[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 166 (Monday, August 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43918-43922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21713]



[[Page 43917]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 121



Protective Breathing Requirement; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 166 / Monday, August 26, 1996 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 43918]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No. 27219; Amendment No. 121-261]
RIN 2120-AD74


Protective Breathing Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the regulations governing portable 
protective breathing equipment (PBE) required for crewmembers' use in 
combating in-flight fires. It is intended to codify exemptions 
currently in place, clarify ambiguities in the existing regulations, 
and allow air carriers added flexibility with compliance while 
maintaining or increasing safety.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 25, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Gary Davis, Project Development Branch, AFS-240, Air Transportation 
Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 
267-8096.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The PBE requirements that specifically apply to part 121 
certificate holders are found in Sec. 121.337 of the regulations. The 
current form of this regulation was established by Amendment No. 121-
193 (52 FR 20950; June 3, 1987) and Amendment No. 121-212 (55 FR 5548; 
February 15, 1990).
    The PBE required by Sec. 121.337 fall into two categories. The 
first category consists of PBE for use by flight crewmembers (i.e., 
pilots, flight engineers, and flight navigators) at their assigned duty 
stations on the flight deck. See Sec. 121.337(b)(8).
    These units may be either fixed or portable; they must be easily 
accessible for immediate use by the flight crewmembers at their duty 
stations. This type of PBE must be approved. Technical Standards Orders 
(TSO) C-99 and TSO C-116 provide standards that may be used to produce 
approved PBEs, as applicable.
    The second category of required PBE, the subject of this final 
rule, consists of portable PBE units that are intended for use by all 
crewmembers (i.e., not just pilots, flight engineers, and flight 
navigators, but flight attendants also) when they investigate and 
combat fires throughout the aircraft.
    See Sec. 121.337(b)(9). This type of PBE must be portable and must 
be approved. TSO C-116 provide standards that may be used to produce 
such PBEs.
    This final rule deals with both cargo-only operations and 
passenger-carrying operations. In regard to cargo-only operations, the 
regulation will not require a PBE unit in Class A, B, or E 
compartments.
    As for passenger-carrying operations, the FAA has determined that 
it is not necessary to locate a portable PBE in Class A, B, or E cargo 
compartments. The rule will require one PBE for every hand fire 
extinguisher required under Sec. 121.309.

Cargo-Only Compartments

    Section 121.337(b)(9)(i) requires that one PBE unit with a portable 
breathing gas supply be easily accessible and conveniently located for 
immediate use in each Class A, B, and E cargo compartment that is 
accessible to crewmembers in the compartment during flight. Class E 
cargo compartments are defined by Sec. 25.857 as compartments on 
airplanes used only for the carriage of cargo, and can only be found in 
cargo-only or combination cargo-passenger (Combi) aircraft. Class A and 
B cargo compartments may be found in cargo-only, Combi, and passenger-
carrying aircraft.
    Currently, Sec. 121.337(b)(9)(i) calls for a separate PBE unit for 
each Class A, B, and E cargo compartment; thus, if there is a total of 
seven such compartments, then seven portable PBE units are required 
under the current provision. This provision has not been implemented, 
however. On behalf of six member airlines operating cargo-only 
aircraft, the Air Transport Association (ATA) petitioned the FAA on 
August 14, 1989, for a permanent exemption from Sec. 121.337(b)(9)(i). 
In its petition, ATA argued that the current requirement to install a 
portable PBE unit for each Class E cargo compartment should be 
eliminated.
    In support of its petition, ATA argued that Class E cargo 
compartments are generally inaccessible in flight and that established 
crewmember procedures are to land the aircraft as soon as possible and 
to combat a fire in the compartment only as a last resort. According to 
ATA, the portable PBE unit on the flight deck, as required by 
Sec. 121.337(b)(9)(iii), would suffice in the unlikely event that a 
crewmember would have to combat an in-flight fire.
    The FAA concluded that the PBE requirements for cargo-only 
airplanes deserved further consideration through the rulemaking 
process. The agency therefore extended the compliance date for 
certificate holders operating cargo-only airplanes to install portable 
PBE units for use in Class A, B, or E cargo compartments from January 
31, 1990, to February 18, 1992,\1\ and invited interested persons to 
submit comments on this subject to Docket No. 24792. See Amendment No. 
121-212 (55 FR 5548; February 15, 1990), which became effective on 
February 15, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Exemption No. 5407, issued to Air Transport Association on 
February 18, 1992, further extended the date of compliance for cargo 
only carriers until February 18, 1993. Exemption No. 5407A extended 
the date of compliance until February 18, 1994; Exemption No. 5407B 
extended the date of compliance until February 18, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Airborne Express, and Mid-
Pacific Air Corporation responded to the request for public comment set 
forth in Amendment No. 121-212. ALPA took the position that PBE should 
be conveniently located adjacent to each cargo compartment. Airborne 
Express and the Mid-Pacific Air Corporation stated that the portable 
PBE unit already required on the flight deck by Sec. 121.337(b)(9)(iii) 
was adequate for investigating and combating fires in Class E cargo 
compartments.
    Subsequently, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM), Notice No. 93-2 (58 FR 16584), in which the agency proposed to 
eliminate the multiple units required by Sec. 121.337(b)(9)(i) and 
proposed instead to require that for cargo-only operations one portable 
PBE unit be located in a position approved by the FAA as appropriate to 
each airplane and the specific type of operation being conducted. The 
intent was for the PBE to be easily accessible and conveniently located 
for use in the cargo area. The FAA stated that it believed that safety 
requires that an additional PBE unit be available as a backup unit in 
the cargo area.
    However, based on comments received, the FAA published a 
supplemental proposal on April 11, 1994, stating that it would broaden 
its consideration of the number of portable PBE units required in the 
cargo area of cargo-only aircraft. In a supplemental notice of proposed 
rulemaking, Notice No. 94-7 (59 FR 17166), the FAA stated that is would 
consider whether the portable PBE unit, that is currently required for 
the flight deck under Sec. 121.337(b)(9)(iii), is sufficient for use 
both on the flight deck and in the cargo area, without having another 
one required under Sec. 121.337(b)(9)(i). Comments to both the NPRM and 
SNPRM are discussed in the DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS section of this final 
rule.

[[Page 43919]]

Passenger Compartments

    This final rule also addresses several issues concerning PBE 
requirements for passenger compartments. The first issue involves the 
number of portable PBE units that are required in passenger 
compartments of transport category airplanes. In its current form, 
Sec. 121.337(b)(9)(iv) requires a portable PBE unit to be located ``in 
each passenger compartment, one located within 3 feet of each hand fire 
extinguisher required by Sec. 121.309 of this part * * *.'' Section 
121.309(c) specifies the number and location of fire extinguishers in 
passenger compartments, which increase with the seating capacity of the 
airplane. At least one air carrier has interpreted 
Sec. 121.337(b)(9)(iv) to mean that one portable PBE would satisfy the 
requirement for 2 required hand fire extinguishers as long as both of 
those fire extinguishers are within 3 feet of the PBE. The FAA never 
intended such a result, as evidenced in the preamble to the original 
final rule.
    In response to several comments to the original notice regarding 
the number of PBE units required, the FAA stated that one PBE device at 
each hand fire extinguisher location required by Sec. 121.309 will 
provide an adequate level of coverage and will avoid any confusion in 
locating the equipment since it will be near a hand fire extinguisher. 
This final rule revises the section to make it clear that there must be 
a PBE unit for each fire extinguisher.
    The FAA finds that safety requires that each hand fire extinguisher 
be paired with a separate PBE unit. The FAA does not agree that safety 
would be served by allowing more than one fire extinguisher per PBE 
unit. In the event that more than one crewmember is required to combat 
a fire in the area of the two or more fire extinguishers the second 
crewmember would have to spend additional time seeking a second PBE 
unit. The FAA has determined that the potential safety hazard created 
by allowing this practice to continue far outweighs any reduction in 
cost. Therefore, this final rule makes it clear that one PBE is 
required for each fire extinguisher. The final rule clearly states that 
one portable PBE unit is required for each required hand fire 
extinguisher. However, if a carrier chooses to provide an additional 
fire extinguisher in excess of the number of fire extinguishers 
required by Sec. 121.309, the carrier is not required to provide an 
additional PBE unit to be paired with it.

Discussion of Comments (NPRM)

    Eight comments were received on the NPRM. In addition, ATA 
submitted comments from both cargo-only and passenger carrying 
operators. Comments were received from the National Transportation 
Safety Board (NTSB), ATA, ALPA, the Regional Airline Association (RAA), 
and two air carriers. Two other comments did not relate to the NPRM. 
Most commenters express basic support for the NPRM, particularly its 
clarification that passenger-carrying operations must provide one 
portable PBE unit for each required fire extinguisher. NTSB agrees with 
the NPRM and states that the proposed amendments will clarify existing 
regulations and will also allow air carriers some flexibility with 
compliance without compromising safety. RAA supports the proposal, 
saying that it ``serves its objectives to provide needed clarification, 
and to relieve the requirement for certain unnecessary equipment.'' 
Boeing states that a requirement to check the PBE unit enclosure to 
ensure it has not been tampered with should be retained.
    In regard to passenger-carrying operations, ALPA comments that 
portable PBE should remain in the cargo compartments of passenger-
carrying operations for reasons of safety. ALPA states that it is a 
common occurrence to investigate for strange odors in large aircraft. 
It notes that valuable time could be lost if the crewmember has to 
retrieve the PBE from another location.
    Boeing comments that it favors the installation of one PBE for each 
fire extinguisher for both cargo and passenger-carrying aircraft.
    ATA states that it supports the proposed amendments with the 
exception to those applicable to cargo-only aircraft.
    Finally, two commenters state that the NPRM should retain some 
measure which requires crewmembers to check PBE readiness.
    In regard to cargo-only operations, ALPA comments that locating 
portable PBE in the cargo compartment enables crewmembers to more 
rapidly respond to possible fire threats in these areas. Under the 
proposed rule change, ALPA states that ``valuable time would be lost by 
the crew returning to the cockpit to get the PBE in the rare occurrence 
when a fire is discovered.'' ALPA believes that PBE should be 
conveniently available to each cargo compartment, although it also 
states that in some cases a PBE unit could be shared between two 
compartments. ALPA considers the cargo units prudent backup to the 
cockpit PBE when its air supply is expended. Finally, ALPA finds that 
cargo carried in cargo-only is more reactive and hazardous, and that in 
some instances, the crew would have no choice but to fight the fire.
    ATA comments that the FAA's safety justification for requiring an 
additional portable PBE unit in the cargo area of cargo-only airplanes 
contradicts the agency's rationale for granting cargo-only operators an 
exemption to install a sole portable PBE unit on the flight deck. 
According to ATA, the installation of an additional portable PBE unit 
in the Class E cargo compartment does not improve safety. As support, 
ATA states that its review of Service Difficulty Report data from 1979 
to 1992 did not uncover any reports of fire or smoke in Class E cargo 
compartments. Furthermore, ATA notes that each aircraft already 
contains sedentary PBE that protects the crewmember, plus one portable 
PBE unit in the event that a crewmember has to leave a duty station for 
a brief time to investigate a potential fire in the cargo area. 
According to ATA, most cargo areas are inaccessible in flight, and 
flight procedures do not call for crewmembers fighting fires. Finally, 
ATA estimates that, if the requirement for an additional portable PBE 
unit is imposed, the air carrier industry would incur $550,000 in 
unnecessary equipment costs. Attached to the ATA comment were comments 
from Airborne Express, DHL, Evergreen, and UPS supporting the ATA 
position.
    Boeing Commercial Airplane Group commented that one PBE located 
with the fire extinguisher on the flight deck is not adequate and 
suggested that a second PBE be stored near the entrance to the cargo 
compartment to increase availability. Boeing, however, provided no data 
to support this statement.

FAA Response

    In response to comments on cargo-only operations, the FAA 
determined that the question of whether to require one portable PBE 
unit to be located in a position that is easily accessible and 
conveniently located for use in the cargo area of the airplane, in 
addition to the one unit on the flight deck, deserved further comment. 
Therefore, on April 11, 1994, the FAA published a supplemental notice, 
proposing that the one additional PBE unit designated for the cargo 
area be eliminated. Discussion of comments received on that proposal 
follows.
    The FAA does not agree with ALPA's comment that removing portable 
PBE from the cargo compartments of passenger-carrying airplanes would 
compromise safety. The regulations already require one PBE unit for 
each

[[Page 43920]]

hand fire extinguisher, a requirement that is being clarified in this 
amendment.

Discussion of Comments (SNPRM)

    Five comments were received on the SNPRM.
    ALPHA opposes the proposal set forth in the SNPRM, saying that the 
additional PBE unit in the cargo area is needed as a back-up for the 
one unit on the flight deck. ALPA is also critical of the 15-minute 
standard for the portable PBE unit, saying that flights often must 
operate much longer than this to make an emergency landing at the 
nearest airport. The Association cites five reports where the crew 
smelled smoke and decided to divert to the nearest airport; time to do 
so ranged from 10 minutes to 1 hour and 2 minutes. ALPA finds that 
reducing the number of portable PBE units to one is unacceptable, since 
that would limit the crew to only a 15-minute supply of oxygen.
    ATA strongly supports the SNPRM. It notes that for most of the time 
since Sec. 121.337 was established, cargo-only operators have been 
flying their aircraft with an exemption that permits the flight deck 
PBE to satisfy the requirement for PBE in the cargo compartment. ATA 
states that for 7 years, cargo-only operators have not experienced any 
incident which would justify requiring a second unit for the Class E 
compartment. ATA also incorporates its previous arguments in its letter 
dated May 27, 1993.
    Airborne Express comments that it supports the SNPRM and notes that 
its 1993 and 1994 Service Difficulty Reports show no incidents of smoke 
or fire in Class E compartments.
    Likewise, Douglas Aircraft Company comments that the second PBE 
unit is unnecessary.
    Boeing Commercial Airplane Group comments that it has reevaluated 
its comment on the NPRM and now concludes that there was no data to 
support that recommendation. Therefore, Boeing now finds that the one 
PBE unit required for the flight deck is sufficient and that a second 
unit is unwarranted and unnecessary.

FAA Response

    In the event of a fire in a Class E compartment, standardized 
checklist procedures are established to address the particular 
situation for each affected compartment. Procedures include landing the 
aircraft as soon as practical. Attempting to combat a fire in the Class 
E cargo compartment is a last resort measure, and may be of limited 
effectiveness. It may be unwise, for instance, depending on the 
particular situation, to send one crewmember of a 2-person cockpit into 
a large cargo compartment that may contain unknown hazards. Further, 
Class E cargo compartments are often inaccessible in flight due to 
containerized cargo that poses a barrier to getting into the areas that 
may be on fire. Class A and B compartments are small and accessible to 
the flight deck. Therefore, the flight deck PBE is adequate for 
fighting fires in those compartments. The accident and incident data is 
consistent with this conclusion. Because of exemptions to ATA, discussd 
above, cargo-only carriers have never been required to install this 
second portable PBE unit since the adoption of the rule in 1987. Thus, 
for more than 6 years these operators have conducted cargo-only 
operations with one additional portable PBE unit located on the flight 
deck, but without portable PBE units in the cargo areas. The FAA has no 
accident or incident data regarding fires on cargo-only airplanes in 
which a second portable PBE unit could have made a difference.
    Therefore, the FAA has determined that the one portable PBE unit 
currently required under Sec. 121.337(b)(a)(iii) for the flight deck is 
sufficient for the unlikely possibility that a crewmember would need to 
fight an in-flight fire anywhere on the airplane, including the cargo 
area. In addition, on passenger-carrying aircraft the PBEs in the 
passenger compartment provides additional equipment to use should the 
need arise.
    In response to ALPA's concerns about the 15-minute supply of 
oxygen, this was not an issue raised in the NPRM or SNPRM. The supply 
of oxygen was dealt with in Amendment 121-193 (52 FR 20950, June 3, 
1987).

Means to Determine Quantity of Breathing Gas

    The NPRM proposed to remove Sec. 121.337(b)(7)(iii). That section 
requires a means to determine, during flight, the quantity of breathing 
gas. This paragraph was considered unnecessary because the newer 
designs do not have a quantity gauge, rather they have such things as 
vacuum seals or tamper-evident seals that allow the user to determine 
whether the gas supply is fully charged and ready to use.
    In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to remove from the preflight 
inspection in Sec. 121.337(c)(2) the requirement to check whether the 
breathing gas supply is ``fully charged.''
    After further consideration, the FAA has determined that it is not 
appropriate to remove Sec. 121.337(b)(7)(iii), but that modifications 
are in order. In addition, the FAA has determined that no amendment to 
Sec. 121.337(c)(2) is needed. Section 121.337(c) requires a preflight 
inspection of each PBE, including whether it is serviceable and fully 
charged. To make this meaningful the unit should have some means to 
identify whether the item appears to be ready to use or there appears 
to have been tampering or a discharge of gas, such as vacuum seals or 
tamper-evident seals that are used on the newer PBEs. The crew can 
check whether the seal is broken, for instance.
    Accordingly, Sec. 121.337(b)(7)(iii) is amended to require that the 
PBE unit have means to determine whether the gas supply is fully 
charged, but does not specify that a gauge or any other particular 
means is to be used. In addition, the proposed changes to 
Sec. 121.337(c)(2) are withdrawn.

Synopsis of Changes

    This final rule amends Sec. 121.337 with three changes:
    (1) It eliminates the current requirements Sec. 121.337(b)(9)(iii) 
to install one portable PBE unit in each Class A, B, and E cargo 
compartment.
    (2) It clarifies Sec. 121.337(b)(9)(iv) to provide that on 
passenger-carrying airplanes, there must be one PBE for each hand fire 
extinguisher and that one portable PBE unit located between two fire 
extinguishers is not sufficient.
    (3) The rule changes the requirement in Sec. 121.337(b)(7)(iii) 
that portable PBE units indicate the quantity of the breathing gas 
available in each source of supply, to requiring that the gas supply is 
fully charged.

Economic Summary

    The FAA finds that the set of proposals in this final rule are not 
``major'' within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or the DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. In regard to cargo-only operations, 
the final rule will no longer require a separate portable PBE for each 
Class A, B, and E cargo compartment; instead, it will require only one 
portable PBE for use in the cargo area of cargo-only airplanes (in 
addition to the portable PBE already required on the flight deck for 
use throughout the aircraft).
    The final rule will eliminate the pending requirement that cargo-
only aircraft must have a PBE unit for each of its cargo compartments. 
An adequate level of safety is met with the existing level of PBE units 
onboard. Without this final rule, the FAA would require about 620 cargo 
aircraft to add one or more portable PBE units to its onboard

[[Page 43921]]

equipment. The cost of each unit is approximately $490. The final rule 
will prevent the imposition of more than $304,000 in costs. Hence, the 
proposal relieves the industry of an unnecessary potential cost burden.
    As for passenger-carrying operations, the final rule does two 
things. First, it clarifies the present rule so that air carriers 
understand that the requirement is not met by one portable PBE for 
every two hand fire extinguishers if those fire extinguishers are 
within 3 feet of the PBE. Thus, the amended rule will clearly indicate, 
in accordance with the FAA's original intent, that there must be one 
portable PBE unit for each required hand fire extinguisher in the 
passenger compartments. Since the total number of required portable PBE 
units will not change as a result of this clarification, it yields no 
costs or benefits to quantify nor any economic consequences to 
evaluate.
    Second, without the final rule, the FAA would require a PBE unit 
within the cargo areas of passenger-carrying planes. Eliminating this 
requirement will not reduce passenger or crew safety. The PBE equipment 
in the passenger compartments and on the flight deck will be sufficient 
to meet all FAA safety requirements. As with the all cargo aircraft, 
this final rule will relieve the airline industry of an unnecessary 
potential cost.
    The FAA has determined that the final rule will result in some 
small cost reduction because it will prevent the imposition of 
additional costs on the industry resulting from existing requirements 
for PBE, i.e., the purchase of additional PBE units to furbish newly 
acquired aircraft. In addition, the FAA has determined that the final 
rule will have no adverse impact on existing airline safety. Because 
the final rule will have little or no effect on existing costs and 
airline safety, the FAA has not prepared a full regulatory evaluation 
for the docket.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by 
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and 
disproportionately burdened by Government regulations. The RFA requires 
agencies to specifically review rules that may have a ``significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.''
    This final rule will impact entities regulated by part 121. The 
FAA's criteria for ``a substantial number'' are a number which is not 
less than 11 and which is more than one third of the small entities 
subject to this rule. For all carriers, a small entity has been defined 
as one which owns, but does not necessarily operate, nine or fewer 
aircraft. The FAA's criteria for ``a significant impact'' are as 
follows: At least $4,600 per year for an unscheduled air carrier, 
$67,000 per year for a scheduled carrier having airplanes with only 60 
or fewer seats, and $119,900 per year for a scheduled carrier having an 
airplane with 61 or more seats.
    Using these criteria, the FAA has determined, and therefore 
certifies, that the final amendments to Sec. 121.337 if promulgated, 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. None of the final amendments will have a significant 
affect on air carrier costs. Therefore, the FAA has determined that the 
final amendments to Sec. 121.337, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The rule will impose no additional cost burden on either domestic 
or international all-cargo carriers. Hence, the amendment will not 
cause any competitive trade advantage or disadvantage to either the 
U.S. or to any foreign country.

Federalism Implications

    This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, 
on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of Government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 
12612, it is determined that the amendments will not have federalism 
implications requiring the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation 
Regulations

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with ICAO 
Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP) to the maximum extent 
practicable. This final rule will not present any differences with 
those standards.
    In addition, these amendments are similar to those found in the 
JAR, though those regulations are less specific. JAR-OPS 1.780 
addresses that PBE units must provide a 15-minute breathing supply for 
both flight crewmember and cabin crewmembers.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 92-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated 
with this rule.

Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the 
findings in the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the 
International Trade Impact Assessment, the FAA has determined that this 
regulation is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866 since it will not impose any additional costs. In addition, the 
FAA has determined that this action is not significant under Department 
of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures [44 FR 
11034; February 26, 1979].
    The rule will have no impact on trade opportunities for U.S. firms 
doing business overseas or for foreign firms doing business in the 
United States.
    This regulation will have no additional economic impact on the 
public. In fact, in the case of cargo-only operators, the rule will 
relieve costs. The FAA has determined that the expected impact of the 
rule is so minimal that it does not warrant a full Regulatory 
Evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121

    Air Carriers, Air Safety, Air Transportation, Airplanes, Aviation 
Safety, Safety, Transportation.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 
121 (14 CFR Part 121) as follows:

PART 121 CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND 
SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702, 
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904, 
44912, 46105.

    2. Section 121.337 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(9)(i); by 
redesignating paragraphs (b)(9)(ii), (b)(9)(iii), and (b)(9)(iv) as 
(b)(9)(i), (b)(9)(ii), and (b)(9)(iii); by revising paragraph 
(b)(7)(iii); by revising newly designated paragraph (b)(9)(iii); and by 
removing, in paragraph (d)(1), the words ``, except that for all-cargo 
airplanes subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this 
section the compliance date is February 18, 1992''.


Sec. 121.337  Protective breathing equipment.

* * * * *

[[Page 43922]]

    (b) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (iii) For breathing gas systems other than chemical oxygen 
generators, there must be a means to allow the crew to readily 
determine, during the equipment preflight described in paragraph (c) of 
this section, that the gas supply is fully charged.
* * * * *
    (9) * * *
    (iii) In each passenger compartment, one for each hand fire 
extinguisher required by Sec. 121.309 of this part, to be located 
within 3 feet of each required hand fire extinguisher, except that the 
Administrator may authorize a deviation allowing locations of PBE more 
than 3 feet from required hand fire extinguisher locations if special 
circumstances exist that make compliance impractical and if the 
proposed deviation provides an equivalent level of safety.
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington, DC on August 21, 1996.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-21713 Filed 8-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M