29000 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No. 25874; Notice No. 89–9]

RIN 2120–AC32

Flight Attendant Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule, withdrawal.

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing a

previously published notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to

amend the regulations for situations

where passengers are on board aircraft

that are parked at the gate. The FAA has

determined that because there has been

a considerable lapse of time since the

issuance of the NPRM in April of 1989,

the NPRM should be withdrawn.

DATES: This withdrawal is made on June

6, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donell Pollard, Air Transportation

Division, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Ave., SW., Washington, D.C. 20591;

telephone (202) 267–3735.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

14, 1989, the FAA published Notice No.

89–9 [54 FR 15134] proposing to amend

the regulations covering situations

where passengers remain on board an

aircraft when it is parked at the gate.

The current rule permits a reduction of

flight attendants at intermediate stops;

Notice 89–9 proposed to extend that

reduction to beginning and ending

stops. The FAA also proposed that, for

airplanes of 101–150 passenger seats,

two flight attendants rather than one

should be required at all stops for

reasons of safety and security. Finally,

the NPRM proposed certain training

requirements for persons who would be

allowed to substitute for flight

attendants at stops where passengers

remain on board.

The FAA received 12 comments on

the proposal. The Air Transport

Association (ATA) commented that it

favors the reduction in the number of

flight attendants at beginning and

ending stops; however, it opposes the

increase in the number of flight

attendants for the 101–150 passenger

airplane. ATA estimated that this

change could cost up to $12 million

annually. The Association of Flight

Attendants (AFA) commented that the

FAA should allow no reduction in the

number of flight attendants for reasons

of safety and security, but favored the

proposed increase, from one to two, in

the number of flight attendants required

to remain onboard the 101–150 airplane.

A joint comment submitted by other

flight attendant associations supported

this position. That comment also

pointed out that allowing persons to

substitute for flight attendants would

add yet another group that would have

information on the air carrier’s security

program. Likewise, the Air Line Pilots

Association (ALPA) supported a full

complement of flight attendants on

board when passengers are boarding or

deplaning, and included additional

criteria for the emergency evacuation of

an airplane. The National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

stated that all of the flight attendants

should be on board during the active

stages of boarding and deplaning, but

agreed that the number of flight

attendants could be reduced during

enroute stops. The NTSB agreed that

this reduction should be based on the

number of floor level exits. The NTSB

also suggested specific training for those

persons who would be allowed to

substitute for flight attendants. Finally,

several individuals commented that

they did not support this rulemaking

based on safety considerations.

Because it has now been almost 7

years since the proposal was published,

the FAA acknowledges that these

comments should not be relied on as

necessarily representing the positions of

persons interested in this proposal.

Because the airline industry is a

dynamic and changing industry,

comments made in 1989 may or may not

reflect the effect that this proposal

would have on air carriers and

individuals today.

For these reasons, the FAA has

decided to withdraw NPRM No. 89–9.

The FAA may issue a new proposal in

the future.

In consideration of the above, Notice

No. 89–9, issued April 14, 1989, is

hereby withdrawn.

Issued in Washington, DC on May 31,

1996.

Thomas C. Accardi,

Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. 96–14262 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M