[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 29, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-15617]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 29, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 135




Exit Seating for On-Demand Operations; Rule
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 135

[Docket No. 25821; Amendment No. 135-50]
RIN 2120-AE44

 
Exit Seating for On-Demand Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending the exit seat rule to exclude from the 
applicability of the rule commuter operations with aircraft having 9 or 
fewer passenger seats and on-demand air taxi operations with aircraft 
having 19 or fewer passenger seats. These revisions relieve certain 
part 135 operators and persons with disabling conditions of unnecessary 
burdens. They eliminate requirements that are not necessary for safe, 
expeditious evacuations in the event of an emergency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 29, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donell Pollard, AFS-203, Air 
Transportation Division, Office of Flight Standards, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone (202) 267-8166.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On March 2, 1990, the FAA adopted Amendment No. 135-36, which 
revised Sec. 135.129 of the Federal Aviation Regulations to increase 
the chances of occupant survival following a crash. The section 
provides that certificate holders operating aircraft affected by the 
section (except on-demand operations with nine or fewer passenger 
seats) may not seat a passenger in an exit row seat who is not willing 
and able, without assistance, to activate an emergency exit and to take 
certain additional actions needed to ensure safe use of the exit in an 
emergency in which a crewmember is not available to perform those 
functions.
    After further consideration, the FAA has determined that 
Sec. 135.129 should be amended to exclude from its coverage scheduled 
operations in aircraft having nine or fewer passenger seats. 
Certificate holders attempting to comply with the rule in regard to 
those aircraft have raised several issues concerning application of the 
rule. First, the limited number of seats in such aircraft increases the 
likelihood that persons not meeting the criteria in paragraph (b) of 
the rule could be denied transportation. Such a denial is especially 
likely in cases where the passenger seating configuration results in 
most or all of the seats being designated as exit seats. Due to the 
limited number of passengers involved, it may not always be possible to 
find someone willing, and qualified, to move into an exit seat when it 
must be vacated by an unqualified person. In a fully occupied flight, 
application of the rule could result in that passenger being denied 
transportation. Additionally, persons who do not meet the criteria for 
exit seating established by Sec. 135.129 would be completely barred 
from certain aircraft (e.g., Cessna 206, Cessna 207, Beechcraft 36, 
Beechcraft 58, and Beechcraft 55) with passenger seating configurations 
that result in every seat in the aircraft being designated as an exit 
seat.
    Consideration of such consequences, in view of the objective of the 
rule and in light of various seating configurations known to be used in 
operations to which the rule would apply, indicated that safety would 
not require these results. The aircraft involved are uniformly quite 
small, with short distances between exits. Passengers may choose one or 
another exit without concern for the distance factor. The ratio of 
exits to passengers in such aircraft is very high in comparison to 
larger aircraft, thus affording more opportunities for emergency 
evacuation. The seats in such aircraft are often in single units, 
around a central open space in the cabin, as opposed to being in rows 
and aisles, thus providing ready access to window and door exits for 
all passengers. The exits in such aircraft are typically small, light, 
and close to the ground, involving no slides, such as those that are 
found in larger aircraft, thus obviating some of the criteria in 
paragraph (b) of the rule. In addition, Sec. 135.177 requires that each 
passenger be briefed orally on the location and means of operation of 
each passenger entry door and emergency exit.
    The FAA further determined that safety does not require that the 
rule apply to on-demand operations with aircraft having 19 or fewer 
passenger seats. Seating configurations in those aircraft tend to be 
different from the standard aisle and row seating found in aircraft 
used in commuter operations, and frequently include single units around 
a central open space in the cabin, couch seats, and club seating, which 
provide numerous undefined, unobstructed paths to the exits. Generally, 
affinity groups charter these aircraft, and individual seat assignments 
are not made. Passengers using these aircraft who travel in affinity 
groups are more likely to be aware of each other's physical condition 
than is the case when passengers are drawn from the general population 
mix. And, as is the case in all operations under part 135, Sec. 135.117 
requires that each passenger receive an oral briefing on the location 
and means of operation of each passenger entry door and emergency exit.
    Based on the above discussion, the FAA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on October 26, 1992 (57 FR 48666). The 
comment period closed on November 27, 1992.
    At a few places in the preamble to the NPRM, the FAA inadvertently 
used the phrases ``air carrier'' and ``air carriers'' to identify 
certain part 135 certificate holders that would be the intended 
beneficiaries of this rule. The FAA did not intend to limit the relief 
that this rule would provide to only those part 135 certificate holders 
that are air carriers. In fact, in the proposed rule and in the rule 
language adopted today, the relief is not limited to part 135 operators 
that are air carriers. This relief also gives the same relief to all 
part 135 operators that operate aircraft with the specified passenger 
seating capacity.
    Finally, it was the FAA's intention to make the exception provision 
in paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 135.129 applicable to all paragraphs in 
that section. Unfortunately, as presently written, the exception might 
be read to only apply to paragraph (a)(1). The FAA intended that 
certain operations (as defined in the exception clause) would not have 
to comply with any portion of the rule. In fact, the FAA originally 
stated, ``This rule does not affect exit row seating in the on-demand 
operations of air taxis that have nine or fewer passenger seats.'' (55 
FR 8054, March 6, 1990) The FAA did not merely state that the exception 
was only applicable to that part of the rule dealing with the 
certificate holder's duty to make a determination about the suitability 
of the person occupying the exit seat. To clarify its intention, the 
FAA has reorganized Sec. 135.129(a). This reorganization eliminates any 
ambiguity that might lead someone to incorrectly conclude that the 
exception provision only applies to Sec. 135.129(a).

Discussion of Comments

    Eight comments were received in response to the notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM). Commenters included three associations, three air 
carriers, one aviation insurance company, and one special interest 
group, the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA). All eight commenters, 
including the Regional Airline Association (RAA) and the Helicopter 
Association International (HAI), supported the proposed rule. They 
offered additional comments in support of the proposed rule.
    Two commenters stated that an exemption for smaller aircraft 
categories is necessary because the intent of the current exit seat 
rule is clearly for large airplanes. Four commenters stated that the 
seating configurations in small aircraft are different than larger 
aircraft and, as such, the density of seating and the ratio of 
passengers to available exits is very good, thus making it unnecessary 
to have the exit seat rule apply to the smaller aircraft categories. 
One commenter stated that under the current rule, too high a percentage 
of the seats in a small aircraft are required to be exit seats.
    Two commenters indicated that the aircraft under on-demand 
operations are typically configured with seating arrangements different 
from the standard aisle and row seating found in aircraft used in 
commuter operations. They stated that passengers using these aircraft 
who travel in groups where the passengers know one another are more 
likely to be aware of each other's physical condition and be able to 
respond as necessary.
    Three commenters indicated that a large percentage of the Alaskan 
population--student passengers under age 15 and older passengers--would 
be unable to use its scheduled operations to access health, 
educational, and other essential services.
    In addition to its support, the Paralyzed Veterans of America 
recommended extending the rule to cover small aircraft with 29 or fewer 
seats. The FAA considered but disagrees with PVA's recommendation 
because aircraft with 20 to 29 passenger seats are more likely to have 
a sufficient number of non-exit seats.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains no information collection requests requiring 
approval of the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several 
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each 
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its 
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies 
to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess 
the effects of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting 
these analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule (1) would 
generate benefits that would justify its costs and is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in the executive order; 
(2) is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's Policies and Procedures: 
(3) would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities; and (4) would not constitute a barrier to international 
trade.
    The FAA has determined that the expected economic impact of the 
amendment will be minimal and does not warrant a full regulatory 
evaluation. As indicated in the above discussion, the exclusion of 
commuter operations with 9 or fewer passenger seats and on-demand 
aircraft operations having 19 or fewer passenger seats from the rule is 
not expected to result in significant impediments to successful 
emergency evacuations. This conclusion is based on a review of the 
typical passenger configurations and exit availability of these smaller 
aircraft. The FAA did not give adequate consideration to the unique 
characteristics of these aircraft and their operations at the time it 
prepared the regulatory evaluation of Amendment No. 135-36.
    The amendment is beneficial in that it will prevent situations in 
which smaller aircraft might otherwise be restricted from carrying 
handicapped persons; this benefit is unquantifiable.

International Trade Impact Statement

    This rule is not anticipated to affect the import of foreign 
products or services into the United States or the export of U.S. 
products or services to foreign countries.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 was enacted by 
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or 
disproportionately burdened by Government regulations. The RFA requires 
a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a rule would have a significant 
economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial 
number of small entities. Based on the potential relief that the rule 
will provide and the criteria of implementing FAA Order 2100.14A, 
Regulatory Flexibility Criteria and Guidance, the FAA has determined 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

Federalism Implications

    The rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612 (52 
FR 41685; October 30, 1987), it is determined that this rule would not 
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.

Conclusion

    For the reasons previously addressed, the FAA has determined that 
this amendment involves a regulation which is not significant under 
Executive Order 12866 or the Department of Transportation Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). For this same 
reason, it is certified under the criteria of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act that the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small 
entities. The FAA has determined that the expected impact of the 
amendment is so minimal that it does not warrant a full regulatory 
evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 135

    Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Handicapped safety, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 
CFR part 135) as follows:

PART 135--AIR TAXI OPERATORS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS

    1. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1355(a), 1421 through 1431, and 
1502; 49 U.S.C. 106(g).

    2. In Sec. 135.129, paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) are redesignated 
as paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) and headings are added, paragraph 
(a)(1) is revised, and paragraph (a)(2) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 135.129  Exit seating.

    (a)(1) Applicability. This section applies to all certificate 
holders operating under this part, except for on-demand operations with 
aircraft having 19 or fewer passenger seats and commuter operations 
with aircraft having 9 or fewer passenger seats.
    (2) Duty to make determination of suitability. Each certificate 
holder shall determine, to the extent necessary to perform the 
applicable functions of paragraph (d) of this section, the suitability 
of each person it permits to occupy an exit seat. For the purpose of 
this section--
    (i) Exit seat means--
    (A) Each seat having direct access to an exit; and
    (B) Each seat in a row of seats through which passengers would have 
to pass to gain access to an exit, from the first seat inboard of the 
exit to the first aisle inboard of the exit.
    (ii) A passenger seat having direct access means a seat from which 
a passenger can proceed directly to the exit without entering an aisle 
or passing around an obstruction.
    (3) Persons designated to make determination. * * *
    (4) Submission of designation for approval. * * *
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 21, 1994.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-15617 Filed 6-28-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M