Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 30885 

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: Clarification of prior 

interpretations. 

SUMMARY: This action clarifies prior 

interpretations of FAA’s seat belt and 

seating requirements. These prior 

interpretations state that the shared use 

of a single restraint may be permissible. 

This clarification states that the use of 

a seat belt and/or seat by more than one 

occupant is permitted only if the seat 

usage conforms to the limitations 

contained in the approved portion of the 

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). In 

addition, before multiple occupants use 

the same seat and/or seat belt, if the 

pertinent information is available, the 

pilot in command (PIC) must also check 

whether: The seat belt is approved and 

rated for such use; and the structural 

strength requirements for the seat are 

not exceeded. This clarification also 

emphasizes that, because it is safer for 

each individual person to have his or 

her own seat and seat belt, whenever 

possible, each person onboard an 

aircraft should voluntarily be seated in 

a separate seat and be restrained by a 

separate seat belt. 

DATES: May 24, 2012. 

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: 

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. 

NTSB Request and Proposed 

Clarification 

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. In 

response to the NTSB’s request, the 

FAA proposed to clarify that 

§ 91.107(a)(3) permits multiple 

occupants to use one seat belt and/or 

seat, but that such use is only 

appropriate if: (1) The belt is approved 

and rated for this type of use; (2) the 

structural strength requirements for the 

seat are not exceeded; and (3) the seat 

usage conforms with the limitations 

contained in the approved portion of the 

AFM (14 CFR 23.1581(j)). 

The FAA received six comments in 

response to its proposed clarification. 

After considering the information 

provided in the comments, the FAA 

clarifies its prior interpretations of the 

seat belt and seating requirements of 14 

CFR 91.107(a)(3) as follows. 

Discussion of the Final Clarification 

For part 91 operations, § 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.’’ For commercial 

operations under part 121, § 121.311 

requires that each person ‘‘occupy an 

approved seat or berth with a separate 

safety belt properly secured about him.’’ 

Under both parts, 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. 

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 Federal Register 12511 (July 1, 

1971). The FAA has previously 

interpreted this provision as not 

requiring separate use 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, under the previous 

interpretations, the 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). 

In its comment, the NTSB stated that 

the shared use of a single seat belt by 

multiple occupants is never appropriate 

because this type of use drastically 

reduces the safety of the occupants. The 

NTSB asked the FAA to interpret 

§ 91.107(a)(3) in a way that discourages 

the ‘‘unsafe practice of allowing 

multiple occupants to share a single seat 

and/or restraint system that [is] not 

certified for more than one occupant.’’ 

Because this is a clarification of prior 

interpretations and not a rulemaking, 

the FAA is limited in what it can do in 

this matter. An interpretation of a 

regulation cannot ignore the 

‘‘indications of the agency’s intent at the 

time of the regulation’s promulgation.’’ 

Air Transport Ass’n of America, Inc. v. 

F.A.A., 291 F.3d 49, 53 (DC Cir. 2002). 

As discussed above, when the FAA first 

promulgated the section that ultimately 

became § 91.107(a)(3), the agency stated 

that, in contrast to part 121, part 91 did 

not require that each person have a 

separate seat and/or seat belt. See 36 FR 

12511. Because the FAA cannot rewrite 

§ 91.107(a)(3) through interpretation, the 

FAA is bound in this matter by the 

agency’s stated intent at the time of this 

section’s promulgation—that a separate 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
30886 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1Commissioners Adler, Nord, and Northup voted 

to extend the compliance date to May 23, 2013. 

Chairman Tenenbaum voted against extending the 

compliance date to May 23, 2013. 

seat and/or seat belt for each person is 

not required in all circumstances for 

part 91 operations. 

In addition, the FAA notes that 

changing § 91.107(a)(3) may have farreaching consequences that would best 

be addressed through a rulemaking. For 

example, in its comment, the NTSB 

acknowledged that some older airplanes 

currently have bench-style seating that 

can accommodate multiple passengers 

with one restraint system. The FAA 

notes that airplanes with these benchstyle seats make up a significant portion 

of the part 91 community. In addition, 

aircraft with these types of seating have 

a significant diversity in their specific 

seating restraint arrangements—some 

aircraft with bench seats have a seat belt 

equipped for each individual passenger 

while other aircraft with bench seats 

have a single shared seat belt for use by 

everyone in the bench seat. Because a 

significant portion of the part 91 

community currently uses some manner 

of a shared seat/seat belt, the FAA 

would need to consider, as part of a 

rulemaking, the effects that changing 

§ 91.107(a)(3) would have on those 

members of the part 91 community. 

Nevertheless, even though 

§ 91.107(a)(3), as previously interpreted 

by the agency, may allow for shared use 

of a single restraint in certain situations, 

the FAA agrees with NTSB that having 

each passenger use a separate seat and 

a separate seat belt can be significantly 

safer than having passengers share a seat 

and/or seat belt. Accordingly, the FAA 

strongly encourages PICs in part 91 

operations to ensure, whenever 

possible, that each passenger is seated 

in a separate seat and restrained by a 

separate restraint system. With regard to 

children, the FAA also strongly 

encourages children to be restrained in 

a separate seat by an appropriate child 

restraint system during takeoff, landing, 

and turbulence. 

In its comments, the NTSB also 

expressed a concern that this 

clarification could be interpreted to 

permit multiple occupants to share a 

single shoulder harness. In response to 

NTSB’s concern, the FAA emphasizes 

that the proposed clarification was 

drafted to address the shared use of 

seats and/or seat belts—not shoulder 

harnesses. Because the proposed 

clarification did not address shoulder 

harnesses, this clarification is limited 

solely to the shared use of seats and/or 

seat belts in part 91 operations. 

In their comments, the NTSB and an 

individual commenter also asserted that 

the structural strength requirements for 

a seat and the approval and rating for a 

seat belt are not always available to a 

general aviation pilot because this 

information is typically not included in 

the AFM. The individual commenter 

added that many older aircraft do not 

have an AFM, but instead have an 

owner’s manual that contains even less 

information. 

In response to these comments, the 

FAA notes that, even though the 

pertinent information is sometimes not 

contained in the AFM, information 

about seat usage limitations and seat 

belt approval and rating can, in many 

cases, be obtained from the equipment 

manufacturer. However, the FAA agrees 

with the commenters that this 

information cannot always be obtained 

from the equipment manufacturer. 

Accordingly, before multiple occupants 

are permitted to use the same seat and/ 

or seat belt, if the pertinent information 

is available, the PIC should check 

whether: (1) The seat belt is approved 

and rated for such use; and (2) the 

structural strength requirements for the 

seat are not exceeded. 

In addition, before seating multiple 

occupants in the same seat and/or seat 

belt, PICs should always check to ensure 

that the seat usage conforms to the 

limitations contained in the approved 

portion of the AFM or the owner’s 

manual. Owner’s manuals for older 

aircraft typically show the permissible 

seating arrangements that are to be used 

for the aircraft, and the number of 

people using a seat and/or seat belt 

should not exceed the number of people 

shown in the owner’s manual seating 

arrangement. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 18, 

2012. 

Rebecca B. MacPherson, 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, 

AGC–200. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12554 Filed 5–23–12; 8:45 a.m.] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1450 

Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa 

Safety Act; Interpretation of 

Unblockable Drain 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; revocation; extension 

of compliance date. 

SUMMARY: On October 11, 2011, the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘CPSC’’) announced 

that it was revoking its interpretation of 

the term ‘‘unblockable drain,’’ as used 

in the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and 

Spa Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 8001 et seq. 

(‘‘VGBA’’). The Commission set a 

compliance date of May 28, 2012, for 

those who installed VGBA-compliant 

drain covers on or before October 11, 

2011, in reliance on the Commission’s 

initial interpretation. The Commission 

sought written comments regarding the 

ability of those who had installed 

VGBA-compliant unblockable drain 

covers on or before October 11, 2011, in 

reliance on the Commission’s initial 

interpretation, to come into compliance 

with the revocation by May 28, 2012. 

The Commission is extending the 

compliance date to May 23, 2013, for 

those who have installed VGBAcompliant unblockable drain covers on 

or before October 11, 2011, in reliance 

on the Commission’s original 

interpretive rule.1

DATES: This document does not alter the 

current requirement that public pools 

and spas be in compliance with the 

VGBA, which became effective on 

December 19, 2008. The compliance 

date for those who installed VGBAcompliant unblockable drain covers on 

or before October 11, 2011, in reliance 

on the Commission’s April 27, 2010 

interpretation of unblockable drains is 

extended to May 23, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Perry Sharpless, Directorate for 

Laboratory Sciences, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, 

Rockville, MD 20850; telephone (301) 

987–2288, or email: psharpless@cpsc.

gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

In September 2011, the U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

voted to publish in the Federal Register 

a final rule regarding the revocation of 

the prior definition of ‘‘unblockable 

drain.’’ (76 FR 62605). The Federal 

Register notice invited comments 

regarding the ability of those who had 

installed VGBA-compliant unblockable 

drain covers, as described at 16 CFR 

1450.2(b), to come into compliance with 

the revocation by May 28, 2012. 

B. Comments 

The majority of comments the 

Commission received were unrelated to 

the ability of the respondents to comply 

with the May 28, 2012 effective date. 

The comments that did address the May 

28, 2012 compliance date fell into four 

basic categories. These comments were 

addressed in the staff’s briefing 

memorandum, ‘‘Summary of public 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES