[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 29, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-15617]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 29, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 135
Exit Seating for On-Demand Operations; Rule
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 135
[Docket No. 25821; Amendment No. 135-50]
RIN 2120-AE44
Exit Seating for On-Demand Operations
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is amending the exit seat rule to exclude from the
applicability of the rule commuter operations with aircraft having 9 or
fewer passenger seats and on-demand air taxi operations with aircraft
having 19 or fewer passenger seats. These revisions relieve certain
part 135 operators and persons with disabling conditions of unnecessary
burdens. They eliminate requirements that are not necessary for safe,
expeditious evacuations in the event of an emergency.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 29, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donell Pollard, AFS-203, Air
Transportation Division, Office of Flight Standards, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 267-8166.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 2, 1990, the FAA adopted Amendment No. 135-36, which
revised Sec. 135.129 of the Federal Aviation Regulations to increase
the chances of occupant survival following a crash. The section
provides that certificate holders operating aircraft affected by the
section (except on-demand operations with nine or fewer passenger
seats) may not seat a passenger in an exit row seat who is not willing
and able, without assistance, to activate an emergency exit and to take
certain additional actions needed to ensure safe use of the exit in an
emergency in which a crewmember is not available to perform those
functions.
After further consideration, the FAA has determined that
Sec. 135.129 should be amended to exclude from its coverage scheduled
operations in aircraft having nine or fewer passenger seats.
Certificate holders attempting to comply with the rule in regard to
those aircraft have raised several issues concerning application of the
rule. First, the limited number of seats in such aircraft increases the
likelihood that persons not meeting the criteria in paragraph (b) of
the rule could be denied transportation. Such a denial is especially
likely in cases where the passenger seating configuration results in
most or all of the seats being designated as exit seats. Due to the
limited number of passengers involved, it may not always be possible to
find someone willing, and qualified, to move into an exit seat when it
must be vacated by an unqualified person. In a fully occupied flight,
application of the rule could result in that passenger being denied
transportation. Additionally, persons who do not meet the criteria for
exit seating established by Sec. 135.129 would be completely barred
from certain aircraft (e.g., Cessna 206, Cessna 207, Beechcraft 36,
Beechcraft 58, and Beechcraft 55) with passenger seating configurations
that result in every seat in the aircraft being designated as an exit
seat.
Consideration of such consequences, in view of the objective of the
rule and in light of various seating configurations known to be used in
operations to which the rule would apply, indicated that safety would
not require these results. The aircraft involved are uniformly quite
small, with short distances between exits. Passengers may choose one or
another exit without concern for the distance factor. The ratio of
exits to passengers in such aircraft is very high in comparison to
larger aircraft, thus affording more opportunities for emergency
evacuation. The seats in such aircraft are often in single units,
around a central open space in the cabin, as opposed to being in rows
and aisles, thus providing ready access to window and door exits for
all passengers. The exits in such aircraft are typically small, light,
and close to the ground, involving no slides, such as those that are
found in larger aircraft, thus obviating some of the criteria in
paragraph (b) of the rule. In addition, Sec. 135.177 requires that each
passenger be briefed orally on the location and means of operation of
each passenger entry door and emergency exit.
The FAA further determined that safety does not require that the
rule apply to on-demand operations with aircraft having 19 or fewer
passenger seats. Seating configurations in those aircraft tend to be
different from the standard aisle and row seating found in aircraft
used in commuter operations, and frequently include single units around
a central open space in the cabin, couch seats, and club seating, which
provide numerous undefined, unobstructed paths to the exits. Generally,
affinity groups charter these aircraft, and individual seat assignments
are not made. Passengers using these aircraft who travel in affinity
groups are more likely to be aware of each other's physical condition
than is the case when passengers are drawn from the general population
mix. And, as is the case in all operations under part 135, Sec. 135.117
requires that each passenger receive an oral briefing on the location
and means of operation of each passenger entry door and emergency exit.
Based on the above discussion, the FAA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on October 26, 1992 (57 FR 48666). The
comment period closed on November 27, 1992.
At a few places in the preamble to the NPRM, the FAA inadvertently
used the phrases ``air carrier'' and ``air carriers'' to identify
certain part 135 certificate holders that would be the intended
beneficiaries of this rule. The FAA did not intend to limit the relief
that this rule would provide to only those part 135 certificate holders
that are air carriers. In fact, in the proposed rule and in the rule
language adopted today, the relief is not limited to part 135 operators
that are air carriers. This relief also gives the same relief to all
part 135 operators that operate aircraft with the specified passenger
seating capacity.
Finally, it was the FAA's intention to make the exception provision
in paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 135.129 applicable to all paragraphs in
that section. Unfortunately, as presently written, the exception might
be read to only apply to paragraph (a)(1). The FAA intended that
certain operations (as defined in the exception clause) would not have
to comply with any portion of the rule. In fact, the FAA originally
stated, ``This rule does not affect exit row seating in the on-demand
operations of air taxis that have nine or fewer passenger seats.'' (55
FR 8054, March 6, 1990) The FAA did not merely state that the exception
was only applicable to that part of the rule dealing with the
certificate holder's duty to make a determination about the suitability
of the person occupying the exit seat. To clarify its intention, the
FAA has reorganized Sec. 135.129(a). This reorganization eliminates any
ambiguity that might lead someone to incorrectly conclude that the
exception provision only applies to Sec. 135.129(a).
Discussion of Comments
Eight comments were received in response to the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM). Commenters included three associations, three air
carriers, one aviation insurance company, and one special interest
group, the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA). All eight commenters,
including the Regional Airline Association (RAA) and the Helicopter
Association International (HAI), supported the proposed rule. They
offered additional comments in support of the proposed rule.
Two commenters stated that an exemption for smaller aircraft
categories is necessary because the intent of the current exit seat
rule is clearly for large airplanes. Four commenters stated that the
seating configurations in small aircraft are different than larger
aircraft and, as such, the density of seating and the ratio of
passengers to available exits is very good, thus making it unnecessary
to have the exit seat rule apply to the smaller aircraft categories.
One commenter stated that under the current rule, too high a percentage
of the seats in a small aircraft are required to be exit seats.
Two commenters indicated that the aircraft under on-demand
operations are typically configured with seating arrangements different
from the standard aisle and row seating found in aircraft used in
commuter operations. They stated that passengers using these aircraft
who travel in groups where the passengers know one another are more
likely to be aware of each other's physical condition and be able to
respond as necessary.
Three commenters indicated that a large percentage of the Alaskan
population--student passengers under age 15 and older passengers--would
be unable to use its scheduled operations to access health,
educational, and other essential services.
In addition to its support, the Paralyzed Veterans of America
recommended extending the rule to cover small aircraft with 29 or fewer
seats. The FAA considered but disagrees with PVA's recommendation
because aircraft with 20 to 29 passenger seats are more likely to have
a sufficient number of non-exit seats.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no information collection requests requiring
approval of the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies
to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess
the effects of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting
these analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule (1) would
generate benefits that would justify its costs and is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in the executive order;
(2) is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's Policies and Procedures:
(3) would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities; and (4) would not constitute a barrier to international
trade.
The FAA has determined that the expected economic impact of the
amendment will be minimal and does not warrant a full regulatory
evaluation. As indicated in the above discussion, the exclusion of
commuter operations with 9 or fewer passenger seats and on-demand
aircraft operations having 19 or fewer passenger seats from the rule is
not expected to result in significant impediments to successful
emergency evacuations. This conclusion is based on a review of the
typical passenger configurations and exit availability of these smaller
aircraft. The FAA did not give adequate consideration to the unique
characteristics of these aircraft and their operations at the time it
prepared the regulatory evaluation of Amendment No. 135-36.
The amendment is beneficial in that it will prevent situations in
which smaller aircraft might otherwise be restricted from carrying
handicapped persons; this benefit is unquantifiable.
International Trade Impact Statement
This rule is not anticipated to affect the import of foreign
products or services into the United States or the export of U.S.
products or services to foreign countries.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or
disproportionately burdened by Government regulations. The RFA requires
a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a rule would have a significant
economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial
number of small entities. Based on the potential relief that the rule
will provide and the criteria of implementing FAA Order 2100.14A,
Regulatory Flexibility Criteria and Guidance, the FAA has determined
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Federalism Implications
The rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612 (52
FR 41685; October 30, 1987), it is determined that this rule would not
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
Conclusion
For the reasons previously addressed, the FAA has determined that
this amendment involves a regulation which is not significant under
Executive Order 12866 or the Department of Transportation Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). For this same
reason, it is certified under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small
entities. The FAA has determined that the expected impact of the
amendment is so minimal that it does not warrant a full regulatory
evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 135
Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Handicapped safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 135) as follows:
PART 135--AIR TAXI OPERATORS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS
1. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1355(a), 1421 through 1431, and
1502; 49 U.S.C. 106(g).
2. In Sec. 135.129, paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) are redesignated
as paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) and headings are added, paragraph
(a)(1) is revised, and paragraph (a)(2) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 135.129 Exit seating.
(a)(1) Applicability. This section applies to all certificate
holders operating under this part, except for on-demand operations with
aircraft having 19 or fewer passenger seats and commuter operations
with aircraft having 9 or fewer passenger seats.
(2) Duty to make determination of suitability. Each certificate
holder shall determine, to the extent necessary to perform the
applicable functions of paragraph (d) of this section, the suitability
of each person it permits to occupy an exit seat. For the purpose of
this section--
(i) Exit seat means--
(A) Each seat having direct access to an exit; and
(B) Each seat in a row of seats through which passengers would have
to pass to gain access to an exit, from the first seat inboard of the
exit to the first aisle inboard of the exit.
(ii) A passenger seat having direct access means a seat from which
a passenger can proceed directly to the exit without entering an aisle
or passing around an obstruction.
(3) Persons designated to make determination. * * *
(4) Submission of designation for approval. * * *
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 21, 1994.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-15617 Filed 6-28-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
