[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36932-36937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17392]
[[Page 36931]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Parts 25 and 121
Revision of Emergency Evacuation Demonstration Procedures To Improve
Participant Safety; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 18, 1995 /
Proposed Rule
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36932]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 25 and 121
[Docket No. 28272; Notice No. 95-9]
RIN 2120-AF21
Revision of Emergency Evacuation Demonstration Procedures To
Improve Participant Safety
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to revise the emergency evacuation
demonstration procedures requirements for transport category airplanes
to allow certain alternative procedures in conducting full-scale
emergency evacuation demonstrations. These proposals are in response to
recommendations from the Performance Standards Working Group (PSWG) of
the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC). Additionally, the
operational requirements for domestic, flag, and supplemental air
carriers and commercial operators of large airplanes would be revised
to require each operator to conduct a partial demonstration of
emergency evacuation procedures upon initial introduction of a type of
model of airplane into passenger-carrying operation. The proposed
changes are intended to make full-scale emergency evacuation
demonstrations safer for participants, to codify existing practices,
and to ensure that each operator demonstrates the effectiveness of
crewmember training by conducting at least a partial evacuation
demonstration. These proposed changes would affect manufacturers and
operators of transport category airplanes.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 16, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed in triplicate to:
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 28272, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or delivered in triplicate to: Room
915G, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments
delivered must be marked Docket No. 28272. Comments may be examined in
Room 915G weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. In addition, the FAA is maintaining an information docket of
comments in the Transport Airplane Directorate (ANM-100), Federal
Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056.
Comments in the information docket may be examined weekdays, except
Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Franklin Tiangsing, Regulations Branch, ANM-114, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98055-4056; telephone (206) 227-2121.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments relating to any environmental, energy, or economic
impact that might result from adopting the proposals contained in this
notice are invited. Substantive comments should be accompanied by cost
estimates. Commenters should identify the regulatory docket or notice
number and submit comments in triplicate to the Rules Docket address
above. All comments received on or before the closing date for comments
will be considered by the Administrator before taking action on this
proposed rulemaking. The proposals contained in this notice may be
changed in light of comments received. All comments received will be
available in the Rules Docket, both before and after the comment period
closing date, for examination by interested persons. A report
summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Persons wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments must submit with those
comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following
statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. 28272.'' The postcard will
be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Availability of the NPRM
Any person may obtain a copy of this notice by submitting a request
to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of Public Affairs,
Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; or by calling (202) 267-3484. The notice number
of this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) must be identified in all
communications. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list
for future rulemaking documents should also request a copy of Advisory
Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System,
which describes the application procedure.
Background
Part 25 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
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 to
airplanes manufactured in other countries and imported under a
bilateral airworthiness agreement. One of the standards that must be
met 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 contained 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 in opening floor level and non floor level
exits and deploying the evacuation 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 to the FAA
regulations. Entities operating under part 121 of Title 14 of the CFR
were required to conduct full-scale emergency evacuation demonstrations
using 50 percent of the airplane's exits. Half of the exits were
rendered inoperative to simulate the type of emergency where fire,
structural, or other adverse condition would prevent those exits from
being used. A time limit of 120 seconds was given. The demonstration
was required upon initial introduction of a type and model of airplane
into passenger carrying operations, an increase of 5 percent or greater
in passenger seating capacity, or a major change to the interior
arrangement that would affect emergency evacuation. The purposes of the
demonstration were to demonstrate the ability of crewmembers
[[Page 36933]]
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 airplanes with a passenger seating
capacity of 44 or more. The purpose of this demonstration was to
establish the evacuation capability of the airplane. The time limit for
this demonstration was established at 90 seconds. Concurrently, the
time limit for the part 121 demonstration was reduced to 90 seconds by
Amendment 121-30, also effective October 24, 1967. 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 still focused on crew training
and crew procedures so that demonstration conditions remained somewhat
different between the two parts.
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
percent, if it could be substantiated by analysis that all occupants
could be evacuated in less than 90 seconds.
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 and to replace the existing part 25
demonstration conditions with conditions that would satisfy both part
25 and part 121. In this way, one demonstration could be used to
satisfy both requirements. In addition, Amendment 25-46 revised
Sec. 25.803 to allow analysis to be used to substantiate compliance for
an increase in seating capacity of more than five percent. Part 121 was
revised, by Amendment 121-149, effective December 1, 1978, 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. This change was done for clarity and editorial
consistency with part 121. In addition, emergency escape route
requirements formerly contained in Sec. 25.803(e) were transferred to a
new Sec. 25.810(c).
Amendment 25-79, effective September 27, 1993, revised Appendix J
to part 25 by revising the age/gender mix to be used when conducting an
emergency evacuation demonstration, by allowing 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 by prohibiting the flight
crew from taking an active role in assisting in the passenger cabin.
Amendment 121-233, effective September 27, 1993, revised
Sec. 121.291(a), (a)(1), and (a)(2) to remove the requirement that the
certificate holder conduct a full-scale evacuation demonstration if the
airplane type and model had been shown to be in compliance with
Sec. 121.219(a) in effect on or after October 24, 1967, or, if during
type certification the airplane had been shown to be in compliance with
Sec. 25.803 in effect on or after December 1, 1978. Additionally, an
actual demonstration could be conducted in accordance with Appendix D
to part 121 in effect on or after September 27, 1993, or in accordance
with Sec. 25.803 in effect on or after that date.
The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
The ARAC was formally established by the FAA on January 22, 1991
(56 FR 2190) to provide advice and recommendations to the FAA
concerning the full range of the FAA's safety-related rulemaking
activity. This advice was sought to develop better rules in less
overall time using fewer FAA resources than are currently needed. The
committee provides the opportunity for the FAA to obtain firsthand
information and insight from interested parties regarding proposed new
rules or revisions of existing rules.
There are approximately 60 member organizations on the committee,
representing a wide range of interests within the aviation community.
Meetings of the committee are open to the public, except as authorized
by Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The ARAC establishes working groups to develop proposals to
recommend to the FAA for resolving specific issues. Tasks assigned to
working groups are published in the Federal Register. Working group
meetings are not generally open to the public; however, all interested
persons are invited to become working group members when the group is
formed. Working groups report directly to ARAC, and the ARAC must adopt
a working group proposal before that proposal can be presented to the
FAA as an ARAC recommendation.
The activities of the ARAC do not, however, circumvent the public
rulemaking procedures. After an ARAC recommendation is received and
found acceptable by the FAA, the agency proceeds with the normal public
rulemaking procedures. Any ARAC participation in a rulemaking package
will be fully disclosed in the public docket.
Activities of the Performance Standards Working Group
On May 23, 1991, the first meeting of the ARAC was held in
Baltimore, Maryland, pursuant to a notification in the Federal Register
(56 FR 2190, January 22, 1991).
Members of the ARAC interested in issues involving emergency
evacuation met on May 24, 1991, in Baltimore. At that meeting the
charter for a working group that would report to ARAC was established
as well as the group membership, which includes representatives from
airplane and parts manufacturers, pilot, flight attendant and machinist
unions, airlines, airworthiness authorities, passenger associations and
other public interest groups. This diverse working group includes
representatives from the United States, Canada, and Europe. The charter
of the working group is to recommend to the ARAC whether new or revised
emergency evacuation standards can and should be stated in terms of
performance standards rather than design standards. The first meeting
of the new PSWG was held on June 26, 1991, and the group has continued
to meet on a bi-monthly basis since then.
Following two unsuccessful emergency evacuation demonstrations of
an airplane on October 26, 1991, for which increased seating capacity
was sought, and during which a participant was seriously injured, the
ARAC was tasked by the FAA to work on recommendations for revising the
emergency evacuation demonstration requirements and compliance methods
to eliminate or minimize the potential for injury to demonstration
participants. The ARAC decided to add this task to the charter of the
PSWG.
In response to this additional task, the PSWG created a draft
report for discussion. The draft report consisted primarily of two
significant parts: recommendations of changes that could be made to the
current demonstration that would improve participant safety, but that
would not alter the basic character of the demonstrations; and,
recommendations for when analysis
[[Page 36934]]
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 now 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 to all members of the working group, it was
determined that a consensus on the full report could not be attained.
Areas of disagreement were, however, defined and discussed in an
attempt to reach consensus. Representatives of three organizations on
the PSWG have written letters stating their objections to the report as
finalized. These letters are included as Appendix 2 of the report. In
summary, 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. It should be noted that the
comments are primarily aimed at the proposed revisions to the existing
advisory circular and not to the revisions to Appendix J of part 25
contained in this NPRM.
The PSWG accepted the report, although a consensus could not be
reached on all issues covered in the report, after discussing all items
members raised, including the letters of objection. The report was
forwarded to the ARAC on January 28, 1993, and accepted by that body
with one negative vote. The vote was taken after an opportunity was
given to all members to raise questions or to discuss any item in the
report. The ARAC then tasked the PSWG to draft the appropriate
rulemaking document and revise the advisory material as recommended in
the report. This NPRM covers 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 for examination by interested
parties.
Harmonization With the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA)
This document has not been formally harmonized with the JAA in that
the JAA has not agreed, as yet, to proceed with parallel rulemaking. A
representative of the JAA, however, has been involved with the PSWG
since its inception; and the views of the JAA representative have been
considered in the development of this notice. Additionally, a
representative of the JAA participated as a member of the PSWG writing
group, which produced the report noted above upon which this notice is
based.
Injuries During Full Scale Emergency Evacuation Demonstrations
Hundreds of people jumping out of an airplane in simulated dark of
night conditions onto inflated slides, sliding as many as 25 feet to
the ground below, can result in some injuries. As stated in the report,
FAA records (``An FAA Analysis of Aircraft Emergency Evacuation
Demonstrations: 1982, Society of Automotive Engineers Technical Paper
Series #821486 by Sharon A. Barthelmess) noted 166 injuries to
participants in a sampling of seven full scale evacuation
demonstrations conducted between 1972 and 1980, involving 2,571
passengers and crewmembers. Additionally, a review of 19 full scale
evacuation demonstrations during the 1972-1991 time frame identified
269 injuries among 5,797 passengers and crewmembers. Detailed
descriptions of most of the injuries discussed above are not available.
Not all the injuries, therefore, could be classified as to their
severity. Some injuries have been serious; however, the majority
probably would not be classified as serious (see 49 CFR 830.2 for
injury classification definitions). To date, the most serious injury
has resulted in paralysis.
Discussion of the Proposals
The FAA proposes amending Appendix J to part 25, as recommended by
the ARAC, 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.
Paragraph (a) of Appendix J would be 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 the currently required
``dark of night'' conditions. The proposed 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 lighting outside the airplane will enhance the ability of the
demonstration director to see and react more quickly to problems that
may develop during the demonstration. While this would 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. 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.
Paragraph (p) would be revised to allow exits with inflatable
slides to have the slides deployed and available for use prior to the
start of the demonstration timing. If this method is used, the exit
preparation time, which would be established in separate component
tests, would need to be accounted for in some manner. This change would
prevent what has occurred in at least two instances, a participant
exiting the airplane before the slide was fully available for use.
Neither participant was seriously injured; however, if this were to
occur again, the potential for serious injury would remain. An
additional benefit is that slides being pre-deployed and inflated would
not be subject to damage from equipment, such as light stanchions, that
is near the airplane only because a demonstration is being run. The
predeployment 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, the paragraph would be
revised to require that the exits that are not used in the
demonstration must be clearly indicated once the demonstration has
started. This revision to the regulation would contain wording more
general than currently in the rule to accommodate the additional
flexibility in exit configuration (slide stowed or pre-deployed and
inflated) allowed by this proposal. Finally, the opening sentence in
the paragraph would be revised to more succinctly describe the exits
that are to be used in the demonstration. The exit pairs in the
proposed regulation are as required in the passenger seating tables in
Sec. 25.807(d). As in the past, exits that are not installed in pairs,
typically tail cone or ventral exits, would not be used in the
demonstration. This proposal is in
[[Page 36935]]
response to numerous requests to the FAA for clarification of the
existing text.
Paragraph (f) would be revised to remove the requirement that each
external door and exit be in the takeoff configuration. This proposal
is a result of the proposed change to paragraph (p), noted above, which
would allow slides to be deployed and inflated prior to the start of
the demonstration. If the option to predeploy the slide is selected by
the applicant, an agreement must be reached with the FAA prior to the
demonstration regarding how to prevent demonstration participants from
determining which exits will be used in the demonstration, as well as
when, how, and by whom the covers (a likely solution to the issue) in
the doorways will be removed and the impact on the resulting times for
each of the used exits. Internal doors would still be required to be in
takeoff configuration.
Paragraph (o) would be revised to state more generally the intent
of the requirement 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
by the proposed change to paragraph (p), this change is not
specifically related to reducing injuries.
Paragraph (n) would be revised to allow passengers to be briefed on
safety procedures that are in place for the particular demonstration,
e.g., demonstration abort procedures, or procedures that have to do
with the demonstration site, e.g., how to evacuate the building in
which the demonstration is being conducted, and to note when that
briefing could take place. This briefing would be useful by stopping
some participants from adding to an already potential injurious
situation in the event of problems, such as a collapsed evacuation
slide, occurring during the demonstration, or by providing 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.
One of the ARAC recommendations, that paragraph (c) 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, is not
being proposed because that change has already been implemented by
Amendment 25-79.
Another of the recommendations, involving revising the age/gender
mix to require using only the age/gender groups least susceptible to
injury, is not being proposed at this time, pending research to
identify the groups and develop an appropriate mix. A group of
participants based on the new mix would have the same evacuation
capability as a group based on the existing mix. This possible future
proposal would be in addition to the recent change to the mix
promulgated by Amendment 25-79.
In addition to the amendments to part 25 proposed in this notice,
revisions to Advisory Circular (AC) 25.803-1, Emergency Evacuation
Demonstrations, are proposed in response to the recommendations
contained in the ARAC report. Advisory Circular 25.803-1 provides
guidelines that the FAA has found acceptable regarding emergency
evacuation demonstrations. Public comments concerning the proposed
revisions to AC 25.803 will be invited by separate notice.
Finally, although not recommended by the ARAC, the FAA has
determined that a revision to Sec. 121.291(b)(1) is necessary to
accommodate the revision to Sec. 121.291(a), (a)(1), and (a)(2)
promulgated by Amendment 121-233, and the proposed change to paragraph
(p) of Appendix J to part 25 contained herein. Amendment 121-233 allows
a certificate holder to conduct a full-scale emergency evacuation
demonstration in accordance with Sec. 25.803 in effect on or after
September 27, 1993. The proposed revision to paragraph (p) of Appendix
J to part 25 would allow the full-scale emergency evacuation to be run
with exits opened and slides deployed and inflated prior to the start
of the demonstration. If this proposal were to be incorporated into
part 25, it would then be possible for a certificate holder to conduct
a full-scale emergency evacuation demonstration without having to have
the flight attendants open the exits and deploy the exit slides, if
installed. The efficacy of the certificate holder's training and line
operating procedures regarding the exits and slides would, therefore,
not be demonstrated.
The FAA proposes to remove the qualifying phrase ``if the
certificate holder has not conducted an actual demonstration under
paragraph (a) of this section'' from Sec. 121.291(b)(1), thereby
requiring each certificate holder to conduct at least a partial
demonstration of emergency evacuation procedures for each new type and
model of airplane placed into passenger-carrying service. The FAA
considers this a necessary and significant demonstration that must be
accomplished prior to any new airplane type and model being placed into
passenger-carrying service by every certificate holder. This proposal
would require a certificate holder to conduct a partial demonstration,
even if the certificate holder ran a full-scale evacuation
demonstration with the exits in the takeoff and landing configuration.
It is extremely unlikely that a certificate holder would voluntarily
choose to conduct a full-scale demonstration in lieu of utilizing the
results of the airplane manufacturer's demonstration as part of showing
compliance with Sec. 25.803, considering the considerable expense of a
full-scale evacuation demonstration versus the minimal expense of a
partial evacuation demonstration.
Regualtory 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 impact of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess
the effect 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, but is a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order; (2) is
``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 have a negative impact on international
trade. These analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.
The proposed rule would not necessarily result in additional
compliance costs, because it would allow alternative procedures in
conducting demonstrations, rather than mandating them. If manufacturers
elect to use the proposed procedures, however, the FAA estimates that
there would be incremental costs of approximately $1,100 per transport
airplane certification.
The primary benefit of the proposed rule would be reduced risks of
injuries to demonstration participants. Allowing low-level exterior
light would enhance the ability of the demonstration director to react
more quickly to problems which
[[Page 36936]]
could develop during the demonstration. Pre-deploying and inflating
slides would prevent participants from injuring themselves by exiting
the airplane before the slides are fully available for use.
The FAA reviewed 19 demonstrations conducted between 1972 and 1991.
Of the 5,797 participants in the demonstrations, 269, or 4.6 percent,
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.
In one of these demonstrations, a participant was seriously
injured. In general, however, fractures, sprains, strains, contusions,
lacerations, and abrasions are generally classified as ``minor'' or
``moderate,'' according to the abbreviated injury scale (AIS) used by
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The FAA estimates that
the average costs of a minor injury are $6,900 and the average costs of
a moderate injury are $44,000. Avoiding only one minor injury during an
evacuation demonstration would result in cost savings exceeding the
estimated $1,100 incremental costs of the proposed alternative
procedures. The FAA has determined, therefore, that the proposed rule
would be cost-beneficial.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and
disproportionately burdened by Federal regulations. The RFA requires a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a proposed rule would have a
significant economic impact, either positive or negative, on a
substantial number of small entities. Based on FAA Order 2100.14A,
Regulatory Flexibility Criteria and Guidance, the FAA has determined
that the proposed amendments would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities because no small
entities would be affected.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The proposed rule would not constitute a barrier to international
trade, including the export of American airplanes to foreign countries
and the import of foreign airplanes into the Untied States.
Federalism Implications
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Thus, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Conclusion
Although the proposed changes to revise the emergency evacuation
demonstration requirements of part 25 of the FAR are not expected to
result in substantial economic cost, the FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation would be ``significant'' under Executive Order
12866, and ``significant'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 25, 1979) because of the public interest
involved. Since there are no small entities affected by this proposed
rulemaking, the FAA certifies that the rule, at promulgation, would not
have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the regulatory evaluation
prepared for this project may be examined in the Rules Docket or
obtained from the person identified under the caption FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION COTNACT.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
The Proposed Amendments
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to
amend 14 CFR parts 25 and 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
as follows:
PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES
1. The authority citation for part 25 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40110, 40113, 44701, 44702, 44711,
44713; 49 CFR 1.47(a).
2. By amending Appendix J to part 25 by revising paragraphs (a),
(f), (n), (o), and (p) to read as follows:
Appendix J to Part 25--Emergency Evacuation
* * * * *
(a) The emergency evacuation must be conducted with exterior
ambient light levels of 0.3 foot-candles or less, prior to the
evacuation 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 not be
instructed on the procedures to be followed in the demonstration,
except with respect to safety procedures in place for the
demonstration or that have to do with the demonstration site. Prior
to the start of the demonstration, the pre-takeoff passenger
briefing required by Sec. 121.571 of this chapter 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 closure of the
active emergency exits to demonstration participants in the
airplane, until the start of the demonstration.
(p) Exits used in the demonstration will 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 exists will 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--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS; DOMESTIC FLAG, AND
SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF LARGE
AIRCRAFT
3. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40101, 40105, 40113, 44701-44702,
and 44704-44705.
4. By amending Sec. 121.291 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read 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;
* * * * *
[[Page 36937]]
Issued in Washington, D.C. on July 11, 1995.
Thomas E. McSweeny,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 95-17392 Filed 7-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
