62778 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 25 and 121 

[Docket No. FAA–2004–19412, Amendment 

Nos. 25–116 and 121–306] 

RIN 2120–AF77 

Miscellaneous Cabin Safety Changes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action amends the 

airworthiness standards for transport 

category airplanes relating to flight 

attendant assist spaces and handles, 

door hold-open features, outside 

viewing means, interior compartment 

doors, and portable oxygen equipment. 

It also amends the operating 

requirements for domestic, flag, and 

supplemental operations. These 

amendments are part of the Agency’s 

continuing effort to upgrade the 

regulations to improve the overall level 

of safety in areas where the state-of-theart and good design practice have 

indicated that such upgrades are 

warranted. One of the changes also 

responds to a National Transportation 

Safety Board recommendation. These 

amendments result in both new type 

design regulations as well as retrofit 

requirements. In addition, several 

editorial changes were adopted.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 26, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Gardlin, Airframe and Cabin Safety 

Branch, ANM–115, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, Washington 98055–4056; 

telephone (425) 227–2136.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

(Note: The FAA transitioned to the new 

Department of Transportation’s Docket 

Management System (DMS) during the 

course of this rulemaking. At earlier stages of 

the rulemaking, the docket number was 

‘‘28637.’’ Under the new DMS, the docket 

number is FAA–2004–19412.)

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by: 

(1) Searching the DOTs electronic 

DMS Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/

search); 

(2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking’s 

Web page at http://faa.gov/avr/arm/

index.cfm; or 

(3) Assessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/

aces140.html.

You can also get a copy by submitting 

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

publication on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70, Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://dms.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. 

Therefore, any small entity that has a 

question regarding this document may 

contact their local FAA official, or the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out 

more about SBREFA on the Internet at 

our site, http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/

sbrefa.htm. For more information on 

SBREFA, e-mail us at 9–AWA–

SBREFA@faa.gov.

Background 

These amendments are based on 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 

Notice No. 96–9, which was published 

in the Federal Register on July 24, 1996 

(61 FR 38552). The notice proposed to 

upgrade several cabin safety 

requirements, relating to flight attendant 

assist spaces and handles, door holdopen features, outside viewing means, 

interior compartment doors, and 

portable oxygen equipment. These 

proposals were intended to take 

advantage of the state-of-the-art, as well 

as common design practice. One of the 

proposals responds to a National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

recommendation. 

For some time, the FAA has worked 

to achieve harmonization on its 

rulemaking with the Joint Aviation 

Authorities (JAA) (recently changed to 

the European Aviation Safety Agency) 

and other airworthiness authorities 

through the Aviation Rulemaking 

Advisory Committee (ARAC) and its 

harmonization working groups. 

Although this rulemaking project has 

not been the subject of a harmonization 

working group activity, because it was 

initiated prior to the time harmonization 

became a high priority with the FAA 

and JAA, comments received from the 

JAA members were addressed in this 

final rule. 

As indicated in Notice No. 96–9, the 

FAA amended 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 25 pertaining to 

cabin safety and crashworthiness 

following accidents experienced in the 

1960’s (Amendment No. 25–15, 32 FR 

13255, September 20, 1967; Amendment 

No. 25–17, 33 FR 9065, June 20, 1968; 

Amendment No. 25–20, 34 FR 5543, 

March 22, 1969; and Amendment No. 

25–32, 37 FR 3964, February 15, 1972). 

These amendments were designed to 

correct certain deficiencies identified 

during the accident investigations, and, 

in many cases, were retrofit on airplanes 

already in service. More recent 

amendments (Amendment No. 25–59, 

49 FR 43188, October 26, 1984; 

Amendment No. 25–64, 53 FR 17640, 

May 17, 1988; and Amendment No. 25–

76, 57 FR 19220, May 4, 1992) 

pertaining to cabin safety, such as seat 

cushion flammability, dynamic testing 

standards for seats and improved access 

to Type III emergency exits, have 

resulted from specific research and 

development. These amendments are 

deemed necessary and appropriate by 

the FAA considering the current stateof-the-art and existing design practice. 

Although nearly all existing 

installations already comply, these 

amendments will ensure that any others 

comply as well.

Discussion of Amendment to Parts 25 

and 121 

Flight Attendant Assist Space 

Section 25.813 requires that each nonoverwing exit equipped with an assist 

means have adequate space next to the 

exit for a flight attendant to stand and 

assist occupants while evacuating. The 

size of this ‘‘assist space’’ is not 

specified in the regulations. Guidance 

material in Civil Aeronautics Manual 

(CAM) 4b.362–6(b) states that the assist 

space should be a 12x20-inch rectangle 

on the floor and be useable. A rectangle 

of this size is generally recognized as 

the minimum size acceptable for 

compliance with § 25.813 or its 

predecessor § 4b.362(g) of the Civil Air 

Regulations (CAR). Deviations have 

been permitted if the efficacy of the 

assist space is demonstrated. 

Demonstrations of a smaller or 

irregular shaped assist space usually 

take place in controlled evacuation tests 

conducted under conditions similar to 

those specified in Appendix J to part 25 

for emergency evacuation 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 62779

demonstrations. While these 

demonstrations have value, they do not 

account for the potentially adverse 

conditions likely to be encountered in 

service. Notice No. 96–9 proposed a 

minimum size for assist spaces to 

provide more standardized application 

of the requirement and give additional 

margins of safety under adverse 

conditions which may be encountered 

in service. 

Service experience, both in tests and 

actual incidents, indicates that the assist 

space recommended in CAM 4b.362–

6(b) is adequate; therefore, the NPRM 

proposed that the assist space be a 

minimum of 12x20-inches rectangle on 

the floor with the 12-inch dimension 

essentially parallel to the exit opening. 

The location of the assist space relative 

to the exit opening is not specified since 

the best location may vary from one 

installation to another. In any case, the 

assist space should be located to 

provide the maximum benefit to 

evacuation. The minimum dimensions 

specified assumed that a flight attendant 

would be able to stand upright. 

Installations which do not provide 

adequate headroom to enable a 95th 

percentile male to stand upright would 

probably need an increase in the fore 

and aft dimension of the assist space to 

provide the same level of efficacy as a 

full height installation. (Information on 

anthropometry can be found in NASA 

reference publication 1024, 

Anthropometric Source Book Volume I, 

Anthropometry for Designers.) The 

amount of increase required in these 

instances would be dependent on the 

details of the installation and would not 

be specified in the regulations. Since 

issuing the NPRM, the FAA has seen 

improved standardization in assist 

space configurations and dimensions 

during certification. Since the NPRM 

contained several explanatory 

statements on the purpose of the assist 

space, it is possible that this information 

contributed to reduced standardization 

problems. Given that one of the main 

objectives of the proposal was to 

improve standardization and that a 

prescriptive requirement is generally 

not preferred where alternatives are 

possible, the FAA is withdrawing this 

portion of the proposal, and retaining 

the requirement that the assist space be 

a rectangle with dimensions that are 

‘‘adequate.’’ The current guidance in 

Advisory Circular 25–17 regarding the 

acceptability of a 12x20-inch rectangle 

will be retained. Recent experience has 

shown that this approach is acceptable 

and that standardization can be 

achieved, while allowing some 

flexibility in specific demonstrations of 

compliance. 

The assist space requirement applies 

to all larger exit types (i.e., Types I, II, 

A, B and C), regardless of whether they 

are over the wing. Except for Type A 

exits, assist spaces have not been 

required for exits over the wing. The 

need for an assist space over the wing 

is dependent primarily on the presence 

of an assist means where the rate of 

egress is critical. Future airplane 

designs may make the installation of 

overwing floor level (other than Type A) 

exits an attractive option and they are 

accounted for here. In addition, current 

regulations only require an assist space 

for the larger exits when there is also an 

assist means required. For airplanes of 

relatively small passenger capacity, 

service experience indicates that this is 

a reasonable standard. However, for 

airplanes with a larger passenger 

capacity, an assist space should be 

required, whether or not an assist means 

is required. Therefore, this amendment 

also requires an assist space at all Type 

II or larger exits on airplanes with a 

passenger capacity of 80 or greater. This 

includes tailcone exits that are qualified 

for 25 additional passenger seats under 

the provisions of § 25.807(g)(9)(ii) and 

are required by § 25.810(a) to have such 

assist means, since these can become 

primary exits under certain evacuation 

scenarios and will require the assistance 

of a flight attendant to perform at their 

potential. This amendment also corrects 

a long-standing editorial error in part 

121, that states that assist spaces are 

required at all Type I or II exits, 

regardless of whether or not an assist 

means is installed and regardless of 

passenger capacity. This amendment 

adds the words ‘‘equipped with an 

assist means’’ to the existing text in 

§ 121.310(f)(2), to make it clear that an 

assist space is only required in certain 

cases. 

Conversely, the regulations previously 

required an assist space for non-floor 

level, non-overwing exits that 

incorporate an assist means. There is at 

present one airplane with exits that fall 

into this category. Given the design 

difficulties presented by such a design, 

the prospects for such exits in the future 

do not seem likely. Furthermore the 

appropriateness of the current standards 

for such exits appears questionable (the 

one example currently in existence was 

approved by special conditions). This 

provision in the regulations is removed 

by this amendment. In the unlikely 

event a design of this nature were ever 

proposed, the FAA would develop 

criteria appropriate for that design in 

the form of special conditions. 

Most existing installations currently 

comply with this requirement, however, 

for the few that do not, the economic 

penalty for retrofit compliance would be 

quite high. It is also difficult to quantify 

the benefit that might be gained from 

reconfiguring airplanes already 

manufactured and placed in service to 

comply with this amendment; therefore, 

no retrofit action was proposed. For 

newly manufactured airplanes, 

§ 121.310(f)(2) is amended to require 

that the assist spaces of all airplanes 

manufactured 4 years after the effective 

date of this amendment comply with 

these criteria. As is discussed later, in 

the compliance time section, the 

compliance date was changed from 2 

years to 4 years based on comments 

received. 

Flight Attendant Assist Handles 

One common design feature of large 

transport airplanes has been assist 

handles to enable flight attendants to 

steady themselves while assisting 

passengers in evacuating. The assist 

handle can be crucial in permitting the 

flight attendant to perform his or her 

duties efficiently. This, in turn, can 

have a direct bearing on the success of 

an emergency evacuation. Prior to this 

amendment, there was no requirement 

for assist handles although most, if not 

all, installations incorporate them. 

Although an assist handle may not 

always be necessary due to the 

unpredictable nature of an emergency 

evacuation, it is a valuable tool that 

should be available to the flight 

attendant when it is needed. In 

addition, the assist handle is an integral 

part of flight attendant training. The 

addition of the requirement in part 25 

would eliminate incompatibilities 

between the type design and operational 

requirements.

In some cases a handle designed to 

provide the flight attendant with 

leverage when opening, or more 

commonly, closing passenger and 

service doors is installed. Often, this 

handle is not located at the designated 

assist space. Service experience has 

shown that the presence of the handle 

at another location can mislead a flight 

attendant into standing in a location 

that could obstruct the required 

passageway. The FAA has addressed 

such installations specifically. Service 

experience also indicates that there is a 

need for assist handles to enable flight 

attendants to steady themselves while 

actuating the manual inflation handle 

on escape slides. The manual handle is 

located on the doorsill, and essentially 

requires the attendant to straddle the 

door opening when pulling the handle. 

The attendant is quite vulnerable to the 

62780 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

possibility of being pushed out of the 

exit. The FAA expects that it will be 

possible for one handle to serve both 

required purposes (i.e., emergency 

evacuation and assist means activation) 

at a given location; however, two 

different handles might be needed at the 

same exit in some instances. The assist 

handle(s) should be usable by the range 

of flight attendants encompassing the 

5th percentile female to the 95th 

percentile male. 

This amendment requires that assist 

handles be installed at the designated 

assist space for all floor level exits that 

require an assist space. In addition, a 

companion change to § 121.310(l) is 

applicable to newly manufactured 

airplanes entering the fleet, and requires 

a retrofit of the existing in-service fleet. 

A 3-year compliance period is adopted. 

Outside Viewing Means 

Emergency evacuations are frequently 

necessary either due to, or in 

combination with, a hazard such as a 

fire outside the airplane. Because the 

hazard may pose an immediate threat to 

the occupants of the airplane, it is often 

necessary to avoid opening certain 

otherwise useable emergency exits in 

order to prevent injury to the evacuees. 

In this context, a viewing window or 

other means of assessing the outside 

conditions and determining whether an 

exit should be opened is extremely 

valuable. A viewing window is 

commonly provided in most exits in 

service; however, it has not been 

required, and some exits in service do 

not incorporate one. This amendment 

requires a means (for example, either a 

window in the exit itself, or in an 

adjacent frame bay) that provides a view 

of the ground area where evacuees will 

make contact upon leaving the airplane 

in an emergency evacuation. 

The means should provide visibility 

taking into account all conditions of 

landing gear collapse and, since 

evacuations can take place at night, 

outside illumination conditions. The 

issue of exterior illumination was not 

explicitly discussed in the NPRM, nor 

were any comments received on this 

subject. The fact that there were no 

comments may indicate that it is 

generally understood that the viewing 

means needs to be available in 

conditions of darkness. However, in the 

interests of clarity, the rule language is 

amended to include the phrase ‘‘under 

all lighting conditions.’’ In the context 

of devices intended to be used in an 

emergency, the viewing means would 

clearly have limited utility if it were 

only available in the daylight. Exterior 

emergency lighting is an explicit 

requirement of § 25.812 to address 

evacuation in darkness. The FAA 

therefore regards this clarification as a 

nonsubstantive change that will help 

standardize application of the rule. 

Details such as size and prismatic 

characteristics of the viewing means are 

not specified. The FAA considers that 

sufficient design latitude should be 

available to permit several acceptable 

concepts. The viewing means would be 

required to be available to a person 

preparing to open an exit. Thus, if a 

window were in an adjacent frame bay, 

there could not be a partition or divider 

between the exit and the window to 

meet the intent of the requirement. For 

some exits, two windows might be 

installed at each exit in order to provide 

sufficient viewing coverage. In terms of 

exterior illumination, there is no 

specific minimum illumination level 

requirement, although the emergency 

lighting system could be used to provide 

visibility of the area of ground contact, 

as well as any other interior or exterior 

lights that would be available in an 

emergency. 

The viewing requirement applies only 

to airplanes for which an application for 

type certificate is made after the 

effective date. Due to the technical 

difficulties and resultant cost of 

modifying existing airplanes, no retrofit 

requirement is included. 

Exit Hold-Open Feature 

Also important is the capability of an 

exit to remain open during an 

evacuation without threat of premature 

closing. Adverse altitude, wind or 

contact by evacuating passengers could 

cause an unsecured door to close during 

an evacuation, and jeopardize the safety 

of subsequent passengers. Most 

passenger emergency exits currently 

incorporate a feature, which holds the 

door open and requires a positive action 

to disengage. This amendment requires 

a means to prevent an emergency exit 

from inadvertently closing once it has 

been opened in an emergency. The 

means must automatically engage when 

the exit is opened and require positive 

action to disengage. As discussed in the 

notice, a removable hatch would be 

considered to comply, by definition, as 

would exits hinged on the bottom. This 

latter type of exit is covered further in 

the Discussion of Comments section. 

This requirement amends § 25.809 for 

new type certificates and creates a new 

§ 121.310(l), which would require that 

transport category airplanes (the 

applicability to transport category 

airplanes was inadvertently omitted in 

the notice and, in light of other, 

subsequent changes to part 121, is 

restored in the final rule to make the 

intent clear) in service after a date 2 

years after the effective date of the 

amendment comply with the provisions 

of the part 25 requirement, and 

redesignate existing paragraph (l) as a 

new paragraph (n).

Interior Doors 

Following accident experience in the 

1960’s the FAA amended part 25, in 

Amendment 25–15, to prohibit the 

installation of doors ‘‘between passenger 

compartments.’’ At the time of the 

amendment, it was common practice to 

divide the first class and tourist class 

cabins with a solid door. It was 

determined in the course of accident 

investigations that this door could be 

detrimental in evacuation of passengers, 

who tended not to recognize that there 

was an exit beyond the door, even if it 

were the closest available. The resulting 

regulatory change was geared 

specifically at preventing this 

occurrence. However, the regulation 

was worded such that doors may be 

installed between passengers and exits 

provided there are not passengers on 

both sides of the door. For example, a 

door could be installed across the main 

passenger aisle at the end of a cabin. 

The regulations only required that the 

door be open for takeoff and landing. It 

is now considered undesirable to permit 

the installation of a door between any 

passenger and an exit. Should such a 

door (either through omission or 

mechanical failure) become jammed in 

the event of an emergency evacuation, 

persons could be prevented or delayed 

in evacuating which could result in 

fatalities or injuries that would not 

otherwise have occurred. The hazards 

associated with a jammed door are still 

present whether or not passengers are 

on both sides of the door, and the 

recognition factor has not been 

mitigated. Either could result in the 

same consequences—failure of some 

passengers to evacuate the airplane. 

This amendment prohibits the 

installation of any door between any 

passenger and any passenger emergency 

exit. This would include prohibiting 

doors that close off galley areas that 

serve as passageways or crossaisles, 

doors across emergency exits (frequently 

used on ‘‘VIP’’ airplanes), and doors 

into rooms that are occupiable for 

takeoff and landing. This would also 

include prohibiting a door across one of 

the aisles on a multi-aisle airplane, 

since this closes off the most direct 

route to an exit for some of the 

passengers. 

In the past there has been 

considerable discussion regarding what 

constituted a ‘‘door.’’ One common 

proposal has been to install a fabric 

diaphragm bounded by a metal frame, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 62781

which is movable, usually much like a 

pocket door. This type of installation 

has been accepted provided the frame 

provides no more resistance to a person 

passing through it than a normal curtain 

tie back. Such installations do, however, 

create the same recognition problem as 

do ‘‘solid’’ doors and would no longer 

be acceptable. 

The change to § 25.813(e) applies to 

all transport category airplanes for 

which an application for type certificate 

is made after the effective date 

regardless of whether they are used in 

air carrier service. Section 25.813(e) 

prohibits doors between passengers and 

emergency exits whereas § 25.813(f) 

now deals only with doors between 

crewmembers (outside the flightdeck) 

and emergency exits and is amended 

accordingly. Language in paragraph (f) 

requiring the door latching means to 

withstand the inertia loads of 

§ 25.561(b) was inadvertently left out of 

the notice. Since this was purely an 

editorial error, and does not increase the 

burden of compliance beyond what it is 

currently, the language is restored in the 

final rule. In addition, § 121.310(f)(6) 

would make the new standards 

applicable to all other transport category 

airplanes, operated under that part, 2 

years after the effective date of this 

amendment. 

These requirements are not required 

to be retrofit to non air-carrier 

operations, e.g., private use airplanes 

where the number of passengers 

involved is much smaller and there has 

been no demonstrated unsafe condition. 

For reasons discussed below, the 

requirement as it relates to other than 

commercial operations is being 

reconsidered, and may ultimately result 

in additional rulemaking. 

Portable Oxygen Equipment 

Finally, this amendment requires that 

oxygen masks intended for portable 

oxygen equipment be connected to that 

equipment. This amendment follows 

NTSB Safety Recommendation No. A–

90–54. During the decompression 

experienced in the February 1989 

United Airlines Flight 811 accident, the 

NTSB determined that flight attendants 

had difficulty in using the portable 

oxygen bottles. These bottles are 

intended to enable them to move about 

the cabin, with an adequate oxygen 

supply, after decompression. The 

oxygen masks were not connected to the 

dispensing terminal of the oxygen 

bottle, thus requiring an additional 

action by the flight attendant before the 

unit was useable. The NTSB 

recommended that all such masks be 

connected to the oxygen supply, to 

minimize the time and dexterity 

necessary for flight attendants to don 

and use the portable oxygen. The FAA 

agrees with this recommendation, and 

therefore amends § 25.1447(c)(4) 

accordingly. In addition, a companion 

change is made to § 121.333(d), with a 

1-year compliance time. 

A 1-year compliance time is chosen in 

this case because the modification 

required is a simple connection of the 

oxygen mask to the supply bottle. This 

can be done on an overnight visit, or 

any short interval maintenance visit. 

One year is considered more than 

enough time to achieve compliance.

Compliance Time 

The following table summarizes the 

part 121 compliance times.

PART 121 COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

Subject New aircraft Existing aircraft 

Assist space at Type II or larger exits on airplanes with 

passenger capacity of 80 or greater.

Airplanes manufactured after November 26, 2008 ......... Not required. 

Assist handle where assist space is required .................. Airplanes manufactured after November 26, 2007 ......... November 26, 2007. 

Outside viewing means at all exits ................................... All type certificate applications made after November 

26, 2004.

Not required. 

Exit hold open feature ...................................................... Airplanes manufactured after November 26, 2007 ......... Not required. 

Prohibition of interior doors (between passengers and 

emergency exits).

Airplanes manufactured after November 27, 2006 ......... Not required. 

Portable oxygen equipment (connection of oxygen 

masks).

Airplanes manufactured after November 28, 2005 ......... November 28, 2005. 

Editorial Changes 

The ambiguity in the provisions of 

§ 25.853(f) concerning ashtrays has been 

removed by requiring that all seated 

occupants in designated smoking areas 

are provided with ashtrays. Since 

designated smoking areas can vary from 

flight to flight, an adequate number of 

ashtrays would need to be installed at 

delivery to account for the largest 

smoking section anticipated by the 

airline. Alternatively, the size of the 

smoking section would be limited by 

the number and location of the ashtrays. 

Prior to this amendment, the 

introductory phrase in § 25.855 stated: 

‘‘For each cargo and baggage 

compartment not occupied by crew or 

passengers, the following apply.’’ It has 

been brought to the attention of the FAA 

that this phrase may also cause 

confusion. By definition, some 

compartments must be accessible to 

crewmembers to fight fires in flight; 

therefore, the exception made by the 

introductory phrase cannot (and has not 

been interpreted to) apply to 

compartments that are only occupied 

occasionally by crew or passengers. 

Furthermore, crew and passengers are 

not permitted to be seated or stationed 

on a full-time basis in cargo or baggage 

compartments. Since the exception does 

not apply to occasional occupancy and 

since crew and passengers do not 

occupy cargo or baggage compartments 

in flight on a full-time basis, the 

exception made in the phrase has no 

applicability. Using the present wording 

of the introductory phrase, it was 

alleged, in at least one instance, that the 

standards of § 25.855 did not apply 

because the cockpit was part of the 

cargo or baggage compartment. That 

allegation was unfounded because, 

regardless of the degree or method of 

separation, the cockpit can not be 

considered part of a cargo or baggage 

compartment. Nevertheless, it does 

show that the phrase can easily be 

misinterpreted. Since the exception has 

no applicability and may cause 

confusion, the introductory phrase is 

reworded to simply state, ‘‘For each 

cargo or baggage compartment, the 

following apply.’’ This is a 

nonsubstantive change that places no 

additional burden on any person.

Finally, as a result of the extensive 

changes to part 25 adopted in 

Amendment 25–72, many referenced 

sections were changed. Some of the 

previous references were inadvertently 

retained, however, and are no longer 

correct. Therefore, the FAA has 

corrected these references to correspond 

to the current structure of part 25. These 

changes are purely editorial in nature 

62782 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

and affect §§ 25.812(g)(1)(ii), 

25.812(g)(2), 25.812(h), and 25.1411(c). 

Discussion of Comments 

Comments were received from 19 

parties, including foreign and domestic 

airplane manufacturers, labor 

associations, foreign and domestic 

operators, foreign regulatory authorities, 

and the NTSB. Each proposed change 

received comments. Five commenters 

support the proposals as written. Four 

other commenters agree with specific 

aspects of the proposal, and did not 

comment on others. Ten commenters 

disagree with at least parts of the 

proposal, with one commenter opposing 

any changes to part 121. 

Flight Attendant Assist Space 

Five commenters support the 

proposal and five commenters oppose 

all or parts of it. 

Comment: One commenter suggests 

additional rulemaking to require an 

assist space when the sill height of the 

exit is greater than 3 feet (versus the 

current requirement for an assist space 

when the exit sill height is 6 feet above 

the ground and requires an assist 

means). The commenter feels that an 

assist space is also necessary for exit sill 

heights between 3 and 6 feet. 

Response: The FAA has not 

considered another sill height when 

specifying the requirement for an assist 

space but, rather, the number of 

passengers on board. In this case, an 

assist space is required for airplanes of 

more than 80 passengers, regardless of 

the sill height. For passenger capacities 

of 80 or less, the ratios of passengers to 

exits are decreased; the FAA believes 

that the presence of an assist means 

should govern the requirement for an 

assist space in smaller airplanes. No 

change is made to the final rule. 

Comment: Another commenter, 

representing certain domestic airlines, 

while not opposed to the assist space 

requirement, is concerned about the 

impact it might have. The commenter 

contends that any deficiencies would be 

uncovered by evacuation 

demonstrations. In addition, the 

commenter contends that a detailed 

analysis of the potential impact has not 

been made. 

Response: As discussed in the notice, 

the FAA does not agree that typical 

evacuation demonstrations would 

necessarily reveal deficiencies in assist 

space dimensions. With respect to the 

impact of the requirement, as discussed 

later, this is not anticipated to be 

significant, given that there is no retrofit 

application. 

Comment: A commenter representing 

domestic airframe manufacturers 

disagrees that the change to the assist 

space requirement was necessary, and 

also states that evacuation 

demonstrations are adequate to identify 

deficiencies. This commenter considers 

the change an expansion of the existing 

requirements in that, on some 

installations, it is not currently possible 

for the 95th percentile male to stand 

upright while using the assist space. 

The commenter questions whether the 

assist space is evaluated with the exit 

open or closed, and whether the assist 

space is a 12x20-inch rectangular solid, 

from the floor to the height of a 95th 

percentile male, or whether it may be 

‘‘the 95th percentile male humanoid 

shape.’’ The commenter states that the 

proposal does not adequately define the 

total envelope of the assist space and 

will lead to increased costs as specific 

installations are negotiated further. In 

addition, the commenter states that 

incorporation of the requirement into 

part 121 will render some current 

configurations (presumably still being 

produced 2 years after the effective date 

of the regulation) unacceptable. The 

costs of compliance for these 

configurations will involve galley 

redesign, flight attendant seat 

relocation, and possible loss of revenue 

seats, according to the commenter. This 

would require an operator to have two 

different interior arrangements on the 

same airplane type. 

Response: As noted previously, the 

FAA has determined that specifying the 

dimensions of the assist space in the 

rule is not necessary. However, the 

intent of the proposal was to quantify 

something that has been a basic design 

practice over 30 years, and eliminate 

those few instances where a reduced 

size assist space may have been 

approved on the basis of ‘‘no observed 

problems’’ in an evacuation 

demonstration. The proposal would not 

have changed how the assist space is 

measured, once established. Since the 

assist space is only meaningful with the 

exit open, it would of course, continue 

to be determined in that condition. 

Small incursions into the vertical 

projection of the otherwise rectangular 

assist space will continue to be 

acceptable, provided that they are not a 

hazard, and do not adversely influence 

the efficacy of the assist space. The need 

for the assist space to be full-height is 

noted in Advisory Circular 25–17, page 

723, paragraph 411. The AC notes that 

it is necessary to provide additional 

space if it is not possible to stand 

upright. With respect to current designs, 

only a few designs do not already 

comply with these criteria. Since the 

prescriptive dimensional requirements 

are being withdrawn, the remainder of 

the commenters concerns are obviated.

Comment: A foreign manufacturer 

also comments on the potential for the 

assist space requirement to influence 

revenue seating. The commenter also 

objects to the need for an increase in the 

fore and aft dimension of the assist 

space when adequate headroom is not 

provided. This commenter, as well as 

another commenter representing foreign 

airworthiness authorities, suggests that 

the requirement that the 12-inch 

dimension of the assist space be parallel 

to the exit is too restrictive, and may not 

be practical when the exit is located in 

the tapered section of the fuselage. Both 

commenters suggest that the 12-inch 

dimension be parallel to the aircraft 

centerline. 

Response: The FAA agrees that the 

proposal was too restrictive. It was not 

our intent to propose precise 

measurements to ascertain whether the 

assist space was, in fact, parallel to the 

exit. By the same token, such 

measurements would not be expected to 

ascertain that the assist space is parallel 

to the airplane centerline. The assist 

space should generally be oriented with 

the 12-inch dimension along the length 

of the airplane, although since the exact 

dimensions are not specified in the rule, 

this information will become advisory 

material. Generally speaking, the assist 

space is expected to be oriented at an 

angle somewhere between parallel to 

the exit and parallel to the airplane 

centerline, which is no different than 

current practice. This allows sufficient 

latitude in identifying the assist space. 

With respect to additional fore and aft 

space, this has long been the 

requirement, as discussed previously. 

Comment: Another foreign 

manufacturer also states that the 

requirement for an assist space based on 

passenger capacity, and not the 

presence of an assist means is highly 

detrimental to small transports. The 

commenter suggests that the 

requirement will force installation of 

Type III exits, where Type II exits might 

have been used. 

Response: On November 8, 1996, the 

FAA published Amendment No. 25–88, 

which adopted a new means of 

determining passenger capacity and 

introduced two new exit types (61 FR 

57946, November 8, 1996). In this final 

rule, we are adopting a change to 

§ 25.813(b)(3) to require an assist space 

for airplanes with ‘‘more than 80 

passengers’’ rather than ‘‘79 or more 

passengers’’ as stated in the proposal. 

While this change does not entirely 

address the commenter’s concern, 

airplanes with one pair of Type I exits 

and one pair of Type III exits are not 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 62783

affected, unless the exit sill heights are 

greater than 6 feet from the ground. 

Airplanes incorporating more pairs of 

exits, or larger exits, should incorporate 

an assist space for the reasons discussed 

in the notice. It should also be noted 

that the exit type is based on the 

configuration of the interior, as well as 

the physical dimensions of the opening 

in the fuselage. An exit dimensionally 

equivalent to a Type II exit would 

become a Type III exit, irrespective of 

the size of the opening if an assist space 

were not provided; the maximum 

allowable passenger capacity would be 

reduced accordingly. Therefore, this 

requirement should not inhibit 

installation of larger than required exits. 

Comment: One commenter also 

proposes an additional requirement, for 

exits at the end of a cabin, that the assist 

space be oriented so that the flight 

attendant would face passengers as they 

approach the exit. 

Response: In general, the FAA agrees 

that having the flight attendant face 

passengers as they approach the exit can 

only be beneficial. While this is a 

desirable goal, the FAA does not believe 

it is feasible to mandate the location of 

the assist space to this degree. For the 

orientation of the assist space to make 

a difference, it would be necessary for 

the flight attendant to be able to see 

along the aisles, from the assist space, 

as passengers approach. The regulations 

do not currently require this, nor was it 

proposed in the notice. Therefore, such 

a requirement is beyond the scope of the 

notice. 

Flight Attendant Assist Handles 

Ten commenters address the 

proposed requirement for flight 

attendant assist handles. Six of the 

commenters support the proposal, with 

one of those commenters suggesting an 

editorial change. 

Comment: Two commenters accept 

the proposal with respect to new type 

design, but question the incorporation 

on existing and newly manufactured 

airplanes. One commenter requests that 

the compliance time be extended from 

2 to 4 years, while the other commenter 

proposes that the requirement be 

limited to new type design only. Both 

commenters cite the costs of 

modifications for those airplanes that do 

not already comply, and assert that 

there are many such airplanes. In 

addition, one commenter indicates that 

it is not known which airplanes 

currently comply and operators will 

have to wait for manufacturers’ service 

bulletins in order to make necessary 

modifications, which will require 

additional compliance time. 

Response: The FAA agrees that the 

time for compliance may not be 

adequate in some cases. In particular, 

the need to address the two functions of 

the handle(s) on a retrofit basis is 

potentially much more difficult than for 

a new design. In order to address both 

the time for compliance and the 

potential complexity and associated cost 

of extensive retrofit, the final rule 

separates the requirement for a handle 

to assist the flight attendant while 

conducting an evacuation and the 

requirement for a handle to enable the 

flight attendant to steady himself or 

herself when actuating the assist means 

manually. The latter requirement will 

not apply to the existing fleet. In 

addition, 3 years are allowed for 

compliance, both for newly 

manufactured airplanes and the existing 

fleet, to install an assist handle to aid in 

evacuation. Due to other editorial 

changes in this section, the requirement 

will be added in § 25.813(b)(6).

Comment: Several commenters 

question the applicability of the 

proposed requirement under various 

scenarios. Some commenters ask 

whether the handle was required when 

there is no assist means required. 

Response: To the extent that an assist 

space is required, an assist handle is 

also required. If there is no assist means, 

the purpose of the handle would only be 

to facilitate evacuation. Also, if the 

assist means had no manual activation 

mechanism, such as with some airstair 

doors, the handle would also only be 

necessary to facilitate evacuation. To 

make this clear, the phrase ‘‘where 

applicable’’ is added after ‘‘assist 

means’’ in § 25.813(b)(6). Assist means 

that are not otherwise required, but are 

provided (such as certain integral 

airstairs), would not require an assist 

handle unless an assist space was 

otherwise required because of passenger 

capacity. 

Comment: Commenters also question 

whether the assist handle can intrude 

into the 12x20-inch assist space vertical 

projection. 

Response: To the extent that the assist 

handle performs it’s function while the 

flight attendant occupies the assist 

space, the small amount of intrusion 

into the assist space that might be 

necessary is considered 

inconsequential. In fact, the handle 

could be considered part of the assist 

space. No change to the regulation is 

necessary. 

Comment: One commenter also notes 

that there are assist spaces that are not 

located at the exit sill, and the proposal 

appears to be geared toward those that 

are. The commenter asserts that the 

handle would not appear to provide a 

benefit when the assist space is away 

from the exit sill. 

Response: The FAA does not agree. 

The purpose of the assist handle is to 

provide a steadying means for the flight 

attendant, during an evacuation, where 

the flight attendant is affecting the flow 

through an exit. Whether or not the 

assist space is at the exit sill, the need 

for the flight attendant to gain leverage 

still exists. While the arrangement may 

be different, the requirement applies, 

regardless of the location of the assist 

space relative to the exit sill. 

Outside Viewing Means 

Ten commenters address the 

provision for a means to view the 

outside conditions, prior to opening an 

exit. While some commenters request 

specific clarification on certain aspects 

of the requirement, only one commenter 

opposes the requirement for certain 

types of exits. 

Comment: Some commenters note 

that the use of overwing escape systems 

means that the areas of evacuee ground 

contact may be distant from the location 

of the exit itself. In addition, the 

potential for future design concepts to 

have multiple decks, as well as 

longitudinal distances between the exit 

and the point where the escape system 

touches the ground should be taken into 

account. 

Response: With respect to the 

potential for the exit to be somewhat 

remote from the point where the 

evacuees would contact the ground, the 

FAA agrees that this may be the case. 

The intent of the requirement is to 

enable a person to ascertain whether to 

open an exit, and whether it is safe to 

evacuate through the exit, based on an 

assessment of the outside conditions. To 

the extent that the means used for 

determination of the former does not 

also allow an assessment of the ground, 

the FAA agrees that an additional 

viewing means may be necessary, and 

that the additional means may be 

somewhat remote from the exit. We 

have therefore reworded the amendment 

to allow for the dual purpose of the 

viewing means, and to distinguish the 

required locations of the two. 

Comment: One commenter states that 

the requirement should not apply to 

ventral, tailcone and overhead (or any 

exit located above the mid-point of the 

fuselage) exits, and that the requirement 

to view areas of evacuee ground contact 

should be eliminated. The commenter 

notes that there are currently no 

windows in these areas of the cabin, and 

the fuselage structure in the vicinity of 

these exits does not, in any case, lend 

itself to a simple window as a means of 

compliance. The commenter points out 

62784 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

that the condition of the landing gear 

can influence, by up to 80 degrees of arc 

in the roll axis, the position of ground 

contact and most people will not know 

where to look. Also, the commenter 

recommends that the requirement not 

apply to exits that utilize ropes or 

inertia reels as assist means, for the 

same reasons. 

Response: The FAA does not agree 

that the requirement should not apply to 

ventral, tailcone or overhead exits. In 

most cases, it should be possible to view 

the outside conditions sufficiently well 

from a nearby passenger or flightdeck 

window to ascertain whether to open an 

overhead exit. This is considered 

acceptable. With respect to ventral and 

tailcone exits, the problem is more 

considerable, but there is no 

justification for not providing the same 

features at these types of exits, except 

for the added complexity. Future type 

designs may need to incorporate more 

novel features, to demonstrate 

compliance. However, the need to be 

able to determine whether or not to 

open the exit is no less important for 

these types of exits.

The FAA specifically requested 

comments on the feasibility of a viewing 

means at ventral and tailcone exits. 

Only one commenter addresses this 

issue, and does not provide any data to 

support the contention that the rule 

should not apply. As to whether 

passengers would know where to look, 

with the change discussed above, the 

functions of the viewing means are more 

clearly delineated and transparent to the 

passenger. A crewmember would be 

more likely to assess the areas of 

evacuee ground contact, while any 

person opening an exit should be given 

the opportunity to make a judgment as 

to whether to proceed. Therefore, with 

the changes noted above, the 

requirement is adopted. 

Exit Hold-Open Feature 

Eight commenters address the 

proposal to require a means to prevent 

exits from inadvertently closing in an 

emergency. Most commenters agree 

with the basic proposal but request 

clarification on specific points. 

Comment: One commenter questions 

the applicability to removable, hatch 

type exits. 

Response: As noted in the preamble to 

the notice, these exits would be 

considered in compliance by definition. 

Comment: Several commenters 

address exits that are hinged on the 

bottom and held open by gravity. 

Response: Exits that are hinged on the 

bottom are considered to comply by 

virtue of the basic design. 

Comment: One commenter proposes a 

wording change such that the means 

‘‘must not require operator action to 

engage.’’

Response: This is more general than 

the proposed wording, which implies a 

separate device. As noted above a 

separate device is not necessarily 

required; therefore, the wording in the 

second sentence of § 25.809(i) will be 

changed to read: ‘‘The means must not 

require separate action to engage when 

the exit is opened, and must require 

positive action to disengage.’’

Comment: One commenter expresses 

concern that the retrofit incorporation of 

this requirement is based on an 

assumption that the means currently in 

service are acceptable. The commenter 

notes this assumption has not been 

validated and, if incorrect, will increase 

the cost of the rulemaking considerably. 

The commenter suggests that the FAA 

explicitly state that all such existing 

devices are acceptable. 

Response: The FAA agrees that the 

suitability of all existing devices has not 

been positively established, although it 

is unaware of any designs that would 

not be acceptable. To preclude an 

unanticipated compliance burden, and 

given that the vast majority of transport 

category airplanes already incorporate 

such features, the requirement in 

§ 121.310(l) is changed to refer to 

airplanes manufactured after a date 3 

years from the effective date of this 

amendment. 

Interior Doors 

The proposed provision relating to 

interior doors generated the largest 

number of comments, with 15 

commenters responding. Five 

commenters support the proposal as 

written. Many commenters represent the 

corporate aviation community, where 

certain types of interior doors are 

currently standard features. 

One common installation on 

corporate aircraft is a seat integrated 

into the lavatory, that can be occupied 

for takeoff and landing. Because the 

lavatory has a door, this door effectively 

becomes a ‘‘door between passenger 

compartments,’’ and not permitted 

under the current requirements. 

However, the FAA has accepted such 

installations under certain conditions, 

on an equivalent level of safety basis. It 

is important to note that the amendment 

in this final rule would not change the 

status of such occupied lavatories. They 

would continue to be assessed on a 

case-by-case basis and, if the 

requirements for equivalency were met, 

could be approved. 

Comment: Several commenters have 

identified what they see as an 

inconsistency between §§ 25.813(e) and 

(f). 

Response: With respect to the 

perceived conflict with §§ 25.813(e) and 

(f), as mentioned in the preamble to the 

notice, § 25.813(f) addresses occupants 

other than passengers that might have to 

use exits on the flightdeck, or in other 

areas. Thus there is no conflict with the 

prohibition of doors between passengers 

and exits established in § 25.813(e). 

Comment: Commenters also note an 

inconsistency between the preamble 

and the proposed regulatory language in 

Notice No. 96–9 with respect to retrofit 

incorporation of the requirement. The 

preamble states that the proposed 

requirement would apply to ‘‘newly 

manufactured’’ airplanes, while the 

proposed regulatory language applies to 

all transport category airplanes in 

service. Most commenters agree with 

the proposal as it relates to commercial 

aviation. Although one example of an 

exit inside a lavatory was cited, that 

would no longer be acceptable under 

the proposal (or would require removal 

of the lavatory door). 

Response: Regarding the perceived 

conflict in the preamble and the 

regulatory language, the regulatory 

language correctly expresses the intent 

of the proposal. However, the FAA is 

aware of at least two existing air carrier 

installations where the route to an exit 

could be said to lead through a lavatory. 

In one case, the installation is literally 

such that the exit is inside the lavatory. 

In the other case, the normal interior 

configuration does not involve the 

lavatory; however, when in use, the 

lavatory door extends across the main 

aisle, and essentially encloses the aft 

exit, as well as a flight attendant seat. In 

the latter case, the FAA did not intend 

to require a substantial change to the 

type design in order to comply. This 

installation is arguably in compliance 

already, although it was not explicitly 

considered in the proposal. Each of 

these doors is permissible under the 

current regulations, because they are not 

‘‘doors between passenger 

compartments.’’ In each case however, 

the airplanes are no longer in 

production. In both cases, there is no 

obvious means of compliance that 

would not either render the lavatory 

unusable, or result in a substantial 

reconfiguration of the interior. 

Therefore, the amendment is changed to 

apply to newly manufactured airplanes, 

with no retrofit action to the existing 

fleet.

Comment: Another commenter 

requests clarification that the door in 

the aft pressure bulkhead, leading to a 

tailcone exit, would not be classified as 

a ‘‘door between passengers and exits.’’

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 62785

Response: Doors in pressure 

bulkheads are not considered interior 

doors, and therefore not subject to this 

amendment. 

Comment: Several commenters 

advocate the continued allowance of 

certain types of interior doors for 

corporate or other special purpose 

operations. These commenters note that 

such operations typically involve small 

numbers of occupants, small numbers of 

exits (meaning that there is less 

confusion regarding where each exit is) 

and passengers that tend to be familiar 

with the airplane. The commenters 

point to a lack of adverse service history 

as justification for retaining the 

requirement in its current form for these 

sized airplanes. Some commenters 

suggest a passenger capacity limitation 

with respect to when interior doors 

could be allowed. 

Response: Such installations could be 

acceptable under certain conditions, but 

would require a separate action, such as 

an exemption, or new rulemaking. For 

the basic type certification standard, the 

requirement is adopted as proposed. 

Comment: One commenter points out 

that this rule would allow a flight 

attendant seat to be effectively isolated 

by a door, provided the seat was not 

adjacent to an exit. 

Response: The commenter is correct, 

although the rule does not change what 

is permissible in that regard. The FAA 

is not aware of any such installations, 

and does not consider that this rule 

change increases the likelihood that 

such an installation would be proposed. 

The FAA has given careful 

consideration to the special 

circumstances surrounding corporate 

and executive operations, and the 

differences in certification standards 

that result from the proposal. While it 

may be true that a higher percentage of 

passengers on corporate airplanes (as 

opposed to air carrier airplanes) are 

familiar with the exit arrangement, there 

is no guarantee of such familiarity. 

While it is true that there is no adverse 

service history with respect to interior 

doors on corporate airplanes, this can be 

attributed to an absence of service 

history in general, as opposed to any 

inherent superiority in this type of 

operation. The FAA is concerned that 

any regulation could lead to increased 

use of older airplanes, built to earlier 

certification standards in general. This 

could mean that newer airplane types 

that embody other improved safety 

features will not get introduced into 

service. In this case, however, it is 

doubtful that an interior feature will 

drive the acquisition of an airplane over 

considerations such as performance and 

fuel efficiency offered by new designs. 

As discussed in the notice, the FAA has 

not identified an unsafe condition with 

interior doors in those types of 

operations, and is therefore not 

requiring retrofit of this segment of the 

fleet. Since Notice No. 96–9 was 

published, the FAA has processed 

exemptions for privately operated 

airplanes that allow the installation of 

interior doors, under certain conditions, 

when such exemptions have been 

shown to be in the public interest. 

These exemptions require specific 

design features, as well as limit the type 

of operation permitted (i.e., not offered 

for hire or common carriage) when such 

doors are installed. It is the FAA’s 

intention to develop alternative 

regulatory standards that specifically 

apply to privately operated airplanes 

that would address several areas, 

primarily relating to cabin safety issues. 

This amendment, however, applies to 

transport category airplanes in general, 

irrespective of their intended operation 

and, as such, is adopted for part 25 as 

proposed. The FAA will continue to 

entertain petitions for exemption where 

public interest is demonstrated for 

privately operated airplanes. 

Portable Oxygen Equipment 

Twelve commenters address the 

proposal to require connection of 

oxygen masks to the oxygen supply, for 

portable oxygen equipment. Most 

commenters fully support the proposal, 

one commenter states the justification 

for retrofit seemed vague, but provided 

no additional substantiating 

information, and did not offer an 

alternative. 

Comment: One commenter expresses 

a desire to have the connection for the 

oxygen mask outside any protective 

cover, with a separate cap. Another 

commenter states the proposed 

§ 121.333(d)(2) constitutes a 

requirement for portable oxygen 

equipment, where none currently exists 

today either in the operating rules or the 

type design rules. 

Response: All safety equipment is 

currently required to be protected from 

inadvertent damage in accordance with 

§ 25.1411, and so adopting an additional 

requirement for a cap on the oxygen 

mask connection is not necessary. With 

respect to whether the proposal requires 

portable oxygen equipment where it has 

not been required before, there is an 

editorial error in the proposed language 

for § 121.333(d)(2) that would have 

eliminated fixed installations with spare 

masks and outlets as an option. Part 25 

however, has always required portable 

oxygen equipment to be immediately 

available for flight attendants, so this is 

not a new requirement. In order to 

account for both portable and fixed 

installations, the wording in 

§ 121.333(d)(2) has been changed, and a 

new § 121.333(d)(3) is added so that 

each subparagraph offers an optional 

means of compliance. 

Comment: One commenter objects to 

the proposed requirement. The 

commenter states that there are design, 

safety and economic reasons why the 

proposal should not be adopted. The 

commenter notes that masks are stored 

with the oxygen bottle, even if not 

connected to it, and a connection might 

cause the oxygen hose to kink or abrade. 

In addition, the commenter is concerned 

that design changes that might be 

required to comply with the rule not 

create compatibility problems with 

previously approved masks. 

Response: The FAA agrees that the 

oxygen mask is stored with the bottle, 

but the proposal would provide 

connection of the mask to the oxygen 

supply in order to speed the availability 

of oxygen in an emergency. Since many 

installations are already delivered in 

this way, no extraordinary design 

measures should be required.

Comment: The commenter also is 

concerned that if oxygen flow is begun 

prior to removal of the mask from its 

attachment to the bottle, it might cause 

rupture of the reservoir bag. The 

commenter cites an airworthiness 

directive where something similar 

occurred. 

Response: The airworthiness directive 

pertains to oxygen mounted in 

passenger service units where reservoir 

bags were inadvertently pressurized 

during testing. In the case of portable 

equipment, such tests would not be 

necessary and the bottle would have to 

be opened inadvertently. In addition, 

the reservoir bag would have to be 

configured in a particular manner in 

order to cause over-pressurization. 

Again, since this type of installation is 

already in service, these potential 

problems should be readily avoidable. 

Comment: The commenter also 

questions whether the connected mask 

would comply with § 25.869, which 

requires oxygen systems to be installed 

so that they will not cause ignition of 

flammable fluids or vapors in case of 

leakage. The commenter contends that 

the connected assembly is more likely to 

be left open than were the mask not 

connected. 

Response: Section 25.869 is primarily 

directed at fixed installations that may 

be installed near other systems, such as 

hydraulic or fuel systems, where leakage 

of oxygen could produce a serious, 

immediate hazard. This section could 

also apply to portable oxygen bottles, if 

they were installed in such locations. 

62786 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

For the typical passenger cabin portable 

installation however, compliance with 

this section is typically not a significant 

obstacle. In addition, the FAA does not 

believe that the likelihood of an oxygen 

valve being left open is any different 

with or without the mask connected. 

Comment: The commenter also 

identifies several areas where the 

estimated costs in the NPRM would be 

exceeded if design changes are 

necessary in order to comply. The 

commenter indicates that there might 

need to be both changes to the 

connection hardware, as well as 

relocation of the bottles and attachment 

hardware. 

Response: As noted previously, the 

connection of the masks to the oxygen 

bottle is not an unusual feature or 

installation and the means to 

accomplish this are readily available. 

For the majority of installations, simply 

connecting the hose to the bottle is all 

that is required. For those instances 

where that is not true, the corrective 

action is not novel or requiring new 

technology, and can be accomplished 

easily. The FAA notes that no operators 

objected to the proposed requirement, 

and several explicitly concurred. 

Finally, the commenter contends that 

the accident that resulted in the NTSB 

recommendation involved both 

difficulty in removing the oxygen mask 

from its packaging, as well as the time 

to connect the mask to the bottle. The 

commenter believes that making the 

packaging easier to open will satisfy the 

intent of the recommendation, and notes 

that equipment suppliers are working to 

accomplish this. 

Response: The FAA concurs that the 

packaging for oxygen masks could, in 

many cases, be made easier to open. 

This does not address the intent of the 

NTSB recommendation (which was very 

specific with respect to connection of 

the oxygen mask) however, and 

essentially amounts to compliance with 

the current requirements of § 25.1411(a), 

which states that emergency equipment 

must be readily accessible. The final 

rule remains unchanged.

Various changes to part 121, since 

issuance of Notice 96–9, will have a 

small editorial effect on this 

amendment, but will not result in any 

substantive change to the requirements. 

There is also no change regarding which 

sections are affected. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), there are no current or new 

requirements for information collection 

associated with this amendment. 

International Compatibility With ICAO 

Standards 

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 practical. The FAA has 

reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and the Joint Aviation Authorities 

regulations, where they exist, and has 

identified no differences in these 

amendments and the foreign 

regulations. 

Regulatory Evaluation Summary 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs 

each Federal agency proposing or 

adopting regulation to first make a 

reasoned determination that the benefits 

of the intended regulation justify its 

costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze 

the economic impact of regulatory 

changes on small entities. Third, the 

Trade Agreements Act prohibits 

agencies from setting standards that 

create unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States. 

In developing U.S. standards, this act 

requires agencies to consider 

international standards, and use them 

where appropriate as the basis for U.S. 

standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Act of 1995 requires agencies 

to prepare a written assessment of the 

costs and benefits, and other effects of 

proposed and final rules. An assessment 

must be prepared only for rules that 

impose a Federal mandate on State, 

local, or tribal governments, or on the 

private sector, likely to result in a total 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

(adjusted for inflation) in any one year. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

determined that this rule has benefits 

that justify the minimal incremental 

costs; will not have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities; has no effect on trade-sensitive 

activity; and does not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal government, or on the private 

sector. 

The provisions of this rule reflect 

current industry practices. The primary 

potential benefit of the final rule is that 

it will require these current practices to 

be continued in the future. 

Alternatively, without this rule, the 

current safety practices could be 

reduced. A secondary benefit of the 

final rule will arise from clarifying 

existing rules. The prevalence of these 

industry practices indicates that 

airplane manufacturers and operators 

have determined that they are warranted 

means of enhancing passenger and flight 

attendant safety. 

In the analysis for the NPRM, the FAA 

estimated de minimis costs, and 

requested documented cost information 

from the industry. The FAA did receive 

comments regarding costs. After 

reviewing these comments the FAA 

concludes the de minimis cost 

conclusion is appropriate. Provisions of 

this rule (such as emergency exit 

viewing windows, and interior cabin 

doors) apply only to future typecertificated aircraft. Given future design 

flexibility, costs are considered to be 

negligible. Other provisions (such as 

assist handles, emergency exit door 

latch open devices, and portable oxygen 

bottles) codify practices that are already 

being adopted by the entire industry. 

Even if an operator was not compliant, 

the costs of compliance are estimated to 

be less than $1000. 

Costs and Benefits 

The FAA believes that the 

certification of largely existing good 

industry practices ensures today’s level 

of safety and will modestly improve 

future levels of air safety at minimal 

cost. The rule will codify current 

industry practices, an indication that 

aircraft manufacturers and airlines have 

determined that the rule, even before its 

publication, is aimed at enhancing 

passenger and flight attendant 

survivability in case of an accident. The 

major benefit is to ensure that the 

existing level of safety is maintained 

because, without the rule, the safety 

standards could be relaxed at any time. 

The final rule will impose minimal, if 

any, incremental compliance costs on 

existing airplanes and airplanes 

manufactured under existing type 

certificates because it will codify 

existing industry practices, and clarify 

FAA requirements concerning cabin 

configuration and equipment 

specifications. There is one exception. 

The final rule could impose some 

compliance costs on future part 25 typecertificated airplanes, arising from the 

requirement for a viewing window in 

each emergency exit door or adjacent 

bay. In order for a tailcone emergency 

exit to meet this requirement, 

considerable engineering redesign may 

be needed. The FAA specifically 

requested comments on this topic, but 

commenters only dealt with the 

inability to view the outside 

environment from the tailcone 

emergency exit, not from the cost of 

redesign. It is conceivable that, since the 

rule applies only to airplanes for which 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 62787

an application for type certificate is 

made after the effective date, and no 

retrofit requirement is included, most 

future aircraft will not be equipped with 

a tailcone exit.

Another comment referenced the 

installation of interior doors. In this 

case, the argument was made that 

revenue would be lost by the 

aftermarket industry if interior doors 

could not be installed after purchase 

from the original equipment 

manufacturer. Since the requirement is 

not retrofit to the existing fleet, and the 

FAA will continue to entertain petitions 

for exemption where public interest is 

demonstrated for privately-owned 

airplanes, the rule will not dimish the 

earning potential of any firm engaged in 

installing doors in existing aircraft. 

Certain future unscheduled charter 

operators might be negatively affected, 

but since the rule applies only to future 

aircraft, the FAA cannot predict what 

cost will be encumbered given 

manufacturers’ flexibility to design and 

customize new airplanes to meet 

customer needs. 

Yet another comment was made by an 

aerospace industry association 

expressing concern over the possible 

increased cost of compliance with 

respect to oxygen equipment but 

providing no detail as to why they 

believe it would be the case. No 

operators objected because the majority, 

if not all, of the installations are already 

compliant with the rule (and if there are 

any that are not, the corrective action 

can be accomplished very easily) 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) was enacted by Congress to 

ensure that small entities are not 

unnecessarily or disproportionately 

burdened by government regulations. 

The Act establishes ‘‘as a principle of 

regulatory issuance that agencies shall 

endeavor, consistent with the objective 

of the rule and of applicable statutes, to 

fit regulatory and informational 

requirements to the scale of the 

business, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, 

the Act requires agencies to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions. The Act 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 proposed or final 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. If the determination is that it 

will indeed have a significant impact, 

the agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

Act. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a proposed or final rule is not expected 

to have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, section 605(b) of the Act 

provides that the head of the agency 

may so certify, and an 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. In this case, the FAA economic 

evaluation for the NPRM estimated that 

the rule will impose no, or de minimis,

costs to the aviation industry as a 

whole. The FAA did receive comments 

regarding compliance costs. After 

reviewing these comments the FAA 

determined that the de minimis costs 

conclusion remains appropriate. 

Therefore, the FAA certifies that there 

will be no significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 

prohibits Federal agencies from 

engaging in any standards or related 

activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign 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. 

In accordance with the above statute, 

the FAA has assessed the potential 

effect of this final rule will have, at 

most, minimal impact on the 

competitive posture of either U.S. 

carriers doing business in foreign 

countries or foreign carriers doing 

business in the United States. This 

assessment is based on the fact that this 

rule will have, at most, minimal impact 

on existing part 121 operators, since 

they are already in compliance. These 

requirements, therefore, will not impose 

a competitive disadvantage for U.S. air 

carriers operating overseas or for foreign 

carriers operating in the United States. 

Finally, the certification requirement of 

this rule will not constitute a barrier to 

international trade because part 25 

certificated aircraft currently 

manufactured are already in compliance 

with this rule. 

Unfunded Mandates Act Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as 

Pub.L.104–4 on March 22, 1995, 

requires each Federal agency, to the 

extent permitted by law, to prepare a 

written assessment of the effects of any 

Federal mandate in a proposed or final 

agency rule that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $120,700,000 (adjusted 

for inflation to calendar year 2003 levels 

by the Consumer Price Index for All 

Urban Consumers). Section 204(a) of the 

Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the 

Federal agency to develop an effective 

process to permit timely input by 

elected officers (or their designees) of 

State, local, and tribal governments on 

a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate’’. A 

‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate’’ under the Act is any 

provision in a Federal agency regulation 

that would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, of $100 

million (adjusted annually for inflation) 

in any one year. Section 203 of the Act, 

2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements 

section 204(a), provides that before 

establishing any regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, the 

agency shall have developed a plan that, 

among other things, provides for notice 

to potentially affected small 

governments, if any, and for a 

meaningful and timely opportunity to 

provide input in the development of 

regulatory proposals or rules. 

This final rule does not contain any 

Federal intergovernmental or private 

sector mandate. Therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 

Executive Order 3132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

State, or the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, we 

determined that this final rule does not 

have federalism implications.

Regulations Affecting Interstate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the Administrator, when 

modifying regulations in Title 14 of the 

CFR in a manner affecting interstate 

aviation in Alaska, to consider the 

extent to which Alaska is not served by 

transportation modes other than 

aviation, and to establish such 

regulatory distinctions as he or she 

62788 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

considers appropriate. Because this rule 

would apply to the certification of 

future designs of transport category 

airplanes and their subsequent 

operation, it could, if adopted, affect 

interstate 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. 

Energy Impact 

The energy impact of the rule has 

been assessed in accordance with the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(EPCA) and Public Law 94–163, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). It has been 

determined that it is not a major 

regulatory action under the provisions 

of the EPCA.

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 25 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

14 CFR Part 121 

Aviation safety, Safety, Air carrier, 

Air traffic control, Air transportation, 

Aircraft, Aircraft pilots, Airmen, 

Airplanes, Airports, Airspace, Cargo, 

Chemicals, Children, Narcotics, 

Flammable materials, Handicapped, 

Hazardous materials, Common carriers.

The Amendment

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends parts 25 and 121 of Title 14 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows:

PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS: TRANSPORT 

CATEGORY AIRPLANES

■ 1. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to read as follows:

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

44702, 44704.

■ 2. Section 25.809 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a), and by adding a 

new paragraph (i) to read as follows:

§ 25.809 Emergency exit arrangement. 

(a) Each emergency exit, including 

each flightcrew emergency exit, must be 

a moveable door or hatch in the external 

walls of the fuselage, allowing an 

unobstructed opening to the outside. In 

addition, each emergency exit must 

have means to permit viewing of the 

conditions outside the exit when the 

exit is closed. The viewing means may 

be on or adjacent to the exit provided 

no obstructions exist between the exit 

and the viewing means. Means must 

also be provided to permit viewing of 

the likely areas of evacuee ground 

contact. The likely areas of evacuee 

ground contact must be viewable during 

all lighting conditions with the landing 

gear extended as well as in all 

conditions of landing gear collapse.

* * * * *

(i) Each emergency exit must have a 

means to retain the exit in the open 

position, once the exit is opened in an 

emergency. The means must not require 

separate action to engage when the exit 

is opened, and must require positive 

action to disengage.

■ 3. Section § 25.812 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (g)(1)(ii), (g)(2), and 

(h) introductory text to read as follows:

§ 25.812 Emergency lighting.

* * * * *

(g) * * * 

(1) * * *

(i) * * *

(ii) Not less than 0.05 foot-candle 

(measured normal to the direction of the 

incident light) for a minimum width of 

42 inches for a Type A overwing 

emergency exit and two feet for all other 

overwing emergency exits along the 30 

percent of the slip-resistant portion of 

the escape route required in § 25.810(c) 

that is farthest from the exit; and

* * * * *

(2) At each non-overwing emergency 

exit not required by § 25.810(a) to have 

descent assist means the illumination 

must be not less than 0.03 foot-candle 

(measured normal to the direction of the 

incident light) on the ground surface 

with the landing gear extended where 

an evacuee is likely to make first contact 

with the ground outside the cabin.

(h) The means required in 

§§ 25.810(a) and (d) to assist the 

occupants in descending to the ground 

must be illuminated so that the erected 

assist means is visible from the airplane.

* * * * *

■ 4. Section 25.813 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2) and 

(b)(3), by adding new paragraphs (b)(4), 

(b)(5) and (b)(6) and by revising 

paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:

§ 25.813 Emergency exit access.

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(1) Each assist space must be a 

rectangle on the floor, of sufficient size 

to enable a crewmember, standing erect, 

to effectively assist evacuees. The assist 

space must not reduce the unobstructed 

width of the passageway below that 

required for the exit. 

(2) For each Type A or B exit, assist 

space must be provided at each side of 

the exit regardless of whether an assist 

means is required by § 25.810(a). 

(3) For each Type C, I or II exit 

installed in an airplane with seating for 

more than 80 passengers, an assist space 

must be provided at one side of the 

passageway regardless of whether an 

assist means is required by § 25.810(a). 

(4) For each Type C, I or II exit, an 

assist space must be provided at one 

side of the passageway if an assist 

means is required by § 25.810(a). 

(5) For any tailcone exit that qualifies 

for 25 additional passenger seats under 

the provisions of § 25.807(d)(3)(ii), an 

assist space must be provided, if an 

assist means is required by § 25.810(a). 

(6) There must be a handle, or 

handles, at each assist space, located to 

enable the crewmember to steady 

himself or herself: 

(i) While manually activating the 

assist means (where applicable) and, 

(ii) While assisting passengers during 

an evacuation.

* * * * *

(e) No door may be installed between 

any passenger seat that is occupiable for 

takeoff and landing and any passenger 

emergency exit, such that the door 

crosses any egress path (including 

aisles, crossaisles and passageways). 

(f) If it is necessary to pass through a 

doorway separating any crewmember 

seat (except those seats on the 

flightdeck), occupiable for takeoff and 

landing, from any emergency exit, the 

door must have a means to latch it in 

the open position. The latching means 

must be able to withstand the loads 

imposed upon it when the door is 

subjected to the ultimate inertia forces, 

relative to the surrounding structure, 

listed in § 25.561(b).

§ 25.819 [Amended]

■ 5.–6. Section § 25.853 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 25.853 Compartment interiors.

* * * * *

(f) Smoking is not allowed in 

lavatories. If smoking is allowed in any 

area occupied by the crew or 

passengers, an adequate number of selfcontained, removable ashtrays must be 

provided in designated smoking 

sections for all seated occupants.

* * * * *

■ 7. The introductory text in § 25.855 is 

revised to read as follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 62789

§ 25.855 Cargo or baggage compartments. 

For each cargo or baggage 

compartment, the following apply:

* * * * *

■ 8. Section § 25.1411 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 25.1411 General.

* * * * *

(c) Emergency exit descent device.

The stowage provisions for the 

emergency exit descent devices required 

by § 25.810(a) must be at each exit for 

which they are intended.

* * * * *

■ 9. Section 25.1447 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(4) to read as 

follows:

§ 25.1447 Equipment standards for oxygen 

dispensing units.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(4) Portable oxygen equipment must 

be immediately available for each cabin 

attendant. The portable oxygen 

equipment must have the oxygen 

dispensing unit connected to the 

portable oxygen supply.

PART 121—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, 

AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS

■ 10. The authority citation for part 121 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 

44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–44711, 

44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901, 44903–

44904, 44912, 46105.

■ 11. Section 121.310 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f)(2), by 

redesignating paragraph (f)(6) as (f)(7), by 

adding a new paragraph (f)(6), by 

redesignating existing paragraph (l) as 

paragraph (n), by adding a new 

paragraph (l), and by republishing newly 

redesignated paragraphs (f)(7) and (n) to 

read as follows:

§ 121.310 Additional emergency 

equipment.

* * * * *

(f) * * * 

(2) For each Type I or Type II 

emergency exit equipped with an assist 

means, there must be enough space next 

to the exit to allow a crewmember to 

assist in the evacuation of passengers 

without reducing the unobstructed 

width of the passageway below that 

required in paragraph (f)(1) of this 

section. In addition, all airplanes 

manufactured on or after November 26, 

2008 must comply with the provisions 

of §§ 25.813(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4) 

in effect on November 26, 2004. 

However, a deviation from this 

requirement may be authorized for an 

airplane certificated under the 

provisions of part 4b of the Civil Air 

Regulations in effect before December 

20, 1951, if the Administrator finds that 

special circumstances exist that provide 

an equivalent level of safety.

* * * * *

(6) No person may operate an airplane 

manufactured after November 27, 2006, 

that incorporates a door installed 

between any passenger seat occupiable 

for takeoff and landing and any 

passenger emergency exit, such that the 

door crosses any egress path (including 

aisles, crossaisles and passageways). 

(7) If it is necessary to pass through 

a doorway separating any seat (except 

those seats on the flightdeck), 

occupiable for takeoff and landing, from 

an emergency exit, the door must have 

a means to latch it in the open position, 

and the door must be latched open 

during each takeoff and landing. The 

latching means must be able to 

withstand the loads imposed upon it 

when the door is subjected to the 

ultimate inertia forces, relative to the 

surrounding structure, listed in 

§ 25.561(b) of this chapter.

* * * * *

(l) Emergency exit features.

(1) Each transport category airplane 

manufactured after November 26, 2007

must comply with the provisions of 

§ 25.809(i) and 

(2) After November 26, 2007 each 

transport category airplane must comply 

with the provisions of § 25.813(b)(6)(ii) 

in effect on November 26, 2007. 

(m) * * * 

(n) Portable lights. No person may 

operate a passenger-carrying airplane 

unless it is equipped with flashlight 

stowage provisions accessible from each 

flight attendant seat.

■ 12. Section 121.333 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) as follows:

§ 121.333 Supplemental oxygen for 

emergency descent and for first aid; turbine 

engine powered airplanes with pressurized 

cabins.

* * * * *

(d) Use of portable oxygen equipment 

by cabin attendants. After November 28, 

2005 each mask used for portable 

oxygen equipment must be connected to 

its oxygen supply. Above flight level 

250, one of the following is required: 

(1) Each attendant shall carry portable 

oxygen equipment with a 15 minute 

supply of oxygen; or 

(2) There must be sufficient portable 

oxygen equipment (including masks and 

spare outlets) distributed throughout the 

cabin so that such equipment is 

immediately available to each attendant, 

regardless of their location in the cabin; 

or 

(3) There are sufficient spare outlets 

and masks distributed throughout the 

cabin to ensure immediate availability 

of oxygen to each cabin attendant, 

regardless of their location in the cabin.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 15, 

2004. 

Marion C. Blakey, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–23862 Filed 10–26–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P