This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

21533 

Vol. 74, No. 88 

Friday, May 8, 2009 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–28250, SFAR No. 

109] 

RIN 2120–A161 

Special Requirements for Private Use 

Transport Category Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This special federal aviation 

regulation (SFAR) amends the 

airworthiness standards for transport 

category airplanes by adding new cabin 

interior criteria for operators of private 

use, not for hire, not for common 

carriage airplanes. These standards may 

be used instead of the specific 

requirements that affect transport 

category airplanes operated by air 

carriers. These standards supplement 

the requirements for operation under 

the air traffic and general operating 

rules. This SFAR provides alternative 

criteria for transport category airplanes 

that are operated for private use while 

continuing to provide an acceptable 

level of safety for those operations. 

DATES: These amendments become 

effective June 8, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

SFAR, contact Alan Sinclair, Airframe 

and Cabin Safety Branch (ANM–115), 

Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2195, 

facsimile (425) 227–1320; e-mail: 

alan.sinclair@faa.gov. For legal 

questions concerning this final rule, 

contact Douglas Anderson, Office of 

Regional Council (ANM–7), 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2166; 

facsimile (425) 227–1007; e-mail: 

douglas.anderson@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 

44701, General requirements.’’ Under 

that section, the FAA is charged with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing minimum 

standards required in the interest of 

safety for the design and performance of 

aircraft; regulations and minimum 

standards in the interest of aviation 

safety for inspecting, servicing, and 

overhauling aircraft; and regulations for 

other practices, methods, and 

procedures the Administrator finds 

necessary for safety of air commerce. 

This regulation is within the scope of 

that authority because it prescribes— 

• New safety standards for the design 

of transport category airplanes; and 

• New requirements necessary for 

safety for the design, production, 

operation and maintenance of those 

airplanes. 

Background 

Transport category airplanes are 

required to comply with the standards 

of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) part 25 to be eligible for a type 

certificate (TC) in this category. To the 

extent considered appropriate for safety, 

part 25 requirements contain different 

provisions based on passenger capacity 

discriminants. These requirements do 

not distinguish between airplanes 

operated in air carrier service and 

airplanes operated for private use. 

Aviation industry representatives 

have stated that the part 25 standards 

are written with only air carrier 

operation in mind, and have questioned 

whether the one level of airworthiness 

requirements for transport category 

airplanes is, in fact, appropriate for all 

types of operation. This SFAR addresses 

airworthiness standards related to cabin 

interiors for transport category airplanes 

in private use passenger operation. It 

provides new cabin interior criteria for 

operators of private use airplanes. These 

standards may be used as an alternative 

to specific requirements that affect 

transport category airplanes under the 

air traffic and general operating rules. 

This SFAR provides an acceptable level 

of safety for those operations. 

No cost is associated with this SFAR, 

which is a voluntary alternative means 

for certificating the cabin of transport 

category private use airplanes. People 

who choose to use these alternative 

means may incur minor incremental 

costs for more fire extinguishers, 

cooktop design criteria, and a potential 

cost for a flight attendant, compared to 

the existing cabin certification method. 

The established potential benefit of this 

SFAR is time and cost savings for the 

cabin certification process. 

With limited exception, the type 

certification (TC) requirements for 

transport category airplanes have 

historically been separate from, and 

independent of, operational standards. 

That is, the TC requirements do not 

consider the type of operation intended 

for the airplane. Title 14 CFR 91.501(b) 

describes operational requirements for 

large and turbine powered multi-engine 

airplanes not required to be operated 

under 14 CFR parts 121 and 135. 

The aviation industry asked the FAA 

to consider differentiating between the 

airworthiness requirements related to 

cabin interiors for different types of 

operation. Title 49 United States Code 

(49 U.S.C. 44701(d)) directs the FAA to 

consider differences between air 

transportation and other air commerce. 

This provision does not require the FAA 

to adopt regulations that always provide 

a higher level of safety for air carriers 

than for other operations. It does, 

however, establish the principle that our 

regulations should set a higher level of 

safety for air carriers whenever 

appropriate. 

Summary of the NPRM 

On July 13, 2007, the FAA published 

in the Federal Register a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Notice 

No. 07–13, entitled ‘‘Special 

Requirements for Private Use Transport 

Category Airplanes’’ (72 FR 38732). That 

NPRM is the basis for this final rule. 

In the NPRM, we proposed to amend 

the airworthiness standards for 

transport category airplanes by adding 

new cabin interior criteria for operators 

of private use airplanes. These 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
21534 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

standards may be used instead of the 

specific requirements that affect 

transport category airplanes operated by 

air carriers. They would supplement the 

requirements for operation under the air 

traffic and general operating rules. The 

NPRM was intended to provide 

alternative criteria for transport category 

airplanes that are operated for private 

use, while continuing to provide an 

acceptable level of safety for those 

operations. 

Amendments 25–127 and 121–341, 

Security Related Considerations in the 

Design and Operation of Transport 

Category Airplanes (73 FR 6386, 

October 28, 2008), is not applicable to 

airplanes operated for private use. 

Although we specifically sought input 

on this subject, we received no 

comments on it. We subsequently 

published the NPRM for this 

rulemaking, which proposed certain 

alternative requirements for private use 

airplanes, but did not include the 

security requirements. In this SFAR we 

determine that the requirements of 

§ 25.795, for security considerations, are 

not intended to apply to airplanes 

operated for private use. 

The NPRM contains additional 

background and rationale for this 

rulemaking and, except where we have 

made revisions in this SFAR, should be 

referred to for that information. 

Summary of Comments 

The FAA received 116 comments 

from 14 commenters. All of the 

commenters generally support the 

proposed changes. Comments include 

suggested changes, more fully described 

in the discussion below. 

The FAA received comments on the 

following general areas of the proposal: 

• General Operations/Part 135 

Crossover Operations. 

• 60 Passenger Upper Limit. 

• Flight Attendant Requirement. 

• Pre-flight Briefing. 

• Operations Placard. 

• Equipment and Design General. 

• Firm Handholds. 

• Occupant Protection/Side-Facing 

Seats Criteria. 

• Direct View. 

• Distance Between Exits, Exit 

Deactivation, and 60-Foot Rule. 

• Emergency Exit Signs. 

• Emergency Lighting. 

• Interior Doors. 

• Width of Aisle. 

• Materials for Compartment 

Interiors. 

• Fire Detection. 

• Cooktop Requirements. 

• Hand-Held Fire Extinguishers. 

• Design for Security. 

• Other Subjects. 

Discussion of the Final Rule 

General Operations/Part 135 Crossover 

Operations 

This SFAR was written to address 

transport category airplanes operated in 

private use, not for hire, not for common 

carriage. As discussed in the NPRM, 

private use operations differ 

significantly from air carrier operations. 

Typically, private use operations have 

lower passenger capacities and different 

demands for passenger amenities and 

functionality. This is why different 

standards can apply to the same 

airplane type, depending on how it is 

operated. 

Several commenters, including 

General Aviation Manufacturing 

Association (GAMA), Airbus, Boeing, 

Bombardier and the International 

Coordinating Council of Aerospace 

Industries Associations (ICCAIA), 

requested that airplanes approved using 

the SFAR be allowed to operate under 

part 135. These commenters cited 

several reasons for this request, 

including the ability to offset costs by 

allowing the airplane to generate 

revenue. Some commenters proposed 

that certain provisions of the SFAR 

should not be carried into part 135 

operations, but others should. 

This SFAR permits design features— 

such as the installation of interior doors 

and reduced flammability standards— 

that would make airplanes approved 

under this SFAR non-compliant with 

part 135 requirements. The limitation 

on the type of operation permitted 

under this SFAR is consistent with the 

NPRM and has not been changed. 

As discussed in the NPRM, Title 49 

United States Code (49 U.S.C. 44701(d)) 

directs the FAA to consider differences 

between air transportation and other air 

commerce. This provision establishes 

the principle that our regulations should 

set a higher level of safety for air carriers 

whenever appropriate. The 

airworthiness standards for operation 

under part 135 are already established 

and, before this SFAR is adopted, were 

effectively the same as for private use. 

This SFAR creates a standard focused 

on private use, not for hire, not for 

common carriage operation which did 

not previously exist. Extending the 

provisions of the SFAR to part 135 is 

both beyond the scope of the proposed 

rule, and not in keeping with the 

statutory mandate. The fare-paying 

flying public expects the same level of 

safety regardless of which airplane they 

are flying on. Persons flying on 

airplanes approved using the SFAR 

typically have more knowledge, 

familiarity, and choice in doing so. 

Since an airplane approved under the 

SFAR would not meet all of the 

minimum requirements of parts 25 and 

135, allowing operation in part 135 

would additionally create an uneven 

playing field for those airplanes that 

have been certificated to meet the full 

requirements of parts 25 and 135. This 

SFAR will not allow airplanes to 

operate under part 135 that do not meet 

all applicable requirements of part 135. 

However, it does not prohibit 

operation in part 135, provided the 

aircraft meets all the existing 

requirements of that part. Some 

airworthiness standards of part 25, for 

which this SFAR grants relief, are not 

required for airplanes operated under 

part 135 (that is, part 135 also allows 

operation of airplanes meeting the 

standards of part 23, which in some 

cases are less stringent than part 25). 

As noted above, some commenters 

suggested that the provisions of the 

SFAR be identified as acceptable for 

part 135 operation, or not. These 

commenters also suggested that the 

applicant identify the modifications 

required in order for the airplane to be 

eligible for part 135 operation. We agree 

that the operator should be made aware 

of what is necessary in order to operate 

in part 135. In order for an operator to 

switch from private use to part 135 

operations, limitations would be needed 

to identify necessary changes to meet 

the additional part 135 requirements 

(see Table 1). For example, doors that 

may be closed for private use would 

have to be disabled and secured open 

for part 135 operations. A new 

paragraph 2(g) has been added to clarify 

this issue. 

If the possibility exists that the 

airplane may be placed in part 135 or 

part 121 service, we recommend that the 

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) be 

modified to include those areas that 

would need to be addressed before the 

airplane would be permitted in part 135 

operations. For example, interior doors 

must be deactivated and locked out 

such that a maintenance action will be 

required to reactivate the door. 

Following is a table identifying the 

alternative airworthiness standards 

allowed under this SFAR and whether 

they are acceptable for operations under 

part 135. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 21535 

1Paragraph 2(b) of the NPRM also proposed to 

require two flight attendants for airplanes with 

passenger capacities exceeding 50. We received no 

comments on this proposal, and paragraph 2(b)(1) 

contains this requirement. 

TABLE 1 

SFAR provision Acceptable in 135? 

4(a) Firm Handhold .................................................................................................................................................................. No. 

4(b) Side-facing Seats ............................................................................................................................................................. Yes, for single place 

seats only. 

5. Direct View .......................................................................................................................................................................... No. 

6. Passenger Information Signs .............................................................................................................................................. Yes. 

7. Distance Between Exits ....................................................................................................................................................... No. 

8. Emergency Exit Signs ......................................................................................................................................................... Yes. 

9(a) Emergency Lighting ......................................................................................................................................................... No. 

9(b) Floor Proximity Escape Path Markings ............................................................................................................................ Yes. 

9(c) Transverse Separation of the Fuselage ........................................................................................................................... No. 

10.(a)–(f) Interior Doors ........................................................................................................................................................... No. 

11. Width of Aisles ................................................................................................................................................................... No. 

12. Materials for Compartment Interiors .................................................................................................................................. No. 

13. Fire Detection .................................................................................................................................................................... Yes. 

14. Cooktops ............................................................................................................................................................................ Yes. 

60-Passenger Upper Limit 

Paragraph 2(a) of the SFAR restricts 

the maximum passenger count to 60, as 

proposed in the NPRM. The majority of 

the commenters requested that no upper 

limit be placed on the maximum 

number of passengers allowed. As 

discussed in the NPRM, the FAA 

concluded that a passenger capacity 

limit was necessary, considering the 

number of modifications to the 

certification standards this SFAR 

permits. As the number of passengers 

increases, and the complexity of the 

interior increases as allowed by the 

SFAR, it is more difficult to predict 

safety issues that can arise and not be 

accounted for in standardized 

evacuation demonstrations. The larger 

airplanes operated in private use (e.g., 

Boeing 737, Airbus A320) have an 

average passenger seating configuration 

of 25. As the passenger count increases 

beyond 60, the complexity of the 

interior takes the airplane outside the 

intended scope of the SFAR and more 

FAA oversight is required to ensure that 

an appropriate level of safety is 

maintained. 

While the FAA has approved private 

use airplanes with passenger capacities 

greater than 60, these are the exception. 

In those cases there are generally 

additional safety issues regarding 

evacuation, fire protection and projectspecific installations. Because of that, 

we would need to evaluate such 

configurations on an individual basis to 

determine whether exemptions or 

special conditions are appropriate. The 

60-passenger limitation in this SFAR 

would not preclude certification of 

these larger airplanes, but it would 

enable us to evaluate these issues and 

impose additional requirements 

necessary for safety. Therefore, the FAA 

is adopting this limitation as proposed. 

Bombardier commented that airplanes 

sometimes have more seats than 

passengers, and not all seats are usable 

for takeoff and landing. In this case, 

they question how the SFAR will be 

applied. To clarify, the 60-passenger 

limit in the SFAR applies to the actual 

passenger capacity of the specific 

airplane. If extra passenger seats are 

installed and are accessible to 

passengers, then design considerations 

must be addressed. If the seats are not 

appropriate for occupancy during taxi, 

takeoff and landing, e.g., do not meet 

the strength requirements of § 25.561 or, 

if applicable, § 25.562, then each such 

seat must be clearly marked that it is not 

to be occupied during taxi, takeoff and 

landing. Such marking may be in the 

form of a placard mounted at a suitable 

location easily readable by any 

approaching passenger. If the seats 

could be occupied during taxi, takeoff 

and landing, i.e., they meet all the 

applicable strength and human injury 

criteria, then there must be a limitation 

in the Limitations Section of the 

Airplane Flight Manual to note that 

although there are more than 60 seats 

installed, no more than 60 passengers 

may be on the airplane. Additionally, as 

a continuous reminder to crew and 

passengers, placards must be installed at 

each door that can be used to board 

passengers, stating that the maximum 

passenger capacity is 60. The placards 

must be designed and located such that 

they are clearly legible to passengers 

entering through the door. The rule text 

has been revised to clarify the 

requirements should extra passenger 

seats be installed. 

Flight Attendant Requirement 

Paragraph 2(b)(2) of the SFAR 

requires at least one flight attendant for 

those airplanes that were initially type 

certified with 75 or more passengers and 

have interior doors irrespective of the 

seating capacity of the airplane in 

private use. The NPRM proposed that a 

flight attendant be required when 

interior doors are installed, for 

passenger seating arrangements of 10– 

50.1 The majority of the commenters 

objected to the ten-passenger criterion 

and noted that none of the current FAA 

exemptions issued for doors between 

passenger compartments require a flight 

attendant. The commenters requested 

that the FAA withdraw the flight 

attendant requirement and simply rely 

on the requirements currently listed in 

§ 91.533. The proposed requirement 

would have effectively lowered the 

threshold for a required flight attendant 

from 20 (as specified in § 91.533) to 10. 

Based on the comments received and 

after further consideration, we agree that 

this is overly stringent and not in 

keeping with past practice. 

The intent of the proposed 

requirement was to address the 

additional complexity in monitoring 

interior configurations with partitioned 

and isolated occupant compartments. 

This in turn is predicated on the 

original capacity of the airplane and, by 

association, its size. We have reviewed 

this issue in more detail and have 

revised the SFAR to limit the flight 

attendant requirement to those airplanes 

originally type certificated with 

relatively large maximum seating 

capacities, i.e., 75 or more passengers. 

For smaller airplanes, the requirements 

in § 91.533 are acceptable because the 

cabins are smaller and typically less 

complex than those being installed in 

the large transport airplanes. As a result, 

it is less likely that someone will 

become trapped or lost during an 

emergency evacuation, and there is less 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
21536 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

2 [Policy Statement No. ANM–03–115–30, 

available on the Internet at http://rgl.faa.gov]. 

need to have a flight attendant. The 

criterion of 75 or more passengers 

demarcates the large commercial jets 

from the small to medium regional and 

business jets where interior 

configurations are likely to be less 

complex. Therefore, the SFAR has been 

revised to restrict the additional 

requirement for at least one flight 

attendant to those airplane types whose 

original maximum type certificated 

passenger capacity is 75 or more. 

Pre-Flight Briefing 

Paragraph 2(c) of the SFAR requires 

that the AFM include a limitation 

requiring passenger briefing on the 

relevant airplane features specifically 

required to comply with the SFAR. As 

proposed, the requirement would have 

applied directly to an operator. 

Bombardier, Embraer and ICCAIA 

commented that, to be consistent, the 

SFAR should impose a requirement on 

the applicant for a TC. We agree and 

paragraph 2(c) is revised to require an 

AFM limitation. They also commented 

that, as proposed, the briefing 

requirement was open to very broad 

interpretation, and could be taken to 

require a briefing on every aspect of the 

SFAR. They recommend that the 

briefing be limited to only those features 

the passengers need to be aware of to 

maintain the intended level of safety, 

such as frangible features in interior 

doors, or moving seats to their intended 

position for taxi, takeoff and landing. 

We agree and the SFAR has been 

revised to reflect this intent. 

Operations Placard 

Paragraph 2(e) of the SFAR requires a 

placard stating: ‘‘Operations involving 

the carriage of persons or property for 

compensation or hire are prohibited,’’ to 

be located in the area around the 

airworthiness certificate holder at the 

entrance to the cockpit. Paragraph 2(d) 

of the SFAR requires the same 

limitation to be included in the AFM. 

These restrictions have not changed 

from the NPRM; however, the location 

of the placard has been revised from the 

proposal that it be ‘‘located in 

conspicuous view of the pilot-incommand.’’ Airbus, Bombardier, 

ICCAIA, and Fokker Services requested 

that the placard requirement be 

removed. They state that a placard 

installation is not directly related to 

airplane safety and that a competing 

number of placards are already 

installed, for which the information 

value is questionable. They believe an 

AFM limitation is sufficient, since the 

crew is required to follow the AFM 

when operating. While it is certainly 

true that the crew is required to follow 

the AFM, an AFM limitation is not 

conspicuous. The proposed placard 

requirement was intended to be a 

conspicuous notification regarding the 

limitations on the type of operations 

permitted for the airplane. However, we 

have reconsidered the location of the 

placard installation. Based on the input 

from the commenters, we agree that the 

instrument panel would not be an 

appropriate place to locate this placard. 

The area around the airworthiness 

certificate holder at the entrance to the 

flightdeck is deemed the most 

appropriate location, and we revised the 

SFAR to relocate the placard to this 

area. 

Evacuation Analysis 

Paragraph 2(f) of the SFAR requires an 

evacuation analysis for airplanes with a 

passenger capacity of 45–60, which is in 

keeping with current § 25.803. There 

were no comments on this proposal, and 

it is adopted as proposed. 

Equipment and Design General 

A number of commenters appeared to 

be confused about the applicability of 

the SFAR, its effect on the certification 

basis of the airplane, and when to 

follow the SFAR instead of existing 

rules. The specific issues are discussed 

with the topic they apply to below. 

However, as a general matter, the SFAR 

is intended to modify existing rules that 

are part of the certification basis of the 

airplane to facilitate operation in private 

use. It does not intend to address rules 

not already in their certification basis. 

Paragraph 3 of the SFAR was revised to 

clarify this and to specify that 

applicants must take into account the 

certification basis of their specific 

airplane when utilizing this SFAR. 

Firm Handholds 

Paragraph 4(a) of the SFAR grants 

relief from § 25.785(j), which requires a 

firm handhold along the aisle for people 

to steady themselves in moderately 

rough air, and the SFAR is consistent 

with the requirements proposed in the 

NPRM. It was clear from the comments 

submitted that there was some 

confusion on the intent of this 

requirement. Airbus, Bombardier and 

ICCAIA all commented that the 

proposal did not address open spaces, 

and did not offer guidance on what 

‘‘bordered by seats’’ meant, or where 

handholds would be required and 

where they would not. 

The SFAR is intended to limit 

application of the existing requirements 

of § 25.785(j) to those aisles along 

sidewalls or between seats. There is no 

intent to add additional requirements. 

In lieu of the requirement for ‘‘firm 

handholds’’ in § 25.785(j), the SFAR 

permits the applicant to show 

compliance if they can demonstrate that 

the interior features will allow people to 

steady themselves while occupying the 

airplane’s aisles only. The NPRM notes 

that this provision has a slight reduction 

in safety, since only certain aisles will 

be required to have the equivalent of a 

handhold, and that the FAA has 

previously granted exemptions for aisles 

in those areas (such as bedrooms) when 

there is no practical design approach. 

The term ‘‘bordered by seats’’ refers to 

an aisle that has seats along one or both 

sides. We agree that the spacing and 

configuration of seats used in the 

affected airplanes may not satisfy the 

literal requirements of § 25.785(j). 

Therefore, we added a provision 

specifying that the installation be 

practicable. Whenever practicable, 

passengers must have a means to steady 

themselves, but only while occupying 

the airplane’s aisles. 

Occupant Protection/Side Facing Seats 

Criteria 

Paragraph 4(b) of the SFAR was 

updated to include the current test 

requirements for the certification of 

side-facing seats. The FAA’s policy for 

side-facing seat certification criteria was 

updated 2 during the NPRM process and 

so the NPRM reflected the out-of-date 

policy. Most of the policy changes 

provided simplified test methods, and 

clarifications to the earlier policy. The 

net effect of the policy changes was to 

reduce the number of tests required and 

simplify design considerations. A 

number of the commenters provided 

extensive comments requesting that the 

SFAR be revised to align criteria with 

current practice. As mentioned above, 

this difference in the NPRM and the 

current FAA policy was not deliberate, 

but a result of the differing 

administrative process between the two. 

The intent of the SFAR was always to 

adopt the latest FAA policy on this 

subject. We are revising the SFAR to 

reflect the current policy language 

specified in special conditions and 

exemptions. 

Bombardier and ICCAIA also 

commented that side-facing seats should 

not be limited to private use. In this 

case, we agree that single-place sidefacing seats are not limited to private 

use. The FAA has defined criteria using 

special conditions—and now this 

SFAR—that provide the same level of 

safety for occupants of single-place sidefacing seats as that of forward- or aftfacing seats. Therefore, installation of a 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 21537 

single-place side-facing seat using those 

criteria is acceptable regardless of 

operation. However, we have not been 

able to define criteria for multiple 

occupant seats that provide an 

equivalent level of safety. These 

installations have been addressed 

through exemptions. While it is true 

that not all such exemptions have 

contained a private use limitation, these 

installations are generally only found in 

private use. As discussed above, this 

SFAR applies only to airplanes designed 

for private use. Any requests for 

installation of multiple occupant sidefacing seats for other than private use 

would require a petition for exemption 

and must be shown to be in the public 

interest. 

Direct View 

Paragraph 5 of the SFAR requires that 

the majority of installed flight attendant 

seats must face the cabin area for which 

the flight attendant is responsible. For 

example, if only 1 or 2 flight attendant 

seats are installed, then each must face 

the cabin; if 4 flight attendant seats are 

installed, then 3 must face the cabin. 

The NPRM would have required that all 

installed flight attendant seats face the 

cabin. This change was based on a 

comment from Airbus, pointing out that 

previous FAA exemptions address the 

majority rather than all flight attendant 

seats. Bombardier and Gulfstream 

evidently interpreted this provision as 

requiring installation of flight attendant 

seats. They note the difficulty in 

installing flight attendant seats on small 

transport airplanes and question the 

perceived requirement. There was some 

confusion on the intent of this 

requirement. This section of the SFAR 

does not require the installation of flight 

attendant seats. The SFAR’s intent is 

that, if there are flight attendant seats 

installed, then the majority must be 

located such that they face the cabin 

area, e.g., flight attendant seats should 

not be aft facing when located at the aft 

most exits. To avoid future confusion, 

the SFAR was revised to read, ‘‘* * * 

the majority of installed flight attendant 

seats must be located * * *’’ 

Distance Between Exits, Exit 

Deactivation, and 60-Foot Rule 

Paragraph 7 of the SFAR allows the 

deactivation of exits to create a distance 

of greater than sixty feet between exits, 

which would not otherwise be allowed 

under § 25.807(f)(4). The NPRM 

proposed specific criteria that provide 

an adequate level of passenger safety by 

limiting the passenger number and the 

distance needed to travel to an exit. 

These criteria are unchanged from the 

NPRM. Airbus and ICCAIA requested 

that the SFAR be revised to allow more 

distance between passengers and an 

exit, and to permit the deactivation of 

more exits to create more than one 

instance where the distance between 

exits was greater than 60 feet. In 

particular, the commenters questioned 

the specific criteria and how they are 

justified. While noting that the criteria 

are likely based on FAA’s experience 

with prior installations and exemptions, 

Airbus stated it would like more 

flexibility. 

The SFAR was written to be 

consistent with existing FAA policy and 

guidance. The intent of the 60-foot rule 

is to avoid excessive distances between 

passengers and their nearest exits under 

unpredictable accident conditions. By 

placing restrictions on how to create 

exit-to-exit distance greater than 60 feet, 

the SFAR maintains the spirit of the 

requirement. In developing the 

proposed criteria, we assessed many 

potential configurations on a variety of 

airplane types. 

The distance criterion in paragraph 

7(a) ensures that the intent of 

§ 25.807(f)(4) is maintained: passengers 

should not be seated more than 30 feet 

from the nearest exit. Given the 

increased complexity of private use 

cabin interiors allowed under this 

SFAR, and the resulting increased 

potential for obstruction, the passengercapacity limits specified in paragraphs 

7(b) and (c) are necessary to prevent 

crowding that would delay evacuation. 

Finally, paragraph 7(d)—which limits 

the use of this allowance to one pair of 

exits on each side of the airplane—is 

necessary to ensure that the airplane as 

a whole retains an acceptable 

emergency exit arrangement. 

While different approaches are 

possible, the SFAR offers relief from the 

60-foot rule with reasonable limitations, 

considering the remaining provisions of 

the SFAR. No alternative proposals were 

provided, so there is no clear 

justification to change these 

requirements or the FAA guidance on 

this issue. Therefore no change was 

made to the SFAR. 

GAMA recommended that the FAA 

permit reactivation of exits to enable 

operation in part 135. The FAA has no 

restriction on reactivating exits. 

However, the applicant would need to 

determine the extent of the modification 

necessary to restore the exit(s) to full 

compliance and obtain approval. This is 

true whether or not the SFAR is 

utilized. 

Emergency Exit Signs 

Paragraph 8 of the SFAR permits the 

use of a single exit sign to meet the 

requirements of § 25.811(d)(1) and (2). 

Bombardier and ICCAIA contended that 

this provision is not needed in the 

SFAR since the regulations do not 

specifically require two signs. 

Furthermore, they noted that the same 

criteria are proposed to be incorporated 

in a revision to Advisory Circular 25– 

17. Their position is that by including 

the provision in the SFAR, there is an 

implication of non-compliance, which 

may complicate validation by foreign 

airworthiness authorities. They also 

noted that the level of safety is not 

reduced with this provision. 

We agree that the level of safety using 

this provision is not reduced. By 

including this provision, applicants that 

elect to use the SFAR can use the single 

sign without having to refer to a draft 

advisory circular. Its inclusion does not 

limit its use only to the SFAR. 

GAMA and Embraer suggested 

alternative wording to make the 

requirement clearer with respect to 

legibility of the exit signs. They 

proposed to include consideration of 

not only seats, but bulkheads/dividers 

when assessing sign legibility, assuming 

that if there is a bulkhead, the exit will 

not be visible from a seat beyond the 

bulkhead. They suggested that the rule 

refer to the farthest seat or bulkhead/ 

divider, whichever is closer. While we 

agree that this issue should be 

addressed, the focus of this requirement 

needs to be on the seat farthest from the 

exit that must rely on the exit sign. 

Therefore, we have revised paragraph 

8(b) of the SFAR to read, ‘‘The sign can 

be read from the aisle adjacent to the 

passenger seat that is farthest from the 

exit and that does not have an 

intervening bulkhead/divider or exit.’’ 

For seats beyond such an intervening 

bulkhead/divider, § 25.811(d)(3), which 

is still fully applicable to airplanes 

subject to this SFAR, requires signage 

on the bulkhead/divider indicating exit 

locations. 

Emergency Lighting 

Paragraph 9 of the SFAR effectively 

raises the threshold for large, 

electrically illuminated exit signs from 

10 passengers to 20 passengers. It 

requires that, for airplanes with 19 or 

fewer passengers, the emergency exit 

signs required by § 25.811(d)(1), (2), and 

(3) must have red letters at least 1-inch 

high on a white background at least 2 

inches high. These signs may be 

internally electrically illuminated, or 

self-illuminated by non-electrical 

means, with an initial brightness of at 

least 160 microlamberts. The color may 

be reversed for a sign self-illuminated 

by non-electrical means. These are the 

same requirements as proposed in the 

NPRM. Transport Canada commented 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
21538 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

that the reference to § 25.812(b)(2) 

should be to § 25.812(b)(1), since it is 

from this paragraph that relief is 

provided. We agree and the SFAR is 

changed. Based on the comments there 

was some confusion regarding whether 

the signs would be accepted for both 

parts 91 and part 135 operations. The 

inclusion of the exit signs in the SFAR 

does not prohibit applicants from 

seeking equivalent level of safety 

findings or exemptions which would 

permit the use of these types of exit 

signs in part 135 operation. Therefore 

no change was made to the SFAR. 

Interior Doors 

Paragraph 10 of the SFAR allows 

installation of otherwise prohibited 

interior doors, provided a number of 

conditions are met that will prevent 

these doors from impeding emergency 

evacuations. Amendment 25–116, 

Miscellaneous Cabin Safety Changes (69 

FR 62778, October 27, 2004), effective 

November 26, 2004, changed the 

requirement for interior doors in 

§ 25.813(e), such that no interior door 

can be installed between any passenger 

seat (occupiable for taxi takeoff or 

landing) and any exit on part 25 

airplanes. This replaced a less stringent 

requirement that no door could be 

installed between passenger 

compartments and was adopted in 

recognition of the risk that passengers 

may become trapped behind such doors 

in an emergency evacuation. This was 

noted by Transport Canada and ICCAIA, 

and they requested that the latest rule be 

addressed by the SFAR. 

We agree and paragraph 10 of the 

SFAR has been updated accordingly. 

The relief granted is the same as in the 

NPRM (that is, the SFAR allows the 

installation of doors that would 

otherwise be prohibited). However, it 

applies to doors between any passenger 

seat and any emergency exit, rather than 

just to doors between passenger 

compartments. Without this revision, 

current § 25.813(e) would prohibit 

installation of these doors. 

Fokker Services questioned the need 

for laterally translating doors across 

longitudinal aisles. They suggest that 

hinged doors can be acceptable if the 

direction of hinging does not impede 

egress. The FAA originally established 

the requirement for laterally translating 

doors as a condition of exemptions. 

Hinged doors, in addition to having 

their direction of motion aligned with 

the most likely impact vectors, also have 

the potential to intrude into the cabin to 

a greater degree than doors that 

translate. Since the regulations do not 

permit doors at all, this allowance is a 

change in the level of safety, regardless 

of the door type. Hinged doors would 

further affect the level of safety, such 

that we cannot find it acceptable. There 

is no change to the SFAR on this point. 

We have added a new paragraph 10(f) 

to be consistent with the requirements 

of § 25.820, which requires that: ‘‘All 

lavatory doors must be designed to 

preclude anyone from becoming trapped 

inside the lavatory. If a locking 

mechanism is installed, it must be 

capable of being unlocked from the 

outside without the aid of special 

tools.’’ This requirement is also 

consistent with all the exemptions 

related to interior doors issued to date. 

This does not create any new 

requirements. 

Width of Aisle 

Paragraph 11 of the SFAR has been 

revised to allow aisle width to go to 0- 

inch width during in-flight operations, 

provided that it can be demonstrated 

that all areas of the airplane’s cabin are 

easily accessible by a crewmember 

during emergency. The NPRM proposed 

to require a minimum aisle of 9-inches 

in-flight. Several commenters, including 

GAMA and ICCAIA, objected to this 

provision, especially as it pertains to 

airplanes that are only required to have 

a 9-inch aisle for taxi, takeoff and 

landing. They noted that this is contrary 

to current practice and would result in 

significant design changes or loss of 

passenger capacity. Aero Consulting 

Services suggested, instead of a 

minimum aisle width, a requirement for 

access along the length of the cabin 

would be more appropriate. 

Commenters cited specific interior 

arrangements that would no longer be 

approvable using the proposed criteria 

and indicated that the utility of the 

SFAR would be greatly reduced if these 

criteria are maintained. 

Based on the strong feedback from the 

commenters, the FAA has reconsidered 

the 9-inch in-flight aisle requirement. 

We agree that a requirement focused on 

access along the length of the cabin is 

more appropriate in this SFAR, and is 

consistent with current industry 

practice for features such as footrests 

that protrude into the aisle. The FAA 

will only permit the 0-inch aisle width 

during periods other than taxi, takeoff 

and landing, providing the applicant 

can demonstrate the ability to access all 

parts of the cabin during an emergency. 

The SFAR was revised accordingly. 

Materials for Compartment Interiors 

Paragraph 12 of the SFAR requires 

compliance with § 25.853, except that 

compliance with appendix F, parts IV 

and V, to part 25 (if applicable to the 

airplane) need not be demonstrated, if it 

can be shown that the maximum 

evacuation time for all occupants does 

not exceed 45 seconds under the 

conditions specified in appendix J to 

part 25. This paragraph has been revised 

to clarify that only the provisions of 

§ 25.853 contained in the airplane’s 

certification basis must be complied 

with. 

Gulfstream, Fokker Services and 

Airbus commented on this provision. 

The commenters were confused about 

how the SFAR applied to specific 

airplanes and to what degree this 

superseded existing rules. Gulfstream 

interpreted the requirement as applying 

to airplanes with a seating capacity of 

10 or more, and that these airplanes 

would now need to show compliance 

with evacuation requirements they did 

not previously have to meet. In fact, the 

heat release and smoke emissions 

requirements only apply to airplanes 

with more than 19 seats that have the 

requirements of § 25.853(d), at 

Amendment 116 or equivalent, in their 

certification basis. If the airplane’s 

certification basis does not include heat 

release and smoke emissions 

requirements (§ 25.853 at Amendment 

25–61), then this paragraph of the SFAR 

is not applicable. However, it is correct 

that airplanes with more than 19 seats 

that are otherwise required to comply 

with heat release and smoke emissions 

requirements would have to show a 45- 

second evacuation time under the terms 

of the SFAR. Fokker Services proposed 

language to explicitly state that the 

provision apply only to airplanes with 

heat release and smoke emissions 

requirements. We agree with the intent, 

and the SFAR now refers to ‘‘the 

applicable provisions of § 25.853.’’ 

Airbus proposed that the evacuation 

requirement might be met by analysis 

only, rather than both analysis and 

testing. This may be a matter of 

semantics, because any evacuation 

analysis must be based on tests. 

However, the test data may be 

previously generated data, assuming the 

airplane has already demonstrated 

compliance in accordance with 

appendix J to part 25; so an analysis that 

utilizes prior test data could be 

acceptable. However, we do not 

anticipate that an analysis without any 

substantiating test data would be 

acceptable. 

Bombardier also requested that the 

fire penetration requirements of 

§ 25.856(b) be excluded from the SFAR 

for reasons similar to those granting 

relief from heat release and smoke 

emissions requirements. This is beyond 

the scope of the NPRM and would 

require a new public comment period. 

In addition, the thermal/acoustic 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 21539 

insulation used to provide fire 

penetration resistance is less a 

customization feature and more 

inherent in the design of the airplane. 

At this time, we do not anticipate 

granting relief from this requirement for 

those airplanes already required to 

comply. 

Fire Detection 

Paragraph 13 of the SFAR requires 

that, for airplanes with a type 

certificated passenger capacity of 20 or 

more, there must be means that meet the 

requirements of § 25.858(a) through (d) 

to signal the flightcrew in the event of 

a fire in any isolated room not 

occupiable for taxi, takeoff and landing, 

which can be closed off from the rest of 

the cabin by a door. This requirement is 

unchanged from the NPRM except that 

we have added the passenger capacity 

discriminant. 

Aero Consulting Services, 

Bombardier, Gulfstream, Transport 

Canada and ICCAIA all interpreted this 

provision as requiring fire detectors in 

lavatories. The commenters requested 

that the SFAR be revised to remove the 

requirement. The SFAR does not require 

the addition of smoke detectors in 

lavatories for airplanes if this is not 

already a requirement of their 

certification basis. Section 25.854, 

which applies to airplanes with a 

passenger capacity of 20 or more, 

already adequately defines the 

certification requirements for lavatories 

and smoke detectors. The SFAR was 

intended to address those areas on these 

same airplanes that are not accounted 

for in part 25 (e.g., staterooms, offices, 

conference rooms) and only if they are 

not occupied during taxi, takeoff and 

landing. This paragraph requires that 

fire detectors be installed in those areas. 

Paragraph 13 was also revised to 

include a statement regarding the 

applicability of § 25.854 to lavatories. 

Cooktop Requirements 

Paragraph 14 of the SFAR requires 

that each cooktop must be designed and 

installed to minimize any potential 

threat to the airplane, passengers, and 

crew as outlined in the criteria. This 

paragraph is unchanged from the 

NPRM, except for the format. In the 

NPRM the criteria were shown in an 

appendix to the SFAR. In this SFAR it 

appears as part of the rule text. Airbus 

and ICCAIA requested that the criteria 

be simplified. However, they did not 

propose alternative criteria that would 

justify changing these requirements. The 

cooktop requirements listed in the 

SFAR are consistent with the numerous 

existing special conditions. 

Hand-Held Fire Extinguishers 

In addition to the requirements of 

§ 25.851 for hand-held fire 

extinguishers, paragraph 15 of the 

NPRM would have required a fire 

extinguisher be installed for every pair 

of exits originally type certificated in 

the passenger cabin, regardless of 

whether the exits are deactivated for the 

proposed configuration. As a result of 

the comments received, as discussed 

below, only airplanes originally type 

certificated with more than 60 

passengers need to comply with this 

requirement. The NPRM also proposed 

that a fire extinguisher be installed at 

every pair of exits originally type 

certified in the passenger cabin, but did 

not include the 60 passenger 

discriminator. 

Gulfstream requested removal of this 

section because it would add cost and 

weight, based on the number of exit 

pairs on Gulfstream airplanes. Airbus, 

Fokker, Bombardier and ICCAIA 

proposed alternative wording to reflect 

their understanding of this provision. 

All commented that the language of the 

SFAR implied that these provisions 

were added to the requirements already 

contained in § 25.851. They also 

suggested that the installation 

requirements should not specify the 

location of the extinguishers at exits, but 

should be general, based on the number 

of exits originally certificated. The 

commenters requested that the SFAR be 

revised to clarify the quantity required 

and the placement locations. 

We agree that the SFAR as proposed 

could have unintended consequences, 

and be burdensome to operators and 

manufacturers of transport airplanes. 

The intent of the SFAR was to ensure 

that there would be an adequate number 

of fire extinguishers installed on board 

‘‘large’’ transport airplanes and that the 

fire extinguishers would be evenly 

distributed throughout the cabin. The 

current certification requirements are 

based on passenger capacity, so the 

larger airplanes with greatly reduced 

passenger counts are not adequately 

addressed in part 25. Thus, there is a 

need for additional criteria for 

installation of fire extinguishers. 

Based on the comments, we have 

revised the SFAR to limit by size the 

airplanes affected and to be more 

flexible, both in terms of installation 

location, and the way the total number 

of extinguishers is determined. This 

addresses the concerns expressed by 

Gulfstream regarding the effect on 

transport airplanes, as well as other 

comments suggesting revised wording to 

be more general. We have made it clear 

that the number of extinguishers is the 

greater of those required by § 25.851, or 

the number of originally certificated exit 

pairs. In addition, this requirement is 

now based on an originally certificated 

passenger count of greater than 60, since 

this is a significant break point in 

§ 25.851 in terms of the number of 

extinguishers required. Other provisions 

of § 25.851 continue to apply. 

Design for Security 

Since publication of Notice No. 07– 

13, the FAA has issued Amendment 25– 

127, which addresses security 

considerations in the design of transport 

category airplanes. This amendment is 

intended to mitigate through design 

measures some of the security risks 

faced in aviation. As discussed in 

Amendment 25–127, and the NPRM that 

preceded it, these requirements do not 

provide the same benefits for airplanes 

in private use. In Amendment 25–127 

we noted that this SFAR would exclude 

the ‘‘design for security’’ requirements 

for that reason. Therefore, a new 

paragraph 16 is added to the SFAR, that 

excludes newly adopted § 25.795 for 

airplanes approved in accordance with 

this SFAR. 

Other Subjects 

Gulfstream expressed their desire that 

this rulemaking be harmonized with the 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) rulemaking initiatives, and 

suggests that a harmonization effort be 

started. They noted that such 

harmonization helps minimize 

certification costs. We have kept EASA 

apprised of this rulemaking and will 

continue to do so. We agree that, 

whenever possible, harmonized 

requirements benefit all parties. At this 

time, however, there are no formal 

harmonization initiatives on this 

subject. We will work with EASA and 

other authorities to assist with any 

rulemaking they choose to promulgate. 

Boeing proposed that part 91 be 

amended to prohibit operations for hire, 

rather than requiring a limitation in the 

AFM. An amendment to part 91 is 

beyond the scope of the NPRM, and is 

more far-reaching than the limitation 

included in this SFAR. The AFM 

limitation is consistent with other 

limitations on operation and addresses 

the specific regulatory provisions 

modified by this SFAR. 

Boeing and ICCAIA suggested that a 

new section be written to address the 

use of glass in the cabin, for features 

such as partitions panels. This use of 

glass is uncommon and not a 

longstanding practice. In any case, 

criteria for approval of glass panels in 

the cabin is beyond the scope of the 

NPRM, and would require a separate 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
21540 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

notice and comment to establish 

criteria. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

According to the 1995 amendments to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

number for this information collection 

will be published in the Federal 

Register, after Office of Management 

and Budget approval. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these regulations. 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this SFAR. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this SFAR. The reasoning for this 

determination follows: 

This SFAR establishes FAA 

rulemaking requirements for certifying 

cabin interiors for transport category 

private use airplanes. These 

requirements are voluntary and may be 

used instead of the existing 

requirements that are primarily 

designed for airplanes used in 

scheduled airline service. The purpose 

of the rule is to reduce time and costs 

for people certifying cabins for transport 

category private use airplanes. The 

regulatory evaluation prepared for the 

NPRM indicated that a typical 

certification under this SFAR might 

save the airplane purchaser four months 

and $725,000 per exemption, compared 

to existing certification procedures. The 

completion center would accrue savings 

of approximately $100,000 per airplane 

per exemption, and the FAA would 

accrue savings of approximately $6,000 

per airplane per exemption. This results 

in approximately $725,000 plus 

$100,000 plus $6,000 in savings, for a 

total of $831,000 per airplane per 

exemption. 

No comments were received on the 

NPRM regulatory summary statement. 

However, changes were made to the 

proposed rule as a result of comments 

received on the NPRM that affected the 

regulatory summary statement. These 

changes provided even more cost relief 

than those identified for the proposed 

rule. 

From an economic standpoint, the 

most important changes were: 

1. Flight Attendant Requirement. This 

SFAR requires a flight attendant only for 

those airplanes with interior doors that 

were initially type certificated with 75 

or more passengers. The NPRM 

proposed that a flight attendant be 

required when interior doors are 

installed for passenger seating 

arrangements of 10 or more. 

2. Operation of an airplane certified in 

accordance with this SFAR in part 135 

service is not prohibited by this SFAR, 

provided that the airplane meets all part 

135 requirements when operated under 

part 135. 

The expected outcome of this SFAR 

will be a minimal economic impact with 

positive net benefits. Therefore, a full 

regulatory evaluation was not prepared. 

FAA has, therefore, determined that 

this SFAR is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

The NPRM concluded that the 

proposal would have no adverse impact 

on small business entities. As in the 

case of the NPRM, this SFAR provides 

a voluntary alternate means of certifying 

the cabin interior for private use 

transport category airplanes. No 

comments were received on the 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in the 

NPRM. Therefore, as the acting FAA 

Administrator, I certify that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing any standards or 

engaging in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 21541 

commerce of the United States. 

Legitimate domestic objectives, such as 

safety, are not considered unnecessary 

obstacles. The statute also requires 

consideration of international standards 

and, where appropriate, that they be the 

basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 

assessed the potential effect of this 

SFAR and notes the rule is voluntary 

and cost-relieving, thus is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

trade. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$136.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This SFAR does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this SFAR 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

Federal Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have federalism implications. 

Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the FAA, when 

modifying its regulations in a manner 

affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to 

consider the extent to which Alaska is 

not served by transportation modes 

other than aviation, and to establish 

appropriate regulatory distinction. In 

the NPRM, we requested comments on 

whether the proposed rule should apply 

differently to intrastate operations in 

Alaska. We did not receive any 

comments, and we have determined, 

based on the administrative record of 

this rulemaking, that there is no need to 

make any regulatory distinctions 

applicable to intrastate aviation in 

Alaska. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this SFAR 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We 

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents using the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to 

identify the amendment number or 

docket number of this rulemaking. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

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

may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. If 

you are a small entity and you have a 

question regarding this document, you 

may contact your local FAA official, or 

the person listed under the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the 

beginning of the preamble. You can find 

out more about SBREFA on the Internet 

at http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/rulemaking/ 

sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS 

STANDARDS—TRANSPORT 

CATEGORY AIRPLANES 

■ 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. In part 25, add SFAR No.109 to read 

as follows: 

Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

No. 109 

1. Applicability. Contrary provisions 

of 14 CFR parts 21, 25, and 119 of this 

chapter notwithstanding, an applicant is 

entitled to an amended type certificate 

or supplemental type certificate in the 

transport category, if the applicant 

complies with all applicable provisions 

of this SFAR. 

Operations 

2. General. 

(a) The passenger capacity may not 

exceed 60. If more than 60 passenger 

seats are installed, then: 

(1) If the extra seats are not suitable 

for occupancy during taxi, takeoff and 

landing, each extra seat must be clearly 

marked (e.g., a placard on the top of an 

armrest, or a placard sewn into the top 

of the back cushion) that the seat is not 

to be occupied during taxi, takeoff and 

landing. 

(2) If the extra seats are suitable for 

occupancy during taxi, takeoff and 

landing (i.e., meet all the strength and 

passenger injury criteria in part 25), 

then a note must be included in the 

Limitations Section of the Airplane 

Flight Manual that there are extra seats 

installed but that the number of 

passengers on the airplane must not 

exceed 60. Additionally, there must be 

a placard installed adjacent to each door 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
21542 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

that can be used as a passenger boarding 

door that states that the maximum 

passenger capacity is 60. The placard 

must be clearly legible to passengers 

entering the airplane. 

(b) For airplanes outfitted with 

interior doors under paragraph 10 of 

this SFAR, the airplane flight manual 

(AFM) must include an appropriate 

limitation that the airplane must be 

staffed with at least the following 

number of flight attendants who meet 

the requirements of 14 CFR 91.533(b): 

(1) The number of flight attendants 

required by § 91.533(a)(1) and (2) of this 

chapter, and 

(2) At least one flight attendant if the 

airplane model was originally certified 

for 75 passengers or more. 

(c) The AFM must include 

appropriate limitation(s) to require a 

preflight passenger briefing describing 

the appropriate functions to be 

performed by the passengers and the 

relevant features of the airplane to 

ensure the safety of the passengers and 

crew. 

(d) The airplane may not be offered 

for common carriage or operated for 

hire. The operating limitations section 

of the AFM must be revised to prohibit 

any operations involving the carriage of 

persons or property for compensation or 

hire. The operators may receive 

remuneration to the extent consistent 

with parts 125 and 91, subpart F, of this 

chapter. 

(e) A placard stating that ‘‘Operations 

involving the carriage of persons or 

property for compensation or hire are 

prohibited,’’ must be located in the area 

of the Airworthiness Certificate holder 

at the entrance to the flightdeck. 

(f) For passenger capacities of 45 to 60 

passengers, analysis must be submitted 

that demonstrates that the airplane can 

be evacuated in less than 90 seconds 

under the conditions specified in 

§ 25.803 and appendix J to part 25. 

(g) In order for any airplane certified 

under this SFAR to be placed in part 

135 or part 121 operations, the airplane 

must be brought back into full 

compliance with the applicable 

operational part. 

Equipment and Design 

3. General. Unless otherwise noted, 

compliance is required with the 

applicable certification basis for the 

airplane. Some provisions of this SFAR 

impose alternative requirements to 

certain airworthiness standards that do 

not apply to airplanes certificated to 

earlier standards. Those airplanes with 

an earlier certification basis are not 

required to comply with those 

alternative requirements. 

4. Occupant Protection. 

(a) Firm Handhold. In lieu of the 

requirements of § 25.785(j), there must 

be means provided to enable persons to 

steady themselves in moderately rough 

air while occupying aisles that are along 

the cabin sidewall, or where practicable, 

bordered by seats (seat backs providing 

a 25-pound minimum breakaway force 

are an acceptable means of compliance). 

(b) Injury criteria for multiple 

occupancy side-facing seats. The 

following requirements are only 

applicable to airplanes that are subject 

to § 25.562. 

(1) Existing Criteria. All injury 

protection criteria of § 25.562(c)(1) 

through (c)(6) apply to the occupants of 

side-facing seating. The Head Injury 

Criterion (HIC) assessments are only 

required for head contact with the seat 

and/or adjacent structures. 

(2) Body-to-Body Contact. Contact 

between the head, pelvis, torso or 

shoulder area of one Anthropomorphic 

Test Dummy (ATD) with the head, 

pelvis, torso or shoulder area of the ATD 

in the adjacent seat is not allowed 

during the tests conducted in 

accordance with § 25.562(b)(1) and 

(b)(2). Contact during rebound is 

allowed. 

(3) Thoracic Trauma. If the torso of an 

ATD at the forward-most seat place 

impacts the seat and/or adjacent 

structure during testing, compliance 

with the Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) 

injury criterion must be substantiated by 

dynamic test or by rational analysis 

based on previous test(s) of a similar 

seat installation. TTI data must be 

acquired with a Side Impact Dummy 

(SID), as defined by 49 CFR part 572, 

subpart F, or an equivalent ATD or a 

more appropriate ATD and must be 

processed as defined in Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) part 

571.214, section S6.13.5 (49 CFR 

571.214). The TTI must be less than 85, 

as defined in 49 CFR part 572, subpart 

F. Torso contact during rebound is 

acceptable and need not be measured. 

(4) Pelvis. If the pelvis of an ATD at 

any seat place impacts seat and/or 

adjacent structure during testing, pelvic 

lateral acceleration injury criteria must 

be substantiated by dynamic test or by 

rational analysis based on previous 

test(s) of a similar seat installation. 

Pelvic lateral acceleration may not 

exceed 130g. Pelvic acceleration data 

must be processed as defined in FMVSS 

part 571.214, section S6.13.5 (49 CFR 

571.214). 

(5) Body-to-Wall/Furnishing Contact. 

If the seat is installed aft of a structure— 

such as an interior wall or furnishing 

that may contact the pelvis, upper arm, 

chest, or head of an occupant seated 

next to the structure—the structure or a 

conservative representation of the 

structure and its stiffness must be 

included in the tests. It is 

recommended, but not required, that the 

contact surface of the actual structure be 

covered with at least two inches of 

energy absorbing protective padding 

(foam or equivalent) such as Ensolite. 

(6) Shoulder Strap Loads. Where 

upper torso straps (shoulder straps) are 

used for sofa occupants, the tension 

loads in individual straps may not 

exceed 1,750 pounds. If dual straps are 

used for restraining the upper torso, the 

total strap tension loads may not exceed 

2,000 pounds. 

(7) Occupant Retention. All sidefacing seats require end closures or 

other means to prevent the ATD’s pelvis 

from translating beyond the end of the 

seat at any time during testing. 

(8) Test Parameters. 

(i) All seat positions need to be 

occupied by ATDs for the longitudinal 

tests. 

(ii) A minimum of one longitudinal 

test, conducted in accordance with the 

conditions specified in § 25.562(b)(2), is 

required to assess the injury criteria as 

follows. Note that if a seat is installed 

aft of structure (such as an interior wall 

or furnishing) that does not have a 

homogeneous surface, an additional test 

or tests may be required to demonstrate 

that the injury criteria are met for the 

area which an occupant could contact. 

For example, different yaw angles could 

result in different injury considerations 

and may require separate tests to 

evaluate. 

(A) For configurations without 

structure (such as a wall or bulkhead) 

installed directly forward of the forward 

seat place, Hybrid II ATDs or equivalent 

must be in all seat places. 

(B) For configurations with structure 

(such as a wall or bulkhead) installed 

directly forward of the forward seat 

place, a side impact dummy or 

equivalent ATD or more appropriate 

ATD must be in the forward seat place 

and a Hybrid II ATD or equivalent must 

be in all other seat places. 

(C) The test may be conducted with or 

without deformed floor. 

(D) The test must be conducted with 

either no yaw or 10 degrees yaw for 

evaluating occupant injury. Deviating 

from the no yaw condition may not 

result in the critical area of contact not 

being evaluated. The upper torso 

restraint straps, where installed, must 

remain on the occupant’s shoulder 

during the impact condition of 

§ 25.562(b)(2). 

(c) For the vertical test, conducted in 

accordance with the conditions 

specified in § 25.562(b)(1), Hybrid II 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 21543 

ATDs or equivalent must be used in all 

seat positions. 

5. Direct View. In lieu of the 

requirements of § 25.785(h)(2), to the 

extent practical without compromising 

proximity to a required floor level 

emergency exit, the majority of installed 

flight attendant seats must be located to 

face the cabin area for which the flight 

attendant is responsible. 

6. Passenger Information Signs. 

Compliance with § 25.791 is required 

except that for § 25.791(a), when 

smoking is to be prohibited, notification 

to the passengers may be provided by a 

single placard so stating, to be 

conspicuously located inside the 

passenger compartment, easily visible to 

all persons entering the cabin in the 

immediate vicinity of each passenger 

entry door. 

7. Distance Between Exits. For an 

airplane that is required to comply with 

§ 25.807(f)(4), in effect as of July 24, 

1989, which has more than one 

passenger emergency exit on each side 

of the fuselage, no passenger emergency 

exit may be more than 60 feet from any 

adjacent passenger emergency exit on 

the same side of the same deck of the 

fuselage, as measured parallel to the 

airplane’s longitudinal axis between the 

nearest exit edges, unless the following 

conditions are met: 

(a) Each passenger seat must be 

located within 30 feet from the nearest 

exit on each side of the fuselage, as 

measured parallel to the airplane’s 

longitudinal axis, between the nearest 

exit edge and the front of the seat 

bottom cushion. 

(b) The number of passenger seats 

located between two adjacent pairs of 

emergency exits (commonly referred to 

as a passenger zone) or between a pair 

of exits and a bulkhead or a 

compartment door (commonly referred 

to as a ‘‘dead-end zone’’), may not 

exceed the following: 

(1) For zones between two pairs of 

exits, 50 percent of the combined rated 

capacity of the two pairs of emergency 

exits. 

(2) For zones between one pair of 

exits and a bulkhead, 40 percent of the 

rated capacity of the pair of emergency 

exits. 

(c) The total number of passenger 

seats in the airplane may not exceed 33 

percent of the maximum seating 

capacity for the airplane model using 

the exit ratings listed in § 25.807(g) for 

the original certified exits or the 

maximum allowable after modification 

when exits are deactivated, whichever is 

less. 

(d) A distance of more than 60 feet 

between adjacent passenger emergency 

exits on the same side of the same deck 

of the fuselage, as measured parallel to 

the airplane’s longitudinal axis between 

the nearest exit edges, is allowed only 

once on each side of the fuselage. 

8. Emergency Exit Signs. In lieu of the 

requirements of § 25.811(d)(1) and (2) a 

single sign at each exit may be installed 

provided: 

(a) The sign can be read from the aisle 

while directly facing the exit, and 

(b) The sign can be read from the aisle 

adjacent to the passenger seat that is 

farthest from the exit and that does not 

have an intervening bulkhead/divider or 

exit. 

9. Emergency Lighting. 

(a) Exit Signs. In lieu of the 

requirements of § 25.812(b)(1), for 

airplanes that have a passenger seating 

configuration, excluding pilot seats, of 

19 seats or less, the emergency exit signs 

required by § 25.811(d)(1), (2), and (3) 

must have red letters at least 1-inch high 

on a white background at least 2 inches 

high. These signs may be internally 

electrically illuminated, or self 

illuminated by other than electrical 

means, with an initial brightness of at 

least 160 microlamberts. The color may 

be reversed in the case of a sign that is 

self-illuminated by other than electrical 

means. 

(b) Floor Proximity Escape Path 

Marking. In lieu of the requirements of 

§ 25.812(e)(1), for cabin seating 

compartments that do not have the main 

cabin aisle entering and exiting the 

compartment, the following are 

applicable: 

(1) After a passenger leaves any 

passenger seat in the compartment, he/ 

she must be able to exit the 

compartment to the main cabin aisle 

using only markings and visual features 

not more that 4 feet above the cabin 

floor, and 

(2) Proceed to the exits using the 

marking system necessary to accomplish 

the actions in § 25.812(e)(1) and (e)(2). 

(c) Transverse Separation of the 

Fuselage. In the event of a transverse 

separation of the fuselage, compliance 

must be shown with § 25.812(l) except 

as follows: 

(1) For each airplane type originally 

type certificated with a maximum 

passenger seating capacity of 9 or less, 

not more than 50 percent of all 

electrically illuminated emergency 

lights required by § 25.812 may be 

rendered inoperative in addition to the 

lights that are directly damaged by the 

separation. 

(2) For each airplane type originally 

type certificated with a maximum 

passenger seating capacity of 10 to 19, 

not more than 33 percent of all 

electrically illuminated emergency 

lights required by § 25.812 may be 

rendered inoperative in addition to the 

lights that are directly damaged by the 

separation. 

10. Interior doors. In lieu of the 

requirements of § 25.813(e), interior 

doors may be installed between 

passenger seats and exits, provided the 

following requirements are met. 

(a) Each door between any passenger 

seat, occupiable for taxi, takeoff, and 

landing, and any emergency exit must 

have a means to signal to the flightcrew, 

at the flightdeck, that the door is in the 

open position for taxi, takeoff and 

landing. 

(b) Appropriate procedures/ 

limitations must be established to 

ensure that any such door is in the open 

configuration for takeoff and landing. 

(c) Each door between any passenger 

seat and any exit must have dual means 

to retain it in the open position, each of 

which is capable of reacting the inertia 

loads specified in § 25.561. 

(d) Doors installed across a 

longitudinal aisle must translate 

laterally to open and close, e.g., pocket 

doors. 

(e) Each door between any passenger 

seat and any exit must be frangible in 

either direction. 

(f) Each door between any passenger 

seat and any exit must be operable from 

either side, and if a locking mechanism 

is installed, it must be capable of being 

unlocked from either side without the 

use of special tools. 

11. Width of Aisle. Compliance is 

required with § 25.815, except that aisle 

width may be reduced to 0 inches 

between passenger seats during in-flight 

operations only, provided that the 

applicant demonstrates that all areas of 

the cabin are easily accessible by a crew 

member in the event of an emergency 

(e.g., in-flight fire, decompression). 

Additionally, instructions must be 

provided at each passenger seat for 

restoring the aisle width required by 

§ 25.815. Procedures must be 

established and documented in the 

AFM to ensure that the required aisle 

widths are provided during taxi, takeoff, 

and landing. 

12. Materials for Compartment 

Interiors. Compliance is required with 

the applicable provisions of § 25.853, 

except that compliance with appendix 

F, parts IV and V, to part 25, need not 

be demonstrated if it can be shown by 

test or a combination of test and 

analysis that the maximum time for 

evacuation of all occupants does not 

exceed 45 seconds under the conditions 

specified in appendix J to part 25. 

13. Fire Detection. For airplanes with 

a type certificated passenger capacity of 

20 or more, there must be means that 

meet the requirements of § 25.858(a) 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
21544 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 88 / Friday, May 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

through (d) to signal the flightcrew in 

the event of a fire in any isolated room 

not occupiable for taxi, takeoff and 

landing, which can be closed off from 

the rest of the cabin by a door. The 

indication must identify the 

compartment where the fire is located. 

This does not apply to lavatories, which 

continue to be governed by § 25.854. 

14. Cooktops. Each cooktop must be 

designed and installed to minimize any 

potential threat to the airplane, 

passengers, and crew. Compliance with 

this requirement must be found in 

accordance with the following criteria: 

(a) Means, such as conspicuous 

burner-on indicators, physical barriers, 

or handholds, must be installed to 

minimize the potential for inadvertent 

personnel contact with hot surfaces of 

both the cooktop and cookware. 

Conditions of turbulence must be 

considered. 

(b) Sufficient design means must be 

included to restrain cookware while in 

place on the cooktop, as well as 

representative contents, e.g., soup, 

sauces, etc., from the effects of flight 

loads and turbulence. Restraints must be 

provided to preclude hazardous 

movement of cookware and contents. 

These restraints must accommodate any 

cookware that is identified for use with 

the cooktop. Restraints must be 

designed to be easily utilized and 

effective in service. The cookware 

restraint system should also be designed 

so that it will not be easily disabled, 

thus rendering it unusable. Placarding 

must be installed which prohibits the 

use of cookware that cannot be 

accommodated by the restraint system. 

(c) Placarding must be installed which 

prohibits the use of cooktops (i.e., 

power on any burner) during taxi, 

takeoff, and landing. 

(d) Means must be provided to 

address the possibility of a fire 

occurring on or in the immediate 

vicinity of the cooktop. Two acceptable 

means of complying with this 

requirement are as follows: 

(1) Placarding must be installed that 

prohibits any burner from being 

powered when the cooktop is 

unattended. (Note: This would prohibit 

a single person from cooking on the 

cooktop and intermittently serving food 

to passengers while any burner is 

powered.) A fire detector must be 

installed in the vicinity of the cooktop 

which provides an audible warning in 

the passenger cabin, and a fire 

extinguisher of appropriate size and 

extinguishing agent must be installed in 

the immediate vicinity of the cooktop. 

Access to the extinguisher may not be 

blocked by a fire on or around the 

cooktop. 

(2) An automatic, thermally activated 

fire suppression system must be 

installed to extinguish a fire at the 

cooktop and immediately adjacent 

surfaces. The agent used in the system 

must be an approved total flooding 

agent suitable for use in an occupied 

area. The fire suppression system must 

have a manual override. The automatic 

activation of the fire suppression system 

must also automatically shut off power 

to the cooktop. 

(e) The surfaces of the galley 

surrounding the cooktop which would 

be exposed to a fire on the cooktop 

surface or in cookware on the cooktop 

must be constructed of materials that 

comply with the flammability 

requirements of part III of appendix F to 

part 25. This requirement is in addition 

to the flammability requirements 

typically required of the materials in 

these galley surfaces. During the 

selection of these materials, 

consideration must also be given to 

ensure that the flammability 

characteristics of the materials will not 

be adversely affected by the use of 

cleaning agents and utensils used to 

remove cooking stains. 

(f) The cooktop must be ventilated 

with a system independent of the 

airplane cabin and cargo ventilation 

system. Procedures and time intervals 

must be established to inspect and clean 

or replace the ventilation system to 

prevent a fire hazard from the 

accumulation of flammable oils and be 

included in the instructions for 

continued airworthiness. The 

ventilation system ducting must be 

protected by a flame arrestor. [Note: The 

applicant may find additional useful 

information in Society of Automotive 

Engineers, Aerospace Recommended 

Practice 85, Rev. E, entitled ‘‘Air 

Conditioning Systems for Subsonic 

Airplanes,’’ dated August 1, 1991.] 

(g) Means must be provided to contain 

spilled foods or fluids in a manner that 

will prevent the creation of a slipping 

hazard to occupants and will not lead to 

the loss of structural strength due to 

airplane corrosion. 

(h) Cooktop installations must 

provide adequate space for the user to 

immediately escape a hazardous 

cooktop condition. 

(i) A means to shut off power to the 

cooktop must be provided at the galley 

containing the cooktop and in the 

cockpit. If additional switches are 

introduced in the cockpit, revisions to 

smoke or fire emergency procedures of 

the AFM will be required. 

(j) If the cooktop is required to have 

a lid to enclose the cooktop there must 

be a means to automatically shut off 

power to the cooktop when the lid is 

closed. 

15. Hand-Held Fire Extinguishers. 

(a) For airplanes that were originally 

type certificated with more than 60 

passengers, the number of hand-held 

fire extinguishers must be the greater 

of— 

(1) That provided in accordance with 

the requirements of § 25.851, or 

(2) A number equal to the number of 

originally type certificated exit pairs, 

regardless of whether the exits are 

deactivated for the proposed 

configuration. 

(b) Extinguishers must be evenly 

distributed throughout the cabin. These 

extinguishers are in addition to those 

required by paragraph 14 of this SFAR, 

unless it can be shown that the cooktop 

was installed in the immediate vicinity 

of the original exits. 

16. Security. The requirements of 

§ 25.795 are not applicable to airplanes 

approved in accordance with this SFAR. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 11, 

2009. 

Lynne A. Osmus, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–10807 Filed 5–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0419; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–050–AD; Amendment 

39–15898; AD 2009–10–03] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; 328 Support 

Services GmbH Dornier Model 328–100 

and –300 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

products listed above. This AD results 

from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

During a recent Aileron Dual Load Path 

and Linkage Inspection, which is a 

certification maintenance requirement (CMR) 

task, the installed control rods were found to 

be corroded. The affected rod assemblies 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES