Special Requirements for Private Use Transport Category Airplanes, 38732-38745 [E7-13582]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 134 (Friday, July 13, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38732-38745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13582]



[[Page 38731]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 25



Special Requirements for Private Use Transport Category Airplanes; 
Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 134 / Friday, July 13, 2007 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 38732]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28250, Notice No. 07-13]
RIN 2120-A161


Special Requirements for Private Use Transport Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This proposal would amend the airworthiness standards for 
transport category airplanes by adding new cabin interior criteria for 
operators of private use airplanes. These standards may be used instead 
of the specific requirements that affect transport category airplanes 
operated by air carriers. The proposed standards would supplement the 
requirements for operation under the air traffic and general operating 
rules. This proposal is intended to provide alternative criteria for 
transport category airplanes that are operated for private use while 
continuing to provide an acceptable level of safety for those 
operations.

DATES: Send your comments on or before October 11, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-
28250 using any of the following methods:
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to https://dms.dot.gov and follow 
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility; 
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management 
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to 
https://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. 
Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and 
read comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of 
the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an 
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to 
https://dms.dot.gov at any time or to the Document Management Facility 
in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this proposed rule, contact Alan Sinclair, Airframe and Cabin Safety 
Branch (ANM-115), Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
33566; telephone (425) 227-2195, facsimile (425) 227-1320; e-mail: 
alan.sinclair@faa.gov. For legal questions concerning this proposed 
rule, contact Douglas Anderson, Office of Regional Council (ANM-7), 
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-33566; telephone (425) 
227-2166; facsimile (425) 227-1007; e-mail: douglas.anderson@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional 
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal 
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is 
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of 
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how 
you can get a copy of this proposal and related rulemaking documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes 
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing 
regulations promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by 
prescribing minimum standards required in the interest of safety for 
the design and performance of aircraft; regulations and minimum 
standards in the interest of safety for inspecting, servicing, and 
overhauling aircraft and regulations for other practices, methods, and 
procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air 
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because 
it prescribes new safety standards for the design and operation of 
transport category airplanes.

Background

    Transport category airplanes are required to comply with the 
standards of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 to 
be eligible for a type certificate (TC) in this category. To the extent 
considered appropriate for safety, part 25 requirements contain 
different provisions based on passenger capacity discriminants. These 
requirements do not distinguish between airplanes operated in air 
carrier service and airplanes operated for private use. Aviation 
industry representatives have stated that the part 25 standards are 
written with only air carrier operation in mind, and have questioned 
whether the one level of airworthiness requirement for transport 
category airplanes is, in fact, appropriate for all types of operation. 
These proposals address airworthiness standards related to cabin 
interiors for transport category airplanes in private use passenger 
operation. These proposals would add new cabin interior criteria for 
operators of private use airplanes. These standards may be used as an 
alternative to specific requirements that affect transport category 
airplanes under the air traffic and general operating rules. These 
proposals would continue to provide an acceptable level of safety for 
those operations.
    No cost is associated with these proposals, which are a voluntary 
alternative means for certificating the cabin of transport category 
private use airplanes. People who choose to use the alternative means 
may incur minor incremental costs for more fire extinguishers, cooktop 
design criteria, and a potential cost for a flight attendant, compared 
to the existing cabin certification method. The established potential 
benefit of these proposals is time and cost savings to the cabin 
certification process.
    With limited exception, the type certification (TC) requirements 
for transport category airplanes have historically been separate from, 
and independent of, operational standards. That is, the type 
certification requirements do not consider the type of

[[Page 38733]]

operation intended for the airplane. Title 14 CFR 91.501(b) describes 
operational requirements for large and turbine powered multi-engine 
airplanes not required to be operated under 14 CFR parts 121 and 135.
    To get a TC, transport category airplanes must comply with part 25. 
To the extent considered appropriate for safety, part 25 requirements 
contain differences based on passenger capacity discriminants, but do 
not distinguish between airplanes operated in air carrier service and 
airplanes operated in private use.
    The aviation industry has asked the FAA to consider differentiating 
between the airworthiness requirements related to cabin interior for 
different types of operation. Title 49 United States Code (49 U.S.C. 
44701(d)) directs the FAA to consider differences between air 
transportation and other air commerce. The provision does not require 
the FAA to adopt regulations that always provide a higher level of 
safety for air carriers than for other operations. It does, however, 
establish the principle that our regulations should establish a higher 
level of safety for air carriers whenever we determine that it is 
appropriate to do so. This proposal is intended to address the issue as 
applicable to airworthiness standards related to cabin interiors for 
transport category airplanes in private use passenger operations.

General Discussion of the Proposal

Regulatory Development

    Some design standards for transport category airplanes differ based 
on passenger capacity. Often these standards were adopted based on the 
need to improve the safety of air carrier operations. Historically, 
most airplanes operated in non-air carrier operations have been smaller 
transport category airplanes, with low passenger capacities. In recent 
years, the number of large transport category airplanes operated in 
non-air carrier operation has increased substantially. The requirements 
for crashworthiness and cabin safety for all sizes of transport 
category airplanes have evolved so much in the last 20 years that the 
burden of compliance is now more significant. Since non-air carrier 
operation airplanes typically have customized interiors, the costs 
associated with certification of a specialized airplane interior cannot 
be amortized over many airplanes the way that an ordinary interior is 
for air carrier operators. When the requirements were less stringent, 
cost was not a significant issue. Under the current regulations, 
however, the cost of interior certification has become significant.
    The FAA proposes to provide alternative criteria for part 25 
transport category airplanes that are used only in private use. The 
proposal covers airplanes that are not operated for compensation or 
hire or offered for common carriage. We define a common carrier as a 
carrier that ``holds itself out'' to the public or to a part of the 
public, as willing to provide transportation within the limits of its 
facilities. Common carriage (e.g., a commercial operator or air 
carrier) is discussed in Advisory Circular (AC) 120-12A, ``Private 
Carriage Versus Common Carriage of Persons or Property.''
    The FAA has thoroughly reviewed all associated design and 
operational requirements in part 25. This review was an effort to 
determine differences in mode of operation and airplane size to 
determine whether alternative standards for cabin interiors are viable 
for transport category airplanes operated only for private use. Based 
on this review, the FAA is proposing requirements that may not provide 
the same level of safety as that afforded occupants of transport 
category airplanes operated by air carriers. Nevertheless, the FAA has 
tentatively determined that the level of safety that would be provided 
is sufficient given the operating environment and the current cost of 
compliance. These proposals relate to cabin safety issues only. These 
issues include firm handholds throughout the airplane cabin, passenger 
injury criteria for side facing seats, flight attendant direct view of 
the cabin, passenger information signs, emergency exit locations and 
markings, interior compartment doors, aisle widths, material 
flammability compliance, fire detection, cooktops and fire 
extinguishers. The airplanes that would be certificated under this 
proposal may not meet all current part 25 standards. The proposal will, 
however, continue to provide an acceptable level of safety because the 
overall level of safety addressed by part 25 has continually increased 
over the years. Additionally, this proposal does not relax rules for 
the overall structural requirements of the airplane.
    In developing these proposals, the FAA reviewed all the current 
type certification standards. The FAA also reviewed standards that had 
been proposed in the 1970s for a ``new part 24.'' That proposal offered 
an intermediate classification between transport (part 25) and small 
(part 23) airplanes. The FAA also reviewed the differences among the 14 
CFR parts 91, 121, 125 and 135 operating rules.
    In considering why requirements for private use airplanes could be 
different from commercial airplanes, the FAA identified the following 
potential factors:
    Airplane size. The physical size of the airplane might dictate the 
proximity of passengers to exits, accessibility of equipment, and 
ability of the crew to communicate with the passengers, as well as 
other factors. Privately operated airplanes have traditionally been the 
smaller transport category airplanes subject to certification to 
transport standards. Many are only nominally heavier than the weight 
threshold currently specified in Sec.  23.3. In airplanes of this size, 
passengers are already near exits and the emergency equipment is 
usually near the passengers' seats. In recent years, however, the size 
of private use airplanes has grown to include all transport category 
airplanes up to the largest airplanes produced. Therefore, it is not 
possible to base standards on the assumption that private use airplanes 
will continue to be physically small. However, to the extent it makes 
sense to do so, the requirements proposed here account for the physical 
size of the airplane.
    Passenger capacity. The passenger capacity of the airplane might be 
significantly reduced in private use from that typically found in air 
carrier operation. Corresponding to airplane size, private use 
airplanes have traditionally had low passenger capacities. A maximum 
capacity of 9 or 19 is typical, with actual seating arrangements often 
being much lower.
    The move to larger transport category airplanes for private use has 
allowed accommodation of higher passenger capacities while preserving a 
high level of comfort. In reviewing the current standards applicable to 
airplane interior considerations based on airplane passenger capacity, 
passenger capacity influences many interior configuration regulations 
contained in part 25. (See Table.)

[[Page 38734]]



                                        Passenger Capacity Discriminants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Passenger capacity
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Regulation Part 25, Section  9 seats or   10 seats    10 seats      19 or                 More than   More than
                                 less       or less     or more      fewer    20 or more      20          44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25.772 Pilot compartment      ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........          X   ..........
 doors......................
25.787 Stowage compartments.  ..........  ..........          X   ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
25.803 Emergency evacuation.  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........          X
25.807 \*\ Emergency exits..  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
25.812 Emergency lighting...          X   ..........          X   ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
25.813 Emergency exit access  ..........  ..........  ..........          X           X   ..........
25.815 Width of aisle.......  ..........          X   ..........          X           X   ..........  ..........
25.851 \*\ Fire               ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
 extinguishers..............
25.853 Compartment interiors  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........          X   ..........  ..........
25.854 Lavatory fire          ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........          X   ..........  ..........
 protection.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ These regulations have progressive requirements based on passenger capacity.

    The FAA also notes an inconsistency in application of the 
standards. There is no common passenger discriminant criterion for 
differentiating among passenger capacities. For example, Sec.  25.772, 
Pilot compartment doors, applies a threshold of ``more than 20 seats,'' 
while other rules, such as Sec.  25.815, Width of aisle, establishes an 
applicability threshold at 19 passengers. The FAA cannot find a 
technical rationale for this difference. We also cannot find a 
technical rationale for the difference of the use of the term ``20 or 
more'' or ``more than 20'' to describe the break point. We are however 
proposing some changes to the part 25 standards in this action. Also, 
the passenger capacity-to-exit ratio may be favorable for some private 
use airplanes, resulting in further flexibility under this proposal.
    Passenger familiarity. For private use airplanes, many passengers 
will likely use the same airplane frequently and, presumably, be more 
familiar with its interior features than the general public would be 
with the myriad of commercial airplane interiors. Therefore, the 
private use passengers' ability to use equipment, and knowledge of exit 
operation of a specific airplane, is generally presumed to be more 
sophisticated than the general public's. Passenger familiarity is a 
matter of particular concern to the FAA because at least some 
passengers will be unfamiliar with the airplane's safety features. 
However, because of the small number of passengers, the operators can 
provide a more detailed safety briefing than is typical on commercial 
flights. Additionally, since most passengers will most likely be 
frequent passengers, the overall safety awareness of the passenger 
complement is likely to be higher than that for air carrier operations.
    Reduced frequency of operation. The likelihood of an accident is 
lower in the aggregate the less often the airplane flies, although the 
likelihood per flight may be the same. However, under the current 
regulations, an accident is a presumed condition for cabin safety, and 
the low likelihood of an accident cannot be used to argue in favor of 
reduced or eliminated requirements. This philosophy is bolstered by the 
FAA's review of accident data for transport category airplanes in 
private use and commercial use, which did not reveal any differences 
warranting different requirements based on flight frequency.
    Obligation to provide the highest level of safety. The distinction 
between private use airplanes and those held out for the commercial 
category of passengers is not unique. Building standards differ between 
publicly occupied and used structures and private homes; standards for 
cruise ships differ from those for pleasure craft. In large part, the 
current aviation operating rules recognize this, and the standards for 
operation under part 91 differ from those in part 121. Persons flying 
on air carrier airplanes expect that the operator is maintaining and 
operating the airplane at the highest level of safety and further 
expect that the FAA is enforcing common standards for such operations. 
Conversely, a person operating his or her own airplane is ultimately 
responsible for his or her own safety and compliance with the 
regulations. Owners' expectations are that the airplane conforms to its 
type design requirements as received; after that, it is incumbent on 
the owner/operator to maintain the airplane.
    There are also some areas where private use airplanes differ 
significantly from air carrier transport airplanes, and where the 
existing requirements are inadequate. In particular, private use 
airplanes tend to be compartmentalized with some of the compartments 
sporadically occupied during flight. In these cases, there is a 
potential for a fire in these compartments to grow undetected by 
passengers or crew. The materials used in these airplanes often do not 
meet the latest standards for heat release and smoke emissions. 
Therefore, the fire would grow faster than it would if the latest 
standards for material were met. As a result, the threat from fire is 
greater in a private use airplane than in an air carrier transport 
airplane. Therefore, the FAA has tentatively determined that added fire 
detection requirements are needed for private use airplanes and the 
number of installed fire extinguishers should correlate with the 
overall fuselage size as well as with the number of passengers.
    Another area where the current requirements may not be adequate is 
the installation of certain non-required, non-essential equipment. This 
equipment is typically either multi-media entertainment electronics, 
such as videocassette recorders and compact disk players, or galley 
systems, such as cooktops and cookware, not covered by the existing 
regulations. While the FAA has issued advisory material related to non-
required, non-essential equipment, that advisory material cannot 
mandate new requirements. In the past, the FAA has adopted special 
conditions for these types of installations. However, because of their 
prevalence, we are proposing new standards to address these types of 
equipment to avoid common and routine applications for special 
conditions.

Discussion of Proposed Regulatory Requirements

Applicability

    This proposal applies to airplanes operated in private use and that 
have a type certificate, or which are the subject of a pending 
application for type certificate. The type certificate establishes the 
overall airworthiness of the airplane and ensures that airplanes

[[Page 38735]]

approved under this part have a consistent level of safety. An airplane 
operating under the proposed requirements would have to be modified to 
comply with all applicable provisions of part 25 before it could enter 
air carrier or other for-hire common carriage service.
    It is expected that most applications for approval under this 
proposal would be for airplanes that have recent certification bases 
and are of the sizes commonly used in air carrier service. However, as 
this proposal is not limited to those airplanes, it would be possible 
for airplanes with older certification bases as well as smaller 
transport category airplanes to get approval under this proposal.

Design Requirements

Firm Handholds

What is the underlying safety issue addressed by the current 
requirement?
    Section 25.785 is intended to enable passengers and crew to steady 
themselves in the aisles as they move about the cabin, in moderate 
turbulence. It prescribes how an applicant complies (hand grip or rail) 
and narrowly defines where firm handholds are required (only in 
aisles). The FAA considers the seatbacks of the seats that border the 
main aisles sufficient to act as a handrail if a breakover resistance 
of at least 25 pounds is provided. Other acceptable handholds include 
handrails along the sidewalls or near the sidewall stowage 
compartments.
What concerns have private use applicants expressed about compliance 
with the current requirement?
    The interior configurations needed by the applicants (e.g., meeting 
areas, bedrooms, staterooms and entertainment rooms) do not lend 
themselves to providing a constant handhold arrangement. Because of the 
size of these rooms, a handrail around the perimeter would be 
ineffective, providing little help, considering all the locations where 
people could be standing or moving about.
How has the FAA addressed those concerns?
    The FAA has issued exemptions when requesters have shown there is 
no practical way to provide a useful handhold while maintaining the 
needed interior arrangement.
How does the NPRM propose to address the concerns?
    This proposal would allow areas of the passenger cabin to be 
without firm handholds provided cabin aisles are provided with firm 
handholds.
    The level of safety is marginally reduced by this proposal. 
However, the FAA has tentatively determined that a small reduction in 
risk is acceptable for the private use airplanes because of their 
limited passenger capacities, the minimal flight hours, and the 
passengers' familiarity with the airplane.

Side-Facing Seats/Divans

What is the underlying safety issue addressed by the current 
requirement?
    Section 25.562, promulgated by Amendment 25-64, provides for both 
dynamic test conditions and occupant injury pass/fail criteria to 
improve occupant protection under realistic conditions (53 FR 17640, 
May 15, 1988). The FAA believes the dynamic test conditions, both for 
pulse severity and for types of tests currently required, are also 
representative of an accident, and therefore not dependent on seat 
orientation. We believe for pass/fail criteria, however, the 
orientation of the seat may be significant. Injury criteria are limited 
to head impact and spinal and femur compression loads. Head injury 
criteria are measured at any airplane interior installations that the 
head of a seated occupant could impact. The lumbar spinal load is an 
axially compressive load. The femur load is also compressive, and has 
not proven to be critical so far.
    The critical injury parameters for a side-facing seat are not the 
same as for forward-or rear-facing seats since the direction of impact 
is different. For these seats, critical injuries could also result from 
body-to-body contact or body-to-structure contact. In addition, because 
of the different orientation of the body, injury may result from 
differences in thoracic, pelvic, and shoulder load under various 
accident scenarios.
    The current regulations may not adequately address injury criteria 
for occupants of side-facing seats. The best criteria currently 
available for multiple occupancy seating may not provide a level of 
safety for those occupants of side-facing seats equal to that provided 
for the occupants of forward-or rear-facing seats.
What concerns have private use applicants expressed about compliance 
with the current requirement?
    Side-facing seating has long been a standard feature of private use 
airplanes because it is often a more efficient way of providing the 
needed seating capacity. In addition, the use of multiple occupancy 
side-facing seats provides for an in-flight berth capability. Operators 
of airplanes with Amendment 25-64, in the TC basis, complain that they 
are at a disadvantage to operators with airplanes that do not have 
Amendment 25-64 in the TC basis.
How has the FAA addressed those concerns?
    The FAA issued exemptions with a list of conditions to allow the 
use of side-facing seats. The conditions provide an acceptable, but not 
equivalent, level of safety.
How does the NPRM address the concerns?
    Like current exemptions, this proposal would require dynamic 
testing and measurement of injury criteria to the extent that the FAA 
can currently define rational criteria for passenger-to-passenger body 
contact, passenger body-to-wall/furnishing contact, thoracic trauma, 
and pelvic injuries. The proposed criteria are drawn from the 
automotive standards for side impacts and research done by the FAA 
Civil Aeromedical Institute. The FAA will continue to conduct and 
sponsor research to develop standards that provide an equivalent level 
of safety, so such seats could be used on any transport category 
airplane, if appropriate.
    The FAA is actively researching the injury mechanisms, and means of 
quantifying them, appropriate for side-facing seats. However, 
recognizing that this effort may take years to complete, this proposal 
will allow for installation of side-facing seats that may not provide 
the same level of safety that was intended by the current part 25 
requirements. It is important to note, however, that the requirements 
proposed in this notice provide an improved level of safety over that 
provided by the regulations before Amendment 25-64.

Flight Attendant Direct View

What is the underlying safety issue addressed by the current 
requirement?
    Section 25.785(h)(2) is intended to provide the flight attendants 
with the capability to monitor problems in the passenger cabin during 
critical phases of flight. Because the compartmentalization of cabins 
typically found in private use airplanes makes ``direct view'' all but 
impossible, Sec.  25.785(h)(2) requires the flight attendant seat be 
located so the occupant can have direct view of the cabin area for 
which he or she is responsible.

[[Page 38736]]

What concerns have private use applicants expressed about compliance 
with the current requirement?
    The configurations of private use airplanes are such that the 
interior is divided into individual compartments and rooms for the sake 
of privacy. These configurations significantly decrease the direct view 
of the flight attendant. The owners/operators of these private use 
airplanes have argued that since the operator controls the passenger 
complement, the safety concerns associated with carriage of the public 
do not exist. Therefore, there is less of a need for the flight 
attendants to be able to monitor the passengers continuously.
How has the FAA addressed those concerns?
    The FAA has issued exemptions that allow the flight attendant's 
direct view to be reduced, resulting from the compartmentalization of 
the cabin. The exemptions have required that the seated flight 
attendant face the passenger cabin.
How does the NPRM address the concerns?
    This proposal allows for flight attendant seats that do not have 
direct view, provided the flight attendant seats face the cabin. This 
limitation at least affords the flight attendant the opportunity to 
view problems in the common areas of the cabin.
    The current level of safety on private use airplanes should not be 
reduced since the need to monitor the passengers is not as critical 
because of the smaller numbers that are normally carried.

Passenger Information Signs and Placards

What is the underlying safety issue addressed by the current 
requirement?
    Section 25.791(a) requires a ``No Smoking'' placard that is 
intended to reduce the risk of fire and to allow the cabin crew to be 
able to assess the cabin condition during the critical phases of 
flight, i.e., taxi, takeoff and landing. ``No Smoking'' placards must 
be visible to each seated occupant. Recently, smoking has also been 
addressed as a cabin air quality and passenger health issue. Therefore, 
smoking is banned on all domestic commercial flights.
What concerns have private use applicants expressed about compliance 
with the current requirement?
    Applicants contend that since they own their airplanes they should 
be allowed to establish if smoking is allowed. If they decide not to 
allow it, then a single sign prohibiting smoking should be sufficient.
How has the FAA addressed those concerns?
    We have issued exemptions to allow the applicants the flexibility 
to establish their own smoking restrictions.
How does the NPRM address the concerns?
    This proposal would replace the multiple sign requirement with a 
single sign requirement specifying the applicant's smoking 
restrictions. The sign should be visible to all occupants upon entry. 
For aircraft with more than one entry door, a sign would be required at 
each door. In addition, the preflight briefing would include mention of 
any smoking restrictions. This proposal does not override the lavatory 
placarding and ashtray requirements of Sec. Sec.  25.791(d) and 
25.853(g).
    The current level of safety on private use airplanes would not be 
reduced because the limited number of passengers on these airplanes 
would be made aware of the smoking limitations.

Distance Between Exits

What is the underlying safety issue addressed by the current 
requirement?
    Section 25.807(f)(4) requires that passenger emergency exits be 
separated by no more than 60 feet, edge to edge. This requirement is 
intended to provide the passengers with readily accessible exits. As 
stated in the preamble of Amendment 25-67, a simple evacuation 
demonstration does not address the potential concerns arising from 
excessive distance between exits, including disruption of interior 
features, debris in the aisle, or failure of another exit (54 FR 26688; 
June 23, 1989). These concerns are magnified by a greater distance 
between exits and are not necessarily related solely to high density 
seating arrangements. That is, the further the exits are apart, the 
higher the likelihood that an individual will not be able to get from 
one exit area to another in an accident. In an evacuation 
demonstration, the time it takes an individual to get to an exit is 
mainly related to the number of passengers between that person and the 
area the passenger is trying to reach. When the cabin is empty, these 
times are short. This may not be the case in an actual accident where 
the scenario is much less predictable. Therefore, the fact that a 
seating arrangement is of low density is not, in and of itself, 
sufficient justification for changing the requirement. However, seating 
density is relevant in determining the type and number of exits 
required.
How does the current requirement address it?
    Section 25.807(f)(4) establishes quantitative limits on the 
distance between passenger exits.
What concerns have private use applicants expressed about compliance 
with the current requirement?
    Owners/operators want the ability to configure the airplane to best 
use the interior space. This often necessitates deactivating various 
exits.
How has the FAA addressed those concerns?
    The FAA has issued exemptions, with design limitations, to allow 
the applicants the needed flexibility in the design of their interiors.
How does the NPRM address the concerns?
    The proposal would allow a distance greater than 60 feet between 
exits in a single instance on each side of the airplane fuselage (e.g., 
two pair of exits could not be deactivated on an airplane with 5 pairs 
of exits). There would, however, be stricter allowances about passenger 
seating locations and capacities in the airplane. Using seating density 
and the number of passengers as a starting point, the FAA has developed 
a proposal that continues to provide an acceptable level of safety for 
private use airplanes while allowing more than 60 feet between exits in 
some cases. An effect of the current rule is that no seat that is 
located between two exits can be more than 30 feet from an exit. This 
proposal would retain this effect by requiring that no seat be located 
further than 30 feet from the nearest exit.
    A distance of more than 60 feet between adjacent passenger 
emergency exits on the same side of the same deck of the fuselage, as 
measured parallel to the airplane longitudinal axis between the nearest 
edges, would be allowed only one time on each side of the fuselage.
    To further mitigate any safety concerns associated with allowing an 
increased distance between exits, the proposal also contains several 
limitations on passenger capacity that would reduce potential crowding 
in the affected areas. The proposal would reduce the number of 
passenger seats allowed between exit types to one-half the amount 
normally allowed in air carrier service.
    The proposal would also reduce the number of passenger seats to 40 
percent of the amount normally allowed by the

[[Page 38737]]

exit rating when a ``dead end'' zone is created. A dead end zone is an 
area that does not have a pair of exits at each end of the zone. 
Current guidance would allow 75 percent of the rated capacity of the 
single bounding pair of exits.
    The proposal would also reduce the airplane's total seating 
capacity to one-third of the theoretical maximum allowed by Sec.  
25.807. For example, on an airplane with four pairs of Type C exits, 
the type-certificated passenger seating capacity will normally be 220. 
Assuming the number 3 exits are deactivated, leaving three active pairs 
of Type C exits, the theoretical maximum currently allowed by Sec.  
25.807 would be 165. This proposal, however, would limit the maximum 
capacity to 55. The proposal does not use the term ``approved maximum 
seating capacity (or configuration)'' because the resultant exit 
configuration is not likely to have been formally approved to the 
theoretically allowed maximum.

Emergency Signage and Lighting

What is the underlying safety issue addressed by the current 
requirement?
    The intent of Sec. Sec.  25.811(d) and (e) and 25.812(e) is to 
ensure that each passenger can find the exits during an emergency 
evacuation.
How does the current requirement address it?
    1. Emergency Exit Signs. Section 25.811(d) requires three types of 
emergency exit signs: locator signs (Sec.  25.811(d)(1)), which are in 
the aisle at the approximate longitudinal station at the exit to direct 
a passenger to the exit; marking signs (Sec.  25.811(d)(2)), which are 
next to the exit to identify it when a passenger has reached that 
point; and indicator signs (Sec.  25.811(d)(3)), which are located on a 
bulkhead or divider to indicate exits are beyond that bulkhead.
    2. Floor Closeness Escape Path Markings. Section 25.812(e)(1) 
requires that each passenger, after leaving his or her seat, be able to 
identify the emergency escape path and follow it to the first exit.
    3. Transverse Separation of the Fuselage. Section 25.812(l) 
requires that no more than 25 percent of the required emergency 
lighting becomes inoperative after a crash landing resulting in any 
single transverse vertical separation of the fuselage.
What concerns have private use applicants expressed about compliance 
with the current requirement?
    Owners/operators contend that the private use interior 
configurations do not easily lend themselves to strict compliance with 
these regulations. They want the flexibility to adapt these systems to 
fit inside these custom interiors without unduly compromising the 
desired cabin layout or look.
How has the FAA addressed those concerns?
    1. Emergency Exit Signs. The FAA has certified smaller signs 
combining both the marking and locator signs by using equivalent safety 
findings.
    2. Floor Proximity Escape Path Markings. The FAA has granted 
exemptions.
    3. Transverse Separation of the Fuselage. The FAA has granted 
exemptions.
How does the NPRM address the concerns?
    1. Emergency Exit Signs. This proposal would allow the use of 
smaller signs, combining both the marking and locator signs into one 
sign, on airplanes with configurations that have less than 20 
passengers (the part 25 discriminant is 10 or fewer passengers). The 
sign would have to satisfy the illumination requirements for the 
marking sign, which are more stringent than those of the locator sign. 
The emergency exit signs required by Sec. Sec.  25.811(d)(1), (2), and 
(3), must have red letters at least 1-inch high on a white background 
at least 2 inches high. These signs may be internally electrically 
illuminated, or self-illuminated by other than electrical means, with 
an initial brightness of at least 160 microlamberts. The color may be 
reversed if a sign is self-illuminated by other than electrical means.
    Adequacy of the single sign and its location for both the marking 
and locator signs would be demonstrated during the cabin compliance 
inspection of the interior arrangement or in a separate sign visibility 
demonstration. Such arrangements have been found acceptable under 
equivalent safety findings in the past.
    2. Floor Proximity Escape Path Markings. This proposal recognizes 
isolated compartments; that is, walled compartments with doorways where 
the main aisle is outside the compartment. It requires a marking system 
that would allow a person to exit the compartment using only marking/
features less than 4 feet above the floor, but does not require a 
specific marking of a ``path.'' Once in the main aisle, passengers must 
be able to locate each exit in accordance with Sec. Sec.  25.812(e)(1) 
and (e)(2). For exits that are inside an isolated compartment, the 
current rules would apply, i.e., a path must be marked.
    The intent of this proposal is to recognize many passengers' 
familiarity with the airplane and the typical open floor plans of 
portions of the interior configuration, which make incorrect 
identification of the exit path much less likely. This proposal should 
have no appreciable effect on safety for this type of airplane 
operation.
    3. Transverse Separation of the Fuselage. This proposal changes the 
percentage of lights that must remain operative after a transverse 
separation of the fuselage, based on type certificated maximum 
passenger capacity rather than the prescriptive 25 percent required by 
Sec.  25.812(l).
    For small cabins with low passenger capacities, the current 25 
percent limit on lights rendered inoperative by a transverse separation 
makes compliance difficult. It does not add appreciably to safety, as 
the distance to any one exit is shorter than the distance for a typical 
large transport category airplane. For these airplanes, that require 
fewer emergency lights to begin with, a higher percentage of 
inoperative lights do not reduce the level of safety.

Interior Doors

What is the underlying safety issue addressed by the current 
requirement?
    Section 25.813(e) states that no door may be installed in any 
partition between passenger compartments. Installing a door in any 
partition between passenger compartments could impede evacuating 
passengers during an emergency.
What concerns have private use applicants expressed about compliance 
with the current requirement?
    Interior doors in private use airplanes are one of the most 
desirable features because of the enhanced privacy and noise isolation 
that doors provide over curtains. The flexibility to partition the 
airplane is regarded as paramount to an acceptable luxury interior.
How has the FAA addressed those concerns?
    The FAA has issued several exemptions that allow interior doors 
between passenger compartments, under specified conditions.
How does the NPRM address the concerns?
    This proposal would allow interior doors with the limitations 
imposed in exemptions. To be acceptable, a number of features must be 
incorporated in the design or operational procedures. The door must be 
kept in the open position by dual means during taxi, takeoff, and 
landing; and, if installed across a main aisle, open in a transverse 
direction, such as a pocket door. There must be

[[Page 38738]]

indication to the flightcrew on the flightdeck, whether the door is 
open for takeoff and landing. Finally, the door must be frangible, so 
that occupants on either side of the doors cannot become trapped.
    The basic intent of this proposed requirement is to have a 
frangible door design. The requirement is to anticipate and address 
situations that may result in the door being completely jammed in the 
fully deployed position. Examples of jamming around the perimeter would 
include motor failure, track breakage, surround structure deformation, 
or structural damage (pocket door cavity, or ceiling or nearby 
monuments). A straightforward approach would be to show that persons of 
the requisite stature can physically break through the jammed door. 
Another approach would be to incorporate a fuse hinge device that 
allows the door to be swung forward or aft when the fuse is broken. 
Past compliance has been shown by demonstrating a female in the 5th 
percentile can break the fuse in the door and the resulting opening can 
allow egress of a male in the 95th percentile and passage of emergency 
equipment. Obstacles within the door swing path should be limited in 
their location and deployment/movement such that egress is allowed.
    If a partial blockage is allowed, then the blockage should be such 
that the door can be moved far enough to break the mechanical fuse 
device prior to contacting the obstruction. In no case should the 
occupant egressing through the sliding pocket door have to rely on 
another occupant for assistance in clearing an exit path. It would be 
acceptable, however, for the trapped occupant to break the fuse by 
pushing in the forward direction, encountering resistance and then 
pulling the door back to provide the necessary clearance. In this 
situation, the door should be equipped with an appropriate handle or 
doorknob that will allow the door to be pulled back. Placards should be 
provided on both sides of the door to provide instruction on the 
alternative method for opening the door in the event that normal door 
stowage is not possible.
    As stated in the exemptions, installation of a door, even with 
limitations, cannot provide an equivalent level of safety to not having 
a door. Allowing installation of interior doors in egress paths reduces 
the level of safety currently required in part 25 and the operating 
rules. However, considering the differences between private and air 
carrier operations, this is an area where the FAA has determined that 
different levels of safety are acceptable.

Main Aisle Width

What is the underlying safety issue addressed by the current 
requirement?
    The main purpose for a minimum aisle width, as specified in Sec.  
25.815, is to allow for rapid egress from the airplane in an emergency.
    Aisles also provide the means for crewmembers to access all parts 
of the cabin during flight to address emergency conditions and allow 
passengers to return to their seats during turbulence or following 
decompression. Not providing adequate aisles during flight may 
significantly impact or even prevent the accomplishment of those latter 
objectives.
    Section 25.815 provides the minimum aisle widths for air carrier 
airplanes. As noted in the Table located within Sec.  25.815, 
requirements for aisle width are based on passenger capacity. The rule 
acknowledges that with smaller numbers of passengers, fewer passengers 
need to traverse an aisle to reach an exit. Since the exit requirements 
for small passenger capacity airplanes allow fewer and smaller exits, 
there is limited benefit in having an aisle evacuation capability that 
far exceeds the evacuation capability of the exits that the aisle 
feeds.
    For air carrier airplanes, it has been an FAA practice to require 
that aisle widths be determined with seats in the most critical 
position allowed by the design. This practice is based on the 
assumption that the seats could be in this position during an 
emergency. Therefore, a seat that reclines would have to be evaluated 
in the reclined position when the determination of available aisle 
width was made if that configuration was more critical than an upright 
seat back.
    The practice has been less consistent for private use airplanes. 
Many design approvals allow a seat positioned in its adverse (critical) 
configuration to encroach into the required aisle. In these cases, the 
seat position for takeoff and landing has typically been controlled by 
instructional placards. The FAA is aware of current configurations in 
private use operation where the aisle width can be reduced to zero if, 
for example, seats on opposite sides of an aisle are each translated 
inboard. This configuration would no longer be permitted.
What concerns have private use applicants expressed about compliance 
with the current requirement?
    Owners/operators want the ability to configure the airplane to best 
use the interior space and incorporate seats with design features, 
which do not facilitate incorporating standard aisle widths.
How has the FAA addressed those concerns?
    The FAA has issued several exemptions that allow seats to reduce 
the required minimal aisle width in-flight. Past FAA practice has 
allowed airplanes in private use to be operated with seats that can 
translate and/or swivel into positions that reduce the aisles below the 
regulatory minimum in flight.
How does the NPRM address the concerns?
    This proposal would eliminate the practice of allowing seats to be 
maneuvered into positions in flight that reduce the aisle to widths as 
little as zero. It would provide a minimum aisle for in-flight 
emergencies. However, this proposal would permit seats to be moved or 
adjusted during flight to positions that reduce the aisle width below 
the minimum required for takeoff and landing, as long as passengers are 
instructed in the procedure for properly positioning the seat for taxi, 
takeoff and landing. Finally, this proposal allows different standards 
for aisle width for takeoff and landing versus in-flight phases. For 
takeoff and landing, the aisle width requirements are the same as 
currently required in part 25. To maintain an acceptable aisle in 
flight, the FAA is proposing that no aisle be reduced to less than 9 
inches between seats, with seats in any possible fixed position (as 
allowed by the design). A seat that can rotate, but does not lock in 
any position other than forward or aft, would only be considered in the 
forward or aft orientations. Compliance with this requirement would be 
mandatory.
    Requiring a minimum 9-inch aisle width during flight will ensure 
there is an aisle for crewmembers or passengers to traverse the length 
of the passenger cabin to address emergencies, e.g., to fight a fire in 
the cabin, or to return to seats during turbulence. Although this 
proposal would cause private use operators to lose some of the cabin 
flexibility they currently enjoy, it would allow for the 9-inch minimum 
aisle to be displaced from the aisle provided during taxi, takeoff, and 
landing. For example, if moving a seat inboard

[[Page 38739]]

reduced the aisle width, but in turn created a secondary passage 
meeting the 9-inch criterion, and this passage allowed continuous 
travel fore and aft in the cabin (considering vertical clearance), this 
design would satisfy the proposal. This proposal should have an 
improved level of safety by ensuring aisles remain accessible in 
flight.

Interior Materials Heat/Release & Smoke Density

What is the underlying safety issue addressed by the current 
requirement?
    The primary benefit of the current flammability standards in Sec.  
25.853 for passenger cabins is the increase in available evacuation 
time from a post crash external fuel fire accident scenario.
    Section 25.853(d) requires that large area materials, as described 
in Sec. Sec.  25.853(d)(1), (2), (3), and (4), meet the rate of heat 
release and smoke emission requirement of Parts IV and V of Appendix F 
to part 25, respectively.
What concerns have private use applicants expressed about compliance 
with the current requirement?
    The owners/operators contend that the current flammability 
requirements were intended for commercial air carrier operation, where 
the goal is to provide the added time needed to evacuate a large number 
of passengers from the airplane. Also, they contend that their unique 
type of operation does not warrant the added certification requirements 
and financial burden associated with the increased flammability 
requirements. Finally, they do not want to be restricted in the choice 
of materials for their luxury interiors.
How has the FAA addressed those concerns?
    The FAA has granted exemptions on private use airplanes to address 
relaxing flammability requirements of heat release and smoke emissions 
for interior materials. Exemptions have required an evacuation 
demonstration compliance time of 45 seconds.
How does the NPRM address the concerns?
    An objective of this proposal is to provide a means to allow 
operators to achieve the configuration flexibility that they need. The 
FAA is proposing a 45-second evacuation time when compliance with the 
heat release and smoke emissions requirements is not demonstrated. 
Compliance with other flammability requirements, i.e., Part 1 of 
Appendix F, will still be required.
    The FAA acknowledges that the level of safety is not equivalent to 
current part 25, but is an improvement over the large number of 
airplanes with type certification before Amendment 25-61 (52 FR 5422; 
February 22, 1987). It should also be noted that even if an airplane's 
type certification basis includes Amendment 25-61, the heat release and 
smoke emissions requirements apply only if the seating capacity of the 
airplane is more than 19 passengers. Therefore, many of the airplanes 
covered by this proposal, i.e., those airplanes with 19 or fewer 
passenger seats, would not be required to comply even if the type 
certificate was issued after Amendment 25-61 became effective.

Fire Detection

What is the underlying safety issue addressed by the current 
requirement?
    Many private use airplanes are partitioned into rooms and, under 
other provisions of this proposal, could be closed off with doors. This 
type of design has the effect of creating several areas where the rapid 
detection of a fire cannot be assumed. The FAA has historically 
mandated installing fire detection systems in certain isolated areas, 
based on Sec.  21.21(b)(2), which prohibits any feature found to be 
unsafe. However, because of the general nature of such a requirement, 
the application has not always been uniform, and all the areas that 
might warrant a fire detection system have not always been addressed.
    Section 25.854(a) requires cabin fire detection equipment only in 
lavatories. Since most passenger cabins are essentially open areas with 
occupants throughout, it is expected that a fire occurring elsewhere in 
the cabin will be readily detected by the occupants. However, materials 
that pass the flammability test requirements of Sec.  25.853 and part 1 
of Appendix F, are self-extinguishing to prevent rapid growth of the 
fire until action can be taken.
What concerns have private use applicants expressed about compliance 
with the current requirement?
    Owners/operators have expressed concern that installing too many 
interior fire detectors may create additional hazards, through an 
increase in false alarms and aborted takeoffs.
How has the FAA addressed those concerns?
    The FAA has required additional fire detectors in these areas as 
part of the limitations listed in the exemptions granted for other 
private use airplanes.
How does the NPRM address the concerns?
    This proposal would require installation of a fire detection system 
in any room not designated suitable for occupancy during taxi, takeoff, 
and landing, and that can be closed off from the rest of the cabin by a 
door. Such rooms would include large galley complexes, as well as 
bedrooms and conference rooms.
    The detection equipment must meet the requirements of Sec.  25.858, 
which establishes standards for fire detection systems for cargo or 
baggage compartments. The applicant would have to identify the likely 
source(s) of fire within a room, and show that the detection system was 
capable of detecting a fire within one minute. This proposal would 
preclude having to address every possible point in the room as a 
potential fire source (as is done for cargo compartments), which would 
remain an acceptable alternative, if the applicant did not want to go 
through the exercise of identifying the likely source of fires.
What is the effect of the proposal on the underlying safety issue, and, 
to the extent safety is reduced, why is that appropriate?
    This proposal is intended to maintain the currently established 
level of safety for private use airplanes. It is also intended to help 
offset relaxing material flammability standards and allowing interior 
doors as proposed and discussed above.

Equipment Installations--Cooktops

What is the underlying safety issue addressed by the current 
requirement?
    Cooktops are unusual because they present safety concerns 
associated with a hot surface. However, the more significant safety 
issue may be the containers and their contents, placed on the cooktop. 
Hot liquids represent an especially difficult safety issue since they 
can easily spill and spread over large areas. The regulations require 
that a design have no unsafe features.
    The current regulations did not envision cooktops when they were 
written and do not adequately address the various safety concerns 
associated with the installation and operation of these devices. The 
existing regulation does not prohibit the installation and use of 
cooktops.

[[Page 38740]]

What concerns have private use applicants expressed regarding 
compliance with the current requirement?
    Owners/operators want the capability to cook while on the airplane, 
using equipment other than ovens that are routinely installed on 
private use and air carrier airplanes.
How has the FAA addressed those concerns?
    The FAA has developed a list of special conditions to address the 
known safety concerns associated with installation of cooktops and use 
which are listed in the appendix to the proposed rule.
How does the NPRM address the concerns?
    The proposal requires certain design features that will lessen the 
potential hazards, including guards to keep containers in place, a 
spill tray, positive indication of a hot surface, means to shield the 
cooktop and a fire extinguishing system.
What is the effect of the proposal on the underlying safety issue, and, 
to the extent safety is reduced, why is that appropriate?
    We believe the requirements establish an appropriate level of 
safety for the equipment.

Equipment Installations--Fire Extinguishers

What is the underlying safety issue addressed by the current 
requirement?
    The intent of the regulation as defined by Sec.  25.851(a) is to 
ensure that there are a sufficient number and type of fire 
extinguishers available to address the kinds of fires likely to occur.
    Section 25.851 requires that the number of handheld fire 
extinguishers be proportionate to the number of passengers.
What concerns have private use applicants expressed about compliance 
with the current requirement?
    This is a new requirement that has not been previously addressed.
How has the FAA addressed those concerns?
    This is a new requirement that has not been previously addressed.
How does the NPRM address the concerns?
    This proposal would require a fire extinguisher for every pair of 
exits certified on the original type certificate, regardless of whether 
the exits are deactivated in the proposed configuration. For example, 
if an airplane was certified with four pairs of exits, but during the 
interior modification the exits at door two right side and door three 
left side, or alternatively, the exits at door two left and right side 
were deactivated, a minimum of four fire extinguishers would still be 
required and would have to be uniformly distributed throughout the 
cabin. This requirement would be in addition to the extinguishers 
required by the cooktop section of this proposal unless the owner/
operators can show the cooktop was installed near the original exits. 
Other areas that would require fire extinguishers to be installed, 
besides those already specified, would be galley complexes, remote 
rooms, large lavatory complexes and remote cargo areas accessible from 
the main deck. Compliance with this requirement is mandatory.
    This proposal is intended to maintain the currently established 
level of safety for large private use airplanes by considering the size 
of the airplane as a factor in determining the number of handheld fire 
extinguishers rather than being only proportionate to the number of 
passengers. Since the assumption that the size of the airplane is 
proportional to the number of passengers onboard is inaccurate for many 
airplanes in private use, the standard method for determining the 
number of fire extinguishers is not adequate.

Operational Requirements

Type of Operation

    This proposal addresses only airplanes that are operated for 
private use. Airplanes that are operated on a ``for hire'' basis, or 
offered for common carriage, even if no fee or other compensation is 
collected, could not operate under this proposal. Part 91 currently 
allows an airplane owner to collect compensation from another party 
that is operating or using the airplane. This practice would be 
permitted under this proposal provided the occupants are not charged 
for passage and the airplane is operated for private use. Airplanes 
that are certificated under the provisions of this proposal may not be 
operated under parts 135 and 121. The FAA specifically requests 
comments on whether the private use restriction would create areas 
where ambiguity can result. The fundamental intent of this proposal is 
that the type of affected operation does not involve the fare-paying 
public, or the general public even if fares are not collected. This 
does not preclude the operator from receiving pay to the extent 
consistent with part 125 and part 91, subpart F.
    To ensure that the type of aircraft addressed in this proposal are 
not used to conduct any operations that involve the fare-paying public 
or the public even if fares are not collected, the FAA proposes to 
include an operating limitation in the Airplane Flight Manual required 
by Sec.  25.1581. This limitation would prohibit any operations 
involving the carriage of people or property for compensation or hire 
in the Airplane Flight Manual required by Sec.  25.1581. Consistent 
with this operating limitation, the FAA proposes to require 
installation of a placard that is located in obvious view of the pilot-
in-command. The placard must state, ``Operations involving the carriage 
of people or property for compensation or hire are prohibited.''

Number of Passengers

    A basic assumption of most of the proposals in this notice is that 
the passenger capacity of the airplanes involved will be small, both in 
relation to the available exits and in an absolute sense. However, 
there is no other explicit provision that would directly limit the 
passenger capacity of an airplane under this proposal if all the 
requirements could be met. For example, it would be possible for an 
airplane with an exit-limited passenger capacity of 550 to carry 200 
passengers without complying with the heat release and smoke emissions 
requirements for interior materials, provided the evacuation capability 
required under this proposal were demonstrated. The FAA has tentatively 
concluded that the maximum passenger capacity should be limited to 
address issues associated with unforeseen circumstances and the 
potential for the airplane to be compartmentalized with passengers 
scattered throughout. The FAA is proposing a maximum capacity of 60 
passengers to be eligible for approval under this proposal. While 60 
passengers is still a large number, the FAA has determined that it is 
reasonable if the other criteria of this proposal have been met. The 
FAA has determined that the standards proposed here would provide the 
level of safety intended for passenger seating arrangements that do not 
exceed 60. Considering the potential scenarios that might occur in 
service that would not be addressed in an evacuation demonstration, and 
the other provisions of this proposal, which effectively alter the type 
design requirements, airplanes with more than 60 passenger seats would 
not be eligible for certification and operation under this proposal.

[[Page 38741]]

    Additionally, for passenger capacities between 45 and 60, 
inclusive, the applicant would be required to submit an emergency 
evacuation analysis that demonstrates that the airplane could be 
evacuated in less than 90 seconds under the test criteria and 
procedures of Sec.  25.803 and Appendix J to part 25.

Flight Attendant

    The current requirements for general operation (Sec.  91.533) 
mandate the carriage of a flight attendant for airplanes with more than 
19 passengers. Because of the