Exemption No. 10609 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

FERN CASE Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0587

 

for an exemption from §121.317(f) 

and (k) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated May 29, 2012, Fern Case petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) for an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.317(f) and (k) of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (FAR) to the extent necessary to permit her to be able to use the aircraft lavatory 

while the Fasten Seat Belt sign is illuminated. 

The petitioner requires relief from the following regulation:

Section 121.317(f) prescribes, in pertinent part, that each passenger required by 

§ 121.311(b) to occupy a seat or berth shall fasten his or her safety belt about him or her 

and keep it fastened while the “Fasten Seat Belt” sign is lighted. 

 Section 121.317(k) prescribes, in pertinent part, that each passenger shall comply with 

instructions given him or her by a crewmember regarding compliance with paragraph 

(f). 

The petitioner supports her request with the following information:

Ms. Case has a physical condition that is a functional, motility disorder and cannot control her 

need to use the lavatory. The petitioner is seeking an exemption to regulations that requires 

her to comply with the “Fasten Seat Belt” sign because, as the result of this physical 

condition, she needs unrestricted access to the aircraft lavatory. 

AFS-12-411-E 

The petitioner states that her physical condition is as follows: Irritable Bowel Syndrome 

(IBS)‐Diarrhea predominant. As a result of her physical condition, the petitioner needs access 
2

to the aircraft lavatory during the flight at all times. Ms. Case states that she cannot control 

the urgency at times, especially under stressful conditions. The petitioner provided 

additional information during the comment period. The petitioner noted that if she could 

control her condition with medication and diet, she would do so, but unfortunately, it is 

uncontrollable and that she must always be within a few minutes of a bathroom. 

The petitioner also states that she understands that the regulation is written to create a high 

level of safety for each individual passenger by ensuring that they are securely restrained in 

their seats during all phases of flight. The petitioner also adds that the regulation ensures that 

an individual does not cause harm to other passengers on the airplane by being thrown into 

them during turbulent or emergency conditions. 

The petitioner proposes that she be limited to occupying a seat in close proximity to the 

aircraft lavatory to reduce the time she is not restrained by her seat belt at her seat while the 

“Fasten Seat Belt” sign is illuminated. This ensures a high level of safety for the petitioner 

and a high level of safety for the other passengers and crew on the airplane. 

The petitioner states that the public interest is served by the fact that this exemption will allow 

her to use commercial air transportation. Without this exemption, she would be unable to fly 

commercially because of her need to access the lavatory when necessary. 

The petitioner also requests that the processing of this petition not be delayed for publication 

and comment in the Federal Register because she wanted to travel on or about July 2, 2012. 

The petitioner adds that taking the time to put this in the Federal Register will delay the 

process and she may not be able to travel in that timeframe. 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2012 

(77 FR 36333). The FAA received 3 unique comments from individual commenters and an 

organization: 2 supporting and 1 opposing a grant of exemption. Also the petitioner provided 

additional information to the docket during the comment period. This information was 

included in the petitioner’s supportive documentation. 

The FAA’s analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has fully considered the petitioner’s request and supporting information. The FAA 

finds that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and would not provide a 

level of safety equivalent to that provided by the regulations. 

The FAA has carefully considered all the information presented by the petitioner in her 

request for relief from § 121.317(f) and (k) to the extent necessary to permit her to be able to 

use the aircraft lavatory while the “Fasten Seat Belt” sign is illuminated. 

The FAA notes that Ms. Case states in her petition for exemption that she would be limited to 

occupying a seat in close proximity to the aircraft lavatory to reduce the time she is not 

restrained by her seat belt at her seat while the “Fasten Seat Belt” sign is illuminated. The 
3

FAA also notes in Ms. Case’s petition that this ensures a high level of safety for the petitioner 

and a high level of safety for the other passengers and crew on the airplane. The FAA further 

notes the petitioner’s additional comment to the docket that she would take every precaution 

to ensure that her situation did not harm any other passenger. 

The FAA further notes a supportive comment by the National Air Disaster Alliance 

Foundation that passengers should be able to disregard the “Fasten Seat Belt” sign and use the 

lavatory at their own risk if there is a personal emergency. 

The FAA also notes that Ms. Case states that the public interest is served by the fact that this 

exemption will allow her to use commercial air transportation. The FAA additionally notes 

her statement that without this exemption, she would be unable to fly commercially because 

of her need to access the lavatory when necessary. The FAA further notes the petitioner’s 

additional comment to the docket that she can not travel by car because she must always be 

within a few minutes of a bathroom, so air travel is her only option for travel over long 

distances. Additionally, the FAA notes a supportive comment that the petitioner cannot travel 

without an exemption to the regulations due to her severe case of IBS. 

The FAA also notes an individual’s opposing comment that turbulence could throw a person 

into another passenger causing injury. 

The FAA finds that passengers who disregard the “Fasten Seat Belt” sign and are out of their 

seats during turbulence are not only putting themselves at risk but are also putting flight 

attendants and other passengers at risk. As stated by the petitioner, compliance with the 

“Fasten Seat Belt” sign ensures that an individual does not cause harm to other passengers on 

the airplane by being thrown into them during turbulent or emergency conditions. 

In-flight turbulence is the leading cause of injuries to airline passengers and flight attendants. 

From 1980 through 2008, United States (U.S.) air carriers had 234 turbulence accidents, 

resulting in 298 serious injuries and three fatalities. Updated turbulence data from 1980 to 

2010 shows that injuries to passengers and flight attendants due to turbulence continue to 

occur. 

Since 2007, there have been 58 reported incidents of turbulence on U.S. airlines. These 

incidents resulted in 64 serious injuries and 97 minor injuries. This data, coupled with the 

increase of commercial travel predicted for at least the next decade, project a higher risk level 

for serious injury or fatality of passengers and flight attendants due to turbulence. 

The data strongly suggest that an effective measure during a turbulence encounter is to have 

passengers and flight attendants seated with seatbelts fastened. Most injuries occur when 

standing occupants fall or when seated passengers who are not wearing seat belts are thrown 

up into the ceiling. In fact, from 1980-2003, only four people received serious injuries during 

turbulence who were seated with seatbelts fastened (excludes cases of other people falling 

onto and injuring properly secured occupants). 
4

The risk is not only to the individual passenger who is unrestrained during a turbulence event. 

There is a risk to flight attendants who are trained to respond to passengers who are out of 

their seats during turbulence because flight attendants may be unrestrained in order to 

approach a passenger in the cabin. There is also risk to other passengers in the cabin who 

may be restrained themselves, but who may have an unrestrained passenger fall onto or into 

them during a turbulence encounter. 

Although the petitioner has proposed limitations to reduce the risk of injury to herself, other 

passengers, and flight attendants during turbulence, the FAA finds that the petitioner has 

failed to show how she would provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the rule 

from which relief is sought. Additionally, the FAA finds that relief without the provision of a 

level of safety equivalent to that provided by the rule from which relief is sought is not in the 

public interest. 

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the public 

interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, 

delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Fern Case for an exemption from 14CFR 

§ 121.317(f) and (k) is denied. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 24, 2012. 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service