Clarification of Prior Interpretations of the Seat Belt and Seating Requirements for General Aviation Flights, 36890-36891 [2011-15709]
Download as PDF
36890
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 121 / Thursday, June 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 17,
2011.
Dennis R. Pratte,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011–15690 Filed 6–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. FAA–2011–0628]
Clarification of Prior Interpretations of
the Seat Belt and Seating
Requirements for General Aviation
Flights
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed clarification
of prior interpretations.
AGENCY:
This action proposes to clarify
prior interpretations of the seat belt and
seating requirements of 14 CFR
91.107(a)(3). These prior interpretations
state that the shared use of a single
restraint may be permissible. The
proposed clarification states that the use
of a seat belt and/or seat by more than
one occupant is appropriate only if: The
seat belt is approved and rated for such
use; the structural strength requirements
for the seat are not exceeded; and the
seat usage conforms with the limitations
contained in the approved portion of the
Airplane Flight Manual. The proposed
clarification also emphasizes that the
proper restraint method for children
during operations conducted under part
91 relies on the good judgment of the
pilot, who should be intimately aware of
the capabilities and structural
requirements of the aircraft that he or
she is operating.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 22, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments
identified by docket number FAA–
2011–0628 using any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
• Mail: Send Comments to Docket
Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC
20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery: Take comments to
Docket Operations in Room W12–140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Jun 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex
Zektser, Attorney, Regulations Division,
Office of Chief Counsel, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202)
267–3073; email: Alex.Zektser@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to
submit written comments, data, or
views concerning this proposal. The
most helpful comments reference a
specific portion of the proposal, explain
the reason for any recommended
change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, please send only
one copy of written comments, or if you
are filing comments electronically,
please submit your comments only one
time.
The FAA will file in the docket all
comments received, as well as a report
summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning
this proposal. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all
comments received on or before the
closing date for comments and any latefiled comments if it is possible to do so
without incurring expense or delay. The
FAA may change this proposal in light
of comments received.
Availability of This Proposed
Clarification of Prior Interpretations
You can get an electronic copy using
the Internet by—
(1) Searching the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (https://
www.regulations.gov);
(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and
Policies Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
(3) Accessing the Government
Printing Office’s Web page at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
You can also get a copy by sending a
request to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to
identify the docket number or notice
number of this proposal.
Background
On March 22, 2009, a Pilatus PC–12/
45 descended and impacted the ground
near the approach end of a runway at
Bert Mooney Airport in Butte, Montana.
After investigating this incident, the
National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) determined the following.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
At the time of the impact, the Pilatus
PC–12/45 airplane was operating as a
personal flight under the provisions of
14 CFR part 91. The pilot and the 13
airplane passengers were killed, and the
airplane was destroyed by impact forces
and the postcrash fire. Among the 13
passengers were six adults and seven
children. Because the flight was a
single-pilot operation, eight seats in the
cabin and one seat in the cockpit were
available to the 13 passengers. Thus, the
number of passengers exceeded the
number of available seats. The NTSB
was unable to determine the original
seating position for most of the
occupants, but the bodies of four
children, ages 3 to 9 years, were found
farthest from the impact site, indicating
that these children were likely thrown
from the airplane because they were
unrestrained or improperly restrained.
The NTSB noted that if the accident had
been less severe and the impact had
been survivable, any unrestrained
occupant or occupants sharing a single
restraint system would have been at a
much greater risk of injury or death.
As a result of the March 22, 2009
incident described above, the NTSB has
requested that the FAA withdraw its
prior interpretations of 14 CFR
91.107(a)(3), which permit the shared
use of a single restraint system.
Discussion of the Proposal
In response to the NTSB’s request, the
FAA proposes to clarify its prior
interpretations of 14 CFR 91.107(a)(3) as
follows.
For part 91 operations, section
91.107(a)(3) requires that ‘‘each person
on board a U.S. registered civil aircraft
* * * must occupy an approved seat or
berth with a safety belt and, if installed,
shoulder harness, properly secured
about him or her during movement on
the surface, takeoff, and landing.’’
Children under the age of two may be
held by an adult who is occupying an
approved seat or berth and no
restraining device for the child is used.
In contrast, for commercial operations
under part 121, section 121.311 requires
that each person ‘‘occupy an approved
seat or berth with a separate safety belt
properly secured about him.’’
When § 121.311 and § 91.107
(previously § 91.14) were first
promulgated in 1971, the FAA clarified
that the separate use provision for safety
belts under part 121 was not intended
to apply to part 91 operations. Rather,
part 91 ‘‘requires only that each person
on board occupy a seat or berth with a
safety belt properly secured about him.’’
36 FR 12511 (July 1, 1971). The FAA
has previously interpreted this
provision as not requiring separate use
E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM
23JNP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 121 / Thursday, June 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
of safety belts. See Legal Interpretation
1990–14. At the time, this allowance
was permissible because seat belts were
generally rated in terms of strength and
some were rated for more than one
occupant to accommodate side-by-side
seating arrangements (i.e., bench seats)
in certain aircraft that are commonly
used in operations conducted under
part 91. Thus, use of a seat belt and seat
by more than one occupant may have
been appropriate only if: (1) The belt
was approved and rated for such use; (2)
the structural strength requirements for
the seat were not exceeded; and (3) the
seat usage conformed with the
limitations contained in the approved
portion of the Airplane Flight Manual
(14 CFR § 23.1581(j)). See 36 FR 12511;
see also 14 CFR 23.562, 23.785; Legal
Interpretation 1990–14; Legal
Interpretation to Mr. C.J. Leonard from
Hays Hettinger, Associate Counsel (July
26, 1966). Under the FAA’s proposed
clarification, seating arrangements that
do not comply with the above
conditions would not be able to use the
FAA’s prior interpretations of
§ 91.107(a)(3) to justify the shared use of
a single restraint system.
The FAA also emphasizes that
although § 91.107(a)(3) and
§ 91.205(b)(13), as previously
interpreted by the agency, may allow for
shared use of a single restraint in certain
situations, whether a child should be
held, or placed under a safety belt, or
allowed to share a single restraint or
seat with another occupant during part
91 operations, is a matter of prudent
operating practice. The FAA has
strongly advocated, and continues to
advocate, the use of child restraints
such as child safety seats for children
who are within the weight restriction of
the restraint. See 57 FR 42662, 42664
(Sept. 15, 1992) (allowing the use of
child restraint systems in operations
conducted under parts 91, 121, 125,
135, and recognizing that the ‘‘use of
child restraints in an aircraft will
provide a level of safety greater than
that which would be provided if the
young children were held in the arms of
adults or if safety belts alone were
used’’); 70 FR 50902, 50903 (Aug. 26,
2005) (allowing use of child restraint
systems that are approved by the FAA);
71 FR 40003, 40005 (July 14, 2006)
(allowing use of more types of child
restraint systems). The FAA recognizes
that properly restraining children on
aircraft is difficult because there is a
large variance in muscle development,
height, weight, and upper body strength.
Thus, good judgment of the pilot, who
should be intimately aware of the
capabilities and structural requirements
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Jun 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
of the aircraft he or she is operating, is
critical in determining the proper
method of restraint for children during
operations conducted under part 91.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 17,
2011.
Rebecca B. MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations,
AGC–200.
[FR Doc. 2011–15709 Filed 6–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
42 CFR Part 81
[Docket Number NIOSH–0209]
36891
• Mail: NIOSH Docket Office, Robert
A. Taft Laboratories, MS–C34, 4676
Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH
45226.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulation Identifier
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking, RIN
0920–AA39. All comments received
will be posted without change to https://
www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/archive/
docket209.html, including any personal
information provided.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/archive/
docket209.html.
RIN 0920–AA39
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Guidelines for Determining Probability
of Causation Under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act of 2000;
Revision of Guidelines on NonRadiogenic Cancers; Extension of
Comment Period
Stuart Hinnefeld, Director, Division of
Compensation Analysis and Support,
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676
Columbia Parkway, MS–C46,
Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone 513–
533–6800 (this is not a toll-free
number). Information requests can also
be submitted by e-mail to dcas@cdc.gov.
National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
extension of comment period.
AGENCY:
On March 21, 2011, the
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking proposing to treat
chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) as
a radiogenic cancer under the Energy
Employees Occupations Illness
Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA)
of 2000. The public comment period
was scheduled to end on June 20, 2011.
We have received a request asking to
extend the public comment period. In
consideration of this request, HHS is
extending the public comment period
by 30 days to July 20, 2011.
DATES: The comment period for the
proposed rule published March 21, 2011
(76 FR 15268), is extended. Written or
electronic comments must be received
on or before July 20, 2011. Please refer
to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
additional information.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN 0920–AA39, by any of
the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: nioshdocket@cdc.gov.
Include ‘‘RIN: 0920–AA39’’ and ‘‘42
CFR Part 81’’ in the subject line of the
message.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
HHS
published a proposed rule entitled
‘‘Guidelines for Determining Probability
of Causation Under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act of 2000,’’ on
Monday, March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15268).
In the notice of proposed rulemaking,
HHS would treat chronic lymphocytic
leukemia (CLL) as a radiogenic cancer
under the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation
Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA). Under
current guidelines promulgated by HHS
as regulations in 2002, all types of
cancers except for CLL are treated as
being potentially caused by radiation
and hence, as potentially compensable
under EEOICPA. HHS proposes to
reverse its decision to exclude CLL from
such treatment.
HHS received a request to extend the
comment period. In consideration of
that request, HHS is extending the
comment period by 30 days, such that
all comments must be received on or
before July 20, 2011. This extended
deadline will have provided
commenters with 90 days for comment
on the proposed rule while preserving
the Agency’s ability to make timely
progress on this occupational health
priority.
Accordingly, the comment period for
the proposed rule published March 21,
2011 (76 FR 15268), is extended until
July 20, 2011.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM
23JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 121 (Thursday, June 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36890-36891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15709]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. FAA-2011-0628]
Clarification of Prior Interpretations of the Seat Belt and
Seating Requirements for General Aviation Flights
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed clarification of prior interpretations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes to clarify prior interpretations of the
seat belt and seating requirements of 14 CFR 91.107(a)(3). These prior
interpretations state that the shared use of a single restraint may be
permissible. The proposed clarification states that the use of a seat
belt and/or seat by more than one occupant is appropriate only if: The
seat belt is approved and rated for such use; the structural strength
requirements for the seat are not exceeded; and the seat usage conforms
with the limitations contained in the approved portion of the Airplane
Flight Manual. The proposed clarification also emphasizes that the
proper restraint method for children during operations conducted under
part 91 relies on the good judgment of the pilot, who should be
intimately aware of the capabilities and structural requirements of the
aircraft that he or she is operating.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2011-
0628 using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send Comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room
W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Zektser, Attorney, Regulations
Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
3073; email: Alex.Zektser@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to submit written comments,
data, or views concerning this proposal. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for
any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the
docket does not contain duplicate comments, please send only one copy
of written comments, or if you are filing comments electronically,
please submit your comments only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposal. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will
consider all comments received on or before the closing date for
comments and any late-filed comments if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light
of comments received.
Availability of This Proposed Clarification of Prior Interpretations
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by--
(1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov);
(2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to
identify the docket number or notice number of this proposal.
Background
On March 22, 2009, a Pilatus PC-12/45 descended and impacted the
ground near the approach end of a runway at Bert Mooney Airport in
Butte, Montana. After investigating this incident, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined the following.
At the time of the impact, the Pilatus PC-12/45 airplane was
operating as a personal flight under the provisions of 14 CFR part 91.
The pilot and the 13 airplane passengers were killed, and the airplane
was destroyed by impact forces and the postcrash fire. Among the 13
passengers were six adults and seven children. Because the flight was a
single-pilot operation, eight seats in the cabin and one seat in the
cockpit were available to the 13 passengers. Thus, the number of
passengers exceeded the number of available seats. The NTSB was unable
to determine the original seating position for most of the occupants,
but the bodies of four children, ages 3 to 9 years, were found farthest
from the impact site, indicating that these children were likely thrown
from the airplane because they were unrestrained or improperly
restrained. The NTSB noted that if the accident had been less severe
and the impact had been survivable, any unrestrained occupant or
occupants sharing a single restraint system would have been at a much
greater risk of injury or death.
As a result of the March 22, 2009 incident described above, the
NTSB has requested that the FAA withdraw its prior interpretations of
14 CFR 91.107(a)(3), which permit the shared use of a single restraint
system.
Discussion of the Proposal
In response to the NTSB's request, the FAA proposes to clarify its
prior interpretations of 14 CFR 91.107(a)(3) as follows.
For part 91 operations, section 91.107(a)(3) requires that ``each
person on board a U.S. registered civil aircraft * * * must occupy an
approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder
harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the
surface, takeoff, and landing.'' Children under the age of two may be
held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth and no
restraining device for the child is used. In contrast, for commercial
operations under part 121, section 121.311 requires that each person
``occupy an approved seat or berth with a separate safety belt properly
secured about him.''
When Sec. 121.311 and Sec. 91.107 (previously Sec. 91.14) were
first promulgated in 1971, the FAA clarified that the separate use
provision for safety belts under part 121 was not intended to apply to
part 91 operations. Rather, part 91 ``requires only that each person on
board occupy a seat or berth with a safety belt properly secured about
him.'' 36 FR 12511 (July 1, 1971). The FAA has previously interpreted
this provision as not requiring separate use
[[Page 36891]]
of safety belts. See Legal Interpretation 1990-14. At the time, this
allowance was permissible because seat belts were generally rated in
terms of strength and some were rated for more than one occupant to
accommodate side-by-side seating arrangements (i.e., bench seats) in
certain aircraft that are commonly used in operations conducted under
part 91. Thus, use of a seat belt and seat by more than one occupant
may have been appropriate only if: (1) The belt was approved and rated
for such use; (2) the structural strength requirements for the seat
were not exceeded; and (3) the seat usage conformed with the
limitations contained in the approved portion of the Airplane Flight
Manual (14 CFR Sec. 23.1581(j)). See 36 FR 12511; see also 14 CFR
23.562, 23.785; Legal Interpretation 1990-14; Legal Interpretation to
Mr. C.J. Leonard from Hays Hettinger, Associate Counsel (July 26,
1966). Under the FAA's proposed clarification, seating arrangements
that do not comply with the above conditions would not be able to use
the FAA's prior interpretations of Sec. 91.107(a)(3) to justify the
shared use of a single restraint system.
The FAA also emphasizes that although Sec. 91.107(a)(3) and Sec.
91.205(b)(13), as previously interpreted by the agency, may allow for
shared use of a single restraint in certain situations, whether a child
should be held, or placed under a safety belt, or allowed to share a
single restraint or seat with another occupant during part 91
operations, is a matter of prudent operating practice. The FAA has
strongly advocated, and continues to advocate, the use of child
restraints such as child safety seats for children who are within the
weight restriction of the restraint. See 57 FR 42662, 42664 (Sept. 15,
1992) (allowing the use of child restraint systems in operations
conducted under parts 91, 121, 125, 135, and recognizing that the ``use
of child restraints in an aircraft will provide a level of safety
greater than that which would be provided if the young children were
held in the arms of adults or if safety belts alone were used''); 70 FR
50902, 50903 (Aug. 26, 2005) (allowing use of child restraint systems
that are approved by the FAA); 71 FR 40003, 40005 (July 14, 2006)
(allowing use of more types of child restraint systems). The FAA
recognizes that properly restraining children on aircraft is difficult
because there is a large variance in muscle development, height,
weight, and upper body strength. Thus, good judgment of the pilot, who
should be intimately aware of the capabilities and structural
requirements of the aircraft he or she is operating, is critical in
determining the proper method of restraint for children during
operations conducted under part 91.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 17, 2011.
Rebecca B. MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-15709 Filed 6-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P