52848 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a regulatory evaluation as 

the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

This action neither places any new 

restrictions or requirements on the 

public, nor changes the dimensions or 

operation requirements of the airspace 

listings incorporated by reference in 

part 71. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

Adoption of the Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 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 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. 

■ 2. Section 71.1 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 71.1 Applicability. 

A listing for Class A, B, C, D, and E 

airspace areas; air traffic service routes; 

and reporting points can be found in 

FAA Order 7400.9X, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 7, 2013. This 

incorporation by reference was 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The approval 

to incorporate by reference FAA Order 

7400.9X is effective September 15, 2013, 

through September 15, 2014. During the 

incorporation by reference period, 

proposed changes to the listings of Class 

A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air 

traffic service routes; and reporting 

points will be published in full text as 

proposed rule documents in the Federal 

Register. Amendments to the listings of 

Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; 

air traffic service routes; and reporting 

points will be published in full text as 

final rules in the Federal Register. 

Periodically, the final rule amendments 

will be integrated into a revised edition 

of the Order and submitted to the 

Director of the Federal Register for 

approval for incorporation by reference 

in this section. Copies of FAA Order 

7400.9X may be obtained from Airspace 

Policy and ATC Procedures Group, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591, (202) 267–8783. 

An electronic version of the Order is 

available on the FAA Web site at http:// 

www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications. 

Copies of FAA Order 7400.9X may be 

inspected in Docket No. FAA–2013– 

0709; Amendment No. 71–45 on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. A copy of AFF 

Order 7400.9W may be inspected at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

§ 71.5 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 71.5 is amended by 

removing the words ‘‘FAA Order 

7400.9W’’ and adding, in their place, 

the words ‘‘FAA Order 7400.9X’’. 

§ 71.15 [Amended] 

■ 4. Section 71.15 is amended by 

removing the words ‘‘FAA Order 

7400.9W’’ and adding, in their place, 

the words ‘‘FAA Order 7400.9X’’. 

§ 71.31 [Amended] 

■ 5. Section 71.31 is amended by 

removing the words ‘‘FAA Order 

7400.9W’’ and adding, in their place, 

the words ‘‘FAA Order 7400.9X’’. 

§ 71.33 [Amended] 

■ 6. Paragraph (c) of § 71.33 is amended 

by removing the words ‘‘FAA Order 

7400.9W’’ and adding, in their place, 

the words ‘‘FAA Order 7400.9X’’. 

§ 71.41 [Amended] 

■ 7. Section 71.41 is amended by 

removing the words ‘‘FAA Order 

7400.9W’’ and adding, in their place, 

the words ‘‘FAA Order 7400.9X’’. 

§ 71.51 [Amended] 

■ 8. Section 71.51 is amended by 

removing the words ‘‘FAA Order 

7400.9W’’ and adding, in their place, 

the words ‘‘FAA Order 7400.9X’’. 

§ 71.61 [Amended] 

■ 9. Section 71.61 is amended by 

removing the words ‘‘FAA Order 

7400.9W’’ and adding, in their place, 

the words ‘‘FAA Order 7400.9X’’. 

§ 71.71 [Amended] 

■ 10. Paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) 

of § 71.71 are amended by removing the 

words ‘‘FAA Order 7400.9W’’ and 

adding, in their place, the words ‘‘FAA 

Order 7400.9X’’. 

§ 71.901 [Amended] 

■ 11. Paragraph (a) of § 71.901 is 

amended by removing the words ‘‘FAA 

Order 7400.9W’’ and adding, in their 

place, the words ‘‘FAA Order 7400.9X’’. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 13, 

2013. 

Gary A. Norek, 

Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC 

Procedures Group. 

[FR Doc. 2013–20874 Filed 8–26–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125, and 135 

[Docket No.: FAA–2012–0953] 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Standards for Aircraft Cabin 

Crewmembers 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; final 

policy and disposition of comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

availability of a new policy statement 

regarding the regulation of some 

occupational safety and health 

conditions affecting cabin crewmembers 

on aircraft by the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration. This policy 

statement will enhance occupational 

safety and health in the aircraft cabin by 

establishing the extent to which the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration requirements may apply 

to the working conditions of aircraft 

cabin crew while they are onboard 

aircraft in operation. 

DATES: This action becomes effective 

September 26, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

policy statement, contact Gene 

Kirkendall, Part 121 Air Carrier 

Operations Branch (AFS–220), Flight 

Standards Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–8166; email 

Gene.Kirkendall@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

Policy Statement, Occupational Safety 

and Health Standards for Aircraft Cabin 

Crewmembers, is available at 

regulations.gov. (See docket number 

FAA–2012–0953.) 

Disposition of Comments 

On December 7, 2012, the FAA 

published a draft policy statement in the 

Federal Register for public notice and 

comment regarding the regulation of 

some occupational safety and health 

conditions affecting cabin crewmembers 

on aircraft in operation by the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA). The FAA 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 52849 

received 196 comments. Comments fell 

into broad categories: Flight attendants, 

and their unions were generally in favor 

of the proposed policy statement; air 

carriers and their trade associations 

generally opposed the policy change, 

sought clarification of its extent, or 

expressed uncertainty over practical 

aspects such as compliance with certain 

portions of OSHA standards or how 

OSHA would enforce the standards. The 

policy statement is also available for 

review at http://www.faa.gov/about/

initiatives/ashp/, as well as the docket 

for this action. 

This document summarizes those 

comments and provides FAA and 

OSHA’s responses. 

A. Applicability of Policy Statement 

Avjet Corporation (Avjet) commented 

that the policy statement does not 

adequately address what type of flight 

operations will be affected by this 

policy change. The FAA disagrees. The 

policy does not limit the applicability to 

a specific type of operation. This policy 

applies to the working conditions of 

aircraft cabin crewmembers while they 

are onboard aircraft in operation. This 

includes all aircraft operations that 

utilize at least one aircraft cabin 

crewmember. 

Avjet and the National Air 

Transportation Association (NATA) 

commented that the policy statement 

does not address the definition of an 

aircraft cabin crewmember. The FAA 

agrees with this comment and has 

added the following clarification to the 

policy statement: For the purposes of 

this policy, an aircraft cabin 

crewmember means a person assigned 

to perform duty in an aircraft cabin 

when the aircraft is in operation (other 

than flightcrew members). 

The International Brotherhood of 

Teamsters (IBT) questioned why OSHA 

standards should not apply to flight 

deck crew (e.g. flightcrew members). 

The Allied Pilots Association (APA) 

argued that, since Section 829 of the 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012 addresses ‘‘crewmembers while in 

an aircraft’’ without limitation, all 

crewmembers should receive the same 

protections. On the other hand, the Air 

Line Pilots Association International 

(ALPA) urged us—without involving 

OSHA—to address flight deck crew 

safety and health issues, such as fatigue, 

heat, chemical exposure, laser strikes, 

cosmic radiation, ozone exposure, 

contagious diseases, contamination of 

oxygen masks, and noise on the flight 

deck. However, the issue of flightcrew 

member safety and health issues are 

outside the scope of this policy change. 

The National Business Aviation 

Association (NBAA), Avjet, and NATA 

also asked whether OSHA coverage 

would extend to flight deck crew when 

they perform cabin passenger safety 

functions. In response, flightcrew 

members are not aircraft cabin 

crewmembers. Therefore, this policy 

change does not apply to them. 

NATA asked for clarification of how 

the policy would affect personnel who 

work in the aircraft cabin and are not 

flight attendants (specifically referring 

to cargo handlers, medical personnel, 

supernumeraries, and evacuation 

crewmembers). Any person assigned to 

perform duty in an aircraft cabin when 

the aircraft is in operation (other than 

flightcrew members) would be covered 

by this policy. 

A few commenters asked whether the 

new policy will apply to part 135 air 

charter operations and part 91 corporate 

flight operators operating business jets, 

as well as to commercial aircraft 

operations. This policy applies to all 

aircraft operations that utilize at least 

one aircraft cabin crewmember. 

B. General Opposition to the Policy 

Aviation trade groups, including 

Airlines for America (A4A), the 

Regional Airline Association (RAA), the 

National Air Carrier Association 

(NACA), NATA, and NBAA opposed the 

draft policy statement. They believed 

that the draft FAA policy statement 

should be subject to notice-andcomment rulemaking because it calls for 

a significant, substantive change in the 

regulatory regime affecting air carriers. 

The FAA disagrees and is not 

promulgating new regulations. 

However, because this has been a longstanding policy, FAA published the 

draft policy statement for public notice 

and comment. 

Aviation trade groups asserted that 

the congressional directive was not met 

in the draft policy statement and 

asserted that the legislation does not 

demand the regulatory action proposed 

in the draft policy statement. The FAA 

disagrees with this assertion. The 

congressional directive was met by 

initiating development of a policy 

statement that sets forth the 

circumstances in which requirements of 

OSHA may be applied to crewmembers 

while working in an aircraft cabin and 

by publishing the draft policy statement 

for public notice and comment. The 

FAA is not proposing a regulatory 

action. 

Aviation trade groups also asserted 

that an alternative approach should be 

used because of important, unresolved, 

and outstanding issues, concerning such 

an assumption of regulatory authority. 

The FAA also disagrees with this 

assertion. OSHA regulations and 

standards are in place now in aviation 

work environments other than the 

aircraft cabin. Applying the proposed 

OSHA regulations and standards to the 

aircraft cabin will have minimal 

implementation impact and will not 

compromise aviation safety. 

Aviation trade groups further believed 

that a voluntary, data-based system or a 

Safety Management System (SMS)-based 

approach should be implemented 

instead. US Airways, Inc., did not 

oppose the application of the specific 

OSHA requirements expressly identified 

in the draft policy statement, but 

suggested that the goals reflected in the 

draft policy statement could also be 

achieved through reliance instead on 

the presence of robust, SMS-based 

airline voluntary safety programs. They 

also encouraged the expansion of the 

current OSHA industry alliance effort to 

include appropriate participation from 

flight attendant unions. The FAA 

disagrees. Voluntary programs are 

valuable for some initiatives. In this 

case, standardized application of OSHA 

standards throughout the aviation 

industry is good public policy. 

Southwest Airlines opposed the draft 

policy statement and agreed with all of 

Airlines for America’s comments, 

adding that OSHA enforcement 

authority should be specifically limited 

to only those standards expressly 

defined in the final policy and 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 

The FAA agrees with the proposed 

recommendation. OSHA remains 

preempted from enforcing its standards 

on aircraft in operation, other than the 

standards specifically addressed in the 

new FAA policy statement. 

Southwest Airlines also requested a 

statement within the MOU, specifically 

stating that the general duty clause shall 

not be applied to the cabin 

environment. The FAA will add such 

language in the new MOU. In addition, 

as noted above, the new policy only 

includes the three listed standards. If 

the agencies later decide to add any 

additional hazards, including any 

hazards covered by the General Duty 

Clause, they will use a transparent 

process including notice and comment 

to adopt such changes. 

Southwest Airlines further requested 

that FAA/OSHA provide clarification 

regarding enforcement onboard the 

aircraft. The FAA agrees with the 

proposed recommendation. Specific 

procedures for addressing OSHA 

enforcement protocols can be developed 

through interagency collaboration. 

ALPA agreed with the Airlines for 

America comments, adding that it has 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
52850 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

concern regarding the requirement for 

coordination between the FAA and 

OSHA. ALPA urged that appropriate 

procedures be established before OSHA 

involvement to assure smooth 

operations. The FAA acknowledges the 

requirement for coordination between 

the agencies. The FAA and OSHA have 

a procedure for resolving jurisdictional 

issues, and additional procedures can be 

developed through the new MOU. 

ALPA also wanted FAA to regulate 

pilots’ safety and a host of health issues, 

such as: Fatigue, heat and humidity of 

the work environment, contamination 

by rain repellant and other chemicals, 

laser strikes, cosmic radiation, ozone, 

aircraft disinsection, contagious disease, 

contamination of cockpit oxygen masks, 

smoke-protection masks in the cockpit, 

and ambient flight deck noise. The 

regulation of pilots’ safety and health 

issues are beyond the scope of this 

policy statement. 

In addition, ALPA requested that the 

FAA establish an office or focal point to 

adequately address the safety and health 

of flightcrew members. The FAA 

acknowledges this request but does not 

believe that a new office is required at 

this time. 

C. State and International Jurisdiction 

NBAA stated that aviation is an 

industry designed to cross state and 

national boundaries. As applied to 

aviation, the proposed notice would 

have created a host of uncertainties 

regarding the application of either State 

or national OSHA standards. NATA was 

also concerned that the shared 

jurisdiction policy described by the 

FAA is ripe for confusion and 

contradiction among FAA, OSHA, and 

OSHA-approved State programs. 

Essentially, NATA was concerned that 

the draft policy explains only that 

OSHA is also able to initiate a process 

to ensure that airlines will not be 

subject to multiple, different sets of 

rules as they fly into and out of different 

states. The FAA agrees with these 

comments. OSHA has assured the FAA 

that it has already consulted with their 

State Plan Partners, and they have 

agreed that Federal OSHA will cover 

these working conditions in State Plan 

States. The FAA will continue to work 

with OSHA to develop that process. 

NATA raised a second jurisdictional 

issue relating to how any applicable 

OSHA standards might apply to 

international flight operations. OSHA 

jurisdiction is limited to the boundaries 

of the United States and its territories 

and possessions). Therefore, the 

proposed OSHA standards would not be 

applicable on U. S. aircraft operations 

conducted outside the United States. 

D. General Support of the Policy 

The Transportation Trades 

Department, the Association of Flight 

Attendants, the Association of 

Machinists and Aerospace Workers 

(IAM), the International Brotherhood of 

Teamsters (IBT) and the Transport 

Workers Union of America generally 

support the new policy statement. The 

IAM added that flight attendants have 

not been required to wear protective 

gloves, and stated that some airlines 

have prohibited Flight Attendants from 

wearing gloves. IAM also stated that 

other hazards of great concern that 

should be regulated include, hazards 

related to lifting and moving luggage, 

exposure to extremes of heat and cold 

as a result of cabin temperature, hazards 

related to opening and closing aircraft 

doors. IAM also stated that cabin air 

quality is also an essential issue to flight 

attendant occupational health as flight 

attendants have no choice, but to 

breathe recirculated, pressurized air 

while at work. IAM further stated that 

in-flight coffee maker hazards should be 

addressed. The FAA acknowledges 

these recommendations. The FAA will 

consider when FAA and OSHA 

establish procedures to identify any 

additional working conditions where 

OSHA requirements may apply. 

IAM stated that more extensive 

sanitation standards could be applied to 

enhance the working conditions of flight 

attendants without compromising 

aviation safety. The IBT supported 

incorporation of the OSHA sanitation 

standard into the policy memo and 

forthcoming MOU. The FAA disagrees. 

Existing FAA regulations address 

sanitation standards, so OSHA 

sanitation standards are not being 

considered. 

The IBT also urged the FAA to 

reconsider OSHA’s role in worksite 

inspections pertaining to the applicable 

OSHA standards mentioned in the 

policy memo and forthcoming MOU. 

The FAA and OSHA will explore the 

feasibility of developing interagency 

procedures to address and coordinate 

workplace inspections if and when they 

may be required. 

The IBT further urged the FAA to 

stress the importance of properly 

reporting safety and health issues and 

encourage employers to utilize the 

OSHA 300/300A injury and illness 

reports as a means of identifying and 

targeting areas of concern. The IBT also 

stressed the importance of education of 

both employers and employees on the 

protections afforded by the OSHA AntiDiscrimination Act found in 29 CFR 

part 1977 (i.e., Whistleblower Act 11(c)). 

The IBT stated that including proper 

signage aboard aircraft will not 

implicate a concern for aviation safety. 

In response, the FAA will consider 

these comments when establishing 

interagency procedures. 

The IBT finally urged FAA and OSHA 

to reconsider inclusion of flight deck 

crewmembers in the discussion on the 

application of OSHA’s requirements to 

employees on aircraft in operation. The 

FAA is not considering including 

flightcrew members in this policy 

statement. 

Individual flight attendants support 

the draft policy statement and 

commented on the need for additional 

regulation of exposure to noise, 

bloodborne pathogens, chemicals, 

pesticides, and de-icing fluids; 

sanitation; duty/rest requirements; 

exposure to radiation; cabin air quality 

issues; food/beverage carts; and 

ergonomics. OSHA’s noise, bloodborne 

pathogens, and hazard communication 

standards are included in the policy 

statement. Existing FAA regulations 

address sanitation standards, so OSHA 

sanitation standards are not being 

considered. Duty and rest requirements 

are aviation safety requirements 

regulated by the FAA. Effects of cosmic, 

galactic and solar ionizing radiation 

exposure, cabin air quality, food and 

beverage cart and ergonomic issues are 

not being considered at this time. 

Individual comments believe that 

pilots should be included. However, the 

FAA is not considering including 

flightcrew members at this time. 

The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

supported the draft policy but believes 

more research is needed. The FAA will 

consider this recommendation if further 

research is needed on any additional or 

future regulations. 

E. Hazards Addressed 

The selection of the three OSHA 

standards to apply in aircraft cabins— 

hazard communications, bloodborne 

pathogens and noise—was also 

questioned. The RAA asserted that the 

FAA did not identify the most critical 

occupational safety and health concerns 

and then only transfer oversight if such 

concerns could best be solved, regulated 

and monitored by OSHA. A4A claimed 

there are no specific or immediate safety 

concerns that require urgent action, 

asserting that the proposed policy 

resulted from political action and not an 

underlying safety issue that was 

identified by the FAA. 

Some commenters also questioned the 

need to apply these standards to aircraft 

cabins and expressed uncertainty about 

whether additional OSHA requirements 

would apply, as well. For example, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 52851 

Southwest, A4A, and the NBAA are 

concerned that other OSHA standards, 

regulations, or the OSH Act’s general 

duty clause, 29 U.S.C. 654 (a)(1), could 

apply and requested clarification. 

In contrast, other commenters argued 

that OSHA should have authority to 

protect crewmembers from additional 

hazards. For example, the IBT 

commented that OSHA should enforce 

its general duty clause to protect 

employees from cosmic radiation, 

contaminated bleed air ventilation 

systems, heat stress, ergonomic hazards, 

hazardous agents, pinch points, and slip 

and fall hazards. 

There were also comments from the 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health that cited several 

studies it conducted for FAA on 

reproductive issues for flight attendants, 

cosmic radiation, circadian rhythm 

disruption, cabin air quality, and 

infectious diseases. 

The Aerospace Medical Association 

(AsMA) said it assumed that new 

regulations will be drafted to comply 

with the aircraft environment and that 

those should include aerospace 

medicine assessment and opinion. The 

new FAA policy statement only applies 

to OSHA standards for noise, 

bloodborne pathogens, and hazard 

communication. These standards were 

selected because they were identified in 

the agencies’ 2000 MOU. The agencies 

examined the potential application of 

these three standards to aircraft cabin 

crewmembers in detail in the year 2000. 

The joint FAA/OSHA Occupational 

Safety and Health Team determined that 

application of these OSHA standards to 

aircraft cabin crewmembers should not 

compromise aviation safety. These 

standards also address the hazards of 

greatest concern to aircraft cabin 

crewmembers. 

F. Procedural Issues 

A number of commenters suggested 

that a full rulemaking process should be 

utilized before applying any OSHA 

standards to cabin crewmembers. 

According to NATA, for example, the 

change creates new compliance 

obligations because OSHA promulgated 

rules after the FAA’s 1975 Policy 

Statement with the understanding that 

those rules would not apply to aircraft 

cabins. NATA also claimed that OSHA 

and FAA need to engage in a costbenefit analysis, a regulatory flexibility 

determination, and a small business 

impact assessment. 

A few other commenters also asserted 

that the agencies had not adequately 

considered the effect of the policy 

change on small and medium-sized 

businesses, citing the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and Executive Order 

12866. Avjet, for example, noted that 

part 121 airlines have resources to 

implement the changes while these 

changes will be extremely onerous to 

small-business part 135 air charter 

operators of business jets. And 

according to NATA, operators will have 

to test interior noise levels of every 

aircraft in its fleet since some identical 

aircraft types may exhibit different 

cabin noise levels. NATA also asserted 

that operators who are not required to 

have a flight attendant onboard but elect 

to place a cabin attendant in the aircraft 

for added service and safety, may no 

longer employ these workers. NATA 

urged for rulemaking to determine how 

OSHA rules can be adapted for 

environments not previously 

considered. 

We do not agree with these 

comments. In any event, we have 

provided the public and regulated 

community with notice and an 

opportunity to be heard on this policy 

change and plan to continue to do so 

should any further policy changes be 

considered. We have also met with most 

groups affected by this policy. After 

years of consideration of the application 

of these OSHA standards, FAA has 

decided that these standards should not 

compromise aviation safety. FAA and 

OSHA agree with the suggestions of 

some commenters that, to ease 

implementation of the policy, OSHA 

has expanded its existing industry 

alliances to develop training and jobaids for the safety of aircraft cabin 

crewmembers, as well as aviation 

personnel and vendors in groundsupport activities, such as fueling, 

catering and cargo/baggage handling. 

G. Practical Implementation 

Several comments expressed concerns 

about how the policy change would be 

implemented in practice. For example, 

AsMA suggested that OSHA and FAA 

form a coordination group to review the 

operation of regulations and oversee 

responsibility. 

ALPA also expressed concern about 

coordination between the two agencies. 

It favors an FAA preemption of OSHA 

requirements if those requirements 

interfere with aviation safety. 

NATA questioned how the FAA and 

OSHA will determine which OSHA 

standards have safety implications and 

whether these determinations will 

include industry representatives. NATA 

asserted that the FAA should apply 

OSHA standards onboard rather than 

having OSHA consult with FAA on 

aviation safety implications. 

Others questioned how OSHA will 

inspect aircraft in operation to ensure 

compliance and how it will respond to 

complaints. Southwest and RAA asked 

how OSHA would investigate 

complaints, so as not to interfere with 

flight duties and delay flight operations, 

consequences which could have a 

substantial economic impact on carriers. 

Southwest also asked about 

coordination among FAA, OSHA, and 

the Transportation Security 

Administration to provide access to 

secure areas, and what resources would 

be required of the carriers (e.g., escorts/ 

seating). 

Although some commenters (IBT, 

IAM, and APA) recommended that 

OSHA conduct worksite inspections just 

as FAA inspectors do, others (e.g., 

NATA and RAA) are concerned that 

OSHA is not precluded from conducting 

inspections of aircraft in operation. APA 

stated that the FAA should require 

manufacturers and operators to sample 

the environment on aircraft for known 

hazards. As stated in the draft and final 

policy statements, the FAA and OSHA 

do not anticipate that OSHA will have 

to conduct inspections onboard aircraft 

to ensure compliance with the three 

OSHA standards. All three standards 

require employers to develop and 

implement their own programs. OSHA 

can examine the programs and verify 

compliance without being onboard 

aircraft. If there is a specific instance in 

the future where it is determined that 

compliance with one of the standards 

will have an adverse effect on aviation 

safety, both agencies understand that 

FAA will take precedence. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 21, 

2013. 

John S. Duncan, 

Acting Director, Flight Standards Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–20841 Filed 8–26–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 284 

[Docket No. RM12–17–000; Order No. 781] 

Revisions to Procedural Regulations 

Governing Transportation by Intrastate 

Pipelines; Correction 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, DOE. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

corrections to the final rule (RM12–17– 

000) which was published in the 

Federal Register on Tuesday, July 30, 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES