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
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 30887 

comments received regarding revocation 

of the definition of unblockable drain 

covers,’’ dated March 30, 2012. 

Commission staff’s summary and 

response to these comments follow: 

1. Cost of compliance (142 comments) 

and dire financial circumstances (131 

comments). 

Comment: Members of the American 

Hotel & Lodging Association, the Illinois 

Department of Health, and others assert 

that the cost of retrofitting pools again 

would put an undue burden on them 

and cite to the impact of the poor 

economy on their operating revenues 

and the loss of revenue that will be 

incurred while the pools are closed for 

the modifications that will be required 

to bring them into compliance. 

Commenters in this category also 

mention the respondents’ ‘‘dire 

financial circumstances’’ as a reason 

against the revocation of the 

Commission’s April 27, 2010 definition 

of ‘‘unblockable drain.’’ 

Response: Commission staff agrees 

that there may be financial hardship, 

but only to those who relied upon the 

Commission’s interpretive rule and 

installed an unblockable drain cover in 

lieu of installing a secondary system. 

Thus, Commission staff believes it 

seems reasonable to provide firms that 

relied on the Commission’s prior 

interpretation the time to budget and 

plan for the expenditure needed to 

install a secondary system. 

2. Apply prospectively (4 comments). 

Comment: Commenters in this 

category cited the lack of injuries as a 

reason to apply the revocation only to 

facilities that are newly constructed or 

renovated in the future. 

Response: Commission staff does not 

agree with prospective application to 

new construction or renovation. The 

law has required pools to be compliant 

with the VGBA for almost four years. 

Only firms that relied on the 

unblockable drain interpretive rule of 

April 27, 2010, and installed VGBAcompliant unblockable drain covers on 

or before October 11, 2011, are affected 

by the revocation decision. Thus, 

prospective application is overly broad, 

and applying it to firms that did not 

install VGBA-compliant unblockable 

drain covers on or before October 11, 

2011, would not follow the statutorily 

mandated effective date, would create 

confusion, and would unduly 

complicate enforcement. 

3. Comments Requesting Delay of 

Enforcement (2 comments). 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

that the Commission delay the 

implementation of enforcement. One 

requested that the CPSC delay 

implementation of the enforcement of 

the change for one year because they 

had relied upon the original 

interpretation and installed unblockable 

drain covers and now would have to go 

back and ‘‘re-do’’ their work, which they 

said would penalize them unfairly for 

their compliance with the prior 

interpretation. The commenter also 

noted that the unblockable drain covers 

were far more expensive than typical 

smaller fittings, and asserted that they 

represented a major investment on the 

basis that, once the covers were 

installed, additional equipment would 

not be required. The other commenter 

requested that the Commission delay 

the implementation date to January 1, 

2013, or prior to 2013 operation dates 

for seasonal pools and spas. The 

commenter also stated that regulated 

pools and spas that had already invested 

to comply with the requirements of the 

VGBA would be required to add 

secondary anti-entrapment systems or 

make other modifications at 

considerable expense, in addition to 

expenditures necessary to comply with 

state law and U.S. Department of Justice 

pool and spa accessibility requirements. 

Response: Commission staff agrees 

that those who relied upon the 

Commission’s interpretive rule and 

installed an unblockable drain cover in 

lieu of installing a secondary system 

will now face additional expenditures to 

bring their pools into compliance with 

the VGBA. Thus, Commission staff 

believes that it seems reasonable to 

provide those who installed VGBAcompliant unblockable drain covers on 

or before October 11, 2011, time to 

budget and plan for the expenditure 

needed to install a secondary system. 

4. Compliance Date Is Acceptable (1 

comment). 

Comment: One comment was received 

in support of the May 28, 2012, 

compliance date. The commenter, the 

National Multi Housing Council/ 

National Apartment Association 

(NMHC/NAA), expressed the belief that 

if the Commission offered additional 

guidance to the regulated community to 

assist with compliance, the majority of 

their members could comply by the 

deadline; but NMHC/NAA urged the 

CPSC to reevaluate the progress being 

made by pool owners and adjust the 

deadline, if necessary. 

Response: CPSC staff has a concern 

about the number of requests that may 

be received for assistance with 

compliance and whether the pool 

operator is seeking a plan review and 

not just limited advice about how to 

handle the revocation decision. The 

only circumstance in which staff 

believes there could be any need for 

compliance assistance due to the 

revocation of the unblockable drain 

interpretive rule is with respect to pool 

operators who relied on the 

Commission’s April 27, 2010 decision 

and installed VGBA-compliant 

unblockable drain covers on or before 

October 11, 2011. The guidance to those 

firms is that your unblockable drain 

cover is VGBA-compliant and does not 

need to be removed; but pool operators 

need to install a secondary antientrapment system to come into 

compliance, unless the pool uses a 

gravity drain system or the underlying 

drain is unblockable. Accordingly, if a 

pool operator installed an unblockable 

drain cover over a drain that is 

blockable, staff believes it is reasonable 

to allow them time to budget and plan 

for the expenditure required to install a 

secondary anti-entrapment system. 

C. Commission Determination 

Upon being presented with the staff 

briefing package, the Commission voted 

to extend the compliance date to May 

23, 2013. Only firms that relied on the 

unblockable drain interpretive rule of 

April 27, 2010, and installed VGBAcompliant unblockable drain covers on 

or before October 11, 2011, will have 

until May 23, 2013, to install a 

secondary system, as necessary. Firms 

that did not rely on the unblockable 

drain interpretive rule of April 27, 2010, 

and did not install VGBA-compliant 

unblockable drain covers on or before 

October 11, 2011, should be compliant 

with the VGBA, and will not have 

additional time to come into compliance 

if they are not. 

Dated: May 17, 2012. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12335 Filed 5–23–12; 8:45 a.m.] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Parts 600, 610, and 680 

[Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0080] 

RIN 0910–AG16 

Amendments to Sterility Test 

Requirements for Biological Products; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule, correction. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is correcting a 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES