[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