19630 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Accomplishment Instructions of GE SB No. 

GE90 S/B 72–1076, dated November 19, 

2012, and in Section 3.A of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of GE SB No. 

GE90–100 S/B 72–0528, dated November 15, 

2012, are not required by this AD. 

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, 

FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use 

the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your 

request. 

(h) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; phone: 781–238–7747; fax: 781–238– 

7199; email: jason.yang@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact General Electric Company, 

One Neumann Way, MD Y–75, Cincinnati, 

OH; phone: 513–552–2913; email: 

geae.aoc@ge.com; and Web site: 

www.GE.com. You may view the referenced 

service information at the FAA, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

March 26, 2013. 

Thomas A. Boudreau, 

Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07546 Filed 4–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 121 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–1239] 

Interpretation of the Rest 

Requirements of Nonstop International 

Supplemental Operations 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Draft Interpretation. 

SUMMARY: This action provides 

interested persons with the opportunity 

to comment on the FAA’s draft 

interpretation regarding nonstop 

international supplemental operations 

scheduled for longer than 12 hours. 

Additionally, this draft interpretation 

discusses the appropriate international 

flight time limitations that would apply 

to the operation. As discussed in the 

draft interpretation, the FAA finds that 

the operation of such flights would be 

precluded under the flight time 

limitations of the ‘‘U.S. mainland rules’’ 

found in the supplemental flight and 

duty rules. However, the operation 

could be conducted under the 

‘‘international rules’’ provisions of our 

regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 2, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by docket number FAA– 

2012–1239 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., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, West Building 

Ground Floor, 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: 

Dean E. Griffith, Attorney, International 

Law, Legislation and Regulations 

Division, Office of Chief Counsel, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 

267–3073; email: dean.griffith@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

submit written comments, data, or 

views concerning this interpretation. 

The most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the draft 

interpretation, 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. 

Availability of This Draft Interpretation 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by— 

(1) Searching the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (http:// 

www.regulations.gov); 

(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 

(3) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

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 

The FAA publishes draft legal 

interpretations when the matter in 

question is likely to be highly 

controversial or the likely answer has 

the potential to significantly and 

adversely affect long-standing practices 

that regulated parties have been engaged 

in, reasonably believing that these 

practices were consistent with FAA 

regulations. The intent is not to seek 

input on whether the FAA is correct— 

the FAA has the responsibility for 

interpreting its regulations. Rather, the 

reason for publishing the draft 

interpretation for comment is to see 

whether there may be unintended 

consequences for regulated parties that 

merit a further examination of how the 

agency’s regulatory provisions should 

be applied in conjunction with agency 

policy and guidance material. 

We are issuing this draft 

interpretation because it has come to 

our attention that supplemental air 

carriers might be misinterpreting and 

misapplying the regulations governing 

flight time limitations for supplemental 

operations to operate international flight 

segments longer than 12 hours by 

reading § 121.509 of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations in isolation, 

without also complying with 

§ 121.503(a) or, in the alternative, 

without adequate sleeping facilities for 

the flight crew as required under 

§ 121.523(b). As discussed below, such 

a reading fails to consider the full 

meaning of the FAA’s regulations. 

Discussion of the Proposal 

I. Introduction 

The purpose of this notice of draft 

interpretation is to address whether a 

supplemental air carrier may conduct an 

international nonstop flight scheduled 

for more than 12 hours without crew 

rest facilities on board the aircraft. The 

answer is ‘‘no.’’ 

For purposes of this interpretation we 

will use the hypothetical example of a 

supplemental air carrier that has 

scheduled four pilots to conduct a nonVerDate Mar<15>2010 18:56 Apr 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 19631 

1We note that the term ‘‘fly in’’ as used in the 

regulation refers to ‘‘block to block time’’ rather 

than flight deck duty time. See 14 CFR 42.48–1 

(1956); Legal Interpretation to Timothy D. Miller, 

from Donald Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel (Aug. 

27, 1997). 

2As an example, the following schedule for a four 

pilot crew in an aircraft type certificated for two 

pilots would comply with §§ 121.503(a) and 

121.509. A pilot is scheduled to report at 0000 for 

preflight duty. His first flight is scheduled to depart 

‘‘A’’ at 0100 and arrive at ‘‘B’’ at 0900 (8 hours of 

flight time). Assuming that the four pilots evenly 

divide time at the controls, on that flight he will 

be on flight deck duty for 4 hours. After the first 

flight lands he will perform 1 hour of post-flight 

duty (0900–1000), then rest from 1000 to 1400. 

From 1400–1600 the pilot will perform preflight 

duty for his second scheduled flight which is 

scheduled to depart ‘‘B’’ at 1600 and arrive at ‘‘A’’ 

at 2359 (7:59 of flight time). Again, assuming that 

the four pilot crew evenly divides time at the 

controls, on that flight he will be on flight deck 

duty for 4 hours. Accordingly, the pilot will have 

accrued 8 hours of flight deck duty, 16 hours aloft, 

and performed 20 hours of duty during the 24 hour 

period in compliance with §§ 121.503(a) and 

121.509. 

3We note that operations using the flight time 

limitations of §§ 121.503 through 121.511 may 

exceed the 8 hour flight segment time limit under 

two circumstances. First, transcontinental 

operations may be scheduled for a continuous flight 

time of up to 10 hours under an exception to 

§ 121.503(a). See § 121.503(f). This exception 

permits certificate holders to schedule a flight 

crewmember for a transcontinental non-stop flight 

consisting of ‘‘more than eight but not more than 

10 hours of continuous duty aloft without an 

intervening rest period’’ if certain conditions are 

met. In 1954 the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) 

adopted an exception (similar to current 

§ 121.503(f)) applicable to domestic scheduled 

operations that were then subject to an 8 hour 

limitation on duty aloft without an intervening rest 

period. See 14 CFR 40.320(b) (1954) (flight time 

limitations for domestic air carriers); 19 FR 3759 

(June 19, 1954) (adopting SR–405). The CAB stated 

that the then current, 8 hour rule ‘‘prohibits 

domestic nonstop flight operations of more than 

eight hours’ duration.’’ See 19 FR 3760. The change 

was effected to permit non-stop transcontinental 

flights between the east coast and the west coast 

which, unlike flights in the opposite direction, 

could not be completed in the 8 hour period. Id. 

The CAB noted that ‘‘if west-bound nonstop service 

is to be continued to be made available to the 

public, some modification of the eight-hour rule 

will be necessary.’’ Id. 

In 1955, the CAB established SR–410 which 

extended the 8-hour rule for supplemental air 

carriers to 10 hours for transcontinental nonstop 

flights on ‘‘substantially the same basis as they are 

currently applied to scheduled air carriers.’’ See 20 

FR 2675 (Apr. 22, 1955) (establishing SR–410). 

Therefore, based on the language of § 121.503(f), 

which is derived from SR–410, it is clear that the 

maximum time aloft for a nonstop flight would be 

10 hours, and only if it meets the requirements 

contained in the rule. All other flights conducted 

pursuant to the 121.503-.511 rules would be limited 

to a maximum 8 hours continuously aloft. 

Additionally, when scheduled realistically, 

flights may exceed the 8 hour continuous flying 

time limit due to circumstances beyond the control 

of the certificate holder. In such circumstances, 

§ 121.503(b) requires the pilot to have 16 hours of 

rest prior to being assigned any duty with the 

certificate holder. See Legal Interpretation to 

Randall C. Kania, from Rebecca MacPherson, 

Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division (Apr. 

29, 2004) (stating that a pilot who has already flown 

more than 8 hours in a 24-hour period may not take 

off until he has received the rest required by 

121.503(b)); Legal Interpretation to John R. Griffith, 

from George L. Thompson, Associate Regional 

Counsel, ANE–7, (Feb. 5, 1975) (stating that the 

Continued 

stop flight lasting 12.5 hours that 

departs from a point outside of the 

contiguous United States and arrives at 

a point in the contiguous United States. 

The aircraft is type certificated for twopilot operation. 

Supplemental air carriers conducting 

overseas and international supplemental 

operations may elect, pursuant to 

§ 121.513, to comply with the flight time 

limitations of §§ 121.515 and 121.521 

through 121.525 (commonly referred to 

as the ‘‘international rules’’), rather than 

the flight time limitations found in 

§§ 121.503 through 121.511 (commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘U.S. mainland 

rules’’). See 14 CFR 121.513. Because 

this hypothetical flight would operate 

from a point outside the contiguous 

United States, the carrier would be 

eligible to make the election. See 

121.513(a) (stating that a flight between 

a ‘‘place in the 48 contiguous states 

* * * and any place outside thereof’’ 

qualifies for the election). 

We will first evaluate whether the 

operation could be conducted under the 

‘‘U.S. mainland rules’’ and then discuss 

how the operation could be conducted 

under the ‘‘international rules.’’ 

II. Flight Time Limitations on 

Supplemental Operations Conducted 

Within the 48 Contiguous United States 

Section 121.503 sets out the basic 

flight time limitations and rest 

requirements for pilots during 

supplemental operations. Section 

121.503(a) establishes that a pilot may 

be scheduled to ‘‘fly in an airplane for 

eight hours or less during any 24 

consecutive hours without a rest period 

during those eight hours.’’ 1 The FAA 

has interpreted the eight-hour period of 

§ 121.503(a) to be a hard scheduling 

limit on block to block time for 

supplemental operations without an 

intervening rest prior to the eighth hour 

flown. See Legal Interpretation to G.L. 

Davison, from Edward P. Faberman, 

Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel, 

Regulations and Enforcement Division 

(July 17, 1979) (stating that § 121.503 

‘‘contains an 8 hour limitation’’). 

Section 121.503(f) provides an 

exception to the above 8-hour limit for 

transcontinental non-stop flights, 

allowing a crewmember to be scheduled 

for ‘‘more than eight but less than 10 

hours of continuous duty without an 

intervening rest period’’ under certain 

conditions. 

This exception to the hard limit of 8 

hours came about as a result of the 

improvements in aircraft capabilities 

and range, which led to the ability to 

conduct transcontinental non-stop 

flights. See footnote 3. In other words, 

a flight conducted under the ‘‘U.S. 

mainland rules’’ cannot be scheduled to 

be aloft continuously for more than 8 

hours unless operating under the 

exception found in § 121.503(f). 

Section 121.509 establishes flight time 

limitations for four pilot crews in 

addition to those specified in 

§ 121.503(a). This section provides that, 

in a 24 hour period, a pilot may not be 

scheduled for more than 8 hours of 

flight deck duty, 16 hours of duty aloft, 

and 20 hours of duty. 14 CFR 

121.509(a)-(b). Read in the context of 

§ 121.503(a), a pilot may be scheduled 

for a total of 16 hours of duty aloft, but 

that time aloft must not occur in legs 

scheduled for longer than 8 hours.2 To 

read § 121.509(a)(2) as permitting up 

to16 hours of continuous duty aloft 

would nullify the prohibition in 

§ 121.503(a) on scheduled operations of 

longer than 8 hours without a rest 

period during those 8 hours. Such a 

reading would not be consistent with 

FAA legal interpretation and would 

conflict with a fundamental principle of 

statutory interpretation that specific 

provisions must be read in the context 

of the larger rule. See Legal 

Interpretation to Michael Daly, from 

James B. Minor, Associate General 

Counsel, Regulations and Codification 

Division (Jun. 29, 1966) (stating that 

§ 121.503(a)-(f) ‘‘contain[s] general flight 

time limitation provisions that apply to 

all [part 121] supplemental air carrier or 

commercial operations under that Part, 

regardless of the size of the crew’’); see, 

e.g., United States Sav. Ass’n v. Timbers 

of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 

371 (1988) (‘‘A provision that may seem 

ambiguous in isolation is often clarified 

by the remainder of the statutory 

scheme * * * because only one of the 

permissible meanings produces a 

substantive effect that is compatible 

with the rest of the law.’’ (citation 

omitted)); Weinberger v. Hynson, 

Westcott & Dunning, Inc., 412 U.S. 609, 

631–32 (1973) (‘‘It is well established 

that our task in interpreting separate 

provisions of a single Act is to give the 

Act ‘the most harmonious, 

comprehensive meaning possible’ in 

light of the legislative policy and 

purpose.’’). 

Accordingly, unless the hypothetical 

operation is scheduled in segments of 

eight hours or less it cannot be 

conducted under the flight time 

limitations contained in §§ 121.503- 

.511.3 In other words, a supplemental 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19632 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

purpose of § 121.503(b) ‘‘is to assure an adequate 

rest period when such deviations do occur’’). 

4The FAA has consistently interpreted ‘‘adequate 

sleeping quarters on the airplane’’ to mean a bunk 

or a berth, but that it is a matter of safety policy 

to consider each air carrier’s means of compliance 

on its individual merits. See Legal Interpretation to 

Daniel J. Wells, from Donald P. Byrne, Assistant 

Chief Counsel for Regulations (Sept. 22, 2003); 

Legal Interpretation to William W. Edmunds, Jr., 

from John Cassady, Assistant Chief Counsel, 

Regulations and Enforcement Division (Apr. 22, 

1986). A passenger seat, even if it reclines, is not 

considered to be adequate sleeping quarters. Id. 

carrier would not be able to conduct this 

operation as a non-stop flight under 

these sections of the rules. 

III. Overseas and International 

Supplemental Operation Flight Time 

Limitations 

The next question is whether the 

flight could be conducted under the 

‘‘international rules’’ found in § 121.515 

and §§ 121.521 through 121.525 if the 

certificate holder makes that election 

under § 121.513. In connection with that 

question is the issue of when and under 

what circumstances ‘‘adequate sleeping 

quarters’’ are required. 

First, § 121.521 states that an airman 

may not be scheduled to be ‘‘aloft as a 

member of the flight crew in an airplane 

that has a crew of two pilots and at least 

one additional flight crewmember for 

more than 12 hours during any 24 

consecutive hours.’’ Because the 

hypothetical flight in question is 

scheduled to be aloft for 12.5 hours, it 

could not be conducted with only two 

pilots and one additional flight 

crewmember because a certificate 

holder may only schedule this crew 

complement for 12 total hours aloft or 

less. 

Next, § 121.523 establishes the flight 

time limitations for a crew of three or 

more pilots and additional airmen as 

required. Unlike § 151.521, this section 

allows flights lasting longer than 12 

hours. In consideration of the longer 

flights, § 121.523 requires a crew of at 

least three pilots and additional airmen 

as required, provides additional rest 

provisions, limits flight deck duty time 

for flight engineers and navigators, and 

requires the certificate holder to 

‘‘provide adequate sleeping quarters on 

the airplane whenever an airman is 

scheduled to be aloft as a flight 

crewmember for more than 12 hours 

during any 24 consecutive hours.’’ 

§ 121.523(b). Because the operation in 

question is scheduled with a four-pilot 

complement, it would meet the crew 

requirements under this section. 

However, in order to operate under this 

provision, the certificate holder would 

need to comply with all of the 

provisions of § 121.523, including the 

need to provide adequate sleeping 

quarters on the airplane.4

IV. Conclusion 

Therefore, the hypothetical 

supplemental air carrier operation in 

which four pilots are scheduled to 

conduct a non-stop flight lasting 12.5 

hours, between a point outside the 

contiguous United States and a point in 

the contiguous United States, or other 

locations permitting the § 121.513 

election, could only be operated under 

the flight time limitations of § 121.523 

(including the required crew rest 

facilities on board the aircraft). It could 

not be conducted as proposed under the 

provisions of §§ 121.503, 121.509 or 

121.521. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 25, 

2013. 

Mark W. Bury, 

Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for 

International, Law, Legislation and 

Regulations, AGC–200. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07375 Filed 4–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary of Labor 

29 CFR Part 15 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

20 CFR Parts 638 and 670 

RIN 1290–AA25 

Administrative Claims Under the 

Federal Tort Claims Act and Related 

Statutes 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, 

Employment and Training 

Administration, Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: With this document, the 

Department of Labor (DOL) is 

withdrawing its proposed rule that 

accompanied its direct final rule 

revising the regulations governing 

administrative claims under the Federal 

Tort Claims Act and related statutes. 

DATES: Effective April 2, 2013 the 

proposed rule published on April 13, 

2012 (77 FR 22236), is withdrawn. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine P. Carter, Counsel for Claims 

and Compensation, Office of the 

Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 

Room S–4325, 200 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20210, 

Telephone: 202–693–5320 (this is not a 

toll-free number). Individuals with 

hearing or speech impairments may 

access this telephone number via TTY 

by calling the toll-free Federal 

Information Relay Service at 1–800– 

877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

13, 2012, DOL published a direct final 

rule (77 FR 22204) and concurrent 

notice of proposed rulemaking, 

proposing to amend the regulations 

governing administrative claims under 

the Federal Tort Claims Act and related 

statutes. In both the direct final rule and 

notice of proposed rulemaking, DOL 

explained that if no significant adverse 

comments were received to the notice of 

proposed rulemaking, DOL would 

withdraw the proposed rule and the 

direct final rule would become effective 

on July 12, 2012 without further notice. 

DOL has received no comments 

regarding either the direct final rule or 

the notice of proposed rulemaking. 

Accordingly, DOL is not proceeding 

with the proposed rule and is 

withdrawing it from the rulemaking 

process. DOL is also confirming the 

effective date of the direct final rule as 

July 12, 2012. 

Signed at Washington, DC, the 28th of 

February, 2013. 

M. Patricia Smith, 

Solicitor of Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07525 Filed 4–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–23–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2013–0145] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulations; St. Thomas 

Carnival Watersport Activities, 

Charlotte Amalie Harbor; St Thomas, 

USVI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a special local regulation on 

the waters of Charlotte Amalie Harbor in 

St Thomas, USVI during the St. Thomas 

Carnival Watersport Activities, a high 

speed boat race. The event is scheduled 

to take place on Sunday, April 21, 2013. 

Approximately 40 high-speed power 

boats will be participating in the races 

and it is anticipated that 50 spectator 

crafts will be present during the races. 

The special local regulation is necessary 

for the safety of race participants, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS