[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 77 (Monday, April 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 18910]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08182]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0001]

Safe Use Symposium: A Focus on Reducing Preventable Harm From
Drugs in the Outpatient Setting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public symposium.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA or Agency) Center for
Drug Evaluation and Research, Professional Affairs and Stakeholder
Engagement Staff (PASES), is hosting a 1-day public symposium entitled
``Safe Use Symposium: A Focus on Reducing Preventable Harm From Drugs
in the Outpatient Setting.'' The purpose of this symposium is to
discuss sources of preventable harm from drugs in the outpatient
setting and to stimulate the exchange of ideas among thought leaders on
interventions to reduce preventable harms and how these interventions
can be studied.

DATES: The public symposium will be held on June 15, 2017, from 8 a.m.
to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The public symposium will be held at FDA's White Oak campus,
10903 New Hampshire Ave, Bldg. 31 (The Great Room C), Silver Spring, MD
20903. Entrance for the public symposium participants (non-FDA
employees) is through Bldg. 1 where routine security check procedures
will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer
to https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Lee, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA)
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Professional Affairs and
Stakeholder Engagement Staff (PASES), is hosting a 1-day public
symposium entitled ``Safe Use Symposium: A Focus on Reducing
Preventable Harm From Drugs in the Outpatient Setting.'' The purpose of
this symposium is to discuss sources of preventable harm from drugs in
the outpatient setting, such as the use of inappropriate medications in
particular age groups, drug-drug interactions, unintended exposures,
and misuse; and to stimulate the exchange of ideas among thought
leaders on interventions to reduce preventable harms and how these
interventions can be studied. This information may assist FDA in
identifying significant and unexplored areas of preventable harm from
drugs for the purpose of funding future research through the Safe Use
Initiative. The symposium will feature presentations on sources of
outpatient preventable harms, possible interventions, and future
research topics. Areas to be discussed include identifying drugs and
populations associated with a higher risk of preventable harm, as well
as events which may be amenable to interventions. Methods to measure
the effect of interventions and how to apply these to the outpatient
setting will also be an important focus of discussion.
    Presenters will represent multidisciplinary backgrounds from
government, academia, patient safety groups, health care industry, and
clinicians. There will be opportunities for interaction between
speakers and attendees as well as question and answer sessions.
    Registration: There is no registration fee to attend the public
symposium. Early registration is recommended because seating is
limited, and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis.
There will be no onsite registration. Persons interested in attending
this symposium must register online at http://wcms.fda.gov/FDAgov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm538670.htm?SSContributor=true. For those without
Internet access, please contact Christine Lee (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) to register. If you need special accommodations
due to a disability, please contact Christine Lee at least 7 days in
advance.
    Transcripts: A transcript of the symposium will be available for
review at the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and
on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov approximately 30 days
after the symposium. Transcripts will also be available in either hard
copy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom of Information
request. The Freedom of Information office address is available on the
Agency's Web site at https://www.fda.gov.

    Dated: April 17, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-08182 Filed 4-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 19753]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09485]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[DocketNo. ER18-1455-000]

Southern Power Company; Notice Shortening Comment Period

    On April 25, 2018, Southern Power Company (Southern) filed a
petition for waiver and request for shortened comment period and
expedited action (Petition) in the above-referenced proceeding.
Included in Southern's Petition was a request to shorten the date for
filing comments to the Petition.
    Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that the date for filing
comments to Southern's request is shortened to and including May 1,
2018.

    Dated: April 30, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09485 Filed 5-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 90)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26002-26004]
[DOCID:fr08my08-15]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0278]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations; Delaware River, Big Timber Creek,
Westville, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing special local regulations
during the ``Westville Parade of Lights'', a marine parade to be held
on the waters of the Delaware River and Big Timber Creek, Westville,
NJ. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the
safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is
intended to restrict vessel traffic in a small portion of the Delaware
River and Big Timber Creek during the event.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on June 28,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0278 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection
or copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and
the Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA
23704 between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Fifth Coast Guard
District, Prevention

Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM would be
impracticable and contrary to public interest since immediate action is
needed to minimize potential danger to the public during the event. The
necessary information to determine whether the marine event poses a
threat to persons and vessels was not provided with sufficient time to
publish an NPRM. The potential dangers posed by a marine parade
formation transiting the waterway with other vessel traffic at night
makes special local regulations necessary to provide for the safety of
participants, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event
area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to
have these regulations in effect during the event. The Coast Guard will
issue broadcast notice to mariners to advise vessel operators of
navigational restrictions. On scene Coast Guard and local law
enforcement vessels will also provide actual notice to mariners.

Background and Purpose

    On June 28, 2008, the Borough of Westville, New Jersey and the
Westville Power Boat Association will sponsor the ``Westville Parade of
Lights''. Approximately 20 power and sailing vessels will participate
in a marine parade that will begin formation in the vicinity of the
Route 130 Bridge and transit Big Timber Creek and terminate where the
waterway joins the Delaware River. The event will also include a
fireworks display launched from land, with a fallout area extending
over the navigable waters of Big Timber Creek, Westville, NJ. Spectator
vessels are expected to gather near the event site to view the on water
activity. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel
traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of
participants, spectators and transiting vessels.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard will establish temporary special local regulations
on specified waters of the Delaware River and Big Timber Creek. The
temporary special local regulations will be in effect from 7 p.m. to
11:30 p.m. on June 28, 2008. The effect will be to restrict general
navigation in the regulated area during the marine event. Except for
persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no
person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area during the
enforcement period. The Patrol Commander will notify the public of
specific enforcement times by marine radio safety broadcast. These
regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to
enhance the safety of spectators and transiting vessels.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Although this regulation restricts vessel traffic from transiting a
small portion of the Delaware River and Big Timber Creek during the
event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the
limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the
extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime
community via Local Notice to Mariners and marine information
broadcasts. Notice to the public may also be conveyed by local area
newspapers, radio and TV stations so mariners can adjust their plans
accordingly.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit this segment of the Delaware River and Big Timber Creek during
the event.
    This temporary rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will be in effect for only a short period, from 7 p.m. to 11:30
p.m. on June 28, 2008. Although this regulation prevents traffic from
transiting a small segment of the Delaware River and Big Timber Creek
during the event, this temporary rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons. This rule would be in effect for only a limited
period. Vessel traffic may be able to transit around the regulated area
or when event activity is halted, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander
deems it is safe to do so. Before the enforcement period, we will issue
maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In

particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the
expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year.
Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss
the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the
use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental
documentation.
    A final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' are available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Waterways.

Words of Issuance and Regulatory Text

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--REGATTAS AND MARINE PARADES

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  100.35-T05-0278 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35-T05-0278  Delaware River, Big Timber Creek Westville, NJ.

    (a) Regulated area includes all waters of Big Timber Creek, shore
line to shore line from the Route 130 Bridge northwest to the waterway
entrance where Big Timber Creek joins the Delaware River.
    (b) Definitions: (1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been
designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay.
    (2) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by
Commander, Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay with a commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    (3) Participant includes all vessels participating in the Westville
Parade of Lights under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued
to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector
Delaware Bay.
    (c) Special local regulations: (1) Except for event participants
and persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must: (i) Stop
the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol.
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any Official Patrol.
    (iii) When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels
shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course
that minimizes wake near the event area.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7 p.m.
to 11:30 p.m. on June 28, 2008. A notice of enforcement of this section
will be disseminated through the Fifth Coast Guard District Local
Notice to Mariners announcing the specific event date and times. Notice
will also be made via broadcast notice to mariners on VHF-FM marine
band radio.

    Dated: April 16, 2008.
Neil O. Buschman,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District,
Acting.
[FR Doc. E8-10227 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13565-13571]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06765]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No.: FAA-2019-0218; Notice No. 19-3]
RIN 2120-AL15

High Elevation Airport Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend certain airworthiness regulations
applicable to cabin pressurization systems and oxygen dispensing
equipment on transport category airplanes to accommodate airplane
operations into or out of airports with elevations at or above 8,000
feet above sea level. Currently, the FAA makes and documents equivalent
level of safety findings when an airplane manufacturer or modifier
proposes to certify airplane cabin pressurization systems used for
operations into or out of airports with elevations at or above 8,000
feet. In addition, the FAA grants exemptions from the automatic oxygen
mask presentation requirements for operations into or out of airports
with elevations at or above 14,000 feet. This proposed action is
necessary to relieve the burden on industry and the FAA that results
from project-specific equivalent level of safety (ELOS) requests and
petitions for exemption to accommodate operations at high elevation
airports for transport category airplanes.

DATES: Send comments on or before June 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0218
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this action,
contact Robert Hettman, Propulsion & Mechanical Systems Section, AIR-
672, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division,
Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 S
216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198; telephone and facsimile
206-231-3171; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
Requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations and minimum standards for the design and performance of
aircraft that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority. It
prescribes new, relieving, safety standards for the design and
operation of transport category airplanes.

I. Overview of Proposed Rule

    The FAA proposes to amend title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) part 25. Specifically, the FAA proposes to amend Sec. Sec.
25.841, ``Pressurized cabins,'' and 25.1447, ``Equipment standards for
oxygen dispensing units,'' for airplanes equipped with cabin
pressurization systems and oxygen dispensing equipment intended for
operations into or out of airports with elevations at or above 8,000
feet, also referred to as ``high elevation airports.''
    The proposed amendments to Sec.  25.841 would eliminate the burden
on industry and the FAA that results from project-specific ELOS
findings currently necessary for the FAA to approve such designs for
cabin pressurization systems intended to be used for operations into or
out of high elevation airports.
    Section 25.841(a) limits the cabin pressure altitude to not more
than 8,000 feet at the maximum operating altitude of the airplane under
normal operating conditions. Operating at the maximum operating
altitude of the airplane is considered a normal operating condition.
Section 25.841(a) was never intended to imply that the cabin pressure
altitude could exceed 8,000 feet under normal operating conditions
provided the airplane was below the maximum operating altitude.
Accordingly, the FAA proposes to revise Sec.  25.841(a) to clarify the
limit on cabin pressure altitude to not more than 8,000 feet under
normal operating conditions. This revision is not necessary for the
other changes being proposed for operations into and out of high
elevation airport operations, but since it is related, FAA is making
this clarification here.
    The cabin pressure altitude requirement in Sec.  25.841(a) does not
allow certification of airplane designs that can safely accommodate
operations into or out of high elevation airports. The FAA proposes
adding Sec.  25.841(c) as an exception to Sec.  25.841(a) to
accommodate operations into or out of high elevation airports. Proposed
Sec.  25.841(c) would allow the cabin pressure in pressurized cabins
and occupied compartments to be equal to or less than the airport
elevation while the airplane operates at or below 25,000 feet, provided
the cabin pressurization system is designed to minimize the time that
passenger cabin occupants would be exposed to cabin pressures exceeding
8,000 feet in flight.
    Section 25.841(b)(6) requires a warning indication at the pilot or
flight engineer station to indicate when the safe or preset cabin
pressure altitude limit is exceeded to alert the flightcrew to
potential hypoxic conditions. Section 25.841(b)(6) also states that
this warning requirement for cabin pressure altitude limits is met if
it warns the flightcrew when the cabin pressure altitude exceeds 10,000
feet. The FAA proposes adding new Sec.  25.841(d) as an exception to
Sec.  25.841(b)(6) to allow an applicant to change the cabin altitude
warning to 15,000 feet or 2,000 feet above the airport elevation,
whichever is greater, when operating into or out of a high elevation
airport.
    Further, Sec.  25.1447(c)(1) requires that airplanes being
certified for operation above 30,000 feet must be equipped with oxygen
dispensing units providing the required oxygen flow, and that such
units must be automatically presented to the occupant before the cabin
pressure exceeds 15,000 feet above sea level. Section 25.1447(c)(1)
also states the crew must be provided with a manual means to make the
dispensing units immediately available in the event of failure of the
automatic system. This proposal would add Sec.  25.1447(c)(5) as an
exception to Sec.  25.1447(c)(1) to allow approval of passenger cabin
oxygen dispensing units that automatically deploy at 15,000 feet, or
2,000 feet above the airport elevation, whichever is greater, during
operations into or out of high elevation airports. This proposed action
would relieve industry from having to petition, and the FAA from the
burden of evaluating and granting applicant-specific exemptions from
Sec.  25.1447(c)(1), currently necessary to increase the cabin pressure
at which passenger cabin oxygen dispensing unties automatically deploy.

II. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    Cabin pressurization systems of airplanes are typically designed to
maintain the interior cabin pressure so that the maximum cabin pressure
altitude does not exceed 8,000 feet and to ensure that the change in
cabin pressure altitude is minimized during flight. While an airplane
is on the ground, the interior cabin pressure must be equal to the
outside ambient air pressure to allow for easy opening of the exit
doors should there be a need for an emergency evacuation. When an
airplane ascends, its cabin pressure altitude starts at the equivalent
altitude of the airport and slowly changes as the airplane climbs until
the cabin pressure altitude is stabilized at an altitude not exceeding
8,000 feet, which is the current regulatory maximum cabin pressure
altitude allowable. However, when an airplane takes off from an airport
with an elevation greater than 8,000 feet, the cabin pressure altitude
must begin at that higher equivalent altitude and slowly decrease until
it is less than 8,000 feet. Similarly, when an airplane is configured
to land at a high elevation airport, the interior cabin pressure
altitude will start near 8,000 feet and slowly rise as the airplane
descends into the airport, until the interior cabin pressure altitude
is the same as the equivalent pressure altitude at the airport when the
airplane lands. Since the maximum cabin pressure altitude of 8,000 feet
is exceeded when operating into or out of high elevation airports, the
airplane is out of compliance with 14 CFR 25.841.
    Globally, there are several airports at elevations that exceed
14,000 feet. An example of a high elevation airport is Daocheng Yading
Airport, in Tibet, at 14,472 feet.
    To accommodate high elevation airport operations, applicants for
type certificates incorporate design features for the cabin
pressurization system that are intended to minimize the time that the
cabin pressure altitude is above 8,000 feet. If a cabin altitude
warning is set at 10,000 feet, for example, the flightcrew may receive
nuisance warnings during high elevation airport takeoff and landing
operations, unless special design features are incorporated.
Accordingly, airplane manufacturers typically design the cabin
pressurization control system to raise the cabin pressure altitude at
which the warning occurs during these high elevation airport
operations.
    Currently, when an airplane manufacturer applies for certification
of an airplane with a cabin pressurization

system intended to be used for operations into or out of high elevation
airports, the cabin pressurization system does not meet the design
standard in Sec.  25.841(a) and (b)(6) and the FAA must make an ELOS
finding, if appropriate. An ELOS finding is made when the design does
not comply with the applicable airworthiness provisions, but
compensating factors provide an equivalent level of safety.\1\ For the
design standard provided by Sec.  25.841(a) and (b)(6), compensating
factors such as the flight crew's use of supplemental oxygen and
minimizing the time that the cabin pressure altitude may be above 8,000
feet, provide an equivalent level of safety during high elevation
airport operations. The FAA documents an ELOS finding in an ELOS
memorandum that communicates to the public the rationale for the FAA's
determination of equivalency to the level of safety intended by the
regulations. The ELOS memorandum also documents those aspects of the
ELOS finding that must be maintained for continued airworthiness.
Processing an ELOS request (i.e., evaluating the request, making the
finding, and creating the ELOS memorandum) creates an extra
administrative burden on the applicant as well as the FAA during the
aircraft certification process.\2\ The FAA typically makes about four
ELOS findings per year related to high elevation airport operations.
For each ELOS finding related to high elevation airport operations, the
FAA may spend 20 to 100 engineering hours, depending on how unique the
proposed design features are, and whether or not the applicant has
previously proposed airplane designs intended for such operations in
the past. We estimate that applicants expend similar resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The authority for the agency to make an ELOS finding is
provided in 14 CFR 21.21(b). Paragraph (b) of Sec.  21.21 specifies
that the FAA must find an applicant for a type certificate meets the
applicable airworthiness requirements of subchapter C of Chapter I
of title 14 Code of Federal Regulations or that any airworthiness
provisions not complied with are compensated for by factors that
provide an equivalent level of safety.
    \2\ ELOS memorandums are available at http://rgl.faa.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 25.1447(c)(1) requires that, for airplanes certified for
operations above 30,000 feet, oxygen dispensing equipment be
automatically deployed before the cabin pressure altitude reaches
15,000 feet. To prevent unnecessary deployments and avoid unnecessary
maintenance costs associated with servicing the oxygen system on
airplanes intended to operate at high elevation airports, applicants
typically incorporate design features to raise the automatic
presentation altitude for the oxygen masks during high elevation
airport operations. Currently, applicants that incorporate these design
features do so pursuant to an agency-issued exemption from Sec.
25.1447(c)(1).\3\ A petition for exemption for airplanes certified for
operation above 30,000 feet into high elevation airports creates a
burden for applicants who develop the petition as well as the FAA in
the agency's evaluation and analysis of the petition. The FAA typically
grants one or two exemptions per year related to high elevation airport
operations.\4\ For each exemption related to high elevation airport
operations, the FAA may spend 20 to 100 engineering hours depending on
how similar the specific exemption petition is in relation to those
previously granted. In addition to expended resources, exemptions
typically increase the time for certification because the FAA follows
the procedures for public comment described in 14 CFR part 11 as
appropriate. We expect that applicants expend similar resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Administrator's exemption authority is provided by 49
U.S.C. 44701(e) and implemented in accordance with 14 CFR part 11.
    \4\ Complete exemption dockets can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/. Exemption grants and denials are also
available at http://aes.faa.gov/ and http://rgl.faa.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of the Proposal

A. Cabin Pressurization Requirements for Normal Operating Conditions

    The intent of Sec.  25.841(a) is to maintain a safe pressure
environment within the cabin during normal operations. Currently, Sec.
25.841(a) limits the cabin pressure altitude to not more than 8,000
feet at the maximum operating altitude of the airplane under normal
operating conditions. Operating at the maximum operating altitude of
the airplane is considered a normal operating condition. Section
25.841(a) was never intended to imply that the cabin pressure altitude
could exceed 8,000 feet under normal operating conditions provided the
airplane was below the maximum operating altitude. The physiological
effects associated with exposure to high cabin pressure altitudes,
namely hypoxia, vary from one individual to the next as a function of
altitude and time. Common effects associated with hypoxia include
increased heart rate, decreased cognitive ability, nausea, and
increased chance of cardiac arrest or stroke. These physiological
effects are rare when the cabin pressure altitude does not exceed 8,000
feet. For clarity, the FAA proposes to revise Sec.  25.841(a) to limit
the cabin pressure altitude to not more than 8,000 feet under normal
operating conditions even though this clarification is not necessary
for the proposed changes for operations into and out of high elevation
airport operations.
    During normal operations into or out of high elevation airports,
however, it is possible that the cabin pressure altitude will exceed
8,000 feet while the airplane is on the ground. When the airplane is on
the ground with a higher pressure inside the passenger cabin compared
to the outside air pressure, it could be difficult if not impossible to
open the emergency exits depending on the design and magnitude of
pressure differential. For example, landing at an airport that is at
10,000 feet while the passenger cabin is at 8,000 feet. This would
impede emergency evacuation and decrease safety. Although some
emergency exit designs may allow a cabin attendant to unlatch and start
opening a door with a slight pressure differential, the door could
quickly swing open and pull the attendant outside as the emergency
escape slide is inflating, which would also impede evacuation efforts
and endanger the flight attendant.
    The FAA proposes adding Sec.  25.841(c) as an exception to Sec.
25.841(a), to accommodate operations into or out of high elevation
airports. Proposed Sec.  25.841(c) would allow the cabin pressure in
pressurized cabins and occupied compartments to be equal to or less
than the airport elevation while the airplane operates at or below
25,000 feet, provided the cabin pressurization system is designed to
minimize the time that passenger cabin occupants would be exposed to
cabin pressures exceeding 8,000 feet in flight. The exception to Sec.
25.841(a) would only apply when the airplane is at or below 25,000 feet
because the risk of hypoxia following a decompression increases with
altitude. In addition, this will maintain consistency with other oxygen
availability requirements that are not affected by this proposal. This
proposed change would allow certification of airplane designs that can
safely accommodate operations into or out of high elevation airports by
minimizing the time that the cabin pressure may be above 8,000 feet
without unnecessarily exposing occupants to high cabin pressures in the
unlikely event of a pressurization failure.

B. Requirements for Flightcrew Warning Indication Following Loss of
Pressurization

    The intent of the design requirement in current Sec.  25.841(b)(6)
is to provide the flightcrew with a warning when the safe or preset
cabin pressure altitude

limit is exceeded. Consistent with the proposed addition of Sec.
25.841(c) to accommodate operations into high elevation airports and to
reduce the possibility of exposure to high cabin pressures above 25,000
feet, if a failure condition (decompression) occurs, the FAA proposes
adding Sec.  25.841(d) as an exception to Sec.  25.841(b)(6).
    Proposed Sec.  25.841(d) would allow an applicant to change the
cabin altitude warning to 15,000 feet, or 2,000 feet above the airport
elevation, whichever is greater, when operating into or out of airports
exceeding 8,000 feet provided that--
    1. The airplane is at or below 25,000 feet;
    2. An alert is provided to clearly indicate to the flightcrew that
the cabin high altitude warning has shifted above 10,000 feet;
    3. If the cabin altitude warning alert shifts above 10,000 feet
automatically, an alert is provided to notify the flightcrew to take
action should the automatic shift function fail; and
    4. Either an alerting system is installed to notify the flightcrew
on flight deck duty when to don oxygen mask(s), in accordance with the
applicable operating regulations; or a flight procedure acceptable to
the FAA administrator is provided in the airplane flight manual
requiring the pilot in command to don oxygen when the cabin warning has
shifted above 10,000 feet and other flightcrew on flight deck duty to
monitor cabin pressure and utilize supplemental oxygen, in accordance
with the applicable operating regulations.
    In addition, the potential risk of hypoxia by the flightcrew
members following a decompression during high elevation airport
operations is also minimized because the cabin pressure warning
altitude can only be raised above 10,000 feet while the airplane is at
or below 25,000 feet above sea level. Further, there are operational
requirements, such as those at 14 CFR 91.211, 121.333, and 135.157,
that describe when supplemental oxygen must be used for passengers,
cabin crew, and flightcrew members on flight deck duty. The use of
supplemental oxygen for airplane occupants is a function of altitude,
time exposure, and flightcrew members duties anticipated on the
airplane. (Such requirements are intended to minimize the symptoms of
hypoxia for airplane occupants, but are not being proposed for revision
by this notice.) Therefore, airplane designs that meet the requirements
proposed in this NPRM would maintain an appropriate level of safety
that is consistent with previously issued ELOS determinations.
    Also, for commonality with other regulatory text, the FAA is
proposing to clarify existing Sec.  25.841(b)(6), which currently
requires an aural or visual signal to warn the flightcrew when the
cabin pressure altitude exceeds 10,000 feet, to simply require an alert
rather than a specific additional aural or visual signal. At Amendment
25-131 (75 FR 67201, November 2, 2010), effective January 3, 2011, the
FAA created Sec.  25.1322 to add flightcrew alerting requirements. An
alert designed in accordance with Sec.  25.1322 would ensure an
appropriate alerting is provided to the flightcrew without the need for
a separate aural or visual alert standard in Sec.  25.841(b)(6), which
allows for more options in developing an appropriate alert.

C. Requirements for Automatic Presentation of Oxygen Dispensing
Equipment

    The FAA proposes an exception to the passenger oxygen mask
presentation requirement in current Sec.  25.1447(c) to allow for
presentation at higher altitudes when operating into high elevation
airports. Section 25.1447(c) describes presentation requirements for
passenger oxygen masks. In accordance with Sec.  25.1447(c)(1), for
airplanes certified for operation above 30,000 feet, oxygen masks
providing the required oxygen flow must be automatically presented
before the cabin pressure altitude exceeds 15,000 feet. Typical designs
include oxygen mask storage doors located above the seats with
electrically actuated latches. As electricity is supplied to the
latches, the doors open and oxygen masks are made available.
Electricity to the latches is typically provided through a pressure
switch, which is either open or closed, depending on ambient pressure
within the passenger cabin. Common pressure switches have a tolerance
of 500 feet, so it is possible for oxygen masks to be
presented as low as 14,000 feet to ensure they are made available
before the cabin pressure reaches 15,000 feet.
    There are several airports throughout the world with elevations
above 14,000 feet such that oxygen masks could be deployed when an
airplane lands at or takes off from them. The FAA has granted numerous
exemptions from the automatic presentation requirements in Sec.
25.1447(c)(1) to accommodate such operations.\5\ For each exemption
petition, the FAA works with the applicant to ensure that an adequate
level of safety is maintained for each system design. To eliminate the
need for exemptions as more airports open in high elevation terrains or
more airplanes are designed with the intent to operate into existing
high elevation airports, the FAA proposes adding Sec.  25.1447(c)(5) as
an exception to Sec.  25.1447(c)(1). Proposed Sec.  25.1447(c)(5) would
allow oxygen mask presentation at altitudes of up to 2,000 feet above
the airport elevation to prevent the unnecessary deployment of oxygen
masks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Some examples include exemption 9940 (Docket No. FAA-2009-
0601), exemption 10089 (Docket No. FAA-2010-0290), exemption 13582
(Docket No. FAA-2015-3311) and exemption 17590 (Docket No. FAA-2017-
0800).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA recognizes that a sudden loss of cabin pressure could
expose passengers and cabin crew to higher cabin pressure altitudes
before oxygen masks are presented if the automatic presentation
altitude is raised. To mitigate this risk, the proposed changes include
limitations on the exception in that the automatic presentation
altitude for the masks can only be raised when operating into or out of
high elevation airports, and only when the airplane is at or below
25,000 feet.
    As previously discussed, the proposed changes will not negatively
affect safety during high elevation airport operations because of the
limited portion of the operation during which the proposed change will
apply and the measures already in place to ensure safety during
emergency conditions. Additionally, these proposed changes are
consistent with previously granted exemptions and ELOS determinations.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules,
which include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by

State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for
inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble
summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed
rule.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed
rule (1) has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (4) would
not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States; and (5) would not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local,
or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the
threshold identified previously. These analyses are summarized below.
    Currently, the FAA processes ELOS memorandums to document ELOS
findings when an airplane manufacturer or modifier requests
certification of airplane cabin pressurization systems used for
operations into or out of airports with elevations at or above 8,000
feet. The FAA also processes exemptions to the automatic oxygen mask
presentation requirements for operations into or out of airports with
elevations at or above 14,000 feet. The proposed rule would eliminate
the need to continue performing the administrative tasks and analyses
associated with the processing of an ELOS or exemption to accommodate
operations at high elevation airports for transport category airplanes
without compromising safety.
    This proposed rule would result in small quantifiable cost savings.
As previously discussed, the FAA issues about four ELOS findings and up
to two exemptions per year related to high elevation airports,
involving 20 to 100 engineering hours for each ELOS or exemption
project. The FAA estimates industry and the FAA may expend the same
range of engineering hours for each ELOS and exemption project. Using
an average aerospace engineer hourly wage of $65, the FAA estimates the
total annual cost savings of this proposed rule would range from
$15,600 to $78,000 for both industry and FAA.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ To simplify the analysis since the cost savings are small,
the FAA uses an average aerospace engineer hourly wage adjusted for
benefits of $65 for both industry and FAA based on 2017 Bureau of
Labor Statistics data and FAA salary data. The range of cost savings
are calculated as $7,800 = (4 ELOS + 2 exemptions) x ($65 hourly
wage) x (20 engineering hours) and $39,000 = (4 ELOS + 2 exemptions)
x ($65 hourly wage) x (100 engineering hours). These cost savings
are doubled to reflect the total cost savings of the proposed rule
since the FAA estimates the cost savings to industry and the FAA are
the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously discussed, in addition to expended resources,
exemptions typically increase the time for certification because the
FAA follows procedures for public comment described in 14 CFR part 11
as appropriate. This proposed rule may reduce this time resulting in
cost savings.
    As a result, this rulemaking will reduce the cost of airplane
certification without reducing the current level of safety. The
expected outcome would be a minimal economic impact resulting in a
small regulatory burden relief. The FAA requests comments with
supporting justification about the FAA determination of minimal
economic impact.
    Therefore, the FAA has determined that this proposed rule 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.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation.'' To achieve this principle, agencies are
required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to
explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals
are given serious consideration. The RFA potentially covers a wide-
range of small entities, including small businesses, and not-for-profit
organizations.
    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 proposed rule would relieve the industry from requesting that
the FAA make a determination that an ELOS exists for certification of
airplane cabin pressurization systems used for operations into or out
of airports with elevations at or above 8,000 feet above sea level.
This proposed rule would also relieve industry from petitioning for
exemptions to the automatic oxygen mask presentation requirements for
operations into and out of airports with elevations at or above 14,000
feet above sea level. The expected outcome would be a minimal economic
impact with small burden relief and savings for any small entity
affected by this rulemaking action.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this proposed rulemaking would not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that
it would have only a domestic impact and therefore no effect on
international trade.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State,

local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector. Such a mandate is deemed a ``significant regulatory action.''
The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in
lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not contain such a
mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not
apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there would be no new requirement for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA's policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has found no differences with these proposed regulations.
    EASA certification requirements related to oxygen dispensing units
in CS25.1447(c)(1) are similar to those in Sec.  25.1447(c)(1). In
Amendment 18 of Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of
Compliance for Large Aeroplanes, CS-25,\7\ the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) describes an acceptable means of compliance (AMC) in AMC
25.1447(c)(1). Specifically, AMC 25.1447(c)(1) states: ``The design of
the automatic presentation system should take into account that when
the landing field altitude is less than 610 m (2000 feet) below the
normal preset automatic presentation altitude, the automatic
presentation altitude may be reset to landing field altitude plus 610 m
(2000 feet).'' Thus, the FAA's proposed change to Sec.  25.1447 is
consistent with guidance provided by EASA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Amendment 18 of European Aviation Safety Agency,
``Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance
for Large Aeroplanes,'' CS-25, dated June 22, 2016, can be found at
this web address: https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/certification-specifications/cs-25-amendment-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EASA has not published advisory material to accommodate operations
into or out of high elevation airports in consideration of the cabin
pressure altitude and warning requirements in CS 25.841.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 of FAA Order 1050.1F and
involves no extraordinary circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism.'' The agency has
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or on the relationship between the Federal Government
and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have
Federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

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

C. Executive Order 13609, International Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, ``Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation,'' promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771
deregulatory action. Details on the regulatory relief provided by this
proposed rule can be found in the Regulatory Evaluation section.

VI. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in
light of the comments it receives.
    Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should
not file proprietary or confidential business information in the
docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting
information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information,
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Commenters
must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  25.841 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and
(b)(6) and adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  25.841  Pressurized cabins.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section,
pressurized cabins and compartments to be occupied must be equipped to
provide a cabin pressure altitude of not more than 8,000 feet under
normal operating conditions.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) Warning indication at the pilot or flight engineer station to
indicate when the safe or preset pressure differential and cabin
pressure altitude limits are exceeded. Appropriate warning markings on
the cabin pressure differential indicator meet the warning requirement
for pressure differential limits, and an alert meets the warning
requirement for cabin pressure altitude limits, if it warns the
flightcrew when the cabin pressure altitude exceeds 10,000 feet, except
as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) When operating into or out of airports with elevations at or
above 8,000 feet, the cabin pressure in pressurized cabins and occupied
compartments may be equal to or less than the airport elevation
provided:
    (1) The airplane is being operated at or below 25,000 feet; and
    (2) The cabin pressurization system is designed to minimize the
time in flight that passenger cabin occupants may be exposed to cabin
pressure altitudes exceeding 8,000 feet.
    (d) When operating into or out of airports with elevations
exceeding 8,000 feet and the airplane is at or below 25,000 feet, the
cabin altitude warning alert may be provided at 15,000 feet, or 2,000
feet above the elevation, whichever is greater, provided that:
    (1) An alert is provided to clearly indicate to the flightcrew that
the cabin high altitude warning has shifted above 10,000 feet;
    (2) If the cabin altitude warning alert is shifted above 10,000
feet automatically, an alert is provided to notify the flightcrew to
take action should the automatic shift function fail; and
    (3) Either an alerting system is installed to notify the flightcrew
members on flight deck duty when to don oxygen in accordance with the
applicable operating regulations; or flight procedures acceptable to
the FAA administrator are provided in the airplane flight manual that
require the pilot flying to don oxygen when the high altitude cabin
warning has shifted above 10,000 feet and require other flightcrew
members on flight deck duty to monitor the cabin pressure to utilize
oxygen in accordance with the applicable operating regulations.
0
3. Amend Sec.  25.1447 by revising paragraph (c)(1) and adding
paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  25.1447  Equipment standards for oxygen dispensing units.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) There must be an oxygen dispensing unit connected to oxygen
supply terminals immediately available to each occupant wherever
seated, and at least two oxygen-dispensing units connected to oxygen
terminals in each lavatory. The total number of dispensing units and
outlets in the cabin must exceed the number of seats by at least 10
percent. The extra units must be as uniformly distributed throughout
the cabin as practicable. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(5) of
this section, if certification for operation above 30,000 feet is
requested, the dispensing units providing the required oxygen flow must
be automatically presented to the occupants before the cabin pressure
altitude exceeds 15,000 feet. The crewmembers must be provided with a
manual means of making the dispensing units immediately available in
the event of failure of the automatic system.
* * * * *
    (5) When operating into or out of airports with elevations at or
above 8,000 feet, the dispensing units providing the required oxygen
flow may be automatically presented to the occupants at 15,000 feet or
within 2,000 feet of the airport elevation, whichever is higher,
provided the airplane is being operated at altitudes at or below 25,000
feet.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701(a)
in Washington, DC, on March 29, 2019.
Earl Lawrence,
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-06765 Filed 4-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P