[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5794-5803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2118]




[[Page 5793]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Parts 25 and 121



Revised Access to Type III Exits; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 1995 / 
Proposed Rules    
[[Page 5794]] 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 25 and 121

[Docket No. 28061, Notice No. 95-1]
RIN 2120-AF01


Revised Access to Type III Exits

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes amendments to the Federal Aviation 
Regulations (FAR) that would adjust recently adopted requirements for 
access to Type III emergency exits (typically smaller over-wing exits) 
in transport category airplanes with 60 or more passenger seats. These 
adjustments reflect additional data derived from a series of tests 
conducted at the FAA's Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) subsequent to 
the adoption of these requirements and are intended to relieve an 
unnecessary economic burden. The proposed amendments would affect air 
carriers and commercial operators of transport category airplanes, as 
well as the manufacturers of such airplanes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal may be mailed in triplicate to: 
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 28061, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or delivered in triplicate to: Room 
915G, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Comments delivered 
must be marked Docket No. 28061. Comments may be inspected in room 915G 
weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. In 
addition, the FAA is maintaining an information docket of comments in 
the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel (ANM-7), FAA, Northwest 
Mountain Region, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056. Comments 
in the information docket may be inspected in the Office of the 
Assistant Chief Counsel weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 
a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gary L. Killion, Manager, FAA Regulations Branch (ANM-114), Transport 
Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue 
SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206) 227-2114.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to participate in this proposed 
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they 
may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy, or economic 
impact that might result from adopting the proposals contained in this 
notice are invited. Substantive comments should be accompanied by cost 
estimates. Commenters should identify the regulatory docket or notice 
number and submit comments, in triplicate, to the Rules Docket address 
specified above. All comments received on or before the closing date 
for comments will be considered by the Administrator before taking 
action on this proposed rulemaking. The proposals contained in this 
notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments will 
be available in the Rules Docket, before and after the closing date for 
comments, for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing 
each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this 
rulemaking will be filed in the Docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to 
acknowledge receipt of their comments must submit with those comments a 
self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is 
made: ``Comments to Docket No. 28061.'' The postcard will be date 
stamped and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRM

    Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request 
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs, 
Attention: Public Information Center, APA-230, 800 Independence Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484. Communications 
must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in 
being placed on the mailing list for future rulemaking documents should 
also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application 
procedures.

Background

    Part 25 of the FAR defines a number of different types of passenger 
emergency exits for use in transport category airplanes. As defined in 
Sec. 25.807(a)(3), a Type III exit must have an opening not less than 
20 inches wide by 36 inches high. It need not be rectangular in shape, 
provided a rectangle of those dimensions can be inscribed within the 
opening. The corner radii must not exceed one-third the width of the 
exit. The step-up distance inside the cabin must not exceed 20 inches. 
Type III exits are typically located over the wing; when so located, 
the step-down to the wing must not exceed 27 inches. Type III exits are 
typically removable hatches, but they may be hinged or tracked doors. 
They are sometimes referred to as ``window exits.''
    Prior to the adoption of Amendment 25-76 (57 FR 19220, May 4, 
1992), part 25 contained no specific standards for access to Type III 
exits; however, seat backs were not allowed to interfere with opening 
the exits, and that resulted inherently in an unobstructed passageway 
of about six to eight inches. Section 25.813 was amended by Amendment 
25-76 to specifically require one of two optional access configurations 
for airplanes with 60 or more passengers:
    1. An unobstructed passageway at least 10 inches wide for interior 
arrangements in which the adjacent seat rows on the exit side of the 
aisle contain no more than two seats, or 20 inches wide for interior 
arrangements in which those rows contain three seats. The width of the 
passageway is measured with adjacent seats adjusted to their most 
adverse position. (For the typical airline seating arrangement, ``most 
adverse position'' would be with the seatbacks of the row immediately 
ahead of the passageway in their most aft position. If the seats of the 
row immediately behind had any features that could be adjusted forward, 
such as retractable footrests, those features would have to be in their 
forwardmost position.) The centerline of the required passageway width 
must not be displaced more than 5 inches horizontally from that of the 
exit. (The term ``required passageway'' indicates that only a 10- or 
20-inch portion of the passageway is considered in establishing the 
center line offset even if the passageway is wider than the required 10 
or 20 inches.) These configurations are sometimes referred to 
informally as Configuration C with three-seat rows and Configuration G 
with two-seat rows (see Figure 1).

                                                 BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
[[Page 5795]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JA95.000


BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
[[Page 5796]]

    2. Two passageways, between seat rows only, at least 6 inches wide 
leading to an unobstructed space adjacent to each exit. (Adjacent exits 
must not share a common passageway.) The width of the passageways is 
measured with adjacent seats adjusted to their most adverse position. 
The unobstructed space adjacent to the exit extends vertically from the 
floor to the ceiling (or bottom of sidewall stowage bins), inboard from 
the exit for a distance not less than the width of the narrowest 
passenger seat installed on the airplane, and from the forward edge of 
the forward passageway to the aft edge of the aft passageway. The exit 
opening must be totally within the fore and aft bounds of the 
unobstructed space. This configuration is sometimes referred to 
informally as Configuration D (see Figure 2).

                                                 BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
[[Page 5797]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JA95.001


BILLING CODE 4910-13-C [[Page 5798]] 
    In addition to the new standard for access to Type III exits, 
Sec. 25.813 also requires placards stating or illustrating the proper 
method of opening the exit. In the case of removable hatches, the 
placards must also state the weight of the hatch and indicate an 
appropriate location to place the hatch after removal. Unlike the 
requirements for access, the placarding requirements apply regardless 
of the passenger capacity of the airplane in which the exits are 
installed.
    As discussed in the preamble to Amendment 25-76, these new 
standards were based on testing conducted at the FAA Civil Aeromedical 
Institute (CAMI) and were adopted to improve the ability of occupants 
to evacuate the airplane under emergency conditions.
    Amendment 25-76 applies primarily to transport category airplanes 
for which the application for type certificate is made on or after the 
effective date, June 3, 1992. Since that amendment would not apply 
directly to airplanes in air carrier service for at least several 
years, Amendments 121-228 and 135-43 were also adopted at the same time 
to require other airplanes operated under the provisions of parts 121 
and 135 to meet these standards. (Because the access requirements 
pertain only to airplanes with 60 or more passengers, part 135 
operators are only required to comply with the placarding requirement.)
    It was recognized that special circumstances may make full 
compliance of existing airplanes with the new standards for access to 
Type III exits impractical. Section 121.310(f)(3)(iv) was, therefore, 
adopted to permit the FAA to authorize deviation from these standards 
when such special circumstances do exist. These include, but are not 
limited to, the following conditions when they preclude achieving 
compliance without a reduction in the total number of passenger seats: 
emergency exits located in close proximity to each other; fixed 
installations such as lavatories, galley, etc.; permanently mounted 
bulkheads; an insufficient number of seat rows ahead of or behind the 
exit to enable compliance without a reduction in the seat row pitch of 
more than one inch; or an insufficient number of such rows to enable 
compliance without a reduction in the seat row pitch to less than 30 
inches. The operator must, of course, bear the burden of providing 
credible reasons as to why literal compliance is impractical and a 
description of the steps taken to achieve a level of safety as close to 
that intended by the new standards as practical.
    Section 121.310(f)(iii) requires compliance with the new standards 
after December 3, 1992; however, the FAA recognized that there may be 
unusual circumstances in which an operator could not achieve 100% 
compliance of its fleet by that date. Section 121.310(f)(3)(v) was, 
therefore, adopted to provide relief when such unusual circumstances do 
exist. When supported by credible reasons showing that compliance can 
not be achieved by that date, relief may be granted in the form of a 
deviation allowing fleet compliance in incremental stages.
    Note that the provisions of Sec. 121.310(f)(3) (iv) and (v) for 
relief apply only to the new standards for access to the exits; no 
provision has been made for relief from the new placarding 
requirements.

Discussion

    During the public comment period preceding the adoption of 
Amendment 25-76, one commenter stated that there were too few tests on 
which to base the proposed rulemaking. In the preamble to the 
Amendment, the FAA concurred that additional testing would improve the 
accuracy of the tests results; however, it was noted that there was a 
practical limit to the number of tests that could be conducted 
considering financial resources, time and the availability of test 
subjects. In view of the safety benefit that could be realized, the FAA 
decided not to delay the final rule to obtain a larger test data base. 
Subsequent to the adoption of Amendment 25-76, time and resources for 
additional testing did become available. Accordingly, CAMI conducted 
another, more comprehensive, series of evacuation tests during the 
weeks of September 7 and 14, 1992 (referred to herein as the ``recent 
CAMI testing''). Various configurations with three-seat rows were 
tested to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of effects of 
passageway widths and offsets from the exit opening. The test fixture 
utilized for this test series was the same as that used by CAMI for the 
tests conducted prior to the adoption of Amendment 25-76. It consisted 
of the fuselage of a Douglas C-124 airplane with seats and other 
equipment installed to represent an airline airplane in all aspects 
relevant to the tests. In addition to measuring the elapsed time from 
the start of the test until the last subject was clear, observers 
monitored the tests from a qualitative standpoint. Video cameras were 
also placed at various locations inside and outside the test fixture, 
thereby supplementing the quantitative test results with a qualitative 
analysis of the subjects' use of the passageway.
    It should be noted that the configurations used in the recent CAMI 
testing are defined in terms of seat-row encroachment rather than 
centerline offset. An encroachment of 10 inches, for example, means the 
forwardmost edge of the seat row is placed 10 inches forward of the aft 
edge of the exit. (This refers to the forwardmost edge of the seat 
bottom, which is below the exit; no portion of the adjacent seat may 
interfere with the exit opening.) Assuming the exit is 20 inches wide 
(the minimum for a Type III exit), a 10 inch encroachment places the 
forward edge of the seat row at the centerline of the exit. A 10 inch 
encroachment, therefore, translates to an offset of 10 inches with a 20 
inch passageway, 7\1/2\ inches with a 15 inch passageway, 6\1/2\ inches 
with a 13 inch passageway, etc.
    The sole purpose of this test series, insofar as this notice is 
concerned, was to evaluate, on a comparative basis, the effects of seat 
pitch and centerline offset on total time for egress through Type III 
exits. The first set of tests was conducted with a group of 35 test 
subjects consisting of approximately 45% males and 55% females ranging 
from 20 to 40 years in age. (Their mean age was 27 years.) The research 
protocol was based on a repeated measures design, where all subjects 
completed egress trials in every condition. A flight attendant was 
positioned just forward of the exit to generate a consistent, high 
level of subject motivation.
    From this first set of tests, it was found that the total egress 
times with 13-, 15-, and 20-inch passageways were nearly identical. In 
contrast, the total egress times for the narrower 10- and 6-inch 
passageways, were much greater.
    With passageway widths between 13 and 20 inches, an encroachment of 
10 inches was shown to provide a possible improvement in egress 
capability compared to no encroachment. With these same passageway 
widths, an encroachment of 17 inches was shown to result in a 
significant degradation of egress capability. As noted above, an 
encroachment of 10 inches translates to a centerline offset of 6\1/2\ 
inches with passageways 13 inches wide; a 17-inch encroachment 
translates to a centerline offset of 13\1/2\ inches with such 
passageways.
    The results of these tests are shown in Figure 3.

                                                 BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
[[Page 5799]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP30JA95.002



BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
[[Page 5800]]

    A second set of tests was conducted with a group of older subjects. 
Although the results of those tests may prove useful for other 
purposes, they did not prove valid and relevant to this notice from a 
quantitative standpoint. During one of the test runs, some of the 
subjects stepped on the seat cushions rather than fully utilizing the 
passageway. In subsequent runs, this practice became widespread, making 
the results of those runs invalid for quantitative comparative 
purposes. Nevertheless, the second series of tests did not suggest any 
inaccuracies in the conclusions reached from the results of the first 
tests. Although the egress times were generally slower, the qualitative 
evaluation showed that the relative merits of the various passageway 
widths and offsets would be similar with older test subjects. This is 
to be expected with 13 or 20 inch passageways because, generally 
speaking, the constraining factor is the rate at which the subjects 
pass through the exit, rather than the rate at which they progress 
through the passageway to the exit.
    The preamble to Amendment 25-76 also described a series of 
evacuation tests conducted in the United Kingdom and generally referred 
to as the ``competitive tests.'' Although providing more space adjacent 
to an exit would intuitively seem to improve the evacuation flow rate, 
the competitive tests showed that providing more space does not always 
improve the flow rate and may, in some instances, actually prove to be 
counterproductive. This is primarily because evacuees sometimes form 
multiple files when additional space is available and compete for 
access to the exit rather than pass through it in one orderly file. The 
recent CAMI tests are consistent with the competitive tests in that a 
13-inch passageway was shown to provide an egress capability as good as 
that provided by a 20-inch passageway.
    In view of the results of the recent CAMI tests, the FAA determined 
that an unobstructed passageway 13 inches wide, with its centerline 
offset no more than 6\1/2\ inches from the centerline of the exit, 
provides a level of safety equal to that provided by the 20-inch 
passageway specified in Sec. 25.813(c)(1)(i). Had data from those tests 
been available prior to the adoption of Amendment 25-76, the FAA would 
have specified 13 inches minimum width and 6\1/2\ inches maximum offset 
at that time. Nevertheless, a 13-inch passageway with its centerline 
offset no more than 6\1/2\ inches from that of the exit is presently 
acceptable under the equivalent level of safety provisions of 
Sec. 21.21(b)(1) in lieu of a 20-inch passageway. In order to obviate 
the need to make separate findings of equivalent safety for each 
applicant, Sec. 25.813(c)(1)(i) would be amended to specify 13 inches 
minimum width and a maximum centerline offset of 6\1/2\ inches for rows 
with three seats.
    None of the recent CAMI testing involved interior configurations 
with two-seat rows on the exit side of the aisle; therefore, no change 
to the requirement for an unobstructed 10 inch wide passageway for 
those configurations is proposed. It may be noted, however, that the 
maximum centerline offset of 5 inches, as presently specified in 
Sec. 25.813(c)(1)(i) for two-seat rows does correspond to 10 inches 
encroachment. As described above, an encroachment of 10 inches was 
found satisfactory in the recent CAMI tests with three-seat rows.
    By letter dated October 5, 1992, Joseph D. Vreeman, Vice-President, 
Engineering, Maintenance and Material, Air Transport Association of 
America (ATA), petitioned for rulemaking to amend Secs. 25.813 and 
121.310. The ATA petitioned on behalf of its member airlines and 
similarly situated part 121 operators.
    A summary of the petition was published for public comment in the 
Federal Register (57 FR 54346, November 18, 1992). Of the three 
commenters that responded, two support the action proposed by the 
petitioner. The third commenter generally supports the proposed action, 
but takes issue with certain portions of the proposal.
    Like the change proposed in this notice, the ATA proposes to change 
Sec. 25.813(c)(1)(i) to specify a minimum passageway width of 13 inches 
for three-seat rows. The ATA proposal does, however, differ in that it 
would permit a maximum centerline offset of 10 inches rather than 6\1/
2\ inches as specified in this notice. One of the three commenters does 
not concur with the maximum centerline offset proposed by the 
petitioner.
    It appears that the ATA may have intended to refer to 10 inches of 
encroachment instead of 10 inches of centerline offset, since it cites 
the same CAMI test series as the basis for its proposal. As noted 
above, a centerline offset of 6\1/2\ inches corresponds to an 
encroachment of 10 inches for a passageway 13 inches wide. As also 
noted above, the tests were only conducted with centerline offsets of 
6\1/2\ and 13\1/2\ inches. Since the testing with a centerline offset 
of 13\1/2\ inches resulted in a significant degradation of egress 
capability and there was no other testing with an offset greater than 
6\1/2\ inches, none of the CAMI tests support a maximum centerline 
offset of 10 inches as proposed by the ATA.
    The ATA also proposes to amend Sec. 25.813(c)(iii) to state that 
the placard must show the hatch weight, as specified by the original 
equipment manufacturer. The ATA believes that, by not specifying who 
must determine the weight of the hatch, current Sec. 25.813(c)(iii) 
could result in different hatch weights being displayed on the same 
model airplanes. The ATA further believes that differing weight 
placards will ultimately cause confusion for the traveling public and 
create standardization problems for inspectors and flight attendants.
    The FAA does not concur that there is any need to specify that only 
the original manufacturer's hatch weight data may be used. It is highly 
unlikely that any passenger will remember the exact hatch weight 
specified in the placard in one airplane and compare it with the weight 
specified in the placard of another airplane, let alone be confused by 
any differences. The purpose of the placard is not to advise the exact 
weight of the hatch per se, but to simply alert adjacent passengers to 
the fact that the hatch is likely to be much heavier than the 
passengers would otherwise expect. Operators are therefore permitted to 
use any reasonable means, including use of manufacturers' data, to 
determine the weight of the hatches.
    The ATA proposes to amend Sec. 121.310(f)(3)(iii) to replace the 
present compliance date of December 3, 1992, with a phased schedule of 
50% fleet compliance by December 3, 1993, and 100% by December 3, 1994. 
Present Sec. 121.310(f)(3)(v) already enables the FAA to grant relief 
to an individual operator from the December 3, 1992, compliance date if 
the FAA determines that special circumstances make compliance by that 
date impractical for that operator. In light of this existing 
provision, the ATA proposal would, in effect, simply relieve an 
operator from the burden of showing credible reasons why compliance 
could not be achieved earlier. One of the three commenters does not 
concur with the compliance schedule proposed by the petitioner. The FAA 
does not consider the proposed change to be appropriate because it 
would result, in some instances, in unjustified delays in achieving 
compliance.
    As described earlier, Sec. 121.310(f)(3)(iv) permits the FAA to 
authorize deviation from full compliance when special circumstances 
exist. These include, but are not limited [[Page 5801]] to, the 
following conditions when they preclude achieving compliance without a 
reduction in the total number of passenger seats: Emergency exits 
located in close proximity to each other, fixed installations such as 
lavatories, galleys, etc; permanently mounted bulkheads; an 
insufficient number of seat rows ahead of or behind the exit to enable 
compliance without a reduction in the seat row pitch of more than one 
inch; or an insufficient number of such rows to enable compliance 
without a reduction in the seat row pitch to less than 30 inches. The 
ATA proposes to change the latter condition to specify an insufficient 
number of rows to enable compliance without a reduction in the seat row 
pitch to less than 31 inches. In addition, ATA proposes to amend 
Sec. 121.310(f)(3)(iv) to include the following additional conditions: 
``Last row recline should be limited to a maximum reduction of one 
inch,'' and ``first class seat pitch should not be reduced if it 
increases offset greater than the present offset distance without 
modifying first class.''
    The FAA does not consider any of the proposed changes to 
Sec. 121.310(f)(3)(iv) to be warranted. No justification has been given 
to support any need for a minimum seat row pitch of 31 inches; and, 
indeed, many ATA members operate airplanes with some, if not all, of 
the seat rows already set at 30 inch pitch. The FAA has adopted policy 
under the existing rule that the last-row seat recline need not be 
reduced by more than one inch; therefore, no change is needed in that 
regard. Finally, the FAA does not consider the class of service 
relevant. The comfort of persons seated in a specific section cannot be 
permitted to take precedence over the safety of those served by a Type 
III emergency exit in an emergency. In many interior arrangements, 
reducing the seat pitch ahead of the exit is not a viable means of 
achieving compliance because any increase in passageway width would be 
accompanied by a counterproductive increase in the offset of the 
passageway and exit centerlines. Nevertheless, if reducing seat row 
pitch in the first class section is a viable means (and the only means) 
to achieve compliance, it must be reduced accordingly.
    One of the three commenters not only disagrees with the 
petitioner's proposed changes to Sec. 121.310(f)(3)(iv), but believes 
that the section should be amended to require all airplanes with Type 
III exits to comply without consideration of the interior layout. A 
change of that nature would be impractical for the reasons cited in the 
preamble to Amendments 25-76 and 121-228.
    For the reasons discussed above, the FAA has not included in this 
notice any of the additional changes proposed by the ATA. It must be 
noted that, for the most part, the changes proposed in this notice 
mitigate the concerns of the ATA.
    Subsequent to the adoption of Amendment 121-228, it was brought to 
the attention of the FAA that although amended Sec. 121.310(f)(iii) 
incorporates by reference the newly adopted provisions of 
Sec. 25.813(c) concerning access to Type III exits, the provisions of 
newly adopted Sec. 25.813(a)(2) concerning cross-aisles for airplanes 
with two or more main aisles and Type III exits were inadvertently 
omitted. In order to correct this inadvertence and preclude confusion, 
Sec. 121.310(f)(3)(iii) would be amended to incorporate 
Sec. 25.813(a)(2) by reference as well. This would not be a substantive 
change and would not place any burden on any person because airplanes 
with two main aisles and Type III exits are already required to provide 
such cross-aisles as a condition of type certification.
    Also subsequent to the adoption of Amendment 121-228, it was 
brought to the attention of the FAA that this same incorporation by 
reference would inadvertently require operators of airplanes with older 
type certification bases to comply with the standard of current part 25 
concerning interference of seat cushions with opening exits. Prior to 
the adoption of Amendment 121-228, airplanes for which the application 
for type certificate was filed before May 1, 1972, were only required 
to meet the access standard in effect on April 30, 1972. That standard 
was simply that the access to the exits, ``must not be obstructed by 
seats, berths or other obstructions which would reduce the 
effectiveness of the exit.'' Current Sec. 25.813(c)(1), on the other 
hand, states, ``* * * the projected opening of the exit provided may 
not be obstructed and there must be no interference in opening the exit 
by seats, berths, or other protrusions * * *.''
    Many of the airplanes currently flown in part 121 service were type 
certificated under the older standard and have seat cushions that 
interfere with opening the exit. Such seats are acceptable under the 
older standard because the cushions can be crushed enough that the 
effectiveness of the exit is not reduced. If taken literally, the 
incorporation of Sec. 25.813(c) by reference in Sec. 121.310(f)(iii) 
would require the operators of those older airplanes to replace seat 
cushions, or perhaps the entire seat in some instances. This was not 
intended, and Sec. 121.310(f)(iii) would be corrected by replacing the 
reference to Sec. 25.813(c) in its entirety with a reference to only 
Secs. 25.813(c)(1) and 25.813(c)(3).

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 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 impact of regulatory changes 
on small entities. Finally, 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 significant as defined in the Department of 
Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (3) would not have 
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities; and (4) 
would not have a negative impact on international trade. These 
analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Costs

    The proposed change to part 25 would allow airplane manufacturers 
and operators to provide passageways that are only 13 inches wide 
rather than 20 inches wide as currently required by 
Sec. 25.813(c)(1)(i). Since providing narrower passageways is less 
stringent than the current requirement, there would be no compliance 
costs with the proposed change.
    In addition, there would be no costs associated with a reduction in 
safety because the proposed rule would provide a level of safety 
equivalent to that of the current rule.
    Current Sec. 121.31(f)(3)(iii) inadvertently omits reference to the 
provisions of Sec. 25.813(a)(2) concerning cross-aisles for airplanes 
with two or more main aisles and Type III exists. The proposed rule 
would correct this omission. There would be no cost burden associated 
with the proposed change to part 121, because it would involve a 
requirement that is already imposed on all airplanes with two aisles 
[[Page 5802]] an Type III exists as a condition of type certification.

Benefits

    The proposed change to part 25 allows manufacturers and operators 
of transport category airplanes with three-seat rows to provide 
passageways that are only 13 inches wide rather than 20 inches wide as 
currently required by Sec. 25.813(c)(1)(i), a benefit that would vary 
somewhat from one airplane interior arrangement to another. 
Manufacturers of newly designed airplanes would have more space 
available for other cabin interior components. In some instances, 
manufacturers might be able to install more revenue passenger seats. 
Most operators of other affected airplanes would have to decrease the 
pitch of fewer seat rows in order to provide a 13-inch wide passageway 
instead of the presently required 20-inch wide passageway. Fewer seat 
rows would have to be moved, reducing both the cost of moving seats and 
moving or replacing related equipment, such as passenger oxygen 
systems. In some instances, the existing passageway may be wide enough 
to meet the proposed requirement without any change, while complying 
with the current requirement would necessitate considerable relocation 
of cabin interior components. The FAA has not quantified the value of 
these benefits.
    Reducing the pitch of fewer or no seat rows would also result in 
passenger comfort levels being degraded in fewer or no seat rows. The 
U.S. airline industry considers that any reduction in seat pitch would 
severely impact passenger acceptance and result in revenue losses. 
Several major U.S. airlines have stated that they would choose to 
remove seats rather than reduce seat-row pitch to comply with the 
current requirement. They believe that the loss of revenue resulting 
from seat removal would be less than that resulting from reduced seat-
row pitch. The proposed rule would reduce, and possibly eliminate, any 
loss in passenger comfort resulting from compliance with the more 
stringent current rule.
    Finally, there would be no quantifiable benefit associated with the 
proposed change to part 121, because it involves a requirement that is 
already imposed on all airplanes with two aisles and Type III exits as 
a condition of type certification.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) requires Federal 
agencies to review rules that may have ``significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.'' FAA Order 2100.14A, 
Regulatory Flexibility Criteria and Guidance, establishes small entity 
size and cost level thresholds for complying with the RFA in rulemaking 
actions.
    The entities that would be potentially affected by this rule are 
the manufacturers and owners of transport category airplanes that have 
Type III exits.
    The size threshold for a small manufacturer of aircraft is one that 
employs 75 or fewer people. A substantial number of small entities is a 
number that is 11 or more and that is more than one-third of the small 
entitles subject to a proposed rule. None of the manufacturers of 
transport category airplanes qualify as small entities under this 
definition.
    A small operator is defined as one that owns, but does not 
necessarily operate, 9 or fewer airplanes for hire. The threshold 
constituting a significant economic impact for a small scheduled 
operator that would be affected by this proposed rule is $113,700 per 
year (1992 dollars) for an operator whose entire fleet has a seating 
capacity of more than 60 and $63,500 per year for other scheduled 
operators. The threshold cost for a small nonscheduled operator is 
$4,500 per year. The FAA order does not set a size or cost threshold 
for airplane rental and leasing companies; however, the Small Business 
Administration defines small airplane rental and leasing companies as 
those having annual revenues less than $3.5 million (1989 dollars).
    The FAA has determined that approximately 47 owners of airplanes 
affected by this rule could be considered small entities. The proposed 
rule would not result in additional compliance costs for these 
entities, and there could be cost savings resulting from a reduction in 
the time and components needed to reconfigure affected airplanes. The 
proposed rule would, therefore, have neither a significant negative nor 
a positive impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The proposed rule would have no impact on international trade. 
Because the proposed rule would not increase the costs of producing 
transport category airplanes, whether of current or future type 
certification, it would result in neither a trade advantage or 
disadvantage to U.S. aircraft manufacturers. Similarly, U.S. air 
carriers would experience no change in competitive position because the 
proposed rule would not result in significant cost relief. Finally, the 
airplanes used predominantly in international air commerce are widebody 
airplanes with no Type III exits. Operators of those airplanes would 
not be affected by the proposed rule.

Federalism Implications

    The regulations proposed herein would 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, it is determined that this 
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Conclusion

    Because the regulations proposed herein would not result in any 
additional costs and should, in fact, result in the elimination of an 
unnecessary cost burden, the FAA has determined this proposed 
rulemaking is not significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. 
However, because this proposed rulemaking does concern a matter on 
which there is considerable public interest, the FAA has determined 
that this action is significant as defined in Department of 
Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, 
February 26, 1979). The FAA has carefully considered the impact on the 
proposed rulemaking on small entities and has concluded that there 
would be no significant negative impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. A copy of the full regulatory evaluation prepared for 
this proposed rulemaking has been placed in the docket.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Federal Aviation Administration, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 121

    Air Carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, 
Transportation.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, the FAA proposes to amend parts 25 and 121 of the 
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), 14 CFR parts 25 and 121, as 
follows: [[Page 5803]] 

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

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

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. app. 1344, 1354(a), 1355, 1421, 1423, 1424, 
1425, 1428, 1429, 1430; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 49 CFR 1.47(a).

    By amending Sec. 25.813 by revising paragraph (c)(1)(i) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 25.813  Emergency exit access.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the 
access must be provided by an unobstructed passageway that is at least 
10 inches in width for interior arrangements in which the adjacent seat 
rows on the exit side of the aisle contain no more than two seats, or 
13 inches in width for interior arrangements in which those rows 
contain three seats. The width of the passageway must be measured with 
adjacent seats adjusted to their most adverse position. The centerline 
of the required passageway width must not be displaced horizontally 
from that of the exit more than 5 inches in the case of passageways 
required to be 10 inches in width, or not more than 6\1/2\ inches in 
the case of passageways required to be 13 inches in width.
* * * * *

PART 121--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND 
SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF LARGE 
AIRCRAFT

    3. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. app. 1354(a), 1355, 1357, 1401, 1421 
through 1430, 1472, 1485 and 1502; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 49 CFR 
1.47(a).

    4. By amending Sec. 121.310 by revising paragraph (f)(3)(iii) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 121.310  Additional emergency equipment.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) After December 3, 1992, the access for an airplane type 
certificated after January 1, 1958, must meet the requirements of 
Sec. 25.813(a)(2) of this chapter, insofar as Type III exits are 
concerned, and Sec. 25.813(c) (1) and (3) of this chapter, effective 
June 3, 1992.
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington, DC on January 20, 1995.
Elizabeth Yoest,
Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 95-2118 Filed 1-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M