Crewmember Requirements When Passengers are Onboard, 68189-68199 [2010-28056]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68189-68199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 (202) 267-8166; facsimile 
(202) 267-5229, e-mail Nancy.L.Claussen@faa.gov. For legal questions 
concerning this final rule contact Paul G. Greer, Regulations

[[Page 68190]]

Division, AGC-200; telephone (202) 267-3073, e-mail 
Paul.G.Greer@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes 
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701. Under that section, 
the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft by 
prescribing regulations and minimum standards for other practices, 
methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in 
air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority 
since it prescribes minimum flight attendant requirements during 
passenger boarding and deplaning.

Background

    Current regulations prohibit a flight attendant from stepping off 
the airplane during passenger boarding and deplaning to perform any 
duties if the flight attendant is one of the flight attendants required 
by 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

[[Page 68191]]

issues such as intoxicated or disruptive passengers, verifying the 
suitability of exit seat passengers, and monitoring the use of child 
restraint systems, would be accomplished by the flightcrew member and 
the remaining flight attendants on the airplane; and
     A method to ensure that the substitute flightcrew member 
was trained in all assigned flight attendant duties.

Passenger Deplaning

    In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to permit a reduction to half 
the number of flight attendants required by 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

[[Page 68192]]

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.

[[Page 68193]]

This training will adequately allow them to perform the duties of the 
flight attendants for whom they are substituting.
    Current requirements regarding the frequency of emergency exit 
operation performance drills for flightcrew members and flight 
attendants are identical. The FAA recognizes that the frequency of 
performance drills for flightcrew members and flight attendants as 
proposed in the NPRM Qualification, Service and Use of Crewmembers and 
Aircraft Dispatchers, (74 FR 1280; January 12, 2009) are not identical. 
To ensure that the necessary training in evacuation management, 
evacuation commands and frequency of performance drills for exit 
operations for pilots and flight engineers substituting for required 
flight attendants are identical to those of flight attendants, the FAA 
is amending the language in the final rule. This language will require 
that the substitute flightcrew member meet the emergency training 
requirements for flight attendants in evacuation management and 
evacuation commands, as appropriate, as well as the frequency of 
performance drills regarding operation of exits in the normal and 
emergency modes on that type aircraft.
Use of a 30-Foot Limitation To Determine Minimum Crewmember 
Requirements
    Continental, Delta, US Airways, and ATA requested that the 
restriction that limits a flight attendant to remain within 30 feet of 
the aircraft door be changed to permit the flight attendant to remain 
within the length of the passenger loading bridge. They commented that 
this change would eliminate the potential for confusion regarding 
estimation of a 30-foot radius from the aircraft door and also prevent 
unintentional violations of the regulation caused by an incorrect 
calculation of this distance. They further commented that because 
passenger loading bridge phones are not always available and ground 
staff may not be on board the aircraft during boarding, this change 
would also facilitate communication with ground staff regarding safety 
related issues. The commenters stated that this change to the proposed 
requirements would still ensure that a flight attendant on the 
passenger loading bridge would be able to assist in an evacuation by 
directing passengers into the terminal and could, in fact, assist in 
expeditious egress. American and ATA further suggested that the 
permitted distance could be increased to 50 feet to account for the use 
of stairs on wide-body aircraft.
    Individuals commented that the 30-foot limitation would keep flight 
attendants close to the aircraft but ensure that they would be 
available if they became needed. Another individual commented that the 
NPRM failed to provide any basis as to why 30 feet is an appropriate 
distance. Two individuals requested that the final regulation provide 
justification for the distance the FAA chooses. These individuals 
further stated that they are unaware of any safety related duties that 
would require moving more than just a few feet outside the aircraft and 
that a much smaller distance than 30 feet would be appropriate. These 
commenters suggested that the FAA change the limitation in the final 
rule to ``the area just outside the boarding door.''
    The FAA specifically requested comments on the proposed 30-foot 
limitation. Upon review of the comments, the FAA has determined that 
the proposed 30-foot limitation is unduly prescriptive. However, the 
FAA does not believe that a flight attendant should be permitted ``to 
travel the length of the passenger loading bridge.'' The flight 
attendant must still be able to maintain situational awareness of the 
cabin and the passenger boarding process and this may not be possible 
in the event the passenger loading bridge is long or contains multiple 
corridors.
    Horizon Air commented that the requirement for the flight attendant 
to remain within 30 feet of the passenger boarding door will be 
difficult to meet without having boundaries drawn around the aircraft 
and requested that the FAA consider changing the text of the final rule 
to state that ``the flight attendant shall remain in the surrounding 
area of the aircraft.''
    The Regional Airline Association (RAA) supported the intent of this 
proposal but considered the language of the proposal to be unduly 
prescriptive and therefore burdensome. The RAA also stated that ``the 
difficulty with the proposed text is that it causes the airline to 
focus on compliance issues that are not necessarily related to the 
identified hazard of not having a full complement of required flight 
attendants onboard during passenger boarding or deplaning.''
    In the final rule, the FAA is requiring the deplaning flight 
attendant to remain ``within the immediate vicinity of the door through 
which passengers are boarding.'' This permits a flight attendant to 
step into the cab of the loading bridge to remove a piece of carry-on 
baggage and place it adjacent to the stair to the ramp area or use the 
telephone, while still permitting the flight attendant to observe 
passenger boarding and hear other crewmembers and passengers in the 
airplane. It also establishes appropriate and clear parameters for the 
flight attendant who steps off the airplane.
    The FAA considers the ``immediate vicinity'' of the boarding door 
to be the area directly adjacent to the boarding door, the cab of the 
passenger loading bridge or the bottom of the airstairs (for airplanes 
equipped with an integrated airstairs). The FAA does not consider the 
``immediate vicinity'' of the boarding door to include that portion of 
the loading bridge beyond the cab, inside the terminal, at the bottom 
of loading stairs that are not integrated aircraft equipment, or 
anywhere on the ramp other than at the bottom of integrated airstairs.

Safety Related Duties That May Be Performed by a Flight Attendant Who 
Has Left the Aircraft During Passenger Boarding

    AFA, Horizon Air, and ATA stated their concern that ``safety 
related duties'' may have different interpretations for different air 
carriers which may be applied and enforced inconsistently. Delta and US 
Airways commented that safety related duties should pertain to 
communication to ensure required aircraft staffing, food and hydration, 
and the maintenance of equipment and facilities essential for the 
health, safety, and sanitation of all persons onboard the aircraft 
(e.g., lavatory maintenance).
    American specifically commented that a flight attendant who has 
left the aircraft to address safety related issues should be allowed to 
make calls concerning operational matters such as resolving catering 
issues. American also noted that resolving operational concerns can 
enhance a flight attendant's ability to devote his or her time to 
safety related duties. American further commented that operational 
issues can be resolved in a minimum amount of time if addressed when 
initially discovered and therefore have no impact on the level of 
safety.
    Continental and US Airways requested that the FAA explicitly 
include the resolution of seat duplications under safety related 
duties. US Airways additionally commented that safety related duties 
should include the resolution of carry-on baggage compliance issues.
    ATA recommended that the proposal be revised to permit a flight 
attendant to perform work related duties in addition to safety related 
duties. ATA also stated that ``if operational issues or concerns (e.g., 
duplicate seat assignments, catering matters, staffing questions) can

[[Page 68194]]

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

[[Page 68195]]

with at least one floor-level exit open, all engines are shut down, 
thus mitigating the risk of an emergency arising from engine torching 
or overheating, and additional personnel are nearby to assist in the 
event of an emergency. This final rule requires that these conditions 
also exist during boarding and deplaning in order to permit a reduction 
in the minimum number of flight attendants. These conditions, along 
with the numerous safety enhancements enacted since the adoption of the 
1982 Final Rule serve to maintain an equivalent level of safety as that 
provided by the current regulations.
    Accordingly, the FAA has determined that it is appropriate to 
reduce the minimum required flight attendant crew from that required by 
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

[[Page 68196]]

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

[[Page 68197]]

administrative issues necessary to ensure compliance with identified 
hazards be placed in an advisory circular, 8900 series order, or within 
the preamble to the regulation, and not within the regulation itself. 
RAA further commented that this action will permit airlines to develop 
and implement procedures and controls specific to their unique 
operations that will ensure that their hazard mitigation and regulatory 
compliance efforts are as efficient and effective as possible.
    Regulations regarding carry-on baggage and the implementation of 
safety management systems are beyond the scope of this final rule.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that these revisions to current regulations 
can be made as a result of safety enhancements to airplane 
certification and operational requirements. These changes have 
mitigated the risks to passengers during ground operations that 
previously required all flight attendants on board the airplane during 
passenger boarding and deplaning.
    This final rule will increase safety and efficiency in commercial 
passenger operations by permitting one required flight attendant to 
deplane during passenger boarding, and conduct safety related duties, 
as long as certain conditions are met, and by allowing a reduction of 
flight attendants remaining on board the airplane during passenger 
deplaning, as long as certain conditions are met.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there 
is no current or new requirement for information collection associated 
with this amendment.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small 
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as 
amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards or engaging in related activities that 
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. In developing U.S. standards, these acts require agencies to 
consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be 
the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written 
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or 
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the 
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted 
for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble 
summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final 
rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning 
for this determination follows.
    Since this final rule only permits a reduction in the required 
number of flight attendants or the substitution of a pilot or flight 
engineer not assigned to the flight for a flight attendant during 
passenger boarding and allows a reduction of flight attendants 
remaining on board the airplane during passenger deplaning, the 
expected outcome will be a minimal impact with positive net benefits, 
and a regulatory evaluation was not prepared.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-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

[[Page 68198]]

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 (
                    

                        This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
                        Privacy Policy and
                        Terms of Service apply.