[Federal Register: October 27, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 207)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62777-62789]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27oc04-18]
[[Page 62777]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 25 and 121
Miscellaneous Cabin Safety Changes; Final Rule
[[Page 62778]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 25 and 121
[Docket No. FAA-2004-19412, Amendment Nos. 25-116 and 121-306]
RIN 2120-AF77
Miscellaneous Cabin Safety Changes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action amends the airworthiness standards for transport
category airplanes relating to flight attendant assist spaces and
handles, door hold-open features, outside viewing means, interior
compartment doors, and portable oxygen equipment. It also amends the
operating requirements for domestic, flag, and supplemental operations.
These amendments are part of the Agency's continuing effort to upgrade
the regulations to improve the overall level of safety in areas where
the state-of-the-art and good design practice have indicated that such
upgrades are warranted. One of the changes also responds to a National
Transportation Safety Board recommendation. These amendments result in
both new type design regulations as well as retrofit requirements. In
addition, several editorial changes were adopted.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 26, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Gardlin, Airframe and Cabin
Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2136.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
(Note: The FAA transitioned to the new Department of
Transportation's Docket Management System (DMS) during the course of
this rulemaking. At earlier stages of the rulemaking, the docket
number was ``28637.'' Under the new DMS, the docket number is FAA-
2004-19412.)
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
(1) Searching the DOTs electronic DMS Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search
);
(2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfm
; or
(3) Assessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html
.
You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. 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 publication on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.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. Therefore, any small entity that has a question regarding
this document may contact their local FAA official, or the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more
about SBREFA on the Internet at our site, http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm.
For more information on SBREFA, e-mail us at 9-AWA-SBREFA@faa.gov..
Background
These amendments are based on notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),
Notice No. 96-9, which was published in the Federal Register on July
24, 1996 (61 FR 38552). The notice proposed to upgrade several cabin
safety requirements, relating to flight attendant assist spaces and
handles, door hold-open features, outside viewing means, interior
compartment doors, and portable oxygen equipment. These proposals were
intended to take advantage of the state-of-the-art, as well as common
design practice. One of the proposals responds to a National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendation.
For some time, the FAA has worked to achieve harmonization on its
rulemaking with the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) (recently changed
to the European Aviation Safety Agency) and other airworthiness
authorities through the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)
and its harmonization working groups. Although this rulemaking project
has not been the subject of a harmonization working group activity,
because it was initiated prior to the time harmonization became a high
priority with the FAA and JAA, comments received from the JAA members
were addressed in this final rule.
As indicated in Notice No. 96-9, the FAA amended 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 25 pertaining to cabin safety and
crashworthiness following accidents experienced in the 1960's
(Amendment No. 25-15, 32 FR 13255, September 20, 1967; Amendment No.
25-17, 33 FR 9065, June 20, 1968; Amendment No. 25-20, 34 FR 5543,
March 22, 1969; and Amendment No. 25-32, 37 FR 3964, February 15,
1972). These amendments were designed to correct certain deficiencies
identified during the accident investigations, and, in many cases, were
retrofit on airplanes already in service. More recent amendments
(Amendment No. 25-59, 49 FR 43188, October 26, 1984; Amendment No. 25-
64, 53 FR 17640, May 17, 1988; and Amendment No. 25-76, 57 FR 19220,
May 4, 1992) pertaining to cabin safety, such as seat cushion
flammability, dynamic testing standards for seats and improved access
to Type III emergency exits, have resulted from specific research and
development. These amendments are deemed necessary and appropriate by
the FAA considering the current state-of-the-art and existing design
practice. Although nearly all existing installations already comply,
these amendments will ensure that any others comply as well.
Discussion of Amendment to Parts 25 and 121
Flight Attendant Assist Space
Section 25.813 requires that each non-overwing exit equipped with
an assist means have adequate space next to the exit for a flight
attendant to stand and assist occupants while evacuating. The size of
this ``assist space'' is not specified in the regulations. Guidance
material in Civil Aeronautics Manual (CAM) 4b.362-6(b) states that the
assist space should be a 12x20-inch rectangle on the floor and be
useable. A rectangle of this size is generally recognized as the
minimum size acceptable for compliance with Sec. 25.813 or its
predecessor Sec. 4b.362(g) of the Civil Air Regulations (CAR).
Deviations have been permitted if the efficacy of the assist space is
demonstrated.
Demonstrations of a smaller or irregular shaped assist space
usually take place in controlled evacuation tests conducted under
conditions similar to those specified in Appendix J to part 25 for
emergency evacuation
[[Page 62779]]
demonstrations. While these demonstrations have value, they do not
account for the potentially adverse conditions likely to be encountered
in service. Notice No. 96-9 proposed a minimum size for assist spaces
to provide more standardized application of the requirement and give
additional margins of safety under adverse conditions which may be
encountered in service.
Service experience, both in tests and actual incidents, indicates
that the assist space recommended in CAM 4b.362-6(b) is adequate;
therefore, the NPRM proposed that the assist space be a minimum of
12x20-inches rectangle on the floor with the 12-inch dimension
essentially parallel to the exit opening. The location of the assist
space relative to the exit opening is not specified since the best
location may vary from one installation to another. In any case, the
assist space should be located to provide the maximum benefit to
evacuation. The minimum dimensions specified assumed that a flight
attendant would be able to stand upright. Installations which do not
provide adequate headroom to enable a 95th percentile male to stand
upright would probably need an increase in the fore and aft dimension
of the assist space to provide the same level of efficacy as a full
height installation. (Information on anthropometry can be found in NASA
reference publication 1024, Anthropometric Source Book Volume I,
Anthropometry for Designers.) The amount of increase required in these
instances would be dependent on the details of the installation and
would not be specified in the regulations. Since issuing the NPRM, the
FAA has seen improved standardization in assist space configurations
and dimensions during certification. Since the NPRM contained several
explanatory statements on the purpose of the assist space, it is
possible that this information contributed to reduced standardization
problems. Given that one of the main objectives of the proposal was to
improve standardization and that a prescriptive requirement is
generally not preferred where alternatives are possible, the FAA is
withdrawing this portion of the proposal, and retaining the requirement
that the assist space be a rectangle with dimensions that are
``adequate.'' The current guidance in Advisory Circular 25-17 regarding
the acceptability of a 12x20-inch rectangle will be retained. Recent
experience has shown that this approach is acceptable and that
standardization can be achieved, while allowing some flexibility in
specific demonstrations of compliance.
The assist space requirement applies to all larger exit types
(i.e., Types I, II, A, B and C), regardless of whether they are over
the wing. Except for Type A exits, assist spaces have not been required
for exits over the wing. The need for an assist space over the wing is
dependent primarily on the presence of an assist means where the rate
of egress is critical. Future airplane designs may make the
installation of overwing floor level (other than Type A) exits an
attractive option and they are accounted for here. In addition, current
regulations only require an assist space for the larger exits when
there is also an assist means required. For airplanes of relatively
small passenger capacity, service experience indicates that this is a
reasonable standard. However, for airplanes with a larger passenger
capacity, an assist space should be required, whether or not an assist
means is required. Therefore, this amendment also requires an assist
space at all Type II or larger exits on airplanes with a passenger
capacity of 80 or greater. This includes tailcone exits that are
qualified for 25 additional passenger seats under the provisions of
Sec. 25.807(g)(9)(ii) and are required by Sec. 25.810(a) to have such
assist means, since these can become primary exits under certain
evacuation scenarios and will require the assistance of a flight
attendant to perform at their potential. This amendment also corrects a
long-standing editorial error in part 121, that states that assist
spaces are required at all Type I or II exits, regardless of whether or
not an assist means is installed and regardless of passenger capacity.
This amendment adds the words ``equipped with an assist means'' to the
existing text in Sec. 121.310(f)(2), to make it clear that an assist
space is only required in certain cases.
Conversely, the regulations previously required an assist space for
non-floor level, non-overwing exits that incorporate an assist means.
There is at present one airplane with exits that fall into this
category. Given the design difficulties presented by such a design, the
prospects for such exits in the future do not seem likely. Furthermore
the appropriateness of the current standards for such exits appears
questionable (the one example currently in existence was approved by
special conditions). This provision in the regulations is removed by
this amendment. In the unlikely event a design of this nature were ever
proposed, the FAA would develop criteria appropriate for that design in
the form of special conditions.
Most existing installations currently comply with this requirement,
however, for the few that do not, the economic penalty for retrofit
compliance would be quite high. It is also difficult to quantify the
benefit that might be gained from reconfiguring airplanes already
manufactured and placed in service to comply with this amendment;
therefore, no retrofit action was proposed. For newly manufactured
airplanes, Sec. 121.310(f)(2) is amended to require that the assist
spaces of all airplanes manufactured 4 years after the effective date
of this amendment comply with these criteria. As is discussed later, in
the compliance time section, the compliance date was changed from 2
years to 4 years based on comments received.
Flight Attendant Assist Handles
One common design feature of large transport airplanes has been
assist handles to enable flight attendants to steady themselves while
assisting passengers in evacuating. The assist handle can be crucial in
permitting the flight attendant to perform his or her duties
efficiently. This, in turn, can have a direct bearing on the success of
an emergency evacuation. Prior to this amendment, there was no
requirement for assist handles although most, if not all, installations
incorporate them. Although an assist handle may not always be necessary
due to the unpredictable nature of an emergency evacuation, it is a
valuable tool that should be available to the flight attendant when it
is needed. In addition, the assist handle is an integral part of flight
attendant training. The addition of the requirement in part 25 would
eliminate incompatibilities between the type design and operational
requirements.
In some cases a handle designed to provide the flight attendant
with leverage when opening, or more commonly, closing passenger and
service doors is installed. Often, this handle is not located at the
designated assist space. Service experience has shown that the presence
of the handle at another location can mislead a flight attendant into
standing in a location that could obstruct the required passageway. The
FAA has addressed such installations specifically. Service experience
also indicates that there is a need for assist handles to enable flight
attendants to steady themselves while actuating the manual inflation
handle on escape slides. The manual handle is located on the doorsill,
and essentially requires the attendant to straddle the door opening
when pulling the handle. The attendant is quite vulnerable to the
[[Page 62780]]
possibility of being pushed out of the exit. The FAA expects that it
will be possible for one handle to serve both required purposes (i.e.,
emergency evacuation and assist means activation) at a given location;
however, two different handles might be needed at the same exit in some
instances. The assist handle(s) should be usable by the range of flight
attendants encompassing the 5th percentile female to the 95th
percentile male.
This amendment requires that assist handles be installed at the
designated assist space for all floor level exits that require an
assist space. In addition, a companion change to Sec. 121.310(l) is
applicable to newly manufactured airplanes entering the fleet, and
requires a retrofit of the existing in-service fleet. A 3-year
compliance period is adopted.
Outside Viewing Means
Emergency evacuations are frequently necessary either due to, or in
combination with, a hazard such as a fire outside the airplane. Because
the hazard may pose an immediate threat to the occupants of the
airplane, it is often necessary to avoid opening certain otherwise
useable emergency exits in order to prevent injury to the evacuees. In
this context, a viewing window or other means of assessing the outside
conditions and determining whether an exit should be opened is
extremely valuable. A viewing window is commonly provided in most exits
in service; however, it has not been required, and some exits in
service do not incorporate one. This amendment requires a means (for
example, either a window in the exit itself, or in an adjacent frame
bay) that provides a view of the ground area where evacuees will make
contact upon leaving the airplane in an emergency evacuation.
The means should provide visibility taking into account all
conditions of landing gear collapse and, since evacuations can take
place at night, outside illumination conditions. The issue of exterior
illumination was not explicitly discussed in the NPRM, nor were any
comments received on this subject. The fact that there were no comments
may indicate that it is generally understood that the viewing means
needs to be available in conditions of darkness. However, in the
interests of clarity, the rule language is amended to include the
phrase ``under all lighting conditions.'' In the context of devices
intended to be used in an emergency, the viewing means would clearly
have limited utility if it were only available in the daylight.
Exterior emergency lighting is an explicit requirement of Sec. 25.812
to address evacuation in darkness. The FAA therefore regards this
clarification as a nonsubstantive change that will help standardize
application of the rule.
Details such as size and prismatic characteristics of the viewing
means are not specified. The FAA considers that sufficient design
latitude should be available to permit several acceptable concepts. The
viewing means would be required to be available to a person preparing
to open an exit. Thus, if a window were in an adjacent frame bay, there
could not be a partition or divider between the exit and the window to
meet the intent of the requirement. For some exits, two windows might
be installed at each exit in order to provide sufficient viewing
coverage. In terms of exterior illumination, there is no specific
minimum illumination level requirement, although the emergency lighting
system could be used to provide visibility of the area of ground
contact, as well as any other interior or exterior lights that would be
available in an emergency.
The viewing requirement applies only to airplanes for which an
application for type certificate is made after the effective date. Due
to the technical difficulties and resultant cost of modifying existing
airplanes, no retrofit requirement is included.
Exit Hold-Open Feature
Also important is the capability of an exit to remain open during
an evacuation without threat of premature closing. Adverse altitude,
wind or contact by evacuating passengers could cause an unsecured door
to close during an evacuation, and jeopardize the safety of subsequent
passengers. Most passenger emergency exits currently incorporate a
feature, which holds the door open and requires a positive action to
disengage. This amendment requires a means to prevent an emergency exit
from inadvertently closing once it has been opened in an emergency. The
means must automatically engage when the exit is opened and require
positive action to disengage. As discussed in the notice, a removable
hatch would be considered to comply, by definition, as would exits
hinged on the bottom. This latter type of exit is covered further in
the Discussion of Comments section. This requirement amends Sec.
25.809 for new type certificates and creates a new Sec. 121.310(l),
which would require that transport category airplanes (the
applicability to transport category airplanes was inadvertently omitted
in the notice and, in light of other, subsequent changes to part 121,
is restored in the final rule to make the intent clear) in service
after a date 2 years after the effective date of the amendment comply
with the provisions of the part 25 requirement, and redesignate
existing paragraph (l) as a new paragraph (n).
Interior Doors
Following accident experience in the 1960's the FAA amended part
25, in Amendment 25-15, to prohibit the installation of doors ``between
passenger compartments.'' At the time of the amendment, it was common
practice to divide the first class and tourist class cabins with a
solid door. It was determined in the course of accident investigations
that this door could be detrimental in evacuation of passengers, who
tended not to recognize that there was an exit beyond the door, even if
it were the closest available. The resulting regulatory change was
geared specifically at preventing this occurrence. However, the
regulation was worded such that doors may be installed between
passengers and exits provided there are not passengers on both sides of
the door. For example, a door could be installed across the main
passenger aisle at the end of a cabin. The regulations only required
that the door be open for takeoff and landing. It is now considered
undesirable to permit the installation of a door between any passenger
and an exit. Should such a door (either through omission or mechanical
failure) become jammed in the event of an emergency evacuation, persons
could be prevented or delayed in evacuating which could result in
fatalities or injuries that would not otherwise have occurred. The
hazards associated with a jammed door are still present whether or not
passengers are on both sides of the door, and the recognition factor
has not been mitigated. Either could result in the same consequences--
failure of some passengers to evacuate the airplane. This amendment
prohibits the installation of any door between any passenger and any
passenger emergency exit. This would include prohibiting doors that
close off galley areas that serve as passageways or crossaisles, doors
across emergency exits (frequently used on ``VIP'' airplanes), and
doors into rooms that are occupiable for takeoff and landing. This
would also include prohibiting a door across one of the aisles on a
multi-aisle airplane, since this closes off the most direct route to an
exit for some of the passengers.
In the past there has been considerable discussion regarding what
constituted a ``door.'' One common proposal has been to install a
fabric diaphragm bounded by a metal frame,
[[Page 62781]]
which is movable, usually much like a pocket door. This type of
installation has been accepted provided the frame provides no more
resistance to a person passing through it than a normal curtain tie
back. Such installations do, however, create the same recognition
problem as do ``solid'' doors and would no longer be acceptable.
The change to Sec. 25.813(e) applies to all transport category
airplanes for which an application for type certificate is made after
the effective date regardless of whether they are used in air carrier
service. Section 25.813(e) prohibits doors between passengers and
emergency exits whereas Sec. 25.813(f) now deals only with doors
between crewmembers (outside the flightdeck) and emergency exits and is
amended accordingly. Language in paragraph (f) requiring the door
latching means to withstand the inertia loads of Sec. 25.561(b) was
inadvertently left out of the notice. Since this was purely an
editorial error, and does not increase the burden of compliance beyond
what it is currently, the language is restored in the final rule. In
addition, Sec. 121.310(f)(6) would make the new standards applicable
to all other transport category airplanes, operated under that part, 2
years after the effective date of this amendment.
These requirements are not required to be retrofit to non air-
carrier operations, e.g., private use airplanes where the number of
passengers involved is much smaller and there has been no demonstrated
unsafe condition. For reasons discussed below, the requirement as it
relates to other than commercial operations is being reconsidered, and
may ultimately result in additional rulemaking.
Portable Oxygen Equipment
Finally, this amendment requires that oxygen masks intended for
portable oxygen equipment be connected to that equipment. This
amendment follows NTSB Safety Recommendation No. A-90-54. During the
decompression experienced in the February 1989 United Airlines Flight
811 accident, the NTSB determined that flight attendants had difficulty
in using the portable oxygen bottles. These bottles are intended to
enable them to move about the cabin, with an adequate oxygen supply,
after decompression. The oxygen masks were not connected to the
dispensing terminal of the oxygen bottle, thus requiring an additional
action by the flight attendant before the unit was useable. The NTSB
recommended that all such masks be connected to the oxygen supply, to
minimize the time and dexterity necessary for flight attendants to don
and use the portable oxygen. The FAA agrees with this recommendation,
and therefore amends Sec. 25.1447(c)(4) accordingly. In addition, a
companion change is made to Sec. 121.333(d), with a 1-year compliance
time.
A 1-year compliance time is chosen in this case because the
modification required is a simple connection of the oxygen mask to the
supply bottle. This can be done on an overnight visit, or any short
interval maintenance visit. One year is considered more than enough
time to achieve compliance.
Compliance Time
The following table summarizes the part 121 compliance times.
Part 121 Compliance Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing
Subject New aircraft aircraft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assist space at Type II or Airplanes manufactured Not required.
larger exits on airplanes after November 26,
with passenger capacity of 80 2008.
or greater.
Assist handle where assist Airplanes manufactured November 26,
space is required. after November 26, 2007.
2007.
Outside viewing means at all All type certificate Not required.
exits. applications made
after November 26,
2004.
Exit hold open feature........ Airplanes manufactured Not required.
after November 26,
2007.
Prohibition of interior doors Airplanes manufactured Not required.
(between passengers and after November 27,
emergency exits). 2006.
Portable oxygen equipment Airplanes manufactured November 28,
(connection of oxygen masks). after November 28, 2005.
2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Changes
The ambiguity in the provisions of Sec. 25.853(f) concerning
ashtrays has been removed by requiring that all seated occupants in
designated smoking areas are provided with ashtrays. Since designated
smoking areas can vary from flight to flight, an adequate number of
ashtrays would need to be installed at delivery to account for the
largest smoking section anticipated by the airline. Alternatively, the
size of the smoking section would be limited by the number and location
of the ashtrays.
Prior to this amendment, the introductory phrase in Sec. 25.855
stated: ``For each cargo and baggage compartment not occupied by crew
or passengers, the following apply.'' It has been brought to the
attention of the FAA that this phrase may also cause confusion. By
definition, some compartments must be accessible to crewmembers to
fight fires in flight; therefore, the exception made by the
introductory phrase cannot (and has not been interpreted to) apply to
compartments that are only occupied occasionally by crew or passengers.
Furthermore, crew and passengers are not permitted to be seated or
stationed on a full-time basis in cargo or baggage compartments. Since
the exception does not apply to occasional occupancy and since crew and
passengers do not occupy cargo or baggage compartments in flight on a
full-time basis, the exception made in the phrase has no applicability.
Using the present wording of the introductory phrase, it was alleged,
in at least one instance, that the standards of Sec. 25.855 did not
apply because the cockpit was part of the cargo or baggage compartment.
That allegation was unfounded because, regardless of the degree or
method of separation, the cockpit can not be considered part of a cargo
or baggage compartment. Nevertheless, it does show that the phrase can
easily be misinterpreted. Since the exception has no applicability and
may cause confusion, the introductory phrase is reworded to simply
state, ``For each cargo or baggage compartment, the following apply.''
This is a nonsubstantive change that places no additional burden on any
person.
Finally, as a result of the extensive changes to part 25 adopted in
Amendment 25-72, many referenced sections were changed. Some of the
previous references were inadvertently retained, however, and are no
longer correct. Therefore, the FAA has corrected these references to
correspond to the current structure of part 25. These changes are
purely editorial in nature
[[Page 62782]]
and affect Sec. Sec. 25.812(g)(1)(ii), 25.812(g)(2), 25.812(h), and
25.1411(c).
Discussion of Comments
Comments were received from 19 parties, including foreign and
domestic airplane manufacturers, labor associations, foreign and
domestic operators, foreign regulatory authorities, and the NTSB. Each
proposed change received comments. Five commenters support the
proposals as written. Four other commenters agree with specific aspects
of the proposal, and did not comment on others. Ten commenters disagree
with at least parts of the proposal, with one commenter opposing any
changes to part 121.
Flight Attendant Assist Space
Five commenters support the proposal and five commenters oppose all
or parts of it.
Comment: One commenter suggests additional rulemaking to require an
assist space when the sill height of the exit is greater than 3 feet
(versus the current requirement for an assist space when the exit sill
height is 6 feet above the ground and requires an assist means). The
commenter feels that an assist space is also necessary for exit sill
heights between 3 and 6 feet.
Response: The FAA has not considered another sill height when
specifying the requirement for an assist space but, rather, the number
of passengers on board. In this case, an assist space is required for
airplanes of more than 80 passengers, regardless of the sill height.
For passenger capacities of 80 or less, the ratios of passengers to
exits are decreased; the FAA believes that the presence of an assist
means should govern the requirement for an assist space in smaller
airplanes. No change is made to the final rule.
Comment: Another commenter, representing certain domestic airlines,
while not opposed to the assist space requirement, is concerned about
the impact it might have. The commenter contends that any deficiencies
would be uncovered by evacuation demonstrations. In addition, the
commenter contends that a detailed analysis of the potential impact has
not been made.
Response: As discussed in the notice, the FAA does not agree that
typical evacuation demonstrations would necessarily reveal deficiencies
in assist space dimensions. With respect to the impact of the
requirement, as discussed later, this is not anticipated to be
significant, given that there is no retrofit application.
Comment: A commenter representing domestic airframe manufacturers
disagrees that the change to the assist space requirement was
necessary, and also states that evacuation demonstrations are adequate
to identify deficiencies. This commenter considers the change an
expansion of the existing requirements in that, on some installations,
it is not currently possible for the 95th percentile male to stand
upright while using the assist space. The commenter questions whether
the assist space is evaluated with the exit open or closed, and whether
the assist space is a 12x20-inch rectangular solid, from the floor to
the height of a 95th percentile male, or whether it may be ``the 95th
percentile male humanoid shape.'' The commenter states that the
proposal does not adequately define the total envelope of the assist
space and will lead to increased costs as specific installations are
negotiated further. In addition, the commenter states that
incorporation of the requirement into part 121 will render some current
configurations (presumably still being produced 2 years after the
effective date of the regulation) unacceptable. The costs of compliance
for these configurations will involve galley redesign, flight attendant
seat relocation, and possible loss of revenue seats, according to the
commenter. This would require an operator to have two different
interior arrangements on the same airplane type.
Response: As noted previously, the FAA has determined that
specifying the dimensions of the assist space in the rule is not
necessary. However, the intent of the proposal was to quantify
something that has been a basic design practice over 30 years, and
eliminate those few instances where a reduced size assist space may
have been approved on the basis of ``no observed problems'' in an
evacuation demonstration. The proposal would not have changed how the
assist space is measured, once established. Since the assist space is
only meaningful with the exit open, it would of course, continue to be
determined in that condition. Small incursions into the vertical
projection of the otherwise rectangular assist space will continue to
be acceptable, provided that they are not a hazard, and do not
adversely influence the efficacy of the assist space. The need for the
assist space to be full-height is noted in Advisory Circular 25-17,
page 723, paragraph 411. The AC notes that it is necessary to provide
additional space if it is not possible to stand upright. With respect
to current designs, only a few designs do not already comply with these
criteria. Since the prescriptive dimensional requirements are being
withdrawn, the remainder of the commenters concerns are obviated.
Comment: A foreign manufacturer also comments on the potential for
the assist space requirement to influence revenue seating. The
commenter also objects to the need for an increase in the fore and aft
dimension of the assist space when adequate headroom is not provided.
This commenter, as well as another commenter representing foreign
airworthiness authorities, suggests that the requirement that the 12-
inch dimension of the assist space be parallel to the exit is too
restrictive, and may not be practical when the exit is located in the
tapered section of the fuselage. Both commenters suggest that the 12-
inch dimension be parallel to the aircraft centerline.
Response: The FAA agrees that the proposal was too restrictive. It
was not our intent to propose precise measurements to ascertain whether
the assist space was, in fact, parallel to the exit. By the same token,
such measurements would not be expected to ascertain that the assist
space is parallel to the airplane centerline. The assist space should
generally be oriented with the 12-inch dimension along the length of
the airplane, although since the exact dimensions are not specified in
the rule, this information will become advisory material. Generally
speaking, the assist space is expected to be oriented at an angle
somewhere between parallel to the exit and parallel to the airplane
centerline, which is no different than current practice. This allows
sufficient latitude in identifying the assist space. With respect to
additional fore and aft space, this has long been the requirement, as
discussed previously.
Comment: Another foreign manufacturer also states that the
requirement for an assist space based on passenger capacity, and not
the presence of an assist means is highly detrimental to small
transports. The commenter suggests that the requirement will force
installation of Type III exits, where Type II exits might have been
used.
Response: On November 8, 1996, the FAA published Amendment No. 25-
88, which adopted a new means of determining passenger capacity and
introduced two new exit types (61 FR 57946, November 8, 1996). In this
final rule, we are adopting a change to Sec. 25.813(b)(3) to require
an assist space for airplanes with ``more than 80 passengers'' rather
than ``79 or more passengers'' as stated in the proposal. While this
change does not entirely address the commenter's concern, airplanes
with one pair of Type I exits and one pair of Type III exits are not
[[Page 62783]]
affected, unless the exit sill heights are greater than 6 feet from the
ground. Airplanes incorporating more pairs of exits, or larger exits,
should incorporate an assist space for the reasons discussed in the
notice. It should also be noted that the exit type is based on the
configuration of the interior, as well as the physical dimensions of
the opening in the fuselage. An exit dimensionally equivalent to a Type
II exit would become a Type III exit, irrespective of the size of the
opening if an assist space were not provided; the maximum allowable
passenger capacity would be reduced accordingly. Therefore, this
requirement should not inhibit installation of larger than required
exits.
Comment: One commenter also proposes an additional requirement, for
exits at the end of a cabin, that the assist space be oriented so that
the flight attendant would face passengers as they approach the exit.
Response: In general, the FAA agrees that having the flight
attendant face passengers as they approach the exit can only be
beneficial. While this is a desirable goal, the FAA does not believe it
is feasible to mandate the location of the assist space to this degree.
For the orientation of the assist space to make a difference, it would
be necessary for the flight attendant to be able to see along the
aisles, from the assist space, as passengers approach. The regulations
do not currently require this, nor was it proposed in the notice.
Therefore, such a requirement is beyond the scope of the notice.
Flight Attendant Assist Handles
Ten commenters address the proposed requirement for flight
attendant assist handles. Six of the commenters support the proposal,
with one of those commenters suggesting an editorial change.
Comment: Two commenters accept the proposal with respect to new
type design, but question the incorporation on existing and newly
manufactured airplanes. One commenter requests that the compliance time
be extended from 2 to 4 years, while the other commenter proposes that
the requirement be limited to new type design only. Both commenters
cite the costs of modifications for those airplanes that do not already
comply, and assert that there are many such airplanes. In addition, one
commenter indicates that it is not known which airplanes currently
comply and operators will have to wait for manufacturers' service
bulletins in order to make necessary modifications, which will require
additional compliance time.
Response: The FAA agrees that the time for compliance may not be
adequate in some cases. In particular, the need to address the two
functions of the handle(s) on a retrofit basis is potentially much more
difficult than for a new design. In order to address both the time for
compliance and the potential complexity and associated cost of
extensive retrofit, the final rule separates the requirement for a
handle to assist the flight attendant while conducting an evacuation
and the requirement for a handle to enable the flight attendant to
steady himself or herself when actuating the assist means manually. The
latter requirement will not apply to the existing fleet. In addition, 3
years are allowed for compliance, both for newly manufactured airplanes
and the existing fleet, to install an assist handle to aid in
evacuation. Due to other editorial changes in this section, the
requirement will be added in Sec. 25.813(b)(6).
Comment: Several commenters question the applicability of the
proposed requirement under various scenarios. Some commenters ask
whether the handle was required when there is no assist means required.
Response: To the extent that an assist space is required, an assist
handle is also required. If there is no assist means, the purpose of
the handle would only be to facilitate evacuation. Also, if the assist
means had no manual activation mechanism, such as with some airstair
doors, the handle would also only be necessary to facilitate
evacuation. To make this clear, the phrase ``where applicable'' is
added after ``assist means'' in Sec. 25.813(b)(6). Assist means that
are not otherwise required, but are provided (such as certain integral
airstairs), would not require an assist handle unless an assist space
was otherwise required because of passenger capacity.
Comment: Commenters also question whether the assist handle can
intrude into the 12x20-inch assist space vertical projection.
Response: To the extent that the assist handle performs it's
function while the flight attendant occupies the assist space, the
small amount of intrusion into the assist space that might be necessary
is considered inconsequential. In fact, the handle could be considered
part of the assist space. No change to the regulation is necessary.
Comment: One commenter also notes that there are assist spaces that
are not located at the exit sill, and the proposal appears to be geared
toward those that are. The commenter asserts that the handle would not
appear to provide a benefit when the assist space is away from the exit
sill.
Response: The FAA does not agree. The purpose of the assist handle
is to provide a steadying means for the flight attendant, during an
evacuation, where the flight attendant is affecting the flow through an
exit. Whether or not the assist space is at the exit sill, the need for
the flight attendant to gain leverage still exists. While the
arrangement may be different, the requirement applies, regardless of
the location of the assist space relative to the exit sill.
Outside Viewing Means
Ten commenters address the provision for a means to view the
outside conditions, prior to opening an exit. While some commenters
request specific clarification on certain aspects of the requirement,
only one commenter opposes the requirement for certain types of exits.
Comment: Some commenters note that the use of overwing escape
systems means that the areas of evacuee ground contact may be distant
from the location of the exit itself. In addition, the potential for
future design concepts to have multiple decks, as well as longitudinal
distances between the exit and the point where the escape system
touches the ground should be taken into account.
Response: With respect to the potential for the exit to be somewhat
remote from the point where the evacuees would contact the ground, the
FAA agrees that this may be the case. The intent of the requirement is
to enable a person to ascertain whether to open an exit, and whether it
is safe to evacuate through the exit, based on an assessment of the
outside conditions. To the extent that the means used for determination
of the former does not also allow an assessment of the ground, the FAA
agrees that an additional viewing means may be necessary, and that the
additional means may be somewhat remote from the exit. We have
therefore reworded the amendment to allow for the dual purpose of the
viewing means, and to distinguish the required locations of the two.
Comment: One commenter states that the requirement should not apply
to ventral, tailcone and overhead (or any exit located above the mid-
point of the fuselage) exits, and that the requirement to view areas of
evacuee ground contact should be eliminated. The commenter notes that
there are currently no windows in these areas of the cabin, and the
fuselage structure in the vicinity of these exits does not, in any
case, lend itself to a simple window as a means of compliance. The
commenter points out
[[Page 62784]]
that the condition of the landing gear can influence, by up to 80
degrees of arc in the roll axis, the position of ground contact and
most people will not know where to look. Also, the commenter recommends
that the requirement not apply to exits that utilize ropes or inertia
reels as assist means, for the same reasons.
Response: The FAA does not agree that the requirement should not
apply to ventral, tailcone or overhead exits. In most cases, it should
be possible to view the outside conditions sufficiently well from a
nearby passenger or flightdeck window to ascertain whether to open an
overhead exit. This is considered acceptable. With respect to ventral
and tailcone exits, the problem is more considerable, but there is no
justification for not providing the same features at these types of
exits, except for the added complexity. Future type designs may need to
incorporate more novel features, to demonstrate compliance. However,
the need to be able to determine whether or not to open the exit is no
less important for these types of exits.
The FAA specifically requested comments on the feasibility of a
viewing means at ventral and tailcone exits. Only one commenter
addresses this issue, and does not provide any data to support the
contention that the rule should not apply. As to whether passengers
would know where to look, with the change discussed above, the
functions of the viewing means are more clearly delineated and
transparent to the passenger. A crewmember would be more likely to
assess the areas of evacuee ground contact, while any person opening an
exit should be given the opportunity to make a judgment as to whether
to proceed. Therefore, with the changes noted above, the requirement is
adopted.
Exit Hold-Open Feature
Eight commenters address the proposal to require a means to prevent
exits from inadvertently closing in an emergency. Most commenters agree
with the basic proposal but request clarification on specific points.
Comment: One commenter questions the applicability to removable,
hatch type exits.
Response: As noted in the preamble to the notice, these exits would
be considered in compliance by definition.
Comment: Several commenters address exits that are hinged on the
bottom and held open by gravity.
Response: Exits that are hinged on the bottom are considered to
comply by virtue of the basic design.
Comment: One commenter proposes a wording change such that the
means ``must not require operator action to engage.''
Response: This is more general than the proposed wording, which
implies a separate device. As noted above a separate device is not
necessarily required; therefore, the wording in the second sentence of
Sec. 25.809(i) will be changed to read: ``The means must not require
separate action to engage when the exit is opened, and must require
positive action to disengage.''
Comment: One commenter expresses concern that the retrofit
incorporation of this requirement is based on an assumption that the
means currently in service are acceptable. The commenter notes this
assumption has not been validated and, if incorrect, will increase the
cost of the rulemaking considerably. The commenter suggests that the
FAA explicitly state that all such existing devices are acceptable.
Response: The FAA agrees that the suitability of all existing
devices has not been positively established, although it is unaware of
any designs that would not be acceptable. To preclude an unanticipated
compliance burden, and given that the vast majority of transport
category airplanes already incorporate such features, the requirement
in Sec. 121.310(l) is changed to refer to airplanes manufactured after
a date 3 years from the effective date of this amendment.
Interior Doors
The proposed provision relating to interior doors generated the
largest number of comments, with 15 commenters responding. Five
commenters support the proposal as written. Many commenters represent
the corporate aviation community, where certain types of interior doors
are currently standard features.
One common installation on corporate aircraft is a seat integrated
into the lavatory, that can be occupied for takeoff and landing.
Because the lavatory has a door, this door effectively becomes a ``door
between passenger compartments,'' and not permitted under the current
requirements. However, the FAA has accepted such installations under
certain conditions, on an equivalent level of safety basis. It is
important to note that the amendment in this final rule would not
change the status of such occupied lavatories. They would continue to
be assessed on a case-by-case basis and, if the requirements for
equivalency were met, could be approved.
Comment: Several commenters have identified what they see as an
inconsistency between Sec. Sec. 25.813(e) and (f).
Response: With respect to the perceived conflict with Sec. Sec.
25.813(e) and (f), as mentioned in the preamble to the notice, Sec.
25.813(f) addresses occupants other than passengers that might have to
use exits on the flightdeck, or in other areas. Thus there is no
conflict with the prohibition of doors between passengers and exits
established in Sec. 25.813(e).
Comment: Commenters also note an inconsistency between the preamble
and the proposed regulatory language in Notice No. 96-9 with respect to
retrofit incorporation of the requirement. The preamble states that the
proposed requirement would apply to ``newly manufactured'' airplanes,
while the proposed regulatory language applies to all transport
category airplanes in service. Most commenters agree with the proposal
as it relates to commercial aviation. Although one example of an exit
inside a lavatory was cited, that would no longer be acceptable under
the proposal (or would require removal of the lavatory door).
Response: Regarding the perceived conflict in the preamble and the
regulatory language, the regulatory language correctly expresses the
intent of the proposal. However, the FAA is aware of at least two
existing air carrier installations where the route to an exit could be
said to lead through a lavatory. In one case, the installation is
literally such that the exit is inside the lavatory. In the other case,
the normal interior configuration does not involve the lavatory;
however, when in use, the lavatory door extends across the main aisle,
and essentially encloses the aft exit, as well as a flight attendant
seat. In the latter case, the FAA did not intend to require a
substantial change to the type design in order to comply. This
installation is arguably in compliance already, although it was not
explicitly considered in the proposal. Each of these doors is
permissible under the current regulations, because they are not ``doors
between passenger compartments.'' In each case however, the airplanes
are no longer in production. In both cases, there is no obvious means
of compliance that would not either render the lavatory unusable, or
result in a substantial reconfiguration of the interior. Therefore, the
amendment is changed to apply to newly manufactured airplanes, with no
retrofit action to the existing fleet.
Comment: Another commenter requests clarification that the door in
the aft pressure bulkhead, leading to a tailcone exit, would not be
classified as a ``door between passengers and exits.''
[[Page 62785]]
Response: Doors in pressure bulkheads are not considered interior
doors, and therefore not subject to this amendment.
Comment: Several commenters advocate the continued allowance of
certain types of interior doors for corporate or other special purpose
operations. These commenters note that such operations typically
involve small numbers of occupants, small numbers of exits (meaning
that there is less confusion regarding where each exit is) and
passengers that tend to be familiar with the airplane. The commenters
point to a lack of adverse service history as justification for
retaining the requirement in its current form for these sized
airplanes. Some commenters suggest a passenger capacity limitation with
respect to when interior doors could be allowed.
Response: Such installations could be acceptable under certain
conditions, but would require a separate action, such as an exemption,
or new rulemaking. For the basic type certification standard, the
requirement is adopted as proposed.
Comment: One commenter points out that this rule would allow a
flight attendant seat to be effectively isolated by a door, provided
the seat was not adjacent to an exit.
Response: The commenter is correct, although the rule does not
change what is permissible in that regard. The FAA is not aware of any
such installations, and does not consider that this rule change
increases the likelihood that such an installation would be proposed.
The FAA has given careful consideration to the special
circumstances surrounding corporate and executive operations, and the
differences in certification standards that result from the proposal.
While it may be true that a higher percentage of passengers on
corporate airplanes (as opposed to air carrier airplanes) are familiar
with the exit arrangement, there is no guarantee of such familiarity.
While it is true that there is no adverse service history with respect
to interior doors on corporate airplanes, this can be attributed to an
absence of service history in general, as opposed to any inherent
superiority in this type of operation. The FAA is concerned that any
regulation could lead to increased use of older airplanes, built to
earlier certification standards in general. This could mean that newer
airplane types that embody other improved safety features will not get
introduced into service. In this case, however, it is doubtful that an
interior feature will drive the acquisition of an airplane over
considerations such as performance and fuel efficiency offered by new
designs. As discussed in the notice, the FAA has not identified an
unsafe condition with interior doors in those types of operations, and
is therefore not requiring retrofit of this segment of the fleet. Since
Notice No. 96-9 was published, the FAA has processed exemptions for
privately operated airplanes that allow the installation of interior
doors, under certain conditions, when such exemptions have been shown
to be in the public interest. These exemptions require specific design
features, as well as limit the type of operation permitted (i.e., not
offered for hire or common carriage) when such doors are installed. It
is the FAA's intention to develop alternative regulatory standards that
specifically apply to privately operated airplanes that would address
several areas, primarily relating to cabin safety issues. This
amendment, however, applies to transport category airplanes in general,
irrespective of their intended operation and, as such, is adopted for
part 25 as proposed. The FAA will continue to entertain petitions for
exemption where public interest is demonstrated for privately operated
airplanes.
Portable Oxygen Equipment
Twelve commenters address the proposal to require connection of
oxygen masks to the oxygen supply, for portable oxygen equipment. Most
commenters fully support the proposal, one commenter states the
justification for retrofit seemed vague, but provided no additional
substantiating information, and did not offer an alternative.
Comment: One commenter expresses a desire to have the connection
for the oxygen mask outside any protective cover, with a separate cap.
Another commenter states the proposed Sec. 121.333(d)(2) constitutes a
requirement for portable oxygen equipment, where none currently exists
today either in the operating rules or the type design rules.
Response: All safety equipment is currently required to be
protected from inadvertent damage in accordance with Sec. 25.1411, and
so adopting an additional requirement for a cap on the oxygen mask
connection is not necessary. With respect to whether the proposal
requires portable oxygen equipment where it has not been required
before, there is an editorial error in the proposed language for Sec.
121.333(d)(2) that would have eliminated fixed installations with spare
masks and outlets as an option. Part 25 however, has always required
portable oxygen equipment to be immediately available for flight
attendants, so this is not a new requirement. In order to account for
both portable and fixed installations, the wording in Sec.
121.333(d)(2) has been changed, and a new Sec. 121.333(d)(3) is added
so that each subparagraph offers an optional means of compliance.
Comment: One commenter objects to the proposed requirement. The
commenter states that there are design, safety and economic reasons why
the proposal should not be adopted. The commenter notes that masks are
stored with the oxygen bottle, even if not connected to it, and a
connection might cause the oxygen hose to kink or abrade. In addition,
the commenter is concerned that design changes that might be required
to comply with the rule not create compatibility problems with
previously approved masks.
Response: The FAA agrees that the oxygen mask is stored with the
bottle, but the proposal would provide connection of the mask to the
oxygen supply in order to speed the availability of oxygen in an
emergency. Since many installations are already delivered in this way,
no extraordinary design measures should be required.
Comment: The commenter also is concerned that if oxygen flow is
begun prior to removal of the mask from its attachment to the bottle,
it might cause rupture of the reservoir bag. The commenter cites an
airworthiness directive where something similar occurred.
Response: The airworthiness directive pertains to oxygen mounted in
passenger service units where reservoir bags were inadvertently
pressurized during testing. In the case of portable equipment, such
tests would not be necessary and the bottle would have to be opened
inadvertently. In addition, the reservoir bag would have to be
configured in a particular manner in order to cause over-
pressurization. Again, since this type of installation is already in
service, these potential problems should be readily avoidable.
Comment: The commenter also questions whether the connected mask
would comply with Sec. 25.869, which requires oxygen systems to be
installed so that they will not cause ignition of flammable fluids or
vapors in case of leakage. The commenter contends that the connected
assembly is more likely to be left open than were the mask not
connected.
Response: Section 25.869 is primarily directed at fixed
installations that may be installed near other systems, such as
hydraulic or fuel systems, where leakage of oxygen could produce a
serious, immediate hazard. This section could also apply to portable
oxygen bottles, if they were installed in such locations.
[[Page 62786]]
For the typical passenger cabin portable installation however,
compliance with this section is typically not a significant obstacle.
In addition, the FAA does not believe that the likelihood of an oxygen
valve being left open is any different with or without the mask
connected.
Comment: The commenter also identifies several areas where the
estimated costs in the NPRM would be exceeded if design changes are
necessary in order to comply. The commenter indicates that there might
need to be both changes to the connection hardware, as well as
relocation of the bottles and attachment hardware.
Response: As noted previously, the connection of the masks to the
oxygen bottle is not an unusual feature or installation and the means
to accomplish this are readily available. For the majority of
installations, simply connecting the hose to the bottle is all that is
required. For those instances where that is not true, the corrective
action is not novel or requiring new technology, and can be
accomplished easily. The FAA notes that no operators objected to the
proposed requirement, and several explicitly concurred.
Finally, the commenter contends that the accident that resulted in
the NTSB recommendation involved both difficulty in removing the oxygen
mask from its packaging, as well as the time to connect the mask to the
bottle. The commenter believes that making the packaging easier to open
will satisfy the intent of the recommendation, and notes that equipment
suppliers are working to accomplish this.
Response: The FAA concurs that the packaging for oxygen masks
could, in many cases, be made easier to open. This does not address the
intent of the NTSB recommendation (which was very specific with respect
to connection of the oxygen mask) however, and essentially amounts to
compliance with the current requirements of Sec. 25.1411(a), which
states that emergency equipment must be readily accessible. The final
rule remains unchanged.
Various changes to part 121, since issuance of Notice 96-9, will
have a small editorial effect on this amendment, but will not result in
any substantive change to the requirements. There is also no change
regarding which sections are affected.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), there are no current or new requirements for information
collection associated with this amendment.
International Compatibility With ICAO Standards
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 practical. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
the Joint Aviation Authorities regulations, where they exist, and has
identified no differences in these amendments and the foreign
regulations.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal agency
proposing or adopting regulation to first make a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Trade Agreements Act prohibits agencies from setting standards that
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. In developing U.S. standards, this act requires agencies to
consider international standards, and use them where appropriate as the
basis for U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs and
benefits, and other effects of proposed and final rules. An assessment
must be prepared only for rules that impose a Federal mandate on State,
local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, likely to
result in a total expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted for
inflation) in any one year.
In conducting these analyses, the FAA determined that this rule has
benefits that justify the minimal incremental costs; will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities; has no
effect on trade-sensitive activity; and does not impose an unfunded
mandate on State, local, or tribal government, or on the private
sector.
The provisions of this rule reflect current industry practices. The
primary potential benefit of the final rule is that it will require
these current practices to be continued in the future. Alternatively,
without this rule, the current safety practices could be reduced. A
secondary benefit of the final rule will arise from clarifying existing
rules. The prevalence of these industry practices indicates that
airplane manufacturers and operators have determined that they are
warranted means of enhancing passenger and flight attendant safety.
In the analysis for the NPRM, the FAA estimated de minimis costs,
and requested documented cost information from the industry. The FAA
did receive comments regarding costs. After reviewing these comments
the FAA concludes the de minimis cost conclusion is appropriate.
Provisions of this rule (such as emergency exit viewing windows, and
interior cabin doors) apply only to future type-certificated aircraft.
Given future design flexibility, costs are considered to be negligible.
Other provisions (such as assist handles, emergency exit door latch
open devices, and portable oxygen bottles) codify practices that are
already being adopted by the entire industry. Even if an operator was
not compliant, the costs of compliance are estimated to be less than
$1000.
Costs and Benefits
The FAA believes that the certification of largely existing good
industry practices ensures today's level of safety and will modestly
improve future levels of air safety at minimal cost. The rule will
codify current industry practices, an indication that aircraft
manufacturers and airlines have determined that the rule, even before
its publication, is aimed at enhancing passenger and flight attendant
survivability in case of an accident. The major benefit is to ensure
that the existing level of safety is maintained because, without the
rule, the safety standards could be relaxed at any time.
The final rule will impose minimal, if any, incremental compliance
costs on existing airplanes and airplanes manufactured under existing
type certificates because it will codify existing industry practices,
and clarify FAA requirements concerning cabin configuration and
equipment specifications. There is one exception. The final rule could
impose some compliance costs on future part 25 type-certificated
airplanes, arising from the requirement for a viewing window in each
emergency exit door or adjacent bay. In order for a tailcone emergency
exit to meet this requirement, considerable engineering redesign may be
needed. The FAA specifically requested comments on this topic, but
commenters only dealt with the inability to view the outside
environment from the tailcone emergency exit, not from the cost of
redesign. It is conceivable that, since the rule applies only to
airplanes for which
[[Page 62787]]
an application for type certificate is made after the effective date,
and no retrofit requirement is included, most future aircraft will not
be equipped with a tailcone exit.
Another comment referenced the installation of interior doors. In
this case, the argument was made that revenue would be lost by the
aftermarket industry if interior doors could not be installed after
purchase from the original equipment manufacturer. Since the
requirement is not retrofit to the existing fleet, and the FAA will
continue to entertain petitions for exemption where public interest is
demonstrated for privately-owned airplanes, the rule will not dimish
the earning potential of any firm engaged in installing doors in
existing aircraft. Certain future unscheduled charter operators might
be negatively affected, but since the rule applies only to future
aircraft, the FAA cannot predict what cost will be encumbered given
manufacturers' flexibility to design and customize new airplanes to
meet customer needs.
Yet another comment was made by an aerospace industry association
expressing concern over the possible increased cost of compliance with
respect to oxygen equipment but providing no detail as to why they
believe it would be the case. No operators objected because the
majority, if not all, of the installations are already compliant with
the rule (and if there are any that are not, the corrective action can
be accomplished very easily)
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or
disproportionately burdened by government regulations. The Act
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject
to regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions. The Act 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 proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will indeed
have a significant impact, the agency must prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis as described in the Act.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the Act provides that the
head of the agency may so certify, and an 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. In this case, the FAA economic evaluation for the NPRM
estimated that the rule will impose no, or de minimis, costs to the
aviation industry as a whole. The FAA did receive comments regarding
compliance costs. After reviewing these comments the FAA determined
that the de minimis costs conclusion remains appropriate. Therefore,
the FAA certifies that there will be no significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or 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.
In accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this final rule will have, at most, minimal impact
on the competitive posture of either U.S. carriers doing business in
foreign countries or foreign carriers doing business in the United
States. This assessment is based on the fact that this rule will have,
at most, minimal impact on existing part 121 operators, since they are
already in compliance. These requirements, therefore, will not impose a
competitive disadvantage for U.S. air carriers operating overseas or
for foreign carriers operating in the United States. Finally, the
certification requirement of this rule will not constitute a barrier to
international trade because part 25 certificated aircraft currently
manufactured are already in compliance with this rule.
Unfunded Mandates Act Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act),
enacted as Pub.L.104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal agency,
to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of the
effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that
may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $120,700,000 (adjusted
for inflation to calendar year 2003 levels by the Consumer Price Index
for All Urban Consumers). Section 204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a),
requires the Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit
timely input by elected officers (or their designees) of State, local,
and tribal governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental
mandate''. A ``significant intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is
any provision in a Federal agency regulation that would impose an
enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section
204(a), provides that before establishing any regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the
agency shall have developed a plan that, among other things, provides
for notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a
meaningful and timely opportunity to provide input in the development
of regulatory proposals or rules.
This final rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental or
private sector mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Executive Order 3132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the State, or the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Therefore, we determined that this final rule does not have
federalism implications.
Regulations Affecting Interstate Aviation in Alaska
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in Title
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting interstate aviation in Alaska, to
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation
modes other than aviation, and to establish such regulatory
distinctions as he or she
[[Page 62788]]
considers appropriate. Because this rule would apply to the
certification of future designs of transport category airplanes and
their subsequent operation, it could, if adopted, affect interstate
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.
Energy Impact
The energy impact of the rule has been assessed in accordance with
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and Public Law 94-163, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). It has been determined that it is not a major
regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 25
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
14 CFR Part 121
Aviation safety, Safety, Air carrier, Air traffic control, Air
transportation, Aircraft, Aircraft pilots, Airmen, Airplanes, Airports,
Airspace, Cargo, Chemicals, Children, Narcotics, Flammable materials,
Handicapped, Hazardous materials, Common carriers.
The Amendment
0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends parts 25 and 121 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations
as follows:
PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
0
2. Section 25.809 is amended by revising paragraph (a), and by adding a
new paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.809 Emergency exit arrangement.
(a) Each emergency exit, including each flightcrew emergency exit,
must be a moveable door or hatch in the external walls of the fuselage,
allowing an unobstructed opening to the outside. In addition, each
emergency exit must have means to permit viewing of the conditions
outside the exit when the exit is closed. The viewing means may be on
or adjacent to the exit provided no obstructions exist between the exit
and the viewing means. Means must also be provided to permit viewing of
the likely areas of evacuee ground contact. The likely areas of evacuee
ground contact must be viewable during all lighting conditions with the
landing gear extended as well as in all conditions of landing gear
collapse.
* * * * *
(i) Each emergency exit must have a means to retain the exit in the
open position, once the exit is opened in an emergency. The means must
not require separate action to engage when the exit is opened, and must
require positive action to disengage.
0
3. Section Sec. 25.812 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(1)(ii),
(g)(2), and (h) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 25.812 Emergency lighting.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) Not less than 0.05 foot-candle (measured normal to the
direction of the incident light) for a minimum width of 42 inches for a
Type A overwing emergency exit and two feet for all other overwing
emergency exits along the 30 percent of the slip-resistant portion of
the escape route required in Sec. 25.810(c) that is farthest from the
exit; and
* * * * *
(2) At each non-overwing emergency exit not required by Sec.
25.810(a) to have descent assist means the illumination must be not
less than 0.03 foot-candle (measured normal to the direction of the
incident light) on the ground surface with the landing gear extended
where an evacuee is likely to make first contact with the ground
outside the cabin.
(h) The means required in Sec. Sec. 25.810(a) and (d) to assist
the occupants in descending to the ground must be illuminated so that
the erected assist means is visible from the airplane.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 25.813 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2) and
(b)(3), by adding new paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(6) and by
revising paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.813 Emergency exit access.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Each assist space must be a rectangle on the floor, of
sufficient size to enable a crewmember, standing erect, to effectively
assist evacuees. The assist space must not reduce the unobstructed
width of the passageway below that required for the exit.
(2) For each Type A or B exit, assist space must be provided at
each side of the exit regardless of whether an assist means is required
by Sec. 25.810(a).
(3) For each Type C, I or II exit installed in an airplane with
seating for more than 80 passengers, an assist space must be provided
at one side of the passageway regardless of whether an assist means is
required by Sec. 25.810(a).
(4) For each Type C, I or II exit, an assist space must be provided
at one side of the passageway if an assist means is required by Sec.
25.810(a).
(5) For any tailcone exit that qualifies for 25 additional
passenger seats under the provisions of Sec. 25.807(d)(3)(ii), an
assist space must be provided, if an assist means is required by Sec.
25.810(a).
(6) There must be a handle, or handles, at each assist space,
located to enable the crewmember to steady himself or herself:
(i) While manually activating the assist means (where applicable)
and,
(ii) While assisting passengers during an evacuation.
* * * * *
(e) No door may be installed between any passenger seat that is
occupiable for takeoff and landing and any passenger emergency exit,
such that the door crosses any egress path (including aisles,
crossaisles and passageways).
(f) If it is necessary to pass through a doorway separating any
crewmember seat (except those seats on the flightdeck), occupiable for
takeoff and landing, from any emergency exit, the door must have a
means to latch it in the open position. The latching means must be able
to withstand the loads imposed upon it when the door is subjected to
the ultimate inertia forces, relative to the surrounding structure,
listed in Sec. 25.561(b).
Sec. 25.819 [Amended]
0
5.-6. Section Sec. 25.853 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read
as follows:
Sec. 25.853 Compartment interiors.
* * * * *
(f) Smoking is not allowed in lavatories. If smoking is allowed in
any area occupied by the crew or passengers, an adequate number of
self-contained, removable ashtrays must be provided in designated
smoking sections for all seated occupants.
* * * * *
0
7. The introductory text in Sec. 25.855 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 62789]]
Sec. 25.855 Cargo or baggage compartments.
For each cargo or baggage compartment, the following apply:
* * * * *
0
8. Section Sec. 25.1411 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read
as follows:
Sec. 25.1411 General.
* * * * *
(c) Emergency exit descent device. The stowage provisions for the
emergency exit descent devices required by Sec. 25.810(a) must be at
each exit for which they are intended.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 25.1447 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(4) to read as
follows:
Sec. 25.1447 Equipment standards for oxygen dispensing units.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) Portable oxygen equipment must be immediately available for
each cabin attendant. The portable oxygen equipment must have the
oxygen dispensing unit connected to the portable oxygen supply.
PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS
0
10. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904,
44912, 46105.
0
11. Section 121.310 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(2), by
redesignating paragraph (f)(6) as (f)(7), by adding a new paragraph
(f)(6), by redesignating existing paragraph (l) as paragraph (n), by
adding a new paragraph (l), and by republishing newly redesignated
paragraphs (f)(7) and (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 121.310 Additional emergency equipment.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) For each Type I or Type II emergency exit equipped with an
assist means, there must be enough space next to the exit to allow a
crewmember to assist in the evacuation of passengers without reducing
the unobstructed width of the passageway below that required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section. In addition, all airplanes
manufactured on or after November 26, 2008 must comply with the
provisions of Sec. Sec. 25.813(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4) in
effect on November 26, 2004. However, a deviation from this requirement
may be authorized for an airplane certificated under the provisions of
part 4b of the Civil Air Regulations in effect before December 20,
1951, if the Administrator finds that special circumstances exist that
provide an equivalent level of safety.
* * * * *
(6) No person may operate an airplane manufactured after November
27, 2006, that incorporates a door installed between any passenger seat
occupiable for takeoff and landing and any passenger emergency exit,
such that the door crosses any egress path (including aisles,
crossaisles and passageways).
(7) If it is necessary to pass through a doorway separating any
seat (except those seats on the flightdeck), occupiable for takeoff and
landing, from an emergency exit, the door must have a means to latch it
in the open position, and the door must be latched open during each
takeoff and landing. The latching means must be able to withstand the
loads imposed upon it when the door is subjected to the ultimate
inertia forces, relative to the surrounding structure, listed in Sec.
25.561(b) of this chapter.
* * * * *
(l) Emergency exit features.
(1) Each transport category airplane manufactured after November
26, 2007 must comply with the provisions of Sec. 25.809(i) and
(2) After November 26, 2007 each transport category airplane must
comply with the provisions of Sec. 25.813(b)(6)(ii) in effect on
November 26, 2007.
(m) * * *
(n) Portable lights. No person may operate a passenger-carrying
airplane unless it is equipped with flashlight stowage provisions
accessible from each flight attendant seat.
0
12. Section 121.333 is amended by revising paragraph (d) as follows:
Sec. 121.333 Supplemental oxygen for emergency descent and for first
aid; turbine engine powered airplanes with pressurized cabins.
* * * * *
(d) Use of portable oxygen equipment by cabin attendants. After
November 28, 2005 each mask used for portable oxygen equipment must be
connected to its oxygen supply. Above flight level 250, one of the
following is required:
(1) Each attendant shall carry portable oxygen equipment with a 15
minute supply of oxygen; or
(2) There must be sufficient portable oxygen equipment (including
masks and spare outlets) distributed throughout the cabin so that such
equipment is immediately available to each attendant, regardless of
their location in the cabin; or
(3) There are sufficient spare outlets and masks distributed
throughout the cabin to ensure immediate availability of oxygen to each
cabin attendant, regardless of their location in the cabin.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 15, 2004.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-23862 Filed 10-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P