[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