Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68189 

TABLE 2—SERVICE INFORMATION—Continued 

Document Issue Date 

EADS CASA CN–235/C–295 Technical Document, DT–0–C00–05001 ............................. Issue D ................................. October 2008. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(k) You must use the service information 

contained in Table 3 of this AD to do the 

actions required by this AD, unless the AD 

specifies otherwise. 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

this service information under 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact EADS–CASA, Military 

Transport Aircraft Division (MTAD), 

Integrated Customer Services (ICS), 

Technical Services, Avenida de Arago ́n 404, 

28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 

55 84; fax +34 91 585 55 05; e-mail 

MTA.TechnicalService@casa.eads.net; 

Internet http://www.eads.net. 

(3) You may review copies of the service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 

(4) You may also review copies of the 

service information that is incorporated by 

reference at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go 

to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

TABLE 3—MATERIAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Document Revision/issue Date 

EADS CASA CMM with Illustrated Parts List 28–21–12 ..................................................... Revision 003 ......................... June 15, 2007. 

EADS CASA CN–235/C–295 Technical Document DT–0–C00–05001 .............................. Issue C ................................. October 2006. 

EADS CASA CN–235/C–295 Technical Document DT–0–C00–05001 .............................. Issue D ................................. October 2008. 

EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB–235–21–18 ..................................................................... Original ................................. August 2, 2007. 

EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB–235–24–20 ..................................................................... Original ................................. August 2, 2007. 

EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB–235–28–18 ..................................................................... Original ................................. August 2, 2007. 

Eaton CMM with Illustrated Parts List 28–10–63 ................................................................. Revision 3 ............................. June 20, 2006. 

Eaton CMM with Illustrated Parts List 28–20–81 ................................................................. Revision 2 ............................. June 20, 2006. 

Gull CMM with Illustrated Parts List 28–40–61 .................................................................... Revision 3 ............................. June 28, 2007. 

Parker Hannifin CMM with Illustrated Parts List 28–22–12 ................................................. Revision 5 ............................. January 10, 2008. 

Parker Hannifin CMM with Illustrated Parts List CM 1C7–20, –21 ..................................... Revision B ............................ November 20, 2006. 

Zodiac Intertechnique CMM with Illustrated Parts List 28–41–05 ....................................... Revision 3 ............................. September 25, 2006. 

(The title page of EADS CASA CMM with 

Illustrated Parts List 28–21–12 contains an 

incorrect revision level; the correct revision 

level is 003. The issue date of EADS CASA 

CN–235/C–295 Technical Document DT–0– 

C00–05001, Issue C; and EADS CASA CN– 

235/C–295 Technical Document DT–0–C00– 

05001, Issue D; can only be found on the title 

page and in the Revisions Record. Certain 

pages of EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB– 

235–28–18 have missing or incomplete 

document numbers and dates; the correct 

document number and dates for those pages 

can be found on the first page of that 

document. The date shown on the List of 

Effective Pages for Eaton CMM with 

Illustrated Parts List 28–10–63, and Eaton 

CMM with Illustrated Parts List 28–20–81, is 

incorrect; the correct date for that page of 

those documents is June 20, 2006. The 

revision level shown on page 7 of Parker 

Hannifin CMM with Illustrated Parts List CM 

1C7–20, –21 (replaces CMM RR54170), is 

incorrect; the correct revision level for that 

page is B. The revision level of EADS CASA 

CN–235/C–295 Technical Document DT–0– 

C00–05001, Issue C; EADS CASA CN–235/C– 

295 Technical Document DT–0–C00–05001, 

Issue D; and Eaton CMM with Illustrated 

Parts List 28–20–81; is located only in the 

Record of Revisions for those documents.) 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

20, 2010. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27615 Filed 11–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 121 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0022; Amendment 

No.: 121–350] 

RIN 2120–AJ30 

Crewmember Requirements When 

Passengers are Onboard 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Currently, during passenger 

boarding and deplaning, all flight 

attendants are required to be on board 

the airplane. This final rule will allow 

one required flight attendant to deplane 

during passenger boarding, to conduct 

safety-related duties, as long as certain 

conditions are met. In addition, this rule 

will allow a pilot or flight engineer not 

assigned to the flight to substitute for a 

flight attendant when that flight 

attendant does not remain within the 

immediate vicinity of the door through 

which passengers are boarding. This 

rule will also allow a reduction of flight 

attendants remaining on board the 

airplane during passenger deplaning, as 

long as certain conditions are met. The 

FAA has determined that these 

revisions to current regulations can be 

made as a result of recent safety 

enhancements to airplane equipment 

and procedures. These changes have 

mitigated the risks to passengers during 

ground operations that previously 

required all flight attendants to be on 

board the airplane during passenger 

boarding and deplaning. 

DATES: These amendments become 

effective January 4, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this final 

rule contact Nancy Lauck Claussen, Air 

Transportation Division AFS–200, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–8166; facsimile (202) 267–5229, 

e-mail Nancy.L.Claussen@faa.gov. For 

legal questions concerning this final 

rule contact Paul G. Greer, Regulations 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

68190 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Division, AGC–200; telephone (202) 

267–3073, e-mail Paul.G.Greer@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701. 

Under that section, the FAA is charged 

with promoting safe flight of civil 

aircraft by prescribing regulations and 

minimum standards for other practices, 

methods, and procedures the 

Administrator finds necessary for safety 

in air commerce. This regulation is 

within the scope of that authority since 

it prescribes minimum flight attendant 

requirements during passenger boarding 

and deplaning. 

Background 

Current regulations prohibit a flight 

attendant from stepping off the airplane 

during passenger boarding and 

deplaning to perform any duties if the 

flight attendant is one of the flight 

attendants required by § 121.391. 

However, during passenger boarding 

and deplaning, a flight attendant may 

need to conduct safety-related duties 

outside the airplane cabin. The FAA 

believes that changes to regulations 

since 1985 have reduced the hazards to 

passengers during boarding and 

deplaning. These changes have reduced 

risks to passengers during these phases 

of operation by improving requirements 

for firefighting equipment, increasing 

the time available to evacuate an 

airplane, and improving accessibility to 

exits. Examples include: 

• Requiring lavatory smoke detectors, 

automatic lavatory waste receptacle fire 

extinguishers, and Halon 1211 

extinguishers; 

• Improving cabin interior 

flammability standards to enhance 

survivability by increasing the time 

before flashover occurs; 

• Improving thermal insulation 

standards to reduce the risk of fire in 

inaccessible parts of the airplane cabin 

and increase the time available for a 

passenger evacuation; and 

• Improving passenger access to Type 

III (typically overwing) emergency exits. 

In addition to these changes in aircraft 

certification regulatory requirements, 

the FAA has revised several operational 

regulations since 1985, which has also 

reduced the risks to passengers during 

boarding and deplaning. Prior to 1987, 

air carriers were not required to screen 

passengers for the size and amount of 

carry-on baggage prior to boarding the 

aircraft. Current carry-on baggage 

regulations require air carriers to limit 

the size and amount of carry-on baggage 

that each passenger may bring onboard 

the aircraft. This has provided flight 

attendants with additional tools to 

manage the handling of carry-on 

baggage during passenger boarding. In 

addition, § 121.585, promulgated in 

1990, requires an air carrier to assign 

exit seats to passengers based on a list 

of exit seat selection criteria and the 

passenger’s ability to perform exit seat 

functions. Because the majority of 

passengers in exit seats have been 

screened to meet exit seat criteria, these 

considerations lead to exit seat 

passengers being more likely to initiate 

‘‘self-help’’ actions in the event of an 

emergency during passenger boarding. 

The changes to FAA operational 

regulations have also been 

complemented by Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) 

regulations, which have reduced the 

risk of a security-related threat during 

passenger boarding or deplaning even 

further. All of these changes have 

mitigated the risks to which passengers 

are exposed during boarding and 

deplaning. 

Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) 

In January 2009 the FAA issued an 

NPRM, Crewmember Requirements 

When Passengers Are Onboard (74 FR 

3469; January 21, 2009), that proposed 

to allow one required flight attendant to 

deplane during passenger boarding, and 

conduct safety-related duties, as long as 

certain conditions were met. In 

addition, the NPRM would allow a 

flightcrew member to substitute for a 

flight attendant when that flight 

attendant does not remain within 30 feet 

of the door through which passengers 

are boarding. The NPRM also proposed 

to allow a reduction of flight attendants 

remaining on board the airplane during 

passenger deplaning, as long as certain 

conditions were met. The close of the 

comment period was April 21, 2009. 

Passenger Boarding 

The NPRM addressed two possible 

scenarios during boarding that involved 

a reduction, by one, of the number of 

flight attendants required for boarding 

by § 121.391, on an airplane that 

requires more than one flight attendant. 

The first scenario was when one 

required flight attendant stepped off the 

airplane during boarding to perform 

safety related duties and remained 

within 30 feet of the boarding door. 

The second scenario was when one 

required flight attendant did not remain 

within 30 feet of the boarding door. In 

this case, the NPRM proposed to allow 

a qualified flightcrew member, such as 

a pilot or flight engineer, to substitute in 

the cabin for one required flight 

attendant who was not on the airplane 

when boarding commenced or who was 

not within 30 feet of the boarding door. 

The NPRM proposed that the 

flightcrew member who substituted for 

the required flight attendant must be 

trained and qualified on that aircraft 

type as a pilot or a flight engineer for 

that certificate holder. This proposed 

requirement ensured that the flightcrew 

member had received emergency and 

security training that is specific to that 

aircraft type and that certificate holder. 

The NPRM also proposed that the 

substitute crewmember had to be 

prepared to conduct his or her duties by 

having in his or her possession all items 

required for duty by the air carrier, such 

as a flight operations or flight attendant 

manual. The substitute crewmember 

also had to be identifiable to the 

passengers as a working ‘‘crewmember.’’ 

In addition, the certificate holder had 

to ensure that the substitute 

crewmember continued to meet the duty 

and rest requirements of part 121. 

Therefore, a person substituting for an 

assigned flight attendant would be 

considered ‘‘on duty’’ under the 

proposal. 

The NPRM also proposed to require 

that the certificate holder describe in its 

manual system additional procedures 

including: 

• The functions to be performed by 

the substitute flightcrew member and 

remaining flight attendants in an 

emergency or situation requiring 

emergency evacuation. Similar to the 

requirements found in § 121.397, the 

certificate holder would have to show 

that these functions were realistic, could 

be practically accomplished, and would 

meet any reasonably anticipated 

emergency; 

• A method to ensure that the 

substitution of a flightcrew member for 

a flight attendant during passenger 

boarding would not interfere with the 

safe operation of the flight (e.g., 

interfering with the completion of the 

flightcrew member’s pre-flight duties, 

etc.); 

• A method to ensure that the 

flightcrew member was located in the 

passenger cabin during the time that 

person was substituting for the flight 

attendant; 

• A method to ensure that other 

regulatory safety functions performed by 

a flight attendant, such as scanning 

passenger carry-on baggage, handling 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68191 

issues such as intoxicated or disruptive 

passengers, verifying the suitability of 

exit seat passengers, and monitoring the 

use of child restraint systems, would be 

accomplished by the flightcrew member 

and the remaining flight attendants on 

the airplane; and 

• A method to ensure that the 

substitute flightcrew member was 

trained in all assigned flight attendant 

duties. 

Passenger Deplaning 

In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed 

to permit a reduction to half the number 

of flight attendants required by 

§ 121.391, rounded down to the next 

lower number in the case of a fraction, 

but never fewer than one, during 

passenger deplaning provided certain 

conditions were met. At the time of 

deplaning, each passenger has already 

received all required safety information 

briefings and had an opportunity to 

review the passenger safety information 

card and all posted signs and placards. 

In addition, a crewmember has verified 

the suitability of exit seat passengers, 

and the exit seat passengers have had an 

opportunity to ask questions about their 

exit seat responsibilities. These 

passengers are better prepared to assist 

themselves in an emergency evacuation 

than those passengers just boarding an 

airplane. During deplaning, passengers 

are in the process of leaving the airplane 

through one or more floor-level exits 

with pre-positioned passenger loading 

bridges or boarding stairs which lessens 

the exposure time to the risk of an 

emergency or a possible evacuation. 

Additional Limitations Applicable 

During Boarding and Deplaning of 

Passengers 

In addition to the specific limitations 

previously described, the FAA proposed 

requiring a certificate holder to 

duplicate ground conditions designed to 

reduce risks to passengers when a 

reduced number of flight attendants are 

on board an airplane as set forth in 

§ 121.393. The proposed conditions 

required the airplane to be stationary in 

a level attitude with at least one floorlevel exit open and all engines to be 

shut down, mitigating the risk of an 

engine torching or overheating. If the 

specific ground conditions were not 

met, the certificate holder would not be 

permitted to reduce the flight attendant 

crew below the requirements of 

§ 121.391. 

Finally, the FAA proposed that the 

flight attendants remaining on board the 

airplane be evenly distributed near the 

floor-level exits. This proposed 

requirement would ensure that the flight 

attendants were available to deal more 

effectively with an emergency 

evacuation, should the need arise. If 

only one flight attendant remained on 

board the airplane during passenger 

boarding, he or she had to be located in 

accordance with the air carrier’s FAAapproved operating procedures. 

Summary of the Final Rule 

In the final rule the FAA has retained 

most of the proposed requirements in 

the NPRM. The changes are described in 

this summary. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that 

any flightcrew member trained and 

qualified on the aircraft type for that 

certificate holder, including a flightcrew 

member who was assigned to that same 

flight, would be permitted to substitute 

for a flight attendant who left the 

airplane and did not remain within 30 

feet of the boarding door. The FAA 

received comments that a pilot’s ability 

to provide full time attention to the safe 

operation of the aircraft would be 

degraded by adding the additional 

responsibility of substituting for a flight 

attendant during passenger boarding. 

Specifically, commenters noted that this 

additional responsibility might divert 

the pilot’s attention from performing 

preflight duties. 

Upon further review, the FAA has 

determined that substituting a 

flightcrew member assigned to the flight 

for a required flight attendant may affect 

the safety of the operation. Therefore, 

the FAA has amended the final rule to 

require that the substituting flightcrew 

member not be assigned to operate that 

specific flight. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that 

a required flight attendant could step off 

the airplane to perform safety related 

duties if that flight attendant remained 

within 30 feet of the boarding door. The 

FAA received comments that the 

proposed limitation of 30 feet was not 

restrictive enough, was difficult for a 

flight attendant to discern, and would 

cause the airline to focus on compliance 

issues with the 30 foot rule that are not 

necessarily related to the identified risks 

of not having a full complement of 

required flight attendants onboard 

during passenger boarding or deplaning. 

In the final rule, the FAA has revised 

the proposed requirement that a flight 

attendant remain within 30 feet of the 

boarding door. Instead, the FAA is 

requiring the deplaning flight attendant 

to remain in the immediate vicinity of 

the passenger boarding door. 

This revision permits a flight 

attendant to perform safety related 

duties such as removing a piece of 

carry-on baggage or using the telephone 

in the cab of the passenger loading 

bridge to coordinate with ground 

personnel regarding compliance with 

approved exit seat or carry-on baggage 

programs. It also permits the flight 

attendant to observe passenger boarding 

and hear other crewmembers and 

passengers in the airplane. 

The NPRM did not address the 

emergency training requirements 

pertaining to evacuation management, 

evacuation commands, and frequency of 

performance drills for exit operations 

for pilots and flight engineers 

substituting for flight attendants. 

Current emergency training 

requirements for these crewmembers are 

identical. However, the FAA published 

an NPRM, Qualification, Service and 

Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft 

Dispatchers (74 FR 1280; January 12, 

2009) that would, if adopted, result in 

different emergency training 

requirements for flightcrew members 

and flight attendants. The NPRM on 

which this final rule is based did not 

take this potential difference in 

emergency training requirements into 

account. 

The FAA considers it essential that 

certain emergency training requirements 

for substituting pilots and flight 

engineers are identical to those of flight 

attendants, regardless of the content of 

the adopted final rule based upon the 

January 12, 2009 NPRM. Accordingly, 

the FAA has modified the requirements 

for substituting pilots and flight 

engineers in this final rule to 

specifically require that certificate 

holders ensure that substituting pilots 

and flight engineers meet the emergency 

training requirements for flight 

attendants in evacuation management 

and evacuation commands, as 

appropriate, and the frequency of 

performance drills for exit operations. A 

substituting pilot or flight engineer 

therefore would be required to receive 

training in evacuation management and 

commands for unplanned land 

evacuations. 

Additionally, in the final rule the 

FAA has clarified its intent that the 

minimum number of required flight 

attendants is based on the provisions of 

§ 121.391 (a) or (b), as appropriate. 

Proposed § 121.394(a) and (b), however, 

only referred to § 121.391(a). 

Accordingly, the FAA has revised 

§ 121.394(a) and (b), to refer to 

§ 121.391. 

In § 121.394(a)(2)(vii) of the NPRM 

the FAA proposed that when a 

flightcrew member is substituted for a 

flight attendant the certificate holder 

must ensure that the time spent by the 

substituting flightcrew member applies 

towards daily duty time limits and is 

considered when determining 

crewmember rest requirements. In 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

68192 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 121.394(d) the FAA has clarified its 

intent that the time spent by any 

crewmember conducting passenger 

boarding or deplaning duties is 

considered duty time. See Legal 

Interpretation to Brent Harper, 

Southwest Airlines, Inflight Standards— 

Manager, Regulatory Compliance, from 

Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief 

Counsel, Regulations Division (August 

12, 2008). 

Disposition of Comments 

The FAA received 15 comments on 

the proposed rule. Six comments were 

received from airlines (American, 

Continental, Southwest, Delta, Horizon, 

and US Airways), two were received 

from airline trade associations (Air 

Transport Association (ATA) and the 

Regional Airline Association (RAA)), 

two were received from labor 

organizations (Association of Flight 

Attendants (AFA) and Air Line Pilots 

Association (ALPA)), and five 

comments were received from 

individuals. 

The majority of the comments that the 

FAA received addressed: (1) The 

substitution of flightcrew members for 

flight attendants; (2) the use of a 30 foot 

limitation to determine minimum 

crewmember requirements; (3) the 

duties that may be performed by a flight 

attendant who has left the aircraft 

during passenger boarding; and (4) 

whether the proposed rule provides a 

level of safety equivalent to current 

requirements. 

Substitution of Flightcrew Members for 

Flight Attendants 

(1) Diverting Flightcrew Members From 

Pre-Flight Duties 

ALPA commented that it was not 

appropriate for a qualified flightcrew 

member of the certificate holder to 

substitute for a flight attendant and that 

it must take strong exception to the 

proposal. ALPA noted that with the 

proposal, as with its comment to Docket 

No. FAA 2006–25466, Southwest 

Airlines Co. Petition for Clarification or 

Amendment of Exemption 9382, dated 

July 28, 2008, during any stop, 

flightcrew members have defined duties 

intended to ensure the safety and 

security of the current flight or the next 

flight. ALPA stated that frequently, at 

stops of short duration, the time to 

accomplish flight crew duties can 

already be significantly compressed, 

adding to the need to avoid additional 

tasks that would be imposed by the 

proposed rule. ALPA also commented 

that the proposed rule does not directly 

address the potential impact of the 

suggested procedures on the normal 

activities and duties of the flightcrew 

member who might be tasked with 

additional emergency evacuation duties. 

ALPA further noted that significant 

operational demands on flightcrew 

members’ attention during preparation 

for flight provide them far less 

opportunity to observe unusual events 

that would be more quickly recognized 

by a dedicated flight attendant, 

consequently increasing the response 

time critical to the successful 

performance of evacuation duties. ALPA 

further commented that the additional 

responsibility of substituting for a flight 

attendant would also detract from a 

pilot’s ability to provide full time and 

attention to the safe operation of the 

aircraft. 

Many individual commenters also 

questioned whether this additional 

responsibility for pilots might detract 

from a pilot’s ability to attend to the safe 

operation of the airplane or similarly 

how a pilot’s pre-flight duties might 

interfere with his or her ability to 

adequately monitor the boarding of 

passengers. 

One individual commented that a 

flightcrew member is fully capable 

under the requirements in the proposed 

rule to take on the role of substituting 

for a temporarily absent flight attendant. 

However, another individual 

commented that he was unable to 

comprehend how passenger safety is 

enhanced when a pilot ceases his or her 

pre-flight duties by allowing a pilot or 

flight engineer to substitute for a flight 

attendant and suggested that a flight 

attendant should contact the airline to 

request additional personnel for 

assistance rather than asking the pilot to 

stop performing his or her pre- or postflight duties. This individual further 

asked for additional justification by the 

FAA for allowing this change in 

requirements. 

Upon further review, the FAA has 

determined that this change, as 

proposed, may affect the safety of the 

flight. Therefore, the FAA is amending 

proposed § 121.394(a)(2) to require that 

the substituting flightcrew member not 

be assigned to operate that specific 

flight. This provides a certificate holder 

with the operational flexibility to 

substitute a ‘‘deadheading’’ or otherwise 

available flightcrew member for one 

flight attendant, provided the other 

conditions of § 121.394(a)(2) are met, 

without the potential of interfering with 

the duties of the flightcrew members 

who are responsible for the safe 

operation of that flight. 

In addition, in the final rule the FAA 

is clarifying that a substitute pilot or 

flight engineer is ‘‘substituting’’ for a 

required flight attendant under strictly 

limited conditions and is not ‘‘serving’’ 

as a required flight attendant. The 

substitute pilot or flight engineer must 

meet the requirements of § 121.394, but 

does not need to meet other flight 

attendant training and qualification 

requirements that are inapplicable to 

passenger boarding. 

(2) Emergency Training and 

Performance Drills for Flightcrew 

Members and Flight Attendants 

The Association of Flight Attendants 

(AFA) commented that it is imperative 

that the FAA require that the air carrier 

ensure that the flightcrew member is 

trained according to the requirements of 

§ 121.417, Crewmember emergency 

training. The AFA also noted that the 

FAA has issued another NPRM, 

Qualification, Service, and Use of 

Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers 

(74 FR 1280; January 12, 2009) that 

proposes to change the current training 

regulations. The AFA stated that under 

the proposed emergency training 

requirements in that NPRM, flight 

attendants would need to complete 

‘‘hands on’’ performance drills using 

emergency equipment and procedures 

every 12 months. AFA noted in contrast, 

that the proposed frequency of 

performance drills for flightcrew 

members in the NPRM will be extended 

from 24 months to 36 months. AFA 

commented that, if the requirements in 

the proposed rule become effective as a 

final rule, the difference in the 

frequency of performance drills for 

flight attendants and flightcrew 

members will not provide an equivalent 

level of safety. 

The FAA notes that under the current 

requirements, all crewmembers, 

including flightcrew members, are 

required to meet the training 

requirements of § 121.417, Crewmember 

emergency training. This training must 

include specific training in emergency 

assignments, individual instruction in 

the location, function, and operation of 

emergency exits in the emergency 

modes with the evacuation slide/raft 

pack attached, instruction in the 

handling of emergency situations, 

including evacuation, and emergency 

drill training in each type of emergency 

exit in the emergency mode, including 

the actions and forces required in the 

deployment of the emergency 

evacuation slides. In addition, § 121.417 

requires each crewmember to have 

training in emergency assignments and 

procedures, as appropriate for that 

crewmember. To substitute for a flight 

attendant it is necessary for pilots and 

flight engineers to receive emergency 

training regarding evacuation 

management and evacuation commands. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68193 

This training will adequately allow 

them to perform the duties of the flight 

attendants for whom they are 

substituting. 

Current requirements regarding the 

frequency of emergency exit operation 

performance drills for flightcrew 

members and flight attendants are 

identical. The FAA recognizes that the 

frequency of performance drills for 

flightcrew members and flight 

attendants as proposed in the NPRM 

Qualification, Service and Use of 

Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers, 

(74 FR 1280; January 12, 2009) are not 

identical. To ensure that the necessary 

training in evacuation management, 

evacuation commands and frequency of 

performance drills for exit operations 

for pilots and flight engineers 

substituting for required flight 

attendants are identical to those of flight 

attendants, the FAA is amending the 

language in the final rule. This language 

will require that the substitute 

flightcrew member meet the emergency 

training requirements for flight 

attendants in evacuation management 

and evacuation commands, as 

appropriate, as well as the frequency of 

performance drills regarding operation 

of exits in the normal and emergency 

modes on that type aircraft. 

Use of a 30-Foot Limitation To 

Determine Minimum Crewmember 

Requirements 

Continental, Delta, US Airways, and 

ATA requested that the restriction that 

limits a flight attendant to remain 

within 30 feet of the aircraft door be 

changed to permit the flight attendant to 

remain within the length of the 

passenger loading bridge. They 

commented that this change would 

eliminate the potential for confusion 

regarding estimation of a 30-foot radius 

from the aircraft door and also prevent 

unintentional violations of the 

regulation caused by an incorrect 

calculation of this distance. They 

further commented that because 

passenger loading bridge phones are not 

always available and ground staff may 

not be on board the aircraft during 

boarding, this change would also 

facilitate communication with ground 

staff regarding safety related issues. The 

commenters stated that this change to 

the proposed requirements would still 

ensure that a flight attendant on the 

passenger loading bridge would be able 

to assist in an evacuation by directing 

passengers into the terminal and could, 

in fact, assist in expeditious egress. 

American and ATA further suggested 

that the permitted distance could be 

increased to 50 feet to account for the 

use of stairs on wide-body aircraft. 

Individuals commented that the 30- 

foot limitation would keep flight 

attendants close to the aircraft but 

ensure that they would be available if 

they became needed. Another 

individual commented that the NPRM 

failed to provide any basis as to why 30 

feet is an appropriate distance. Two 

individuals requested that the final 

regulation provide justification for the 

distance the FAA chooses. These 

individuals further stated that they are 

unaware of any safety related duties that 

would require moving more than just a 

few feet outside the aircraft and that a 

much smaller distance than 30 feet 

would be appropriate. These 

commenters suggested that the FAA 

change the limitation in the final rule to 

‘‘the area just outside the boarding 

door.’’ 

The FAA specifically requested 

comments on the proposed 30-foot 

limitation. Upon review of the 

comments, the FAA has determined that 

the proposed 30-foot limitation is 

unduly prescriptive. However, the FAA 

does not believe that a flight attendant 

should be permitted ‘‘to travel the length 

of the passenger loading bridge.’’ The 

flight attendant must still be able to 

maintain situational awareness of the 

cabin and the passenger boarding 

process and this may not be possible in 

the event the passenger loading bridge 

is long or contains multiple corridors. 

Horizon Air commented that the 

requirement for the flight attendant to 

remain within 30 feet of the passenger 

boarding door will be difficult to meet 

without having boundaries drawn 

around the aircraft and requested that 

the FAA consider changing the text of 

the final rule to state that ‘‘the flight 

attendant shall remain in the 

surrounding area of the aircraft.’’ 

The Regional Airline Association 

(RAA) supported the intent of this 

proposal but considered the language of 

the proposal to be unduly prescriptive 

and therefore burdensome. The RAA 

also stated that ‘‘the difficulty with the 

proposed text is that it causes the airline 

to focus on compliance issues that are 

not necessarily related to the identified 

hazard of not having a full complement 

of required flight attendants onboard 

during passenger boarding or 

deplaning.’’ 

In the final rule, the FAA is requiring 

the deplaning flight attendant to remain 

‘‘within the immediate vicinity of the 

door through which passengers are 

boarding.’’ This permits a flight 

attendant to step into the cab of the 

loading bridge to remove a piece of 

carry-on baggage and place it adjacent to 

the stair to the ramp area or use the 

telephone, while still permitting the 

flight attendant to observe passenger 

boarding and hear other crewmembers 

and passengers in the airplane. It also 

establishes appropriate and clear 

parameters for the flight attendant who 

steps off the airplane. 

The FAA considers the ‘‘immediate 

vicinity’’ of the boarding door to be the 

area directly adjacent to the boarding 

door, the cab of the passenger loading 

bridge or the bottom of the airstairs (for 

airplanes equipped with an integrated 

airstairs). The FAA does not consider 

the ‘‘immediate vicinity’’ of the boarding 

door to include that portion of the 

loading bridge beyond the cab, inside 

the terminal, at the bottom of loading 

stairs that are not integrated aircraft 

equipment, or anywhere on the ramp 

other than at the bottom of integrated 

airstairs. 

Safety Related Duties That May Be 

Performed by a Flight Attendant Who 

Has Left the Aircraft During Passenger 

Boarding 

AFA, Horizon Air, and ATA stated 

their concern that ‘‘safety related duties’’ 

may have different interpretations for 

different air carriers which may be 

applied and enforced inconsistently. 

Delta and US Airways commented that 

safety related duties should pertain to 

communication to ensure required 

aircraft staffing, food and hydration, and 

the maintenance of equipment and 

facilities essential for the health, safety, 

and sanitation of all persons onboard 

the aircraft (e.g., lavatory maintenance). 

American specifically commented 

that a flight attendant who has left the 

aircraft to address safety related issues 

should be allowed to make calls 

concerning operational matters such as 

resolving catering issues. American also 

noted that resolving operational 

concerns can enhance a flight 

attendant’s ability to devote his or her 

time to safety related duties. American 

further commented that operational 

issues can be resolved in a minimum 

amount of time if addressed when 

initially discovered and therefore have 

no impact on the level of safety. 

Continental and US Airways 

requested that the FAA explicitly 

include the resolution of seat 

duplications under safety related duties. 

US Airways additionally commented 

that safety related duties should include 

the resolution of carry-on baggage 

compliance issues. 

ATA recommended that the proposal 

be revised to permit a flight attendant to 

perform work related duties in addition 

to safety related duties. ATA also stated 

that ‘‘if operational issues or concerns 

(e.g., duplicate seat assignments, 

catering matters, staffing questions) can 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

68194 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

be addressed by the deplaning flight 

attendant, then the flight attendant’s 

ability to devote their complete 

attention to safety related duties will be 

enhanced. This change will enhance 

passenger convenience and safety.’’ 

An individual commented that the 

requirement in the NPRM that stipulates 

the flight attendant may only perform 

safety related tasks while not onboard 

the aircraft would mean that the flight 

attendant would spend a minimal 

amount of time off the aircraft. Another 

individual commented that the 

proposed requirement that flight 

attendants may only conduct safety 

related duties helps to ensure that a 

flight attendant who has vacated the 

aircraft will be readily available if an 

emergency should occur. 

The FAA considers the scope of 

‘‘safety related duties’’ to generally 

consist of those duties that are normally 

performed by flight attendants that are 

related to the safety of the airplane and 

its occupants under § 121.391(d). Those 

duties, however may now be performed 

while in the immediate vicinity of the 

door through which passengers are 

boarding. Safety related duties are those 

that ensure compliance with the 

regulations or respond to emergency 

situations. For example, safety related 

duties include removing a piece of 

carry-on baggage, handling a medical 

event, using the telephone in the cab of 

the passenger loading bridge to 

coordinate with ground personnel 

regarding compliance with approved 

exit seat and carry-on baggage programs, 

and handling safety and security issues 

such as a disruptive passenger or a 

passenger who appears to be 

intoxicated. 

These duties specifically do not 

include non-safety related duties, such 

as ordering galley supplies, resolving 

catering issues, handling passenger 

itineraries or seat duplications, 

completing company paperwork not 

required for the safe operation of the 

airplane, obtaining food and beverages 

for crewmembers, or conducting 

communications related to aircraft 

staffing, crew scheduling, or the 

maintenance of sanitation equipment 

and facilities. 

As noted by commenters, restricting 

the type of duties that a flight attendant 

may perform will limit the time the 

flight attendant will be off the aircraft 

and ensure that a flight attendant who 

has left the aircraft will be readily 

available if an emergency should occur. 

Accordingly, in the final rule the FAA 

has retained the requirement that the 

flight attendant who has left the aircraft 

may only conduct safety duties related 

to the flight being boarded. 

Equivalent Level of Safety of Final Rule 

to Existing Requirements 

(1) Aviation Safety Improvements 

AFA commented that it does not 

believe the proposed regulation creates 

an equivalent level of safety to that of 

the current requirements, that it was 

undertaken without full consideration 

of the potential consequences of the 

amendment, and therefore 

recommended that the NPRM be 

withdrawn in the public interest. AFA 

further commented that by permitting a 

reduction in the number of required 

flight attendants during boarding, the 

FAA was not assigning, maintaining, 

and enhancing safety and security as the 

highest priorities in air commerce as 

directed by 49 U.S.C. 40101(d) because 

the proposed rule did not maintain the 

currently required ability to conduct an 

emergency evacuation of the aircraft. 

AFA noted that changes to the 

regulations since 1985, specifically 

provisions for improved firefighting 

equipment, improved interior 

flammability standards and thermal 

insulation, and improved access to Type 

III emergency exits have reduced the 

hazards to passengers. However, while 

AFA agrees that these changes have 

resulted in improvements in cabin 

survivability, AFA does not agree that 

they justify a reduction in flight 

attendant staffing requirements. 

An individual commenter stated that 

the NPRM cites 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5) as 

the authority for this rulemaking. That 

section authorizes the head of the FAA 

to promulgate regulations ‘‘necessary for 

safety’’ on commercial aircraft. The 

commenter further noted that the NPRM 

argues that this authorized reduction of 

flight attendants ‘‘may be in the interest 

of the traveling public.’’ This individual 

also noted that the NPRM does not 

contain any explanation of why this 

measure would be in the interest of the 

public or how it is required for safety. 

The commenter also stated that the 

NPRM focuses solely on why this 

measure would not impair safety. This 

individual expressed concern that the 

proposed rule does not seek to serve the 

safety interests of the passengers, but is 

rather a deregulatory measure designed 

to ease personnel burdens on air carriers 

and requested that the FAA explain how 

allowing a flight attendant to leave the 

cabin is ‘‘necessary for safety,’’ and 

elaborate on why an airline cannot 

simply request additional assistance if 

such a safety issue exists. This 

individual also stated that the public 

deserves to know what the 

‘‘unintentional consequences’’ of the 

current rule are and noted that if the 

FAA cannot advance such reasons, there 

are concerns as to whether U.S.C. 

44701(a)(5) actually provides 

authorization for this regulation. 

ALPA agrees that numerous cabin 

safety enhancements have been put in 

place on today’s aircraft as a result of 

years of industry collaboration and 

cooperation. However, ALPA does not 

believe that the safety enhancements 

identified in the NPRM warrant the 

crewmember complement changes being 

proposed. 

Continental, American, and ATA 

commented that they consider the 

proposed changes to be in the interest 

of the traveling public, supportive of 

flight attendants in the performance of 

their safety related duties, and that there 

would be no reduction in the level of 

safety for the traveling public under the 

proposed requirements. They noted that 

the FAA has correctly determined that 

the proposed reductions in flight 

attendant staffing can safely be made 

because past safety enhancements have 

mitigated the risks to passengers during 

ground operations. 

Many individual commenters noted 

that new technology and procedures 

have reduced the workload of flight 

attendants during boarding and 

increased the safety of ground 

operations. They further commented 

that the risks associated with the 

proposed requirements would be 

minimal, and could result in significant 

safety and efficiency benefits for 

boarding operations. Commenters also 

noted that the proposed changes could 

increase the safety and security of 

passengers and with the improvements 

made in safety and security procedures 

and equipment, the current 

requirements are out of date. In 

addition, they commented that the 

workload placed on flight attendants 

has dramatically changed, requiring less 

personnel and effort to maintain a 

superior level of safety and that this 

proposed rule would better suit the 

airline operations of today, increasing 

efficiency, while taking no penalty in 

regards to the safety and security of 

travelers and employees. 

When developing the final rule 

‘‘Number of Flight Attendants Required 

During Intermediate Stops’’ (47 FR 

56460; December 16, 1982) the FAA 

considered the safety concerns 

associated with reducing minimum 

flight attendant crew during 

intermediate stops. At that time the 

FAA determined that the unique 

conditions existing during intermediate 

stops permitted a reduction in the 

minimum flight attendant crew from 

that previously required by § 121.391. 

These conditions include that the 

airplane is stationary in a level attitude 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68195 

with at least one floor-level exit open, 

all engines are shut down, thus 

mitigating the risk of an emergency 

arising from engine torching or 

overheating, and additional personnel 

are nearby to assist in the event of an 

emergency. This final rule requires that 

these conditions also exist during 

boarding and deplaning in order to 

permit a reduction in the minimum 

number of flight attendants. These 

conditions, along with the numerous 

safety enhancements enacted since the 

adoption of the 1982 Final Rule serve to 

maintain an equivalent level of safety as 

that provided by the current regulations. 

Accordingly, the FAA has determined 

that it is appropriate to reduce the 

minimum required flight attendant crew 

from that required by § 121.391 and to 

allow one flight attendant to leave the 

aircraft to perform safety related duties 

during boarding provided the flight 

attendant remains within the immediate 

vicinity of the door through which 

passengers are boarding. The FAA 

contends that the regulations set forth in 

this final rule promote safe flight of civil 

aircraft in a manner necessary for safety 

in air commerce. The FAA believes that 

its action not only assigns, maintains, 

and enhances safety as the highest 

priorities in air commerce as directed by 

49 U.S.C. 40101(d)(1), but also serves to 

regulate air commerce in a way that best 

promotes safety as required by 49 U.S.C. 

40101(d)(2). 

(2) Exit Seat Passengers 

In the NPRM the FAA stated that 

passengers in exit seats will likely 

initiate their own self-help in the event 

of an emergency. AFA commented that 

it was inappropriate for the agency to 

use this assumption to justify a 

reduction in flight attendant staffing. 

AFA commented that until a flight 

attendant has verified that an exit seat 

passenger meets appropriate criteria to 

occupy an exit row seat, and has been 

briefed on exit row responsibilities and 

the directions regarding the opening 

method of the emergency exit, the 

passenger could be sitting in an exit row 

seat during the entire boarding process 

without actually meeting the applicable 

criteria for occupying that seat. 

ALPA commented that exit row 

briefings by a trained cabin 

crewmember do not qualify an 

individual to make time-critical 

decisions in terms of initiating a cabin 

evacuation. ALPA further stated that 

intervention on the part of a trained and 

qualified cabin crewmember must be 

available at all times. 

An individual commented that 

current regulations fail to prevent any 

adult from sitting in an exit row and 

that ‘screening’ is quite minimal. This 

individual further commented that the 

assumption that an average citizen is 

just as well equipped to initiate and 

lead an evacuation as a trained flight 

attendant is a doubtful proposition. 

Conversely, another individual 

commented that passengers in exit seats 

are now pre-screened to ensure they are 

capable of fulfilling emergency exit 

responsibilities. 

The purpose of § 121.585, Exit 

seating, was to establish criteria for 

passengers who occupy seats adjacent to 

exits (55 FR 8072; March 6, 1990). The 

provisions of that rule require air 

carriers to only provide exit seats to 

passengers who appear to be able to 

perform functions in an emergency 

evacuation, and require that, prior to 

pushback or taxi, a crewmember verify 

that no exit seat is occupied by a person 

the crewmember determines is likely to 

be unable to perform the applicable 

functions of an exit seat. The FAA did 

not intend that passengers who occupy 

exit seats meet the training and 

qualification requirements that prepare 

a flight attendant to initiate and lead an 

evacuation. The FAA intended that 

these requirements would result in an 

airline passenger who occupies an exit 

seat to be able to physically open the 

exit, understand flight attendant 

commands and be able to understand 

and concentrate on their exit seat 

responsibilities. The FAA contends that 

the various provisions of the exit seat 

rule reduce the likelihood of passengercaused evacuation delays. Many exit 

seat passengers are pre-screened by 

ground personnel or undergo selective 

procedures during online ticketing. The 

exit seat rule, in addition to the safety 

enhancements discussed earlier, has 

resulted in improvements in cabin 

survivability that facilitate the 

conditions necessary to initiate the 

regulatory changes in this final rule. 

(3) Carry-On Baggage 

AFA commented that carry-on bags 

were still a problem at their individual 

member air carriers and that the amount 

of carry-on baggage has not been 

reduced, as the FAA discussed in the 

NPRM. AFA stated that during 

passenger boarding the cabin can be a 

hectic, confusing environment with 

many passengers standing in the aisle, 

possibly moving in different directions. 

AFA further stated that stowage and 

removal of carry-on baggage is one of 

the factors that contribute to the 

confusion, contention, and additional 

movements in the aisle during boarding. 

AFA further commented that one of the 

main reasons flight attendants need to 

get off the aircraft to deal with removing 

carry-on baggage is because carriers are 

not adequately screening the amounts 

and size of carry-on baggage prior to 

boarding and do not have adequate 

ground staff to perform this function. 

The FAA generally does not consider 

the movement of passengers in the 

aisles of the aircraft while boarding to 

be a safety issue. However, the FAA 

does agree that management of carry-on 

baggage in the aircraft cabin is a safety 

issue. Allowing flight attendants to step 

off the aircraft during boarding to 

remove excess carry-on bags to the 

passenger loading bridge, instead of 

having these bags in the aircraft aisle or 

galley area where they may impede 

emergency egress from the aircraft, is a 

positive safety enhancement. The FAA 

agrees with the commenters that flight 

attendants may need to step off the 

aircraft to remove excess carry-on 

baggage that can not be stowed safely in 

the cabin. Baggage screening and ground 

staffing issues, however, are beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

AFA commented that the FAA has 

neither thoroughly or even adequately 

considered the injury consequences that 

could result from flight attendants being 

required to lift and handle passenger 

bags. AFA further commented that this 

may also be contrary to many carrier 

policies that do not require flight 

attendants to lift passenger carry-on 

baggage, and in fact, have denied flight 

attendant industrial claims regarding 

injuries resulting from stowing of 

passenger carry-on baggage. 

This rulemaking does not require an 

air carrier to change operational policies 

or procedures nor does it address air 

carrier policies regarding flight 

attendants lifting and handling 

passenger bags. The FAA also considers 

this comment to be outside the scope of 

this rulemaking. 

(4) Emergency Evacuation Procedures 

AFA commented that the FAA should 

determine who is going to be 

responsible for opening the emergency 

exit on the aircraft if the flight attendant 

assigned to that exit is permitted to be 

30 feet up the jetway. 

Under current rules the FAA does not 

require each flight attendant to remain 

directly adjacent to his or her assigned 

exit during boarding. Flight attendants 

typically move around the cabin during 

passenger boarding. If an emergency 

evacuation was necessary during 

boarding, the flight attendant would 

either return to his or her assigned exit, 

or another flight attendant would open 

the exit. 

Based on this comment and other 

comments received, the FAA has 

revised the proposed language which 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

68196 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

would have required a flight attendant 

to remain within 30 feet of the 

passenger boarding door. The final rule 

requires the flight attendant to remain 

within the immediate vicinity of the 

boarding door. Under the limitation in 

the final rule, a flight attendant who has 

stepped off the aircraft may be in a 

better position to assist in the opening 

of certain floor level exits and 

facilitating an evacuation than a flight 

attendant who is located in the middle 

of the cabin. 

(5) Security Requirements 

AFA commented that security 

situations can and do arise which could 

require an immediate response by the 

flight attendant crew acting as a 

coordinated team. The AFA further 

commented that despite stronger 

security regulations, threats still present 

themselves. 

An individual commented that the 

NPRM failed to account for the potential 

impact on security and that the NPRM 

ignored public expectations of flight 

attendants during boarding. This 

individual noted that most members of 

the public look to flight attendants to 

spot potentially dangerous situations 

before they develop and that flight 

attendants are likely the only people on 

board trained to recognize and handle 

these situations. The commenter further 

noted that if a flight attendant leaves the 

cabin, there is one less person present 

to notice and respond to a dangerous 

circumstance. This individual stated 

that in addition to more thoroughly 

considering this issue, the FAA should 

explicitly consult the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) on this 

proposal. The commenter further noted 

that 6 U.S.C. 233 requires that the 

Secretary of Homeland Security consult 

the head of the FAA on measures 

affecting airline safety, although there 

does not appear to be a reciprocal 

requirement that the FAA contact the 

Secretary. The commenter also stated 

that this law evinces a Congressional 

intent that FAA and DHS consult on 

matters affecting airline safety. 

This final rule provides operational 

flexibility while regulating air 

commerce in a manner that best 

promotes aviation safety. In response to 

comments, the FAA has revised the 

proposal to require that flight attendants 

who have stepped off the aircraft remain 

within the immediate vicinity of the 

boarding door. The FAA has determined 

that this revision will help to ensure 

that a flight attendant who steps off an 

aircraft can maintain awareness of 

potential security threats and the ability 

to immediately respond to those threats, 

to include threats that may make 

themselves apparent prior to passengers 

boarding an aircraft. Permitting a flight 

attendant to step off the aircraft to 

perform safety related duties does not 

result in a decreased ability to maintain 

awareness of potential security threats 

in the vicinity of an aircraft, but rather 

expands the area where those threats 

may be observed. 

The FAA agrees that the DHS is 

required to consult with the agency 

before taking any action that might 

affect aviation safety. In addition, the 

FAA regularly consults with DHS, TSA, 

and other governmental agencies when 

developing regulations that could 

potentially affect aviation security. 

Reduction in the Number of Required 

Flight Attendants During Passenger 

Deplaning 

Delta, US Airways and Continental all 

generally commented that they support 

the FAA proposal to alter crew 

limitations applicable to passenger 

deplaning which would permit a 

reduction to half the number of flight 

attendants required by § 121.391(a), 

rounded down to the next lower number 

in the case of a fraction, but never fewer 

than one. They stated that this change 

in limitations would support occasions 

when a flight attendant may be asked to 

conduct other than safety related duties 

during passenger deplaning such as 

maintaining custody of an 

unaccompanied minor. One airline 

commented that ‘‘it would also help 

ensure appropriate crew nutrition (an 

effective element of fatigue mitigation) 

by permitting a crewmember leaving the 

aircraft to procure food or beverage 

between flights.’’ 

AFA commented that in the NPRM 

the FAA stated that a safety related 

reason a flight attendant may need to 

step off the aircraft during deplaning 

would be to maintain custody of an 

unaccompanied minor. AFA noted that 

this is not a safety related duty. The 

FAA agrees that maintaining custody of 

an unaccompanied minor is not a safety 

related duty and that the 

characterization of this action as safety 

related in the NPRM was in error. 

However, the FAA clarifies that the 

‘‘safety related duty’’ test is only applied 

as criteria to allow one required flight 

attendant to step off the aircraft during 

passenger boarding. The provisions in 

the final rule that allow the reduction of 

flight attendants during passenger 

deplaning do not require the flight 

attendants who step off the aircraft to 

only accomplish safety related duties. 

Maintaining custody of an 

unaccompanied minor is therefore an 

appropriate duty for a flight attendant to 

perform during deplaning. 

Miscellaneous 

(1) Limitations on Leaving the Aircraft 

After Flight Attendant Substitution 

AFA commented that the NPRM 

allows a reduction of two flight 

attendants for boarding due to the fact 

that the FAA is proposing to allow a 

flightcrew member to substitute for 

another flight attendant. 

The NPRM, as well as the final rule, 

explicitly states that at no time during 

boarding may more than one required 

flight attendant leave the aircraft. A 

substituting pilot or flight engineer is 

not considered to be a flight attendant 

for purposes of meeting the minimum 

required compliment of flight attendants 

specified in § 121.391. 

If a pilot or flight engineer is 

substituting for a required flight 

attendant under the provisions of this 

rule during passenger boarding, the 

substituting pilot or flight engineer and 

the remaining flight attendants may not 

leave the aircraft. Accordingly, a 

substituting pilot or flight engineer, or 

remaining flight attendant(s), may not 

leave the airplane with the intent to 

conduct safety related duties, even if 

that person remains within the 

immediate vicinity of the door through 

which passengers are boarding. 

(2) Relationship of Rule to Previous 

Petitions for Exemption 

AFA commented that it believes the 

proposal is an ‘‘extension’’ of Southwest 

Airlines’ petition for exemption and 

therefore its previous comments to that 

petition for exemption are relevant for 

the FAA to consider in this rulemaking 

as well. 

The FAA has considered those 

comments submitted in response to 

Southwest Airlines’ petition for 

exemption (Docket No.: FAA–2006– 

25466) from §§ 121.391(a) and 

121.393(b) in developing this proposal. 

(3) Additional Comments Beyond the 

Scope of This Rulemaking 

AFA commented that the FAA should 

also determine why passengers are able 

to bring excess and oversized carry-on 

baggage on board the aircraft and how 

to prevent this problem as a regulator 

instead of first reducing the number of 

flight attendants required during 

boarding and deplaning. 

RAA supported the FAA’s initiative to 

revise this regulation so that it offers 

airlines more flexibility in achieving 

their safety responsibilities. RAA 

suggested, however, that FAA’s 

commitment to the Safety Management 

System requires that regulations be 

written in a style that clearly addresses 

the identified safety issue and that the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68197 

administrative issues necessary to 

ensure compliance with identified 

hazards be placed in an advisory 

circular, 8900 series order, or within the 

preamble to the regulation, and not 

within the regulation itself. RAA further 

commented that this action will permit 

airlines to develop and implement 

procedures and controls specific to their 

unique operations that will ensure that 

their hazard mitigation and regulatory 

compliance efforts are as efficient and 

effective as possible. 

Regulations regarding carry-on 

baggage and the implementation of 

safety management systems are beyond 

the scope of this final rule. 

Conclusion 

The FAA has determined that these 

revisions to current regulations can be 

made as a result of safety enhancements 

to airplane certification and operational 

requirements. These changes have 

mitigated the risks to passengers during 

ground operations that previously 

required all flight attendants on board 

the airplane during passenger boarding 

and deplaning. 

This final rule will increase safety and 

efficiency in commercial passenger 

operations by permitting one required 

flight attendant to deplane during 

passenger boarding, and conduct safety 

related duties, as long as certain 

conditions are met, and by allowing a 

reduction of flight attendants remaining 

on board the airplane during passenger 

deplaning, as long as certain conditions 

are met. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. We 

have determined that there is no current 

or new requirement for information 

collection associated with this 

amendment. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these regulations. 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended 

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 

(Pub. L. 103–465) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards or engaging in 

related activities that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. In developing U.S. 

standards, these acts require agencies to 

consider international standards and, 

where appropriate, that they be the basis 

of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows. 

Since this final rule only permits a 

reduction in the required number of 

flight attendants or the substitution of a 

pilot or flight engineer not assigned to 

the flight for a flight attendant during 

passenger boarding and allows a 

reduction of flight attendants remaining 

on board the airplane during passenger 

deplaning, the expected outcome will be 

a minimal impact with positive net 

benefits, and a regulatory evaluation 

was not prepared. 

The FAA has, therefore, determined 

that this final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

Because there were no comments on 

the regulatory flexibility determination, 

our conclusion that there is no 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities has 

not changed. As this final rule merely 

allows one required flight attendant to 

deplane during passenger boarding, and 

conduct safety related duties, the 

expected outcome will have only a 

minimal impact on any small entity 

affected by this rulemaking action. 

Therefore, the FAA Administrator 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

International Trade Analysis 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing any standards or 

engaging in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

68198 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards are not 

considered unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States, 

so long as the standards have a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and do not operate 

in a manner that excludes imports that 

meet this objective. The statutes also 

require consideration of international 

standards and, where appropriate, that 

they be the basis for U.S. standards. The 

FAA notes the purpose is to ensure the 

safety of the American public, and has 

assessed the effects of this rule to ensure 

it does not exclude imports that meet 

this objective. As a result, this final rule 

is not considered as creating an 

unnecessary obstacle to foreign 

commerce. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such 

a mandate; therefore, the requirements 

of Title II of the Act do not apply. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

Federal Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have federalism implications. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312(f) and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We 

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of 

rulemaking documents 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 amendment number or 

docket number of this rulemaking. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121 

Aviation Safety, Air carriers, Air 

transportation, Airplanes, Airports, 

Boarding, Crewmembers, Deplaning, 

Flight attendants, Pilots, Transportation, 

Common carriers. 

The Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I, part 121 of title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 121—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: 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, 

41706, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709– 

44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 46105. 

■ 2. Revise § 121.391(a) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 121.391 Flight attendants. 

(a) Except as specified in § 121.393 

and § 121.394, each certificate holder 

must provide at least the following 

flight attendants on board each 

passenger-carrying airplane when 

passengers are on board: 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Add § 121.394 to read as follows: 

§ 121.394 Flight attendant requirements 

during passenger boarding and deplaning. 

(a) During passenger boarding, on 

each airplane for which more than one 

flight attendant is required by § 121.391, 

the certificate holder may: 

(1) Reduce the number of required 

flight attendants by one, provided that: 

(i) The flight attendant that leaves the 

aircraft remains within the immediate 

vicinity of the door through which 

passengers are boarding; 

(ii) The flight attendant that leaves the 

aircraft only conducts safety duties 

related to the flight being boarded; 

(iii) The airplane engines are shut 

down; and 

(iv) At least one floor level exit 

remains open to provide for passenger 

egress; or 

(2) Substitute a pilot or flight engineer 

employed by the certificate holder and 

trained and qualified on that type 

airplane for one flight attendant, 

provided the certificate holder— 

(i) Describes in the manual required 

by § 121.133: 

(A) The necessary functions to be 

performed by the substitute pilot or 

flight engineer in an emergency, to 

include a situation requiring an 

emergency evacuation. The certificate 

holder must show those functions are 

realistic, can be practically 

accomplished, and will meet any 

reasonably anticipated emergency; and 

(B) How other regulatory functions 

performed by a flight attendant will be 

accomplished by the substitute pilot or 

flight engineer on the airplane. 

(ii) Ensures that the following 

requirements are met: 

(A) The substitute pilot or flight 

engineer is not assigned to operate the 

flight for which that person is 

substituting for a required flight 

attendant. 

(B) The substitute pilot or flight 

engineer is trained in all assigned flight 

attendant duties regarding passenger 

handling. 

(C) The substitute pilot or flight 

engineer meets the emergency training 

requirements for flight attendants in 

evacuation management and evacuation 

commands, as appropriate, and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68199 

frequency of performance drills 

regarding operation of exits in the 

normal and emergency modes on that 

type aircraft. 

(D) The substitute pilot or flight 

engineer is in possession of all items 

required for duty. 

(E) The substitute pilot or flight 

engineer is located in the passenger 

cabin. 

(F) The substitute pilot or flight 

engineer is identified to the passengers. 

(G) The substitution of a pilot or flight 

engineer for a required flight attendant 

does not interfere with the safe 

operation of the flight. 

(H) The airplane engines are shut 

down. 

(I) At least one floor-level exit remains 

open to provide for passenger egress. 

(b) During passenger deplaning, on 

each airplane for which more than one 

flight attendant is required by § 121.391, 

the certificate holder may reduce the 

number of flight attendants required by 

that paragraph provided: 

(1) The airplane engines are shut 

down; 

(2) At least one floor level exit 

remains open to provide for passenger 

egress; and 

(3) The number of flight attendants on 

board is at least half the number 

required by § 121.391, rounded down to 

the next lower number in the case of 

fractions, but never fewer than one. 

(c) If only one flight attendant is on 

the airplane during passenger boarding 

or deplaning, that flight attendant must 

be located in accordance with the 

certificate holder’s FAA-approved 

operating procedures. If more than one 

flight attendant is on the airplane during 

passenger boarding or deplaning, the 

flight attendants must be evenly 

distributed throughout the airplane 

cabin, in the vicinity of the floor-level 

exits, to provide the most effective 

assistance in the event of an emergency. 

(d) The time spent by any 

crewmember conducting passenger 

boarding or deplaning duties is 

considered duty time. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 28, 

2010. 

J. Randolph Babbitt, 

Administrator, Federal Aviation 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28056 Filed 11–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–03–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 902 

50 CFR Part 665 

[Docket No. 0907211157–0522–04] 

RIN 0648–AX76 

Fisheries in the Western Pacific; 

Community Development Program 

Process 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; effectiveness of 

collection-of-information requirements. 

SUMMARY: In this rule, NMFS announces 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) of collection-ofinformation requirements contained in 

regulations implementing Amendment 1 

to the Fishery Ecosystem Plans for 

American Samoa, Hawaii, the Mariana 

Archipelago, and Western Pacific 

Pelagic Fisheries, relating to the 

community development plan process. 

The intent of this final rule is to inform 

the public that OMB has approved the 

associated reporting requirements. 

DATES: New 50 CFR 665.20(c), 

published at 75 FR 54044 (September 3, 

2010), has been approved by OMB and 

is effective on December 6, 2010. The 

amendment to 15 CFR part 902 in this 

rule is effective December 6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments 

regarding the burden-hour estimates or 

other aspects of the collection-ofinformation requirements contained in 

this final rule may be submitted to 

NMFS, attention Michael D. Tosatto, 

1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Honolulu, HI 

96814, and to OMB by e-mail to 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax 

to 202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jarad Makaiau, NMFS Pacific Islands 

Region (PIR), Sustainable Fisheries, tel 

808–944–2108. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A final 

rule for Amendment 1 was published in 

the Federal Register on September 3, 

2010 (75 FR 54044). The requirements 

of that final rule, other than the 

collection-of-information requirements, 

were effective on October 4, 2010. 

Because OMB had not approved the 

collection-of-information requirements 

by the date that final rule was 

published, the effective date of the 

associated permitting and reporting 

requirements in that rule was delayed. 

OMB approved the collection-ofinformation requirements contained in 

the final rule on September 22, 2010. 

Under NOAA Administrative Order 

205–11, dated December 17, 1990, the 

Under Secretary for Oceans and 

Atmosphere has delegated authority to 

sign material for publication in the 

Federal Register to the Assistant 

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. 

Classification 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, and no person shall be 

subject to penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

This final rule contains new 

collection-of-information requirements 

subject to the PRA under OMB Control 

Number 0648–0612. The public 

reporting burden for developing and 

submitting a development plan is 

estimated to average six hours per 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

information. Send comments regarding 

these burden estimates or any other 

aspect of this data collection, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden, to 

NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and to OMB by 

e-mail to 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax 

to 202–395–7285. 

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 902 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: November 2, 2010. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 15 CFR part 902 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 902—NOAA INFORMATION 

COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER 

THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: 

OMB CONTROL NUMBERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 902 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 902.1, amend the table in 

paragraph (b), under the entry ‘‘50 CFR’’ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES