Special Requirements for Private Use Transport Category Airplanes, 21533-21544 [E9-10807]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 88 (Friday, May 8, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21533-21544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10807]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Rules and 
Regulations

[[Page 21533]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28250, SFAR No. 109]
RIN 2120-A161


Special Requirements for Private Use Transport Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This special federal aviation regulation (SFAR) amends the 
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes by adding new 
cabin interior criteria for operators of private use, not for hire, not 
for common carriage airplanes. These standards may be used instead of 
the specific requirements that affect transport category airplanes 
operated by air carriers. These standards supplement the requirements 
for operation under the air traffic and general operating rules. This 
SFAR provides 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: These amendments become effective June 8, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this SFAR, contact Alan Sinclair, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch 
(ANM-115), Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; 
telephone (425) 227-2195, facsimile (425) 227-1320; e-mail: 
alan.sinclair@faa.gov. For legal questions concerning this final rule, 
contact Douglas Anderson, Office of Regional Council (ANM-7), 1601 Lind 
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2166; 
facsimile (425) 227-1007; e-mail: douglas.anderson@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 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 aviation safety for inspecting, servicing, and overhauling 
aircraft; and regulations for other practices, methods, and procedures 
the Administrator finds necessary for safety of air commerce. This 
regulation is within the scope of that authority because it 
prescribes--
     New safety standards for the design of transport category 
airplanes; and
     New requirements necessary for safety for the design, 
production, operation and maintenance of those 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 requirements for 
transport category airplanes is, in fact, appropriate for all types of 
operation. This SFAR addresses airworthiness standards related to cabin 
interiors for transport category airplanes in private use passenger 
operation. It provides 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. This SFAR provides an 
acceptable level of safety for those operations.
    No cost is associated with this SFAR, which is a voluntary 
alternative means for certificating the cabin of transport category 
private use airplanes. People who choose to use these 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 this SFAR is time and cost savings for 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 TC requirements 
do not consider the type of 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.
    The aviation industry asked the FAA to consider differentiating 
between the airworthiness requirements related to cabin interiors 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. This 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 set a higher level 
of safety for air carriers whenever appropriate.

Summary of the NPRM

    On July 13, 2007, the FAA published in the Federal Register a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Notice No. 07-13, entitled 
``Special Requirements for Private Use Transport Category Airplanes'' 
(72 FR 38732). That NPRM is the basis for this final rule.
    In the NPRM, we proposed to amend the airworthiness standards for 
transport category airplanes by adding new cabin interior criteria for 
operators of private use airplanes. These

[[Page 21534]]

standards may be used instead of the specific requirements that affect 
transport category airplanes operated by air carriers. They would 
supplement the requirements for operation under the air traffic and 
general operating rules. The NPRM was 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.
    Amendments 25-127 and 121-341, Security Related Considerations in 
the Design and Operation of Transport Category Airplanes (73 FR 6386, 
October 28, 2008), is not applicable to airplanes operated for private 
use. Although we specifically sought input on this subject, we received 
no comments on it. We subsequently published the NPRM for this 
rulemaking, which proposed certain alternative requirements for private 
use airplanes, but did not include the security requirements. In this 
SFAR we determine that the requirements of Sec.  25.795, for security 
considerations, are not intended to apply to airplanes operated for 
private use.
    The NPRM contains additional background and rationale for this 
rulemaking and, except where we have made revisions in this SFAR, 
should be referred to for that information.

Summary of Comments

    The FAA received 116 comments from 14 commenters. All of the 
commenters generally support the proposed changes. Comments include 
suggested changes, more fully described in the discussion below.
    The FAA received comments on the following general areas of the 
proposal:
     General Operations/Part 135 Crossover Operations.
     60 Passenger Upper Limit.
     Flight Attendant Requirement.
     Pre-flight Briefing.
     Operations Placard.
     Equipment and Design General.
     Firm Handholds.
     Occupant Protection/Side-Facing Seats Criteria.
     Direct View.
     Distance Between Exits, Exit Deactivation, and 60-Foot 
Rule.
     Emergency Exit Signs.
     Emergency Lighting.
     Interior Doors.
     Width of Aisle.
     Materials for Compartment Interiors.
     Fire Detection.
     Cooktop Requirements.
     Hand-Held Fire Extinguishers.
     Design for Security.
     Other Subjects.

Discussion of the Final Rule

General Operations/Part 135 Crossover Operations

    This SFAR was written to address transport category airplanes 
operated in private use, not for hire, not for common carriage. As 
discussed in the NPRM, private use operations differ significantly from 
air carrier operations. Typically, private use operations have lower 
passenger capacities and different demands for passenger amenities and 
functionality. This is why different standards can apply to the same 
airplane type, depending on how it is operated.
    Several commenters, including General Aviation Manufacturing 
Association (GAMA), Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier and the International 
Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industries Associations (ICCAIA), 
requested that airplanes approved using the SFAR be allowed to operate 
under part 135. These commenters cited several reasons for this 
request, including the ability to offset costs by allowing the airplane 
to generate revenue. Some commenters proposed that certain provisions 
of the SFAR should not be carried into part 135 operations, but others 
should.
    This SFAR permits design features--such as the installation of 
interior doors and reduced flammability standards--that would make 
airplanes approved under this SFAR non-compliant with part 135 
requirements. The limitation on the type of operation permitted under 
this SFAR is consistent with the NPRM and has not been changed.
    As discussed in the NPRM, Title 49 United States Code (49 U.S.C. 
44701(d)) directs the FAA to consider differences between air 
transportation and other air commerce. This provision establishes the 
principle that our regulations should set a higher level of safety for 
air carriers whenever appropriate. The airworthiness standards for 
operation under part 135 are already established and, before this SFAR 
is adopted, were effectively the same as for private use. This SFAR 
creates a standard focused on private use, not for hire, not for common 
carriage operation which did not previously exist. Extending the 
provisions of the SFAR to part 135 is both beyond the scope of the 
proposed rule, and not in keeping with the statutory mandate. The fare-
paying flying public expects the same level of safety regardless of 
which airplane they are flying on. Persons flying on airplanes approved 
using the SFAR typically have more knowledge, familiarity, and choice 
in doing so. Since an airplane approved under the SFAR would not meet 
all of the minimum requirements of parts 25 and 135, allowing operation 
in part 135 would additionally create an uneven playing field for those 
airplanes that have been certificated to meet the full requirements of 
parts 25 and 135. This SFAR will not allow airplanes to operate under 
part 135 that do not meet all applicable requirements of part 135.
    However, it does not prohibit operation in part 135, provided the 
aircraft meets all the existing requirements of that part. Some 
airworthiness standards of part 25, for which this SFAR grants relief, 
are not required for airplanes operated under part 135 (that is, part 
135 also allows operation of airplanes meeting the standards of part 
23, which in some cases are less stringent than part 25).
    As noted above, some commenters suggested that the provisions of 
the SFAR be identified as acceptable for part 135 operation, or not. 
These commenters also suggested that the applicant identify the 
modifications required in order for the airplane to be eligible for 
part 135 operation. We agree that the operator should be made aware of 
what is necessary in order to operate in part 135. In order for an 
operator to switch from private use to part 135 operations, limitations 
would be needed to identify necessary changes to meet the additional 
part 135 requirements (see Table 1). For example, doors that may be 
closed for private use would have to be disabled and secured open for 
part 135 operations. A new paragraph 2(g) has been added to clarify 
this issue.
    If the possibility exists that the airplane may be placed in part 
135 or part 121 service, we recommend that the Airplane Flight Manual 
(AFM) be modified to include those areas that would need to be 
addressed before the airplane would be permitted in part 135 
operations. For example, interior doors must be deactivated and locked 
out such that a maintenance action will be required to reactivate the 
door. Following is a table identifying the alternative airworthiness 
standards allowed under this SFAR and whether they are acceptable for 
operations under part 135.

[[Page 21535]]



                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           SFAR provision                     Acceptable in 135?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4(a) Firm Handhold..................  No.
4(b) Side-facing Seats..............  Yes, for single place seats only.
5. Direct View......................  No.
6. Passenger Information Signs......  Yes.
7. Distance Between Exits...........  No.
8. Emergency Exit Signs.............  Yes.
9(a) Emergency Lighting.............  No.
9(b) Floor Proximity Escape Path      Yes.
 Markings.
9(c) Transverse Separation of the     No.
 Fuselage.
10.(a)-(f) Interior Doors...........  No.
11. Width of Aisles.................  No.
12. Materials for Compartment         No.
 Interiors.
13. Fire Detection..................  Yes.
14. Cooktops........................  Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

60-Passenger Upper Limit

    Paragraph 2(a) of the SFAR restricts the maximum passenger count to 
60, as proposed in the NPRM. The majority of the commenters requested 
that no upper limit be placed on the maximum number of passengers 
allowed. As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA concluded that a passenger 
capacity limit was necessary, considering the number of modifications 
to the certification standards this SFAR permits. As the number of 
passengers increases, and the complexity of the interior increases as 
allowed by the SFAR, it is more difficult to predict safety issues that 
can arise and not be accounted for in standardized evacuation 
demonstrations. The larger airplanes operated in private use (e.g., 
Boeing 737, Airbus A320) have an average passenger seating 
configuration of 25. As the passenger count increases beyond 60, the 
complexity of the interior takes the airplane outside the intended 
scope of the SFAR and more FAA oversight is required to ensure that an 
appropriate level of safety is maintained.
    While the FAA has approved private use airplanes with passenger 
capacities greater than 60, these are the exception. In those cases 
there are generally additional safety issues regarding evacuation, fire 
protection and project-specific installations. Because of that, we 
would need to evaluate such configurations on an individual basis to 
determine whether exemptions or special conditions are appropriate. The 
60-passenger limitation in this SFAR would not preclude certification 
of these larger airplanes, but it would enable us to evaluate these 
issues and impose additional requirements necessary for safety. 
Therefore, the FAA is adopting this limitation as proposed.
    Bombardier commented that airplanes sometimes have more seats than 
passengers, and not all seats are usable for takeoff and landing. In 
this case, they question how the SFAR will be applied. To clarify, the 
60-passenger limit in the SFAR applies to the actual passenger capacity 
of the specific airplane. If extra passenger seats are installed and 
are accessible to passengers, then design considerations must be 
addressed. If the seats are not appropriate for occupancy during taxi, 
takeoff and landing, e.g., do not meet the strength requirements of 
Sec.  25.561 or, if applicable, Sec.  25.562, then each such seat must 
be clearly marked that it is not to be occupied during taxi, takeoff 
and landing. Such marking may be in the form of a placard mounted at a 
suitable location easily readable by any approaching passenger. If the 
seats could be occupied during taxi, takeoff and landing, i.e., they 
meet all the applicable strength and human injury criteria, then there 
must be a limitation in the Limitations Section of the Airplane Flight 
Manual to note that although there are more than 60 seats installed, no 
more than 60 passengers may be on the airplane. Additionally, as a 
continuous reminder to crew and passengers, placards must be installed 
at each door that can be used to board passengers, stating that the 
maximum passenger capacity is 60. The placards must be designed and 
located such that they are clearly legible to passengers entering 
through the door. The rule text has been revised to clarify the 
requirements should extra passenger seats be installed.

Flight Attendant Requirement

    Paragraph 2(b)(2) of the SFAR requires at least one flight 
attendant for those airplanes that were initially type certified with 
75 or more passengers and have interior doors irrespective of the 
seating capacity of the airplane in private use. The NPRM proposed that 
a flight attendant be required when interior doors are installed, for 
passenger seating arrangements of 10-50.\1\ The majority of the 
commenters objected to the ten-passenger criterion and noted that none 
of the current FAA exemptions issued for doors between passenger 
compartments require a flight attendant. The commenters requested that 
the FAA withdraw the flight attendant requirement and simply rely on 
the requirements currently listed in Sec.  91.533. The proposed 
requirement would have effectively lowered the threshold for a required 
flight attendant from 20 (as specified in Sec.  91.533) to 10. Based on 
the comments received and after further consideration, we agree that 
this is overly stringent and not in keeping with past practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Paragraph 2(b) of the NPRM also proposed to require two 
flight attendants for airplanes with passenger capacities exceeding 
50. We received no comments on this proposal, and paragraph 2(b)(1) 
contains this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The intent of the proposed requirement was to address the 
additional complexity in monitoring interior configurations with 
partitioned and isolated occupant compartments. This in turn is 
predicated on the original capacity of the airplane and, by 
association, its size. We have reviewed this issue in more detail and 
have revised the SFAR to limit the flight attendant requirement to 
those airplanes originally type certificated with relatively large 
maximum seating capacities, i.e., 75 or more passengers. For smaller 
airplanes, the requirements in Sec.  91.533 are acceptable because the 
cabins are smaller and typically less complex than those being 
installed in the large transport airplanes. As a result, it is less 
likely that someone will become trapped or lost during an emergency 
evacuation, and there is less

[[Page 21536]]

need to have a flight attendant. The criterion of 75 or more passengers 
demarcates the large commercial jets from the small to medium regional 
and business jets where interior configurations are likely to be less 
complex. Therefore, the SFAR has been revised to restrict the 
additional requirement for at least one flight attendant to those 
airplane types whose original maximum type certificated passenger 
capacity is 75 or more.

Pre-Flight Briefing

    Paragraph 2(c) of the SFAR requires that the AFM include a 
limitation requiring passenger briefing on the relevant airplane 
features specifically required to comply with the SFAR. As proposed, 
the requirement would have applied directly to an operator. Bombardier, 
Embraer and ICCAIA commented that, to be consistent, the SFAR should 
impose a requirement on the applicant for a TC. We agree and paragraph 
2(c) is revised to require an AFM limitation. They also commented that, 
as proposed, the briefing requirement was open to very broad 
interpretation, and could be taken to require a briefing on every 
aspect of the SFAR. They recommend that the briefing be limited to only 
those features the passengers need to be aware of to maintain the 
intended level of safety, such as frangible features in interior doors, 
or moving seats to their intended position for taxi, takeoff and 
landing. We agree and the SFAR has been revised to reflect this intent.

Operations Placard

    Paragraph 2(e) of the SFAR requires a placard stating: ``Operations 
involving the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire 
are prohibited,'' to be located in the area around the airworthiness 
certificate holder at the entrance to the cockpit. Paragraph 2(d) of 
the SFAR requires the same limitation to be included in the AFM. These 
restrictions have not changed from the NPRM; however, the location of 
the placard has been revised from the proposal that it be ``located in 
conspicuous view of the pilot-in-command.'' Airbus, Bombardier, ICCAIA, 
and Fokker Services requested that the placard requirement be removed. 
They state that a placard installation is not directly related to 
airplane safety and that a competing number of placards are already 
installed, for which the information value is questionable. They 
believe an AFM limitation is sufficient, since the crew is required to 
follow the AFM when operating. While it is certainly true that the crew 
is required to follow the AFM, an AFM limitation is not conspicuous. 
The proposed placard requirement was intended to be a conspicuous 
notification regarding the limitations on the type of operations 
permitted for the airplane. However, we have reconsidered the location 
of the placard installation. Based on the input from the commenters, we 
agree that the instrument panel would not be an appropriate place to 
locate this placard. The area around the airworthiness certificate 
holder at the entrance to the flightdeck is deemed the most appropriate 
location, and we revised the SFAR to relocate the placard to this area.

Evacuation Analysis

    Paragraph 2(f) of the SFAR requires an evacuation analysis for 
airplanes with a passenger capacity of 45-60, which is in keeping with 
current Sec.  25.803. There were no comments on this proposal, and it 
is adopted as proposed.

Equipment and Design General

    A number of commenters appeared to be confused about the 
applicability of the SFAR, its effect on the certification basis of the 
airplane, and when to follow the SFAR instead of existing rules. The 
specific issues are discussed with the topic they apply to below. 
However, as a general matter, the SFAR is intended to modify existing 
rules that are part of the certification basis of the airplane to 
facilitate operation in private use. It does not intend to address 
rules not already in their certification basis. Paragraph 3 of the SFAR 
was revised to clarify this and to specify that applicants must take 
into account the certification basis of their specific airplane when 
utilizing this SFAR.

Firm Handholds

    Paragraph 4(a) of the SFAR grants relief from Sec.  25.785(j), 
which requires a firm handhold along the aisle for people to steady 
themselves in moderately rough air, and the SFAR is consistent with the 
requirements proposed in the NPRM. It was clear from the comments 
submitted that there was some confusion on the intent of this 
requirement. Airbus, Bombardier and ICCAIA all commented that the 
proposal did not address open spaces, and did not offer guidance on 
what ``bordered by seats'' meant, or where handholds would be required 
and where they would not.
    The SFAR is intended to limit application of the existing 
requirements of Sec.  25.785(j) to those aisles along sidewalls or 
between seats. There is no intent to add additional requirements. In 
lieu of the requirement for ``firm handholds'' in Sec.  25.785(j), the 
SFAR permits the applicant to show compliance if they can demonstrate 
that the interior features will allow people to steady themselves while 
occupying the airplane's aisles only. The NPRM notes that this 
provision has a slight reduction in safety, since only certain aisles 
will be required to have the equivalent of a handhold, and that the FAA 
has previously granted exemptions for aisles in those areas (such as 
bedrooms) when there is no practical design approach. The term 
``bordered by seats'' refers to an aisle that has seats along one or 
both sides. We agree that the spacing and configuration of seats used 
in the affected airplanes may not satisfy the literal requirements of 
Sec.  25.785(j). Therefore, we added a provision specifying that the 
installation be practicable. Whenever practicable, passengers must have 
a means to steady themselves, but only while occupying the airplane's 
aisles.

Occupant Protection/Side Facing Seats Criteria

    Paragraph 4(b) of the SFAR was updated to include the current test 
requirements for the certification of side-facing seats. The FAA's 
policy for side-facing seat certification criteria was updated \2\ 
during the NPRM process and so the NPRM reflected the out-of-date 
policy. Most of the policy changes provided simplified test methods, 
and clarifications to the earlier policy. The net effect of the policy 
changes was to reduce the number of tests required and simplify design 
considerations. A number of the commenters provided extensive comments 
requesting that the SFAR be revised to align criteria with current 
practice. As mentioned above, this difference in the NPRM and the 
current FAA policy was not deliberate, but a result of the differing 
administrative process between the two. The intent of the SFAR was 
always to adopt the latest FAA policy on this subject. We are revising 
the SFAR to reflect the current policy language specified in special 
conditions and exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ [Policy Statement No. ANM-03-115-30, available on the 
Internet at https://rgl.faa.gov].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bombardier and ICCAIA also commented that side-facing seats should 
not be limited to private use. In this case, we agree that single-place 
side-facing seats are not limited to private use. The FAA has defined 
criteria using special conditions--and now this SFAR--that provide the 
same level of safety for occupants of single-place side-facing seats as 
that of forward- or aft-facing seats. Therefore, installation of a

[[Page 21537]]

single-place side-facing seat using those criteria is acceptable 
regardless of operation. However, we have not been able to define 
criteria for multiple occupant seats that provide an equivalent level 
of safety. These installations have been addressed through exemptions. 
While it is true that not all such exemptions have contained a private 
use limitation, these installations are generally only found in private 
use. As discussed above, this SFAR applies only to airplanes designed 
for private use. Any requests for installation of multiple occupant 
side-facing seats for other than private use would require a petition 
for exemption and must be shown to be in the public interest.

Direct View

    Paragraph 5 of the SFAR requires that the majority of installed 
flight attendant seats must face the cabin area for which the flight 
attendant is responsible. For example, if only 1 or 2 flight attendant 
seats are installed, then each must face the cabin; if 4 flight 
attendant seats are installed, then 3 must face the cabin. The NPRM 
would have required that all installed flight attendant seats face the 
cabin. This change was based on a comment from Airbus, pointing out 
that previous FAA exemptions address the majority rather than all 
flight attendant seats. Bombardier and Gulfstream evidently interpreted 
this provision as requiring installation of flight attendant seats. 
They note the difficulty in installing flight attendant seats on small 
transport airplanes and question the perceived requirement. There was 
some confusion on the intent of this requirement. This section of the 
SFAR does not require the installation of flight attendant seats. The 
SFAR's intent is that, if there are flight attendant seats installed, 
then the majority must be located such that they face the cabin area, 
e.g., flight attendant seats should not be aft facing when located at 
the aft most exits. To avoid future confusion, the SFAR was revised to 
read, ``* * * the majority of installed flight attendant seats must be 
located * * *''

Distance Between Exits, Exit Deactivation, and 60-Foot Rule

    Paragraph 7 of the SFAR allows the deactivation of exits to create 
a distance of greater than sixty feet between exits, which would not 
otherwise be allowed under Sec.  25.807(f)(4). The NPRM proposed 
specific criteria that provide an adequate level of passenger safety by 
limiting the passenger number and the distance needed to travel to an 
exit. These criteria are unchanged from the NPRM. Airbus and ICCAIA 
requested that the SFAR be revised to allow more distance between 
passengers and an exit, and to permit the deactivation of more exits to 
create more than one instance where the distance between exits was 
greater than 60 feet. In particular, the commenters questioned the 
specific criteria and how they are justified. While noting that the 
criteria are likely based on FAA's experience with prior installations 
and exemptions, Airbus stated it would like more flexibility.
    The SFAR was written to be consistent with existing FAA policy and 
guidance. The intent of the 60-foot rule is to avoid excessive 
distances between passengers and their nearest exits under 
unpredictable accident conditions. By placing restrictions on how to 
create exit-to-exit distance greater than 60 feet, the SFAR maintains 
the spirit of the requirement. In developing the proposed criteria, we 
assessed many potential configurations on a variety of airplane types.
    The distance criterion in paragraph 7(a) ensures that the intent of 
Sec.  25.807(f)(4) is maintained: passengers should not be seated more 
than 30 feet from the nearest exit. Given the increased complexity of 
private use cabin interiors allowed under this SFAR, and the resulting 
increased potential for obstruction, the passenger-capacity limits 
specified in paragraphs 7(b) and (c) are necessary to prevent crowding 
that would delay evacuation. Finally, paragraph 7(d)--which limits the 
use of this allowance to one pair of exits on each side of the 
airplane--is necessary to ensure that the airplane as a whole retains 
an acceptable emergency exit arrangement.
    While different approaches are possible, the SFAR offers relief 
from the 60-foot rule with reasonable limitations, considering the 
remaining provisions of the SFAR. No alternative proposals were 
provided, so there is no clear justification to change these 
requirements or the FAA guidance on this issue. Therefore no change was 
made to the SFAR.
    GAMA recommended that the FAA permit reactivation of exits to 
enable operation in part 135. The FAA has no restriction on 
reactivating exits. However, the applicant would need to determine the 
extent of the modification necessary to restore the exit(s) to full 
compliance and obtain approval. This is true whether or not the SFAR is 
utilized.

Emergency Exit Signs

    Paragraph 8 of the SFAR permits the use of a single exit sign to 
meet the requirements of Sec.  25.811(d)(1) and (2). Bombardier and 
ICCAIA contended that this provision is not needed in the SFAR since 
the regulations do not specifically require two signs. Furthermore, 
they noted that the same criteria are proposed to be incorporated in a 
revision to Advisory Circular 25-17. Their position is that by 
including the provision in the SFAR, there is an implication of non-
compliance, which may complicate validation by foreign airworthiness 
authorities. They also noted that the level of safety is not reduced 
with this provision.
    We agree that the level of safety using this provision is not 
reduced. By including this provision, applicants that elect to use the 
SFAR can use the single sign without having to refer to a draft 
advisory circular. Its inclusion does not limit its use only to the 
SFAR.
    GAMA and Embraer suggested alternative wording to make the 
requirement clearer with respect to legibility of the exit signs. They 
proposed to include consideration of not only seats, but bulkheads/
dividers when assessing sign legibility, assuming that if there is a 
bulkhead, the exit will not be visible from a seat beyond the bulkhead. 
They suggested that the rule refer to the farthest seat or bulkhead/
divider, whichever is closer. While we agree that this issue should be 
addressed, the focus of this requirement needs to be on the seat 
farthest from the exit that must rely on the exit sign. Therefore, we 
have revised paragraph 8(b) of the SFAR to read, ``The sign can be read 
from the aisle adjacent to the passenger seat that is farthest from the 
exit and that does not have an intervening bulkhead/divider or exit.'' 
For seats beyond such an intervening bulkhead/divider, Sec.  
25.811(d)(3), which is still fully applicable to airplanes subject to 
this SFAR, requires signage on the bulkhead/divider indicating exit 
locations.

Emergency Lighting

    Paragraph 9 of the SFAR effectively raises the threshold for large, 
electrically illuminated exit signs from 10 passengers to 20 
passengers. It requires that, for airplanes with 19 or fewer 
passengers, the emergency exit signs required by 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 non-electrical means, 
with an initial brightness of at least 160 microlamberts. The color may 
be reversed for a sign self-illuminated by non-electrical means. These 
are the same requirements as proposed in the NPRM. Transport Canada 
commented

[[Page 21538]]

that the reference to Sec.  25.812(b)(2) should be to Sec.  
25.812(b)(1), since it is from this paragraph that relief is provided. 
We agree and the SFAR is changed. Based on the comments there was some 
confusion regarding whether the signs would be accepted for both parts 
91 and part 135 operations. The inclusion of the exit signs in the SFAR 
does not prohibit applicants from seeking equivalent level of safety 
findings or exemptions which would permit the use of these types of 
exit signs in part 135 operation. Therefore no change was made to the 
SFAR.

Interior Doors

    Paragraph 10 of the SFAR allows installation of otherwise 
prohibited interior doors, provided a number of conditions are met that 
will prevent these doors from impeding emergency evacuations. Amendment 
25-116, Miscellaneous Cabin Safety Changes (69 FR 62778, October 27, 
2004), effective November 26, 2004, changed the requirement for 
interior doors in Sec.  25.813(e), such that no interior door can be 
installed between any passenger seat (occupiable for taxi takeoff or 
landing) and any exit on part 25 airplanes. This replaced a less 
stringent requirement that no door could be installed between passenger 
compartments and was adopted in recognition of the risk that passengers 
may become trapped behind such doors in an emergency evacuation. This 
was noted by Transport Canada and ICCAIA, and they requested that the 
latest rule be addressed by the SFAR.
    We agree and paragraph 10 of the SFAR has been updated accordingly. 
The relief granted is the same as in the NPRM (that is, the SFAR allows 
the installation of doors that would otherwise be prohibited). However, 
it applies to doors between any passenger seat and any emergency exit, 
rather than just to doors between passenger compartments. Without this 
revision, current Sec.  25.813(e) would prohibit installation of these 
doors.
    Fokker Services questioned the need for laterally translating doors 
across longitudinal aisles. They suggest that hinged doors can be 
acceptable if the direction of hinging does not impede egress. The FAA 
originally established the requirement for laterally translating doors 
as a condition of exemptions. Hinged doors, in addition to having their 
direction of motion aligned with the most likely impact vectors, also 
have the potential to intrude into the cabin to a greater degree than 
doors that translate. Since the regulations do not permit doors at all, 
this allowance is a change in the level of safety, regardless of the 
door type. Hinged doors would further affect the level of safety, such 
that we cannot find it acceptable. There is no change to the SFAR on 
this point.
    We have added a new paragraph 10(f) to be consistent with the 
requirements of Sec.  25.820, which requires that: ``All lavatory doors 
must be designed to preclude anyone from becoming trapped inside the 
lavatory. If a locking mechanism is installed, it must be capable of 
being unlocked from the outside without the aid of special tools.'' 
This requirement is also consistent with all the exemptions related to 
interior doors issued to date. This does not create any new 
requirements.

Width of Aisle

    Paragraph 11 of the SFAR has been revised to allow aisle width to 
go to 0-inch width during in-flight operations, provided that it can be 
demonstrated that all areas of the airplane's cabin are easily 
accessible by a crewmember during emergency. The NPRM proposed to 
require a minimum aisle of 9-inches in-flight. Several commenters, 
including GAMA and ICCAIA, objected to this provision, especially as it 
pertains to airplanes that are only required to have a 9-inch aisle for 
taxi, takeoff and landing. They noted that this is contrary to current 
practice and would result in significant design changes or loss of 
passenger capacity. Aero Consulting Services suggested, instead of a 
minimum aisle width, a requirement for access along the length of the 
cabin would be more appropriate. Commenters cited specific interior 
arrangements that would no longer be approvable using the proposed 
criteria and indicated that the utility of the SFAR would be greatly 
reduced if these criteria are maintained.
    Based on the strong feedback from the commenters, the FAA has 
reconsidered the 9-inch in-flight aisle requirement. We agree that a 
requirement focused on access along the length of the cabin is more 
appropriate in this SFAR, and is consistent with current industry 
practice for features such as footrests that protrude into the aisle. 
The FAA will only permit the 0-inch aisle width during periods other 
than taxi, takeoff and landing, providing the applicant can demonstrate 
the ability to access all parts of the cabin during an emergency. The 
SFAR was revised accordingly.

Materials for Compartment Interiors

    Paragraph 12 of the SFAR requires compliance with Sec.  25.853, 
except that compliance with appendix F, parts IV and V, to part 25 (if 
applicable to the airplane) need not be demonstrated, if it can be 
shown that the maximum evacuation time for all occupants does not 
exceed 45 seconds under the conditions specified in appendix J to part 
25. This paragraph has been revised to clarify that only the provisions 
of Sec.  25.853 contained in the airplane's certification basis must be 
complied with.
    Gulfstream, Fokker Services and Airbus commented on this provision. 
The commenters were confused about how the SFAR applied to specific 
airplanes and to what degree this superseded existing rules. Gulfstream 
interpreted the requirement as applying to airplanes with a seating 
capacity of 10 or more, and that these airplanes would now need to show 
compliance with evacuation requirements they did not previously have to 
meet. In fact, the heat release and smoke emissions requirements only 
apply to airplanes with more than 19 seats that have the requirements 
of Sec.  25.853(d), at Amendment 116 or equivalent, in their 
certification basis. If the airplane's certification basis does not 
include heat release and smoke emissions requirements (Sec.  25.853 at 
Amendment 25-61), then this paragraph of the SFAR is not applicable. 
However, it is correct that airplanes with more than 19 seats that are 
otherwise required to comply with heat release and smoke emissions 
requirements would have to show a 45-second evacuation time under the 
terms of the SFAR. Fokker Services proposed language to explicitly 
state that the provision apply only to airplanes with heat release and 
smoke emissions requirements. We agree with the intent, and the SFAR 
now refers to ``the applicable provisions of Sec.  25.853.''
    Airbus proposed that the evacuation requirement might be met by 
analysis only, rather than both analysis and testing. This may be a 
matter of semantics, because any evacuation analysis must be based on 
tests. However, the test data may be previously generated data, 
assuming the airplane has already demonstrated compliance in accordance 
with appendix J to part 25; so an analysis that utilizes prior test 
data could be acceptable. However, we do not anticipate that an 
analysis without any substantiating test data would be acceptable.
    Bombardier also requested that the fire penetration requirements of 
Sec.  25.856(b) be excluded from the SFAR for reasons similar to those 
granting relief from heat release and smoke emissions requirements. 
This is beyond the scope of the NPRM and would require a new public 
comment period. In addition, the thermal/acoustic

[[Page 21539]]

insulation used to provide fire penetration resistance is less a 
customization feature and more inherent in the design of the airplane. 
At this time, we do not anticipate granting relief from this 
requirement for those airplanes already required to comply.

Fire Detection

    Paragraph 13 of the SFAR requires that, for airplanes with a type 
certificated passenger capacity of 20 or more, there must be means that 
meet the requirements of Sec.  25.858(a) through (d) to signal the 
flightcrew in the event of a fire in any isolated room not occupiable 
for taxi, takeoff and landing, which can be closed off from the rest of 
the cabin by a door. This requirement is unchanged from the NPRM except 
that we have added the passenger capacity discriminant.
    Aero Consulting Services, Bombardier, Gulfstream, Transport Canada 
and ICCAIA all interpreted this provision as requiring fire detectors 
in lavatories. The commenters requested that the SFAR be revised to 
remove the requirement. The SFAR does not require the addition of smoke 
detectors in lavatories for airplanes if this is not already a 
requirement of their certification basis. Section 25.854, which applies 
to airplanes with a passenger capacity of 20 or more, already 
adequately defines the certification requirements for lavatories and 
smoke detectors. The SFAR was intended to address those areas on these 
same airplanes that are not accounted for in part 25 (e.g., staterooms, 
offices, conference rooms) and only if they are not occupied during 
taxi, takeoff and landing. This paragraph requires that fire detectors 
be installed in those areas. Paragraph 13 was also revised to include a 
statement regarding the applicability of Sec.  25.854 to lavatories.

Cooktop Requirements

    Paragraph 14 of the SFAR requires that each cooktop must be 
designed and installed to minimize any potential threat to the 
airplane, passengers, and crew as outlined in the criteria. This 
paragraph is unchanged from the NPRM, except for the format. In the 
NPRM the criteria were shown in an appendix to the SFAR. In this SFAR 
it appears as part of the rule text. Airbus and ICCAIA requested that 
the criteria be simplified. However, they did not propose alternative 
criteria that would justify changing these requirements. The cooktop 
requirements listed in the SFAR are consistent with the numerous 
existing special conditions.

Hand-Held Fire Extinguishers

    In addition to the requirements of Sec.  25.851 for hand-held fire 
extinguishers, paragraph 15 of the NPRM would have required a fire 
extinguisher be installed for every pair of exits originally type 
certificated in the passenger cabin, regardless of whether the exits 
are deactivated for the proposed configuration. As a result of the 
comments received, as discussed below, only airplanes originally type 
certificated with more than 60 passengers need to comply with this 
requirement. The NPRM also proposed that a fire extinguisher be 
installed at every pair of exits originally type certified in the 
passenger cabin, but did not include the 60 passenger discriminator.
    Gulfstream requested removal of this section because it would add 
cost and weight, based on the number of exit pairs on Gulfstream 
airplanes. Airbus, Fokker, Bombardier and ICCAIA proposed alternative 
wording to reflect their understanding of this provision. All commented 
that the language of the SFAR implied that these provisions were added 
to the requirements already contained in Sec.  25.851. They also 
suggested that the installation requirements should not specify the 
location of the extinguishers at exits, but should be general, based on 
the number of exits originally certificated. The commenters requested 
that the SFAR be revised to clarify the quantity required and the 
placement locations.
    We agree that the SFAR as proposed could have unintended 
consequences, and be burdensome to operators and manufacturers of 
transport airplanes. The intent of the SFAR was to ensure that there 
would be an adequate number of fire extinguishers installed on board 
``large'' transport airplanes and that the fire extinguishers would be 
evenly distributed throughout the cabin. The current certification 
requirements are based on passenger capacity, so the larger airplanes 
with greatly reduced passenger counts are not adequately addressed in 
part 25. Thus, there is a need for additional criteria for installation 
of fire extinguishers.
    Based on the comments, we have revised the SFAR to limit by size 
the airplanes affected and to be more flexible, both in terms of 
installation location, and the way the total number of extinguishers is 
determined. This addresses the concerns expressed by Gulfstream 
regarding the effect on transport airplanes, as well as other comments 
suggesting revised wording to be more general. We have made it clear 
that the number of extinguishers is the greater of those required by 
Sec.  25.851, or the number of originally certificated exit pairs. In 
addition, this requirement is now based on an originally certificated 
passenger count of greater than 60, since this is a significant break 
point in Sec.  25.851 in terms of the number of extinguishers required. 
Other provisions of Sec.  25.851 continue to apply.

Design for Security

    Since publication of Notice No. 07-13, the FAA has issued Amendment 
25-127, which addresses security considerations in the design of 
transport category airplanes. This amendment is intended to mitigate 
through design measures some of the security risks faced in aviation. 
As discussed in Amendment 25-127, and the NPRM that preceded it, these 
requirements do not provide the same benefits for airplanes in private 
use. In Amendment 25-127 we noted that this SFAR would exclude the 
``design for security'' requirements for that reason. Therefore, a new 
paragraph 16 is added to the SFAR, that excludes newly adopted Sec.  
25.795 for airplanes approved in accordance with this SFAR.

Other Subjects

    Gulfstream expressed their desire that this rulemaking be 
harmonized with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) rulemaking 
initiatives, and suggests that a harmonization effort be started. They 
noted that such harmonization helps minimize certification costs. We 
have kept EASA apprised of this rulemaking and will continue to do so. 
We agree that, whenever possible, harmonized requirements benefit all 
parties. At this time, however, there are no formal harmonization 
initiatives on this subject. We will work with EASA and other 
authorities to assist with any rulemaking they choose to promulgate.
    Boeing proposed that part 91 be amended to prohibit operations for 
hire, rather than requiring a limitation in the AFM. An amendment to 
part 91 is beyond the scope of the NPRM, and is more far-reaching than 
the limitation included in this SFAR. The AFM limitation is consistent 
with other limitations on operation and addresses the specific 
regulatory provisions modified by this SFAR.
    Boeing and ICCAIA suggested that a new section be written to 
address the use of glass in the cabin, for features such as partitions 
panels. This use of glass is uncommon and not a longstanding practice. 
In any case, criteria for approval of glass panels in the cabin is 
beyond the scope of the NPRM, and would require a separate

[[Page 21540]]

notice and comment to establish criteria.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 
CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the 
collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection 
requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
The OMB control number for this information collection will be 
published in the Federal Register, after Office of Management and 
Budget approval.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small 
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. 
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of 
the economic impacts of this SFAR.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this SFAR. The reasoning for 
this determination follows:
    This SFAR establishes FAA rulemaking requirements for certifying 
cabin interiors for transport category private use airplanes. These 
requirements are voluntary and may be used instead of the existing 
requirements that are primarily designed for airplanes used in 
scheduled airline service. The purpose of the rule is to reduce time 
and costs for people certifying cabins for transport category private 
use airplanes. The regulatory evaluation prepared for the NPRM 
indicated that a typical certification under this SFAR might save the 
airplane purchaser four months and $725,000 per exemption, compared to 
existing certification procedures. The completion center would accrue 
savings of approximately $100,000 per airplane per exemption, and the 
FAA would accrue savings of approximately $6,000 per airplane per 
exemption. This results in approximately $725,000 plus $100,000 plus 
$6,000 in savings, for a total of $831,000 per airplane per exemption.
    No comments were received on the NPRM regulatory summary statement. 
However, changes were made to the proposed rule as a result of comments 
received on the NPRM that affected the regulatory summary statement. 
These changes provided even more cost relief than those identified for 
the proposed rule.
    From an economic standpoint, the most important changes were:
    1. Flight Attendant Requirement. This SFAR requires a flight 
attendant only for those airplanes with interior doors that were 
initially type certificated with 75 or more passengers. The NPRM 
proposed that a flight attendant be required when interior doors are 
installed for passenger seating arrangements of 10 or more.
    2. Operation of an airplane certified in accordance with this SFAR 
in part 135 service is not prohibited by this SFAR, provided that the 
airplane meets all part 135 requirements when operated under part 135.
    The expected outcome of this SFAR will be a minimal economic impact 
with positive net benefits. Therefore, a full regulatory evaluation was 
not prepared.
    FAA has, therefore, determined that this SFAR is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the 
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the 
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    The NPRM concluded that the proposal would have no adverse impact 
on small business entities. As in the case of the NPRM, this SFAR 
provides a voluntary alternate means of certifying the cabin interior 
for private use transport category airplanes. No comments were received 
on the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in the NPRM. Therefore, as the 
acting FAA Administrator, I certify that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related 
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign

[[Page 21541]]

commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as 
safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of this SFAR and notes the rule is 
voluntary and cost-relieving, thus is not considered an unnecessary 
obstacle to trade.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100 
million. This SFAR does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the 
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this SFAR under the principles and criteria of 
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will 
not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship 
between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
3213) requires the FAA, when modifying its regulations in a manner 
affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent to 
which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation, 
and to establish appropriate regulatory distinction. In the NPRM, we 
requested comments on whether the proposed rule should apply 
differently to intrastate operations in Alaska. We did not receive any 
comments, and we have determined, based on the administrative record of 
this rulemaking, that there is no need to make any regulatory 
distinctions applicable to intrastate aviation in Alaska.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this SFAR under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not 
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, 
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this 
rulemaking.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
https://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question 
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or 
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at 
the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on 
the Internet at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration 
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS--TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704.


0
2. In part 25, add SFAR No.109 to read as follows:

Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 109

    1. Applicability. Contrary provisions of 14 CFR parts 21, 25, and 
119 of this chapter notwithstanding, an applicant is entitled to an 
amended type certificate or supplemental type certificate in the 
transport category, if the applicant complies with all applicable 
provisions of this SFAR.

Operations

    2. General.
    (a) The passenger capacity may not exceed 60. If more than 60 
passenger seats are installed, then:
    (1) If the extra seats are not suitable for occupancy during taxi, 
takeoff and landing, each extra seat must be clearly marked (e.g., a 
placard on the top of an armrest, or a placard sewn into the top of the 
back cushion) that the seat is not to be occupied during taxi, takeoff 
and landing.
    (2) If the extra seats are suitable for occupancy during taxi, 
takeoff and landing (i.e., meet all the strength and passenger injury 
criteria in part 25), th