[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68189-68199]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28056]

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

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<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile
(202) 267-5229, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions
concerning this final rule contact Paul G. Greer, Regulations

Division, AGC-200; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 Sec.  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, Sec.  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 Sec.  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
Sec.  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

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 Sec.  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 Sec.
121.393. The proposed conditions required the airplane to be stationary
in a level attitude with at least one floor-level 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 Sec.  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 FAA-approved 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 Sec.  121.391 (a) or (b), as appropriate. Proposed Sec.
121.394(a) and (b), however, only referred to Sec.  121.391(a).
Accordingly, the FAA has revised Sec.  121.394(a) and (b), to refer to
Sec.  121.391.
    In Sec.  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

Sec.  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 post-flight
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 Sec.  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 Sec.
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 Sec.  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 Sec.
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 Sec.  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, Sec.  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.

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

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  121.391. These conditions include
that the airplane is stationary in a level attitude

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
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 passenger-caused 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

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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

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-for-profit 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

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<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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

0
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

0
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.

0
2. Revise Sec.  121.391(a) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  121.391  Flight attendants.

    (a) Except as specified in Sec.  121.393 and Sec.  121.394, each
certificate holder must provide at least the following flight
attendants on board each passenger-carrying airplane when passengers
are on board:
* * * * *

0
3. Add Sec.  121.394 to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 23 (Friday, February 2, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4847-4848]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02053]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0211; FRL-9973- 58--Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress
Report State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the state of Indiana on
March 30, 2016. Indiana's SIP revision addresses requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require states to submit
periodic reports describing progress toward reasonable progress goals
(RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the
adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. Indiana's progress
report notes that Indiana has implemented the measures in the regional
haze SIP due to be in place by the date of the progress report and that
Federal Class I areas affected by emissions from Indiana are meeting or
exceeding the RPGs for 2018. Indiana also determined that the state's
regional haze SIP is adequate to meet these reasonable progress goals
for the first implementation period and requires no substantive
revision at this time.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0211. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend
that you telephone Michelle Becker, Life Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Becker, Life Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a
SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs
for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and in each
mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be affected
by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition,
the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the
same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of
the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. The first
progress report SIP is due five years after submittal of the initial
regional haze SIP.
    On December 7, 2017 (82 FR 57694), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) proposing approval of Indiana's March 30,
2016 Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report SIP revision on the basis
that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
    The specific details of Indiana's March 30, 2016 SIP revision and
the rationale for EPA's approval are discussed in the NPR and will not
be restated here. EPA received four comments on the proposed action,
three were not relevant to the rulemaking and one was in support of the
proposed approval of the Regional Haze Progress Report SIP.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Indiana's March 30, 2016 Regional Haze Five-Year
Progress Report SIP submittal as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g) and (h).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 3, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 23, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  52.770, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the
entry ``Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report'' in alphabetical order
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.770   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Indiana Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Indiana
                  Title                        date             EPA approval                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report..    3/30/2016  2/2/2018, [insert Federal    ...........................
                                                         Register citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-02053 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7832-7833]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02848]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG22-50-000.
    Applicants: Sapphire Sky Wind Energy LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Sapphire Sky Wind Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220204-5039.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2215-000.
    Applicants: Peoples Natural Gas.
    Description: Refund Report: Peoples Natural Gas Refund Report to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/20/21.
    Accession Number: 20210920-5043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-331-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Deficiency Response--Review of Base
Plan Allocation Methodology to be effective 1/3/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220204-5043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-358-001.
    Applicants: Public Service Electric and Gas Company, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Public Service Electric and Gas
Company submits tariff filing per 35.17(b): PJM Transmission Owners'
Resp. to FERC Staff's Deficiency Letter in ER22-358 to be effective 1/
10/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220204-5121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-660-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata to ISA/ICSA SA Nos. 6235/
6236, Queue No. AE2-342 in Docket No. ER22-660 to be effective 11/15/
2021.
    Filed Date: 2/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220204-5146.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-992-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: LGIA Menifee Power Bank TOT934 SA No
278 to be effective 2/28/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220204-5063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/22.
    Docket Numbers: ER22-993-000.
    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Mid-Atlantic Interstate
Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: MAIT
submits SA No. 6038 Perks ECSA to be effective 2/5/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220204-5070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/22.
    Docket Numbers: ER22-994-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: OATT Depreciation Rate
Update Filing to be effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220204-5109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/22.
    Docket Numbers: ER22-995-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2022-02-04_Long Range
Transmission Plan (LRTP) Cost Allocation to be effective 5/19/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220204-5118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/22.
    Docket Numbers: ER22-996-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: DEP-City of Camden RS 378
Termination to be effective 4/6/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220204-5147.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-997-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2022-02-04_Attachment FF-
4_Consumers Energy Removal to be effective 4/6/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220204-5154.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/22.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing

requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 4, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02848 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 120 (Friday, June 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 41184]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13358]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0385]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Competition
Plans, Passenger Facility Charges

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field).
    By mail: Danielle Hinnant, Office of Airport Planning and
Programming, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW,
Suite 620, Washington, DC 20591.
    By fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information please contact
Jane Johnson by email at: [email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA, in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the
general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on
proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This
helps the FAA assess the impact of its information collection
requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden.
    The FAA invites comment on any aspect of this information
collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of
the estimated burden; (c) ways for the FAA to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that
the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the
collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your
comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0661.
    Title: Competition Plans, Passenger Facility Charges.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The DOT/FAA will use any information submitted in
response to this requirement to carry out the intent of title 49,
sections 40117(k) and 47106(f). These rules assure that a covered
airport has, and implements, a plan that provides opportunities for
competitive access by new entrant air carriers or air carriers seeking
to expand. The affected public includes public agencies controlling
medium or large hub airports.
    Respondents: 5 affected airports annually.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 150 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: Approximately 750 annually.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
David F. Cushing,
Manager, Airports Financial Assistance Division, APP-500.
[FR Doc. 2023-13358 Filed 6-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P