57946 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 218 / Friday, November 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION substantive bearing on those proposed exits, are based on the assumption that in Notice 90–4; however, they also affect only half of the exits will be usable Federal Aviation Administration the editorial structure of those sections. during an actual emergency due to fire, Where pertinent, the effect of those structural damage or other adverse 14 CFR Part 25 amendments on the changes proposed circumstance. [Docket No. 26140; Amendment No. 25±88] in Notice 90–4 is discussed below. None Section 25.807(d) currently specifies of the other amendments adopted the type and number of emergency exits RIN 2120±AC43 during this period have any bearing on required for three ranges of passenger seating capacities. The first range, Type and Number of Passenger the proposals of Notice No. 90–4. passenger seating configurations of one Emergency Exits Required in Current Requirements of Part 25 to 179, is addressed in § 25.807(d)(1) in Transport Category Airplanes Part 25 currently defines seven types a table that outlines the specific type AGENCY: Federal Aviation of passenger emergency exits for and number of exits that must be Administration, DOT. transport category airplanes—Type A, provided. Those standards have been in ACTION: Final rule. Types I through IV, tail cone and effect for several decades and were ventral. As defined in § 25.807, exits in based more on industry practice during SUMMARY: This amendment defines two fuselage sides range in size from large the reciprocating-engine transport new types of passenger emergency exits Type A exits, which must be a airplane era than on any particular in transport category airplanes, provides minimum of 42 inches wide by 72 testing. more consistent standards with respect inches high, to Type IV exits, which For the second range, passenger to the passenger seating allowed for must be a minimum of 19 inches wide seating configurations of 180 to 299, each exit type and combination of exit by 26 inches high. Although an exit may § 25.807(d)(1) uses a different approach. types, and requires escape slides to be exceed the minimum dimensions Instead of specifying the type and erected in less time. These changes specified for a particular type, it is number of exits required for those allow more flexibility in the design of considered to be of that type unless it airplanes, a second table supplements emergency exits and reflect recent qualifies in all respects as one of the the first by specifying the number of improvements in escape slide larger exit types. Typically, the larger passenger seats, in addition to 179, that technology. They will enable more cost- exits are hinged or translating doors may be installed for various types of effective emergency exit arrangements while the smaller exits are typically additional exits. For example, the first and, in the case of escape slides, enable removable hatches. table specifies that an airplane with 179 more rapid egress of passengers under Section 25.809(b)(2) requires that each passenger seats must have two pairs of emergency conditions. emergency exit must be capable of being Type I exits and two pairs of Type III opened, when there is no fuselage EFFECTIVE DATE: December 9, 1996. exits. The second table specifies that the deformation, within 10 seconds seating may be increased by 45 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary measured from the time when the passengers for each additional pair of L. Killion, Manager, Regulations Branch opening means is actuated to the time Type I exits installed. An airplane with (ANM–114), Transport Standards Staff, when the exit if fully opened. three pairs of Type I exits and two pairs Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft It must be emphasized that, except for of Type III exits would, therefore, be Certification Service, FAA, 1601 Lind tail-cone or ventral exits, all references permitted, insofar as the type and Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98055–4056; to the types and numbers of required number of exits is concerned, to have a telephone (206) 227–2194. passenger emergency exits in part 25 passenger seating configuration of 224. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and this final rule refer to the exits For the third range, passenger seating required in each side of the fuselage, not configurations greater than 299, Background the total for the airplane. Although they § 25.807(d)(2) simply states that each This amendment is based on Notice of are not required to be symmetrical, exit installed in the side of the fuselage Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) No. 90– corresponding exits on opposite sides of must be either a Type I or Type A exit 4 which was published in the Federal the fuselage are usually referred to as and that seating configurations of 45 Register on February 22, 1990 (55 FR ‘‘exit pairs’’ to preclude confusion and 110 are allowed for each pair of 6344). In that notice, the FAA proposed between the total number of exits and Type I exits and each pair of Type A amendments to 14 CFR part 25 that the number of exits on each side. The exits, respectively. would revise the current requirements number of additional passenger seats Section 25.807(d)(3) specifies the for the passenger emergency exits of that may be installed for each additional number of additional passenger seats transport category airplanes and define exit pair of a specific type is sometimes that may be provided when creditable two new exit types. In addition, the referred to as the ‘‘exit rating’’ for that ventral or tail-cone exits are installed. In FAA also proposed to require escape type. When an ‘‘exit pair’’ consists of order to receive any credit as a slides to be erected in less time, a two different types of exits, the exits are passenger emergency exit, a ventral or reflection of improvements in escape both considered to be of the type with tail-cone exit must provide the same slide state-of-the-art. the smaller exit rating. Generally, no rate of egress as a Type III exit with the Since the time Notice No. 90–4 was credit is given for an exit on one side airplane in the most adverse exit published, a number of amendments with no corresponding exit on the other opening condition that would result were adopted. The changes adopted side. (Even though no credit is given to from the collapse of one or more landing with Amendment 25–72 (55 FR 29781, such exits, they are required to meet all gear legs. July 20, 1990) are largely nonsubstantive applicable exit design requirements As amended recently by Amendment in nature; however, the editorial because they may be used by occupants 25–72, § 25.807(d)(5) provides flexibility structure of the sections involved in the under emergency conditions.) in the type and number of exits required proposals of Notice No. 90–4 was Note that the standards of part 25, by stating that an alternate emergency changed considerably. The changes including those for emergency exit configuration may be approved in adopted with Amendment 25–76 (57 FR evacuation demonstrations as well as lieu of that specified in either 19220, May 4, 1992) do not have any those concerning types and numbers of § 25.807(d) (1) or (2) provided the Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 218 / Friday, November 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57947 overall evacuation capability is shown the ground must also be capable of additional pair of Type I exits. Thus the to be equal to or greater than that of the carrying two parallel lines of evacuees increase in the number of passenger specified emergency exit configuration. simultaneously. seats allowed, if one additional pair of This means, for example, that one pair Section 25.813(b) requires adequate Type I exits were installed, varies from of larger exits could be substituted in space next to one side of each 45 to 70, depending on the initial some cases for two pairs of smaller emergency exit, other than a Type A airplane exit configuration and the total exits. exit, that is required by § 25.810(a) to passenger seating capacity. Providing the type and number of have an assist means to allow The additional passenger seating exits specified for a given number of crewmembers to assist in the capacity gained by adding a pair of Type passenger seats does not, in itself, evacuation. Because there are two III exits varies in a similar manner. The ensure that an airplane can be approved parallel lines of evacuees to assist, each first table of § 25.807(d)(1) currently with that many seats. Other Type A emergency exit is required to allows 79 passenger seats if one pair of requirements, such as uniform have an assist space on each side of the Type I and one pair of Type III exits are distribution of passenger seats and exits exit. Unlike other exit types, Type A installed. If one more pair of Type III and the demonstrated emergency exits must have such assist space exits were installed, the allowable evacuation capability, may actually regardless of whether the exit is number of passenger seats would be limit seating to fewer passengers. required to have an assist means. At the increased by 30 to a total of 109 Part 25 specifies that a means must be time Notice 90–4 was issued, the latter passenger seats. In contrast, two pair of provided to assist passengers in requirement was contained in Type I exits and one pair of Type III descending to the ground for each exit, § 25.807(a)(7)(vii); however, it has since exits are currently required for a other than an overwing exit, that is more been consolidated with the former in maximum seating capacity of 139. than six feet from the ground when the § 25.813(b) (Amendment 25–72). Adding a pair of Type III exits would airplane is on the ground with the allow a maximum seating capacity of Amendments Proposed in Notice 90–4 landing gear extended. Section 179, an increase of 40 passenger seats. 25.810(a)(1)(i) specifies that the assist The FAA held a public technical For configurations beyond 179 means must be deployed automatically conference in Seattle, Washington, in passengers, the second table of and that deployment must begin during September 1985, to review the existing § 25.807(d) allows an increase of 35 the interval between the time the exit safety regulations and practices passenger seats for each additional pair opening means is actuated from inside regarding the emergency evacuation of of Type III exits. the airplane and the time the exit is transport airplanes. As a result of the When the exit configurations and fully opened. As noted above, that time conference, it was recommended, in maximum passenger capacities interval must be no more than 10 part, that the regulations relative to specified in the first table of seconds. Section 25.810(a)(1)(ii) further passenger emergency exits be revised to § 25.807(d)(1) are compared with the specifies that the assist means must be provide design flexibility, and those combined ratings specified in the automatically erected within 10 seconds concerning escape slide inflation time second table of § 25.807(d)(2) for the after deployment is begun. Taking the be revised to reflect the current state-of- same combination of exit types, it can maximum time intervals permitted, the the-art. Subsequent to this public be seen that the maximum capacities for assist means must be erected and usable conference, the following changes were the first two configurations (19 and 39 no more than 20 seconds after the exit proposed in Notice 90–4: passengers) are conservative when opening means is actuated. Generally, Type and Number of Emergency Exits compared to the assigned ratings. They inflatable slides are used for this are in close agreement for the next two purpose. Unlike the standards for airplanes configurations (79 and 109) and For an overwing exit, § 25.810(d) with more than 299 seats, the number of generous for the two largest specifies that a means must be provided additional passenger seats allowed for configurations (139 and 170). A similar to assist passengers in descending to the smaller passenger capacities is not comparison can not be made for Type IV ground whenever the place on the uniform. For example, the first table of exits since no ratings are established for airplane structure at which the escape § 25.807(d)(1) (§ 25.807(c) prior to those exits in the second table. route terminates (typically the trailing Amendment 25–72) requires a pair of As proposed in Notice 90–4, § 25.807 edge of a wing flap) is more than six feet Type I exits and a pair of Type III exits would be revised to provide one simple, from the ground. Inflatable slides are for a maximum passenger seating consistent set of standards while still generally used for this purpose also. capacity of 79. Adding another pair of retaining an equivalent level of safety. Part 25 currently contains no specific Type I exits, resulting in a total of two The exit ratings for Type I, Type II, Type maximum erection time for off-wing pairs of Type I exits and one pair of III and Type A exits would be the same slides; however, Technical Standard Type III exits, would allow up to 139 as those currently shown in the second Order (TSO) C69b, which contains passenger seats—an increase of 60 table of § 25.807(d)(1) for those types. design standards for inflatable escape attributable to the additional pair of Type IV exits would be assigned a slides, specifies that off-wing escape Type I exits. In contrast, one pair of passenger rating of nine to be consistent slides must be fully erect within 10 Type I exits and two pairs of Type III with the maximum passenger capacity seconds after actuation of the inflation exits are required for a maximum currently shown in the first table of controls. (TSO–C69a, which was seating configuration of 109. Adding § 25.807(d)(1). Replacing the exiting superseded by TSO–C69b on August 17, another pair of Type I exits in that case, tables with specific ratings for each type 1988, had previously a maximum resulting in a total of two pairs of Type of exit would enable the airplane erection time of 15 seconds.) I exits and two pairs of Type III exits, manufacturer to design an airplane with Because the large Type A emergency would allow up to 179 passengers—an any combination of exits the exits are expected to accommodate increase of 70 attributable to the manufacturer chooses, subject to parallel lines of evacuees additional pair of Type I exits. For specific constraints. The following simultaneously, § 25.810(a)(1) specifies configurations beyond 179 passengers, constraints, which would be contained that the means provided for those exits the second table of § 25.807(d)(1) allows in § 25.807(g), were proposed to ensure to assist the occupants in descending to an increase of only 45 for each that the margin of safety currently 57948 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 218 / Friday, November 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations associated with passenger capacities of The pertinent parameter is the number for airplanes with 20 to 39 seats could approximately 40 and fewer passenger of seat rows; however, with typical row also be used for one with 40 passenger seats would be retained and that there spacing this would be about 80 to 90 seats. As in the case described above, a would be no significant increases in inches between adjacent vertical edges number of different combinations of passenger seating permissible with the of the two exits. (Notice 90–4 quoted 90 smaller exit types might provide various combinations of exit types. In to 100 inches; however, 80 to 90 inches sufficient combined passenger ratings addition, unacceptable alternative is more likely.) It was also proposed that for airplanes with 41 through 79 combinations of exits, such as one pair the combined passenger rating for all passengers; however, those of Type A exits and three pairs of Type Type III exits would not exceed 70. combinations would be precluded by III exits for a maximum passenger Depending on whether the first two the constraints contained in proposed seating of 215 are precluded. pairs were eligible for the full 70 § 25.807(g). Proposed § 25.807(g)(5) The first table of § 25.807(d)(1) passenger rating, no or very little would specify that, for more than 40 currently places several limitations on additional credit would be given for any seats, there must be at least two exits in the passenger emergency exit additional pairs of Type III exits. An each side and that one of those must be configuration. For example, the table additional conservatism in Type III exits at least a Type I exit. That would does not permit the use of Type IV exits because the widths of the accesses to the preclude for example, an alternative in airplanes with more than 9 seats. Type III exits in the studied evacuation configuration of one smaller Type II exit There must be at least two pairs of exits demonstrations were far less than that and two Type III exits in each side even for any passenger seating configuration required today because of recent safety though the combined passenger ratings above 19, and there must also be at least regulatory changes. show in proposed § 25.807(g) for that one pair of Type I or larger exits for Taking both the exit ratings and the combination of exits would total 105 or passenger seating capacities of 40 or specific constraints proposed in 110 passenger seats. It would also more. As proposed in Notice 90–4, these § 25.807(g), the practical effect of the preclude an arrangement with only one and other limitations concerning the proposed changes on airplanes with 179 large Type A or Type B exit in each side type and number of exits required for or fewer passenger seats would be as in lieu of the Type I and Type III exits. specific passenger seating follows: (a) With 1 through 9 passenger seats, As proposed, the combination of exit configurations would be retained. The the table of § 25.807(d)(1) specifies at types currently specified for airplanes existing requirement that there must be least one Type IV exit in each side. That with 41 through 79 passenger seats at least one pair of Type I or larger exits requirement would remain unchanged. could also be used for an airplane with in each side of the fuselage for The table of § 25.807(d)(1) 80 passenger seats. passenger seating configurations of 40 or (e) With 80 through 109 passenger notwithstanding, § 25.807(d)(4) more would be retained except that it currently specifies that an exit meeting seats, the table of § 25.807(d)(1) would apply to passenger seating at least the dimensions of a Type III exit specifies at least one Type I and two configurations of 41 or more rather than must be installed in each side if the Type III exits in each side. As proposed, 40 or more. The existing requirement vertical location of the wing does not the combination of exit types for that there must be at least two Type I allow the installation of overwing exits. airplanes with 40 through 79 passenger or larger exits in each side of the That requirements would be retained in seats could also be used for those with fuselage for passenger seating proposed § 25.807(g)(1). 80 passenger seats. Although the configurations of 110 or more would (b) With 10 through 19 passenger specific constraints of proposed also be retained except that it would seats, the table of § 25.807(d)(1) § 25.807(g) would preclude certain apply to passenger seating specifies at least one Type III exit in undesirable combinations of exit types, configurations of 111 or more. each side. That requirement would the proposed changes would allow a The FAA reviewed the results of remain unchanged. degree of flexibility in the 81 through previous evacuation demonstrations (c) With 20 through 39 passenger 109 passenger seat range. For example, involving airplanes with two adjacent seats, the first table of § 25.807(d)(1) two of the newly proposed Type C exits Type III exits on each side of the specifies at least one Type II and one could be used in lieu of one Type I and fuselage. From this review, it was noted Type III exit in each side even though two III exits. Also, two Type I exits that two adjacent Type III exits the combined ratings shown in the could be used in lieu of one Type I and consistently fail to provide a rate of second table of that section would total two Type III exits provided the number egress that is double that of a single 75 passenger seats. The combined of passenger seats did not exceed 90. As Type III exit. Typically, some evacuees ratings of proposed § 25.807(g) would proposed, the combination of exit types fail to bypass one exit in order for there also total 75 passenger seats for this currently specified for 80 through 109 to be a steady flow through the adjacent combination of passenger seats; seats could also be used for airplanes exit. The rate of egress through the exit however, the number of passenger seats with up to 110 passenger seats; or 115 that some evacuees must bypass is permissible with this combination of passenger seats if the Type III exits were generally equal to that through a single exit types would be limited to 40 by separated sufficiently to enhance their similar exit, but the rate of egress proposed § 25.807(g)(5). That would be effectiveness. through the second exit is consistently one more passenger seat than currently (f) With 110 through 139 seats, the less. The FAA, therefore, proposed in permitted by this combination of exit table of § 25.807(d)(1) specifies at least Notice 90–4 that the combined types. The margin of safety provided by two Type I exits and one Type III exit passenger rating of two adjacent pairs of the current rule would be maintained in each side. As proposed, the Type III exits would be limited to 65. since 40 passenger seats is only 53% of combination of exits currently specified For purpose of compliance with this the combined ratings of that for airplanes with 80 through 109 requirement, two Type III exits combination of exit types. passenger seats, could be used for those separated by fewer than three passenger (d) With 40 through 79 passenger with 110 passenger seats. The combined seat-rows would be considered to be seats, the table of § 25.807(d)(1) passenger ratings of proposed adjacent (i.e. fewer than three seat-rows specifies at least one Type I and one § 25.807(g) would limit the exit plus two passageways located between Type III exit in each side. As proposed, combination currently specified for 110 adjacent vertical edges of the two exits). the exit combination currently specified through 139 passenger seats to 125 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 218 / Friday, November 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57949 seats. Proposed § 25.807(g)(6) would either 110 or 115, depending on the equal or greater than that specified. As specify that, for more than 110 seats, proximity of the Type III exits. Those a result, the proposed change is no there must be at least two Type I or increases would also be negligible longer substantive. larger exits in each side. For airplanes insofar as the egress capability of the To ensure that adequate evacuation with 111 through 125 there would be exits is concerned, but they too would capability is maintained if a primary considerable additional flexibility in the be more than compensated by the exit becomes unusable, the FAA combination of exit types used; proposed improvement in escape slide proposed in Notice 90–4 that at least however, the specific constraints of deployment time. With two pairs of two pairs of the larger exits (Type A or, § 25.807(g) would preclude certain Type I exits and one pair of Type III as described below, Type B or Type C) undesirable combinations of exit types. exits, the permissible number would be would have to be installed to receive For example, proposed § 25.807(g)(6) significantly decreased from 139 to 125; full passenger seating credit for those would require the emergency exits of with two pairs of Type I exits and two exits. If only one pair of Type A, B, or airplanes with more than 110 pairs of Type III exits, it would be C exits were installed, the exits would passengers to include at least two Type significantly decreased from 179 to be considered to be Type I exits and I exits in each side. For airplanes with either 155 or 160, again depending on credited accordingly. more than 125 passenger seats, there the proximity of the Type III exits. The In order to provide greater flexibility would have to be more or larger exit permissible number of passenger seats in passenger emergency exit design, two types than those currently required for would remain unchanged for other exit new exit types, Type B and Type C, airplanes with 110 through 139 combinations. As stated above in the were proposed in Notice 90–4. Both passenger seats. The choice of preamble, these new maximum types would be larger than Type I exits additional or larger exit types would, of passenger capacities are calculated by but smaller than Type A exits. They course, be subject to the combined summing the number of passengers would be similar to exits that have been passenger ratings and specific rated for the specific types of exit pairs; previously approved by exemption or constraints of proposed § 25.807(g). these ratings are identical to those in the under the equivalent level of safety (g) With 140 through 179 passenger former § 25.807(d)(1) for increases in provisions of § 21.21(b)(1). The proposed Type B exits would be seats, the table of § 25.807(d)(1) seating configurations beyond 179. specifies at least two Type I exits and required to meet the same criteria as As noted above, § 25.807(d)(2) two Type III exits in each side. The those for Type A exits except that their currently specifies that each exit must combined passenger rating of proposed minimum width would be 32 inches in § 25.807(g) would limit this exit be a Type A or Type I exit for passenger lieu of 42 inches, and the maximum combination to 160 seats. Proposed seating capacities over 299. That allowable corner radii would be six § 25.807(g)(7) would further limit this limitation was introduced, along with inches in lieu of seven inches. Like exit combination to 155 seats if the Type the definition of Type A exits, with Type A exits, Type B exits would have III exits were not separated sufficiently Amendment 25–15 (32 FR 13255, to have passageways at least 36 inches to enhance their effectiveness. Proposed September 20, 1967), when the first wide leading from each main aisle and § 25.807(g)(6) would specify that there wide-body airplanes were being be equipped with dual-lane escape must be at least two Type I exits or proposed. Because those airplanes were slides. Based on the egress rate larger in each side. That would preclude to have twin aisles, the large Type A demonstrated by the petitioner, an alternative configuration in which no exits were adopted to permit Exemption No. 1573 was granted to exits are larger than Type II. It would simultaneous side-by-side egress of permit a passenger rating of 80 for a pair also preclude a combination of exits passengers from both aisles. Although of these exits in the McDonnell Douglas involving only one exit larger than Type there was no operational experience at Model DC–10. Similar exit pairs I and several smaller Type III exits in that time with such airplanes, it was installed later in one configuration of each side. For airplanes with more than considered that they should not have a the Boeing Model 757 were given a 160 passenger seats, larger or additional large number of small exits. The passenger rating of 75 based on the exits would have to be provided. The requirement that all exits be Type A or egress rate demonstrated at that time. choice of additional or larger exit types Type I was intended to discourage That installation was approved under would be subject to the combined interior arrangements with numerous the equivalent safety provisions of passenger ratings and specific Type III exits and fewer large exits. § 21.21(b)(1). constraints of proposed § 25.807(g); Subsequently, the Boeing Model 767 The passenger flow to, through and however, this range of passenger seats and certain configurations of the Airbus from the proposed Type B exits is would be afforded the greatest flexibility Model A310 were both approved with similar to that through the wider Type in the choice of exit type combinations. one or two pairs of Type III exits under A exits except that the two parallel lines In summary, the number of passenger the equivalent level of safety provisions of evacuees typically twist their seats permissible with one pair of Type of § 21.21(b)(1). Evacuation shoulders a few degrees for the moment II and one pair to Type III exits would demonstrations and actual evacuations in which they are passing through the be increased from 39 to 40. Similarly, under emergency conditions with those exit side-by-side. The proposed the number permissible with one pair of airplanes have shown that a limited passenger rating of Type B exits would Type I and one pair of Type III exits number of Type III overwing exits can be 68% that of the larger Type A exits. would be increased from 79 to 80. The be effective in twin-aisle airplanes. The In essence, the difference between the increase would be negligible in either FAA, therefore, proposed in Notice 90– proposed passenger rating of Type B case insofar as the egress capability of 4 to permit limited use of Type III exits exits and that of Type A exits reflects the exits is concerned; however, it in airplanes with passenger seating this momentary partial merging of the would be more than compensated for by capacities greater than 299. Subsequent two parallel lines of evacuees as they the proposed improvement in escape to Notice 90–4, § 25.807(d)(5) was pass through Type B exits. slide deployment time in any event. The adopted with Amendment 25–72 to In a report entitled Study of FAR number permissible with one pair of permit an alternate emergency exit 25.807(c) Emergency Exits dated May Type I exits and two pairs of Type III configuration provided the overall 1975, the FAA Civil Aeromedical exits would be increased from 109 to evacuation capability is shown to be Institute (CAMI) recommended adding 57950 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 218 / Friday, November 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations several exit sizes to the regulations, allowed for door opening and erection The FAA also proposed in Notice 90– including two that correspond to the of the assist means (exit preparation 4 to make extensive non-substantive proposed Type B and C exits. time) would be reduced from 20 changes to enhance the clarity of those Based on a series of passenger seconds to 10 seconds. In addition, the sections involved with emergency exits. evacuation rate tests conducted with 10-second exit preparation time would In light of the changes already adopted exit widths of 26 to 42 inches, CAMI have to be demonstrated for non- by Amendment 25–72, some are no recommended a passenger rating of 80 overwing exits in each of the attitudes longer relevant; those remaining would for an exit that is 32 inches wide and corresponding to collapse of one or not impose any additional burden on equipped with a dual-lane escape slide. more legs of the landing gear. Such exits any persons. Because of the differences in motor would not be required to have power- Escape Slide Deployment skills and reaction to situations assisted means for opening in an typically exhibited in testing involving emergency, nor automatically deployed The FAA proposed in Notice 90–4 to people, there is some variation in the slides; however, they would have to be revise § 25.809 to require that the assist data presented in the CAMI report so-equipped, as a matter or practicality, means at all Type C exits must be concerning evacuation rate versus exit in order to comply with the proposed erected within 10 seconds from the time size. 10-second preparation time. the exit opening means is actuated. The Considering the variation in the CAMI Nevertheless, such features would not FAA also proposed to reduce the test data and the data in which be required, nor needed, if the door maximum permissible erection times for approvals of the DC–10 and Boeing could be opened and the assist means the assist means serving other exit Model 757 doors were based, a erected within 10 seconds without types. For non over-wing exits, the passenger rating of 75 was proposed in them. assist means would have to be fully Notice 90–4 for Type B exits. This In order to arrive at the passenger erected within 6 seconds. This would would ensure that the passenger rating rating proposed in Notice 90–4, reduce the time available to prepare the is appropriate for all such exits experience with similar exits was escape system to accept evacuees in any regardless of the size of the airplane in considered. Exemption No. 3639, which emergency by 4 seconds. For off-wing which they are installed or minor was granted for the British Aerospace assist means, the FAA proposed that differences among the exits of different Model BAe.146, allows a maximum they must be fully erected within 10 airplane models. passenger seating capacity of 109 with seconds. This would be consistent with The CAMI testing showed that other two exit pairs, or a passenger rating of the interval currently specified in TSO exits, similar to Type I exits but with 54.5 per exit pair. These exits are all C69b. As noted above, these erection additional width, provide greater times are in addition to the interval passenger egress rates than those with 30.5 inches wide, and those on the left side are 58 inches high. Due to permitted by § 25.809(b)(2) for exit the minimum width of 24 inches. CAMI, opening. therefore, recommended that exit pairs considerations other than emergency at least 30 inches wide should have a egress, those on the left side are 72 Discussion of Comments Received in passenger rating of 50—five greater than inches high. They are equipped with Response to Notice 90–4 that for Type I exit pairs with the assist means in the form of Fourteen commenters responded to minimum width of 24 inches. Their automatically deployed, inflatable, self- the invitation in Notice 90–4—five recommendation was based on the time supporting escape slides. foreign airworthiness authorities; five of 20 seconds currently allowed for door In another configuration, the Boeing airplane or equipment manufacturers, or opening and erection of the assist Model 757 was approved for as many as organizations representing such means. The exits defined as Type C in 219 passenger seats, with four exits on manufacturers; two airline employee Notice 90–4 evolved from these CAMI each side of the airplane, or unions; an international airline recommendations. approximately 55 passenger seats per organization; and an individual. The FAA previously proposed to exit. Three of the four exits on each side Two foreign airworthiness authorities increase the minimum height of Type I are similar to the proposed Type C exits. support the proposed rulemaking exits to 60 inches; however, as Exits Nos. 1, 2, and 4 are over 30 inches without further comment. discussed in the preamble to in width and have power assist means The individual commenter Amendment 25–15 (32 FR 13255, for opening in an emergency. It was recommends that no passenger seat be September 20, 1967), the proposal was demonstrated during full-scale installed adjacent to an overwing exit. withdrawn in light of test data showing demonstrations that these exits could be (By ‘‘overwing exit,’’ the commenter is that the greater height would provide no opened and ready to accept evacuees in undoubtedly referring to a Type III exit material improvement in passenger approximately 8.2 seconds. The No. 3 since unobstructed passageways were egress rate. This finding was exit is less than 30 inches in width; already required for Type II and larger corroborated by later CAMI testing. however it does exceed the minimum exits at the time the comment was As proposed in Notice 90–4, Type C width for a Type I exit. That exit was made.) The recommendation is exits would be similar to the existing demonstrated to be usable within 12 unrelated to the rulemaking proposed in Type I exits, except that their minimum seconds. Notice 90–4; however, the subject was width, would be 30 inches in lieu of 24 In view of the testing conducted by fully addressed by recently adopted inches. In light of the earlier test results, CAMI and the consistency of those test Amendments 25–76, 121–228 and 135– no increase in minimum height was results with the approvals of British 43 (57 FR 19220, May 4, 1992) which proposed for Type C exits. In addition, Aerospace BAe.146 and Boeing 757 specify unobstructed passageways Type C exits would be required to have airplanes, a passenger rating of 55 was leading to Type III exits. assist means regardless of how high they proposed in Notice 90–4 for Type C Some commenters suggest that any are above the ground. (Exits of this size exits. rulemaking resulting from Notice 90–4 without assist means would be A number of conforming changes to should be deferred to the Aviation considered Type I exits even though other sections were also proposed to Rulemaking Advisory Committee they meet the dimensional requirements include references to Types B and C (ARAC). The ARAC is a committee of for Type C exits.) The maximum time exits as well as the existing types. safety experts chartered by the FAA on Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 218 / Friday, November 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57951

February 5, 1991, to develop future dependent on the presence and type of part of the passenger cabin. The FAA proposed safety standards by using a assist means. Although not specifically concurs that there are some systems-type analysis. Although much stated by either commenter, the egress circumstances in which that would be of the future proposed rulemaking of rate for exit types not requiring assist preferable, but not that the forward end this nature will be developed by ARAC, means is undoubtedly dependent also of the cabin is a preferable location in it is not considered appropriate to defer on the distance from the exit sill to the general. Several factors must be this particular subject to ARAC since ground. Nevertheless, any changes considered for any particular design, the proposed rulemaking has already beyond those proposed in Notice 90–4 including proximity of the propeller been developed and published for would have to be deferred for future plane, engine inlet or engine exhaust, public comments. rulemaking. It must be recognized that potential sources of fires, potential The international airline organization extensive additional testing would have fuselage impact damage, etc. Another forwarded comments from two foreign to be conducted before any changes of consideration is that the flight attendant airlines. One airline supports the this nature could be proposed. must be stationed near those exits to proposed rulemaking, stating that it The commenter also suggests that direct the evacuation. Having the exit clarifies the existing rules and has the credit should be given for unpaired exits pair, and the associated flight attendant, potential for increased flexibility in because, according to the commenter, it at the rear of the cabin is advantageous aircraft design. The other airline has is quite rare that one side of the airplane in situations where the flightcrew can reservations concerning the proposed is blocked by fire, and usable exits are assist the flight attendant by directing slide erection times but supports the distributed in a less predictable manner the evacuation from the forward end of other aspects of the proposed over both sides and the length of the the cabin. The FAA does not concur that rulemaking. The latter airline did not airplane. The FAA does not consider the commenter’s proposed change is elaborate on its reservations. any change in that regard to be appropriate since the rule already Three commenters support the appropriate. The unpredictability of fire permits locating the exits at the forward proposed change concerning assist or other circumstance that might render end of the cabin when that location space in the apparent belief that it an exit unavailable is the very reason would, in fact, afford a more effective introduced a new requirement for assist why credit can not be given for an exit means of evacuation. Furthermore, it is space at exits other than Type A exits. that does not have a counterpart on the arguable whether the forward end is Actually, all exits other than Type A are opposite side of the airplane. Whether predominantly the preferable location, already required to have such assist one complete side would be likely to be as the commenter believes. In any event, space if they are required by § 25.810(a) blocked by fire is not relevant. It is a change of this nature would be beyond to have assist means. The only change necessary to have a corresponding exit the scope of Notice 90–4 and could not proposed in this regard was simply a on the opposite side if only one exit is be adopted at this time even if it were conforming change to add consideration blocked. Contrary to the first deemed to have merit. of Type B emergency exits. The recent commenter’s assertion, there have been The same commenter asserts that consolidation of all assist space many instances in which an exit on one ventral and tail-cone exits have not requirements in § 25.813(b) should side was blocked by fire while its contributed to the rapid evacuation of preclude further confusion in that counterpart on the opposite side was occupants from airplanes during life- regard. clear and usable. The commenter also threatening situations and questions The three commenters also propose implies that exits should be distributed whether they should remain in part 25 that the dimensions of the required over the length of the airplane. It is as creditable emergency exits. Contrary assist space should be defined more recognized that there is a practical limit to the commenter’s assertion, service precisely. Any change of that nature to the lengthwise distribution of exits in experience has shown that ventral and would be beyond the scope of Notice smaller airplanes; however, exits are tail-cone emergency exits can provide 90–4 and could not be considered at this already required to be distributed along valuable means of emergency egress and time; nevertheless, it is being the length of the cabin, as well as on should remain as creditable exits. considered for future rulemaking. either side, to the greatest extent The commenter further questions whether the current passenger ratings Type and Number of Emergency Exits practicable. In regard to the second comment, part 25 does not require the for those exits are appropriate. Another One commenter believes the number of exits on both sides to be commenter recommends that the passenger ratings of all exit types should equal. Due to practical considerations, passenger rating of ventral emergency be reconsidered. According to the such as normal passenger entry, service exits should be reduced by 50%. That commenter, the ratings are based on access, etc., the designer may choose to commenter assets the ventral exit would obsolete assumptions and are not install more openings in one side than probably be usable only half the time verified with data from actual the other; however, any opening that because of possible landing gear failure. evacuations. In particular, the does not have a counterpart on the other This too would go beyond the scope of commenter notes that the egress rate of side is not credited as an emergency the notice; however, it must be noted an exit is dependent on the presence exit. that a change of this nature would be and type of assist means. In the same Section 25.807(f)(2) presently states based on flawed logic. The percentage of vein, another commenter believes that that, unless another location affords a emergency evacuations in which an exit additional credit should be given for more effective means of passenger is usable has no bearing on how many exits not requiring assist means. In light evacuation or the airplane has a ventral persons can safely pass through it when of the successful evacuations that have or tail cone exit, an airplane is only it is usable. Nevertheless, the been accomplished under actual required to have one pair of floor-level commenter’s apparent concern is emergency conditions, the FAA does exits must have that exit pair located in already addressed by current not concur that the present passenger the rearward part of the passenger § 25.807(d)(3). That section, which now ratings of all exit types are inappropriate compartment. The commenter believes becomes § 25.807(g)(9), specifies that a as suggested by the first commenter. The that § 25.807(f)(2) should be removed or ventral exit must provide the same rate FAA does, however, concur that the amended to emphasize locating the sole of egress as a Type III exit with the egress rate of an exit type may be pair of floor-level exits in the forward airplane in the most adverse exit 57952 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 218 / Friday, November 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations opening condition that would result Type II or larger emergency exit. expresses concern that the exit may from the collapse of one or more landing Although it can only be considered a cause a bottleneck in passenger flow, gear legs. If the geometry of the airplane Type IV exit when the corresponding since it could be four inches narrower is such that the exit would not provide exit on the opposite side is also at least than the passageway leading to it, and this rate of egress with the most adverse a Type IV exit, the opening in one side suggests that the passengers rating landing-gear failure-condition, no credit of the fuselage of an airplane with nine should be reduced from 75 to 65. is given for the exit. or fewer seats is already required by Another commenter believes that the There is, of course, no assurance that § 25.783(h) to meet the requirements of difference would cause a bottleneck but, any particular exit, regardless of its type at least a Type II exit. It would be instead of recommending that the and location, will be available for use in extremely impractical from the passenger rating be reduced, suggests every accident that may occur. As noted standpoints of structural weight and lost that the width of the passageway should above, the standards of part 25 are based cabin space to require the exits on both be reduced to 30 inches. on the assumption that only half of the sides of the cabins of airplanes with As noted above, the effectiveness of required exits will be usable due to fire, nine or fewer seats to be Type II or Type B exits has already been crash damage or other adverse larger exits. Furthermore, the FAA is not demonstrated with such passageways to circumstance. There is no need evident aware of any service history indicating support passenger ratings of 80 and 75 at this time to change the passenger that these small exits are not satisfactory for Douglas DC–10’s and Boeing 757’s, rating of either ventral or tail-cone exits, for the smaller transport category respectively; and the more conservative nor any basis on which to establish new airplanes. passenger rating of the two was selected ratings. Any future change involving The rationale given by the commenter for the proposed rule. As shown by either an increase or a decrease in the for not permitting the use of Type III previous tests, the effectiveness of a passenger ratings for those exit types exits in airplanes with more than 299 Type B exit is maintained by having two would have to be based on considerable passengers is that the floor-level exits uniform parallel lines of evacuees additional testing. may be unusable and that it would be leading to the exit. Although the exit is One commenter expresses concern necessary to evacuate more than 299 not as wide as a Type A exit, the two that the requirement of § 25.807(c)(7) passengers through a Type III exit. As parallel lines merge at the exit only to concerning the maximum distance noted above, the largest passenger rating the limited extend needed to pass between exits would be removed. (This for any exit pair (Type A) is 110 through the exit before continuing as requirement was contained in passengers. An airplane with more than two parallel lines down the assist means § 25.807(d)(7) at the time Notice 90–4 299 passengers would, therefore, have to (i.e. the inflatable slide). Typically, the was published; however, it was moved have a minimum of three floor-level exit evacuees twist their shoulders a few to § 25.807(c)(7) with the adoption of pairs in addition to the pair of Type III degrees for the moment in which they Amendment 25–72.) The omission of exits. As noted earlier, the standards of are passing through the exit side-by- this requirement from proposed § 25.807 part 25 are based on the assumption that side. The delay due to this momentary was actually inadvertent. There was no half of the required exits may be merging is reflected in the proposed intention to remove this requirement, unusable due to fire or crash damage. It passenger rating of 75–68% of that of and the final rule has been corrected is unrealistic to believe that not half, but Type A exits. There is no basis to accordingly. all six floor-level exits would be support arbitrarily reducing it further to Another commenter recommends that rendered unusable in an otherwise 65. all non-floor level passenger emergency survivable crash, as the commenter Contrary to the second commenter’s exits should be eliminated (i.e., Types suggests, leaving only a pair of Type III assertion, reducing the width of the III and IV, ventral and some tail cone exits usable. As noted above, the passageway to less than 36 inches exits) and that, in particular, Type III original concern was not the use of Type would actually be counterproductive. exits should not be used in airplanes III exits in the larger airplanes per se; it The evacuees could not be expected to with more that 299 passenger seats. The was actually whether they would be maintain two uniform parallel lines in FAA does not concur with the effective in airplanes with twin aisles. a narrow passageway if doing so would commenter that they should be As also noted above, experience with necessitate keeping their shoulders eliminated altogether. Type III exits Airbus Model A310 and Boeing Model twisted for the entire length of the were previously permitted in airplanes 767 airplanes has shown that Type III passageway. The use of a narrower with as many as 299 seats; and, as exits can be effective in twin-aisle passageway would, therefore, disrupt discussed above, they can now be used airplanes. (Another commenter states the orderly flow of parallel lines of in larger airplanes provided the overall that those exits in the Airbus Model evacuees to the exit and result in greatly evacuation capability is not diminished. A310 are derated Type I exits rather reduced flow through it. They have proven to be effective means than Type III exits. Actually the exits One commenter believes that an of egress. Due to structural weight and provided at the same location in some additional exit type should be defined. cabin space considerations, it would be A310 airplanes are fully qualified as The proposed additional type would be impractical to require the use of larger Type I exits. Those provided at that similar to proposed Type B exits except exit types exclusively in lieu of those location in other A310 airplanes can for the use of a single-lane slide. In the exits. only be considered Type III by absence of additional test data showing As noted above, service experience definition since they fail to meet all of otherwise, it appears that an exit of this has shown that ventral and tail-cone the qualifications of a larger exit type. nature might provide egress capability exits can provide valuable means of In any event, the experience gained with no greater than that of the proposed emergency egress and should remain as those exits is pertinent regardless of Type C exit. In any event, defining this creditable exits. how they are identified.) or any other additional exit type would As also noted above, Type IV exits are The commenter supports the be beyond the scope of Notice 90–4 and permitted in airplanes with nine or establishment of the new Type B exit, could not be implemented at this time. fewer passengers; however, § 25.785(h) but questions whether it is effective A commenter requests that the requires each passenger entry door in enough to support the proposed capacity of a Type B exit be the side of the fuselage to qualify as a passenger rating of 75. The commenter demonstrated by any air carrier Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 218 / Friday, November 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57953 requesting an increase in the number of whether or not of rectangular shape, however, it would be an issue common passenger seats. Compliance with the may be used if the specified rectangular to all emergency exit types. There is, emergency evacuation requirements of opening can be inscribed within the therefore, no reason to single out Type § 25.803 is already required for any actual opening. The designer can, C exits and to arbitrarily reduce the increase in maximum seating capacity therefore, increase corner radii as much rating of those exits. Any change based over that previously shown satisfactory as needed for structural or other on the assertion that more than half of in accordance with that section. considerations simply by increasing the the exits would be unavailable would be One commenter notes that the overall size of the exit opening beyond the scope of Notice 90–4 and proposed maximum corner radii of six sufficiently to allow an opening with could not be adopted at this time. inches is inconsistent with the the specified length, width and corner The commenter also makes a number corresponding requirements for other radii to be inscribed within the actual of recommendations in other areas that exit types that are functions of the exit opening. are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, width. The commenter further questions One commenter asserts that the such as minimizing jamming of exits, whether the maximum corner radii for testing conducted by CAMI to support dispatch with inoperative doors, other exit types is based on the actual the passenger rating of proposed Type C optimal width of passageways to exits width of the exit or on the minimum exit pairs is invalid because a dual lane and assist space for flight attendants. required width for that particular exit slide was used. As discussed above, The commenter’s recommendation type. The commenter then raises the Type B exits are wide enough for the concerning width of passageways possibility that the standards should be two parallel lines of evacuees to leading to exits was addressed, in part, expressed in terms of minimum sill partially merge momentarily while by recently adopted Amendments 25– width, i.e. door width less the corner passing through the exit, then continue 76, 121–228 and 135–43 (57 FR 19220, radii. down the assist means in two parallel May 4, 1992). Any other In answer to the commenter’s lines. Type C exits, on the other hand, recommendations, if found to have question, the corner radii currently are not wide enough for evacuees to merit, would have to be the subject of specified for other exit types are based form two parallel lines after passing future rulemaking. on the minimum required width rather through the exit. No matter how wide One commenter believes that the than the actual width of the exit. The the slide is, evacuees continue down the passenger ratings should be increased FAA recognizes that the current slide in one single file. The width of the for several combinations of Type I, Type presentation could be misinterpreted in assist means, i.e. the slide, used in the II and Type III exits. The commenter that regard and concurs that expressing CAMI testing of Type C exits is, cites consistency with the rest of the the maximum corner radii in absolute therefore, irrelevant. proposed changes in passenger ratings, dimensions is preferable. Although the Three commenters do not believe apparently in the belief that any exit pertinent parameters are actually the sill there is justification for requiring Type type should be given the highest width, as the commenter suggests, and C exits to have assist means regardless passenger rating previously permitted corresponding dimension at the top of of how close they are to the ground. All for that type under any circumstances or the exit, it appears that requirements of the data presently available to with any combination of other exit expressed in those terms could easily be support the passenger rating for Type C types. The FAA does not concur. The misinterpreted, particularly if the door exit pairs are based on tests conducted fact that ratings would be changed to is a nonstandard oval or trapezoidal with assist means. In the absence of remove inconsistencies does not imply shape. After carefully considering the additional test data showing otherwise, that the inconsistencies must be three methods of presentation, the FAA it appears that exits of the dimensions resolved by simply granting the highest has concluded that expressing the of proposed Type C exits without assist rating previously given for an exit type requirement in terms of actual corner means would not perform any better under any circumstance. By the same radii is preferable because it is least than Type I exits. In any event, defining token, this does not imply that the likely to be misinterpreted. Accordingly, exits of those dimensions without assist inconsistencies must be resolved by § 25.807(a) is amended to specify means would be beyond the scope of arbitrarily granting the lowest rating maximum corner radii of 8 inches for Notice 90–4 and could not be previously given, as other commenters Type I exits, 7 inches for Type II, Type undertaken at this time. Designers seem to believe. III and Type A exits, and 6.3 inches for would be free to install exits of those In order to resolve the Type IV exits. For the same reason, dimensions without assist means; inconsistencies, preference was § 25.807(g)(9)(ii) specifies corner radii of however, the exits would be considered generally given to the more reliable 7 inches for tail cone exits. The Type I exits and credited accordingly. passenger ratings contained in the maximum corner radii for Type B exits Another commenter supports the second table of § 25.807(d)(1). Where is 6 inches as proposed and 10 inches development of the Type C exit, but substituting the passenger ratings of the for Type C exits. There changes are recommends that the passenger rating second table would have resulted in nonsubstantive because they simply be reduced from 55, as proposed, to 50. significant increases for certain state the same values in a way less The commenter bases this combinations of exit types shown in the likely to be misinterpreted. recommendation on the assertion that first table, specific constraints on their The same commenter asserts that more than half of the emergency exits use were proposed in § 25.807(g). As a maximum corner radii based on the would probably be unavailable in an result, there was no significant increase minimum exit width are not consistent actual emergency. As noted earlier, the in any instance, an insignificant with structural design principles (i.e. standards in part 25, and those increase of one passenger seat in three corner radii should be increased for proposed in Notice No. 90–4, are based instances, and significant decreases of large cutouts in order to reduce the on the assumption that half of the exits 14 and 24 seats in two others. As noted stress levels). It must be emphasized are unusable due to fire, structural above, the increase of one seat would be that the dimensions specified in damage or other adverse circumstance. negligible insofar as the egress § 25.807 describe the minimum The validity of the commenter’s capability of the exits is concerned; openings. As stated in § 25.807(d)(5), assertion that more than half would be however, it would be more than openings larger than those specified, unusable has not been established: compensated for by the proposed 57954 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 218 / Friday, November 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations improvement in escape slide the measured distance between the interpretations. To preclude any deployment time in any event. Although exits, per se, but the number of rows confusion in this regard, § 25.810(c)(1) most transport category airplanes are (i.e., the number of passengers) located refers to a common escape route from required to have escape slides, some between the exits. The comment does, two Type III exits rather than an escape have exits located close enough to the however, raise the possibility that the route from adjacent Type III exits. ground that slides are not needed. For phrase ‘‘ * * * two Type III exits A commenter believes that there is those, even more time would be located within three passenger seat rows confusion in proposed § 25.785(h) afforded for egress since no time would of each other * * * ’’ could be between ‘‘near’’ and ‘‘adjacent’’ in be needed for slide deployment. No misinterpreted. To preclude any regard to the proximity of flight supporting data were presented to confusion in that regard, § 25.807(g)(7), attendant seats to Type B exits. justify either greater or lower passenger as adopted, reads‘‘ * * * two Type III Actually, the proposed rule is the same ratings; therefore, the various exit types exits that are separated by fewer than as current § 25.785(h) insofar as use of are rated as proposed. three passenger seat rows * * * ’’ those terms is concerned. Two commenters support the One commenter does not concur that Contrary to the commenter’s assertion proposed reduction in passenger ratings the combined credit for all Type III exits that the terms are presently considered of closely located Type III exits in should be limited to 70 passengers, i.e., interchangeable, the distinction in proposed § 25.807(g)(7). Another no or very limited credit given for more terminology is used because Type A commenter opposes the proposed than two pairs of Type III exits. The and, as proposed, Type B exits must reduction and believes that the primary commenter notes that it is possible to meet a higher standard than other floor- considerations are integrity of the access distribute more than two pairs of Type level exits. Any flight attendant seats and optimized opening mechanism and III exits in airplanes with exceptionally provided must be located in the general hatch weight. The FAA concurs that long wing chord, such as supersonic vicinity of required floor-level exits; those are both important considerations; transports. however, there is no requirement to however, they are not relevant to the The FAA is not aware of any provide a separate flight attendant seat proposal. As noted above, actual previously type-certificated transport for each floor-level exit other than a demonstrations show that the rate of category airplane with more than two Type A exit or, as proposed, a Type B egress through one exit is consistently pairs of Type III exits. Generally, exit. In some instances, the number of less because some evacuees must bypass designers have elected to utilize Type III required floor-level exits may exceed the first exit they reach to use that exit. exits only when they can be located the number of flight attendant seats A third commeter does not support over the wing, inherently limiting provided; in that case, one seated flight the proposed reduction in passenger airplanes to only two such exits because attendant would be expected to serve ratings of closely located Type III exits of the limited wing chord length more than one exit, e.g., exits located on because, according to the commenter, available. As the commenter suggested, opposite sides of the cabin. The seat extensive full scale evacuation tests it is possible that there may be future provided for that flight attendant can be have justified the 70 passenger rating of airplanes with extremely long wing located ‘‘near,’’ i.e., in the general Type III exits regardless of their spacing chords over which more than two pairs vicinity of, both exits, but it would not and the exit flow is determined by the of Type III exits could be distributed. generally be considered to be located exit opening rather than the aisle flow Also, it is possible to utilize Type III ‘‘adjacent,’’ or next to, both exits— rate. Again, the comments are not exits at non-overwing locations. particularly if the exits are located on relevant to the proposal. The issue is not Nevertheless, the use of more than two opposite sides of the cabin. For Type A whether the aisle is capable of feeding pairs of Type III exits would be a novel and, as proposed, Type B exits, a flight enough evacuees to maintain maximum or unusual design feature not attendant seat must be provided for each flow nor whether the rating for Type III envisioned at the time the standards for exit and must generally be located next exits in general is justified. Instead, the such exits were developed. Based on to the exit, not just in the general proposed reduction recognizes that information presently available, there vicinity. The distinction provided by some persons, who must bypass the first are serious doubts as to the viability of the terms ‘‘near’’ and ‘‘adjacent’’ is, exit they reach and egress through the multiple pairs of such exits in regard to therefore, correct. other exit for maximum total flow to both access within the cabin and orderly The same commenter note that occur, choose to join the line of escape from them outside the airplane. proposed § 25.807(e) would require evacuees waiting to use the first exit. In addition, the advisability of fewer exits to be distributed as uniformly as Spacing exits farther apart and having larger exits in favor of having more than ‘possible,’ while earlier language more passengers seated between them two pairs of Type III exits is required them to be distributed as reduces or eliminate altogether the questionable. In the absence of uniformly as practicable.’’ Actually, the number of passengers who must bypass extensive additional testing, the FAA word ‘‘practicable’’ was replaced with an exit for maximum total flow. does not concur that the combined ‘‘practical’’ when the requirement was One commenter believes that the credit for all Type III exit pairs should moved to § 25.813 in Amendment 25– criteria for reduction in the ratings exceed 70 passengers. 72. The FAA has carefully considered should be 84 inches between exit One commenter believes that a 42 the definition of each of the three terms, centerlines rather than three passenger inch wide escape route is needed for as well as the intent of the rule, and has seat rows, based on an assumed two adjacent Type III exits only when concluded that the present term minimum seat row pitch of 28 inches. the two exits share a common escape ‘‘practical’’ is appropriate and should be As noted above, three passenger seat route. (This requirement was proposed retained. Advisory Circular 25.807–1 rows would typically result in as § 25.803(e)(1); however, it would provides guidance material concerning approximately 80 to 90 inches between become § 25.810(c)(1) due to the change compliance with this section. adjacent vertical edges of the two exits, in editorial structure that resulted from One commenter objects to the or 100 or 120 inches between exit Amendment 25–72.) That was, in fact, proposed requirement that if a Type A, centerlines. Regardless of the value the intent of the proposal; however, it Type B or Type C exit is installed, there chosen, the FAA does not concur appears in light of the comment that must be at least two Type C or larger because the pertinent parameter is not ‘‘adjacent’’ may result in varying exits installed in each side of the Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 218 / Friday, November 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57955 fuselage. The commenter asserts that the erection is begun, as is currently Adoption of the Final Rule requirements for uniformity of specified for other exit types. It is not As noted above, the editorial structure passenger exit distribution and the clear whether their intent is to achieve of certain portions of part 25 was ‘‘certification process’’ would ensure a more relaxed total deployment changed considerably subsequent to the that the loss of one exit would not have interval by specifying that the device publication of Notice 90–4. Except for a critical impact on the evacuation must be fully erect within 10 seconds the substantive changes discussed above capability of the airplane. As noted after erection is begun, or whether they and a number of non-substantive above, this requirement was proposed to simply object to including exit opening changes made for conformity with part ensure that adequate evacuation in the time interval regardless of the 25 as it is not structured, the capability would be maintained in the total time permitted. In contrast, another amendments are adopted as proposed in event a primary exit became unusable. commenter, a foreign airworthiness Notice 90–4. In the absence of this proposal, it would authority, recommends that the erection be possible for a 145 passenger airplane, duration and starting time requirements Final Regulatory Evaluation, Final for example, to be type certificated with for other types of exits should also be Regulatory Flexibility Determination, one Type A exit and one Type III exit consistent with those proposed for new and Trade Impact Assessment in each side of the fuselage. If one of the Type C exits. Proposed changes to Federal Type A exits was unusable due to fire, As noted above, the proposed erection Regulations must undergo several structural damage or other adverse time is based on current state-of-the-art, economic analyses. First, Executive circumstance, 38% of the total egress and the FAA does not concur that a Order 12866 directs that each Federal capability would be lost. Similarly, if more relaxed total deployment interval agency propose or adopt a regulation both Type A exits were unusable, only is justified. Including exit actuation only upon a reasoned determination 24% of the egress capability would time in the total deployment interval that the benefits of the intended remain. Contrary to the commenter’s actually provides the designer more regulation justify its costs. Second, the assertion, the requirements for flexibility in achieving the desired goal. Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 uniformity of passenger exit distribution If the exit opening time is especially requires agencies to analyze the would not ensure that the loss of one rapid, there would be more time economic effect of regulatory changes exit would not have a critical impact on available for erection of the assist on small entities. Third, the Office of the evacuation capability of the device. On the contrary, if the erection Management and Budget directs airplane. time is especially rapid, there would be agencies to assess the effects of more time available for exit opening. Escape Slide Deployment regulatory changes on international The other commenter’s recommendation trade. In conducting these analyses, the Several commenters object to the that the erection duration and starting FAA has determined that this rule: (1) times specified for erection of the assist time requirements for other types of will generate benefits that justify its means serving proposed Type C exits; exits should be consistent with those costs but because of the public interest however, none present any factual data proposed for Type C exits appears to is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as to support their apparent contention have merit. Although it is beyond the defined in the Executive Order; (2) is that more time should be permitted for scope of Notice 90–4, it will be ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s erection. As discussed above, the considered for possible future Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (3) proposed erection time is based on the rulemaking. will not have a significant impact on a demonstrated capability of current state- One commenter, a manufacturer of substantial number of small entities; of-the-art devices. inflatable assist means, questions what and (4) will not constitute a barrier to One commenter supports the constitutes when ‘‘deployment is proposed reduction in erection times, begun’’ and suggests the phrase international trade. These analyses, but notes that essential equipment ‘‘actuation of the inflation controls is available in the docket, are summarized should not be relocated to the airplane begun’’ be used instead. The commenter below. to achieve those reductions. Since the notes that the latter phrase is used in Regulatory Evaluation Summary assist means remains attached to the Technical Standard Order (TSO) C69b airplane, there would be no reason to which contains design standards for off- Exits require any essential equipment to be wing escape slides. Overall, changes to the types and attached to the device insofar as it Generally, the two phrases are number of required passenger functions as an assist means. It appears, interchangeable since the assist means emergency exits will not likely result in however, that the commenter is actually are inflatable devices. Since TSO–C69b significant modifications to cabin referring to dual-purpose inflatable pertains specifically to inflatable interiors nor result in significant cost devices, sometimes referred to as slide devices, the phrase ‘‘actuation of the differentials, either positive or negative. rafts. Slide rafts are designed to remain inflation controls is begun’’ is Part 25 airplane exit configurations are attached to the airplane and serve as appropriate in that document. Unlike variable and are seldom at the assist means during an emergency the TSO, part 25 does not require the maximum limit in terms of passengers evacuation on land, or to be detached assist means to be an inflatable device. per exit. Any increases in costs would from the airplane and serve as liferafts It would, therefore, be inappropriate to be far outweighed by the benefits of following a ditching. Section 25.1415(c) use that phrase in part 25 since the enhanced design flexibility, consistency currently requires approved survival assist means may, in fact, not be an in standards, and improved evacuation equipment to be attached to each inflatable device. For the same reason, capabilities. liferaft, and that requirement would not the FAA concurs with another The addition of Type B and Type C be affected by any of the changes commenter that the phrase ‘‘actuation of exits will provide manufacturers with proposed in Notice 90–4. the inflation system’’ in proposed increased design flexibility. Some commenters also object to § 25.809(h) is inappropriate. This Configurations with Types B and C exits initiating the measurement of erection requirement, now contained in will likely cost no more, and potentially time when the means for opening the § 25.810(d)(4), has been changed to read, less, than configurations without these exit is actuated rather than when ‘‘actuation for the erection system.’’ exits since manufacturers will most 57956 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 218 / Friday, November 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations likely not utilize them unless it is cost- estimated that of 712 fire fatalities levels of government. Therefore, in effective to do so. during the period analyzed, 109 could accordance with Executive Order 12612, The revisions relating to Type I exits have been avoided if there had been 20 it is determined that this final rule will could increase costs in certain additional seconds of evacuation time (a not have sufficient federalism instances. The current standards allow rate of 3 lives saved per 100 million implications to warrant the preparation an increase in passenger seating passenger enplanements). While having of a Federalism Assessment. configuration ranging from 45 to 70 for more time to evacuate an airplane is not Conclusion each additional Type I exit pair, the same as being able to evacuate an depending on airplane exit airplane faster, it can nevertheless serve For the reasons given earlier in the configuration and total passenger as a proxy for estimating benefits, preamble, the FAA has determined that seating capacity. The revisions will because the end result is the same— this is a ‘‘significant’’ regulation as limit the allowed increase for Type I more passengers can egress before fire or defined in Executive Order 12866 and is exit pairs to 45 passengers for all exit explosion makes egress impossible. ‘‘significant’’ as defined in Department configurations and seating capacities. Reduced crowding at exits and the of Transportation Regulatory Policies Limiting Type I exit pairs to 45 consequent decrease in evacuation time and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February passengers will improve safety. It is resulting from the revised exit standards 26, 1979) because of the public interest clear that 45 passengers can evacuate could potentially save several lives in involved. In addition, it is certified through a pair of Type I exits more just one accident. under the criteria of the Regulatory expeditiously than can a greater Escape Slides Flexibility Act that this regulation will number. An aircraft having two pairs of not have a significant economic impact, Type I exits and two pairs of Type III The reduced time allowed for escape positive or negative, on a substantial exits can have 179 passengers under the slide erection will provide faster number of small entities. current standards but only 155 emergency evacuation rates and passengers under the revised standards, potentially prevent some fatalities or List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 a reduction of 13 percent. However, a injuries that otherwise might be manufacturer of a design which Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting sustained. The technology to meet the and recordkeeping requirements. includes 179 passengers (with two pairs revised standard is available and will each of Type I and Type III exits) that not add to the cost of slides. The rule Adoption of Amendment desires to maintain that capacity could, changes basically update slide Accordingly, the FAA amends 14 CFR under the revised standards, replace the requirements to current technology. part 25 of the Federal Aviation two Type I exit pairs with Type C exit Since costs will be unaffected and safety Regulations (FAR), as follows: pairs (the two new Type C pairs allow enhanced, the revisions are cost 110 passengers and the two Type III beneficial. PART 25ÐAIRWORTHINESS pairs another 70 for a total of 180 STANDARDS: TRANSPORT passengers). Evacuation from an Regulatory Flexibility Determinations CATEGORY AIRPLANES airplane with the modified The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 configuration would be easier since the (RFA) was enacted by Congress to 1. The authority citation for part 25 Type C exit is six inches wider than the ensure that small entities are not continues to read as follows: Type I exit. Benefits resulting from this unnecessarily and disproportionately safety enhancement would easily burdened by Government regulations. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704. exceed any incremental design/ The FRA requires agencies to assess manufacturing costs. whether rules would have ‘‘a significant 2. By amending § 25.783 by revising While it is difficult to estimate the economic impact on a substantial paragraph (h) to read as follows: number of fatalities or injuries that number of small entities,’’ and in cases might be avoided by the revised rule, where they would, to conduct a § 25.783 Doors. studies have shown that exit flow rates Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The * * * * * are proportional to exit widths within FAA size threshold for a small aircraft (h) Each passenger entry door in the the 24 to 42 inch range. In one study, manufacturer is 75 or fewer employees side of the fuselage must meet the the evacuation rate increased by one (per FAA Order 2100.14A, Regulatory applicable requirements of §§ 25.807 occupant every 12 seconds for each six Flexibility Criteria and Guidance). Since through 25.813 for a Type II or larger inch increase in exit width (‘‘Study of there are no manufacturers of part 25 passenger emergency exit. FAR § 25.807(c) Emergency Exits,’’ FAA airplanes with 75 or fewer employees, * * * * * Aeronautical Center, May 1975, Project the rule will not have ‘‘a significant 3. By amending § 25.785 by revising Report No. 70–597–120A). In another economic impact on a substantial paragraph (h)(1) to read as follows: study, the National Bureau of Standards number of small entities.’’ (NBS) (since renamed the National International Trade Impact Assessment § 25.785 Seats, berths, safety belts, and Institute for Standards and Technology), harnesses. analyzed accidents involving fire and The rule will have no effect on the * * * * * fatalities that occurred between 1965 sale of U.S. airplanes in foreign markets and 1982 and estimated the number of or the sale of foreign airplanes in the (h) * * * fatalities that could have been avoided U.S. (1) Near a required floor level if passengers had additional time to emergency exit, except that another escape as a result of reduced seat Federalism Implications location is acceptable if the emergency cushion flammability (‘Decision The regulations adopted herein will egress of passengers would be enhanced Analysis Model for Passenger-Aircraft not have substantial direct effects on the with that location. A flight attendant Fire Safety with Application to Fire States, on the relationship between the seat must be located adjacent to each Blocking of Seats,’’ National Bureau of national government and the States, or Type A or B emergency exit. Other flight Standards, March 1984, NBSTR 84– on the distribution of power and attendant seats must be evenly 2817, DOT/FAA/CT/84–8). NBS responsibilities among the various distributed among the required floor- Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 218 / Friday, November 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57957 level emergency exits to the extent (f) Location. (1) Each required III exits is 70, and the combined feasible. passenger emergency exit must be maximum number of passenger seats * * * * * accessible to the passengers and located permitted for two Type III exits in each 4. By amending § 25.807 by revising where it will afford the most effective side of the fuselage that are separated by paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4), (a)(7), means of passenger evacuation. fewer than three passenger seat rows in and (d) through (f) and by adding (2) If only one floor-level exit per side 65. paragraphs (a)(8), (a)(9), and (g) through is prescribed, and the airplane do not (8) If a Type A, Type B, or Type C exit (i) to read as follows: have a tail-cone or ventral emergency is installed, there must be at least two exit, the floor-level exits must be in the Type C or larger exits in each side of the § 25.807 Emergency exits. rearward part of the passenger fuselage. (a) * * * compartment unless another location (9) If a passenger ventral of tail cone (1) Type I. This type is a floor-level affords a more effective means of exit is installed and that exit provides exit with a rectangular opening of not passenger evacuation. at least the same rate of egress as a Type less than 24 inches wide by 48 inches (3) If more than one floor-level exit III exit with the airplane in the most high, with corner radii not greater than per side is prescribed, and the airplanes adverse exit opening condition that eight inches. does not have a combination cargo and would result from the collapse of one or (2) Type II. This type is a rectangular passenger configuration, at least one more legs of the landing gear, an opening of not less than 20 inches wide floor-level exit must be located in each increase in the passenger seating by 44 inches high, with corner radii not side near each end of the cabin. configuration is permitted as follows: greater than seven inches. Type II exits (g) Type and number required. The (i) For a ventral exit, 12 additional must be floor-level exits unless located maximum number of passenger seats passenger seats. over the wing, in which case they must permitted depends on the type and (ii) For a tail cone exit incorporating not have a step-up inside the airplane of number of exits installed in each side of a floor level opening of not less than 20 more than 10 inches nor a step-down the fuselage. Except as further restricted inches wide by 60 inches high, with outside the airplane of more than 17 in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(9) of this corner radii not greater than seven inches. section, the maximum number of inches, in the pressure shell and (3) Type III. This type is a rectangular passenger seats permitted for each exit incorporating an approved assist means opening of not less than 20 inches wide of a specific type installed in each side in accordance with § 25.810(a), 25 by 36 inches high with corner radii not of the fuselage is as follows: additional passenger seats. greater than seven inches, and with a Type A 110 (iii) For a tail cone exit incorporating step-up inside the airplane of not more Type B 75 an opening in the pressure shell which than 20 inches. If the exit is located over Type C 55 is at least equivalent to a Type III the wing, the step-down outside the Type I 45 emergency exit with respect to airplane may not exceed 27 inches. Type II 40 dimensions, step-up and step-down (4) Type IV. This type is a rectangular Type III 35 distance, and with the top of the opening of not less than 19 inches wide Type IV 9 opening not less than 56 inches from the by 26 inches high, with corner radii not passenger compartment floor, 15 greater than 6.3 inches, located over the (1) For a passenger seating configuration of 1 to 9 seats, there must additional passenger seats. wing, with a step-up inside the airplane (h) Excess exits. Each emergency exit be at least one Type IV or larger of not more than 29 inches and a step- in the passenger compartment in excess overwing exit in each side of the down outside the airplane of not more of the minimum number of required fuselage or, if overwing exits are not than 36 inches. emergency exits must meet the provided, at least one exit in each side * * * * * applicable requirements of § 25.809 that meets the minimum dimensions of (7) Type A. This type is a floor-level through § 25.812, and must be readily a Type III exit. exit with a rectangular opening of not (2) For a passenger seating accessible. less than 42 inches wide by 72 inches configuration of more than 9 seats, each (i) Ditching emergency exits for high, with corner radii not greater than exit must be a Type III or larger exit. passengers. Whether or not ditching seven inches. (3) For a passenger seating certification is requested, ditching (8) Type B. This type is a floor-level configuration of 10 to 19 seats, there emergency exits must be provided in exit with a rectangular opening of not must be at least one Type III or larger accordance with the following less than 32 inches wide by 72 inches exit in each side of the fuselage. requirements, unless the emergency high, with corner radii not greater than (4) For a passenger seating exits required by paragraph (g) of this six inches. configuration of 20 to 40 seats, there section already meet them: (9) Type C. This type is a floor-level must be at least two exits, one of which (1) For airplanes that have a passenger exit with a rectangular opening of not must be a Type II or larger exit, in each seating configuration of nine or fewer less than 30 inches wide by 48 inches side of the fuselage. seats, excluding pilot seats, one exit high, with corner radii not greater than (5) For a passenger seating above the waterline in each side of the 10 inches. configuration of 41 to 110 seats, there airplane, meeting at least the * * * * * must be at least two exits, one of which dimensions of a Type IV exit. (d) Asymmetry. Exits of an exit pair must be a Type I or larger exit, in each (2) For airplanes that have a passenger need not be diametrically opposite each side of the fuselage. seating configuration of 10 of more other nor of the same size; however, the (6) For a passenger seating seats, excluding pilot seats, one exit number of passenger seats permitted configuration of more than 110 seats, above the waterline in a side of the under paragraph (g) of this section is the emergency exits in each side of the airplane, meeting at least the based on the smaller of the two exits. fuselage must include at least two Type dimensions of a Type III exit for each (e) Uniformity. Exits must be I or larger exits. unit (or part of a unit) of 35 passenger distributed as uniformly as practical, (7) The combined maximum number seats, but no less than two such exits in taking into account passenger seat of passenger seats permitted for all Type the passenger cabin, with one on each distribution. side of the airplane. The passenger seat/ 57958 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 218 / Friday, November 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations exit ratio may be increased through the (1) The escape route from each Type (g) * * * use of larger exits, or other means, A or Type B passenger emergency exit, (1) * * * provided it is shown that the evacuation or any common escape route from two (ii) Not less than 0.05 foot-candle capability during ditching has been Type III passenger emergency exits, (measured normal to the direction of improved accordingly. must be at least 42 inches wide; that incident light) along the 30 percent of (3) If it is impractical to locate side from any other passenger emergency the slip-resistant portion of the escape exits above the waterline, the side exits exit must be at least 24 inches wide; and route required in § 25.810(c) that is must be replaced by an equal number of * * * * * farthest from the exit for the minimum readily accessible overhead hatches of (d) Means must be provided to assist required width of the escape route; and not less than the dimensions of a Type evacuees to reach the ground for all * * * * * III exit, except that for airplanes with a Type C exits located over the wing and, 8. By amending § 25.813 by revising passenger configuration of 35 or fewer if the place on the airplane structure at paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1), seats, excluding pilot seats, the two which the escape route required in and (b) to read as follows: required Type III side exits need be paragraph (c) of this section terminates replaced by only one overhead hatch. is more than 6 feet from the ground with § 25.813 Emergency exit access. 5. By amending § 25.810 by revising the airplane on the ground and the * * * * * paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1) landing gear extended, for all other exit (a) There must be a passageway introductory text, (a)(1)(ii), (b), (c)(1), types. leading from the nearest main aisle to and (d) to read as follows: (1) If the escape route is over the flap, each Type A, Type B, Type C, Type I, § 25.810 Emergency egress assist means the height of the terminal edge must be or Type II emergency exit and between and escape routes. measured with the flap in the takeoff or individual passenger areas. Each landing position, whichever is higher passageway leading to a Type A or Type (a) Each non over-wing Type A, Type from the ground. B exit must be unobstructed and at least B or Type C exit, and any other non (2) The assisting means must be 36 inches wide. Passageways between over-wing landplane emergency exit usable and self-supporting with one or individual passenger areas and those more than 6 feet from the ground with more landing gear legs collapsed and leading to Type I, Type II, or Type C the airplane on the ground and the under a 25-knot wind directed from the emergency exits must be unobstructed landing gear extended, must have an most critical angle. and at least 20 inches wide. Unless approved means to assist the occupants (3) The assisting means provided for there are two or more main aisles, each in descending to the ground. each escape route leading from a Type Type A or B exit must be located so that (1) The assisting means for each A or B emergency exit must be capable there is passenger flow along the main passenger emergency exit must be a self- of carrying simultaneously tow parallel aisle to that exit from both the forward supporting slide or equivalent; and, in lines of evacuees; and, the assisting and aft directions. If two or more main the case of Type A or Type B exits, it means leading from any other exit type aisles are provided, there must be must be capable of carrying must be capable of carrying as many unobstructed cross-aisles at least 20 simultaneously two parallel lines of parallel lines of evacuees as there are inches wide between main aisles. There evacuees. In addition, the assisting required escape routes. must be— means must be designed to meet the (4) The assisting means provided for following requirements— (1) A cross-aisle which leads directly each escape route leading from a Type to each passageway between the nearest * * * * * C exit must be automatically erected main aisle and a Type A or B exit; and (ii) Except for assisting means within 10 seconds from the time the * * * * * installed at Type C exits, it must be opening means of the exit is actuated, automatically erected within 6 seconds (b) Adequate space to allow and that provided for the escape route crewmember(s) to assist in the after deployment is begun. Assisting leading from any other exit type must be means installed at Type C exits must be evacuation of passengers must be automatically erected within 10 seconds provided as follows: automatically erected within 10 seconds after actuation of the erection system. (1) The assist space must not reduce from the time the opening means of the 6. By amending § 25.811 by revising the unobstructed width of the exit is actuated. the introductory texts of paragraphs passageway below that required for the * * * * * (e)(2) and (e)(4) to read as follows: exit. (b) Assist means from the cabin to the wing are required for each type A or § 25.811 Emergency exit marking. (2) For each Type A or Type B exit, Type B exit located above the wing and * * * * * assist space must be provided at each having a stepdown unless the exit (e) * * * side of the exit regardless of whether a without an assist-means can be shown (2) Each Type A, Type B, Type C or means is required by § 25.810(a) to to have a rate of passenger egress at least Type I passenger emergency exit assist passengers in descending to the equal to that of the same type of non operating handle must— ground from that exit. over-wing exit. If an assist means is * * * * * (3) Assist space must be provided at required, it must be automatically (4) Each Type A, Type B, Type C, one side of any other type exit required deployed and automatically erected Type I, or Type II passenger emergency by § 25.810(a) to have a means to assist concurrent with the opening of the exit. exit with a locking mechanism released passengers in descending to the ground In the case of assist means installed at by rotary motion of the handle must be from that exit. Type C exits, it must be self-supporting marked— * * * * * within 10 seconds from the time the Issued in Washington, D.C., on November * * * * * 1, 1996. opening means of the exits is actuated. 7. By amending § 25.812 by revising David R. Hinson, For all other exit types, it must be self- paragraph (g)(1)(ii) to read as follows: supporting 6 seconds after deployment Administrator. is begun. § 25.812 Emergency lighting. [FR Doc. 96–28650 Filed 11–7–96; 8:45 am] (c) * * * * * * * * BILLING CODE 4910±13±M