[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62778-62789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23862]



[[Page 62777]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Parts 25 and 121



Miscellaneous Cabin Safety Changes; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 62778]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 25 and 121

[Docket No. FAA-2004-19412, Amendment Nos. 25-116 and 121-306]
RIN 2120-AF77


Miscellaneous Cabin Safety Changes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the airworthiness standards for transport 
category airplanes relating to flight attendant assist spaces and 
handles, door hold-open features, outside viewing means, interior 
compartment doors, and portable oxygen equipment. It also amends the 
operating requirements for domestic, flag, and supplemental operations. 
These amendments are part of the Agency's continuing effort to upgrade 
the regulations to improve the overall level of safety in areas where 
the state-of-the-art and good design practice have indicated that such 
upgrades are warranted. One of the changes also responds to a National 
Transportation Safety Board recommendation. These amendments result in 
both new type design regulations as well as retrofit requirements. In 
addition, several editorial changes were adopted.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 26, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Gardlin, Airframe and Cabin 
Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 
98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2136.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    (Note: The FAA transitioned to the new Department of 
Transportation's Docket Management System (DMS) during the course of 
this rulemaking. At earlier stages of the rulemaking, the docket 
number was ``28637.'' Under the new DMS, the docket number is FAA-
2004-19412.)

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
    (1) Searching the DOTs electronic DMS Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search);
    (2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfm; or
    (3) Assessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
    You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this 
rulemaking.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register publication on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a question regarding 
this document may contact their local FAA official, or the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more 
about SBREFA on the Internet at our site, http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm. For more information on SBREFA, e-mail us at [email protected].

Background

    These amendments are based on notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 
Notice No. 96-9, which was published in the Federal Register on July 
24, 1996 (61 FR 38552). The notice proposed to upgrade several cabin 
safety requirements, relating to flight attendant assist spaces and 
handles, door hold-open features, outside viewing means, interior 
compartment doors, and portable oxygen equipment. These proposals were 
intended to take advantage of the state-of-the-art, as well as common 
design practice. One of the proposals responds to a National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendation.
    For some time, the FAA has worked to achieve harmonization on its 
rulemaking with the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) (recently changed 
to the European Aviation Safety Agency) and other airworthiness 
authorities through the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) 
and its harmonization working groups. Although this rulemaking project 
has not been the subject of a harmonization working group activity, 
because it was initiated prior to the time harmonization became a high 
priority with the FAA and JAA, comments received from the JAA members 
were addressed in this final rule.
    As indicated in Notice No. 96-9, the FAA amended 14 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part 25 pertaining to cabin safety and 
crashworthiness following accidents experienced in the 1960's 
(Amendment No. 25-15, 32 FR 13255, September 20, 1967; Amendment No. 
25-17, 33 FR 9065, June 20, 1968; Amendment No. 25-20, 34 FR 5543, 
March 22, 1969; and Amendment No. 25-32, 37 FR 3964, February 15, 
1972). These amendments were designed to correct certain deficiencies 
identified during the accident investigations, and, in many cases, were 
retrofit on airplanes already in service. More recent amendments 
(Amendment No. 25-59, 49 FR 43188, October 26, 1984; Amendment No. 25-
64, 53 FR 17640, May 17, 1988; and Amendment No. 25-76, 57 FR 19220, 
May 4, 1992) pertaining to cabin safety, such as seat cushion 
flammability, dynamic testing standards for seats and improved access 
to Type III emergency exits, have resulted from specific research and 
development. These amendments are deemed necessary and appropriate by 
the FAA considering the current state-of-the-art and existing design 
practice. Although nearly all existing installations already comply, 
these amendments will ensure that any others comply as well.

Discussion of Amendment to Parts 25 and 121

Flight Attendant Assist Space

    Section 25.813 requires that each non-overwing exit equipped with 
an assist means have adequate space next to the exit for a flight 
attendant to stand and assist occupants while evacuating. The size of 
this ``assist space'' is not specified in the regulations. Guidance 
material in Civil Aeronautics Manual (CAM) 4b.362-6(b) states that the 
assist space should be a 12x20-inch rectangle on the floor and be 
useable. A rectangle of this size is generally recognized as the 
minimum size acceptable for compliance with Sec.  25.813 or its 
predecessor Sec.  4b.362(g) of the Civil Air Regulations (CAR). 
Deviations have been permitted if the efficacy of the assist space is 
demonstrated.
    Demonstrations of a smaller or irregular shaped assist space 
usually take place in controlled evacuation tests conducted under 
conditions similar to those specified in Appendix J to part 25 for 
emergency evacuation

[[Page 62779]]

demonstrations. While these demonstrations have value, they do not 
account for the potentially adverse conditions likely to be encountered 
in service. Notice No. 96-9 proposed a minimum size for assist spaces 
to provide more standardized application of the requirement and give 
additional margins of safety under adverse conditions which may be 
encountered in service.
    Service experience, both in tests and actual incidents, indicates 
that the assist space recommended in CAM 4b.362-6(b) is adequate; 
therefore, the NPRM proposed that the assist space be a minimum of 
12x20-inches rectangle on the floor with the 12-inch dimension 
essentially parallel to the exit opening. The location of the assist 
space relative to the exit opening is not specified since the best 
location may vary from one installation to another. In any case, the 
assist space should be located to provide the maximum benefit to 
evacuation. The minimum dimensions specified assumed that a flight 
attendant would be able to stand upright. Installations which do not 
provide adequate headroom to enable a 95th percentile male to stand 
upright would probably need an increase in the fore and aft dimension 
of the assist space to provide the same level of efficacy as a full 
height installation. (Information on anthropometry can be found in NASA 
reference publication 1024, Anthropometric Source Book Volume I, 
Anthropometry for Designers.) The amount of increase required in these 
instances would be dependent on the details of the installation and 
would not be specified in the regulations. Since issuing the NPRM, the 
FAA has seen improved standardization in assist space configurations 
and dimensions during certification. Since the NPRM contained several 
explanatory statements on the purpose of the assist space, it is 
possible that this information contributed to reduced standardization 
problems. Given that one of the main objectives of the proposal was to 
improve standardization and that a prescriptive requirement is 
generally not preferred where alternatives are possible, the FAA is 
withdrawing this portion of the proposal, and retaining the requirement 
that the assist space be a rectangle with dimensions that are 
``adequate.'' The current guidance in Advisory Circular 25-17 regarding 
the acceptability of a 12x20-inch rectangle will be retained. Recent 
experience has shown that this approach is acceptable and that 
standardization can be achieved, while allowing some flexibility in 
specific demonstrations of compliance.
    The assist space requirement applies to all larger exit types 
(i.e., Types I, II, A, B and C), regardless of whether they are over 
the wing. Except for Type A exits, assist spaces have not been required 
for exits over the wing. The need for an assist space over the wing is 
dependent primarily on the presence of an assist means where the rate 
of egress is critical. Future airplane designs may make the 
installation of overwing floor level (other than Type A) exits an 
attractive option and they are accounted for here. In addition, current 
regulations only require an assist space for the larger exits when 
there is also an assist means required. For airplanes of relatively 
small passenger capacity, service experience indicates that this is a 
reasonable standard. However, for airplanes with a larger passenger 
capacity, an assist space should be required, whether or not an assist 
means is required. Therefore, this amendment also requires an assist 
space at all Type II or larger exits on airplanes with a passenger 
capacity of 80 or greater. This includes tailcone exits that are 
qualified for 25 additional passenger seats under the provisions of 
Sec.  25.807(g)(9)(ii) and are required by Sec.  25.810(a) to have such 
assist means, since these can become primary exits under certain 
evacuation scenarios and will require the assistance of a flight 
attendant to perform at their potential. This amendment also corrects a 
long-standing editorial error in part 121, that states that assist 
spaces are required at all Type I or II exits, regardless of whether or 
not an assist means is installed and regardless of passenger capacity. 
This amendment adds the words ``equipped with an assist means'' to the 
existing text in Sec.  121.310(f)(2), to make it clear that an assist 
space is only required in certain cases.
    Conversely, the regulations previously required an assist space for 
non-floor level, non-overwing exits that incorporate an assist means. 
There is at present one airplane with exits that fall into this 
category. Given the design difficulties presented by such a design, the 
prospects for such exits in the future do not seem likely. Furthermore 
the appropriateness of the current standards for such exits appears 
questionable (the one example currently in existence was approved by 
special conditions). This provision in the regulations is removed by 
this amendment. In the unlikely event a design of this nature were ever 
proposed, the FAA would develop criteria appropriate for that design in 
the form of special conditions.
    Most existing installations currently comply with this requirement, 
however, for the few that do not, the economic penalty for retrofit 
compliance would be quite high. It is also difficult to quantify the 
benefit that might be gained from reconfiguring airplanes already 
manufactured and placed in service to comply with this amendment; 
therefore, no retrofit action was proposed. For newly manufactured 
airplanes, Sec.  121.310(f)(2) is amended to require that the assist 
spaces of all airplanes manufactured 4 years after the effective date 
of this amendment comply with these criteria. As is discussed later, in 
the compliance time section, the compliance date was changed from 2 
years to 4 years based on comments received.

Flight Attendant Assist Handles

    One common design feature of large transport airplanes has been 
assist handles to enable flight attendants to steady themselves while 
assisting passengers in evacuating. The assist handle can be crucial in 
permitting the flight attendant to perform his or her duties 
efficiently. This, in turn, can have a direct bearing on the success of 
an emergency evacuation. Prior to this amendment, there was no 
requirement for assist handles although most, if not all, installations 
incorporate them. Although an assist handle may not always be necessary 
due to the unpredictable nature of an emergency evacuation, it is a 
valuable tool that should be available to the flight attendant when it 
is needed. In addition, the assist handle is an integral part of flight 
attendant training. The addition of the requirement in part 25 would 
eliminate incompatibilities between the type design and operational 
requirements.
    In some cases a handle designed to provide the flight attendant 
with leverage when opening, or more commonly, closing passenger and 
service doors is installed. Often, this handle is not located at the 
designated assist space. Service experience has shown that the presence 
of the handle at another location can mislead a flight attendant into 
standing in a location that could obstruct the required passageway. The 
FAA has addressed such installations specifically. Service experience 
also indicates that there is a need for assist handles to enable flight 
attendants to steady themselves while actuating the manual inflation 
handle on escape slides. The manual handle is located on the doorsill, 
and essentially requires the attendant to straddle the door opening 
when pulling the handle. The attendant is quite vulnerable to the

[[Page 62780]]

possibility of being pushed out of the exit. The FAA expects that it 
will be possible for one handle to serve both required purposes (i.e., 
emergency evacuation and assist means activation) at a given location; 
however, two different handles might be needed at the same exit in some 
instances. The assist handle(s) should be usable by the range of flight 
attendants encompassing the 5th percentile female to the 95th 
percentile male.
    This amendment requires that assist handles be installed at the 
designated assist space for all floor level exits that require an 
assist space. In addition, a companion change to Sec.  121.310(l) is 
applicable to newly manufactured airplanes entering the fleet, and 
requires a retrofit of the existing in-service fleet. A 3-year 
compliance period is adopted.

Outside Viewing Means

    Emergency evacuations are frequently necessary either due to, or in 
combination with, a hazard such as a fire outside the airplane. Because 
the hazard may pose an immediate threat to the occupants of the 
airplane, it is often necessary to avoid opening certain otherwise 
useable emergency exits in order to prevent injury to the evacuees. In 
this context, a viewing window or other means of assessing the outside 
conditions and determining whether an exit should be opened is 
extremely valuable. A viewing window is commonly provided in most exits 
in service; however, it has not been required, and some exits in 
service do not incorporate one. This amendment requires a means (for 
example, either a window in the exit itself, or in an adjacent frame 
bay) that provides a view of the ground area where evacuees will make 
contact upon leaving the airplane in an emergency evacuation.
    The means should provide visibility taking into account all 
conditions of landing gear collapse and, since evacuations can take 
place at night, outside illumination conditions. The issue of exterior 
illumination was not explicitly discussed in the NPRM, nor were any 
comments received on this subject. The fact that there were no comments 
may indicate that it is generally understood that the viewing means 
needs to be available in conditions of darkness. However, in the 
interests of clarity, the rule language is amended to include the 
phrase ``under all lighting conditions.'' In the context of devices 
intended to be used in an emergency, the viewing means would clearly 
have limited utility if it were only available in the daylight. 
Exterior emergency lighting is an explicit requirement of Sec.  25.812 
to address evacuation in darkness. The FAA therefore regards this 
clarification as a nonsubstantive change that will help standardize 
application of the rule.
    Details such as size and prismatic characteristics of the viewing 
means are not specified. The FAA considers that sufficient design 
latitude should be available to permit several acceptable concepts. The 
viewing means would be required to be available to a person preparing 
to open an exit. Thus, if a window were in an adjacent frame bay, there 
could not be a partition or divider between the exit and the window to 
meet the intent of the requirement. For some exits, two windows might 
be installed at each exit in order to provide sufficient viewing 
coverage. In terms of exterior illumination, there is no specific 
minimum illumination level requirement, although the emergency lighting 
system could be used to provide visibility of the area of ground 
contact, as well as any other interior or exterior lights that would be 
available in an emergency.
    The viewing requirement applies only to airplanes for which an 
application for type certificate is made after the effective date. Due 
to the technical difficulties and resultant cost of modifying existing 
airplanes, no retrofit requirement is included.

Exit Hold-Open Feature

    Also important is the capability of an exit to remain open during 
an evacuation without threat of premature closing. Adverse altitude, 
wind or contact by evacuating passengers could cause an unsecured door 
to close during an evacuation, and jeopardize the safety of subsequent 
passengers. Most passenger emergency exits currently incorporate a 
feature, which holds the door open and requires a positive action to 
disengage. This amendment requires a means to prevent an emergency exit 
from inadvertently closing once it has been opened in an emergency. The 
means must automatically engage when the exit is opened and require 
positive action to disengage. As discussed in the notice, a removable 
hatch would be considered to comply, by definition, as would exits 
hinged on the bottom. This latter type of exit is covered further in 
the Discussion of Comments section. This requirement amends Sec.  
25.809 for new type certificates and creates a new Sec.  121.310(l), 
which would require that transport category airplanes (the 
applicability to transport category airplanes was inadvertently omitted 
in the notice and, in light of other, subsequent changes to part 121, 
is restored in the final rule to make the intent clear) in service 
after a date 2 years after the effective date of the amendment comply 
with the provisions of the part 25 requirement, and redesignate 
existing paragraph (l) as a new paragraph (n).

Interior Doors

    Following accident experience in the 1960's the FAA amended part 
25, in Amendment 25-15, to prohibit the installation of doors ``between 
passenger compartments.'' At the time of the amendment, it was common 
practice to divide the first class and tourist class cabins with a 
solid door. It was determined in the course of accident investigations 
that this door could be detrimental in evacuation of passengers, who 
tended not to recognize that there was an exit beyond the door, even if 
it were the closest available. The resulting regulatory change was 
geared specifically at preventing this occurrence. However, the 
regulation was worded such that doors may be installed between 
passengers and exits provided there are not passengers on both sides of 
the door. For example, a door could be installed across the main 
passenger aisle at the end of a cabin. The regulations only required 
that the door be open for takeoff and landing. It is now considered 
undesirable to permit the installation of a door between any passenger 
and an exit. Should such a door (either through omission or mechanical 
failure) become jammed in the event of an emergency evacuation, persons 
could be prevented or delayed in evacuating which could result in 
fatalities or injuries that would not otherwise have occurred. The 
hazards associated with a jammed door are still present whether or not 
passengers are on both sides of the door, and the recognition factor 
has not been mitigated. Either could result in the same consequences--
failure of some passengers to evacuate the airplane. This amendment 
prohibits the installation of any door between any passenger and any 
passenger emergency exit. This would include prohibiting doors that 
close off galley areas that serve as passageways or crossaisles, doors 
across emergency exits (frequently used on ``VIP'' airplanes), and 
doors into rooms that are occupiable for takeoff and landing. This 
would also include prohibiting a door across one of the aisles on a 
multi-aisle airplane, since this closes off the most direct route to an 
exit for some of the passengers.
    In the past there has been considerable discussion regarding what 
constituted a ``door.'' One common proposal has been to install a 
fabric diaphragm bounded by a metal frame,

[[Page 62781]]

which is movable, usually much like a pocket door. This type of 
installation has been accepted provided the frame provides no more 
resistance to a person passing through it than a normal curtain tie 
back. Such installations do, however, create the same recognition 
problem as do ``solid'' doors and would no longer be acceptable.
    The change to Sec.  25.813(e) applies to all transport category 
airplanes for which an application for type certificate is made after 
the effective date regardless of whether they are used in air carrier 
service. Section 25.813(e) prohibits doors between passengers and 
emergency exits whereas Sec.  25.813(f) now deals only with doors 
between crewmembers (outside the flightdeck) and emergency exits and is 
amended accordingly. Language in paragraph (f) requiring the door 
latching means to withstand the inertia loads of Sec.  25.561(b) was 
inadvertently left out of the notice. Since this was purely an 
editorial error, and does not increase the burden of compliance beyond 
what it is currently, the language is restored in the final rule. In 
addition, Sec.  121.310(f)(6) would make the new standards applicable 
to all other transport category airplanes, operated under that part, 2 
years after the effective date of this amendment.
    These requirements are not required to be retrofit to non air-
carrier operations, e.g., private use airplanes where the number of 
passengers involved is much smaller and there has been no demonstrated 
unsafe condition. For reasons discussed below, the requirement as it 
relates to other than commercial operations is being reconsidered, and 
may ultimately result in additional rulemaking.

Portable Oxygen Equipment

    Finally, this amendment requires that oxygen masks intended for 
portable oxygen equipment be connected to that equipment. This 
amendment follows NTSB Safety Recommendation No. A-90-54. During the 
decompression experienced in the February 1989 United Airlines Flight 
811 accident, the NTSB determined that flight attendants had difficulty 
in using the portable oxygen bottles. These bottles are intended to 
enable them to move about the cabin, with an adequate oxygen supply, 
after decompression. The oxygen masks were not connected to the 
dispensing terminal of the oxygen bottle, thus requiring an additional 
action by the flight attendant before the unit was useable. The NTSB 
recommended that all such masks be connected to the oxygen supply, to 
minimize the time and dexterity necessary for flight attendants to don 
and use the portable oxygen. The FAA agrees with this recommendation, 
and therefore amends Sec.  25.1447(c)(4) accordingly. In addition, a 
companion change is made to Sec.  121.333(d), with a 1-year compliance 
time.
    A 1-year compliance time is chosen in this case because the 
modification required is a simple connection of the oxygen mask to the 
supply bottle. This can be done on an overnight visit, or any short 
interval maintenance visit. One year is considered more than enough 
time to achieve compliance.

Compliance Time

    The following table summarizes the part 121 compliance times.

                    Part 121 Compliance Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Existing
            Subject                  New aircraft           aircraft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assist space at Type II or      Airplanes manufactured  Not required.
 larger exits on airplanes       after November 26,
 with passenger capacity of 80   2008.
 or greater.
Assist handle where assist      Airplanes manufactured  November 26,
 space is required.              after November 26,      2007.
                                 2007.
Outside viewing means at all    All type certificate    Not required.
 exits.                          applications made
                                 after November 26,
                                 2004.
Exit hold open feature........  Airplanes manufactured  Not required.
                                 after November 26,
                                 2007.
Prohibition of interior doors   Airplanes manufactured  Not required.
 (between passengers and         after November 27,
 emergency exits).               2006.
Portable oxygen equipment       Airplanes manufactured  November 28,
 (connection of oxygen masks).   after November 28,      2005.
                                 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial Changes

    The ambiguity in the provisions of Sec.  25.853(f) concerning 
ashtrays has been removed by requiring that all seated occupants in 
designated smoking areas are provided with ashtrays. Since designated 
smoking areas can vary from flight to flight, an adequate number of 
ashtrays would need to be installed at delivery to account for the 
largest smoking section anticipated by the airline. Alternatively, the 
size of the smoking section would be limited by the number and location 
of the ashtrays.
    Prior to this amendment, the introductory phrase in Sec.  25.855 
stated: ``For each cargo and baggage compartment not occupied by crew 
or passengers, the following apply.'' It has been brought to the 
attention of the FAA that this phrase may also cause confusion. By 
definition, some compartments must be accessible to crewmembers to 
fight fires in flight; therefore, the exception made by the 
introductory phrase cannot (and has not been interpreted to) apply to 
compartments that are only occupied occasionally by crew or passengers. 
Furthermore, crew and passengers are not permitted to be seated or 
stationed on a full-time basis in cargo or baggage compartments. Since 
the exception does not apply to occasional occupancy and since crew and 
passengers do not occupy cargo or baggage compartments in flight on a 
full-time basis, the exception made in the phrase has no applicability. 
Using the present wording of the introductory phrase, it was alleged, 
in at least one instance, that the standards of Sec.  25.855 did not 
apply because the cockpit was part of the cargo or baggage compartment. 
That allegation was unfounded because, regardless of the degree or 
method of separation, the cockpit can not be considered part of a cargo 
or baggage compartment. Nevertheless, it does show that the phrase can 
easily be misinterpreted. Since the exception has no applicability and 
may cause confusion, the introductory phrase is reworded to simply 
state, ``For each cargo or baggage compartment, the following apply.'' 
This is a nonsubstantive change that places no additional burden on any 
person.
    Finally, as a result of the extensive changes to part 25 adopted in 
Amendment 25-72, many referenced sections were changed. Some of the 
previous references were inadvertently retained, however, and are no 
longer correct. Therefore, the FAA has corrected these references to 
correspond to the current structure of part 25. These changes are 
purely editorial in nature

[[Page 62782]]

and affect Sec. Sec.  25.812(g)(1)(ii), 25.812(g)(2), 25.812(h), and 
25.1411(c).

Discussion of Comments

    Comments were received from 19 parties, including foreign and 
domestic airplane manufacturers, labor associations, foreign and 
domestic operators, foreign regulatory authorities, and the NTSB. Each 
proposed change received comments. Five commenters support the 
proposals as written. Four other commenters agree with specific aspects 
of the proposal, and did not comment on others. Ten commenters disagree 
with at least parts of the proposal, with one commenter opposing any 
changes to part 121.

Flight Attendant Assist Space

    Five commenters support the proposal and five commenters oppose all 
or parts of it.
    Comment: One commenter suggests additional rulemaking to require an 
assist space when the sill height of the exit is greater than 3 feet 
(versus the current requirement for an assist space when the exit sill 
height is 6 feet above the ground and requires an assist means). The 
commenter feels that an assist space is also necessary for exit sill 
heights between 3 and 6 feet.
    Response: The FAA has not considered another sill height when 
specifying the requirement for an assist space but, rather, the number 
of passengers on board. In this case, an assist space is required for 
airplanes of more than 80 passengers, regardless of the sill height. 
For passenger capacities of 80 or less, the ratios of passengers to 
exits are decreased; the FAA believes that the presence of an assist 
means should govern the requirement for an assist space in smaller 
airplanes. No change is made to the final rule.
    Comment: Another commenter, representing certain domestic airlines, 
while not opposed to the assist space requirement, is concerned about 
the impact it might have. The commenter contends that any deficiencies 
would be uncovered by evacuation demonstrations. In addition, the 
commenter contends that a detailed analysis of the potential impact has 
not been made.
    Response: As discussed in the notice, the FAA does not agree that 
typical evacuation demonstrations would necessarily reveal deficiencies 
in assist space dimensions. With respect to the impact of the 
requirement, as discussed later, this is not anticipated to be 
significant, given that there is no retrofit application.
    Comment: A commenter representing domestic airframe manufacturers 
disagrees that the change to the assist space requirement was 
necessary, and also states that evacuation demonstrations are adequate 
to identify deficiencies. This commenter considers the change an 
expansion of the existing requirements in that, on some installations, 
it is not currently possible for the 95th percentile male to stand 
upright while using the assist space. The commenter questions whether 
the assist space is evaluated with the exit open or closed, and whether 
the assist space is a 12x20-inch rectangular solid, from the floor to 
the height of a 95th percentile male, or whether it may be ``the 95th 
percentile male humanoid shape.'' The commenter states that the 
proposal does not adequately define the total envelope of the assist 
space and will lead to increased costs as specific installations are 
negotiated further. In addition, the commenter states that 
incorporation of the requirement into part 121 will render some current 
configurations (presumably still being produced 2 years after the 
effective date of the regulation) unacceptable. The costs of compliance 
for these configurations will involve galley redesign, flight attendant 
seat relocation, and possible loss of revenue seats, according to the 
commenter. This would require an operator to have two different 
interior arrangements on the same airplane type.
    Response: As noted previously, the FAA has determined that 
specifying the dimensions of the assist space in the rule is not 
necessary. However, the intent of the proposal was to quantify 
something that has been a basic design practice over 30 years, and 
eliminate those few instances where a reduced size assist space may 
have been approved on the basis of ``no observed problems'' in an 
evacuation demonstration. The proposal would not have changed how the 
assist space is measured, once established. Since the assist space is 
only meaningful with the exit open, it would of course, continue to be 
determined in that condition. Small incursions into the vertical 
projection of the otherwise rectangular assist space will continue to 
be acceptable, provided that they are not a hazard, and do not 
adversely influence the efficacy of the assist space. The need for the 
assist space to be full-height is noted in Advisory Circular 25-17, 
page 723, paragraph 411. The AC notes that it is necessary to provide 
additional space if it is not possible to stand upright. With respect 
to current designs, only a few designs do not already comply with these 
criteria. Since the prescriptive dimensional requirements are being 
withdrawn, the remainder of the commenters concerns are obviated.
    Comment: A foreign manufacturer also comments on the potential for 
the assist space requirement to influence revenue seating. The 
commenter also objects to the need for an increase in the fore and aft 
dimension of the assist space when adequate headroom is not provided. 
This commenter, as well as another commenter representing foreign 
airworthiness authorities, suggests that the requirement that the 12-
inch dimension of the assist space be parallel to the exit is too 
restrictive, and may not be practical when the exit is located in the 
tapered section of the fuselage. Both commenters suggest that the 12-
inch dimension be parallel to the aircraft centerline.
    Response: The FAA agrees that the proposal was too restrictive. It 
was not our intent to propose precise measurements to ascertain whether 
the assist space was, in fact, parallel to the exit. By the same token, 
such measurements would not be expected to ascertain that the assist 
space is parallel to the airplane centerline. The assist space should 
generally be oriented with the 12-inch dimension along the length of 
the airplane, although since the exact dimensions are not specified in 
the rule, this information will become advisory material. Generally 
speaking, the assist space is expected to be oriented at an angle 
somewhere between parallel to the exit and parallel to the airplane 
centerline, which is no different than current practice. This allows 
sufficient latitude in identifying the assist space. With respect to 
additional fore and aft space, this has long been the requirement, as 
discussed previously.
    Comment: Another foreign manufacturer also states that the 
requirement for an assist space based on passenger capacity, and not 
the presence of an assist means is highly detrimental to small 
transports. The commenter suggests that the requirement will force 
installation of Type III exits, where Type II exits might have been 
used.
    Response: On November 8, 1996, the FAA published Amendment No. 25-
88, which adopted a new means of determining passenger capacity and 
introduced two new exit types (61 FR 57946, November 8, 1996). In this 
final rule, we are adopting a change to Sec.  25.813(b)(3) to require 
an assist space for airplanes with ``more than 80 passengers'' rather 
than ``79 or more passengers'' as stated in the proposal. While this 
change does not entirely address the commenter's concern, airplanes 
with one pair of Type I exits and one pair of Type III exits are not

[[Page 62783]]

affected, unless the exit sill heights are greater than 6 feet from the 
ground. Airplanes incorporating more pairs of exits, or larger exits, 
should incorporate an assist space for the reasons discussed in the 
notice. It should also be noted that the exit type is based on the 
configuration of the interior, as well as the physical dimensions of 
the opening in the fuselage. An exit dimensionally equivalent to a Type 
II exit would become a Type III exit, irrespective of the size of the 
opening if an assist space were not provided; the maximum allowable 
passenger capacity would be reduced accordingly. Therefore, this 
requirement should not inhibit installation of larger than required 
exits.
    Comment: One commenter also proposes an additional requirement, for 
exits at the end of a cabin, that the assist space be oriented so that 
the flight attendant would face passengers as they approach the exit.
    Response: In general, the FAA agrees that having the flight 
attendant face passengers as they approach the exit can only be 
beneficial. While this is a desirable goal, the FAA does not believe it 
is feasible to mandate the location of the assist space to this degree. 
For the orientation of the assist space to make a difference, it would 
be necessary for the flight attendant to be able to see along the 
aisles, from the assist space, as passengers approach. The regulations 
do not currently require this, nor was it proposed in the notice. 
Therefore, such a requirement is beyond the scope of the notice.

Flight Attendant Assist Handles

    Ten commenters address the proposed requirement for flight 
attendant assist handles. Six of the commenters support the proposal, 
with one of those commenters suggesting an editorial change.
    Comment: Two commenters accept the proposal with respect to new 
type design, but question the incorporation on existing and newly 
manufactured airplanes. One commenter requests that the compliance time 
be extended from 2 to 4 years, while the other commenter proposes that 
the requirement be limited to new type design only. Both commenters 
cite the costs of modifications for those airplanes that do not already 
comply, and assert that there are many such airplanes. In addition, one 
commenter indicates that it is not known which airplanes currently 
comply and operators will have to wait for manufacturers' service 
bulletins in order to make necessary modifications, which will require 
additional compliance time.
    Response: The FAA agrees that the time for compliance may not be 
adequate in some cases. In particular, the need to address the two 
functions of the handle(s) on a retrofit basis is potentially much more 
difficult than for a new design. In order to address both the time for 
compliance and the potential complexity and associated cost of 
extensive retrofit, the final rule separates the requirement for a 
handle to assist the flight attendant while conducting an evacuation 
and the requirement for a handle to enable the flight attendant to 
steady himself or herself when actuating the assist means manually. The 
latter requirement will not apply to the existing fleet. In addition, 3 
years are allowed for compliance, both for newly manufactured airplanes 
and the existing fleet, to install an assist handle to aid in 
evacuation. Due to other editorial changes in this section, the 
requirement will be added in Sec.  25.813(b)(6).
    Comment: Several commenters question the applicability of the 
proposed requirement under various scenarios. Some commenters ask 
whether the handle was required when there is no assist means required.
    Response: To the extent that an assist space is required, an assist 
handle is also required. If there is no assist means, the purpose of 
the handle would only be to facilitate evacuation. Also, if the assist 
means had no manual activation mechanism, such as with some airstair 
doors, the handle would also only be necessary to facilitate 
evacuation. To make this clear, the phrase ``where applicable'' is 
added after ``assist means'' in Sec.  25.813(b)(6). Assist means that 
are not otherwise required, but are provided (such as certain integral 
airstairs), would not require an assist handle unless an assist space 
was otherwise required because of passenger capacity.
    Comment: Commenters also question whether the assist handle can 
intrude into the 12x20-inch assist space vertical projection.
    Response: To the extent that the assist handle performs it's 
function while the flight attendant occupies the assist space, the 
small amount of intrusion into the assist space that might be necessary 
is considered inconsequential. In fact, the handle could be considered 
part of the assist space. No change to the regulation is necessary.
    Comment: One commenter also notes that there are assist spaces that 
are not located at the exit sill, and the proposal appears to be geared 
toward those that are. The commenter asserts that the handle would not 
appear to provide a benefit when the assist space is away from the exit 
sill.
    Response: The FAA does not agree. The purpose of the assist handle 
is to provide a steadying means for the flight attendant, during an 
evacuation, where the flight attendant is affecting the flow through an 
exit. Whether or not the assist space is at the exit sill, the need for 
the flight attendant to gain leverage still exists. While the 
arrangement may be different, the requirement applies, regardless of 
the location of the assist space relative to the exit sill.

Outside Viewing Means

    Ten commenters address the provision for a means to view the 
outside conditions, prior to opening an exit. While some commenters 
request specific clarification on certain aspects of the requirement, 
only one commenter opposes the requirement for certain types of exits.
    Comment: Some commenters note that the use of overwing escape 
systems means that the areas of evacuee ground contact may be distant 
from the location of the exit itself. In addition, the potential for 
future design concepts to have multiple decks, as well as longitudinal 
distances between the exit and the point where the escape system 
touches the ground should be taken into account.
    Response: With respect to the potential for the exit to be somewhat 
remote from the point where the evacuees would contact the ground, the 
FAA agrees that this may be the case. The intent of the requirement is 
to enable a person to ascertain whether to open an exit, and whether it 
is safe to evacuate through the exit, based on an assessment of the 
outside conditions. To the extent that the means used for determination 
of the former does not also allow an assessment of the ground, the FAA 
agrees that an additional viewing means may be necessary, and that the 
additional means may be somewhat remote from the exit. We have 
therefore reworded the amendment to allow for the dual purpose of the 
viewing means, and to distinguish the required locations of the two.
    Comment: One commenter states that the requirement should not apply 
to ventral, tailcone and overhead (or any exit located above the mid-
point of the fuselage) exits, and that the requirement to view areas of 
evacuee ground contact should be eliminated. The commenter notes that 
there are currently no windows in these areas of the cabin, and the 
fuselage structure in the vicinity of these exits does not, in any 
case, lend itself to a simple window as a means of compliance. The 
commenter points out

[[Page 62784]]

that the condition of the landing gear can influence, by up to 80 
degrees of arc in the roll axis, the position of ground contact and 
most people will not know where to look. Also, the commenter recommends 
that the requirement not apply to exits that utilize ropes or inertia 
reels as assist means, for the same reasons.
    Response: The FAA does not agree that the requirement should not 
apply to ventral, tailcone or overhead exits. In most cases, it should 
be possible to view the outside conditions sufficiently well from a 
nearby passenger or flightdeck window to ascertain whether to open an 
overhead exit. This is considered acceptable. With respect to ventral 
and tailcone exits, the problem is more considerable, but there is no 
justification for not providing the same features at these types of 
exits, except for the added complexity. Future type designs may need to 
incorporate more novel features, to demonstrate compliance. However, 
the need to be able to determine whether or not to open the exit is no 
less important for these types of exits.
    The FAA specifically requested comments on the feasibility of a 
viewing means at ventral and tailcone exits. Only one commenter 
addresses this issue, and does not provide any data to support the 
contention that the rule should not apply. As to whether passengers 
would know where to look, with the change discussed above, the 
functions of the viewing means are more clearly delineated and 
transparent to the passenger. A crewmember would be more likely to 
assess the areas of evacuee ground contact, while any person opening an 
exit should be given the opportunity to make a judgment as to whether 
to proceed. Therefore, with the changes noted above, the requirement is 
adopted.

Exit Hold-Open Feature

    Eight commenters address the proposal to require a means to prevent 
exits from inadvertently closing in an emergency. Most commenters agree 
with the basic proposal but request clarification on specific points.
    Comment: One commenter questions the applicability to removable, 
hatch type exits.
    Response: As noted in the preamble to the notice, these exits would 
be considered in compliance by definition.
    Comment: Several commenters address exits that are hinged on the 
bottom and held open by gravity.
    Response: Exits that are hinged on the bottom are considered to 
comply by virtue of the basic design.
    Comment: One commenter proposes a wording change such that the 
means ``must not require operator action to engage.''
    Response: This is more general than the proposed wording, which 
implies a separate device. As noted above a separate device is not 
necessarily required; therefore, the wording in the second sentence of 
Sec.  25.809(i) will be changed to read: ``The means must not require 
separate action to engage when the exit is opened, and must require 
positive action to disengage.''
    Comment: One commenter expresses concern that the retrofit 
incorporation of this requirement is based on an assumption that the 
means currently in service are acceptable. The commenter notes this 
assumption has not been validated and, if incorrect, will increase the 
cost of the rulemaking considerably. The commenter suggests that the 
FAA explicitly state that all such existing devices are acceptable.
    Response: The FAA agrees that the suitability of all existing 
devices has not been positively established, although it is unaware of 
any designs that would not be acceptable. To preclude an unanticipated 
compliance burden, and given that the vast majority of transport 
category airplanes already incorporate such features, the requirement 
in Sec.  121.310(l) is changed to refer to airplanes manufactured after 
a date 3 years from the effective date of this amendment.

Interior Doors

    The proposed provision relating to interior doors generated the 
largest number of comments, with 15 commenters responding. Five 
commenters support the proposal as written. Many commenters represent 
the corporate aviation community, where certain types of interior doors 
are currently standard features.
    One common installation on corporate aircraft is a seat integrated 
into the lavatory, that can be occupied for takeoff and landing. 
Because the lavatory has a door, this door effectively becomes a ``door 
between passenger compartments,'' and not permitted under the current 
requirements. However, the FAA has accepted such installations under 
certain conditions, on an equivalent level of safety basis. It is 
important to note that the amendment in this final rule would not 
change the status of such occupied lavatories. They would continue to 
be assessed on a case-by-case basis and, if the requirements for 
equivalency were met, could be approved.
    Comment: Several commenters have identified what they see as an 
inconsistency between Sec. Sec.  25.813(e) and (f).
    Response: With respect to the perceived conflict with Sec. Sec.  
25.813(e) and (f), as mentioned in the preamble to the notice, Sec.  
25.813(f) addresses occupants other than passengers that might have to 
use exits on the flightdeck, or in other areas. Thus there is no 
conflict with the prohibition of doors between passengers and exits 
established in Sec.  25.813(e).
    Comment: Commenters also note an inconsistency between the preamble 
and the proposed regulatory language in Notice No. 96-9 with respect to 
retrofit incorporation of the requirement. The preamble states that the 
proposed requirement would apply to ``newly manufactured'' airplanes, 
while the proposed regulatory language applies to all transport 
category airplanes in service. Most commenters agree with the proposal 
as it relates to commercial aviation. Although one example of an exit 
inside a lavatory was cited, that would no longer be acceptable under 
the proposal (or would require removal of the lavatory door).
    Response: Regarding the perceived conflict in the preamble and the 
regulatory language, the regulatory language correctly expresses the 
intent of the proposal. However, the FAA is aware of at least two 
existing air carrier installations where the route to an exit could be 
said to lead through a lavatory. In one case, the installation is 
literally such that the exit is inside the lavatory. In the other case, 
the normal interior configuration does not involve the lavatory; 
however, when in use, the lavatory door extends across the main aisle, 
and essentially encloses the aft exit, as well as a flight attendant 
seat. In the latter case, the FAA did not intend to require a 
substantial change to the type design in order to comply. This 
installation is arguably in compliance already, although it was not 
explicitly considered in the proposal. Each of these doors is 
permissible under the current regulations, because they are not ``doors 
between passenger compartments.'' In each case however, the airplanes 
are no longer in production. In both cases, there is no obvious means 
of compliance that would not either render the lavatory unusable, or 
result in a substantial reconfiguration of the interior. Therefore, the 
amendment is changed to apply to newly manufactured airplanes, with no 
retrofit action to the existing fleet.
    Comment: Another commenter requests clarification that the door in 
the aft pressure bulkhead, leading to a tailcone exit, would not be 
classified as a ``door between passengers and exits.''

[[Page 62785]]

    Response: Doors in pressure bulkheads are not considered interior 
doors, and therefore not subject to this amendment.
    Comment: Several commenters advocate the continued allowance of 
certain types of interior doors for corporate or other special purpose 
operations. These commenters note that such operations typically 
involve small numbers of occupants, small numbers of exits (meaning 
that there is less confusion regarding where each exit is) and 
passengers that tend to be familiar with the airplane. The commenters 
point to a lack of adverse service history as justification for 
retaining the requirement in its current form for these sized 
airplanes. Some commenters suggest a passenger capacity limitation with 
respect to when interior doors could be allowed.
    Response: Such installations could be acceptable under certain 
conditions, but would require a separate action, such as an exemption, 
or new rulemaking. For the basic type certification standard, the 
requirement is adopted as proposed.
    Comment: One commenter points out that this rule would allow a 
flight attendant seat to be effectively isolated by a door, provided 
the seat was not adjacent to an exit.
    Response: The commenter is correct, although the rule does not 
change what is permissible in that regard. The FAA is not aware of any 
such installations, and does not consider that this rule change 
increases the likelihood that such an installation would be proposed.
    The FAA has given careful consideration to the special 
circumstances surrounding corporate and executive operations, and the 
differences in certification standards that result from the proposal. 
While it may be true that a higher percentage of passengers on 
corporate airplanes (as opposed to air carrier airplanes) are familiar 
with the exit arrangement, there is no guarantee of such familiarity. 
While it is true that there is no adverse service history with respect 
to interior doors on corporate airplanes, this can be attributed to an 
absence of service history in general, as opposed to any inherent 
superiority in this type of operation. The FAA is concerned that any 
regulation could lead to increased use of older airplanes, built to 
earlier certification standards in general. This could mean that newer 
airplane types that embody other improved safety features will not get 
introduced into service. In this case, however, it is doubtful that an 
interior feature will drive the acquisition of an airplane over 
considerations such as performance and fuel efficiency offered by new 
designs. As discussed in the notice, the FAA has not identified an 
unsafe condition with interior doors in those types of operations, and 
is therefore not requiring retrofit of this segment of the fleet. Since 
Notice No. 96-9 was published, the FAA has processed exemptions for 
privately operated airplanes that allow the installation of interior 
doors, under certain conditions, when such exemptions have been shown 
to be in the public interest. These exemptions require specific design 
features, as well as limit the type of operation permitted (i.e., not 
offered for hire or common carriage) when such doors are installed. It 
is the FAA's intention to develop alternative regulatory standards that 
specifically apply to privately operated airplanes that would address 
several areas, primarily relating to cabin safety issues. This 
amendment, however, applies to transport category airplanes in general, 
irrespective of their intended operation and, as such, is adopted for 
part 25 as proposed. The FAA will continue to entertain petitions for 
exemption where public interest is demonstrated for privately operated 
airplanes.

Portable Oxygen Equipment

    Twelve commenters address the proposal to require connection of 
oxygen masks to the oxygen supply, for portable oxygen equipment. Most 
commenters fully support the proposal, one commenter states the 
justification for retrofit seemed vague, but provided no additional 
substantiating information, and did not offer an alternative.
    Comment: One commenter expresses a desire to have the connection 
for the oxygen mask outside any protective cover, with a separate cap. 
Another commenter states the proposed Sec.  121.333(d)(2) constitutes a 
requirement for portable oxygen equipment, where none currently exists 
today either in the operating rules or the type design rules.
    Response: All safety equipment is currently required to be 
protected from inadvertent damage in accordance with Sec.  25.1411, and 
so adopting an additional requirement for a cap on the oxygen mask 
connection is not necessary. With respect to whether the proposal 
requires portable oxygen equipment where it has not been required 
before, there is an editorial error in the proposed language for Sec.  
121.333(d)(2) that would have eliminated fixed installations with spare 
masks and outlets as an option. Part 25 however, has always required 
portable oxygen equipment to be immediately available for flight 
attendants, so this is not a new requirement. In order to account for 
both portable and fixed installations, the wording in Sec.  
121.333(d)(2) has been changed, and a new Sec.  121.333(d)(3) is added 
so that each subparagraph offers an optional means of compliance.
    Comment: One commenter objects to the proposed requirement. The 
commenter states that there are design, safety and economic reasons why 
the proposal should not be adopted. The commenter notes that masks are 
stored with the oxygen bottle, even if not connected to it, and a 
connection might cause the oxygen hose to kink or abrade. In addition, 
the commenter is concerned that design changes that might be required 
to comply with the rule not create compatibility problems with 
previously approved masks.
    Response: The FAA agrees that the oxygen mask is stored with the 
bottle, but the proposal would provide connection of the mask to the 
oxygen supply in order to speed the availability of oxygen in an 
emergency. Since many installations are already delivered in this way, 
no extraordinary design measures should be required.
    Comment: The commenter also is concerned that if oxygen flow is 
begun prior to removal of the mask from its attachment to the bottle, 
it might cause rupture of the reservoir bag. The commenter cites an 
airworthiness directive where something similar occurred.
    Response: The airworthiness directive pertains to oxygen mounted in 
passenger service units where reservoir bags were inadvertently 
pressurized during testing. In the case of portable equipment, such 
tests would not be necessary and the bottle would have to be opened 
inadvertently. In addition, the reservoir bag would have to be 
configured in a particular manner in order to cause over-
pressurization. Again, since this type of installation is already in 
service, these potential problems should be readily avoidable.
    Comment: The commenter also questions whether the connected mask 
would comply with Sec.  25.869, which requires oxygen systems to be 
installed so that they will not cause ignition of flammable fluids or 
vapors in case of leakage. The commenter contends that the connected 
assembly is more likely to be left open than were the mask not 
connected.
    Response: Section 25.869 is primarily directed at fixed 
installations that may be installed near other systems, such as 
hydraulic or fuel systems, where leakage of oxygen could produce a 
serious, immediate hazard. This section could also apply to portable 
oxygen bottles, if they were installed in such locations.

[[Page 62786]]

For the typical passenger cabin portable installation however, 
compliance with this section is typically not a significant obstacle. 
In addition, the FAA does not believe that the likelihood of an oxygen 
valve being left open is any different with or without the mask 
connected.
    Comment: The commenter also identifies several areas where the 
estimated costs in the NPRM would be exceeded if design changes are 
necessary in order to comply. The commenter indicates that there might 
need to be both changes to the connection hardware, as well as 
relocation of the bottles and attachment hardware.
    Response: As noted previously, the connection of the masks to the 
oxygen bottle is not an unusual feature or installation and the means 
to accomplish this are readily available. For the majority of 
installations, simply connecting the hose to the bottle is all that is 
required. For those instances where that is not true, the corrective 
action is not novel or requiring new technology, and can be 
accomplished easily. The FAA notes that no operators objected to the 
proposed requirement, and several explicitly concurred.
    Finally, the commenter contends that the accident that resulted in 
the NTSB recommendation involved both difficulty in removing the oxygen 
mask from its packaging, as well as the time to connect the mask to the 
bottle. The commenter believes that making the packaging easier to open 
will satisfy the intent of the recommendation, and notes that equipment 
suppliers are working to accomplish this.
    Response: The FAA concurs that the packaging for oxygen masks 
could, in many cases, be made easier to open. This does not address the 
intent of the NTSB recommendation (which was very specific with respect 
to connection of the oxygen mask) however, and essentially amounts to 
compliance with the current requirements of Sec.  25.1411(a), which 
states that emergency equipment must be readily accessible. The final 
rule remains unchanged.
    Various changes to part 121, since issuance of Notice 96-9, will 
have a small editorial effect on this amendment, but will not result in 
any substantive change to the requirements. There is also no change 
regarding which sections are affected.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), there are no current or new requirements for information 
collection associated with this amendment.

International Compatibility With ICAO Standards

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practical. The FAA has 
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and 
the Joint Aviation Authorities regulations, where they exist, and has 
identified no differences in these amendments and the foreign 
regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal agency 
proposing or adopting regulation to first make a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the 
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the 
Trade Agreements Act prohibits agencies from setting standards that 
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. In developing U.S. standards, this act requires agencies to 
consider international standards, and use them where appropriate as the 
basis for U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs and 
benefits, and other effects of proposed and final rules. An assessment 
must be prepared only for rules that impose a Federal mandate on State, 
local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, likely to 
result in a total expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted for 
inflation) in any one year.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA determined that this rule has 
benefits that justify the minimal incremental costs; will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities; has no 
effect on trade-sensitive activity; and does not impose an unfunded 
mandate on State, local, or tribal government, or on the private 
sector.
    The provisions of this rule reflect current industry practices. The 
primary potential benefit of the final rule is that it will require 
these current practices to be continued in the future. Alternatively, 
without this rule, the current safety practices could be reduced. A 
secondary benefit of the final rule will arise from clarifying existing 
rules. The prevalence of these industry practices indicates that 
airplane manufacturers and operators have determined that they are 
warranted means of enhancing passenger and flight attendant safety.
    In the analysis for the NPRM, the FAA estimated de minimis costs, 
and requested documented cost information from the industry. The FAA 
did receive comments regarding costs. After reviewing these comments 
the FAA concludes the de minimis cost conclusion is appropriate. 
Provisions of this rule (such as emergency exit viewing windows, and 
interior cabin doors) apply only to future type-certificated aircraft. 
Given future design flexibility, costs are considered to be negligible. 
Other provisions (such as assist handles, emergency exit door latch 
open devices, and portable oxygen bottles) codify practices that are 
already being adopted by the entire industry. Even if an operator was 
not compliant, the costs of compliance are estimated to be less than 
$1000.

Costs and Benefits

    The FAA believes that the certification of largely existing good 
industry practices ensures today's level of safety and will modestly 
improve future levels of air safety at minimal cost. The rule will 
codify current industry practices, an indication that aircraft 
manufacturers and airlines have determined that the rule, even before 
its publication, is aimed at enhancing passenger and flight attendant 
survivability in case of an accident. The major benefit is to ensure 
that the existing level of safety is maintained because, without the 
rule, the safety standards could be relaxed at any time.
    The final rule will impose minimal, if any, incremental compliance 
costs on existing airplanes and airplanes manufactured under existing 
type certificates because it will codify existing industry practices, 
and clarify FAA requirements concerning cabin configuration and 
equipment specifications. There is one exception. The final rule could 
impose some compliance costs on future part 25 type-certificated 
airplanes, arising from the requirement for a viewing window in each 
emergency exit door or adjacent bay. In order for a tailcone emergency 
exit to meet this requirement, considerable engineering redesign may be 
needed. The FAA specifically requested comments on this topic, but 
commenters only dealt with the inability to view the outside 
environment from the tailcone emergency exit, not from the cost of 
redesign. It is conceivable that, since the rule applies only to 
airplanes for which

[[Page 62787]]

an application for type certificate is made after the effective date, 
and no retrofit requirement is included, most future aircraft will not 
be equipped with a tailcone exit.
    Another comment referenced the installation of interior doors. In 
this case, the argument was made that revenue would be lost by the 
aftermarket industry if interior doors could not be installed after 
purchase from the original equipment manufacturer. Since the 
requirement is not retrofit to the existing fleet, and the FAA will 
continue to entertain petitions for exemption where public interest is 
demonstrated for privately-owned airplanes, the rule will not dimish 
the earning potential of any firm engaged in installing doors in 
existing aircraft. Certain future unscheduled charter operators might 
be negatively affected, but since the rule applies only to future 
aircraft, the FAA cannot predict what cost will be encumbered given 
manufacturers' flexibility to design and customize new airplanes to 
meet customer needs.
    Yet another comment was made by an aerospace industry association 
expressing concern over the possible increased cost of compliance with 
respect to oxygen equipment but providing no detail as to why they 
believe it would be the case. No operators objected because the 
majority, if not all, of the installations are already compliant with 
the rule (and if there are any that are not, the corrective action can 
be accomplished very easily)

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by 
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or 
disproportionately burdened by government regulations. The Act 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject 
to regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small 
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and 
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will indeed 
have a significant impact, the agency must prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis as described in the Act.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the Act provides that the 
head of the agency may so certify, and an regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement 
providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning 
should be clear. In this case, the FAA economic evaluation for the NPRM 
estimated that the rule will impose no, or de minimis, costs to the 
aviation industry as a whole. The FAA did receive comments regarding 
compliance costs. After reviewing these comments the FAA determined 
that the de minimis costs conclusion remains appropriate. Therefore, 
the FAA certifies that there will be no significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards.
    In accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the 
potential effect of this final rule will have, at most, minimal impact 
on the competitive posture of either U.S. carriers doing business in 
foreign countries or foreign carriers doing business in the United 
States. This assessment is based on the fact that this rule will have, 
at most, minimal impact on existing part 121 operators, since they are 
already in compliance. These requirements, therefore, will not impose a 
competitive disadvantage for U.S. air carriers operating overseas or 
for foreign carriers operating in the United States. Finally, the 
certification requirement of this rule will not constitute a barrier to 
international trade because part 25 certificated aircraft currently 
manufactured are already in compliance with this rule.

Unfunded Mandates Act Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
enacted as Pub.L.104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal agency, 
to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of the 
effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that 
may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $120,700,000 (adjusted 
for inflation to calendar year 2003 levels by the Consumer Price Index 
for All Urban Consumers). Section 204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), 
requires the Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit 
timely input by elected officers (or their designees) of State, local, 
and tribal governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental 
mandate''. A ``significant intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is 
any provision in a Federal agency regulation that would impose an 
enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one 
year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section 
204(a), provides that before establishing any regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the 
agency shall have developed a plan that, among other things, provides 
for notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a 
meaningful and timely opportunity to provide input in the development 
of regulatory proposals or rules.
    This final rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental or 
private sector mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Executive Order 3132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this 
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the State, or the 
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Therefore, we determined that this final rule does not have 
federalism implications.

Regulations Affecting Interstate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in Title 
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting interstate aviation in Alaska, to 
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation 
modes other than aviation, and to establish such regulatory 
distinctions as he or she

[[Page 62788]]

considers appropriate. Because this rule would apply to the 
certification of future designs of transport category airplanes and 
their subsequent operation, it could, if adopted, affect interstate 
aviation in Alaska.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

Energy Impact

    The energy impact of the rule has been assessed in accordance with 
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and Public Law 94-163, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). It has been determined that it is not a major 
regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 25

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

14 CFR Part 121

    Aviation safety, Safety, Air carrier, Air traffic control, Air 
transportation, Aircraft, Aircraft pilots, Airmen, Airplanes, Airports, 
Airspace, Cargo, Chemicals, Children, Narcotics, Flammable materials, 
Handicapped, Hazardous materials, Common carriers.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration 
amends parts 25 and 121 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
as follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

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

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


0
2. Section 25.809 is amended by revising paragraph (a), and by adding a 
new paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.809  Emergency exit arrangement.

    (a) Each emergency exit, including each flightcrew emergency exit, 
must be a moveable door or hatch in the external walls of the fuselage, 
allowing an unobstructed opening to the outside. In addition, each 
emergency exit must have means to permit viewing of the conditions 
outside the exit when the exit is closed. The viewing means may be on 
or adjacent to the exit provided no obstructions exist between the exit 
and the viewing means. Means must also be provided to permit viewing of 
the likely areas of evacuee ground contact. The likely areas of evacuee 
ground contact must be viewable during all lighting conditions with the 
landing gear extended as well as in all conditions of landing gear 
collapse.
* * * * *
    (i) Each emergency exit must have a means to retain the exit in the 
open position, once the exit is opened in an emergency. The means must 
not require separate action to engage when the exit is opened, and must 
require positive action to disengage.

0
3. Section Sec.  25.812 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(1)(ii), 
(g)(2), and (h) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  25.812  Emergency lighting.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (ii) Not less than 0.05 foot-candle (measured normal to the 
direction of the incident light) for a minimum width of 42 inches for a 
Type A overwing emergency exit and two feet for all other overwing 
emergency exits along the 30 percent of the slip-resistant portion of 
the escape route required in Sec.  25.810(c) that is farthest from the 
exit; and
* * * * *
    (2) At each non-overwing emergency exit not required by Sec.  
25.810(a) to have descent assist means the illumination must be not 
less than 0.03 foot-candle (measured normal to the direction of the 
incident light) on the ground surface with the landing gear extended 
where an evacuee is likely to make first contact with the ground 
outside the cabin.
    (h) The means required in Sec. Sec.  25.810(a) and (d) to assist 
the occupants in descending to the ground must be illuminated so that 
the erected assist means is visible from the airplane.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 25.813 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2) and 
(b)(3), by adding new paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(6) and by 
revising paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  25.813  Emergency exit access.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Each assist space must be a rectangle on the floor, of 
sufficient size to enable a crewmember, standing erect, to effectively 
assist evacuees. The assist space must not reduce the unobstructed 
width of the passageway below that required for the exit.
    (2) For each Type A or B exit, assist space must be provided at 
each side of the exit regardless of whether an assist means is required 
by Sec.  25.810(a).
    (3) For each Type C, I or II exit installed in an airplane with 
seating for more than 80 passengers, an assist space must be provided 
at one side of the passageway regardless of whether an assist means is 
required by Sec.  25.810(a).
    (4) For each Type C, I or II exit, an assist space must be provided 
at one side of the passageway if an assist means is required by Sec.  
25.810(a).
    (5) For any tailcone exit that qualifies for 25 additional 
passenger seats under the provisions of Sec.  25.807(d)(3)(ii), an 
assist space must be provided, if an assist means is required by Sec.  
25.810(a).
    (6) There must be a handle, or handles, at each assist space, 
located to enable the crewmember to steady himself or herself:
    (i) While manually activating the assist means (where applicable) 
and,
    (ii) While assisting passengers during an evacuation.
* * * * *
    (e) No door may be installed between any passenger seat that is 
occupiable for takeoff and landing and any passenger emergency exit, 
such that the door crosses any egress path (including aisles, 
crossaisles and passageways).
    (f) If it is necessary to pass through a doorway separating any 
crewmember seat (except those seats on the flightdeck), occupiable for 
takeoff and landing, from any emergency exit, the door must have a 
means to latch it in the open position. The latching means must be able 
to withstand the loads imposed upon it when the door is subjected to 
the ultimate inertia forces, relative to the surrounding structure, 
listed in Sec.  25.561(b).


Sec.  25.819  [Amended]

0
5.-6. Section Sec.  25.853 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  25.853  Compartment interiors.

* * * * *
    (f) Smoking is not allowed in lavatories. If smoking is allowed in 
any area occupied by the crew or passengers, an adequate number of 
self-contained, removable ashtrays must be provided in designated 
smoking sections for all seated occupants.
* * * * *

0
7. The introductory text in Sec.  25.855 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 62789]]

Sec.  25.855  Cargo or baggage compartments.

    For each cargo or baggage compartment, the following apply:
* * * * *

0
8. Section Sec.  25.1411 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  25.1411  General.

* * * * *
    (c) Emergency exit descent device. The stowage provisions for the 
emergency exit descent devices required by Sec.  25.810(a) must be at 
each exit for which they are intended.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 25.1447 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.1447  Equipment standards for oxygen dispensing units.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Portable oxygen equipment must be immediately available for 
each cabin attendant. The portable oxygen equipment must have the 
oxygen dispensing unit connected to the portable oxygen supply.

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL 
OPERATIONS

0
10. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702, 
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904, 
44912, 46105.


0
11. Section 121.310 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(2), by 
redesignating paragraph (f)(6) as (f)(7), by adding a new paragraph 
(f)(6), by redesignating existing paragraph (l) as paragraph (n), by 
adding a new paragraph (l), and by republishing newly redesignated 
paragraphs (f)(7) and (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  121.310  Additional emergency equipment.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) For each Type I or Type II emergency exit equipped with an 
assist means, there must be enough space next to the exit to allow a 
crewmember to assist in the evacuation of passengers without reducing 
the unobstructed width of the passageway below that required in 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section. In addition, all airplanes 
manufactured on or after November 26, 2008 must comply with the 
provisions of Sec. Sec.  25.813(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4) in 
effect on November 26, 2004. However, a deviation from this requirement 
may be authorized for an airplane certificated under the provisions of 
part 4b of the Civil Air Regulations in effect before December 20, 
1951, if the Administrator finds that special circumstances exist that 
provide an equivalent level of safety.
* * * * *
    (6) No person may operate an airplane manufactured after November 
27, 2006, that incorporates a door installed between any passenger seat 
occupiable for takeoff and landing and any passenger emergency exit, 
such that the door crosses any egress path (including aisles, 
crossaisles and passageways).
    (7) If it is necessary to pass through a doorway separating any 
seat (except those seats on the flightdeck), occupiable for takeoff and 
landing, from an emergency exit, the door must have a means to latch it 
in the open position, and the door must be latched open during each 
takeoff and landing. The latching means must be able to withstand the 
loads imposed upon it when the door is subjected to the ultimate 
inertia forces, relative to the surrounding structure, listed in Sec.  
25.561(b) of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (l) Emergency exit features.
    (1) Each transport category airplane manufactured after November 
26, 2007 must comply with the provisions of Sec.  25.809(i) and
    (2) After November 26, 2007 each transport category airplane must 
comply with the provisions of Sec.  25.813(b)(6)(ii) in effect on 
November 26, 2007.
    (m) * * *
    (n) Portable lights. No person may operate a passenger-carrying 
airplane unless it is equipped with flashlight stowage provisions 
accessible from each flight attendant seat.

0
12. Section 121.333 is amended by revising paragraph (d) as follows:


Sec.  121.333  Supplemental oxygen for emergency descent and for first 
aid; turbine engine powered airplanes with pressurized cabins.

* * * * *
    (d) Use of portable oxygen equipment by cabin attendants. After 
November 28, 2005 each mask used for portable oxygen equipment must be 
connected to its oxygen supply. Above flight level 250, one of the 
following is required:
    (1) Each attendant shall carry portable oxygen equipment with a 15 
minute supply of oxygen; or
    (2) There must be sufficient portable oxygen equipment (including 
masks and spare outlets) distributed throughout the cabin so that such 
equipment is immediately available to each attendant, regardless of 
their location in the cabin; or
    (3) There are sufficient spare outlets and masks distributed 
throughout the cabin to ensure immediate availability of oxygen to each 
cabin attendant, regardless of their location in the cabin.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 15, 2004.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-23862 Filed 10-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P