21270 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Florence Municipal Airport, Florence, 

OR. Controlled airspace is necessary to 

accommodate aircraft using the new 

RNAV (GPS) standard instrument 

approach procedures at Florence 

Municipal Airport, Florence, OR. This 

action would enhance the safety and 

management of aircraft operations at 

Florence Municipal Airport, Florence, 

OR. 

Class E airspace designations are 

published in paragraph 6005, of FAA 

Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, 

and effective September 15, 2010, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

part 71.1. The Class E airspace 

designation listed in this document will 

be published subsequently in this 

Order. 

The FAA has determined this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. 

Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified this proposed rule, when 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 

Section 106, describes the authority for 

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 I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of the airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it establishes 

controlled airspace at Florence 

Municipal Airport, Florence, OR. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposes to 

amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9U, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 18, 2010, and 

effective September 15, 2010 is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

ANM OR E5 Florence, OR [New] 

Florence Municipal Airport, OR 

(Lat. 43°58′58′′ N., long. 124°06′41′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within 3-mile radius of 

Florence Municipal Airport. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 7, 

2011. 

Christine Mellon, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

Western Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9233 Filed 4–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 121 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0367] 

Interpretation of Duty and Rest 

Provisions for Maintenance Personnel 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Proposed interpretation. 

SUMMARY: This draft letter of 

interpretation addresses a request by the 

Aeronautical Repair Station Association 

(ARSA) to rescind a letter of 

interpretation issued May 18, 2010 

which clarified what activities may 

constitute duty for maintenance 

personnel and the application of the rest 

provisions under 14 CFR 121.377. The 

FAA requests comment on the May 18, 

2010 proposed response to United 

Technologies Corporation. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before June 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2011–0367 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://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., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: 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: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

For more information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of the docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

sending the comment (or signing the 

comment for an association, business, 

labor union, etc.). You may review 

DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement 

in the Federal Register published on 

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you 

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

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

and follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne Bechdolt, Attorney, Regulations 

Division, Office of Chief Counsel (AGC– 

220), Federal Aviation Administration, 

800 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, 20591; e-mail: 

Anne.Bechdolt@faa.gov; telephone 202– 

267–3073. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 13, 2010, ARSA requested the 

FAA withdraw a legal interpretation 

issued on May 18, 2010 to United 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 21271 

Technologies Corporation (May 18, 2010 

interpretation). The legal interpretation 

addressed what types of activities may 

be considered part of the duty period for 

maintenance personnel under § 121.377. 

In addition, the legal interpretation 

provided that the FAA would not 

consider compliant a work schedule in 

which maintenance personnel were 

required to work several consecutive 

weeks without an uninterrupted, 

consecutive 24-hour rest period during 

any seven consecutive days. This 

interpretation clarifies the limitations of 

the equivalency standard in § 121.377 

resulting from two conflicting legal 

interpretations. Compare Legal 

Interpretation 1987–15 (June 14, 1987) 

(noting that the flexibility in § 121.377 

was intended to apply only in cases of 

national emergency or unusual 

occurrence in the air carrier industry) 

with Legal Interpretation to Ron Webb 

from Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief 

Counsel, Regulations (June 21, 1991) 

(noting that ‘‘the term ‘‘or equivalent 

thereof’’ allows for time off (in 24 

consecutive hour increments) to be 

deferred or accumulated, making it 

possible to take four 24 hour periods off 

toward the end of a calendar month’’). 

ARSA asserts that the May 18, 2010 

interpretation changes the plain 

language of the regulation and requests 

that it be withdrawn. The FAA has 

decided against withdrawing the May 

18, 2010 interpretation at this time. 

However, based on ARSA’s request, the 

agency has decided to seek comment on 

the impact of the interpretation. Based 

on a review of the comments, the FAA 

may decide to modify or rescind the 

May 18, 2010 interpretation. 

The FAA believes that this type of 

schedule (i.e., working 26 days followed 

by 4 days off) is contrary to the intent 

of the regulation, which was designed to 

mitigate the effects of fatigue for 

maintenance personnel. Fatigue 

degrades a person’s ability to work 

effectively. Some causes of fatigue are 

sleep deprivation and time spent on 

duty. See Advisory Circular AC 120–72, 

Maintenance Resource Management 

Training, (Sept. 28, 2000). Given that 

§ 121.377 places no limit on the amount 

of time maintenance personnel may 

work, it may be possible for these 

personnel to work consecutive 8, 12, or 

16-hour shifts. This type of schedule, 

combined with delaying rest periods 

until the end of the month, may result 

in reduced reaction time, impaired 

short-term memory, decreased vigilance, 

reduced motivation, increased 

irritability, and an increase in the 

number of errors made for maintenance 

personnel. In light of these factors, the 

allowance for some flexibility in 

scheduling the 24-hour consecutive rest 

period required by § 121.377 is not 

without limitation. Thus, a schedule 

that delays providing the requisite rest 

under § 121.377 until the end of the 

calendar month, such that the exception 

in § 121.377 becomes the normal 

practice, would not be considered 

compliant with the rest requirements of 

14 CFR 121.377. The text of the May 18, 

2010 interpretation is as follows: 

Alexandra M. McHugh, 

Assistant Counsel. 

United Technologies Corporation, Pratt 

& Whitney Legal Services, 400 Main 

Street, M/S 132–12, East Hartford, 

CT 06108 

Dear Ms. McHugh: This is in response 

to Pratt & Whitney’s letter of May 19, 

2008, concerning the application of 

§ 121.377 to maintenance personnel at 

Pratt’s repair facility certified under Part 

145 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

Based on the several factual scenarios 

contained in the letter and subsequent 

conversations between Pratt and my 

office, I have organized this response 

into three general issues. The first deals 

with whether Pratt can view as nonduty time the time an employee spends 

completing non-maintenance work or 

tasks while being compensated by Pratt, 

even while away from Pratt’s facility. 

The second explores the extent to which 

Pratt may view as non-duty time the 

time an employee spends at other 

employment while off duty from Pratt, 

even if it is aviation related work. The 

last issue concerns the limit of 

scheduling flexibility provided by the 

regulation. I believe you will be able to 

apply the answers to these three 

questions to all of the specific scenarios 

you posited in your letter. 

For repair stations certificated under 

Part 145 that perform maintenance work 

for air carriers operating under Part 121, 

§ 121.377 establishes a maximum duty 

period for maintenance personnel 

working for that repair station. That 

section reads: 

Within the United States, each 

certificate holder (or person performing 

maintenance or preventive maintenance 

functions for it) shall relieve each 

person performing maintenance or 

preventive maintenance from duty for a 

period of at least 24 consecutive hours 

during any seven consecutive days, or 

the equivalent thereof within any one 

calendar month. 

14 CFR § 121.377. Thus, generally, 

maintenance personnel must be allowed 

24 consecutive hours of rest during any 

seven consecutive days. In the context 

of discussing Maintenance Resource 

Management concepts, the FAA has 

stated in Advisory Circular (AC) 120–72 

(September 28, 2000) that addressing 

fatigue-related errors ensures the safety 

of flight in passenger carrying 

operations. Fatigue often leads to 

decreased vigilance and impaired short 

term memory, resulting in a likely 

increase in human error. A common 

known cause of fatigue is ‘‘time on 

duty.’’ AC 120–72, para. 9(h)(2)(f). 

Therefore, the general rule in § 121.377 

is intended to reduce the likelihood of 

fatigue-related maintenance errors in air 

carrier operations. 

Section 121.377 requires that a person 

performing maintenance or preventative 

maintenance be relieved from ‘‘duty’’ 

for, generally, one day out of every 

seven. One question, then, is what is 

considered ‘‘duty.’’ In other contexts, the 

FAA has defined duty as ‘‘actual work 

for the [employer] or the present 

responsibility for such should the 

occasion arise.’’ See Legal Interpretation 

1993–31 (Dec. 13, 1993). Prior 

interpretations have concluded that 

performing a mix of tasks, some of 

which do not involve work for a Part 

121 air carrier or even non-aviation 

related tasks, but are tasks assigned to 

the employee by the employer, still fall 

within the category of ‘‘duty’’ for 

purposes of applying § 121.377. Legal 

Interpretation to Ron Webb from Donald 

P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, 

Regulations (June 21, 1991); cf. Legal 

Interpretation to Jim Mayors from 

Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief 

Counsel for Regulations (Mar. 2, 2009) 

(noting that the time a pilot participated 

in a 2-hour company meeting that was 

not related to a company assignment of 

flight time, must still be calculated as 

part of his duty day because he was not 

free from all work obligations during 

that time); Legal Interpretation to Jay 

Wells from Rebecca MacPherson, 

Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations 

Division (October 29, 2007); Legal 

Interpretation to James W. Johnson from 

Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief 

Counsel for Regulations (May 9, 2003). 

Therefore, for purposes of applying 

§ 121.377, any time for which an 

employee ‘‘has actual work for the 

employer, or the present responsibility 

for such work, should it arise,’’ 

constitutes ‘‘duty’’ time. Accordingly, 

the time an employee is engaged in 

maintenance tasks, attending a 

bargaining unit meeting, attending a 

training session, doing work related to 

Pratt’s educational benefit, traveling 

from the point on Pratt’s campus where 

the employee ‘‘clocked in’’ to the 

employee’s work area, or working for 

another unit within Pratt’s corporate 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
21272 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 73 / Friday, April 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

umbrella, constitutes time that must be 

included in the calculation of duty time 

to determine the rest required under 

§ 121.377, whether or not that unit itself 

must adhere to the requirements of 

§ 121.377. An employee using accrued 

vacation or credit time is not ‘‘on duty’’ 

even though the employee may receive 

compensation for that time. 

Nevertheless, the regulation aims to 

require repair stations to give its 

maintenance personnel at least one day 

off every week without requiring that 

employee to use accrued vacation time 

to be free from any responsibility for 

work. 

Once Pratt relieves the employee from 

duty, the regulation does not require 

Pratt to monitor the employee’s 

activities. The scenario where an 

employee uses the time off from Pratt to 

work at another maintenance facility 

does not implicate Pratt’s compliance 

with § 121.377. Unlike the regulations 

governing crewmember duty time, 

§ 121.377 does not contain a limit on an 

employee’s total accumulated working 

hours within a specified period of time. 

The FAA does not recommend this 

practice, however, for the reasons 

discussed in AC 120–72 related to 

fatigue. Thus, an employee relieved 

from duty by Pratt may perform other 

aviation related maintenance, even for 

other facilities which themselves are 

bound by § 121.377, provided the 

employee is provided the requisite time 

off by each facility for which the 

employee works. Pratt must use caution, 

however, not to create the appearance of 

requiring an employee to work during 

off hours for another facility that is just 

a corporate sister to the Pratt facility. 

You also raise the question of whether 

a facility can schedule employees to 

work more than six consecutive days, 

thereby grouping required days off, and 

still remain in compliance with 

§ 121.377. The regulatory standard 

requires 24 consecutive hours off duty 

during any seven consecutive days but 

also contains some flexibility in the 

phrase ‘‘or the equivalent thereof within 

any one calendar month.’’ The FAA 

intended that the regulation allow 

employees to work in excess of six 

consecutive days in the event of a 

national emergency or unusual 

occurrence in the air carrier industry. 

See Legal Interpretation 1987–15 (June 

14, 1987). The regulatory flexibility 

found in § 121.377 allows maintenance 

personnel to work a schedule that 

maintains the ‘‘equivalent’’ to one day 

off every week even though that 

schedule might provide for more than 

six consecutive days of work. 

The equivalent standard, however, 

does have limits. The tenants of 

statutory and regulatory interpretation 

suggest that the specific standard of one 

day off every week cannot be rendered 

completely inoperative by the more 

general equivalent standard. A previous 

interpretation allowed that a work 

schedule that provides for personnel to 

have a group of 4 days off followed by 

up to 24 days of work, or vice versa, 

would still meet the standard of being 

‘‘equivalent’’ to one day off in every 

seven within a month. Legal 

Interpretation to Ron Webb from Donald 

P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, 

Regulations (June 21, 1991). That 

interpretation, however, was issued 

prior to the findings relating fatigue to 

maintenance related errors in the air 

carrier industry discussed in AC 120– 

72. Webster’s dictionary defines 

‘‘equivalent’’ as having logical 

equivalence, or corresponding or 

virtually identical in effect or function. 

Today, we would not view as compliant 

a schedule that provides over the course 

of eight weeks for four days off followed 

by 48 straight days of duty followed by 

four more days off. Such a work 

schedule that generally provides for an 

average of one day off over several 

weeks cannot be said to be ‘‘equivalent’’ 

to the more specific standard requiring 

one day off out of every seven days. 

Lastly, you correctly note that the 

regulation does not address the length of 

the work day, only the length of the 

required time off work. The legal 

interpretation from Mr. Byrne to Mr. 

Webb also makes clear that the general 

equivalency provision in § 121.377 does 

not apply to the specific requirement to 

give 24 consecutive hours of time off. 

Time off may not be provided in smaller 

increments over several days even 

though the total time off over any seven 

day period may equal or exceed 24 

hours. 

We appreciate your patience and trust 

that the above responds to your 

concerns. If you need further assistance, 

please contact my staff at (202) 267– 

3073. This response was prepared by 

Anne Bechdolt, Attorney in the 

Operations Law Branch of the 

Regulations Division of the Office of the 

Chief Counsel, and coordinated with the 

Aircraft Maintenance and Air 

Transportation divisions of Flight 

Standards Service. 

Rebecca B. MacPherson, 

Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division 

[FR Doc. 2011–9236 Filed 4–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

36 CFR Part 294 

RIN 0596–AC74 

Special Areas; Roadless Area 

Conservation; Applicability to the 

National Forests in Colorado 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), is 

proposing to establish a State-specific 

rule to provide management direction 

for conserving and managing 

inventoried roadless areas on National 

Forest System (NFS) lands in Colorado. 

A proposed rule was published in the 

July 25, 2008, Federal Register. In 

response to public comment on the 2008 

Proposed Rule and a revised petition 

submitted by the State of Colorado on 

April 6, 2010, the Forest Service is 

publishing a new proposed rule. 

The Agency is inviting public 

comment on this new proposed rule and 

accompanying revised draft 

environmental impact statement 

(RDEIS). The Agency is interested in 

public comments on the changes to 

exceptions and prohibitions on 

activities in roadless areas that have 

been developed in response to public 

comments on the 2008 Proposed Rule. 

The Agency is particularly interested in 

receiving public comments on the 

concept, management, and rationale for 

designation of specific areas within 

Colorado Roadless Areas identified as 

‘‘upper tier.’’ In this proposed rule, these 

areas are provided a higher level of 

protection than the 2001 Roadless Rule, 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by July 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent via 

e-mail to COComments@fsroadless.org. 

Comments may also be submitted via 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Written comments 

concerning this notice should be 

addressed to: Colorado Roadless Rule/ 

EIS, P.O. Box 1919, Sacramento, CA 

95812. 

All comments, including names and 

addresses, are placed in the record and 

are available for public inspection and 

copying. The public may inspect 

comments received at http:// 

roadless.fs.fed.us. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colorado Roadless Rule Team Leader 

Ken Tu at (303) 275–5156. Individuals 

using telecommunication devices for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS