[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 110 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14262]



      

[[Page 28999]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 121



Flight Attendant Requirements; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 29000]]



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1989, the NPRM should be withdrawn.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