[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67492-67499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25493]



[[Page 67491]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Parts 25 and 121



Revision of Emergency Evacuation Demonstration Procedures To Improve 
Participant Safety; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2004 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 67492]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 25 and 121

[Docket No. FAA-2004-19629, Amendment Nos. 25-117 and 121-307]
RIN 2120-AF21


Revision of Emergency Evacuation Demonstration Procedures To 
Improve Participant Safety

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: These amendments revise the airworthiness standards for 
transport category airplanes and the operating requirements for 
domestic, flag, and supplemental operations, by allowing certain 
alternative procedures in conducting full-scale emergency evacuation 
demonstrations for transport category airplanes. The changes will make 
full-scale emergency evacuation demonstrations safer for participants 
and will codify existing practices.

DATES: December 17, 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 Management System (DMS) during the course of this 
rulemaking. At earlier stages of the rulemaking, the docket number 
was ``28272.'' Under the new DMS, the docket number is FAA-2004-
19629.)

    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.cmf; 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 amendment, if submitted on 
behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc. You may review 
DOT's complete Privacy 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

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    These amendments are based on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 
Notice No. 95-9, which was published in the Federal Register on July 
18, 1995 (60 FR 36932). In that proposed rule, the FAA proposed to 
amend 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 25 and 121. Appendix J 
to part 25 would be changed to allow certain alternative procedures to 
be used during the conduct of full-scale emergency evacuation 
demonstrations. Section 121.291(b)(1) would be changed to require that 
even operators whose crews participate in a manufacturer's full-scale 
demonstration perform a partial evacuation demonstration upon entry of 
a new model into service.
    Part 25 contains the airworthiness standards for transport category 
airplanes. Manufacturers of transport category airplanes must show that 
each airplane they produce complies with the relevant standards of part 
25. These standards apply to airplanes manufactured within the U.S. and 
in other countries that import the airplanes under a bilateral 
airworthiness agreement. One of the standards that manufacturers must 
meet is that of demonstrating that passengers and crewmembers can be 
evacuated in a timely manner in an emergency. This standard is 
addressed by the requirements in Sec.  25.803 and Appendix J to part 
25. This standard is intended to demonstrate emergency evacuation 
capability under a consistent set of prescribed conditions but is not 
intended to demonstrate that all passengers can be evacuated under all 
conceivable emergency conditions.
    Part 121 contains the requirements governing the operations of 
domestic, flag, and supplemental air carriers, and commercial operators 
of large airplanes. One of the requirements is that the certificate 
holder must demonstrate the effectiveness of the crewmember training 
and operating procedures for opening floor level and non-floor level 
exists and for deploying the evaluation slides, if installed, in a 
timely manner.

History of the Emergency Evacuation Regulations

    Amendment 121-2, effective March 3, 1965, first introduced the 
requirements for an emergency evacuation demonstration in part 121. 
Operators operating under part 121 were required to conduct full-scale 
emergency evacuation demonstrations using 50 percent of the airplane's 
exits within 120 seconds. Half of the exits were rendered inoperative 
to simulate the type of emergency where fire, structural, or other 
adverse conditions would prevent those exits from being used. Operators 
were required to conduct a demonstration during the initial 
introduction of a type and model of airplane into passenger-carrying 
operations and when an airplane passenger seating capacity increased 
five percent or greater or when a major change was made to the interior 
arrangement that would affect emergency evacuation. The purposes of the 
demonstration were to demonstrate the ability of crewmembers to execute 
established emergency evacuation procedures, and to ensure realistic 
assignments of crewmember functions.
    Amendment 25-15, effective October 24, 1967, introduced the 
emergency evacuation requirements into part 25. Newly created Sec.  
25.803 required airplane manufacturers to conduct an emergency 
evacuation demonstration for passenger-carrying airplanes with 
passenger seating capacity of 44 or more, within 90 seconds. The 
purpose of this demonstration was to establish the evacuation 
capability of the airplane. Section 25.803(d) listed conditions under 
which analysis could be used in lieu of a full-scale demonstration to 
demonstrate compliance with the regulation. The section stated that the 
full-scale demonstration did not have to be repeated for a change in 
the interior arrangement, or for an increase in passenger capacity of 
less than five

[[Page 67493]]

percent, if it could be substantiated by analysis that all occupants 
could be evacuated in less than 90 seconds.
    Amendment 121-30, effective October 24, 1967, reduced the 
demonstration time. This reduction was primarily attributable to 
significant gains made in the efficacy of devices, such as inflatable 
slides, to assist in the evacuation. The purpose of the part 121 
demonstration is crew training and crew procedures so that 
demonstration conditions remained somewhat different between the two 
parts.
    Amendment 25-46, effective December 1, 1978, revised Sec.  25.803 
to allow means other than actual demonstration to show the evacuation 
capability of the airplane. It also replaced the existing part 25 
demonstration conditions with conditions that would satisfy both parts 
25 and 121. One demonstration could be used to satisfy both 
requirements. In addition, Sec.  25.803 was revised to allow analysis 
in combination with tests to be used to substantiate compliance for an 
increase in seating capacity of more than five percent. Amendment 121-
149, effective December 1, 1978, revised part 121 to accept the results 
of demonstrations conducted in compliance with Sec.  25.803 as of 
Amendment 25-46.
    Amendment 25-72, effective August 20, 1990, placed the 
demonstration conditions previously listed in Sec.  25.803(c) into a 
new Appendix J to part 25 and amended them for clarification and 
editorial consistency with part 121.
    Amendment 25-79, effective September 27, 1993, revised the age/
gender mix in Appendix J to part 25 to be used when running an 
emergency evacuation demonstration. The revision allowed the use of 
stands or ramps for descending from overwing exits only when the 
airplane is not equipped with an off-wing descent means, and prohibited 
the flightcrew from taking an active role in assisting in the passenger 
cabin.
    Amendment 121-233, effective September 27, 1993, revised Sec.  
121.291 to allow demonstrations in compliance with Sec.  25.803 in 
effect on or after December 1, 1978--not just in effect on December 1, 
1978--to satisfy the requirements of Sec.  121.291.

Injuries During Full Scale Emergency Evacuation Demonstrations

    Hundreds of people jumping from an airplane in simulated dark of 
night conditions onto inflated slides, sliding as many as 25 feet to 
the ground, can result in some injuries. In a sampling of seven full-
scale evacuation demonstrations conducted between 1972 and 1980, 
involving 2,571 passengers and crewmembers, 166 participants suffered 
injuries (``An FAA Analysis of Aircraft Emergency Evacuation 
Demonstrations,'' 1982, Society of Automotive Engineers Technical Paper 
Series 82148).
    Additionally, a review of 19 full-scale evacuation demonstrations 
between 1972 and 1991, involving 5,797 participants, identified 269 
injuries, or 4.5 percent of the passenger and crewmembers. In the seven 
demonstrations for which there was information on the types of 
injuries, of 216 people, 13 suffered fractures, 63 sprains or strains, 
32 contusions, and 108 suffered lacerations or abrasions. In one of the 
demonstrations involving a McDonnell Douglas DC-11 for 410 passengers, 
a participant was seriously injured, resulting in paralysis. For its 
second attempt to certificate the MD-11 on December 11 and 12, 1992, 
McDonnell Douglas replaced the slides with level platforms or gently 
sloped ramps, and the exterior or the aircraft was lighted.
    In addition, the U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 
reported that on average, 6 percent of full-scale emergency evacuation 
demonstration participants are injured during full-scale tests 
(``Aircraft Evacuation Testing. Research and Technology Issues'' 
September 1993, OTA-BP-SET-121, NTIS Order 107620).

The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee

    The FAA formally established the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee (ARAC) on January 22, 1991, to provide advice and 
recommendations to the FAA concerning the full range of the FAA's 
safety-related rulemaking activity (56 FR 2190).
    Members of ARAC interested in issues involving emergency evacuation 
met on May 24, 1991, and instituted the charter and membership for the 
Performance Standards Working Group (PSWG), for a working group that 
would report to ARAC. Members of the PSWG included United States and 
European representatives from airplane and parts manufacturers, pilot, 
flight attendant and machinist unions, airlines, airworthiness 
authorities, passenger associations, and other public interest groups. 
The PSWG charter instructed the working group to recommend to the ARAC 
whether new or revised emergency evacuation standards could and should 
be stated in terms of performance standards rather than design 
standards.
    On October 26, 1991, two unsuccessful emergency evacuation 
demonstrations were conducted on an airplane for which increased 
seating capacity was sought. During one of them, a participant was 
seriously injured. Following the demonstrations, the FAA tasked the 
ARAC to draft recommendations for revising the emergency evacuation 
demonstration requirements and compliance methods to eliminate or 
minimize the potential for injury to demonstration participants. The 
ARAC accepted the task and decided to add this task to the charter of 
the PSWG.
    In response to this additional task, the PSWG drafted a report for 
discussion. The draft report consisted primarily of two sets of 
recommendations--(1) Changes that could be made to the current 
demonstration that would improve participant safety, but would not 
alter the basic character of the demonstration; and (2) analysis that 
could be used in lieu of the full scale demonstration, plus an outlined 
step-by-step methodology for preparing such an analysis. The former 
recommendation would require a revision to Appendix J to part 25, while 
the latter recommendations would expand FAA guidance currently in 
Advisory Circular 25.803-1, Emergency Evacuation Demonstrations. The 
report was revised numerous times, over several PSWG meetings, based on 
comments from PSWG members. Nonetheless, after numerous attempts to 
develop a report that was acceptable, members of the working group were 
unable to reach consensus.
    Representatives of three organizations on the PSWG wrote letters 
stating their objections to the report as finalized. These letters are 
included as Appendix 2 of the report. Comments were primarily aimed at 
the proposed revisions to the existing advisory circular and not to the 
revisions to Appendix J of part 25 contained in the NPRM. The objectors 
expressed concern that the committee did not systematically review the 
causes of injuries in emergency evacuation demonstrations, and thus 
could not make meaningful recommendations to reduce or eliminate those 
injuries. Instead, the objectors felt that the committee had 
concentrated on an approach which would effectively eliminate the full-
scale demonstration.
    The report was forwarded to the ARAC on January 28, 1993, and then 
forwarded on to the FAA. The ARAC then tasked the PSWG to draft the 
appropriate rulemaking document and revise the advisory material as 
recommended in the report. The PSWG

[[Page 67494]]

completed the task and the recommendations were accepted by the FAA. 
These amendments cover the recommended revisions to part 25 covered in 
the report, ``Emergency Evacuation Requirements and Compliance Methods 
That Would Eliminate or Minimize the Potential for Injury to Full Scale 
Evacuation Demonstration Participants.'' A copy of the report has been 
placed in the docket. The FAA is developing a revised advisory circular 
based on the report submitted by ARAC.

Discussion of the Final Rule

    This amendment changes Appendix J to part 25 to reduce the 
possibility of injury to participants in a full-scale emergency 
evacuation demonstration and to codify existing practice regarding 
airplanes equipped with overwing slides as recommended by the ARAC.

Exterior Lighting

    Paragraph (a) of Appendix J is amended to allow exterior light 
levels of 0.3 foot-candles or less prior to the activation of the 
airplane emergency lighting system, in lieu of ``dark of night'' 
conditions. This light level is approximately the level that would be 
found in the passenger cabin when the emergency lighting system is the 
only source of illumination. Allowing this low level of lighting 
outside the airplane enhances the ability of the demonstration director 
to see and react more quickly to problems that may develop during the 
demonstration. While this does not prevent injuries incurred at the 
onset of the problems, it could result in reducing the number of 
injuries by halting the demonstration sooner than in the past. Specific 
tests were not run to ascertain whether or not such exterior ambient 
lighting would enhance or detract from evacuation performance, since it 
was considered that crew performance, escape system efficiency, and 
illumination provided by the airplane emergency lighting system have 
the predominant impact on evacuation performance. As discussed below, 
airplane exterior emergency lighting is being addressed separately.

Pre-Deployment of Escape Slides

    Paragraph (p) of Appendix J is revised to allow exits with 
inflatable slides to have the slides deployed and available for use 
prior to the start of the demonstration. If this method were used, the 
exit preparation time, which would be established in separate component 
tests, would need to be accounted for in some manner. This change 
prevents a participant exiting the airplane before the slide is fully 
available for use, which has occurred in at least two instances. In 
both cases, the participant was not seriously injured; however, the 
potential for serious injury is great, particularly considering the 
sill heights of wide-body airplanes.
    An additional benefit is that pre-deployed and inflated slides are 
not subject to damage from equipment that is placed near the airplane 
to facilitate conduct or documentation of the demonstration (for 
example, infrared lighting). The pre-deployment and inflation of slides 
also allows the proper placement and opportunity for inspection of 
safety mats around the slide prior to the start of the demonstration. 
Additionally, paragraph (p) is revised to require that the exits that 
are not to be used in the demonstration must be clearly indicated once 
the demonstration has started. The more general wording of this change 
accommodates the additional flexibility in exit configuration (slide 
stowed or pre-deployed and inflated).
    Finally, the opening sentence in paragraph (p) is revised to more 
succinctly describe the exits that are to be used in the demonstration. 
The ``exit pairs'' in this regulation are as discussed in the passenger 
seating tables in Sec.  25.807(g). This change responds to numerous 
prior requests to the FAA for clarification of the existing text. As in 
the past, exits which are not installed in pairs, typically tail cone 
or ventral exits, are not used in the demonstration.
    Paragraph (f) of Appendix J is revised to remove the requirement 
that each external door and exit be in the takeoff configuration. This 
change is necessary to be consistent with the change to paragraph (p), 
noted above, which allows slides to be deployed and inflated prior to 
the start of the demonstration. If the option to pre-deploy the slide 
is selected by the applicant, the FAA must approve the specific 
procedures to prevent demonstration participants from determining which 
exits will be used, as well as the method of making the exits 
available, prior to the demonstration. The method of assessing the 
impact on the resulting evacuation times for each of the exits used 
must also be agreed in advance.
    Paragraph (o) of Appendix J is revised to state more generally its 
intent rather than requiring specific actions. The intent is that 
participants inside the airplane should not be able to identify, prior 
to the start of the demonstration, which exits will be used during the 
demonstration. Although this may be made more difficult if an applicant 
elects to utilize pre-deployed escape slides in accordance with the 
change to paragraph (p), this change is in keeping with general 
regulatory practice. This change is not specifically related to 
reducing injuries.

Safety Briefing

    Paragraph (n) of Appendix J is revised to allow passengers to be 
briefed on safety procedures that are in place for the particular 
demonstration, e.g., procedures to abort the demonstration, or 
procedures that have to do with the demonstration site, e.g., how to 
evacuate the building in which the demonstration is being conducted. 
The revision also notes when that briefing could take place. This 
briefing could help some participants from adding to an already 
potentially injurious situation in the event of problems, such as a 
collapsed evacuation slide. It could also provide information that 
would be helpful in case of a problem at the demonstration site, e.g., 
a fire in the building. The briefing would have to be carefully 
constructed so as not to impart any information that would enable the 
participants to evacuate the airplane faster. Additionally, the 
appropriate time for the passenger briefing required by Sec.  121.571 
has been added.

Other Changes

    The ARAC recommended that paragraph (c) of Appendix J be amended to 
allow the use of stands or ramps for overwing exits only if assist 
means are not required as part of the airplane type design. It was not 
proposed in Notice No. 95-9, however because that change has already 
been implemented by Amendment 25-79.
    Another of the recommendations involved revising the age/gender mix 
to require using only the age/gender groups least susceptible to 
injury. It was not proposed in Notice No. 95-9, pending research to 
identify the groups and develop an appropriate mix. A group of 
participants based on the new mix would have to have the same 
evacuation capability as a group based on the existing mix. This 
possible future proposal would be in addition to the change to the mix 
adopted by Amendment 25-79.
    This amendment also makes minor revisions to part 121, to be 
consistent with the changes being made to part 25. Section 121.291(a) 
requires that certificate holders must conduct an emergency evacuation 
demonstration in accordance with paragraph (a) of Appendix D to part 
121, or in accordance with Sec.  25.803 of part 25. Section 25.803 
incorporates by reference Appendix J of part 25 which is amended by 
this final rule. Section 121.291(b)(1) is amended to require that even

[[Page 67495]]

operators whose crews participate in a manufacturer's full-scale 
demonstration perform a partial evacuation demonstration upon entry of 
a new model into service. This change will account for aspects of the 
operator's evacuation procedure that might be lost if the manufacturer 
elects to conduct the full-scale demonstration with pre-deployed 
slides.

Discussion of Comments

    Comments were received from 10 parties, representing foreign and 
domestic airplane manufacturers, labor associations, foreign and 
domestic operators, as well as foreign regulatory authorities and one 
individual. Each proposed change received comments. Two commenters 
support the proposals with minor editorial suggestions. Four commenters 
agree with specific aspects of the proposals, and did not comment on 
others. Four commenters disagree with at least parts of the proposals.

Exterior Lighting

    Three commenters support and four commenters oppose the proposal to 
allow a specified ambient light level, exterior to the airplane, for 
the purposes of conducting the full-scale evacuation demonstration.
    Commenters opposing the change cite the lack of specific research 
to support the proposed light level, and contend that such light levels 
would, in any case, speed the evacuation. One commenter suggests that 
night vision goggles could be provided to the test directors to enable 
them to survey the situation and thereby achieve the same objective as 
the proposal. One commenter cites a non-aviation research study where 
an increase in ambient light level increased the speed of evacuation 
for different age groups. This commenter also suggests that the 
proposed light level would be acceptable, if it were produced by the 
airplane's emergency lighting system.
    While the FAA acknowledges that the proposed exterior light level 
is not based on dedicated research, this level is considered 
reasonable, based on several factors. First, the proposed light level 
is still quite dim, particularly in comparison with the typical 
emergency cabin lighting environment. Second, as is discussed below, 
the area surrounding the airplane is not a primary factor in the speed 
of evacuations as compared to the escape slide itself, and its 
conspicuity. Third, as discussed later, the FAA tasked the ARAC working 
group to develop qualification methods for escape slides that would 
determine their usability under strict dark of night conditions. The 
qualification of the escape slides in the absence of ambient 
illumination means that the ambient illumination level for the 
demonstration would not be critical.
    The FAA agrees that the use of night vision goggles could improve 
some aspects of the test directors' ability to assess the situation 
during the full-scale evacuation. However, the results would not be 
equivalent since the goggles will not provide peripheral visual 
information, and will be distorted by the light that is produced by the 
airplane's emergency lighting system. Thus, while this amendment would 
not prohibit the use of night vision goggles, that approach is not 
considered a direct substitute for the proposal.
    Numerous airplane evacuation studies have been conducted in 
daylight conditions, as well as ``dark of night'' conditions. 
Statistically, the evacuation rates seen in these diametrically opposed 
illumination conditions have been equivalent. The FAA also reviewed 
certification test data for tests conducted in daylight and dark of 
night conditions, where the other parameters are the same, and has seen 
no statistical difference in evacuation rates. However, to maintain the 
``feel'' of a nighttime evacuation and address the safety of 
participants, the FAA has chosen a low light level that will still 
provide enhanced situational awareness to the demonstration director.
    An important adjunct to the change in ambient illumination level is 
the change to the requirements for escape slide qualification relative 
to dark of night conditions. The FAA and the ARAC have developed new 
methods of escape slide qualification testing that would ensure that 
the escape system itself has adequate lighting capability to enable 
rapid evacuation in the absence of any other source(s) of light. The 
FAA has incorporated these methods into the Technical Standard Order 
(TSO) C69 for escape slides. The rule change adopted here pertains to 
the full-scale evacuation demonstration only. Qualification of the 
escape systems is an independent requirement and should be largely 
completed prior to the full-scale evacuation demonstration. In the 
past, qualification of the escape systems has not always been completed 
prior to the full-scale evacuation demonstrations. The FAA, however, 
considers that qualification of the system is an essential element of 
this amendment. Since the change adopted here applies to new type 
certificates, the FAA expects that the TSO revision will be adopted 
prior to a full-scale evacuation demonstration for type certification 
in accordance with this amendment. Should that prove not to be the 
case, the FAA will still require that the escape systems lighting 
performance be substantiated in an approved manner prior to the 
demonstration.
    The FAA reviewed the research study cited by the commenter and 
concluded that the findings in the study do not directly relate to the 
full-scale evacuation requirement. The study is primarily an assessment 
of a test subject's ability to negotiate an unknown evacuation path in 
conditions of varied illumination. This proposal addresses lighting 
conditions, which only become evident upon leaving the airplane, after 
the evacuees have negotiated the evacuation path.
    In addition, the reflectivity of the test environment in the study 
is much higher than would be allowed by this amendment, increasing the 
effective ambient illumination. Further, differences in egress 
performance are greatly reduced when luminous versus non-luminous signs 
were used for a given illumination level. This indicates that the test 
subjects performed poorly at effective ambient illumination levels 
above those allowed by this amendment, and that ambient illumination 
may not be the primary factor controlling performance in the conditions 
tested. In summary, the FAA has concluded that the study does not 
directly relate to this amendment and, as discussed above, issues 
related to escape slide performance have been addressed in TSO C69.
    The FAA does not agree that increased ambient light level should be 
required to be generated by the airplane's emergency lighting system. 
The current standards for airplane emergency lighting systems have been 
shown to be adequate for evacuation. The purpose of allowing increased 
ambient lighting in this amendment is not to assist in the evacuation, 
but to assist in monitoring the evacuation to insure participant 
safety. As noted earlier, the qualification of the actual lighting will 
be a requirement for certification. The commenter's suggestion would 
essentially change the regulations for exterior emergency lighting, 
which is beyond the scope of the notice.

Pre-Deployment of Escape Slides

    Two commenters support, while four commenters oppose the proposal 
to allow the demonstration to be conducted with escape slides pre-
deployed.
    Commenters supporting the proposal note the potential to prevent 
injuries resulting from persons leaving the

[[Page 67496]]

airplane prior to the escape slide being ready for use, for whatever 
reason.
    Commenters opposing the proposal cite various reasons for their 
opposition. Some commenters state that separating exit operation and 
evacuation would not demonstrate the efficacy of flight attendant 
training. Some commenters assert that not having a specific methodology 
for accounting for the pre-deployed slides will invalidate the 
demonstration. A commenter suggests that this option is purely a cost 
saving measure to avoid repeating tests that fail on account of 
equipment failure. One commenter suggests that the noise of deploying 
slides and opening doors is not accounted for as part of the 
demonstration, and will reduce the ``chaos and distraction'' aspects of 
the demonstration. Another commenter notes that the risk of persons 
leaving the airplane early can be accommodated by different designs 
that prevent the doors from opening prior to the escape slide being 
deployed.
    The FAA has considered all the comments and believes that, while 
many of the issues raised require consideration, the proposal is sound 
and does not require changes.
    In the case of the flight attendant training program and the crews' 
interaction with the escape systems, the change to Sec.  121.291(b)(1) 
would necessitate that the operators conduct a partial evacuation 
demonstration before entering service, whether or not that operator's 
crew participated in the full-scale evacuation demonstration. Since 
typically only one operator's crew participates in the full-scale part 
25 evacuation demonstration, the training benefits that might result 
from the demonstration are limited to that operator. This proposal 
would actually increase the number of operators required to conduct a 
partial evacuation demonstration in accordance with Sec.  
121.291(b)(1), over what was previously required.
    In addition, regarding the comment that the proposal is intended to 
avoid repeat demonstrations due to equipment failure, qualification of 
equipment is not the purpose of the demonstration. Under Sec.  25.810, 
the certificate holder would have to demonstrate the proper operation 
of the escape systems from a mechanical standpoint and it is not 
appropriate to rely on the full-scale evacuation demonstration to 
identify problems with equipment. The full-scale demonstration is 
intended to address the gross evacuation capability of the airplane and 
its crew, and not to address specific equipment qualification.
    The FAA has not proposed a specific methodology to pre-deploy the 
escape slides since deployment will vary among the different exit 
designs. In addition, recommendations on methodology are more 
appropriately the function of advisory material. While there is no 
obvious need for advisory material at this time, if a need develops 
appropriate guidance will be prepared.
    The FAA has determined that there are means of accounting for pre-
deployed escape slides that will not compromise the evacuation 
demonstration. Issues that must be addressed include the time it takes 
for a flight attendant to operate and assess the availability of the 
exit; the inflation time of the slide; the queue of passengers that 
might form while the slide is inflating and the effect that the queue 
has on the initial evacuation rate. Many of these issues could be 
addressed by correctly timing the availability of the exits to be used 
in the demonstration.
    As is currently the case, exits that will be used must not be 
distinguishable from exits that will not be used, prior to the 
demonstration. This approach may necessitate the use of special covers 
over all exits, for example. In those cases where it is not possible to 
develop a satisfactory methodology, the applicant will not be able to 
use the option of pre-deployed slides.
    Predeployment of slides will reduce the potential for slide failure 
or damage to slides that can occur during a demonstration. This could 
avoid repeating a demonstration and the applicant costs associated with 
repeating. But the purpose of the evacuation demonstration is to 
determine if the aircraft, as designed, can be evacuated in a timely 
manner. The test limitation allowing use of only 50 percent of 
available slides accounts for the potential for unusable slides. The 
reliability of the slide system is required to be demonstrated 
separately under Sec.  25.810. Although the potential for repeat 
demonstrations may be reduced, the reason for considering this change 
is to prevent injuries.
    The noise that is produced by deploying escape slides is not 
generally accounted for, if the slides are pre-deployed. The FAA is 
unaware of what role, if any, the sound of deploying escape slides 
plays in an evacuation demonstration. Research tests conducted with 
pre-deployed escape slides result in evacuation rates consistent with 
those produced in full-scale demonstrations that do not pre-deploy 
slides. In addition, and as the basis for the proposal, in past full-
scale evacuation demonstrations, passengers frequently reached the exit 
before the slide was fully deployed and, in some cases, have left the 
airplane before the slide is ready. It is doubtful that the absence of 
the sounds of deployment will cause them to reach the exit any sooner. 
Nonetheless, if there are data that indicate that the sounds are 
necessary, it would be a simple matter to include recorded sounds, as a 
part of the other procedures that will be needed to follow this option. 
At this time, however, the data do not suggest that this is necessary.
    It is true that the escape system design could be such that the 
exits were prevented from opening until the escape slide was fully 
deployed. However, such a requirement could have the unintended effect 
of delaying an evacuation in an accident. Under actual emergency 
conditions it is less likely that persons would depart the airplane 
prior to the escape slide's deployment, since there is no defined 
``start'' signal such as there is in a demonstration. Under actual 
conditions, the sooner the escape slide is available, the more likely 
the success of the evacuation. Since the escape slide is not available 
to passengers until the exit is open, requiring the exits to delay 
opening would not be in the interest of safety. It should be noted that 
there are specific designs that incorporate features to permit the exit 
opening to coincide with the slide deployment, that do not delay the 
overall exit system availability. Such designs would, of course, 
continue to be acceptable.

Safety Briefing

    Three commenters support and three commenters oppose the proposal 
to allow a safety briefing for test participants. One commenter 
expresses concern regarding the use of test participants' to assist at 
the bottom of the escape slides, commenting that this is better left to 
test personnel.
    Most commenters opposing the proposal were not specific as to their 
opposition, other than concern that the briefing could somehow enable 
the participants to evacuate faster. As stated in Notice No. 95-9, the 
purpose of this provision is to convey safety information about the 
logistics of the demonstration site and test sequence. The notice also 
states that such briefings would have to be carefully constructed in 
order not to disclose information about the demonstration itself. In 
actual practice, the manufacturers have conducted such briefings in the 
past, but with no real standardization. This amendment provides 
codification of that practice and gives information as to

[[Page 67497]]

content and when such a briefing can take place.
    With respect to persons who are assigned to assist at the bottom of 
the slide, the FAA agrees with the commenter who believes that test 
personnel would probably be the best choice. However, if an operator's 
procedures included assigning passengers to perform this duty, they 
should not be precluded from employing the same procedures in the 
demonstration. This provision would not override the safety procedures 
to be followed for demonstration purposes and, should problems develop, 
it might be necessary for test personnel to provide additional 
assistance. Were that to occur, the contribution of the test personnel 
would have to be assessed to determine whether the validity of the 
demonstration had been affected. The proposal is therefore adopted.

Other Comments

    Other comments concerned editorial suggestions that have been 
adopted where appropriate, and some comments that were beyond the scope 
of the notice. One commenter suggests that the combination of exits 
likely to result in the slowest evacuation times should be required in 
paragraph (p) of Appendix J of part 25, and not one from each pair of 
exits, as proposed. The current standard contained in the first 
sentence of paragraph (p) only requires that not more than 50 percent 
of the exits are used in the demonstration. Currently, applicants are 
free to select any combination of exits. The proposed change to the 
first sentence of paragraph (p) was intended to reflect current 
practice of using one exit from each pair, not to establish a new 
standard. The commenter's suggestion would create a more stringent 
standard. Although the comments may be applicable to future rulemaking 
in this area, they were not considered applicable to this proposal.
    One commenter recommends against combining the demonstration 
requirements for parts 25 and 121. The provision to demonstrate 
compliance with both parts 25 and part 121 actually occurred in 
Amendments 25-46 and 121-149, in 1978, and was not a part of NPRM 95-9.
    Finally, commenters contend that the proposal is an indirect effort 
to do away with the full-scale demonstration entirely. Since the entire 
proposal focuses on procedures for conducting the demonstration, this 
contention is not accurate. The FAA will continue to require full-scale 
demonstrations when appropriate.

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.

Economic Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 
International Trade Impart Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the 
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the 
Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from 
setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade 
Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. And fourth, the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a 
written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed 
or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the 
expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 
by the private sector, of $100 million or more, in any one year 
(adjusted for inflation.)
    For regulations with an expected minimal impact a complete 
regulatory evaluation is not required. The Department of Transportation 
Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, 
analysis, and review of regulations. If it is determined that the 
expected impact is so minimal that the proposal does not warrant a full 
Evaluation, a statement to that effect and the basis for it is included 
in the final regulation. Since this final rule revises existing rules 
and codifies existing practices, the expected outcome is to have a 
minimal impact with positive net benefits. The justification for the 
minimal impact determination follows.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Exterior Lighting

    In the original NPRM, the FAA estimated that it will take two 
engineers and two technicians \1/2\ hour at burdened rates of $60 and 
$45 per hour, respectively, to prepare and adjust the exterior lighting 
level to 0.3 foot-candles or less, at a cost of $105.

Predeployment of Escape Slides

    The final rule removes the requirement in paragraph (f) that the 
external doors and exits be in the takeoff configuration. No costs are 
associated with this change.

Safety Briefings

    Paragraph (n) is amended to allow demonstration participants to be 
briefed only with respect to safety procedures in place for the 
demonstration or the demonstration site, such as demonstration abort 
procedures or procedures pertaining to the demonstration site. Flight 
attendants will be allowed to assign demonstration subjects to assist 
other participants from the bottom of the slide. The final rule will 
continue to prohibit passengers from being instructed on procedures to 
be followed in the demonstration. No costs are attributed to these 
changes.
    Paragraph (o) requires that the airplane be configured so that 
available emergency exits are not disclosed to participants. This 
revision states more generally the intent of the requirement rather 
than specific actions. Associated costs are described in comments 
pertaining to paragraph (p) below.
    Paragraph (p) allows exits with inflatable slides to be opened with 
the slides deployed prior to the start of the demonstration timing. The 
final rule retains the current requirement that all exits will have to 
be configured so that the usable exits are not disclosed to 
participants prior to the demonstration. Manufacturers currently cover 
all windows to prevent participants from determining which exits will 
be usable in the demonstration. The FAA estimates that, under the final 
rule, manufacturers will also cover exits with curtains, screens, or 
other means to prevent premature disclosure of active exits. These 
screening devices will cost approximately $1,000 for labor and

[[Page 67498]]

materials. (Depending on future airplane designs, slides may be able to 
be deployed without opening the exits they serve. In those cases, there 
will be no costs for screening devices because it will not be necessary 
to cover the exit doors to prevent participants from determining which 
exits will be used.)

Costs

    The final rule does not necessarily result in additional compliance 
costs, because it allows alternative procedures in conducting 
demonstrations, rather than mandating them. If manufacturers elect to 
use the final procedures, however, the FAA estimates that there will be 
incremental costs of approximately $1,105 per demonstration. These 
costs will be insignificant in comparison to the total cost of an 
evacuation demonstration, estimated to range between $1,000,000 and 
$2,000,000.

Benefits

    The risk of injury to passengers during repetitive full-scale 
emergency demonstrations is appreciable.
    The FAA reviewed seven full-scale evacuation demonstrations 
conducted between 1972 and 1980 (``An FAA Analysis of Aircraft 
Emergency Evacuation Demonstrations''). Of the 2,571 participants in 
the demonstrations, 166, or 6.5 percent were injured.
    In addition, the Office of Technology Assessment states that on 
average, 6 percent of full-scale emergency evacuation demonstration 
participants are injured during full-scale tests (``Aircraft Evacuation 
Testing: Research and Technology Issues'', September 1993, OTA-BP-SET-
121, NTIS order PB94-107620).
    The FAA reviewed 19 demonstrations conducted between 1972 and 1991. 
Of the 5,797 participants in the demonstrations, 269 were injured. In 
the seven demonstrations for which there was information on the types 
of injuries, 13 suffered fractures, 63 sprains or strains, 32 
contusions, and 108 suffered lacerations or abrasions, a total of 216 
people injured. This review revealed 4.5 percent of the passengers or 
crewmembers received injuries. In one of the emergency evacuation 
demonstrations reviewed by the FAA, a participant was seriously 
injured, which resulted in paralysis. The FAA believes a 4.5% injury 
rate during an emergency evacuation demonstration is not an acceptable 
safety practice.
    Personnel participating in the demonstration should be protected 
from potential injury without compromising the test results 
(``Emergency Evacuation Demonstrations'', AC 20-118). The primary 
benefit of the rule will be reduced risks of injuries to demonstration 
participants.
    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) classifies 
fractures, strains, contusions, lacerations, and abrasions as 
``minor'', ``moderate'', or ``Critical'' according to the abbreviated 
injury scale (AIS) used. The FAA estimates that the average cost of a 
``minor injury'' is $5,400, the average cost of a ``moderate'' injury 
is $41,900, and the average cost of a ``Critical'' injury, resulting in 
paralysis, is $2,058,800 (``Economic Values for Evaluation of Federal 
Aviation Administration Investment and Regulatory Programs,'' (FAA-APO-
98-8), Treatment of the Values of Life and Injury in Economic 
Analyses). Avoiding only one minor injury during an evacuation 
demonstration will result in cost savings exceeding the estimated 
$1,105 incremental costs of the alternative procedures.
    The emergency evacuation demonstration must be conducted during the 
dark of night or with the dark of night simulated, so that the 
airplane's emergency lighting system provides the only illumination of 
exit paths and slides (``Aircraft Evacuation Testing: Research and 
Technology Issues,'' September 1993, OTA-BP-SET-121, NTIS order 
PB94-107620). But allowing low-level light, outside the 
airplane, will enhance the ability of the demonstration director to 
react more quickly to problems, which could develop during the 
demonstration. The ability of the demonstrator to react more quickly to 
problems could reduce the risk of injuries to demonstration 
participants.
    The FAA has determined since costs will be minor, and the benefits 
could be significantly higher than the costs, the rule will be cost-
beneficial.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was 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, 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 1980 act provides that 
the head of the agency may so certify and a 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.
    This final rule will make full-scale emergency evacuation 
demonstrations safer for participants and will codify existing 
practices. Because there are no manufacturers of part 25 airplanes with 
1,500 or fewer employees,\1\ the FAA certifies that the final 
amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 13 CFR 121.201, Size Standards Used To Define Small Business 
Concerns, Sector 48-49 Transportation, Subsector 481 Air 
Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Trade Impact Analysis

    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 and policy, the FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of this final rule to be minimal and 
therefore has determined that this final rule will not result in an 
impact on international trade by companies doing business in or with 
the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) is intended, 
among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal 
mandates on State, local, and tribal governments.
    Section 202(a) (2 U.S.C. 1532) of Title II of the Act requires that 
each Federal agency, to the extent permitted by law, prepare a written 
statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 
final agency rule that may

[[Page 67499]]

result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year; such a mandate is 
deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $120.7 million in lieu of $100 
million. Section 203(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1533) provides that before 
establishing any regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, an agency shall have developed a 
plan under which the agency shall: (1) Provide notice of the 
requirements to potentially affected small governments, if any; (2) 
enable officials of affected small governments to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing 
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates; and, (3) inform, 
educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the 
requirements. With respect to (2), Section 204(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 
1534) requires the Federal agency to develop an effective process to 
permit elected officers of State, local, and tribal governments (or 
their designees) to provide the input described.
    This final rule does not contain a significant Federal 
intergovernmental/private sector mandate. Therefore, the requirements 
of Title II do not apply.

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.

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.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not 
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12855, 
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

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 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 and 44704.


0
2. Appendix J to part 25 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (f), 
(n), (o), and (p) as follows:

Appendix J to Part 25--Emergency Evacuation

* * * * *
    (a) The emergency evacuation must be conducted with exterior 
ambient light levels of no greater than 0.3 foot-candles prior to the 
activation of the airplane emergency lighting system. The source(s) of 
the initial exterior ambient light level may remain active or 
illuminated during the actual demonstration. There must, however, be no 
increase in the exterior ambient light level except for that due to 
activation of the airplane emergency lighting system.
* * * * *
    (f) Each internal door or curtain must be in the takeoff 
configuration.
* * * * *
    (n) Prior to entering the demonstration aircraft, the passengers 
may also be advised to follow directions of crewmembers but may not be 
instructed on the procedures to be followed in the demonstration, 
except with respect to safety procedures in place for the demonstration 
or which have to do with the demonstration site. Prior to the start of 
the demonstration, the pre-takeoff passenger briefing required by Sec.  
121.571 may be given. Flight attendants may assign demonstration 
subjects to assist persons from the bottom of a slide, consistent with 
their approved training program.
    (o) The airplane must be configured to prevent disclosure of the 
active emergency exits to demonstration participants in the airplane 
until the start of the demonstration.
    (p) Exits used in the demonstration must consist of one exit from 
each exit pair. The demonstration may be conducted with the escape 
slides, if provided, inflated and the exits open at the beginning of 
the demonstration. In this case, all exits must be configured such that 
the active exits are not disclosed to the occupants. If this method is 
used, the exit preparation time for each exit utilized must be 
accounted for, and exits that are not to be used in the demonstration 
must not be indicated before the demonstration has started. The exits 
to be used must be representative of all of the emergency exits on the 
airplane and must be designated by the applicant, subject to approval 
by the Administrator. At least one floor level exit must be used.
* * * * *

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

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

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701-
44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 46105.


0
4. Section 121.291 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) as follows:


Sec.  121.291  Demonstration of emergency evacuation procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Initial introduction of a type and model of airplane into 
passenger-carrying operation;
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 8, 2004.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-25493 Filed 11-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P