67492 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 25 and 121 

[Docket No. FAA–2004–19629, Amendment 

Nos. 25–117 and 121–307] 

RIN 2120–AF21 

Revision of Emergency Evacuation 

Demonstration Procedures To Improve 

Participant Safety

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: These amendments revise the 

airworthiness standards for transport 

category airplanes and the operating 

requirements for domestic, flag, and 

supplemental operations, by allowing 

certain alternative procedures in 

conducting full-scale emergency 

evacuation demonstrations for transport 

category airplanes. The changes will 

make full-scale emergency evacuation 

demonstrations safer for participants 

and will codify existing practices.

DATES: December 17, 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 Management 

System (DMS) during the course of this 

rulemaking. At earlier stages of the 

rulemaking, the docket number was ‘‘28272.’’ 

Under the new DMS, the docket number is 

FAA–2004–19629.)

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.cmf; 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 amendment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc. You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy 

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-AWASBREFA@faa.gov.

Background 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

These amendments are based on 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM), Notice No. 95–9, which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 18, 1995 (60 FR 36932). In that 

proposed rule, the FAA proposed to 

amend 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) parts 25 and 121. Appendix J to 

part 25 would be changed to allow 

certain alternative procedures to be used 

during the conduct of full-scale 

emergency evacuation demonstrations. 

Section 121.291(b)(1) would be changed 

to require that even operators whose 

crews participate in a manufacturer’s 

full-scale demonstration perform a 

partial evacuation demonstration upon 

entry of a new model into service. 

Part 25 contains the airworthiness 

standards for transport category 

airplanes. Manufacturers of transport 

category airplanes must show that each 

airplane they produce complies with the 

relevant standards of part 25. These 

standards apply to airplanes 

manufactured within the U.S. and in 

other countries that import the airplanes 

under a bilateral airworthiness 

agreement. One of the standards that 

manufacturers must meet is that of 

demonstrating that passengers and 

crewmembers can be evacuated in a 

timely manner in an emergency. This 

standard is addressed by the 

requirements in § 25.803 and Appendix 

J to part 25. This standard is intended 

to demonstrate emergency evacuation 

capability under a consistent set of 

prescribed conditions but is not 

intended to demonstrate that all 

passengers can be evacuated under all 

conceivable emergency conditions. 

Part 121 contains the requirements 

governing the operations of domestic, 

flag, and supplemental air carriers, and 

commercial operators of large airplanes. 

One of the requirements is that the 

certificate holder must demonstrate the 

effectiveness of the crewmember 

training and operating procedures for 

opening floor level and non-floor level 

exists and for deploying the evaluation 

slides, if installed, in a timely manner. 

History of the Emergency Evacuation 

Regulations 

Amendment 121–2, effective March 3, 

1965, first introduced the requirements 

for an emergency evacuation 

demonstration in part 121. Operators 

operating under part 121 were required 

to conduct full-scale emergency 

evacuation demonstrations using 50 

percent of the airplane’s exits within 

120 seconds. Half of the exits were 

rendered inoperative to simulate the 

type of emergency where fire, structural, 

or other adverse conditions would 

prevent those exits from being used. 

Operators were required to conduct a 

demonstration during the initial 

introduction of a type and model of 

airplane into passenger-carrying 

operations and when an airplane 

passenger seating capacity increased 

five percent or greater or when a major 

change was made to the interior 

arrangement that would affect 

emergency evacuation. The purposes of 

the demonstration were to demonstrate 

the ability of crewmembers to execute 

established emergency evacuation 

procedures, and to ensure realistic 

assignments of crewmember functions. 

Amendment 25–15, effective October 

24, 1967, introduced the emergency 

evacuation requirements into part 25. 

Newly created § 25.803 required 

airplane manufacturers to conduct an 

emergency evacuation demonstration 

for passenger-carrying airplanes with 

passenger seating capacity of 44 or 

more, within 90 seconds. The purpose 

of this demonstration was to establish 

the evacuation capability of the 

airplane. Section 25.803(d) listed 

conditions under which analysis could 

be used in lieu of a full-scale 

demonstration to demonstrate 

compliance with the regulation. The 

section stated that the full-scale 

demonstration did not have to be 

repeated for a change in the interior 

arrangement, or for an increase in 

passenger capacity of less than five

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 67493

percent, if it could be substantiated by 

analysis that all occupants could be 

evacuated in less than 90 seconds. 

Amendment 121–30, effective October 

24, 1967, reduced the demonstration 

time. This reduction was primarily 

attributable to significant gains made in 

the efficacy of devices, such as 

inflatable slides, to assist in the 

evacuation. The purpose of the part 121 

demonstration is crew training and crew 

procedures so that demonstration 

conditions remained somewhat different 

between the two parts. 

Amendment 25–46, effective 

December 1, 1978, revised § 25.803 to 

allow means other than actual 

demonstration to show the evacuation 

capability of the airplane. It also 

replaced the existing part 25 

demonstration conditions with 

conditions that would satisfy both parts 

25 and 121. One demonstration could be 

used to satisfy both requirements. In 

addition, § 25.803 was revised to allow 

analysis in combination with tests to be 

used to substantiate compliance for an 

increase in seating capacity of more 

than five percent. Amendment 121–149, 

effective December 1, 1978, revised part 

121 to accept the results of 

demonstrations conducted in 

compliance with § 25.803 as of 

Amendment 25–46. 

Amendment 25–72, effective August 

20, 1990, placed the demonstration 

conditions previously listed in 

§ 25.803(c) into a new Appendix J to 

part 25 and amended them for 

clarification and editorial consistency 

with part 121. 

Amendment 25–79, effective 

September 27, 1993, revised the age/

gender mix in Appendix J to part 25 to 

be used when running an emergency 

evacuation demonstration. The revision 

allowed the use of stands or ramps for 

descending from overwing exits only 

when the airplane is not equipped with 

an off-wing descent means, and 

prohibited the flightcrew from taking an 

active role in assisting in the passenger 

cabin. 

Amendment 121–233, effective 

September 27, 1993, revised § 121.291 

to allow demonstrations in compliance 

with § 25.803 in effect on or after 

December 1, 1978—not just in effect on 

December 1, 1978—to satisfy the 

requirements of § 121.291. 

Injuries During Full Scale Emergency 

Evacuation Demonstrations 

Hundreds of people jumping from an 

airplane in simulated dark of night 

conditions onto inflated slides, sliding 

as many as 25 feet to the ground, can 

result in some injuries. In a sampling of 

seven full-scale evacuation 

demonstrations conducted between 

1972 and 1980, involving 2,571 

passengers and crewmembers, 166 

participants suffered injuries (‘‘An FAA 

Analysis of Aircraft Emergency 

Evacuation Demonstrations,’’ 1982, 

Society of Automotive Engineers 

Technical Paper Series #82148).

Additionally, a review of 19 full-scale 

evacuation demonstrations between 

1972 and 1991, involving 5,797 

participants, identified 269 injuries, or 

4.5 percent of the passenger and 

crewmembers. In the seven 

demonstrations for which there was 

information on the types of injuries, of 

216 people, 13 suffered fractures, 63 

sprains or strains, 32 contusions, and 

108 suffered lacerations or abrasions. In 

one of the demonstrations involving a 

McDonnell Douglas DC–11 for 410 

passengers, a participant was seriously 

injured, resulting in paralysis. For its 

second attempt to certificate the MD–11 

on December 11 and 12, 1992, 

McDonnell Douglas replaced the slides 

with level platforms or gently sloped 

ramps, and the exterior or the aircraft 

was lighted. 

In addition, the U.S. Congressional 

Office of Technology Assessment 

reported that on average, 6 percent of 

full-scale emergency evacuation 

demonstration participants are injured 

during full-scale tests (‘‘Aircraft 

Evacuation Testing. Research and 

Technology Issues’’ September 1993, 

OTA–BP–SET–121, NTIS Order 

#107620). 

The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee 

The FAA formally established the 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee (ARAC) on January 22, 1991, 

to provide advice and recommendations 

to the FAA concerning the full range of 

the FAA’s safety-related rulemaking 

activity (56 FR 2190). 

Members of ARAC interested in issues 

involving emergency evacuation met on 

May 24, 1991, and instituted the charter 

and membership for the Performance 

Standards Working Group (PSWG), for a 

working group that would report to 

ARAC. Members of the PSWG included 

United States and European 

representatives from airplane and parts 

manufacturers, pilot, flight attendant 

and machinist unions, airlines, 

airworthiness authorities, passenger 

associations, and other public interest 

groups. The PSWG charter instructed 

the working group to recommend to the 

ARAC whether new or revised 

emergency evacuation standards could 

and should be stated in terms of 

performance standards rather than 

design standards. 

On October 26, 1991, two 

unsuccessful emergency evacuation 

demonstrations were conducted on an 

airplane for which increased seating 

capacity was sought. During one of 

them, a participant was seriously 

injured. Following the demonstrations, 

the FAA tasked the ARAC to draft 

recommendations for revising the 

emergency evacuation demonstration 

requirements and compliance methods 

to eliminate or minimize the potential 

for injury to demonstration participants. 

The ARAC accepted the task and 

decided to add this task to the charter 

of the PSWG. 

In response to this additional task, the 

PSWG drafted a report for discussion. 

The draft report consisted primarily of 

two sets of recommendations—(1) 

Changes that could be made to the 

current demonstration that would 

improve participant safety, but would 

not alter the basic character of the 

demonstration; and (2) analysis that 

could be used in lieu of the full scale 

demonstration, plus an outlined stepby-step methodology for preparing such 

an analysis. The former 

recommendation would require a 

revision to Appendix J to part 25, while 

the latter recommendations would 

expand FAA guidance currently in 

Advisory Circular 25.803–1, Emergency 

Evacuation Demonstrations. The report 

was revised numerous times, over 

several PSWG meetings, based on 

comments from PSWG members. 

Nonetheless, after numerous attempts to 

develop a report that was acceptable, 

members of the working group were 

unable to reach consensus.

Representatives of three organizations 

on the PSWG wrote letters stating their 

objections to the report as finalized. 

These letters are included as Appendix 

2 of the report. Comments were 

primarily aimed at the proposed 

revisions to the existing advisory 

circular and not to the revisions to 

Appendix J of part 25 contained in the 

NPRM. The objectors expressed concern 

that the committee did not 

systematically review the causes of 

injuries in emergency evacuation 

demonstrations, and thus could not 

make meaningful recommendations to 

reduce or eliminate those injuries. 

Instead, the objectors felt that the 

committee had concentrated on an 

approach which would effectively 

eliminate the full-scale demonstration. 

The report was forwarded to the 

ARAC on January 28, 1993, and then 

forwarded on to the FAA. The ARAC 

then tasked the PSWG to draft the 

appropriate rulemaking document and 

revise the advisory material as 

recommended in the report. The PSWG

67494 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

completed the task and the 

recommendations were accepted by the 

FAA. These amendments cover the 

recommended revisions to part 25 

covered in the report, ‘‘Emergency 

Evacuation Requirements and 

Compliance Methods That Would 

Eliminate or Minimize the Potential for 

Injury to Full Scale Evacuation 

Demonstration Participants.’’ A copy of 

the report has been placed in the docket. 

The FAA is developing a revised 

advisory circular based on the report 

submitted by ARAC. 

Discussion of the Final Rule 

This amendment changes Appendix J 

to part 25 to reduce the possibility of 

injury to participants in a full-scale 

emergency evacuation demonstration 

and to codify existing practice regarding 

airplanes equipped with overwing 

slides as recommended by the ARAC. 

Exterior Lighting 

Paragraph (a) of Appendix J is 

amended to allow exterior light levels of 

0.3 foot-candles or less prior to the 

activation of the airplane emergency 

lighting system, in lieu of ‘‘dark of 

night’’ conditions. This light level is 

approximately the level that would be 

found in the passenger cabin when the 

emergency lighting system is the only 

source of illumination. Allowing this 

low level of lighting outside the airplane 

enhances the ability of the 

demonstration director to see and react 

more quickly to problems that may 

develop during the demonstration. 

While this does not prevent injuries 

incurred at the onset of the problems, it 

could result in reducing the number of 

injuries by halting the demonstration 

sooner than in the past. Specific tests 

were not run to ascertain whether or not 

such exterior ambient lighting would 

enhance or detract from evacuation 

performance, since it was considered 

that crew performance, escape system 

efficiency, and illumination provided by 

the airplane emergency lighting system 

have the predominant impact on 

evacuation performance. As discussed 

below, airplane exterior emergency 

lighting is being addressed separately. 

Pre-Deployment of Escape Slides 

Paragraph (p) of Appendix J is revised 

to allow exits with inflatable slides to 

have the slides deployed and available 

for use prior to the start of the 

demonstration. If this method were 

used, the exit preparation time, which 

would be established in separate 

component tests, would need to be 

accounted for in some manner. This 

change prevents a participant exiting 

the airplane before the slide is fully 

available for use, which has occurred in 

at least two instances. In both cases, the 

participant was not seriously injured; 

however, the potential for serious injury 

is great, particularly considering the sill 

heights of wide-body airplanes. 

An additional benefit is that predeployed and inflated slides are not 

subject to damage from equipment that 

is placed near the airplane to facilitate 

conduct or documentation of the 

demonstration (for example, infrared 

lighting). The pre-deployment and 

inflation of slides also allows the proper 

placement and opportunity for 

inspection of safety mats around the 

slide prior to the start of the 

demonstration. Additionally, paragraph 

(p) is revised to require that the exits 

that are not to be used in the 

demonstration must be clearly indicated 

once the demonstration has started. The 

more general wording of this change 

accommodates the additional flexibility 

in exit configuration (slide stowed or 

pre-deployed and inflated). 

Finally, the opening sentence in 

paragraph (p) is revised to more 

succinctly describe the exits that are to 

be used in the demonstration. The ‘‘exit 

pairs’’ in this regulation are as discussed 

in the passenger seating tables in 

§ 25.807(g). This change responds to 

numerous prior requests to the FAA for 

clarification of the existing text. As in 

the past, exits which are not installed in 

pairs, typically tail cone or ventral exits, 

are not used in the demonstration.

Paragraph (f) of Appendix J is revised 

to remove the requirement that each 

external door and exit be in the takeoff 

configuration. This change is necessary 

to be consistent with the change to 

paragraph (p), noted above, which 

allows slides to be deployed and 

inflated prior to the start of the 

demonstration. If the option to predeploy the slide is selected by the 

applicant, the FAA must approve the 

specific procedures to prevent 

demonstration participants from 

determining which exits will be used, as 

well as the method of making the exits 

available, prior to the demonstration. 

The method of assessing the impact on 

the resulting evacuation times for each 

of the exits used must also be agreed in 

advance. 

Paragraph (o) of Appendix J is revised 

to state more generally its intent rather 

than requiring specific actions. The 

intent is that participants inside the 

airplane should not be able to identify, 

prior to the start of the demonstration, 

which exits will be used during the 

demonstration. Although this may be 

made more difficult if an applicant 

elects to utilize pre-deployed escape 

slides in accordance with the change to 

paragraph (p), this change is in keeping 

with general regulatory practice. This 

change is not specifically related to 

reducing injuries. 

Safety Briefing 

Paragraph (n) of Appendix J is revised 

to allow passengers to be briefed on 

safety procedures that are in place for 

the particular demonstration, e.g.,

procedures to abort the demonstration, 

or procedures that have to do with the 

demonstration site, e.g., how to evacuate 

the building in which the demonstration 

is being conducted. The revision also 

notes when that briefing could take 

place. This briefing could help some 

participants from adding to an already 

potentially injurious situation in the 

event of problems, such as a collapsed 

evacuation slide. It could also provide 

information that would be helpful in 

case of a problem at the demonstration 

site, e.g., a fire in the building. The 

briefing would have to be carefully 

constructed so as not to impart any 

information that would enable the 

participants to evacuate the airplane 

faster. Additionally, the appropriate 

time for the passenger briefing required 

by § 121.571 has been added. 

Other Changes 

The ARAC recommended that 

paragraph (c) of Appendix J be amended 

to allow the use of stands or ramps for 

overwing exits only if assist means are 

not required as part of the airplane type 

design. It was not proposed in Notice 

No. 95–9, however because that change 

has already been implemented by 

Amendment 25–79. 

Another of the recommendations 

involved revising the age/gender mix to 

require using only the age/gender 

groups least susceptible to injury. It was 

not proposed in Notice No. 95–9, 

pending research to identify the groups 

and develop an appropriate mix. A 

group of participants based on the new 

mix would have to have the same 

evacuation capability as a group based 

on the existing mix. This possible future 

proposal would be in addition to the 

change to the mix adopted by 

Amendment 25–79. 

This amendment also makes minor 

revisions to part 121, to be consistent 

with the changes being made to part 25. 

Section 121.291(a) requires that 

certificate holders must conduct an 

emergency evacuation demonstration in 

accordance with paragraph (a) of 

Appendix D to part 121, or in 

accordance with § 25.803 of part 25. 

Section 25.803 incorporates by reference 

Appendix J of part 25 which is amended 

by this final rule. Section 121.291(b)(1) 

is amended to require that even

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 67495

operators whose crews participate in a 

manufacturer’s full-scale demonstration 

perform a partial evacuation 

demonstration upon entry of a new 

model into service. This change will 

account for aspects of the operator’s 

evacuation procedure that might be lost 

if the manufacturer elects to conduct the 

full-scale demonstration with predeployed slides. 

Discussion of Comments 

Comments were received from 10 

parties, representing foreign and 

domestic airplane manufacturers, labor 

associations, foreign and domestic 

operators, as well as foreign regulatory 

authorities and one individual. Each 

proposed change received comments. 

Two commenters support the proposals 

with minor editorial suggestions. Four 

commenters agree with specific aspects 

of the proposals, and did not comment 

on others. Four commenters disagree 

with at least parts of the proposals. 

Exterior Lighting 

Three commenters support and four 

commenters oppose the proposal to 

allow a specified ambient light level, 

exterior to the airplane, for the purposes 

of conducting the full-scale evacuation 

demonstration. 

Commenters opposing the change cite 

the lack of specific research to support 

the proposed light level, and contend 

that such light levels would, in any 

case, speed the evacuation. One 

commenter suggests that night vision 

goggles could be provided to the test 

directors to enable them to survey the 

situation and thereby achieve the same 

objective as the proposal. One 

commenter cites a non-aviation research 

study where an increase in ambient 

light level increased the speed of 

evacuation for different age groups. This 

commenter also suggests that the 

proposed light level would be 

acceptable, if it were produced by the 

airplane’s emergency lighting system.

While the FAA acknowledges that the 

proposed exterior light level is not 

based on dedicated research, this level 

is considered reasonable, based on 

several factors. First, the proposed light 

level is still quite dim, particularly in 

comparison with the typical emergency 

cabin lighting environment. Second, as 

is discussed below, the area 

surrounding the airplane is not a 

primary factor in the speed of 

evacuations as compared to the escape 

slide itself, and its conspicuity. Third, 

as discussed later, the FAA tasked the 

ARAC working group to develop 

qualification methods for escape slides 

that would determine their usability 

under strict dark of night conditions. 

The qualification of the escape slides in 

the absence of ambient illumination 

means that the ambient illumination 

level for the demonstration would not 

be critical. 

The FAA agrees that the use of night 

vision goggles could improve some 

aspects of the test directors’ ability to 

assess the situation during the full-scale 

evacuation. However, the results would 

not be equivalent since the goggles will 

not provide peripheral visual 

information, and will be distorted by the 

light that is produced by the airplane’s 

emergency lighting system. Thus, while 

this amendment would not prohibit the 

use of night vision goggles, that 

approach is not considered a direct 

substitute for the proposal. 

Numerous airplane evacuation studies 

have been conducted in daylight 

conditions, as well as ‘‘dark of night’’

conditions. Statistically, the evacuation 

rates seen in these diametrically 

opposed illumination conditions have 

been equivalent. The FAA also reviewed 

certification test data for tests conducted 

in daylight and dark of night conditions, 

where the other parameters are the 

same, and has seen no statistical 

difference in evacuation rates. However, 

to maintain the ‘‘feel’’ of a nighttime 

evacuation and address the safety of 

participants, the FAA has chosen a low 

light level that will still provide 

enhanced situational awareness to the 

demonstration director. 

An important adjunct to the change in 

ambient illumination level is the change 

to the requirements for escape slide 

qualification relative to dark of night 

conditions. The FAA and the ARAC 

have developed new methods of escape 

slide qualification testing that would 

ensure that the escape system itself has 

adequate lighting capability to enable 

rapid evacuation in the absence of any 

other source(s) of light. The FAA has 

incorporated these methods into the 

Technical Standard Order (TSO) C69 for 

escape slides. The rule change adopted 

here pertains to the full-scale evacuation 

demonstration only. Qualification of the 

escape systems is an independent 

requirement and should be largely 

completed prior to the full-scale 

evacuation demonstration. In the past, 

qualification of the escape systems has 

not always been completed prior to the 

full-scale evacuation demonstrations. 

The FAA, however, considers that 

qualification of the system is an 

essential element of this amendment. 

Since the change adopted here applies 

to new type certificates, the FAA 

expects that the TSO revision will be 

adopted prior to a full-scale evacuation 

demonstration for type certification in 

accordance with this amendment. 

Should that prove not to be the case, the 

FAA will still require that the escape 

systems lighting performance be 

substantiated in an approved manner 

prior to the demonstration. 

The FAA reviewed the research study 

cited by the commenter and concluded 

that the findings in the study do not 

directly relate to the full-scale 

evacuation requirement. The study is 

primarily an assessment of a test 

subject’s ability to negotiate an 

unknown evacuation path in conditions 

of varied illumination. This proposal 

addresses lighting conditions, which 

only become evident upon leaving the 

airplane, after the evacuees have 

negotiated the evacuation path. 

In addition, the reflectivity of the test 

environment in the study is much 

higher than would be allowed by this 

amendment, increasing the effective 

ambient illumination. Further, 

differences in egress performance are 

greatly reduced when luminous versus 

non-luminous signs were used for a 

given illumination level. This indicates 

that the test subjects performed poorly 

at effective ambient illumination levels 

above those allowed by this 

amendment, and that ambient 

illumination may not be the primary 

factor controlling performance in the 

conditions tested. In summary, the FAA 

has concluded that the study does not 

directly relate to this amendment and, 

as discussed above, issues related to 

escape slide performance have been 

addressed in TSO C69. 

The FAA does not agree that 

increased ambient light level should be 

required to be generated by the 

airplane’s emergency lighting system. 

The current standards for airplane 

emergency lighting systems have been 

shown to be adequate for evacuation. 

The purpose of allowing increased 

ambient lighting in this amendment is 

not to assist in the evacuation, but to 

assist in monitoring the evacuation to 

insure participant safety. As noted 

earlier, the qualification of the actual 

lighting will be a requirement for 

certification. The commenter’s 

suggestion would essentially change the 

regulations for exterior emergency 

lighting, which is beyond the scope of 

the notice. 

Pre-Deployment of Escape Slides

Two commenters support, while four 

commenters oppose the proposal to 

allow the demonstration to be 

conducted with escape slides predeployed. 

Commenters supporting the proposal 

note the potential to prevent injuries 

resulting from persons leaving the

67496 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

airplane prior to the escape slide being 

ready for use, for whatever reason. 

Commenters opposing the proposal 

cite various reasons for their opposition. 

Some commenters state that separating 

exit operation and evacuation would not 

demonstrate the efficacy of flight 

attendant training. Some commenters 

assert that not having a specific 

methodology for accounting for the predeployed slides will invalidate the 

demonstration. A commenter suggests 

that this option is purely a cost saving 

measure to avoid repeating tests that fail 

on account of equipment failure. One 

commenter suggests that the noise of 

deploying slides and opening doors is 

not accounted for as part of the 

demonstration, and will reduce the 

‘‘chaos and distraction’’ aspects of the 

demonstration. Another commenter 

notes that the risk of persons leaving the 

airplane early can be accommodated by 

different designs that prevent the doors 

from opening prior to the escape slide 

being deployed. 

The FAA has considered all the 

comments and believes that, while 

many of the issues raised require 

consideration, the proposal is sound 

and does not require changes. 

In the case of the flight attendant 

training program and the crews’

interaction with the escape systems, the 

change to § 121.291(b)(1) would 

necessitate that the operators conduct a 

partial evacuation demonstration before 

entering service, whether or not that 

operator’s crew participated in the fullscale evacuation demonstration. Since 

typically only one operator’s crew 

participates in the full-scale part 25 

evacuation demonstration, the training 

benefits that might result from the 

demonstration are limited to that 

operator. This proposal would actually 

increase the number of operators 

required to conduct a partial evacuation 

demonstration in accordance with 

§ 121.291(b)(1), over what was 

previously required. 

In addition, regarding the comment 

that the proposal is intended to avoid 

repeat demonstrations due to equipment 

failure, qualification of equipment is not 

the purpose of the demonstration. 

Under § 25.810, the certificate holder 

would have to demonstrate the proper 

operation of the escape systems from a 

mechanical standpoint and it is not 

appropriate to rely on the full-scale 

evacuation demonstration to identify 

problems with equipment. The fullscale demonstration is intended to 

address the gross evacuation capability 

of the airplane and its crew, and not to 

address specific equipment 

qualification. 

The FAA has not proposed a specific 

methodology to pre-deploy the escape 

slides since deployment will vary 

among the different exit designs. In 

addition, recommendations on 

methodology are more appropriately the 

function of advisory material. While 

there is no obvious need for advisory 

material at this time, if a need develops 

appropriate guidance will be prepared. 

The FAA has determined that there 

are means of accounting for predeployed escape slides that will not 

compromise the evacuation 

demonstration. Issues that must be 

addressed include the time it takes for 

a flight attendant to operate and assess 

the availability of the exit; the inflation 

time of the slide; the queue of 

passengers that might form while the 

slide is inflating and the effect that the 

queue has on the initial evacuation rate. 

Many of these issues could be addressed 

by correctly timing the availability of 

the exits to be used in the 

demonstration. 

As is currently the case, exits that will 

be used must not be distinguishable 

from exits that will not be used, prior 

to the demonstration. This approach 

may necessitate the use of special covers 

over all exits, for example. In those 

cases where it is not possible to develop 

a satisfactory methodology, the 

applicant will not be able to use the 

option of pre-deployed slides. 

Predeployment of slides will reduce 

the potential for slide failure or damage 

to slides that can occur during a 

demonstration. This could avoid 

repeating a demonstration and the 

applicant costs associated with 

repeating. But the purpose of the 

evacuation demonstration is to 

determine if the aircraft, as designed, 

can be evacuated in a timely manner. 

The test limitation allowing use of only 

50 percent of available slides accounts 

for the potential for unusable slides. The 

reliability of the slide system is required 

to be demonstrated separately under 

§ 25.810. Although the potential for 

repeat demonstrations may be reduced, 

the reason for considering this change is 

to prevent injuries. 

The noise that is produced by 

deploying escape slides is not generally 

accounted for, if the slides are predeployed. The FAA is unaware of what 

role, if any, the sound of deploying 

escape slides plays in an evacuation 

demonstration. Research tests 

conducted with pre-deployed escape 

slides result in evacuation rates 

consistent with those produced in fullscale demonstrations that do not predeploy slides. In addition, and as the 

basis for the proposal, in past full-scale 

evacuation demonstrations, passengers 

frequently reached the exit before the 

slide was fully deployed and, in some 

cases, have left the airplane before the 

slide is ready. It is doubtful that the 

absence of the sounds of deployment 

will cause them to reach the exit any 

sooner. Nonetheless, if there are data 

that indicate that the sounds are 

necessary, it would be a simple matter 

to include recorded sounds, as a part of 

the other procedures that will be needed 

to follow this option. At this time, 

however, the data do not suggest that 

this is necessary. 

It is true that the escape system design 

could be such that the exits were 

prevented from opening until the escape 

slide was fully deployed. However, such 

a requirement could have the 

unintended effect of delaying an 

evacuation in an accident. Under actual 

emergency conditions it is less likely 

that persons would depart the airplane 

prior to the escape slide’s deployment, 

since there is no defined ‘‘start’’ signal 

such as there is in a demonstration. 

Under actual conditions, the sooner the 

escape slide is available, the more likely 

the success of the evacuation. Since the 

escape slide is not available to 

passengers until the exit is open, 

requiring the exits to delay opening 

would not be in the interest of safety. It 

should be noted that there are specific 

designs that incorporate features to 

permit the exit opening to coincide with 

the slide deployment, that do not delay 

the overall exit system availability. Such 

designs would, of course, continue to be 

acceptable. 

Safety Briefing 

Three commenters support and three 

commenters oppose the proposal to 

allow a safety briefing for test 

participants. One commenter expresses 

concern regarding the use of test 

participants’ to assist at the bottom of 

the escape slides, commenting that this 

is better left to test personnel. 

Most commenters opposing the 

proposal were not specific as to their 

opposition, other than concern that the 

briefing could somehow enable the 

participants to evacuate faster. As stated 

in Notice No. 95–9, the purpose of this 

provision is to convey safety 

information about the logistics of the 

demonstration site and test sequence. 

The notice also states that such briefings 

would have to be carefully constructed 

in order not to disclose information 

about the demonstration itself. In actual 

practice, the manufacturers have 

conducted such briefings in the past, 

but with no real standardization. This 

amendment provides codification of 

that practice and gives information as to

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 67497

content and when such a briefing can 

take place. 

With respect to persons who are 

assigned to assist at the bottom of the 

slide, the FAA agrees with the 

commenter who believes that test 

personnel would probably be the best 

choice. However, if an operator’s 

procedures included assigning 

passengers to perform this duty, they 

should not be precluded from 

employing the same procedures in the 

demonstration. This provision would 

not override the safety procedures to be 

followed for demonstration purposes 

and, should problems develop, it might 

be necessary for test personnel to 

provide additional assistance. Were that 

to occur, the contribution of the test 

personnel would have to be assessed to 

determine whether the validity of the 

demonstration had been affected. The 

proposal is therefore adopted.

Other Comments 

Other comments concerned editorial 

suggestions that have been adopted 

where appropriate, and some comments 

that were beyond the scope of the 

notice. One commenter suggests that the 

combination of exits likely to result in 

the slowest evacuation times should be 

required in paragraph (p) of Appendix 

J of part 25, and not one from each pair 

of exits, as proposed. The current 

standard contained in the first sentence 

of paragraph (p) only requires that not 

more than 50 percent of the exits are 

used in the demonstration. Currently, 

applicants are free to select any 

combination of exits. The proposed 

change to the first sentence of paragraph 

(p) was intended to reflect current 

practice of using one exit from each 

pair, not to establish a new standard. 

The commenter’s suggestion would 

create a more stringent standard. 

Although the comments may be 

applicable to future rulemaking in this 

area, they were not considered 

applicable to this proposal. 

One commenter recommends against 

combining the demonstration 

requirements for parts 25 and 121. The 

provision to demonstrate compliance 

with both parts 25 and part 121 actually 

occurred in Amendments 25–46 and 

121–149, in 1978, and was not a part of 

NPRM 95–9. 

Finally, commenters contend that the 

proposal is an indirect effort to do away 

with the full-scale demonstration 

entirely. Since the entire proposal 

focuses on procedures for conducting 

the demonstration, this contention is 

not accurate. The FAA will continue to 

require full-scale demonstrations when 

appropriate. 

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. 

Economic Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impart 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 requires agencies to analyze the 

economic impact of regulatory changes 

on small entities. Third, the Trade 

Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531–2533) 

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. And 

fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 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, 

in any one year (adjusted for inflation.) 

For regulations with an expected 

minimal impact a complete regulatory 

evaluation is not required. The 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If it is 

determined that the expected impact is 

so minimal that the proposal does not 

warrant a full Evaluation, a statement to 

that effect and the basis for it is 

included in the final regulation. Since 

this final rule revises existing rules and 

codifies existing practices, the expected 

outcome is to have a minimal impact 

with positive net benefits. The 

justification for the minimal impact 

determination follows. 

Regulatory Evaluation Summary 

Exterior Lighting 

In the original NPRM, the FAA 

estimated that it will take two engineers 

and two technicians 1⁄2 hour at 

burdened rates of $60 and $45 per hour, 

respectively, to prepare and adjust the 

exterior lighting level to 0.3 foot-candles 

or less, at a cost of $105. 

Predeployment of Escape Slides 

The final rule removes the 

requirement in paragraph (f) that the 

external doors and exits be in the takeoff 

configuration. No costs are associated 

with this change. 

Safety Briefings

Paragraph (n) is amended to allow 

demonstration participants to be briefed 

only with respect to safety procedures 

in place for the demonstration or the 

demonstration site, such as 

demonstration abort procedures or 

procedures pertaining to the 

demonstration site. Flight attendants 

will be allowed to assign demonstration 

subjects to assist other participants from 

the bottom of the slide. The final rule 

will continue to prohibit passengers 

from being instructed on procedures to 

be followed in the demonstration. No 

costs are attributed to these changes. 

Paragraph (o) requires that the 

airplane be configured so that available 

emergency exits are not disclosed to 

participants. This revision states more 

generally the intent of the requirement 

rather than specific actions. Associated 

costs are described in comments 

pertaining to paragraph (p) below. 

Paragraph (p) allows exits with 

inflatable slides to be opened with the 

slides deployed prior to the start of the 

demonstration timing. The final rule 

retains the current requirement that all 

exits will have to be configured so that 

the usable exits are not disclosed to 

participants prior to the demonstration. 

Manufacturers currently cover all 

windows to prevent participants from 

determining which exits will be usable 

in the demonstration. The FAA 

estimates that, under the final rule, 

manufacturers will also cover exits with 

curtains, screens, or other means to 

prevent premature disclosure of active 

exits. These screening devices will cost 

approximately $1,000 for labor and

67498 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1 13 CFR 121.201, Size Standards Used To Define 

Small Business Concerns, Sector 48–49 

Transportation, Subsector 481 Air Transportation.

materials. (Depending on future airplane 

designs, slides may be able to be 

deployed without opening the exits they 

serve. In those cases, there will be no 

costs for screening devices because it 

will not be necessary to cover the exit 

doors to prevent participants from 

determining which exits will be used.) 

Costs 

The final rule does not necessarily 

result in additional compliance costs, 

because it allows alternative procedures 

in conducting demonstrations, rather 

than mandating them. If manufacturers 

elect to use the final procedures, 

however, the FAA estimates that there 

will be incremental costs of 

approximately $1,105 per 

demonstration. These costs will be 

insignificant in comparison to the total 

cost of an evacuation demonstration, 

estimated to range between $1,000,000 

and $2,000,000. 

Benefits 

The risk of injury to passengers 

during repetitive full-scale emergency 

demonstrations is appreciable. 

The FAA reviewed seven full-scale 

evacuation demonstrations conducted 

between 1972 and 1980 (‘‘An FAA 

Analysis of Aircraft Emergency 

Evacuation Demonstrations’’). Of the 

2,571 participants in the 

demonstrations, 166, or 6.5 percent 

were injured. 

In addition, the Office of Technology 

Assessment states that on average, 6 

percent of full-scale emergency 

evacuation demonstration participants 

are injured during full-scale tests 

(‘‘Aircraft Evacuation Testing: Research 

and Technology Issues’’, September 

1993, OTA–BP–SET–121, NTIS order 

#PB94–107620). 

The FAA reviewed 19 demonstrations 

conducted between 1972 and 1991. Of 

the 5,797 participants in the 

demonstrations, 269 were injured. In the 

seven demonstrations for which there 

was information on the types of injuries, 

13 suffered fractures, 63 sprains or 

strains, 32 contusions, and 108 suffered 

lacerations or abrasions, a total of 216 

people injured. This review revealed 4.5 

percent of the passengers or 

crewmembers received injuries. In one 

of the emergency evacuation 

demonstrations reviewed by the FAA, a 

participant was seriously injured, which 

resulted in paralysis. The FAA believes 

a 4.5% injury rate during an emergency 

evacuation demonstration is not an 

acceptable safety practice. 

Personnel participating in the 

demonstration should be protected from 

potential injury without compromising 

the test results (‘‘Emergency Evacuation 

Demonstrations’’, AC 20–118). The 

primary benefit of the rule will be 

reduced risks of injuries to 

demonstration participants. 

The National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) classifies fractures, 

strains, contusions, lacerations, and 

abrasions as ‘‘minor’’, ‘‘moderate’’, or 

‘‘Critical’’ according to the abbreviated 

injury scale (AIS) used. The FAA 

estimates that the average cost of a 

‘‘minor injury’’ is $5,400, the average 

cost of a ‘‘moderate’’ injury is $41,900, 

and the average cost of a ‘‘Critical’’

injury, resulting in paralysis, is 

$2,058,800 (‘‘Economic Values for 

Evaluation of Federal Aviation 

Administration Investment and 

Regulatory Programs,’’ (FAA–APO–98–

8), Treatment of the Values of Life and 

Injury in Economic Analyses). Avoiding 

only one minor injury during an 

evacuation demonstration will result in 

cost savings exceeding the estimated 

$1,105 incremental costs of the 

alternative procedures.

The emergency evacuation 

demonstration must be conducted 

during the dark of night or with the dark 

of night simulated, so that the airplane’s 

emergency lighting system provides the 

only illumination of exit paths and 

slides (‘‘Aircraft Evacuation Testing: 

Research and Technology Issues,’’

September 1993, OTA–BP–SET–121, 

NTIS order #PB94–107620). But 

allowing low-level light, outside the 

airplane, will enhance the ability of the 

demonstration director to react more 

quickly to problems, which could 

develop during the demonstration. The 

ability of the demonstrator to react more 

quickly to problems could reduce the 

risk of injuries to demonstration 

participants. 

The FAA has determined since costs 

will be minor, and the benefits could be 

significantly higher than the costs, the 

rule will be cost-beneficial. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) was 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, 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 1980 act 

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. 

This final rule will make full-scale 

emergency evacuation demonstrations 

safer for participants and will codify 

existing practices. Because there are no 

manufacturers of part 25 airplanes with 

1,500 or fewer employees,1 the FAA 

certifies that the final amendments will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities.

International Trade Impact Analysis 

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 

and policy, the FAA has assessed the 

potential effect of this final rule to be 

minimal and therefore has determined 

that this final rule will not result in an 

impact on international trade by 

companies doing business in or with the 

United States.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (the Act) is intended, among 

other things, to curb the practice of 

imposing unfunded Federal mandates 

on State, local, and tribal governments. 

Section 202(a) (2 U.S.C. 1532) of Title 

II of the Act requires that each Federal 

agency, to the extent permitted by law, 

prepare a written statement assessing 

the effects of any Federal mandate in a 

proposed or final agency rule that may

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 67499

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100 million 

or more (adjusted annually for inflation) 

in any one year; such a mandate is 

deemed to be a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action.’’ The FAA currently uses an 

inflation-adjusted value of $120.7 

million in lieu of $100 million. Section 

203(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1533) 

provides that before establishing any 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, an agency shall have 

developed a plan under which the 

agency shall: (1) Provide notice of the 

requirements to potentially affected 

small governments, if any; (2) enable 

officials of affected small governments 

to provide meaningful and timely input 

in the development of regulatory 

proposals containing significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates; and, (3) 

inform, educate, and advise small 

governments on compliance with the 

requirements. With respect to (2), 

Section 204(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1534) 

requires the Federal agency to develop 

an effective process to permit elected 

officers of State, local, and tribal 

governments (or their designees) to 

provide the input described. 

This final rule does not contain a 

significant Federal intergovernmental/

private sector mandate. Therefore, the 

requirements of Title II do not apply. 

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. 

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 final rule 

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 12855, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy.

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 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 and 44704.

■ 2. Appendix J to part 25 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (f), (n), (o), and 

(p) as follows: 

Appendix J to Part 25—Emergency 

Evacuation

* * * * *

(a) The emergency evacuation must be 

conducted with exterior ambient light 

levels of no greater than 0.3 foot-candles 

prior to the activation of the airplane 

emergency lighting system. The 

source(s) of the initial exterior ambient 

light level may remain active or 

illuminated during the actual 

demonstration. There must, however, be 

no increase in the exterior ambient light 

level except for that due to activation of 

the airplane emergency lighting system.

* * * * *

(f) Each internal door or curtain must 

be in the takeoff configuration.

* * * * *

(n) Prior to entering the 

demonstration aircraft, the passengers 

may also be advised to follow directions 

of crewmembers but may not be 

instructed on the procedures to be 

followed in the demonstration, except 

with respect to safety procedures in 

place for the demonstration or which 

have to do with the demonstration site. 

Prior to the start of the demonstration, 

the pre-takeoff passenger briefing 

required by § 121.571 may be given. 

Flight attendants may assign 

demonstration subjects to assist persons 

from the bottom of a slide, consistent 

with their approved training program. 

(o) The airplane must be configured to 

prevent disclosure of the active 

emergency exits to demonstration 

participants in the airplane until the 

start of the demonstration. 

(p) Exits used in the demonstration 

must consist of one exit from each exit 

pair. The demonstration may be 

conducted with the escape slides, if 

provided, inflated and the exits open at 

the beginning of the demonstration. In 

this case, all exits must be configured 

such that the active exits are not 

disclosed to the occupants. If this 

method is used, the exit preparation 

time for each exit utilized must be 

accounted for, and exits that are not to 

be used in the demonstration must not 

be indicated before the demonstration 

has started. The exits to be used must 

be representative of all of the emergency 

exits on the airplane and must be 

designated by the applicant, subject to 

approval by the Administrator. At least 

one floor level exit must be used.

* * * * *

PART 121—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, 

AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS

■ 3. The authority citation for part 121 

continues to read as follows:

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

41706, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–

44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 46105.

■ 4. Section 121.291 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(1) as follows:

§ 121.291 Demonstration of emergency 

evacuation procedures.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Initial introduction of a type and 

model of airplane into passengercarrying operation;

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 8, 

2004. 

Marion C. Blakey, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–25493 Filed 11–16–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P