36890 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 121 / Thursday, June 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 17, 

2011. 

Dennis R. Pratte, 

Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2011–15690 Filed 6–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

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: Notice of proposed clarification 

of prior interpretations. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to clarify 

prior interpretations of the seat belt and 

seating requirements of 14 CFR 

91.107(a)(3). These prior interpretations 

state that the shared use of a single 

restraint may be permissible. The 

proposed clarification states that the use 

of a seat belt and/or seat by more than 

one occupant is appropriate only if: The 

seat belt is approved and rated for such 

use; the structural strength requirements 

for the seat are not exceeded; and the 

seat usage conforms with the limitations 

contained in the approved portion of the 

Airplane Flight Manual. The proposed 

clarification also emphasizes that the 

proper restraint method for children 

during operations conducted under part 

91 relies on the good judgment of the 

pilot, who should be intimately aware of 

the capabilities and structural 

requirements of the aircraft that he or 

she is operating. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by docket number FAA– 

2011–0628 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, 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: 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: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

submit written comments, data, or 

views concerning this proposal. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the proposal, 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. The 

FAA may change this proposal in light 

of comments received. 

Availability of This Proposed 

Clarification of Prior Interpretations 

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 

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. 

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. 

Discussion of the Proposal 

In response to the NTSB’s request, the 

FAA proposes to clarify its prior 

interpretations of 14 CFR 91.107(a)(3) as 

follows. 

For part 91 operations, section 

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.’’ 

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. 

In contrast, for commercial operations 

under part 121, section 121.311 requires 

that each person ‘‘occupy an approved 

seat or berth with a separate safety belt 

properly secured about him.’’ 

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 FR 12511 (July 1, 1971). The FAA 

has previously interpreted this 

provision as not requiring separate use 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 121 / Thursday, June 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 36891 

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, 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). Under the FAA’s proposed 

clarification, seating arrangements that 

do not comply with the above 

conditions would not be able to use the 

FAA’s prior interpretations of 

§ 91.107(a)(3) to justify the shared use of 

a single restraint system. 

The FAA also emphasizes that 

although § 91.107(a)(3) and 

§ 91.205(b)(13), as previously 

interpreted by the agency, may allow for 

shared use of a single restraint in certain 

situations, whether a child should be 

held, or placed under a safety belt, or 

allowed to share a single restraint or 

seat with another occupant during part 

91 operations, is a matter of prudent 

operating practice. The FAA has 

strongly advocated, and continues to 

advocate, the use of child restraints 

such as child safety seats for children 

who are within the weight restriction of 

the restraint. See 57 FR 42662, 42664 

(Sept. 15, 1992) (allowing the use of 

child restraint systems in operations 

conducted under parts 91, 121, 125, 

135, and recognizing that the ‘‘use of 

child restraints in an aircraft will 

provide a level of safety greater than 

that which would be provided if the 

young children were held in the arms of 

adults or if safety belts alone were 

used’’); 70 FR 50902, 50903 (Aug. 26, 

2005) (allowing use of child restraint 

systems that are approved by the FAA); 

71 FR 40003, 40005 (July 14, 2006) 

(allowing use of more types of child 

restraint systems). The FAA recognizes 

that properly restraining children on 

aircraft is difficult because there is a 

large variance in muscle development, 

height, weight, and upper body strength. 

Thus, good judgment of the pilot, who 

should be intimately aware of the 

capabilities and structural requirements 

of the aircraft he or she is operating, is 

critical in determining the proper 

method of restraint for children during 

operations conducted under part 91. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 17, 

2011. 

Rebecca B. MacPherson, 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, 

AGC–200. 

[FR Doc. 2011–15709 Filed 6–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 81 

[Docket Number NIOSH–0209] 

RIN 0920–AA39 

Guidelines for Determining Probability 

of Causation Under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000; 

Revision of Guidelines on NonRadiogenic Cancers; Extension of 

Comment Period 

AGENCY: National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC), Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: On March 21, 2011, the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) published a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking proposing to treat 

chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) as 

a radiogenic cancer under the Energy 

Employees Occupations Illness 

Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) 

of 2000. The public comment period 

was scheduled to end on June 20, 2011. 

We have received a request asking to 

extend the public comment period. In 

consideration of this request, HHS is 

extending the public comment period 

by 30 days to July 20, 2011. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published March 21, 2011 

(76 FR 15268), is extended. Written or 

electronic comments must be received 

on or before July 20, 2011. Please refer 

to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

additional information. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 0920–AA39, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: nioshdocket@cdc.gov. 

Include ‘‘RIN: 0920–AA39’’ and ‘‘42 

CFR Part 81’’ in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Mail: NIOSH Docket Office, Robert 

A. Taft Laboratories, MS–C34, 4676 

Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 

45226. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulation Identifier 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking, RIN 

0920–AA39. All comments received 

will be posted without change to http:// 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/archive/ 

docket209.html, including any personal 

information provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket/archive/ 

docket209.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stuart Hinnefeld, Director, Division of 

Compensation Analysis and Support, 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 

Columbia Parkway, MS–C46, 

Cincinnati, OH 45226; telephone 513– 

533–6800 (this is not a toll-free 

number). Information requests can also 

be submitted by e-mail to dcas@cdc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: HHS 

published a proposed rule entitled 

‘‘Guidelines for Determining Probability 

of Causation Under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000,’’ on 

Monday, March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15268). 

In the notice of proposed rulemaking, 

HHS would treat chronic lymphocytic 

leukemia (CLL) as a radiogenic cancer 

under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA). Under 

current guidelines promulgated by HHS 

as regulations in 2002, all types of 

cancers except for CLL are treated as 

being potentially caused by radiation 

and hence, as potentially compensable 

under EEOICPA. HHS proposes to 

reverse its decision to exclude CLL from 

such treatment. 

HHS received a request to extend the 

comment period. In consideration of 

that request, HHS is extending the 

comment period by 30 days, such that 

all comments must be received on or 

before July 20, 2011. This extended 

deadline will have provided 

commenters with 90 days for comment 

on the proposed rule while preserving 

the Agency’s ability to make timely 

progress on this occupational health 

priority. 

Accordingly, the comment period for 

the proposed rule published March 21, 

2011 (76 FR 15268), is extended until 

July 20, 2011. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1