended to be a conspicuous
notification regarding the limitations on the type of operations
permitted for the airplane. However, we have reconsidered the location
of the placard installation. Based on the input from the commenters, we
agree that the instrument panel would not be an appropriate place to
locate this placard. The area around the airworthiness certificate
holder at the entrance to the flightdeck is deemed the most appropriate
location, and we revised the SFAR to relocate the placard to this area.

Evacuation Analysis

    Paragraph 2(f) of the SFAR requires an evacuation analysis for
airplanes with a passenger capacity of 45-60, which is in keeping with
current Sec.  25.803. There were no comments on this proposal, and it
is adopted as proposed.

Equipment and Design General

    A number of commenters appeared to be confused about the
applicability of the SFAR, its effect on the certification basis of the
airplane, and when to follow the SFAR instead of existing rules. The
specific issues are discussed with the topic they apply to below.
However, as a general matter, the SFAR is intended to modify existing
rules that are part of the certification basis of the airplane to
facilitate operation in private use. It does not intend to address
rules not already in their certification basis. Paragraph 3 of the SFAR
was revised to clarify this and to specify that applicants must take
into account the certification basis of their specific airplane when
utilizing this SFAR.

Firm Handholds

    Paragraph 4(a) of the SFAR grants relief from Sec.  25.785(j),
which requires a firm handhold along the aisle for people to steady
themselves in moderately rough air, and the SFAR is consistent with the
requirements proposed in the NPRM. It was clear from the comments
submitted that there was some confusion on the intent of this
requirement. Airbus, Bombardier and ICCAIA all commented that the
proposal did not address open spaces, and did not offer guidance on
what ``bordered by seats'' meant, or where handholds would be required
and where they would not.
    The SFAR is intended to limit application of the existing
requirements of Sec.  25.785(j) to those aisles along sidewalls or
between seats. There is no intent to add additional requirements. In
lieu of the requirement for ``firm handholds'' in Sec.  25.785(j), the
SFAR permits the applicant to show compliance if they can demonstrate
that the interior features will allow people to steady themselves while
occupying the airplane's aisles only. The NPRM notes that this
provision has a slight reduction in safety, since only certain aisles
will be required to have the equivalent of a handhold, and that the FAA
has previously granted exemptions for aisles in those areas (such as
bedrooms) when there is no practical design approach. The term
``bordered by seats'' refers to an aisle that has seats along one or
both sides. We agree that the spacing and configuration of seats used
in the affected airplanes may not satisfy the literal requirements of
Sec.  25.785(j). Therefore, we added a provision specifying that the
installation be practicable. Whenever practicable, passengers must have
a means to steady themselves, but only while occupying the airplane's
aisles.

Occupant Protection/Side Facing Seats Criteria

    Paragraph 4(b) of the SFAR was updated to include the current test
requirements for the certification of side-facing seats. The FAA's
policy for side-facing seat certification criteria was updated \2\
during the NPRM process and so the NPRM reflected the out-of-date
policy. Most of the policy changes provided simplified test methods,
and clarifications to the earlier policy. The net effect of the policy
changes was to reduce the number of tests required and simplify design
considerations. A number of the commenters provided extensive comments
requesting that the SFAR be revised to align criteria with current
practice. As mentioned above, this difference in the NPRM and the
current FAA policy was not deliberate, but a result of the differing
administrative process between the two. The intent of the SFAR was
always to adopt the latest FAA policy on this subject. We are revising
the SFAR to reflect the current policy language specified in special
conditions and exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ [Policy Statement No. ANM-03-115-30, available on the
Internet at http://rgl.faa.gov].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bombardier and ICCAIA also commented that side-facing seats should
not be limited to private use. In this case, we agree that single-place
side-facing seats are not limited to private use. The FAA has defined
criteria using special conditions--and now this SFAR--that provide the
same level of safety for occupants of single-place side-facing seats as
that of forward- or aft-facing seats. Therefore, installation of a

single-place side-facing seat using those criteria is acceptable
regardless of operation. However, we have not been able to define
criteria for multiple occupant seats that provide an equivalent level
of safety. These installations have been addressed through exemptions.
While it is true that not all such exemptions have contained a private
use limitation, these installations are generally only found in private
use. As discussed above, this SFAR applies only to airplanes designed
for private use. Any requests for installation of multiple occupant
side-facing seats for other than private use would require a petition
for exemption and must be shown to be in the public interest.

Direct View

    Paragraph 5 of the SFAR requires that the majority of installed
flight attendant seats must face the cabin area for which the flight
attendant is responsible. For example, if only 1 or 2 flight attendant
seats are installed, then each must face the cabin; if 4 flight
attendant seats are installed, then 3 must face the cabin. The NPRM
would have required that all installed flight attendant seats face the
cabin. This change was based on a comment from Airbus, pointing out
that previous FAA exemptions address the majority rather than all
flight attendant seats. Bombardier and Gulfstream evidently interpreted
this provision as requiring installation of flight attendant seats.
They note the difficulty in installing flight attendant seats on small
transport airplanes and question the perceived requirement. There was
some confusion on the intent of this requirement. This section of the
SFAR does not require the installation of flight attendant seats. The
SFAR's intent is that, if there are flight attendant seats installed,
then the majority must be located such that they face the cabin area,
e.g., flight attendant seats should not be aft facing when located at
the aft most exits. To avoid future confusion, the SFAR was revised to
read, ``* * * the majority of installed flight attendant seats must be
located * * *''

Distance Between Exits, Exit Deactivation, and 60-Foot Rule

    Paragraph 7 of the SFAR allows the deactivation of exits to create
a distance of greater than sixty feet between exits, which would not
otherwise be allowed under Sec.  25.807(f)(4). The NPRM proposed
specific criteria that provide an adequate level of passenger safety by
limiting the passenger number and the distance needed to travel to an
exit. These criteria are unchanged from the NPRM. Airbus and ICCAIA
requested that the SFAR be revised to allow more distance between
passengers and an exit, and to permit the deactivation of more exits to
create more than one instance where the distance between exits was
greater than 60 feet. In particular, the commenters questioned the
specific criteria and how they are justified. While noting that the
criteria are likely based on FAA's experience with prior installations
and exemptions, Airbus stated it would like more flexibility.
    The SFAR was written to be consistent with existing FAA policy and
guidance. The intent of the 60-foot rule is to avoid excessive
distances between passengers and their nearest exits under
unpredictable accident conditions. By placing restrictions on how to
create exit-to-exit distance greater than 60 feet, the SFAR maintains
the spirit of the requirement. In developing the proposed criteria, we
assessed many potential configurations on a variety of airplane types.
    The distance criterion in paragraph 7(a) ensures that the intent of
Sec.  25.807(f)(4) is maintained: passengers should not be seated more
than 30 feet from the nearest exit. Given the increased complexity of
private use cabin interiors allowed under this SFAR, and the resulting
increased potential for obstruction, the passenger-capacity limits
specified in paragraphs 7(b) and (c) are necessary to prevent crowding
that would delay evacuation. Finally, paragraph 7(d)--which limits the
use of this allowance to one pair of exits on each side of the
airplane--is necessary to ensure that the airplane as a whole retains
an acceptable emergency exit arrangement.
    While different approaches are possible, the SFAR offers relief
from the 60-foot rule with reasonable limitations, considering the
remaining provisions of the SFAR. No alternative proposals were
provided, so there is no clear justification to change these
requirements or the FAA guidance on this issue. Therefore no change was
made to the SFAR.
    GAMA recommended that the FAA permit reactivation of exits to
enable operation in part 135. The FAA has no restriction on
reactivating exits. However, the applicant would need to determine the
extent of the modification necessary to restore the exit(s) to full
compliance and obtain approval. This is true whether or not the SFAR is
utilized.

Emergency Exit Signs

    Paragraph 8 of the SFAR permits the use of a single exit sign to
meet the requirements of Sec.  25.811(d)(1) and (2). Bombardier and
ICCAIA contended that this provision is not needed in the SFAR since
the regulations do not specifically require two signs. Furthermore,
they noted that the same criteria are proposed to be incorporated in a
revision to Advisory Circular 25-17. Their position is that by
including the provision in the SFAR, there is an implication of non-
compliance, which may complicate validation by foreign airworthiness
authorities. They also noted that the level of safety is not reduced
with this provision.
    We agree that the level of safety using this provision is not
reduced. By including this provision, applicants that elect to use the
SFAR can use the single sign without having to refer to a draft
advisory circular. Its inclusion does not limit its use only to the
SFAR.
    GAMA and Embraer suggested alternative wording to make the
requirement clearer with respect to legibility of the exit signs. They
proposed to include consideration of not only seats, but bulkheads/
dividers when assessing sign legibility, assuming that if there is a
bulkhead, the exit will not be visible from a seat beyond the bulkhead.
They suggested that the rule refer to the farthest seat or bulkhead/
divider, whichever is closer. While we agree that this issue should be
addressed, the focus of this requirement needs to be on the seat
farthest from the exit that must rely on the exit sign. Therefore, we
have revised paragraph 8(b) of the SFAR to read, ``The sign can be read
from the aisle adjacent to the passenger seat that is farthest from the
exit and that does not have an intervening bulkhead/divider or exit.''
For seats beyond such an intervening bulkhead/divider, Sec.
25.811(d)(3), which is still fully applicable to airplanes subject to
this SFAR, requires signage on the bulkhead/divider indicating exit
locations.

Emergency Lighting

    Paragraph 9 of the SFAR effectively raises the threshold for large,
electrically illuminated exit signs from 10 passengers to 20
passengers. It requires that, for airplanes with 19 or fewer
passengers, the emergency exit signs required by Sec.  25.811(d)(1),
(2), and (3) must have red letters at least 1-inch high on a white
background at least 2 inches high. These signs may be internally
electrically illuminated, or self-illuminated by non-electrical means,
with an initial brightness of at least 160 microlamberts. The color may
be reversed for a sign self-illuminated by non-electrical means. These
are the same requirements as proposed in the NPRM. Transport Canada
commented

that the reference to Sec.  25.812(b)(2) should be to Sec.
25.812(b)(1), since it is from this paragraph that relief is provided.
We agree and the SFAR is changed. Based on the comments there was some
confusion regarding whether the signs would be accepted for both parts
91 and part 135 operations. The inclusion of the exit signs in the SFAR
does not prohibit applicants from seeking equivalent level of safety
findings or exemptions which would permit the use of these types of
exit signs in part 135 operation. Therefore no change was made to the
SFAR.

Interior Doors

    Paragraph 10 of the SFAR allows installation of otherwise
prohibited interior doors, provided a number of conditions are met that
will prevent these doors from impeding emergency evacuations. Amendment
25-116, Miscellaneous Cabin Safety Changes (69 FR 62778, October 27,
2004), effective November 26, 2004, changed the requirement for
interior doors in Sec.  25.813(e), such that no interior door can be
installed between any passenger seat (occupiable for taxi takeoff or
landing) and any exit on part 25 airplanes. This replaced a less
stringent requirement that no door could be installed between passenger
compartments and was adopted in recognition of the risk that passengers
may become trapped behind such doors in an emergency evacuation. This
was noted by Transport Canada and ICCAIA, and they requested that the
latest rule be addressed by the SFAR.
    We agree and paragraph 10 of the SFAR has been updated accordingly.
The relief granted is the same as in the NPRM (that is, the SFAR allows
the installation of doors that would otherwise be prohibited). However,
it applies to doors between any passenger seat and any emergency exit,
rather than just to doors between passenger compartments. Without this
revision, current Sec.  25.813(e) would prohibit installation of these
doors.
    Fokker Services questioned the need for laterally translating doors
across longitudinal aisles. They suggest that hinged doors can be
acceptable if the direction of hinging does not impede egress. The FAA
originally established the requirement for laterally translating doors
as a condition of exemptions. Hinged doors, in addition to having their
direction of motion aligned with the most likely impact vectors, also
have the potential to intrude into the cabin to a greater degree than
doors that translate. Since the regulations do not permit doors at all,
this allowance is a change in the level of safety, regardless of the
door type. Hinged doors would further affect the level of safety, such
that we cannot find it acceptable. There is no change to the SFAR on
this point.
    We have added a new paragraph 10(f) to be consistent with the
requirements of Sec.  25.820, which requires that: ``All lavatory doors
must be designed to preclude anyone from becoming trapped inside the
lavatory. If a locking mechanism is installed, it must be capable of
being unlocked from the outside without the aid of special tools.''
This requirement is also consistent with all the exemptions related to
interior doors issued to date. This does not create any new
requirements.

Width of Aisle

    Paragraph 11 of the SFAR has been revised to allow aisle width to
go to 0-inch width during in-flight operations, provided that it can be
demonstrated that all areas of the airplane's cabin are easily
accessible by a crewmember during emergency. The NPRM proposed to
require a minimum aisle of 9-inches in-flight. Several commenters,
including GAMA and ICCAIA, objected to this provision, especially as it
pertains to airplanes that are only required to have a 9-inch aisle for
taxi, takeoff and landing. They noted that this is contrary to current
practice and would result in significant design changes or loss of
passenger capacity. Aero Consulting Services suggested, instead of a
minimum aisle width, a requirement for access along the length of the
cabin would be more appropriate. Commenters cited specific interior
arrangements that would no longer be approvable using the proposed
criteria and indicated that the utility of the SFAR would be greatly
reduced if these criteria are maintained.
    Based on the strong feedback from the commenters, the FAA has
reconsidered the 9-inch in-flight aisle requirement. We agree that a
requirement focused on access along the length of the cabin is more
appropriate in this SFAR, and is consistent with current industry
practice for features such as footrests that protrude into the aisle.
The FAA will only permit the 0-inch aisle width during periods other
than taxi, takeoff and landing, providing the applicant can demonstrate
the ability to access all parts of the cabin during an emergency. The
SFAR was revised accordingly.

Materials for Compartment Interiors

    Paragraph 12 of the SFAR requires compliance with Sec.  25.853,
except that compliance with appendix F, parts IV and V, to part 25 (if
applicable to the airplane) need not be demonstrated, if it can be
shown that the maximum evacuation time for all occupants does not
exceed 45 seconds under the conditions specified in appendix J to part
25. This paragraph has been revised to clarify that only the provisions
of Sec.  25.853 contained in the airplane's certification basis must be
complied with.
    Gulfstream, Fokker Services and Airbus commented on this provision.
The commenters were confused about how the SFAR applied to specific
airplanes and to what degree this superseded existing rules. Gulfstream
interpreted the requirement as applying to airplanes with a seating
capacity of 10 or more, and that these airplanes would now need to show
compliance with evacuation requirements they did not previously have to
meet. In fact, the heat release and smoke emissions requirements only
apply to airplanes with more than 19 seats that have the requirements
of Sec.  25.853(d), at Amendment 116 or equivalent, in their
certification basis. If the airplane's certification basis does not
include heat release and smoke emissions requirements (Sec.  25.853 at
Amendment 25-61), then this paragraph of the SFAR is not applicable.
However, it is correct that airplanes with more than 19 seats that are
otherwise required to comply with heat release and smoke emissions
requirements would have to show a 45-second evacuation time under the
terms of the SFAR. Fokker Services proposed language to explicitly
state that the provision apply only to airplanes with heat release and
smoke emissions requirements. We agree with the intent, and the SFAR
now refers to ``the applicable provisions of Sec.  25.853.''
    Airbus proposed that the evacuation requirement might be met by
analysis only, rather than both analysis and testing. This may be a
matter of semantics, because any evacuation analysis must be based on
tests. However, the test data may be previously generated data,
assuming the airplane has already demonstrated compliance in accordance
with appendix J to part 25; so an analysis that utilizes prior test
data could be acceptable. However, we do not anticipate that an
analysis without any substantiating test data would be acceptable.
    Bombardier also requested that the fire penetration requirements of
Sec.  25.856(b) be excluded from the SFAR for reasons similar to those
granting relief from heat release and smoke emissions requirements.
This is beyond the scope of the NPRM and would require a new public
comment period. In addition, the thermal/acoustic

insulation used to provide fire penetration resistance is less a
customization feature and more inherent in the design of the airplane.
At this time, we do not anticipate granting relief from this
requirement for those airplanes already required to comply.

Fire Detection

    Paragraph 13 of the SFAR requires that, for airplanes with a type
certificated passenger capacity of 20 or more, there must be means that
meet the requirements of Sec.  25.858(a) through (d) to signal the
flightcrew in the event of a fire in any isolated room not occupiable
for taxi, takeoff and landing, which can be closed off from the rest of
the cabin by a door. This requirement is unchanged from the NPRM except
that we have added the passenger capacity discriminant.
    Aero Consulting Services, Bombardier, Gulfstream, Transport Canada
and ICCAIA all interpreted this provision as requiring fire detectors
in lavatories. The commenters requested that the SFAR be revised to
remove the requirement. The SFAR does not require the addition of smoke
detectors in lavatories for airplanes if this is not already a
requirement of their certification basis. Section 25.854, which applies
to airplanes with a passenger capacity of 20 or more, already
adequately defines the certification requirements for lavatories and
smoke detectors. The SFAR was intended to address those areas on these
same airplanes that are not accounted for in part 25 (e.g., staterooms,
offices, conference rooms) and only if they are not occupied during
taxi, takeoff and landing. This paragraph requires that fire detectors
be installed in those areas. Paragraph 13 was also revised to include a
statement regarding the applicability of Sec.  25.854 to lavatories.

Cooktop Requirements

    Paragraph 14 of the SFAR requires that each cooktop must be
designed and installed to minimize any potential threat to the
airplane, passengers, and crew as outlined in the criteria. This
paragraph is unchanged from the NPRM, except for the format. In the
NPRM the criteria were shown in an appendix to the SFAR. In this SFAR
it appears as part of the rule text. Airbus and ICCAIA requested that
the criteria be simplified. However, they did not propose alternative
criteria that would justify changing these requirements. The cooktop
requirements listed in the SFAR are consistent with the numerous
existing special conditions.

Hand-Held Fire Extinguishers

    In addition to the requirements of Sec.  25.851 for hand-held fire
extinguishers, paragraph 15 of the NPRM would have required a fire
extinguisher be installed for every pair of exits originally type
certificated in the passenger cabin, regardless of whether the exits
are deactivated for the proposed configuration. As a result of the
comments received, as discussed below, only airplanes originally type
certificated with more than 60 passengers need to comply with this
requirement. The NPRM also proposed that a fire extinguisher be
installed at every pair of exits originally type certified in the
passenger cabin, but did not include the 60 passenger discriminator.
    Gulfstream requested removal of this section because it would add
cost and weight, based on the number of exit pairs on Gulfstream
airplanes. Airbus, Fokker, Bombardier and ICCAIA proposed alternative
wording to reflect their understanding of this provision. All commented
that the language of the SFAR implied that these provisions were added
to the requirements already contained in Sec.  25.851. They also
suggested that the installation requirements should not specify the
location of the extinguishers at exits, but should be general, based on
the number of exits originally certificated. The commenters requested
that the SFAR be revised to clarify the quantity required and the
placement locations.
    We agree that the SFAR as proposed could have unintended
consequences, and be burdensome to operators and manufacturers of
transport airplanes. The intent of the SFAR was to ensure that there
would be an adequate number of fire extinguishers installed on board
``large'' transport airplanes and that the fire extinguishers would be
evenly distributed throughout the cabin. The current certification
requirements are based on passenger capacity, so the larger airplanes
with greatly reduced passenger counts are not adequately addressed in
part 25. Thus, there is a need for additional criteria for installation
of fire extinguishers.
    Based on the comments, we have revised the SFAR to limit by size
the airplanes affected and to be more flexible, both in terms of
installation location, and the way the total number of extinguishers is
determined. This addresses the concerns expressed by Gulfstream
regarding the effect on transport airplanes, as well as other comments
suggesting revised wording to be more general. We have made it clear
that the number of extinguishers is the greater of those required by
Sec.  25.851, or the number of originally certificated exit pairs. In
addition, this requirement is now based on an originally certificated
passenger count of greater than 60, since this is a significant break
point in Sec.  25.851 in terms of the number of extinguishers required.
Other provisions of Sec.  25.851 continue to apply.

Design for Security

    Since publication of Notice No. 07-13, the FAA has issued Amendment
25-127, which addresses security considerations in the design of
transport category airplanes. This amendment is intended to mitigate
through design measures some of the security risks faced in aviation.
As discussed in Amendment 25-127, and the NPRM that preceded it, these
requirements do not provide the same benefits for airplanes in private
use. In Amendment 25-127 we noted that this SFAR would exclude the
``design for security'' requirements for that reason. Therefore, a new
paragraph 16 is added to the SFAR, that excludes newly adopted Sec.
25.795 for airplanes approved in accordance with this SFAR.

Other Subjects

    Gulfstream expressed their desire that this rulemaking be
harmonized with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) rulemaking
initiatives, and suggests that a harmonization effort be started. They
noted that such harmonization helps minimize certification costs. We
have kept EASA apprised of this rulemaking and will continue to do so.
We agree that, whenever possible, harmonized requirements benefit all
parties. At this time, however, there are no formal harmonization
initiatives on this subject. We will work with EASA and other
authorities to assist with any rulemaking they choose to promulgate.
    Boeing proposed that part 91 be amended to prohibit operations for
hire, rather than requiring a limitation in the AFM. An amendment to
part 91 is beyond the scope of the NPRM, and is more far-reaching than
the limitation included in this SFAR. The AFM limitation is consistent
with other limitations on operation and addresses the specific
regulatory provisions modified by this SFAR.
    Boeing and ICCAIA suggested that a new section be written to
address the use of glass in the cabin, for features such as partitions
panels. This use of glass is uncommon and not a longstanding practice.
In any case, criteria for approval of glass panels in the cabin is
beyond the scope of the NPRM, and would require a separate

notice and comment to establish criteria.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5
CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the
collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection
requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control number for this information collection will be
published in the Federal Register, after Office of Management and
Budget approval.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
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.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 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, this 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 SFAR.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it 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 SFAR. The reasoning for
this determination follows:
    This SFAR establishes FAA rulemaking requirements for certifying
cabin interiors for transport category private use airplanes. These
requirements are voluntary and may be used instead of the existing
requirements that are primarily designed for airplanes used in
scheduled airline service. The purpose of the rule is to reduce time
and costs for people certifying cabins for transport category private
use airplanes. The regulatory evaluation prepared for the NPRM
indicated that a typical certification under this SFAR might save the
airplane purchaser four months and $725,000 per exemption, compared to
existing certification procedures. The completion center would accrue
savings of approximately $100,000 per airplane per exemption, and the
FAA would accrue savings of approximately $6,000 per airplane per
exemption. This results in approximately $725,000 plus $100,000 plus
$6,000 in savings, for a total of $831,000 per airplane per exemption.
    No comments were received on the NPRM regulatory summary statement.
However, changes were made to the proposed rule as a result of comments
received on the NPRM that affected the regulatory summary statement.
These changes provided even more cost relief than those identified for
the proposed rule.
    From an economic standpoint, the most important changes were:
    1. Flight Attendant Requirement. This SFAR requires a flight
attendant only for those airplanes with interior doors that were
initially type certificated with 75 or more passengers. The NPRM
proposed that a flight attendant be required when interior doors are
installed for passenger seating arrangements of 10 or more.
    2. Operation of an airplane certified in accordance with this SFAR
in part 135 service is not prohibited by this SFAR, provided that the
airplane meets all part 135 requirements when operated under part 135.
    The expected outcome of this SFAR will be a minimal economic impact
with positive net benefits. Therefore, a full regulatory evaluation was
not prepared.
    FAA has, therefore, determined that this SFAR is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    The NPRM concluded that the proposal would have no adverse impact
on small business entities. As in the case of the NPRM, this SFAR
provides a voluntary alternate means of certifying the cabin interior
for private use transport category airplanes. No comments were received
on the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in the NPRM. Therefore, as the
acting FAA Administrator, I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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 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 SFAR and notes the rule is
voluntary and cost-relieving, thus is not considered an unnecessary
obstacle to trade.

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 $136.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This SFAR does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this SFAR under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will
not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship
between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the FAA, when modifying its regulations in a manner
affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent to
which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation,
and to establish appropriate regulatory distinction. In the NPRM, we
requested comments on whether the proposed rule should apply
differently to intrastate operations in Alaska. We did not receive any
comments, and we have determined, based on the administrative record of
this rulemaking, that there is no need to make any regulatory
distinctions applicable to intrastate aviation in Alaska.

Environmental Analysis

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

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this SFAR under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using 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.
    You can also get a copy 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>. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS--TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

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

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

0
2. In part 25, add SFAR No.109 to read as follows:

Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 109

    1. Applicability. Contrary provisions of 14 CFR parts 21, 25, and
119 of this chapter notwithstanding, an applicant is entitled to an
amended type certificate or supplemental type certificate in the
transport category, if the applicant complies with all applicable
provisions of this SFAR.

Operations

    2. General.
    (a) The passenger capacity may not exceed 60. If more than 60
passenger seats are installed, then:
    (1) If the extra seats are not suitable for occupancy during taxi,
takeoff and landing, each extra seat must be clearly marked (e.g., a
placard on the top of an armrest, or a placard sewn into the top of the
back cushion) that the seat is not to be occupied during taxi, takeoff
and landing.
    (2) If the extra seats are suitable for occupancy during taxi,
takeoff and landing (i.e., meet all the strength and passenger injury
criteria in part 25), then a note must be included in the Limitations
Section of the Airplane Flight Manual that there are extra seats
installed but that the number of passengers on the airplane must not
exceed 60. Additionally, there must be a placard installed adjacent to
each door

that can be used as a passenger boarding door that states that the
maximum passenger capacity is 60. The placard must be clearly legible
to passengers entering the airplane.
    (b) For airplanes outfitted with interior doors under paragraph 10
of this SFAR, the airplane flight manual (AFM) must include an
appropriate limitation that the airplane must be staffed with at least
the following number of flight attendants who meet the requirements of
14 CFR 91.533(b):
    (1) The number of flight attendants required by Sec.  91.533(a)(1)
and (2) of this chapter, and
    (2) At least one flight attendant if the airplane model was
originally certified for 75 passengers or more.
    (c) The AFM must include appropriate limitation(s) to require a
preflight passenger briefing describing the appropriate functions to be
performed by the passengers and the relevant features of the airplane
to ensure the safety of the passengers and crew.
    (d) The airplane may not be offered for common carriage or operated
for hire. The operating limitations section of the AFM must be revised
to prohibit any operations involving the carriage of persons or
property for compensation or hire. The operators may receive
remuneration to the extent consistent with parts 125 and 91, subpart F,
of this chapter.
    (e) A placard stating that ``Operations involving the carriage of
persons or property for compensation or hire are prohibited,'' must be
located in the area of the Airworthiness Certificate holder at the
entrance to the flightdeck.
    (f) For passenger capacities of 45 to 60 passengers, analysis must
be submitted that demonstrates that the airplane can be evacuated in
less than 90 seconds under the conditions specified in Sec.  25.803 and
appendix J to part 25.
    (g) In order for any airplane certified under this SFAR to be
placed in part 135 or part 121 operations, the airplane must be brought
back into full compliance with the applicable operational part.

Equipment and Design

    3. General. Unless otherwise noted, compliance is required with the
applicable certification basis for the airplane. Some provisions of
this SFAR impose alternative requirements to certain airworthiness
standards that do not apply to airplanes certificated to earlier
standards. Those airplanes with an earlier certification basis are not
required to comply with those alternative requirements.
    4. Occupant Protection.
    (a) Firm Handhold. In lieu of the requirements of Sec.  25.785(j),
there must be means provided to enable persons to steady themselves in
moderately rough air while occupying aisles that are along the cabin
sidewall, or where practicable, bordered by seats (seat backs providing
a 25-pound minimum breakaway force are an acceptable means of
compliance).
    (b) Injury criteria for multiple occupancy side-facing seats. The
following requirements are only applicable to airplanes that are
subject to Sec.  25.562.
    (1) Existing Criteria. All injury protection criteria of Sec.
25.562(c)(1) through (c)(6) apply to the occupants of side-facing
seating. The Head Injury Criterion (HIC) assessments are only required
for head contact with the seat and/or adjacent structures.
    (2) Body-to-Body Contact. Contact between the head, pelvis, torso
or shoulder area of one Anthropomorphic Test Dummy (ATD) with the head,
pelvis, torso or shoulder area of the ATD in the adjacent seat is not
allowed during the tests conducted in accordance with Sec.
25.562(b)(1) and (b)(2). Contact during rebound is allowed.
    (3) Thoracic Trauma. If the torso of an ATD at the forward-most
seat place impacts the seat and/or adjacent structure during testing,
compliance with the Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) injury criterion must
be substantiated by dynamic test or by rational analysis based on
previous test(s) of a similar seat installation. TTI data must be
acquired with a Side Impact Dummy (SID), as defined by 49 CFR part 572,
subpart F, or an equivalent ATD or a more appropriate ATD and must be
processed as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)
part 571.214, section S6.13.5 (49 CFR 571.214). The TTI must be less
than 85, as defined in 49 CFR part 572, subpart F. Torso contact during
rebound is acceptable and need not be measured.
    (4) Pelvis. If the pelvis of an ATD at any seat place impacts seat
and/or adjacent structure during testing, pelvic lateral acceleration
injury criteria must be substantiated by dynamic test or by rational
analysis based on previous test(s) of a similar seat installation.
Pelvic lateral acceleration may not exceed 130g. Pelvic acceleration
data must be processed as defined in FMVSS part 571.214, section
S6.13.5 (49 CFR 571.214).
    (5) Body-to-Wall/Furnishing Contact. If the seat is installed aft
of a structure--such as an interior wall or furnishing that may contact
the pelvis, upper arm, chest, or head of an occupant seated next to the
structure--the structure or a conservative representation of the
structure and its stiffness must be included in the tests. It is
recommended, but not required, that the contact surface of the actual
structure be covered with at least two inches of energy absorbing
protective padding (foam or equivalent) such as Ensolite.
    (6) Shoulder Strap Loads. Where upper torso straps (shoulder
straps) are used for sofa occupants, the tension loads in individual
straps may not exceed 1,750 pounds. If dual straps are used for
restraining the upper torso, the total strap tension loads may not
exceed 2,000 pounds.
    (7) Occupant Retention. All side-facing seats require end closures
or other means to prevent the ATD's pelvis from translating beyond the
end of the seat at any time during testing.
    (8) Test Parameters.
    (i) All seat positions need to be occupied by ATDs for the
longitudinal tests.
    (ii) A minimum of one longitudinal test, conducted in accordance
with the conditions specified in Sec.  25.562(b)(2), is required to
assess the injury criteria as follows. Note that if a seat is installed
aft of structure (such as an interior wall or furnishing) that does not
have a homogeneous surface, an additional test or tests may be required
to demonstrate that the injury criteria are met for the area which an
occupant could contact. For example, different yaw angles could result
in different injury considerations and may require separate tests to
evaluate.
    (A) For configurations without structure (such as a wall or
bulkhead) installed directly forward of the forward seat place, Hybrid
II ATDs or equivalent must be in all seat places.
    (B) For configurations with structure (such as a wall or bulkhead)
installed directly forward of the forward seat place, a side impact
dummy or equivalent ATD or more appropriate ATD must be in the forward
seat place and a Hybrid II ATD or equivalent must be in all other seat
places.
    (C) The test may be conducted with or without deformed floor.
    (D) The test must be conducted with either no yaw or 10 degrees yaw
for evaluating occupant injury. Deviating from the no yaw condition may
not result in the critical area of contact not being evaluated. The
upper torso restraint straps, where installed, must remain on the
occupant's shoulder during the impact condition of Sec.  25.562(b)(2).
    (c) For the vertical test, conducted in accordance with the
conditions specified in Sec.  25.562(b)(1), Hybrid II

ATDs or equivalent must be used in all seat positions.
    5. Direct View. In lieu of the requirements of Sec.  25.785(h)(2),
to the extent practical without compromising proximity to a required
floor level emergency exit, the majority of installed flight attendant
seats must be located to face the cabin area for which the flight
attendant is responsible.
    6. Passenger Information Signs. Compliance with Sec.  25.791 is
required except that for Sec.  25.791(a), when smoking is to be
prohibited, notification to the passengers may be provided by a single
placard so stating, to be conspicuously located inside the passenger
compartment, easily visible to all persons entering the cabin in the
immediate vicinity of each passenger entry door.
    7. Distance Between Exits. For an airplane that is required to
comply with Sec.  25.807(f)(4), in effect as of July 24, 1989, which
has more than one passenger emergency exit on each side of the
fuselage, no passenger emergency exit may be more than 60 feet from any
adjacent passenger emergency exit on the same side of the same deck of
the fuselage, as measured parallel to the airplane's longitudinal axis
between the nearest exit edges, unless the following conditions are
met:
    (a) Each passenger seat must be located within 30 feet from the
nearest exit on each side of the fuselage, as measured parallel to the
airplane's longitudinal axis, between the nearest exit edge and the
front of the seat bottom cushion.
    (b) The number of passenger seats located between two adjacent
pairs of emergency exits (commonly referred to as a passenger zone) or
between a pair of exits and a bulkhead or a compartment door (commonly
referred to as a ``dead-end zone''), may not exceed the following:
    (1) For zones between two pairs of exits, 50 percent of the
combined rated capacity of the two pairs of emergency exits.
    (2) For zones between one pair of exits and a bulkhead, 40 percent
of the rated capacity of the pair of emergency exits.
    (c) The total number of passenger seats in the airplane may not
exceed 33 percent of the maximum seating capacity for the airplane
model using the exit ratings listed in Sec.  25.807(g) for the original
certified exits or the maximum allowable after modification when exits
are deactivated, whichever is less.
    (d) A distance of more than 60 feet between adjacent passenger
emergency exits on the same side of the same deck of the fuselage, as
measured parallel to the airplane's longitudinal axis between the
nearest exit edges, is allowed only once on each side of the fuselage.
    8. Emergency Exit Signs. In lieu of the requirements of Sec.
25.811(d)(1) and (2) a single sign at each exit may be installed
provided:
    (a) The sign can be read from the aisle while directly facing the
exit, and
    (b) The sign can be read from the aisle adjacent to the passenger
seat that is farthest from the exit and that does not have an
intervening bulkhead/divider or exit.
    9. Emergency Lighting.
    (a) Exit Signs. In lieu of the requirements of Sec.  25.812(b)(1),
for airplanes that have a passenger seating configuration, excluding
pilot seats, of 19 seats or less, the emergency exit signs required by
Sec.  25.811(d)(1), (2), and (3) must have red letters at least 1-inch
high on a white background at least 2 inches high. These signs may be
internally electrically illuminated, or self illuminated by other than
electrical means, with an initial brightness of at least 160
microlamberts. The color may be reversed in the case of a sign that is
self-illuminated by other than electrical means.
    (b) Floor Proximity Escape Path Marking. In lieu of the
requirements of Sec.  25.812(e)(1), for cabin seating compartments that
do not have the main cabin aisle entering and exiting the compartment,
the following are applicable:
    (1) After a passenger leaves any passenger seat in the compartment,
he/she must be able to exit the compartment to the main cabin aisle
using only markings and visual features not more that 4 feet above the
cabin floor, and
    (2) Proceed to the exits using the marking system necessary to
accomplish the actions in Sec.  25.812(e)(1) and (e)(2).
    (c) Transverse Separation of the Fuselage. In the event of a
transverse separation of the fuselage, compliance must be shown with
Sec.  25.812(l) except as follows:
    (1) For each airplane type originally type certificated with a
maximum passenger seating capacity of 9 or less, not more than 50
percent of all electrically illuminated emergency lights required by
Sec.  25.812 may be rendered inoperative in addition to the lights that
are directly damaged by the separation.
    (2) For each airplane type originally type certificated with a
maximum passenger seating capacity of 10 to 19, not more than 33
percent of all electrically illuminated emergency lights required by
Sec.  25.812 may be rendered inoperative in addition to the lights that
are directly damaged by the separation.
    10. Interior doors. In lieu of the requirements of Sec.  25.813(e),
interior doors may be installed between passenger seats and exits,
provided the following requirements are met.
    (a) Each door between any passenger seat, occupiable for taxi,
takeoff, and landing, and any emergency exit must have a means to
signal to the flightcrew, at the flightdeck, that the door is in the
open position for taxi, takeoff and landing.
    (b) Appropriate procedures/limitations must be established to
ensure that any such door is in the open configuration for takeoff and
landing.
    (c) Each door between any passenger seat and any exit must have
dual means to retain it in the open position, each of which is capable
of reacting the inertia loads specified in Sec.  25.561.
    (d) Doors installed across a longitudinal aisle must translate
laterally to open and close, e.g., pocket doors.
    (e) Each door between any passenger seat and any exit must be
frangible in either direction.
    (f) Each door between any passenger seat and any exit must be
operable from either side, and if a locking mechanism is installed, it
must be capable of being unlocked from either side without the use of
special tools.
    11. Width of Aisle. Compliance is required with Sec.  25.815,
except that aisle width may be reduced to 0 inches between passenger
seats during in-flight operations only, provided that the applicant
demonstrates that all areas of the cabin are easily accessible by a
crew member in the event of an emergency (e.g., in-flight fire,
decompression). Additionally, instructions must be provided at each
passenger seat for restoring the aisle width required by Sec.  25.815.
Procedures must be established and documented in the AFM to ensure that
the required aisle widths are provided during taxi, takeoff, and
landing.
    12. Materials for Compartment Interiors. Compliance is required
with the applicable provisions of Sec.  25.853, except that compliance
with appendix F, parts IV and V, to part 25, need not be demonstrated
if it can be shown by test or a combination of test and analysis that
the maximum time for evacuation of all occupants does not exceed 45
seconds under the conditions specified in appendix J to part 25.
    13. Fire Detection. For airplanes with a type certificated
passenger capacity of 20 or more, there must be means that meet the
requirements of Sec.  25.858(a)

through (d) to signal the flightcrew in the event of a fire in any
isolated room not occupiable for taxi, takeoff and landing, which can
be closed off from the rest of the cabin by a door. The indication must
identify the compartment where the fire is located. This does not apply
to lavatories, which continue to be governed by Sec.  25.854.
    14. Cooktops. Each cooktop must be designed and installed to
minimize any potential threat to the airplane, passengers, and crew.
Compliance with this requirement must be found in accordance with the
following criteria:
    (a) Means, such as conspicuous burner-on indicators, physical
barriers, or handholds, must be installed to minimize the potential for
inadvertent personnel contact with hot surfaces of both the cooktop and
cookware. Conditions of turbulence must be considered.
    (b) Sufficient design means must be included to restrain cookware
while in place on the cooktop, as well as representative contents,
e.g., soup, sauces, etc., from the effects of flight loads and
turbulence. Restraints must be provided to preclude hazardous movement
of cookware and contents. These restraints must accommodate any
cookware that is identified for use with the cooktop. Restraints must
be designed to be easily utilized and effective in service. The
cookware restraint system should also be designed so that it will not
be easily disabled, thus rendering it unusable. Placarding must be
installed which prohibits the use of cookware that cannot be
accommodated by the restraint system.
    (c) Placarding must be installed which prohibits the use of
cooktops (i.e., power on any burner) during taxi, takeoff, and landing.
    (d) Means must be provided to address the possibility of a fire
occurring on or in the immediate vicinity of the cooktop. Two
acceptable means of complying with this requirement are as follows:
    (1) Placarding must be installed that prohibits any burner from
being powered when the cooktop is unattended. (Note: This would
prohibit a single person from cooking on the cooktop and intermittently
serving food to passengers while any burner is powered.) A fire
detector must be installed in the vicinity of the cooktop which
provides an audible warning in the passenger cabin, and a fire
extinguisher of appropriate size and extinguishing agent must be
installed in the immediate vicinity of the cooktop. Access to the
extinguisher may not be blocked by a fire on or around the cooktop.
    (2) An automatic, thermally activated fire suppression system must
be installed to extinguish a fire at the cooktop and immediately
adjacent surfaces. The agent used in the system must be an approved
total flooding agent suitable for use in an occupied area. The fire
suppression system must have a manual override. The automatic
activation of the fire suppression system must also automatically shut
off power to the cooktop.
    (e) The surfaces of the galley surrounding the cooktop which would
be exposed to a fire on the cooktop surface or in cookware on the
cooktop must be constructed of materials that comply with the
flammability requirements of part III of appendix F to part 25. This
requirement is in addition to the flammability requirements typically
required of the materials in these galley surfaces. During the
selection of these materials, consideration must also be given to
ensure that the flammability characteristics of the materials will not
be adversely affected by the use of cleaning agents and utensils used
to remove cooking stains.
    (f) The cooktop must be ventilated with a system independent of the
airplane cabin and cargo ventilation system. Procedures and time
intervals must be established to inspect and clean or replace the
ventilation system to prevent a fire hazard from the accumulation of
flammable oils and be included in the instructions for continued
airworthiness. The ventilation system ducting must be protected by a
flame arrestor. [Note: The applicant may find additional useful
information in Society of Automotive Engineers, Aerospace Recommended
Practice 85, Rev. E, entitled ``Air Conditioning Systems for Subsonic
Airplanes,'' dated August 1, 1991.]
    (g) Means must be provided to contain spilled foods or fluids in a
manner that will prevent the creation of a slipping hazard to occupants
and will not lead to the loss of structural strength due to airplane
corrosion.
    (h) Cooktop installations must provide adequate space for the user
to immediately escape a hazardous cooktop condition.
    (i) A means to shut off power to the cooktop must be provided at
the galley containing the cooktop and in the cockpit. If additional
switches are introduced in the cockpit, revisions to smoke or fire
emergency procedures of the AFM will be required.
    (j) If the cooktop is required to have a lid to enclose the cooktop
there must be a means to automatically shut off power to the cooktop
when the lid is closed.
    15. Hand-Held Fire Extinguishers.
    (a) For airplanes that were originally type certificated with more
than 60 passengers, the number of hand-held fire extinguishers must be
the greater of--
    (1) That provided in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
25.851, or
    (2) A number equal to the number of originally type certificated
exit pairs, regardless of whether the exits are deactivated for the
proposed configuration.
    (b) Extinguishers must be evenly distributed throughout the cabin.
These extinguishers are in addition to those required by paragraph 14
of this SFAR, unless it can be shown that the cooktop was installed in
the immediate vicinity of the original exits.
    16. Security. The requirements of Sec.  25.795 are not applicable
to airplanes approved in accordance with this SFAR.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 11, 2009.
Lynne A. Osmus,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-10807 Filed 5-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28995-28997]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12213]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-150-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Line WB2VA Integrity Project,
and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Line WB2VA Integrity Project
(project) involving abandonment, construction, and operation of
facilities by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) in Hardy
County, West Virginia, and Shenandoah, Page, Rockingham, and Greene
Counties, Virginia. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-
making process to determine whether the project is in the public
convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with
your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before June 15, 2015.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on April 2, 2015, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. CP15-150-000 to ensure they are considered as
part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    Columbia provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods available to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at
(202) 502-8258 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy

method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP15-150-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Columbia proposes replacement and modification of existing
equipment at numerous sites along the Line WB2VA pipeline, and at Lost
River and Bickers Compressor Stations in Hardy County, West Virginia,
and Shenandoah, Page, Rockingham, and Greene Counties, Virginia. The
project would include the installation of pig launchers,\1\ receivers,
mainline valves and other appurtenant facilities. Also, Columbia would
replace the two 20-inch-diameter pipelines beneath the South Fork of
the Shenandoah River with a new 24-inch-diameter pipeline. To maintain
service during the proposed pipeline replacement activities, Columbia
would install temporary fittings and temporary bypass piping. Once the
installation of the new segment of pipeline is complete and tied-in to
the existing WB2VA pipeline, the temporary bypass piping would be
removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\A ``pig'' is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into
and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline,
conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This project is part of Columbia's multi-year modernization program
developed to address its aging infrastructure. The existing mainline
valves do not permit the use of smart pigs as an inspection tool, and
the two existing 20-inch-diameter pipelines crossing the South Fork of
Shenandoah River create a similar barrier. The project modifications
would create a continuous, 24-inch-diameter pipeline between Columbia's
existing Lost River and Bickers Compressor Stations that would allow
for smart pig inspections.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 37.9
acres of land. Following construction, Columbia would maintain about
26.0 acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities; which
is 1.0 acre more than it is currently using. The remaining acreage
would be restored and revert to former uses.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\3\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:

 Geology and soils;
 land use;
 water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
 cultural resources;
 vegetation and wildlife;
 air quality and noise;
 endangered and threatened species;
 public safety; and
 cumulative impacts.

    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\4\ Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\5\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPOs as the project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our
findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status
of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and
the environmental information provided by Columbia. This preliminary
list of

issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.

 Endangered Species
 Groundwater
 Karst Topography

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-
150). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: May 14, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12213 Filed 5-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P