Appendix — Sun Country Airlines, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration
Supreme Court brief1995
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
| Supreme Court, U.S.
FILED
5 +361 SEP - 1 1995
9
No. 95- ———
In THE
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1995
SUN COUNTRY AIRLINES, INC.,
Petitioner,
Vv.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
APPENDIX TO
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
DENNIS NORMAN BARNES
Counsel of Record
THOMAS JAY WOODFORD
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 467-7060/7159
Counsel for Petitioner
September 1, 1995 Sun Country Airlines, Inc.
OLS A ANNIE IT ce LLL AT MCAT ALI RIE NT LE Peta
WILSON - Epes PRINTING Co., INC. - 789-0096 - WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001
INDEX TO APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
Opinion of the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, entered May 30, 1995 ..................
APPENDIX B
Final Rule, Federal Aviation Administration,
Docket No. 27229, “Flight Attendant Duty Period
Limitations and Rest Requirements,” 59 Fed. Reg.
42974-42994 (August 19, 1994) 2.0000.
APPENDIX C
Order of the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia denying Petitioner’s petition for rehear-
ing and suggestion for rehearing in banc, entered
I IS basipisccchainccapudeded caccciasoacniuidbdabelgetasisdbduesdions
APPENDIX D
Denial of Petition, Federal Aviation Administra-
tion, In the Matter of the Petition of The Associa-
tion of Flight Attendants and the Joint Council of
Flight Attendant Unions to Amend Parts 121 and
135 of Federal Aviation Regulations, Docket No.
Sg RB Mee _, RSD ad epar es ane peteccagne mantis eae
APPENDIX E
Flight Attendant Duty Time Limitations: Hearing
Before the Subcommittee on Aviation of the House
Committee on Public Works And Transportation,
102nd Cong., 1st Sess. 8 (March 13, 1991) (testi-
mony of Anthony J. Broderick, Assoc. Admin. for
a Si EY iirc arisen siscem ions
APPENDIX F
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, Docket No. 27229, “Flight Attend-
ant Duty Period Limitations and Rest Require-
ments,” 58 Fed. Reg. 17024-17037 (March 31,
, § BER UTES OUR ACE RLS, ie Seen CT BTA ee
Page
la
4a
86a
87a
93a
la
APPENDIX A
[Filed, May 30, 1996]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 94-1611 September Term, 1994
SuN COUNTRY AIRLINES, INC.,
Petitioner
Vv.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent
On Petition for Review of Final Action by the
Federal Aviation Administration
Before: Epwarps, Chief Judge, BUCKLEY and TATEL,
Circuit Judges.
JUDGMENT
This cause came to be heard on a petition for review
from final action of the Federal Aviation Administration
(“FAA”), and was briefed and argued by counsel. The
issues have been accorded full consideration by the Court
and occasion no need for a published opinion. See D.C.
Cir. RULE 36(b).
The petition for review is denied. As the petitioner con-
tends, the FAA’s decision to impose duty period sched-
uling limitations and rest requirements for flight attend-
ants represents a departure from the position taken by the
agency in rejecting a petition requesting similar rules in
2a
1989. While we require agencies “to supply a reasoned
analysis” in support of such a change of view, Motor
Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.,
463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983), here the FAA adequately has
carried its burden. The FAA’s notice of proposed rule-
making, see 58 Fed. Reg. 17,024 (1993), and final rule,
see 59 Fed. Reg. 42,974 (1994), both make clear that
the agency’s 1989 study of flight attendant flight, duty,
and rest times in the air carrier industry prompted it to
rethink its earlier decision, see 58 Fed. Reg. 17,025 (stat-
ing that “results of [the industry study] suggest the need
for regulatory action”). Significantly, when the FAA
rejected proposed flight attendant duty period scheduling
rules in 1989, it specifically noted the absence of any
clear information concerning flight attendant duty time.
See In re The Association of Flight Attendants and The
Joint Council of Flight Attendant Unions, Docket No.
24397 (Jan. 23, 1989), at 4, reprinted in Joint Appendix
5. The 1989 study furnished the information that was
previously missing and caused the agency to rethink the
premises underlying its original position. Thus, it is clear
from the record and from the agency’s stated rationale
that it adopted a new position based on new information.
While the FAA ideally could have explained its change
of view more fully, it is a well-established principle of
administrative law that we may “uphold a decision of
less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path may reasonably
be discerned.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, 463 U.S. at
43 (internal quotations omitted). Here, the agency’s
path is tolerably discernable, and we reject petitioner’s
argument to the contrary. As to petitioner’s arguments
challenging the basis for the standard chosen by the FAA,
and questioning the agency’s cost-benefit analysis, we find
them meritless. For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition for review is
denied.
ES —— eee
3a
The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the man-
date herein until seven days after disposition of any
timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. RULE 41.
PER CURIAM
FOR THE COURT:
/s/ Mark J. Langer
MaRK J. LANGER
Clerk
4a
APPENDIX B
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 121, 125, and 135
[Docket No. 27229; Amendment Nos. 121-241; 125-21;
135-52]
RIN 2120—AE91
Flight Attendant Duty Period
Limitations and Rest Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule sets forth regulations that
require air Carriers, air taxi, and commercial operators to
provide duty period scheduling limitations and rest re-
quirements for flight attendants engaged in air transporta-
tion and air commerce. This action results from public
and congresisonal interest in regulating flight attendant
work hours and from data contained in a Federal Avia-
tion Administration (FAA) study of industry practice
relating to flight attendant flight, duty, and rest times.
This rule contributes to an improved aviation safety sys-
tem by providing the opportunity for flight attendants to
be rested sufficiently to perform their routine and emer-
gency safety duties.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is effective Sep-
tember 19, 1994, except §§ 121.683(a)(1), 135.63
(a)(3), 135.63(a)(4)(x), 135.63(a)(S), and 135.63(b)
which are not effective until the Office of. Management
and Budget (OMB) has approved the Paperwork Reduc-
tion Requirement. FAA will publish a document in the
5a
Federal Register following OMB approval of the Paper-
work Reduction Requirements.
COMPLIANCE DATE: March 1, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don-
eil Pollard, Air Transportation Division, AFS-203, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
Telephone (202) 267-3735.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of the Final Rule
Any person may obtain a copy of this amendment by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion, Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry
Center, APA—430, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484.
Communications must identify the amendment number
of this final rule.
Background
Statement of the Problem
Flight attendants are crewmembers who perform essen-
tial routine and emergency safety duties. Routine duties
include ensuring that carry-on baggage is correctly stowed;
verifying that exit seating requirements are met, that pas-
senger seat belts are fastened, and that galley service
times are properly stowed; and conducting passenger
briefings before takeoff. Emergency duties includes con-
ducting land and water evaculations, controlling inflight
fires, handling passengers who threaten the safety of other
passengers or the flight, managing medical emergencies
such as passenger illness or injury, managing inflight
emergencies such as smoke or fire in the cabin, and man-
aging turbulent air penetrations, airplane decompression,
6a
and hijackings. Additionally, because flight attendants
are crewmembers performing safety-related functions, they
must satisfactorily complete indoctrination, initial, transi-
tion, and recurrent training requirements. In addition,
they are subject to the alcohol and drug use regulations
and drug testing regulations. Currently, flight attendants
are the only safety-sensitive aviation group that has no
regulations with respect to flight, duty, or rest periods.
Such regulations exist for flight crewmembers, dispatchers,
air traffic control tower operators, and aviation mainte-
nance technicians.
This final rule is comparable to flight, duty, and rest
requirements for other safety-sensitive aviation groups be-
cause it enhances public safety by requiring “rest periods”
and limiting duty periods for flight attendants. These re-
quirements protect flight attendants from work related
fatigue that interferes with their ability to perform essen-
tial safety duties. No accident/incident data currently
exists to provide a direct correlation between flight atten-
dant fatigue and passenger survivability. However, the
FAA recognizes that a flight attendant who is excessively
fatigued is less likely to be capable of performing safety
duties than an adequately rested flight attendant. This is
an unacceptable safety risk. Therefore, the FAA adopts
this final rule in the interest of air transportation and air
commerce safety. The justification stated herein includes
that which was included in Notice of Proposed Rulemak-
ing No. 93-3, published in the Federal Register on March
31, 1993 (58 FR 17024).
Historical Review
In 1985, the FAA received two petitions for rulemak-
ing requesting limits on flight and duty hours for flight at-
tendants. One petition’ sought to establish flight and
1This petition was submitted by the Association of Flight
Attendants and summarized in the Federal Register (50 FR 6185)
on February 14, 1985.
7a
duty time regulations similar to current regulations for
flight crewmembers. The other petition? recommended
establishing maximum duty time limits and minimum
daily, weekly, and monthly rest periods. Both petitions
recommended certain flight time limitations and rest re-
quirements for flight attendants that were more restrictive
than those that existed for flight crewmembers. The FAA
denied both petitions in a Denial of Petition issued on
January 23, 1989, because the action sought by the peti-
tioners was not warranted by the information, views, and
arguments contained in the petitions.
Congressional legislation (H.R. 638 and S. 1170) was
introduced in 1989 to establish flight attendant duty time
limitations. On May 17, 1989, the Subcommittee on
Aviation of the House Committee on Public Works and
Transportation held a public hearing on H.R. 638. At
the hearing, the FAA stated its intent to initiate further
studies of air carrier flight attendant scheduling practices.
The FAA completed its “Report on the Study of Cur-
rent Industry Practice-Flight Attendant Flight, Duty, and
Rest Times” on September 12, 1989 (hereafter referred
to as “the Industry Study” [Docket No. 27229]), and
submitted a copy of the study to the House Subcommittee
on Aviation. The study focused on U.S. air carrier
scheduling practices and flight attendant actual work
hours and highlighted cases of extended duty periods and
minimum rest periods. The study indicated that flight
attendant duty hour problems may occur more frequently
among certain industry segments because of fundamental
operational differences. The study noted that most air
carriers had policies to address these problems. The study
provided a framework for the FAA to address this issue
with appropriate regulatory action, which is provided in
this final rule.
2 This petition was submitted by the joint Council of Flight
Attendant Unions and summarized in the Federal Register (50 FR
25252) on June 18, 1985.
8a
The House Subcommittee on Aviation held another
hearing on flight attendant duty and rest on March 13,
1991. The FAA did not recommend rulemaking at that
hearing. Subsequent legislation on flight attendant duty
and rest. H.R. 14 was passed in the House of Repre-
sentatives. In 1992, the language of H.R. 14 was in-
corporated into a provision in the House and Senate
versions of the FAA’s appropriations bill; however, that
provision was deleted later by the conference committee.
On January 5, 1993, H.R. 14 was reintroduced in the
House of Representatives.
On March 26, 1993, the FAA issued a notice of pro-
posed rulemaking (NPRM), Notice No. 93-3. Flight
Attendant Duty Period Limitations and Rest Require-
ments (58 FR 17024; March 31, 1993) that proposed
duty period scheduling limitations and rest requirements
for flight attendants engaged in air transportation and
air commerce. The FAA has incorporated into this final
rule comments on the NPRM received from the public
during the comment period, as appropriate.
Discussion of Comments
Fifty-one commenters submitted comments in response
to the NPRM. The commenters included trade and pro-
fessional associations, individual flight attendants, labor
organizations, part 121 and 135 operators, public interest
groups, a goverment agency, a Member of Congress, and
other individuals. Among the commenters were the Air
Line Pilots Association (ALPA); the Air Transport Asso-
ciation (ATA); the Allied Pilots Association (APA); the
American Cyanamid Company; AMR Combs; the Coali-
tion of Flight Attendant Unions; Delta Airlines; Great
American Airways; the National Air Carrier Association
(NACA); the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB); North American Airlines (NAA); the Regional
Airline Assocation (RAA); Southwest Airlines (SWA);
Sun Country Airlines (SCA); Transport Workers Union
:
‘ = ”
9a
Local 556 (TWU Local 556)—Southwest Airlines; and
flight attendants, some of whom are employed by Amer-
ica West Airlines; Continental Airlines, Delta Airlines,
and Sun Country Airlines.
Commenters addressed general and specific issues such
as scheduled versus unscheduled operations; the applica-
iton of flight crewmember flight, duty, and rest require-
ments to flight attendants; rest period requirements; duty
period requirements; augmented crew requirements; re-
serve and deadhead status for flight attendants; flight at-
- tendant responsibility; the costs contained in the initial
regulatory evaluation; and the implementation period for
this final rule. Commenters also addressed the issues of
flight attendant fatigue, the Industry Study, international
versus domestic operations, part 125 operations, and flight
attendant duty limitations and rest regulations in other
nations.
Overview of the General Issues
Thirty-nine comments addressed the concept of regulat-
| ing flight attendant duty period limitations and minimum
“rest period” requirements. Fourteen comments did not
support establishing flight attendant duty period limita-
tions and rest requirements while 18 comments did sup-
port establishing such limits and requirements based on
certain revisions to the proposed rule.
The commenters who supported regulating flight at-
tendant duty period limitations and rest requirements in-
cluded ALPA, APA. The Coalition of Flight Attendant
Unions, NTSB, nine commenters who identified them-
) selves as flight attendants, and a member of Congress
who strongly supports the comments of the Coalition of
Flight Attendant Unions. The commenters stated that,
because a flight attendant’s primary duties are safety
related, establishing regulations would enhance public
safety.
10a
The 14 commenters who did not support the NPRM
include Great American Airways, RAA, SCA, and nine
commenters who identified themselves as flight attendants.
Several of the commenters who identified themselves as
flight attendants stated that the provisions in the NPRM
would limit a flight attendant’s opportunities to work
extra trips and that flight attendants are capable of han-
dling safety procedures and emergencies even when work-
ing longer duty periods.
Specific Issues
Apply Flight Crewmember Flight, Duty, and Rest Re-
quirements to Flight Attendants
In the NPRM, the FAA invited comments on the pos-
sibility of modifying the proposed rule, as presented in
the NPRM, to add an option for operators to either fol-
low the proposed duty limitations and rest requirements
or apply flight crewmember flight, duty, and rest require-
ments to flight attendants.
Eleven commenters responded to the FAA’s request for
comments. Seven of the commenters supported the option
to permit operators to either follow the proposed duty
limitations and rest requirements or apply flight crew-
member requirements to flight attendants. Three com-
menters opposed the option. Although Delta Air Lines
did not oppose the option, it expressed no interest in
exercising the option.
ATA, Great American Airways, NACA, RAA, and
Southwest Airlines agreed that operators should be per-
mitted to apply flight crewmember requirements to flight
attendants. ATA specified that applying flight crewmember
requirements should remain an option at the operator’s
discretion. Great American Airways, Horizon Air,
NACA, RAA, and Southwest Airlines noted that there
are scheduling and economic advantages to using the
same set of rules of flight crewmembers and flight at-
tendants.
lla
The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions and SCA
opposed establishing the option to permit operators to
apply flight crewmember flight, duty, and rest require-
ments to flight attendants. The Coalition of Flight At-
tendants Unions stated that flight crewmember rules do
not provide adequate protection from fatigue. SCA noted
that, if this option had been a requirement in 1992, SCA
would have had to hire an additional 20 flight attendants.
According to SCA, the cost burden of hiring 20 flight
attendants would have increased SCA domestic operating
costs by $1.75 million.
FAA Response
The FAA recognizes that giving operators the option
to apply flight crewmember flight, duty, and rest require-
ments to flight attendants provides additional scheduling
flexibility and eliminates the need for an operator to have
two sets of scheduling requirements for its flight crew-
members and flight attendants. This provision also will
permit flight attendants on such operations to be sched-
uled with the same limitations as the flight crewmembers.
Therefore, the FAA has adopted this option, which ap-
pears in §§ 121.467(c) and 135.273(c) of this final rule.
If an operator chooses to apply flight crewmember
flight, duty, and rest requirements to flight attendants, the
operator must establish written procedures for applying
the requirements and the procedures must be approved
by the Administrator and referenced in the certificate
holder’s operations specifications. The written proce-
dures must apply to all flight attendants used in the cer-
tificate holders operation. In addition, written procedures
must be applied to the certificate holder’s entire operation.
Certificate holders may obtain approval by submitting
their procedures for preliminary review and approval to
the principal operations inspectors assigned to them at
the FAA Flight Standards District Offices that are
charged with the overall inspection of their operations.
12a
This approval process is similar to those used for exit
seating and passenger carry-on baggage requirements.
Because flight crewmember regulations were designed
specifically for pilots, FAA approval is required to ensure
that flight crewmember rules are adequately applied to
flight attendants. In addition, the written procedures for
domestic, flag, and supplemental air carriers and for com-
mercial operators must apply the flight crewmember limi-
tations contained in subparts Q, R, or S of part 121,
except for the provisions for on-board rest facilities, as
appropriate to the operation being conducted. Therefore,
operators must consider the type of operation being con-
ducted for each flight segment when scheduling flight at-
tendants according to the option.
In addition, the written procedures for establishing duty
period limitations and rest requirements for operators
certificated under part 135 must include the limitations
contained in subpart F, except for provisions for on-board
rest facilities, as appropriate to the operation being con-
ducted. Part 121 and 135 certificate holders are required
to provide flight attendants on aircraft with certain passen-
ger seating configurations in accordance with §§ 121.391,
135.107, or the certificate holder’s operations specifica-
tions, as appropriate. The number of flight attendants re-
quired on an aircraft to meet the provisions of §§ 121.391,
135.107, or the certificate holder’s operations specifica-
tions, whichever is greater, is referred to as the minimum
flight attendant crew complement.
Any operator that elects the option to apply flight
crewmember flight, duty, and rest requirements to flight
attendants and has established written procedures for
augmenting the minimum flight crewmember complement
must establish procedures for augmenting the minimum
flight attendant complement. The augmenting procedures
must be based on the number of flight crewmembers as-
signed to the flight that is in addition to the minimum
flight crewmember complement as specified in the aircraft
13a
type certificate data sheet. For example, if the minimum
flight crewmember complement on a Boeing 747-300 is
three, as specified in the aircraft type certificate data
sheet, an operator that schedules four flight crewmembers
for an extended long-range flight will be required to
schedule one flight attendant in addition to the minimum
flight attendant crew complement that is required by
§§ 121.391, 135.107, or the certificate holder’s operations
specifications. For example, if the operations specifica-
tions for a certain airplane requires 8 flight attendants,
and if the operator adds 1 flight crewmember, that opera-
tor would be required to add 1 additional flight attendant,
for a total of 9 flight attendants.
In addition, any operator that elects the option of
applying the flight crewmember flight, duty, and rest re-
quirements to flight attendants, must ensure that the defi-
nition of “rest period” in this final rule is applied to
those flight attendants. (See the detailed discussion on
“Rest Period Requirements” and “Reserve Status, Stand-
by Status, or Similar Assignments” in this final rule. )
Under the provision for applying flight crewmember
flight, duty, and rest requirements to flight attendants,
if the Administrator finds that revisions to the written
procedures are necessary for the continued adequacy of
the procedures for applying flight crewmember flight,
duty, and rest requirements to flight attendants, the Ad-
ministrator will require the operator to make necessary
changes within 30 days after being notified by the Ad-
ministrator. In addition, an operator may petition the
Administrator to reconsider the notice to change the
procedures.
This procedure for requiring changes is consistent with
the current regulatory language for aircraft inspection
programs and pilot training programs contained in
§§ 91.415 and 121.405, respectively, as well as a number
of other regulations.
14a
Any operator that establishes written procedures to
apply the flight crewmember flight, duty, and rest require-
ments to flight attendants and that subsequently wishes
to revise this practice and schedule flight attendants ac-
cording to the duty period limitations and rest require-
ments in §§ 121.467 or 135.273 must amend their opera-
tions specifications in accordance with §§ 121.79(c) and
135.17(b). These sections require a certificate holder
to file an application for an amendment of operations
specifications at least 15 days before the effective date
proposed by the applicant for the amendment, unless a
shorter filing period is approved by the Flight Standards
District Office charged with the overall inspection of the
certificate holder.
Unscheduled Operations
The NPRM proposed duty period limitations and rest
requirements for flight attendants in all domestic, flag,
supplemental, and commercial operations conducted under
part 121 and part 125, and in all operations conducted
under part 135. No new requirements for operations con-
ducted under part 91 were proposed. The FAA received
comments from part 121 and 135 operators about the
applicability of the proposed requirements to certain un-
scheduled operations. Those commenters included AMR
Combs, ATA, American Cyanamid Company, Delta Air-
lines, Great American Airways, North American Airlines,
and Southwest Airlines.
ATA, Delta Airlines, North American Airlines, and
Southwest Airlines said that the proposed duty period
limitations and rest requirements should not apply to
military flights, e.g., Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) and
Military Airlift Command (MAC), ATA and Southwest
Airlines also said that special charters for sports teams
should be excluded from duty period limitations and rest
requirements. Commenters stated that because of the
short notification associated with military and special char-
15a
ters it would not be possible to obtain a waiver from the
regulation to conduct them. North American Airlines
stated that the proposed requirements should not apply to
flights flown to remote destinations on a weekly or ad hoc
basis.
AMR Combs and American Cyanamid Company be-
lieve that the proposed requirements should not apply to
operations that do not require a flight attendant. AMR
Combs stated that many unscheduled operators do not
employ full-time flight attendants and that a flight attend-
ant may serve more than one certificate holder.
FAA Response
In response to commenters who stated that the proposed
duty period limitations and rest requirements should not
apply to military flights and special charters, this final rule
does not except military or special charter operations from
duty period limitations and rest requirements. If a certifi-
cate holder chooses to apply the flight crewmember flight,
duty, and rest time limitations option to flight attendants
when conducting military and special charter flights to re-
tain operational flexibility by scheduling the flight attend-
ants with the flight crewmembers. §§ 121.467(c) and
135.272(c) require that the flight crewmember flight,
duty, and rest requirements option be applied to all flight
operations conducted by the certificate holder.
In response to AMR Combs and American Cyanamid
Company, the FAA agrees with these commenters. The
final rule will not apply to those operations where flight
attendants are not required. However, all flight attendants
who are assigned to duties in an aircraft for operations
that require a flight attendant, including flight attendants
in excess of the minimum flight attendant crew comple-
ment, are subject to duty limitations and rest requirements.
For example, an operator conducting operations on an
aircraft with 19 passenger seats or less, which does not
l6a
require a flight attendant under § 135.107, will not be
required to meet flight attendant duty period limitations
and rest requirements for flights conducted on that air-
craft. However, if the operator’s operations specifications
state that the operator will provide a flight attendant for
flights on that aircraft, then the operation does require a
flight attendant. Therefore, for any flight attendant as-
signed to flight duties on that aircraft the certificate holder
is required to meet the duty period limitations and rest
requirements of § 135.273.
Duty Period Limitations
The NPRM proposed limiting flight attendant duty
periods. Proposed §§ 121.466(a) and 135.273(a) de-
fined a duty period as the period of elapsed time between
reporting for an assignment involving flight time and re-
lease from that assignment by the certificate holder. The
NPRM proposed that the time be calculated using either
Coordinated Universal Time or the local time of the flight
attendant’s home base.
Eleven commenters submitted comments supporting or
recommending revisions to this proposed definition.
Delta Air Lines, Southwest Air Lines, and TWU Local
556 agreed with the FAA’s proposed definition.
ALPA, APA, and the Coalition of Flight Attendant
Unions stated that duty periods should include non-flight
duties. ALPA noted that ground duties can be as fatigu-
ing as flight duties. The Coalition of Flight Attendant
Unions recommended that the definition of a duty period
be replaced with: “Any continuous period during which a
flight attendant is required to carry out any task associated
with the business of an aircraft operator.”
To ensure that the definition of duty period explicitly
excludes reserve status. ATA recommended that the fol-
lowing phrase be added to the definition of duty period:
17a
“Duty period’ does not include time when a flight attend-
ant is on reserve status assignment, free of any specifically
assigned duties other than to report for a flight assignment
within a specified period of time, pursuant to a collective
bargaining agreement or company work rules.”
In addition to receiving comments on the definition of
a duty period, the FAA also received comments on the
duty period limitations proposed in the NPRM. The
NPRM proposed to limit flight attendant duty periods
based on the length of the duty period, the number of
flight attendants assigned to a crew, and the amount of
rest following the duty period. The proposed rule con-
tained provisions (proposed §§ 121.466(b) and 135.273
(b)) to prohibit an operator from assigning a flight at-
tendant to a scheduled duty period of more than 14 hours
unless certain conditions are met. An operator would
be allowed to assign a flight attendant to a scheduled
duty period up to 20 hours, if the operator: (1) Assigns
flight attendants in addition to the minimum flight attend-
ant complement; and (2) schedules an extended rest
period following the duty period.
Thirteen commenters submitted comments on issues
pertaining to flight attendant duty period limits. The
comments addressed the use of “scheduled” versus “ac-
tual” duty periods, addressed the effect of the proposed
duty limits on unscheduled operators, made recommenda-
tions to the proposals, and provided proposed duty period
limits.
The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions, Southwest
Airlines, and TWU Local 556 addressed the use of
“scheduled” duty periods as opposed to “actual” duty
periods. Southwest Airlines and TWU Local 556 agreed
that the proposed duty period limitations should be
“scheduled,” not “actual.” TWU Local 556 stated that,
if this flexibility is not retained, the following would
occur: (1) Flight attendants would be replaced after
14 hours of actual duty, which inconveniences passengers
18a
and causes delays because of the need to locate crew
replacements; (2) reserves would be placed at out sta-
tions; (3) crews would be rerouted to cover flights that
the original crews cannot perform; (4) flight attendants
would lose days off and have their schedules disrupted;
(5) additional costs for crews and stranded passengers
would be incurred; and (6) aircraft repositioning would
be required. However, the Coalition stated that there is
no justification for having no limit on actual hours and
added that the actual number of flight attendant duty
hours per day needs to be limited.
AMR Combs stated that scheduled duty period limita-
tions should apply only to scheduled operations with more
than 19 passenger seats.
Four commenters, including NAA, recommended re-
visions to the proposed duty period limitations. NAA
recommended that a layover of 4 to 5 hours during which
a hotel room is provided should not count as duty time.
Other comments recommended limiting duty to: (1)
16 hours in 24 hours with 11 hours of flight time in
domestic operations; (2) 30 hours in 5 days; (3) 16
hours with no more than 10 hours of flight time; or (4)
12 hours for flights with multiple stops.
The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions submitted an
alternative proposal to the NPRM that included duty
period limitations. This alternative divided duty period
limitations according to domestic, international, and long-
range flights. The Coalition’s alternative proposed to
limit: (1) Scheduled duty periods on domestic flights to
no more than 14 hours and actual duty periods to 15
hours; (2) scheduled duty periods on international flights
to no more than 16 hours and actual duty periods to
17 hours; and (3) actual duty periods on long-range
flights to no more than 4 hours greater than the sched-
uled duty time, not to exceed 20 hours. The Coalition
distinguished between domestic and international duty .
periods and stated that it reluctantly includes a 20-hour
19a
duty period for long range international flights to accom-
modate new generation aircraft, but only if additional
rest is provided.
FAA Response
In establishing duty period limitations, the FAA has
considered a variety of alternatives submitted by com-
menters, including the proposals to set different limits
for different types of operations. In an effort to establish
requirements that are conducive to safety and compatible
with air carrier operations, the FAA also has reviewed
current industry practices used to schedule flight attend-
ants. To provide the least complicated method of estab-
lishing effective limitations for scheduling duty periods
for flight attendants, the FAA has decided to adopt the
scheduled duty period limitations as proposed, with a
slight modification that distinguishes cosmetic and inter-
national scheduled duty periods.
The FAA has revised the definition of a duty period
in this final rule to state that the time is calculated using
Coordinated Universal Time or local time to reflect the
total elapsed time. The phrase “or the local time of the
flight attendants’s home base” was replaced with “or local
time” to be consistent with the definition of a calendar
day. The FAA has determined that any time zone can
be used, as long as the operator is consistent.
Duty period limitations are established to enhance the
safety of the flying public by ensuring that flight attend-
ants do not become overly fatigued during flight assign-
ments. In addition, the duty period limitations are de-
signed to suit all operations that require flight attendants
without imposing a significant burden on operators.
In response to the Coalition of Flight Attendant
Unions, the final rule does not provide actual duty period
limitaticns because such provisions may unreasonably
reduce operational flexibility. However, the final rule re-
20a
quires that a flight attendant “be given” a scheduled rest
period between scheduled duty periods, i.e., rest periods
must be provided. Because duty periods are scheduled
in combination with actual rest periods, the objective of
ensuring the flight attendants are provided an opportunity
to be rested will be met.
After further review of the Coalition comments and an
analysis of flight schedules, the FAA finds that scheduled
duty periods of operations wholly within the 48 con-
tiguous states and the District of Columbia should not be
allowed to exceed 18 hours. The FAA is not aware of
any scheduled duty periods for these operations that cur-
rently do exceed 18 hours. However, duty periods that
contain one or more flights that land or take off outside
the contiguous 48 states and the District of Columbia
may extend up to 20 hours, provided that an extended
rest period is scheduled following the duty period and that
additional flight attendants are assigned to each flight
segment in the duty period. This provision will allow
air carriers to conduct extended long-range operations
with new generation aircraft. Moreover, sections 121.467
(b)(14 and 135.273(b)(14) will allow a flight attend-
ant for a domestic air carrier to continue on duty be-
yond the time when duty would normally terminate, if
circumstances exist that are unanticipated and beyond the
control of the air carrier such as adverse whether con-
ditions). This same exception will apply to flag and sup-
plemental operations.
A duty period as defined in this final rule means the
period of elapsed time between reporting for an assign-
ment involving flight time and release from that assign-
ment. In response to ATA’s recommendation that the
definition of a duty period should state that a duty period
does not include the time when a flight attendant is as-
signed to reserve status, the FAA refers to the definition
of a duty period in §§ 121.467(a) and 135.273(a) of
the final rule, which indicates that a duty period does not
begin until a flight attendant reports for an assignment
2ia
involving flight time. Reserve status is discussed in fur-
ther detail under the heading “Reserve Status, Stand-by
Status, or Similar Assignments.”
In response to NAA, all duty period assignments, in-
cluding those assignments with a 4- to 5-hour break in
duty at a hotel, must be assigned within duty period
limitations and must meet minimum rest requirements.
The FAA would not consider this to be a break in, or
cessation of, the duty period.
In response to AMR Combs, this final rule applies
to operations, both scheduled and unscheduled, that re-
quire flight attendants. Therefore, operators are not re-
quired to meet duty period limitations and rest require-
ments of this final rule for operations that do not require
a flight attendant.
Duty Period Following Reduced Rest
Sections 121.466(i) and 135.273(i) of the NPRM
proposed that an operator be permitted to reduce a 12-
hour rest period to 10 hours following a duty period of
more than 14 hours. In conjunction with this proposed
provision, the FAA also proposed §§ 121.466(j) and
135.273(j), which would limit the scheduled duty period
following a 10-hour reduced rest period to less than 14
hours.
ATA, Delta Air Lines, and NACA submitted com-
ments on limiting duty periods following reduced rest.
The commenters recommended that the FAA permit an
operator to schedule a 16-hour duty period following 4
reduced rest period of 10 hours. ATA noted that this
flexibility is needed for international operations.
Delta Air Lines also recommended that the phrase “14
or more hours” appearing in proposed §§ 121 .466(j)
and 135.273(j) be replaced with “no more than 14
hours.” Delta noted that the proposal would limit the
duty period following reduced rest to 13 hours 59 minutes.
22a
FAA Response
Sections 121.467(b)(9) and 135.273(b)(9) of the
final rule adopt the provisions as proposed in §§ 121.466
(j) and 135.273(j) of the NPRM, except that the pro-
visions are revised, in response to Delta Airlines’ com-
ment, so that an operator may not schedule a flight at-
tendant for a duty period of more than 14 hours fol-
lowing reduced rest. This revision permits an operator
to assign a flight attendant to a duty period of up to and
including 14 hours following a reduced rest period of
10 hours.
The FAA does not agree with those commenters that
state that an operator should be allowed to schedule a
16-hour duty period following a reduced rest period of 10
hours. This was not proposed in the notice as it might
promote problems of cumulative fatigue.
Duty Time That Exceeds Scheduled
Duty Time When Beyond the Certificate
Holder’s Control
Sections 121.466(0) and 135.273(0) proposed that
a flight attendant would not be considered scheduled for
duty in excess of duty time limitations if the flights to
which the flight attendant is assigned are scheduled and
normally terminate within the limitations but, because of
circumstances beyond the control of the domestic, flag, or
supplemental air carrier or commercial operator (such as
adverse weather conditions), are not at the time of de-
parture expected to reach their destination within the
scheduled time.
ALPA, APA, the Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions,
Southwest Airlines, and TWU Local 556 commented on
this provision.
ALPA and APA stated that the maximum duty pe-
riod limit should not be exceeded by more than 2 addi-
tional hours regardless of circumstances beyond the con-
trol of the operator.
23a
The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions stated that
this provision is unacceptable. The, Coalition further
stated that operators consider all delays outside their
control.
Southwest Airlines and TWU Local 556 stated that
this provision should apply to a flight attendant who is
reassigned after reporting for work and the reassignment
is beyond the operator’s control.
FAA Response
The FAA has adopted this provision as proposed so
‘that air carriers will not be penalized for operational de-
lays such as those due to weather and air traffic control.
The FAA recognizes that delays are costly and that op-
erators avoid delays whenever possible. Sections 121.467
(b)(14) and 135.273(b) (14) of this final rule apply to
flights that are assigned and scheduled and that normally
terminate within allowable duty limitations. However,
this provision does not apply to operational delays relat-
ing to flight attendant staffing problems. A flight attend-
ant’s duty period begins when the flight attendant reports
for a flight assignment and ends when the flight attend-
ant is released by the air carrier. Changes to a flight at-
tendant’s schedule after a duty period begins must be
made in accordance with the duty period limitations and
rest requirements set forth in this final rule. In addition,
if a flight attendant reports for duty and is later reas-
signed, the scheduled duty time before reassignment must
be counted as part of the total duty period.
Example: A flight attendant is scheduled for a 13-
hour duty period on flight staffed with the minimum cabin
crew complement. The duty period consists of two flight
segments—a flight from New York to Frankfurt followed
by a flight from Frankfurt to Rome. Because of adverse
weather conditions, the flight leaving New York is de-
layed 2 hours, causing the flight attendant’s duty period
to exceed the scheduled 14-hour duty period limitation.
24a
Although it is apparent at the time of departure that
the flight attendant’s duty period will exceed 14 hours,
completion of the assignment will still comply with duty
period limitations, because the flight attendant was sched-
uled and assigned to flights that normally terminate within
the allowable duty period limitations.
However, if, for example, the flight attendant is re-
assigned in Frankfurt to a flight to Athens, the flight -
attendant’s revised scheduled duty period cannot exceed
a total of 14 scheduled hours, unless the flight attend-
ant crew is augmented in accordance with §§ 121.467
(b)(4), or (5)(b)(6), as appropriate, and each flight
attendant is given the minimum required rest. The flight
attendant’s duty period did not start over in Frankfurt
because of the reassignment.
Rest Period Requirements
The FAA received numerous comments on issues re-
lated to the rest requirements proposed in the NPRM.
Commenters addressed issues including the definition of
a rest period, scheduled rest versus actual rest, minimum
rest, reduced rest, subsequent rest, relief from duty in
air transportation and air commerce for 24 consecutive
hours of rest in any 7 consecutive calendar days, and on-
board rest requirements.
The NPRM defined a rest period as the period when a
flight attendant is free of all restraint or duty for a do-
mestic, flag, or supplemental air carrier or commercial
operator and is free of all responsibility for work or duty
should the occasion arise. ATA, the Coalition of Flight
Attendant Unions, and Southwest Airlines recommneded
revisions to the definition of rest period. The comments
submitted by ATA and the Coalition of Flight Attendant
Unions addressed reserve status in their recommended
definitions of rest. Southwest Airlines stated that the def-
inition of rest period should be defined as actual hours of
rest, not scheduled hours of rest. Two commenters, in-
25a
cluding Delta Airlines, agreed with the definition of rest
period as proposed in the NPRM.
The NPRM proposed requirements for scheduling rest
and reduced rest periods. Sections 121.466(c) and (h)
and 135.273(c) and (h) of the NPRM proposed requir-
ing that a flight attendant scheduled for 14 hours or less
of duty be given 9 consecutive hours of rest, and that a
flight attendant scheduled for more than 14 hours but less
than 20 hours be given 12 consecutive hours of rest. Pro-
posed §§ 121.466(d) and (i) and 135.273(d) and (i)
proposed permitting an air carrier or commercial operator
to reduce these rest periods to 8 and 10 consecutive
hours, respectively. Three commenters (Southwest Air-
lines, TWU Local 556, and TWU of America) supported
the minimum rest requirements proposed in the NPRM
and also indicated that the rest requirements should not
be increased.
The RAA expressed concern that the requirement to
provide 9 hours of rest for duty periods of more than 14
hours implies that a flight attendant who reports for a
flight that is canceled is required to receive 9 hours of
rest before the next duty period begins.
Commenters, including APA and individual flight at-
tendants, indicated that the actual time available for rest
during a rest period is often less than the scheduled rest
period and may be as much as 2 to 31%4 hours less than
the number of hours scheduled in the rest period. The
commenters stated that this often occurs because of time
lost due to assisting passengers in deplaning, travel to
and from a rest facility, and other activities such as eat-
ing. One commenter stated that it may take 35 minutes
to 1 hour for passengers to deplane, for the crew to
gather its belongings, and for travel to the hotel; 1 hour
to eat; and 1 to 1% hours to prepare for duty again and
travel back to the airport.
The FAA received several alternatives to the proposed
rest requirements. APA recommended that a flight at-
26a
tendant scheduled for a duty period of 14 hours or less
be given a scheduled rest period of at least 10 consecu-
tive hours. The rest period could be reduced but not
scheduled as a reduced rest period as long as the rest
period is reasonably calculated to provide 8 consecutive
hours at a suitable rest facility and the flight attendant
is provided a subsequent rest period of at least 11 con-
secutive hours. Under the APA proposal, scheduled rest
periods and reduced rest periods would have to occur
during the 24-hour period preceding the scheduled end
of a duty period. APA recommended that a flight at-
tendant scheduled for a duty period of more than 14
hours but no more than 18 hours be given a scheduled
rest period of at least 12 consecutive hours. This rest
period could not be reduced and must occur after the
completion of the scheduled duty period and immediately
prior to the commencement of the subsequent duty pe-
riod. The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions pro-
posed rest requirements based on domestic and interna-
tional operations (see the discussion of Domestic and In-
ternational Operations). The Coalition of Flight Attend-
ant Unions’ proposal recommended a minimum of 10
hours of rest following domestic flights, 12 hours of rest
following international flights, and a rest period equal to
twice the scheduled flight time for long-range international
flights. The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions’ pro-
posal did not include a provision for reduced rest RAA
requested that minimum rest requirements for flight at-
tendants be aligned with flight crewmember requirements.
One commenter suggested that a rest period should be at
least 912 hours at a hotel or 12 hours from the time of
release to the beginning of the next report. Another com-
menter stated that the proposed minimum subsequent rest
is satisfactory for domestic flights but not realistic for in-
ternational flights. The commenter suggested that the
rest period following international flights should be 24
hours.
27a
Several commenters recommended that the FAA estab-
lish provisions for on-board rest. APA recommended that
a domestic, flag, or supplemental air carrier or commer-
cial operator be permitted to assign a flight attendant to
a scheduled duty period of more than 14 hours, but no
more han 16 hours, if the inflight duties assigned to flight
attendants by the air carrier or commercial operator were
such that each of the cabin crew could be free of all
duty for “25 percent of the scheduled block time less 1
hour.” APA stated that reclining seats suitable for rest
reserved for 25 percent of the assigned attendant comple-
ment would have to be available throughout the flight.
APA also recommended that a domestic, flag, or supple-
mental air carrier or commercial operator be permitted
to assign a flight attendant to a scheduled duty period
of more than 16 hours, but no more than 18 hours, if
the inflight duties assigned to flight attendants by the air
carrier or commercial operator were such that each of
the cabin crew could be free of all duty for “33 percent
of the scheduled block time less 1 hour.” APA added
that reclining seats suitable for rest reserved for 33 per-
cent of the assigned attendant complement would have
to be available throughout the flight. The Coalition of
Flight Attendant Unions recommended that a flight at-
tendant be provided at least 1 hour of continuous rest for
any flight segment scheduled for 8 or more hours of flight
time, and that a passenger seat or bunk be assigned for
crew rest.
FAA Response
This final rule adopts the definition of rest period and
the minimum rest requirements as proposed in the NPRM.
The FAA has considered the various rest requirement al-
ternatives proposed by commenters and has determined
‘that the rest requirements proposed in the NPRM and
adopted in this final rule are adequate to ensure that flight
attendants are provided the opportunity to be sufficiently
rested to perform their routine and emergency safety
28a
duties without imposing a significant burden on opera-
tors. A discussion of the comments recommending that
reserve status be addressed in the definition of rest is
contained under the heading, “Reserve Status, Stand-by
Status, or Similar Assignments.”
In response to Southwest Airlines’ comment that rest
should be “actual” hours of rest and not “scheduled,” the
FAA considers that the opportunity to rest, as provided
by the rest period, to be “actual” rest. As proposed in the
NPRM, this final rule requires that a flight attendant “be
given” a scheduled rest period. This provision makes
the operator responsible for ensuring that a flight at-
tendant is scheduled for and receives the scheduled rest
period. The FAA recognizes that how the flight attendant
utilizes this rest period cannot be regulated. Requiring
operators to schedule rest periods ensures that flight at-
tendants know in advance when rest periods will occur
and that they will be of a specified duration.
A minimum rest period of 9 consecutive hours is re-
quired for all duty period assignments of 14 hours or less,
unless the rest period is reduced in accordance with
§ 121.467(b)(3) or § 135.273(b)(3). A flight attend-
ant who reports for duty to find that the flight has been
canceled would have begun a duty period and would re-
quire minimum rest. However, in response to RAA’s con-
cern, a carrier could either keep the flight attendant on
duty for reassignment or release the flight attendant for a
complete rest period.
Rest periods are required to occur betewen the comple-
tion of a scheduled duty period and the commencement
of a subsequent duty period. Consequently, this final rule
does not require that a required rest period be given im-
mediately prior to a flight assignment. Because duty pe-
riods are defined as assignments involving flight time, a
rest period is not required following assignments that do
not involve flight time, such as training or ground duty
assignments.
29a
In response to commenters who indicated that the ac-
tual time available to rest is typically less than scheduled
rest, the FAA considers a flight attendant to be free of
all restraint or duty upon release from an assignment
involving flight time. The FAA understands that the time
available for sleep during a rest period may vary de-
pending on the amount of time a flight attendant spends
in other activities during the rest period. The FAA also
recognizes that it cannot compel a flight attendant to use
rest periods for actual rest.
Additionally, this final rule regulates the frequency and
duration of required rest periods. This final rule does not
regulate the quality of rest facilities nor does it require
certificate holders to provide on-board rests for flight at-
tendants.
Reduced Rest
Sections 121.466(d) and (i) and 135.273(d) and (i)
of the NPRM included provisions for operators to sched-
ule 8-hour and 10-hour reduced rest periods in conjunc-
tion with certain scheduled duty period limitations. ALPA
Stated that a rest period should never be scheduled for
less than 10 consecutive hours. However, ALPA believes
that it may be permissible for an operator to reduce a rest
period to less than 10 hours because of circumstances
beyond the control of the certificate holder. APA op-
posed the concept of reduced rest and stated that an air
carrier or commercial operator should not be permitted
to schedule a reduced rest period.
FAA Responses
The FAA has adopted the reduced rest provisions as
proposed. This final rule permits an air carrier or com-
mercial operator to schedule a flight attendant for re-
duced rest. However, no flight attendant will receive a
rest period of less than 8 hours. This provision enables
operators to retain a certain degree of scheduling flexibil-
30a
ity. The reduced rest provision is adopted in conjunction
with the requirement to schedule a longer rest period sub-
sequent to an 8- or 10-hour reduced rest period. To-
gether, these provisions prevent a flight attendant from be-
ing assigned two consecutive reduced minimum rest pe-
riods and are designed to protect flight attendants by
minimizing the effects of cumulative fatigue.
24-Consecutive-Hour Rest Period During
Any 7 Consecutive Calendar Days
Sections 121.466(n) and 135.273(n) of the NPRM
proposed that a certificate holder be required to relieve
a flight attendant engayed in air transportation or air
commerce from all further duty for at least 24 consecu-
tive hours during any 7 consecutive calendar days. For
convenience, hereafter, this requirement will be referred
to as the 24-hour-in-7-day rest requirement. Proposed
$$ 121.466(a) and 135.273(a) of the NPRM defined a
calendar day as the period of elapsed time, using Co-
ordinated Universal Time or local time, that begins at
midnight and ends 24 hours later. Labor organizations,
operators, and an association commented on the proposed
24-hour-in 7-day rest requirement.
Several of the comments submitted included discussion
of the term “calendar day.” ATA stated that the term
“calendar day” is confusing because it is unclear on which
day an assignment begins or ends. APA stated that the
term calendar day should specify that the local time
used is that of the flight attendant’s home base. In the
Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions’ alternative to the
NPRM, the Coalition deleted the definition of the term
“calendar day” but retained the provision for 24 consecu-
tive hours of rest in 7 consecutive calendar days.
ATA and Delta Air Lines recommended that the FAA
revise the proposed 24-hour-in-7-day rest requirement by
replacing the phrase “every 7 consecutive calendar days”
with the phrase “every 168-consecutive-hour period.”
3la
Southwest Airlines and TWU Local 556 requested that
the final rule permit a flight attendant to voluntarily waive
the 24-hour-in-7-day rest requirement in order to be able
to work extra hours. Southwest Airlines states that, if
flight attendants cannot waive this provision, Southwest
would be required to hire an additional 100 flight at-
tendants at an initial cost of $710,000 and an annual
recurring cost of $660,000. TWU Local 556 stated that
they applied this provision to a sample of 13 flight attend-
ant schedules for February 1993. According to TWU
Local 556, if the 13 flight attendants were not permitted
to fly their schedule, which had been altered to include
extra flights, each flight attendant would have lost $11,063
in extra annual income. The total lost income for 2,200
flight attendants would be $24 million.
ATA and Delta Air Lines recommended that the FAA
include a provision in the final rule similar to a statement
included in the preamble to the NPRM that indicated
that the requirement for a 24-consecutive-hour rest period
in any 7 consecutive calendar days could be postponed
under certain circumstances.
AMR Combs and American Cyanamid Company noted
that current §§ 135.267(f) and 135.269(d) require un-
scheduled operators to provide flight crewmembers with
at least 13 rest periods of at least 24 consecutive hours
in each calendar quarter. AMR Combs stated that the
24-hour-in-7-day rest requirement proposed in the NPRM
only should apply to scheduled operations. American
Cyanamid Company suggested that flight attendants could
be required to meet pilot weekly rest requirements as an
alternative.
Other comments submitted included: (1) A recom-
mendation by TWU Local 556 that the FAA could re-
quire four 24-hour breaks in 30 days or require a 12-hour
rest preceding the seventh duty day; and (2) a Carnival
Airlines flight service schedule indicating that a flight
32a
attendant had been scheduled for 11 consecutive days of
duty without receiving a 24-consecutive-hour rest period.
FAA Response
The 24-hour-in-7 day rest requirement is designed to
supplement daily rest requirements and to ensure that
flight attendants receive the opportunity to obtain ade-
quate rest. The FAA proposed the definition of a calen-
dar day to provide a unit of measure that could be used
to determine whether the 24-hour-in-7-day rest requirement
is met. In response to ATA’s concern that the term “cal-
endar day” causes confusion, the FAA refers to the defini-
tion of “calendar day” in §§ 121.467(a) and 135.273(a)
of the final rule, which indicates that a calendar day be-
gins at midnight and ends 24 hours later at the next mid-
night. “Seven consecutive calendar days” as used in
§§ 121.467 and 135.273 of this final rule means a period
of 7 consecutive days beginning at midnight on the first
day and ending at midnight 7 days later. In response to
APA’s recommendation that the definition of calendar
day specify that the local time be that of the flight at-
tendant’s home base, the FAA has determined that any
time zone can be used to determine whether the 24-hour-
in-7-day rest requirement is met, as long as the carrier
is consistent. In other words, a certificate holder may
not manipulate the use of time zones when calculating 7
consecutive calendar days so as to vary the number of
hours that comprise any 7 consecutive calendar days.
The FAA has considered the commenters’ request to
replace the proposed 7 consecutive calendar days with
a 168-consecutive-hour period. The FAA notes that the
NPRM used language consistent with the language con-
tained in the current flight crewmember flight time limi-
tations rule. The FAA has decided that it should not
introduce at this final rule stage an inconsistency between
the flight crewmember flight time limitations rule lan-
guage and the flight attendant duty period limitations and
33a
rest requirements rule language. The FAA will consider
whether rulemaking should be initiated to replace 7 con-
secutive calendar days with 168-consecutive-hours.
The FAA has reviewed requests to permit flight attend-
ants to voluntarily waive the 24-hour-in-7 day rest re-
quirement. The FAA has not included that alternative
in this final rule because the purpose of requiring 24 con-
secutive hours free from duty in any 7 consecutive cal-
endar days is to ensure that flight attendants receive the
opportunity to obtain adequate rest. As with rest require-
ments following reduced rest, the requirement for 24 con-
secutive hours of rest in any 7 consecutive calendar days
is designed to protect flight attendants by minimizing the
effects of cumulative fatigue.
In response to comments received from ATA and
Delta Airlines, the FAA has determined that it is not
necessary to include in this final rule provisions for per-
mitting the 24-hour-in-7-day rest requirement to be de-
layed. This final rule imposes restrictions for flight at-
tendants that parallel the restrictions that currently exist
for flight crewmembers. The absence of provisions to
permit the 24-hour-in-7-day rest requirement to be de-
layed does not preclude a flight attendant from complet-
ing a duty period assigned that has extended into the
seventh calendar day because of a delay that is beyond
the control of the operator. In addition, the 24-hour-in-7-
day rest requirement may be delayed for reasons such as
deadheading, assignment to training, and others. How-
ever, if the requirement is delayed, the flight attendant
must be given the 24-consecutive-hour rest period before
beginning any subsequent duty period assignment.
In response to unscheduled operators, the FAA notes
that unscheduled part 135 operators conducting operations
that require flight attendants have the option to apply
the flight crewmember flight time limitations to flight
34a
attendants instead of using the duty period limitations
and rest requirements contained in this final rule. Sec-
tions 135.267(f) and 135.269(d) require certificate
holders to provide each flight crewmember with at least
13 rest periods of at least 24 consecutive hours each in
each calendar quarter. Among other requirements, oper-
ators that choose to apply flight crewmember requirements
to flight attendants would be required to provide flight
attendants with at least 13 rest periods of at least 24 con-
secutive hours in each calendar quarter instead of relief
from duty for 24 consecutive hours every 7 consecutive
calendar days.
Comments on the costs associated with the 24-hour-in-
7-day rest requirement are addressed in the Regulatory
Evaluation Summary.
Compensatory Rest Periods
Although there was no specific proposal in the notice,
the FAA requested comments on the feasibility of estab-
lishing compensatory rest periods for flight attendants
when scheduled duty periods are exceeded. ATA, the
Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions, and Delta Air Lines
opposed the establishment of compensatory rest periods.
FAA Response
In response to the comments submitted, the FAA will
not mandate compensatory rest periods in this final rule.
The FAA has determined that compensatory rest is not
necessary, because the duty period limitations and rest
requirements contained in this final rule ensure that flight
attendants receive the opportunity to be adequately rested
to perform safety duties.
Reserve Status, Stand-by Status, or
Similar Assignments
The FAA recognizes that current industry practice var-
ies with regard to the use of these terms and their rela-
tionship to duty or rest. In the NPRM, the FAA re-
35a
quested comments on the most appropriate way to address
reserve status, stand-by status, or a similar assignment.
The FAA received 13 comments, primarily from air car-
rier associations and labor organizations. Commenters
described different types of reserve status and suggested
situations when reserve should be considered duty or rest.
ATA recommended adding the following phrase to the
definition of rest period: “except that reserve status as-
signments shall be considered ‘rest’ for purposes of this
rule, provided that the only work-related restriction shall
be to report for a flight assignment within a specified
period of time pursuant to a collective bargaining agree-
ment or company work rules.” The Coalition of Flight
Attendant Unions recommended that the definition of rest
period be revised to “the time period free of all restraint
or duty from a domestic, flag, or supplemental air carrier
or commercial operator and free of all responsibility, or
interruption by, work or duty.”
In addition, commenters indicated that different types
of reserve status including “call-in” reserve and “on-call”
reserve are commonly found in the aviation industry. As
described by commenters, call-in reserve requires that a
flight attendant contact, or be available to be contacted
by, the operator at designated times for flight assignments.
The commenters added that on-call reserve typically re-
quires that a flight attendant be available for an assign-
ment on short notice (usually within 1 hour) if contacted
by the operator.
A majority of the commenters on this issue discussed
whether reserve status should be considered rest. ATA,
NACA, and Southwest Airlines stated that the time a
flight attendant is assigned to reserve status and is not
assigned to a duty period should be considered rest for the
purpose of meeting the 24-hour-in-7-day rest requirement
proposed in § 121.466(n) of the NPRM. RAA stated that
the type of reserve in which a person must contact the
company for future assignments—rather than being avail-
able for an assignment on short notice—should be con-
36a
sidered rest because it is free of all duty except for the
possibility of communication with the operators. Two in-
dividual commenters stated that the time a flight attend-
ant spends on reserve should not be considered rest.
Four of the commenters, including ATA, Delta Air
Lines, and RAA, commented on whether reserve status
should be considered part of a duty period. ATA and
Delta Air Lines stated that the time a flight attendant
spends on reserve should not be considered a duty period.
ATA noted that, if reserve is considered duty, operators
will need to increase staff by 20 to 30 percent. ATA esti-
mates that the annual cost would be $100 to $130 million
for salaries, benefits, and associated training and adminis-
trative costs. Delta Air Lines expressed concern that if
“on-call” reserve is considered duty, flight attendants
would request at-home pay. RAA stated that the type of
reserve in which a person is expected to report on short
notice should be considered duty. TWU Local 556 stated
that duty time for a reserve flight attendant should be
calculated from actual report time to release time for a
flight assignment.
FAA Response
In response to the commenters who stated that reserve
status should be considered rest, the FAA notes that the
time during which a flight attendant is responsible for
contacting a certificate holder or for being available to
be contacted by a certificate holder for an- assignment
(e.g., reserve or stand-by status) does not meet any rest
period requirements, because the FAA has defined a rest
period as free of all restraint or duty and free of all re-
sponsibility for work or duty should the occasion arise.
Specifically in response to ATA’s, NACA’s, and South-
west Airlines’ suggestions that reserve assignments should
fulfill the 24-hour-in-7-day rest requirement if no duty
period is assigned, the FAA reiterates that rest period
requirements are not met when a flight attendant is as-
37a
signed to reserve status even if the flight attendant is not
given a duty period assignment. A duty period, as de-
fined in this final rule, does not begin until a flight attend-
ant reports for an assignment involving flight time. For
example, a flight attendant who has been assigned to re-
serve status for 24 hours but has not reported for a duty
period assignment during that time will not have satisfied
the 24-hour-in-7-day rest requirement. The rest require-
ment is not satisfied, because the reserve assignment is a
restraint and includes present responsibility for work as a
flight attendant if the occasion arises.
Some commenters stated that reserve status should not
be restricted by duty period requirements. The FAA re-
fers the commenters to the definition of duty period in
§§ 121.467(a) and 135.273(a) of the final rule, the
first sentence of which reads: “Duty period means the
period of elapsed time between reporting for an assign-
ment involving flight time and release from that assign-
ment. * * *” It should be clear that reserve status alone
does not meet the definition of duty period. On the other
hand, it also should be clear that reserve status may not
be performed during a rest period. The definition of rest
period in §§ 121.467(a) and 135.273(a) of the final
rule states that “Rest period means the time period free
of all restraint or duty for a domestic, flag, or supple-
mental air carrier or commercial operator and free of all
responsibility for work or duty should the occasion arise.”
Augmented Cabin Crews
This final rule permits operators to schedule flight at-
tendants for duty periods ‘of more than 14 hours provided
an operator: (1) Assigns flight attendants in addition to
the minimum flight attendant complement required for
the flight or flights in that duty period under the certifi-
cate holder’s operations specifications; and (2) schedules
an extended rest period following the duty period.
38a
Ten commenters submitted comments on the proposed
augmented cabin crew requirements addressing: (1) The
concept of augmenting cabin crews in proportion to the
type of aircraft; (2) the relationship between augmented
cabin crews and flight attendant fatigue; and (3) the effect
of augmented crew requirements on unscheduled opera-
tors.
APA, NAA, and RAA noted that the proposed aug-
mented cabin crew requirements are not based on the
size of the aircraft. APA stated that if the FAA intends
the provision for augmented cabin crews to be used only
for long-range operations, this should be clarified in the
final rule. APA noted that, under the proposed provisions,
one flight attendant would be added to either a two-person
crew or an eight-person crew. NAA noted that, one
additional flight attendant on a Boeing 757 is a 20 per-
cent increase in crew; one additional flight attendant on
a wide-body airplane is a 7 percent increase in crew.
NAA recommended that the FAA distinguish between
wide-body and narrow-body airplanes by requiring one
additional flight attendant for any duty period between
14 and 20 hours on a narrow-body airplane. RAA stated
that operators of airplanes that require one or two flight
attendants should not be required to augment cabin crews
in order to schedule duty periods longer than 14 hours.
RAA added that a passenger seat will be needed for an
additional flight attendant. RAA also noted that regional
operators schedule some duty periods longer than 14
hours; however, many of these include an intermediate
rest period.
APA, the Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions, and
RAA addressed the relationship between augmented cabin
crews and fatigue. APA and the Coalition stated that a
larger crew does not necessarily result in a less fatigued
crew and noted that American Airlines, Trans World
Airlines, United Air Lines, and USAir currently assign
flight attendants in addition to the minimum crew comple-
ment. APA and the Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions
39a
noted that the proposal does not require an operator to
provide a flight attendant with inflight rest. RAA stated
that requiring augmented cabin crews for the purpose of
reducing fatigue has been inadequately justified.
ATA and Delta Air Lines stated that the rule should
permit a flight to operate if an augmented crew is assigned
but not present for a flight because of unforeseen circum-
stances (e.g., illness or injury during a layover). Delta
suggested that 1 hour of on-board crew rest for the re-
maining flight attendant crew could be provided in this
circumstance.
AMR Combs noted that a change is needed for on-
demand operators. They stated that a “larger” aircraft
such as a Gulfstream or a Challenger cannot accommo-
date up to four flight attendants. AMR Combs stated that
these operators would either apply for an exemption or
not use a flight attendant.
FAA Response
This final rule provides scheduling flexibility by per-
mitting an operator to schedule a flight attendant for a
duty period of more than 14 hours if the flight attendant
crew is augmented in accordance with § 121.467(b) (4),
(b)(5), or (b)(6), or § 135.273(b)(4), (b)(S), oF
(b)(6). The augumented flight attendant crew provision
permits extended duty periods to accommodate certain
operational requirements such as those for long-range
international flights, but this provision also may be applied
to domestic operations.
The provision for augmented cabin crews is designed
to reduce fatigue by decreasing flight attendant work load
on a flight and by providing an extended rest period fol-
lowing a long duty day. Although the FAA recognizes
that the provision will not require flight attendant crews
to be augmented proportionally for each aircraft type, it
provides the least complicated method for reducing fa-
40a
tigue and accommodating certain operational require-
ments. Therefore, in this final rule, the FAA adopts the
provision for augmenting cabin crews on a flight or flights
with a scheduled duty period of more than 14 hours but
not more than 18 hours, and scheduled duty periods that
do not exceed 20 hours for duty periods that contain one
or more flights that land or take off outside the 48 con-
tiguous states and the District of Columbia.
In response to comments from AMR Combs, Delta
Airlines, and RAA, this final rule contains no provision
to except an operator from meeting minimum augmented
cabin crew requirements when a flight attendant duty
period is scheduled for more than 14 hours in operations
that require a flight attendant. This includes instances
in which a required crewmember is not available follow- |
ing a layover, e.g., due to illness or injury. Additionally,
the use of an approved passenger seat is required for
operators that schedule flight attendants for duty periods
of more than 14 hours on aircraft that are not configured
with a flight attendant jumpseat for the additional flight
attendant(s).
In response to AMR Combs’ comment regarding the
use of flight attendants in Gulfstream and Challenger air-
craft, this final rule applies to operations that require a
flight attendant. Typically, Gulfstream and Challenger
aircraft are not configured with more than 19 passenger
seats and a flight attendant is not required to be on board.
Therefore, flight attendants assigned to such operations
are not subject to the duty period limitations and rest
requirements in this final rule. In addition, operators
have the option to apply flight crewmember flight, duty,
and rest requirments to flight attendants.
Deadhead Transportation
Proposed §§ 121.466(m) and 135.273(m) described
deadhead transportation as time spent in transportation,
not local in character, that a certificate holder requires
of a flight attendant and provides to transport the flight
4la
attendant to an airport at which that flight attendant is
to serve on a flight as a crewmember, or from an airport
at which the flight attendant was relieved from duty to
return to the flight attendant’s home base. Under the
proposal, time spent in deadhead transportation is not
rest.
ATA, Delta Air Lines, and NACA requested that the
final rule provide scheduling flexibility for flight attend-
ants in deadhead transportation. ATA requested that the
FAA permit: (1) Operators to schedule 2 hours of dead-
head transportation to a domicile that is not counted
within duty time limitations; (2) flight attendants to
waive all duty time limitations when returning to a domi-
cile and count the time as rest; and (3) flight attendants
to delay the weekly rest requirement to return to the
flight attendant’s home base. Delta Air Lines stated that
the FAA should permit a flight attendant to alter sched-
ules to exceed the scheduled maximum duty time after the
last flight segment to return to the flight attendant’s home
base. Delta also recommended that an operator be per-
mitted to deadhead a flight attendant for up to 20 hours
regardless of the number of assigned flight attendants.
NACA suggested that the final rule clarify that the time
a flight attendant spends deadheading is not limited by
duty periods or the requirement to augment the flight
attendant crew because no inflight duties are involved.
ATA and NACA stated that the final rule should clarify
that a deadheading flight attendant is not a working mem-
ber of the cabin crew for the purpose of determining if
staffing requirements must be augmented.
The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions and NACA
agreed with the NPRM that the time a flight attendant
spends in deadhead transportation is not rest.
FAA Response
Deadhead transportation as adopted in §§ 121.467(b)
(12) and 135.273(b)(12) of this final rule is not con-
SS GS SS SS ET
42a
sidered part of a rest period. This use of deadhead trans-
portation in relation to flight attendant duty period limi-
tations and rest requirements is consistent with the appli-
cation of flight crewmember flight time limitations and
rest requirements.
In addition, a flight attendant scheduled for deadhead
transportation is not assigned to duty in an aircraft and
is not considered a working crewmember. Therefore, for
the purpose of determining duty period limitations and
rest requirements, deadhead transportation is not con-
sidered an assignment involving flight time and is not part
of a duty period. In response to the comments submitted,
the FAA reiterates that an operator is not required to
augment flight attendant crews for flights when a flight
attendant is assigned to deadhead transportation because
the time spent in deadhead transportation is not part of
a duty period. For example, an operator may schedule
a flight attendant crew for a flight to Europe with a duty
period of 14 hours. Immediately following the flight and
before beginning a 9-hour rest period, the operator re-
quires the flight attendant crew to deadhead for 2 hours
to position the crew for the next duty period assignment.
In this example, the operator is not required to augment
the flight attendant crew because the deadheading por-
tion of the assignment is not considered part of the duty
period. However, the 2 hours spent positioning the crew
for the next assignment are not considered part of the
9-hour rest period.
Flight Attendant Responsibility
Proposed §§ 121.466 and 135.273 state that a flight
attendant may not accept a work assignment that does
not meet the duty time limitations and rest requirements.
Six commenters responded to this provision.
ATA, APA, Delta Air Lines, and RAA opposed this
provision. The commenters stated that, if the provision
were adopted, flight attendants would be subject to FAA
43a
civil penalties. The commenters also expressed concern
that the provision would interfere with labor-management
relations. APA noted that a flight attendant could be
permitted to complete a flight assignment that the flight
attendant believes to be improper and to inform the FAA
at the next opportunity.
The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions included in
its alternative the provision for a flight attendant to refuse
a work assignment that does not meet the Coalition’s
proposed duty time limitations and rest requirements. In
contrast, TWU Local 556, representing the flight at-
tendants of Southwest Airlines, commented that the pro-
vision of flight attendant responsibility could place a flight
attendant in the impossible position of risking either a
fine from the FAA or discipline for insubordination
from the airline if the carrier’s scheduling department
makes a mistake.
FAA Response
In light of comments received, the FAA has determined
that only an operator, not a flight attendant, should be
responsible for ensuring that duty limitations and rest
requirements are met. The FAA bases its decision on
the fact that a flight attendant could be called upon to
decide between the violation of a regulation and possible
disciplinary action from the company. That misunder-
standing and conflict between company scheduling per-
sonnel and flight attendants could occur at a time when
flight attendants should be giving their full attention to
the passengers. In cases in which a flight attendant is
aware that an assignment does not meet duty period and
rest requirements, the FAA recommends that the flight
attendant bring the situation to the air carrier’s attention.
If the situation is not corrected, the flight attendant should
then inform the FAA. However, this recommendation
does not preclude a flight attendant from informing the
FAA before contacting the air carrier. In addition, flight
44a
attendant duty and rest time records are subject to FAA
review. Air carriers found to be in noncompliance with
the regulation are subject to enforcement action.
Recordkeeping
Sections 121.683(a)(1) and 135.63(a)(5) of the
NPRM proposed requiring certificate holders to maintain
current records on flight attendant duty and rest time
requirements. The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions,
Southwest Airlines, TWU Local 556, and TWU of Amer-
ica agree with the proposed recordkeeping requirements.
The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions does not antici-
pate that the recordkeeping requirements as proposed in
the NPRM would be unduly burdensome.
NAA stated that the cost of tracking crew time for
duty and rest could be very expensive. NAA noted that
many small carriers do not have expensive computer track-
ing systems and cannot afford to do manual tracking.
Delt- Airlines stated that the one-time cost for com-
puter . oftware changes would be $368,000. NACA noted
that one of its members estimates that the proposed
recordkeeping requirements would cost $50,000 annually.
FAA Response
The information and recordkeeping requirements of
this final rule are currently under review by the Office
of Management and Budget. Provided that they are ap-
proved by OMB, the FAA adopts the recordkeeping re-
quirements as proposed in the NPRM. These require-
ments will become effective when they have been ap-
proved by OMB. The FAA anticipates that this approval
will be given soon.
The FAA recognizes that a concern of the aviation
industry has been the potential cost involved in tracking
crew time for duty and rest periods. The regulation pro-
vides that carriers maintain current records for each flight
45a
attendant to verify compliance with flight, duty, and rest
time periods. The FAA intends to be as flexible as pos-
sible in interpreting this recordkeeping requirement. Rec-
ords may be maintained by computer, by hand documen-
tation, or by any other method that will permit a carrier
to assure compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Since many carriers already track flight attendant duty
periods to ensure that union contract or company guide-
lines on duty and rest time are met, the FAA expects that
recordkeeping systems already in place will be sufficient
to meet the recordkeeping requirements of the final rule
with minimal modification. Carriers that do not currently
track flight attendant duty periods will incur costs in de-
veloping recordkeeping systems; however, the flexibility
built into the final rule should help to minimize these
costs. Further, the FAA intends to assist these carriers
by providing information and guidance based on already-
implemented recordkeeping systems maintained by other
air carriers.
Implementation Time of the Final Rule
ATA and Delta Air Lines requested that the FAA not
implement this final rule immediately. They noted that
operators will need time to revise their computer pro-
grams. ATA requested a 12-month implementation pe-
riod; Delta requested an 18-month implementation period.
FAA Response
The FAA has considered the implementation periods
proposed by ATA and Delta. However, in the interest
of public safety, the FAA has determined that the final
compliance date of this rule should be no later than
March 1, 1995. Because most operators are currently
using scheduling guidelines and tracking systems for flight
attendants, the FAA has determined that the March 1,
1995, date is reasonable.
46a
Additional Issues
Fatigue
Commenters who addressed flight attendant fatigue in-
clude ATA, the Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions,
NACA, NTSB, RAA, SCA, and Southwest Airlines.
ATA emphasized that flight attendant fatigue caused by
abusive scheduling or duty periods is not a problem in
the scheduled airline industry. NACA, RAA, SCA, and
Southwest Airlines emphasized that studies have found
no correlation between flight attendant fatigue and the
ability of a flight attendant to perform safety-sensitive
functions. SCA point out that accident data do not
specify flight attendant fatigue as a factor in delay of
evacuation or in injuries or fatalities that occurred.
The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions provided a
summary of research on circadian dysrhythmia and fatigue
with an extensive bibliography. NTSB reiterated Recom-
mendation I-89-1, which stated that the Department of
Transportation should “expedite a coordinated research
program on the effects of fatigue, sleepiness, sleep dis-
orders, and circadian factors on transportation system
safety.” Other commenters submitted copies of articles
and recommendations related to fatigue.
FAA Response
The FAA has reviewed the extensive amounts of litera-
ture provided by commenters on fatigue related to travel
and extended work periods as well as to shift work. Al-
though consideration has been given to numerous fatigue
studies, no accident/incident data is available to provide
a direct correlation between flight attendant fatigue and
passenger safety. However, it is evident that fatigue may
affect flight attendant performance and that proper sched-
uling practices may help avoid compromising flight
attendant performance. The FAA recognizes that flight
attendants perform essential safety duties and has deter-
47a
mined that the requirements contained in this final rule
enhance safety by protecting flight attendants from acute
and chronic fatigue. This final rule addresses the poten-
tial safety problems that could occur if fatigue flight
attendants work excessive duty hours or receive inade-
quate rest.
Industry Study
The principal commenters who addressed the Industry
Study include AMR Combs, American Cyanamid Com-
pany, the Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions, and
SCA.
American Cyanamid Company stated that the Industry
Study does not indicate that there is a pattern of air
carriers willfully scheduling long duty days or long series
of days without a day off. The Coalition of Flight At-
tendant Unions indicated that the Industry Study has
been used as evidence that extreme examples of schedul-
ing abuse are isolated and that the actual occurrences of
scheduling abuse were most likely under-reported because
the instances provided in the Industry Study were “self-
selected.” The Coalition further stated that, even though
the instances were self-selected, the Industry Study found
industry-wide flight attendant duty and rest period prob-
lems. SCA stated that the Industry Study does not pro-
vide evidence to establish any correlation among flight
attendant duty time, flight attendant safety duties, and
risk to passengers. AMR Combs and American Cyana-
mid Company noted that the Industry Study did not con-
sider unscheduled part 135 operators.
FAA Response
The FAA conducted the Industry Study to determine
if scheduling extremes exist, and, if so, to determine the
nature of the extremes, not to determine the statistical
frequency with which they occur or to correlate passenger
risk with extreme scheduling. Access to records was
— ee ee PT ee en
48a
gained through the cooperation of air carriers. The air
carriers did not choose individual records for examina-
tion. Based on the purpose of the study, records were
selected for review when flight attendant scheduling ex-
tremes were expected to be likely. Therefore, statistical
inferences cannot be made. However, the data contained
in the Industry Study provides fundamental background
information on flight attendant scheduling practices.
The Industry Study included a review of data from
major, national, regional, and supplemental carriers. The
study did not include a review of unscheduled part 135
operators because relatively few of these operators con-
duct operations that require a flight attendant. As previ-
ously discussed, air carriers and commercial operators
conducting operations for which the FAA does not re-
quire a flight attendant will not be required to comply
with flight attendant duty period limitations and rest re-
quirements even if flight attendants are involved in those
operations.
International and Domestic Operations
The proposed amendment did not make a distinction
between domestic and international operations in deter-
mining flight attendant duty limitations and rest require-
ments. Five commenters commented on whether there
should be a distinction between domestic and interna-
tional operations for determining flight attendant duty
period limitations and rest requirements. Four com-
menters, including the Coalition of Flight Attendant
Unions and the International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers (IAM & AW), supported mak-
ing a distinction. The Coalition provided definitions for
a domestic flight, an international flight, and a long-range
international flight. One commenter stated that flight at-
tendants assigned to international flight require more rest
than flight attendants assigned to domestic flights because
flight attendants on international flights are in a state of
physical desynchronization. Another commenter stated
49a
that duty period limits should be 12 hours for domestic
flights and 14 hours for international flights. NAA stated
that no distinction should be made between international
and domestic flights because some domestic flights are as
long as international flights and the work load is the
same for the crew.
FAA Response
After a review of the Coalition comments and an
analysis of flight schedules, the FAA finds that scheduled
duty periods for operations wholly within the 48 con-
tiguous states and the District of Columbia should not be
allowed to exceed 18 hours. The FAA is not aware of
any scheduled duty periods for these operations that cur-
rently do exceed 18 hours. However, for duty periods
involving one or more flights that land or take off outside
the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia,
the duty period may not exceed 20 hours. Thus, the final
rule makes this distinction between domestic and interna-
tional operations.
Part 125 Operators
The NPRM proposed that each flight attendant be re-
lieved from all duty for at least 8 consecutive hours dur-
ing any 24-hour period.
Two commenters, including the Coalition of Flight
Attendant Unions, addressed this proposal. The Coali-
tion recommended that the 8-hour period free of duty be
replaced with a 10-hour period free of duty.
FAA Responses
Section 125.37, Duty time limitations, currently re-
quires a flight crewmember to be relieved from duty for
at least 8 consecutive hours during any 24-hour period.
The final rule incorporates flight attendants into the cur-
rent provision, thus providing parallel duty time limita-
tions for flight attendants and flight crewmembers.
50a
Rules for Flight Attendants in Other Nations
APA, the Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions, and
the IAM & AW noted that flight attendants in other
nations have regulations that provide flight attendant duty
time limitations and minimum rest requirements. APA
stated that the proposed Joint Aviation Authorities
(JAA) regulations address issues related to fatigue. The
Coalition provided a copy of the proposed JAA rules.
FAA Response
During the Industry Study, the FAA conducted a re-
view of the International Civil Aviation Organization’s
(ICAO) regulations relating to flight attendant flight,
duty, and rest times including a review of ICAO Circular
Flight Crew Fatigue and Flight Time Limitations (52-
AN/47/6). The Industry Study identified: 23 countries
that have government regulations for flight attendant
flight and duty limitations and rest requirements, and
24 countries that do not have such regulations. The FAA
notes that the Joint Aviation Regulations currently do
not include flight time limitations for flight attendants;
however, the JAA have proposed flight time limitations
for flight crewmembers and flight attendants that are cur-
rently under review by the European Community. Based
un this information, the FAA has determined that flight
attendant flight and duty limitations and rest requirements
of some countries are less stringent than the final rule
adopted by the FAA, and the requirements of other
countries are more stringent than those being adopted.
Therefore, the FAA considers the final role to be within
the range of worldwide governmental regulations govern-
ing flight attendant duty limitations and rest requirerents.
Changes to the NPRM
The FAA amended several provisions of the proposed
rule in response to comments received from the public.
Any changes that significantly altered the requirements
S5la
of the duty period limitations and rest requirements are
discussed previously and are summarized in this section.
The NPRM made no distinction between domestic and
international operations. In the final rule domestic op-
erations are limited to up to 18-hour schedule duty pe-
riods. However, scheduled duty periods that involve one
or more flights that land or take off outside the 48 con-
tinguous states and the District of Columbia may be
scheduled up to 20 hours, providing required augmenta-
tion is provided.
The FAA moved flight attendant duty period limita-
tions and rest requirements from proposed § 121.466 in
the NPRM to § 121.467 in the final rule to facilitate
the incorporation of future amendments. In addition,
paragraphs describing duty period and rest period pro-
visions in the NPRM have been revised and renumbered
in the final rule to incorporate new and revised require-
ments. The FAA also revised the NPRM to include minor
editorial changes and revised the list of subjects to in-
clude additional terms.
Based on comments received, the FAA removed the pro-
posed requirement that a flight attendant be responsible
for ensuring compliance with duty period limitations and
rest requirements before accepting any flight assignments.
The FAA determined that this is an operator’s respon-
sibility and not the responsibility of a flight attendant.
The NPRM included the proposal that an operator may
not assign a flight attendant a duty period of 14 or more
hours following a 10-hour reduced rest period. In
§§ 121.467(b)(9) and 135.273(b)(9), the FAA revised
the NPRM to restrict an operator from assigning a flight
attendant to a duty period of “more than 14 hours” fol-
lowing a 10-hour reduced rest period. This change per-
mits an operator to assign a flight attendant to a duty
period of up to and including 14 hours following the
reduced rest period.
52a
The FAA incorporated provisions into the final rule to
give operators the option to apply the flight crewmem-
ber flight, duty, and rest requirements to flight attend-
ants. The FAA permits this option provided that the
operator establishes written procedures that are referenced
in the certificate holder’s operations specifications for ap-
plying the appropriate flight crewmember flight, duty, and
rest requirements to flight attendants.
The following chart depicts the scheduled duty period,
and augmented flight attendant crew requirements for this
final rule.
Rest period
Scheduled Minimum Reduced following No. of flight
duty period rest period rest period reduced rest attendants
14 hrs or less 9 hrs 8 hrs 10 hrs Minimum.
14-16 hrs 12 hrs 10 hrs 14 hrs Minimum + 1.
16-18 hrs 12 hrs 10 hrs 14 hrs Minimum + 2.
* 18-20 hrs 12 hrs 10 hrs 14 hrs Minimum + 38.
* Applies only to duty periods with one or more flights that land
or take off outside the 48 contiguous States and the District of
Columbia.
Costs
In the NPRM, the FAA requested additional informa-
tion on the costs of the proposed rule. The FAA re-
ceived comments from associations, labor organizations,
and part 121 operators.
ATA, which primarily represents part 121 scheduled
Operators, stated that the proposal would cost its mem-
bers at least $8 million annually to revise current com-
puter crew scheduling programs, hire additional personnel,
extend layovers, and schedule reserves. ATA believes that
the costs were understated in the NPRM and noted that
they did not include an inflation factor. ATA indicated
that the 15-year cost of the proposed rule would be
$88,947,099 using a 7-percent discount rate and a 3-
53a
percent inflation rate. RAA stated that the costs asso-
ciated with the proposed rule are significantly understated.
In addition, RAA believes that the economic effect of the
proposed rule should reflect the cost burden of other re-
cent rulemakings. NACA stated that the proposal would
cost one of its members an estimated $372,000 annually
for additional staffing and $50,000 annually to meet rec-
ordkeeping requirements.
The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions stated that
the median flight attendant salary, based on the average
salary for supplemental air carrier fiight attendants rep-
resented by the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA),
is $18,461. According to the Coalition, if 6,000 flight
attendants are hired by supplemental operators, the cost
in salaries will be $1,107,660 [sic]. The Coalition noted
that this is one tenth the cost of random drug testing.
Delta Airlines, a scheduled part 121 operator, indi-
cated that the initial cost to comply with the proposed
rule would be $2,863,416. This cost includes the cost of
hiring 36 additional flight attendants, estimated at
$1,348,000; paying flight attendants during deplaning, es-
timated at $749,000; providing additional meals, esti-
mated at $400,000; and modifying computer software, es-
timated to be a one-time cost of $367,000. Delta esti-
mates that the annual cost to comply with the proposed
rule would be $2.5 million.
Sun Country Airlines, an unscheduled part 121 opera-
tor, stated that it would be required to augment cabin
crews on domestic flights more often than it now does.
Sun Country Airlines also stated that, if the NPRM had
been effective in 1992, the carrier would have hired an
additional 34 flight attendants and the cost of domestic
operations would have been $2.6 million in salaries, ben-
efits, training, hotels, meals, deadhead travel, and admin-
istrative burden. Sun Country Airlines pointed out that
the NPRM estimated that supplemental operators would
absorb 60 percent of the proposal’s cost while supple-
54a
mental operators employ only 1 percent of all flight at-
tendants.
Great American Airways, an unscheduled part 121 op-
erator, stated that the proposed rule would impose sub-
stantially greater costs on supplemental air carriers. Posi-
tioning flight attendants would become a major expense
for supplemental operators. Unanticipated schedule and
routing changes could severely curtail current flexibility.
However, Great American Airways stated that the dis-
ruptions mentioned above would be minimized if supple-
mental air carriers had the option to apply the same
work rules to both flight attendants and pilots. Great
American Airways estimates that the total cost savings
that would be derived from implementing a single set of
duty limitations for its cabin and flight crewmembers, as
opposed to adopting the requirements proposed in the
NPRM, would be more than $100,000 annually.
FAA Response
The comments that address the costs associated with
this final rule are addressed in the Regulatory Evaluation
Summary.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection requirements for parts 121, 125,
and 135 have been previously approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
511) and have been assigned OMB Control Numbers as
follows: For part 121, OMB Control Number 2120-0008;
for part 125, OMB Control Number 2120-0085; and for
part 135, OMB Control Number 2120-0039. The FAA
has prepared changes to these control numbers to reflect
the additional paperwork requirements of this final rule
and has submitted these changes to OMB.
In completing this rulemaking, the FAA has been
mindful that it is the policy of the agency and the Admin-
55a
istration to avoid imposing unnecessary paperwork bur-
dens on industry. To that end, the FAA has carefully
considered all comments on recordkeeping and has made
every attempt to minimize the paperwork burden for car-
riers. For example, allowing carriers to employ a single
scheduling system for entire crews—pilots and flight at-
tendants—will enable them to avoid maintaining two sep-
arate duty schedules. Indeed, for many carriers, the FAA
believes the final rule will create little or no net additional
paperwork.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
The FAA has determined that this rule: (1) Is a sig-
nificant regulatory action as defined in the Executive Or-
der; (2) is significant as defined in Department of Trans-
portation’s Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (3) would
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities; and (4) would not constitute a barrier to
international trade. These analyses, summarized below,
are available in the docket.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Benefits
The FAA expects the final rule to help ensure that
flight attendants are rested and alert when performing
emergency and routine safety related duties and thereby
reduce injuries and fatalities in air carrier accidents. How-
ever, as in the NPRM, the FAA has not quantified the
benefits associated with this rulemaking because there is
a lack of accident/incident data that can be used to
directly correlate flight attendant fatigue with passenger
fatalities and injuries. Instead, the FAA has examined
the potential benefits of this rulemaking from a qualitative
perspective.
56a
Increased Safety \
The FAA received comments both supporting and op-
posing the correlation between flight attendant duty period
limitations and rest requirements and passenger safety.
One commenter stated that fatigue increases during the
work period, and duty times that exceed 12 hours for
domestic flights and 14 hours for international flights
can be expected to potentially derogate safety perform-
ance. Another commenter stated that the FAA has pro-
vided no sufficient foundation for concluding that the
absence of the proposed regulations constitutes a deroga-
tion of aviation safety, and that the absence of any ex-
perience in which a flight safety problem was attributable
to undue flight attendant fatigue is a strong argument
that no such problem exists.
FAA Response
The FAA agrees with commenters who stated that
inadequate rest or excessive duty periods could derogate
safety. However, the commenters did not define accept-
able or unacceptable levels of risk, and did not provide
any justification for the distinction. Because quantifiable
data was not available, the FAA was unable to calculate
the quantitative benefits of the rule.
The FAA recognizes that inadequate rest periods for
flight attendants could create a potential safety problem.
Therefore the FAA expects that this final rule will ensure
that flight attendants receive the opportunity to be rested
and alert when performing emergency and routine safety-
related duties, thereby reducing passenger and crew in-
juries and fatalities.
Increased Worker Productivity
The Coalition stated that, in addition to improving the
safety of air travel, the regulatory evaluation should take
into account the cost savings from improved worker pro-
57a
ductivity. That commenter also stated that a careful
review of various studies would likely reveal that the bene-
fits of more reasonable duty hours and adequate rest in-
clude decreased absenteeism and health problems related
to fatigue. The Allied Pilot Association stated that “the
welfare of regulated employees ought to be one of the
concerns of rulemakers.”
FAA Response
The FAA has examined the impact of improved worker
productivity as it relates to safety and has determined
that reduced rest for flight attendants could impede flight
attendant performance during emergency evacuations or
during routine safety duties requiring a high degree of
alertness. Cost savings could result from improved worker
productivity; however, no information is available to quan-
tify this benefit.
The change in duty hours coupled with adequate rest
could decrease absenteeism and improve health. However,
the information needed to quantify this, is not currently
available.
In addition, the FAA is concerned with passenger and
crewmember safety, and is sensitive to crewmember health
and welfare. The FAA recognizes that employee health
could improve if employees get more rest.
Costs
Cost estimates contained in this summary are based
on 1993 dollars and are discounted at an annual effective
rate of 7 percent. The FAA estimates that the cost to
the air carrier industry of establishing flight attendant
duty period limitations and rest requirements will be
$42.7 million over a 15-year period. The FAA expects
that operators would incur costs in the areas of record-
keeping and additional staffing.
58a
Cost estimates for supplemental air carriers and sched-
uled major, national, and regional/commuter operators
are separated. The FAA estimates that the nondiscounted
cost for all supplemental air carriers for the first year
will be approximately $2.5 million, and the annual non-
discounted cost for all supplemental carriers would be
approximately $2.23 million. The FAA estimates that the
total discounted costs for supplemental air carriers over
15 years will be approximately $20.8 million. The FAA
estimates that the first-year nondiscounted cost for sched-
uled major, national, and regional/commuter operators
will be approximately $2.9 million, and the annual non-
discounted cost for these operators would be approx-
imately $1.2 million. The FAA estimates that the total
discounted costs for scheduled major national and re-
gional/commuter over 15 years will be approximately
$21.9 million. Therefore, over 15 years, the discounted
cost for the air carrier industry will be $42.7 million.
The above cost estimate is based on the assumption
that air carriers must augment their flight attendant crews.
In some situations, augmentation under the flight attend-
ant rule requirements may be avoided if an air carrier
adopts and applies to flight attendants, by option, the
international supplemental carrier pilot rules covering
flight and duty period.
Twenty-Four Consecutive-Hour Rest Period During
any Seven Consecutive Days
Southwest Airlines stated that the requirement for 24
consecutive hours of rest during any 7 consecutive days
would make it necessary for the air carrier with which
the commenter is affiliated to hire about 100 additional
flight attendants at a first-year cost of $710,000 and a
subsequent annual cost of $600,000. A commenter rep-
resenting Transport Workers Union of America on behalf
of Southwest Airlines flight attendants indicated that the
proposed rule, if adopted, would create a financial burden
59a
for flight attendants and their employers and would result
in an average annual loss of $11,063 in extra income for
each flight attendant. This loss, projected for 2,200 flight
attendants for 1 year, would total $24 million in lost
income.
FAA Response
The requirement for 24 consecutive hours of rest in
any 7 consecutive days is designed to supplement daily
rest requirements and to ensure that flight attendants
receive the opportunity for adequate rest. The FAA did
not verify lost flight attendant income, because the annual
loss of extra income to some flight attendants represents
a gain to flight attendants who would be hired. This
income transfer is not considered a cost of this rulemaking.
Single Set of Duty Time Rules for Cabin and
Flight Crew Members
Great American Airways stated that the total cost sav-
ings derived from implementing a single set of duty time
rules for its cabin and flight crewmembers, as opposed to
adopting the rules proposed in the NPRM, would exceed
$100,000 per year.
FAA Response
The FAA recognizes that giving operators the option
to apply flight crewmember flights, duty, and rest require-
ments to flight attendants may provide a cost savings
to certain operators, particularly supplemental operators.
The FAA expects that the operators that choose the
option will incur costs that are lower than those esti-
mated in the final regulatory evaluation.
However, the FAA recognizes that operators who
choose to apply the flight crewmember regulations for
duty limitations and rest requirements must submit an
application to the appropriate Flight Standards District
60a
Office for approval. This is a minor, one-time cost, and
the FAA assumes that operators who choose to incur this
cost would do so because it would obviate those oper-
ators from designing and establishing a tracking system
for flight attendants. Instead, this option would allow
them to use whatever system is in place for flight crew-
members. The application process chosen was selected
deliberately out of concern that recordkeeping costs be
kept to a minimum. That is, the FAA chose an applica-
tion process that is very familiar to carriers, the commonly-
used procedure for changes to operations specifications.
Limiting Scheduled Duty Period to
Fourteen Hours
Great American Airways stated that limiting scheduled
flight attendant duty periods to 14 hours would force the
air carrier and other supplemental air carriers to add
flight attendants at intermediate stops. The commenter
stated that, because company-required deadhead trans-
portation would be considered part of a duty period
under the FAA’s proposal, it would be necessary to sched-
ule flight attendants for required rest after they completed
a deadhead flight segment and before they began the next
duty period.
This commenter also stated that the proposed rules
would impose substantially greater costs on supplemental
air carriers than other air carriers because supplemental
air carriers rarely have travel privileges with scheduled
carriers, and, when they do, they are often very restrictive.
Finally, this commenter stated that unanticipated schedule
and routing changes occur more frequently among charter
operators than scheduled carriers and could Severely cur-
tail the flexibility of supplemental air carriers.
FAA Response
The FAA agrees that the greatest costs will be incurred
by air carriers that schedule flight attendants for the
6la
longest duty periods. However, the commenter does not
appear to provide any information on the air carrier's
ability to augment existing crews. The FAA points out
that costs could be minimized by using crew argumenta-
tion as a means of compliance. In addition, time spent
in deadhead transportation is not considered part of a
duty period; therefore, an operator is not required to
provide a rest period for flight attendants following time
spent in deadhead transportation.
Overall Costs
ATA stated that the FAA has understated costs con-
siderably. This commenter stated that the annual cost
of complying with the proposed regulation would be at
least $8.0 million. This cost would include programming
expenses, additional personnel costs, costs associated with
extended layovers, and costs associated with reserve sched-
uling (assuming that carrier reserve scheduling practices
are not modified). Assuming a discount rate of 7.0
percent and an inflation rate of 3.0 percent, the 15-year
present value cost for the association’s members would
be approximately $88.9 million.
FAA Response
The survey of ATA members indicates that the annual
cost would be at least $8.0 million. ATA stated that
added annual personnel costs for air carrier operators
would be $4.0 million, additional meal/hotel expenses
would be $1.5 million, and additional reserve staffing
would be $2.5 million. Finally, ATA stated that carriers
can expect to incur a one-time expense of between $2.0
million and $3.0 million for computer system program
modifications. After contracting ATA twice after the
comment period closed to obtain clarifying information,
the FAA concluded that their estimate could not be used
in its entirety because information such as the number of
62a
affected carriers, wage rates, additional employees needed,
or hours worked was not provided.
In addition, ATA did not provide information on the
cost of augmenting the existing crew. The FAA permits
longer duty periods with the use of augmented crews.
FAA data indicates that many flights are staffed with
more than the minimum flight attendant crew comple-
ment; therefore, little or no additional cost would be
incurred to meet the crew augmentation requirements.
ATA also stated that the 15-year present value cost for
its members would be $88.9 million. This estimate as-
sumed a discount rate of 7.0 percent and an inflation
rate of 3.0 percent. The basis for the commenter’s esti-
mate of the annual cost ($8.0 million) was not detailed
enough for the FAA to use it or the 15-year estimate
derived from it.
The FAA has nevertheless attempted to develop an
industry cost estimate by recalculating the ATA estimate
to exclude the ATA inflation factor and by accounting
for the fact that ATA members only represent a portion
of the industry that would be affected. As shown in the
Regulatory Evaluation, that figure would be $78.8 mil-
lion. However, the original information provided could
not be fully substantiated, which suggests that the ATA
estimate may not be representative of the total industry.
Supplemental Carriers
The Coalition stated that the median flight attendant
salary at supplemental air carriers is $18,461. The com-
menter indicated that this estimate may be high because
it represents the average salary at supplemental carriers
that have a collective bargaining agreement with their
flight attendant workforce. The commenter also stated
that the FAA assumed that the rule would lead to the
hiring of 6,000 flight attendants at supplemental carriers,
and that the additional cost for these new hires would be
63a
$1,107,600. The FAA received revised salary informa-
tion from the commenter stating that the average salary
of a flight attendant working for a supplemental carrier
is $24,552, which includes $6,092 in benefits.
FAA Response
The final regulatory evaluation assumes that, in the
case of supplemental operators, each flight attendant
works 150 duty periods, and that a carrier’s cost per
duty period is $163.38. Therefore, the cost of 6,000
additional duty periods would be $982,100. To the ex-
tent practicable, this cost estimate for supplemental op-
erations was used in developing the final regulatory eval-
uation.
Irregular Operations
Delta Air Lines stated that the proposed rule would
cause the air carrier to incur costs associated with irregu-
lar operations. The air carrier estimated that it would
have to hire 36 flight attendants at an annual salary cost
of $1.3 million for irregular operations. Other costs asso-
ciated with hiring additional flight attendants to meet the
requirements of the proposed rule, if adopted, would total
$2.86 million in the initial year. The recurring annual
cost of the proposed rule, if adopted, would be nearly
$2.5 million.
This commenter stated that, based on operations in
June/July 1992 and January/February 1993, 62 flight
attendants working together did not meet the require-
ments of the NPRM and would require crew replacement.
The commenter typically schedules flight attendants for
3-day city pairings with an average flight attendant crew
of six. Because most of the replacements that were
needed were on domestic flights, the commenter used an
average of four flight attendants. These results showed
that 744 additional duty days would be required. The
commenter calculated that an additional 36 flight attend-
64a
ants would be needed because a reserve flight attendant
is available to fly an average of 20.5 days per month.
Given an average monthly salary of almost $2,500, plus
monthly hotel, meal, and transportation expenses of al-
most $650 for irregular operations, the cost for a flight
attendant would be about $3,100 per month, or $1.3
million annually.
The commenter also stated that they do not have a
deplaning period. That is, pay and expenses cease at the
block-in time of the last flight in the duty period for the
trip. This commenter calculates that the cost of a 15-
minute deplaning period would result in the hiring of 20
additional flight attendants. The cost would amount to
$749,000 annually.
Finally, the commenter provided information docu-
menting the carrier’s one-time cost of computer software
changes, including recordkeeping. The only additional
information is that the cost of programming and testing
per man-hour is $40.
FAA Response
The FAA received clarification from the commenter
stating that “An Ad Hoc Computer Program was de-
veloped to search through our crew tracking systems to
identify irregular operations that had occurred that would
have required crew replacement under the NPRM.” The
commenter also stated that the NPRM “Would require
crew replacement.” Finally, the commenter stated that
they used an average crew of four flight attendants in
their calculations, which implies that they were replacing
their existing crew. This leads the FAA to assume that
the commenter did not consider crew augmentation. How-
ever, the FAA did use some of the salary and cost data
provided by the commenter.
With regard to hiring additional flight attendants for
a 15-minute deplaning period, the FAA notes that there
65a
is no new requirement in this rule concerning deplaning;
deplaning of the aircraft is a current requirement.
Small Operators
Sun Country Airlines operates a fleet of 10 aircraft
with 520 employees, 170 of whom are flight attendants.
Based on 1992 operations, the proposed rule would have
required the commenters to hire 34 additional flight at-
tendants, which would have increased operating costs
(i.e., salaries, benefits, costs of training, hotels, meals,
deadhead travel, and general administrative overhead) by
$2.6 million in 1992. However, this air carrier stated
that, by applying crewmember flight, duty, and rest re-
quirements to flight attendants, the air carrier would need |
to employ 20 additional flight attendants rather than 34
additional flight attendants, with increased operating costs
of $1.75 million rather than $2.6 million. However,
these lower costs still exceeded the entire 1992 new profit
for this carrier.
The Regional Airline Association stated that the pro-
posed rule would either require an additional jump seat
in the cabin for which there is insufficient space or it
would require that a passenger seat be set aside for the
additional flight attendant. This commenter stated that
daily or routine loss of a revenue seat on a fleet of re-
gional aircraft with 20 to 50 seats would be enormous.
It also pointed out the added costs associated of layover
lodging, meals, and per diem, and the significant incre-
mental weight of an added crewmember.
The National Air Carrier Association stated that the
proposed rule would impose costs of approximately
$372,000 in additional flight attendant staffing, and ap-
proximately $50,000 in recordkeeping.
FAA Response
The FAA received additional clarification from Sun
Country indicating that the proposed rule would cost $2.6
66a
million. The annual cost to deadhead flight attendants
to their domicile would be $832,000. In addition, hotel
accommodations would be $842,000, added per diem cost
would be $308,000, initial and recurrent training would
be $10,200, and administrative costs would be $58,000.
Because this commenter does not have any interline agree-
ments, it would have to pay the added costs for deadhead
tickets. This commenter estimated that these costs would
be $579,000.
Based upon this cost estimate, the cost per added flight
attendant would be about $76,500 per flight attendant
($2.6 million divided by 34 additional flight attendants).
If this commenter did not have to incur the costs for
deadhead tickets, then the added costs would be $60,300
per flight attendant.
The commenter also provided information stating that
the annual cost of applying the part 121 supplemental
carrier pilot flight, duty, and rest requirements to flight
attendants would be $1.75 million. The added cost of
20 flight attendants would be $489,000. Hotel expenses
would be $673,000; per diem costs would be $244,000:
training would cost $6,000; and administrative costs
would be $34,000. Finally, the annual cost of deadhead-
ing flight attendants back to their place of domicile would
be $289,000.
Based upon their total cost estimate, the cost per added
flight attendant would be $1.75 million divided by 20
additional flight attendants, or about $87,000 per flight
attendant. If this commenter did not have to incur the
costs for deadhead tickets, then the added cost would be
$72,600 per flight attendant.
The FAA contends that these cost estimates represent
the costs associated with replacing the existing crew. The
cost estimates do not appear to represent the costs asso-
ciated with augmenting the existing crew with additional
flight attendants. An air carrier whose goal is profit maxi-
mization and cost minimization would choose the least
67a
costly means of achieving compliance with the proposed
rule, and, in most cases, that appears to be the crew
augmentation option.
RAA asserted that the final rule would impose costs
based on the fact that some aircraft would fly longer than
14 hours and full. The FAA contacted this commenter
and asked a clarifying question on the number of times
that an aircraft would fly more than 14 hours full. The
commenter was unable to provide information to sub-
stantiate this assertion, and therefore, while a problem
may exist, the FAA is unabie to determine the magnitude
of it.
The FAA received additional information from a
NACA member (American Trans Air) stating that, to
calculate annual costs, they multiplied the average num-
ber of block hours in the fleet by the percentage of flight
hours the NPRM is expected to affect. The product is
the total number of affected block hours.
The number of affected block hours was then divided
by the expected number of flight attendant utilization
hours, which varies by aircraft type, and multiplied by
the number of flight attendants to compute crew require-
ments. Based on this calculation, 20 additional flight
attendants would be needed to meet the requirements of
the proposed rule. This commenter then multiplied the
number of additional flight attendants by their annual
salary, including fringe benefits and training, to arrive at
a cost estimate of $372,000. Administrative costs of
$80,000 were added.
The FAA received additional clarification that the per-
centage of flight hours was based upon the commenter’s
examination of all flights that exceeded 14 hours. The
commenter did not look at flights of 14 to 16 hours, 16
to 18 hours, or 18 to 20 hours.
The commenter divided the number of affected block
hours by the expected flight attendant utilization hours
68a
(Boeing 727, 60 hours; Boeing 757 and Lockheed L-
1011, 56 hours). The commenter did not know how
many duty periods this represented. After multiplying
this number by the number of flight attendants needed to
complete crew requirements, the commenter concluded
that 20 additional flight attendants would be needed to
augment its flights.
The $13,000 annual salary represents a flight attend-
ant’s first-year salary without overtime. The 20 percent
benefits estimate represents the company’s portion of em-
ployee benefits.
To the extent practicable, the cost information pro-
vided by commenters was used to revise the cost estimates
in the final regulatory evaluation.
Recordkeeping Costs
Several commenters provided the FAA with informa-
tion on recordkeeping. The Air Transport Association
estimated that air carriers would incur a one-time ex-
pense for computer system program modifications of $2.0
million to $3.0 million. Delta Air Lines stated that the
one-time cost of software computer changes, including
recordkeeping, would be $367,200. American Trans Air,
a member of the National Air Carrier Association, stated
that administrative costs would be $80,000, approxi-
mately $54,000 of which would be the cost to program
and upgrade software, and $26,000 of which would be
the cost of data entry and associated labor.
FAA Response
Because of limited supporting documentation, a wide
variation between commenters’ estimates, and the diffi-
culty of ascertaining what portion of the recordkeeping
costs could be attributed to the implementation of this
final rule versus the cost to upgrade current systems, the
FAA stands by its original recordkeeping cost estimate.
69a
Summary of Benefits and Costs
The FAA estimates that the cost of compliance with
the requirements of the final rule will be $42.7 million,
discounted.
Although benefits cannot be quantified, the FAA con-
cludes that the establishment of flight attendant duty pe-
riod limitations and rest requirements are warranted, be-
cause they will contribute to an overall enhancement of
transport category airplane safety and utility that will
both promote and enhance the U.S. air transportation
system.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA was
enacted by Congress to ensure that small entities are not
unnecessarily and disproportionately burdened by Federal
regulations. The RFA requires a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis if a proposed rule would have “a significant eco-
nomic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”
FAA Order 2100.14A outlines FAA’s procedures and
criteria for implementing the RFA.
The fleet size for an operator of aircraft for hire to be
considered a small entity is nine or fewer aircraft. The
threshold annualized cost levels for operators of aircraft
for hire in 1993 dollars are $117,800 for scheduled op-
erators whose fleets have aircraft with seating capacities
of more than 60, $67,000 for scheduled operators whose
fleets have aicraft with seating capacities of 60 or less
(other scheduled operators), and $4,570 for unscheduled
operators. The proposals in the NPRM would affect air
carriers that provide passenger-carrying operations in air-
craft for which flight attendants are required. Other types
of aviation companies would not be affected. A “sub-
stantial number” of small entities is a number that is not
less than 11 and that is more than one-third of the small
entities subject to this rule.
70a
According to FAA recofds of small entity air carriers
that provide passenger-carrying operations in aircraft that
require flight attendants, there are 23 part 125 and 135
operators that could be affected by the final rule. Of
these 23 operators, 7 are part 121/135 operators, 12 are
part 125 operators, and 4 are part 135 operators. The
affected operators are those with nine or fewer aircraft.
At least one of the aicraft that they own have a seating
configuration of more than 19 as described in either
§ 125.269 or § 135.107 and therefore would have at least
one flight attendant on board. There are also 8 part 121
operators that would be affected by the final rule. In
July 1993, there were a total of 25 part 121/135 opera-
tors, 39 part 125 operators, and 3,040 part 135 operators.
There are also more than 100 part 121 operators. The
number of carriers that could be affected by the rule does
not exceed one-third of the total number of carriers in
any of the four categories of operators ( parts 121, 121/
125, 125 and 135). The FAA has therefore determined
that a regulatory flexibility analysis is not necessary.
International Trade Impact Statement
This final rule would not constitute a barrier to inter-
national trade, including the export of American goods
and services to foreign countries and the import of for-
eign goods and services into the United States.
The FAA has determined that the amendments to parts
121 and 135 will not have a significant impact on inter-
national trade. The final rule is not expected to have an
impact on trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing busi-
ness overseas or foreign firms doing business in the United
States. This finding is based in large part upon the re-
view of foreign civil aviation regulations governing flight
attendant flight and duty time practices and minimum
rest requirements found in the Industry Study as well as
information supplied by commenters to the public docket.
Tila
The Industry Study review shows that 23 countries, in-
cluding Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, the Nether-
lands, France, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland,
and West Germany, have government regulations on flight
attendant flight and duty times and rest periods.
The comment provided by the Flight Attendants states
that the European Community, through its Joint Aviation
Authority (JAA) “is poised to issue flight attendant duty
time and rest provisions which would be based on state of
the art research concerning work schedules and fatigue.”
They state that the JAA rules would base duty time and
rest limits on the time or departure and the number of
segments flown.
On the other hand, the Industry Study noted that 24
countries, including Australia, Canada, Greece, Ireland,
Italy, Japan, and Mexico, do not regulate flight attendant
work time.
The FAA concludes that there are many countries with
flight attendant flight and duty times and rest periods and
many countries without these regulations. Second, many
firms in the United States appear to be already in compli-
ance or near compliance with the final regulation. There-
fore, the FAA has determined that the amendments to
parts 121, 125, and 135, will not have a significant im-
pact on international trade.
Federalism Implications
The regulation herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the na-
tional government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 12612, it is determined that this regulation will
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
72a
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the FAA
has determined that this regulation is a significant regu-
latory action under Executive Order 12866. In addition,
the rule is considered significant under DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures. However, the FAA has deter-
mined that this regulation will not have a significant eco-
nomic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial num-
ber of small entities or on international trade. A final
regulatory evaluation of the regulation, including a final
Regulatory Flexibility Determination and International
Trade Impact Analysis, has been) placed in the docket.
A copy may be obtained by contacting the person identi-
fied under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT.
Paperwork Reduction Act Approval
Sections 121.683(a)(1), 135.63(a)(3), 135.63(a)
(4)(x), 135.63(a)(5), and 135.63(b) are not effective
until the OMB has approved the Paperwork Reduction
Requirements. The FAA will publish a document in the
Federal Register following OMB approval of the Paper-
work Reduction Requirements.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aircraft pilots, Airmen, Air-
planes, Aviation safety, Hours of work, Pilots, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Safety.
14 CFR Part 125
Aircraft, Airmen, Airplanes, Aviation safety, Hours of
work, Pilots.
73a
14 CFA Part 135
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Airplanes, Aviation
safety, Hours of work, Pilots, Reporting and recordkeep-
ing requirements, Safety.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends parts 121, 125, and 135 of the
Federal Aviation Administration (14 CFR parts 121,
125, and 135) as follows:
PART 121—CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS:
DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL AIR
CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF
LARGE AIRCRAFT
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. app. 1354(a), 1355, 1356,
1357, 1401, 1421-1430, 1472, 1485, and 1502; 49 U.S.C.
106(g).
2. The heading for subpart P is revised to read as
follows:
Subpart P—Aircraft Dispatcher Qualifications and Duty
Time Limitations: Domestic and Flag Air Carriers;
Flight Attendant Duty Period Limitations and Rest Re-
quirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Air Car-
riers and Commercial Operators
3. Section 121.461 is revised to read as follows:
§ 121.461 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes—
(a) Qualifications and duty time limitations for air-
craft dispatchers for domestic and flag air carriers; and
74a
(b) Duty period limitations and rest requirements for
flight attendants used in air transportation by domestic,
flag, and supplemental air carriers, and in air commerce
by commercial operators.
4. Section 121.467 is added to subpart P to read as
follows:
§ 121.467 Flight attendant duty period limitations and
rest requirements: Domestic, flag, and supplemental air
carriers and commercial operators.
(a) For purposes of this section—
Calendar day means the period of elapsed time, using
Coordinated Universal Time or local time, that begins at
midnight and ends 24 hours later at the next midnight.
Duty period means the period of elapsed time between
reporting for an assignment involving flight time and re-
lease from that assignment by the domestic, flag, or sup-
plemental air carrier or commercial operator. The time
is calculated using either Coordinated Universal Time or
local time to reflect the total elapsed time.
Flight attendant means an individual, other than a
flight crewmember, who gs assigned by a domestic, flag,
or suppelmental air carrier or commercial operator, in
accordance with the required minimum crew complement
under the certificate holder’s operations specifications or
in addition to that minimum complement, to duty in an
aircraft during flight time and whose duties include but
are not necessarily limited to cabin-safety-related respon-
sibilities.
Rest period means the period free of all restraint or
duty for a domestic, flag, or supplemental air carrier or
commercial operator and free of all responsibility for
work or duty should the occasion arise.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this sec-
tion, a domestic, flag, or supplemental air carrier or com-
75a
mercial operator may assign a duty period to a flight
attendant only when the applicable duty period limitations
and rest requirements of this paragraph are met.
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(4), (b)
(5), and (b)(6) of this section, no domestic, flag, or
supplemental air carrier or commercial operator may
assign a flight attendant to a scheduled duty period of
more than 14 hours.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, a flight attendant scheduled to a duty period of
14 hours or less as provided under paragraph (b)(1) of
this section must be given a scheduled rest period of at
least 9 consecutive hours. This rest period must occur
between the completion of the scheduled duty period and
the commencement of the subsequent duty period.
(3) The rest period required under paragraph (b) (2)
of this section may be scheduled or reduced to 8 consecu-
tive hours if the flight attendant is provided a subsequent
rest period of at least 10 consecutive hours; this subse-
quent rest period must be scheduled to begin no later than
24 hours after the beginning of the reduced rest period
and must occur between the completion of the scheduled
duty period and the commencement of the subsequent
duty period.
(4) A domestic, flag, or supplemental air carrier or
commercial operator may assign a flight attendant to a
scheduled duty period of more than 14 hours, but no
more than 16 hours, if the air carrier or commercial oper-
ator has assigned to the flight or flights in that duty period
at least one flight attendant in addition to the minimum
flight attendant complement required for the flight or
flights in that duty period under the air carrier’s or the
commercial operator’s operations specifications.
(5) A domestic, flag, or supplemental air carrier or
commercial operator may assign a flight attendant to a
scheduled duty period of more than 16 hours, but no
76a
more than 18 hours, if the air carrier or commercial oper-
ator has assigned to the flight or flights in that duty period
at least two flight attendants in addition to the minimum
flight attendant complement required for the flight or
flights in that duty period under the air carrier’s or the
commercial operator’s operations specifications.
(6) A domestic, flag, or supplemental air carrier or
commercial Operator may assign a flight attendant to a
scheduled duty period of more than 18 hours, but no
more than 20 hours, if the scheduled duty period includes
one or more flights that land or take off outside the 48
contiguous states and the District of Columbia, and if the
air carrier or commercial operator has assigned to the
flight or flights in that duty period at least three flight
attendants in addition to the minimum flight attendant
complement required for the flight or flights in that duty
period under the domestic aid carrier’s or the commercial
operator’s operations specifications.
(7) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(8) of this
section, a flight attendant scheduled to a duty period
of more than 14 hours but no more than 20 hours, as
provided in paragraph (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(6) of
this section, must be given a scheduled rest period of
at least 12 consecutive hours. This rest period must occur
between the completion of the scheduled duty period and
the commencement of the subsequent duty period.
(8) The rest period required under paragraph (b)(7)
of this section may be scheduled or reduced to 10 con-
secutive hours if the flight attendant is provided a subse-
quent rest period of at least 14 consecuitve—hours: this
subsequent rest period must be scheduled to begin no
later than 24 hours after the beginning of the reduced
rest period and must occur between the completion of the
scheduled duty period and the commencement of the sub-
sequent duty period.
(9) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and
(b)(6) of this section, if a domestic, flag, or supple-
eee ae,
T7a
mental air carrier or commercial operator elects to reduce
the rest period to 10 hours as authorized by paragraph
(b) (8) of this section, the air carrier or commercial oper-
ator may not schedule a flight attendant for a duty period
of more than 14 hours during the 24-hour period com-
mencing after the beginning of the reduced rest period.
(10) No domestic, flag, or supplemental air carrier or
commercial operator may assign a flight attendant any
duty period with the air carrier or commercial operator
unless the flight attendant has had at least the minimum
rest required under this section.
(11) No domestic, flag, or supplemental air carrier
or commercial operator may assign a flight attendant to
perform any duty with the air carrier or operator during
any required rest period.
(12) Time spent in transportation, not local in char-
acter, that a domestic, flag, or supplemental air carrier or
commercial operator requires of a flight attendant and
provides to transport the flight attendant to an airport at
which that flight attendant is to serve on a flight as a
crewmember, or from an airport at which the flight attend-
ant was relieved from duty to return to the flight attend-
ant’s home station, is not considered part of a rest period.
(13) Each domestic, flag, or supplemental air carrier
must relieve each flight attendant engaged in air trans-
portation and each commercial operator must relieve each
flight attendant engaged in air commerce from all further
duty for at least 24 consecutive hours during any 7 con-
secutive calendar days.
(14) A flight attendant is not considered to be sched-
uled for duty in excess of duty period limitations if the
flights to which the flight attendant is assigned are sched-
uled and normally terminate within the limitations but
due to circumstances beyond the control of the domestic,
flag, or supplemental air carrier or commercial operator
(such as adverse weather conditions) are not at the time
78a
of departure expected to reach their destination within the
scheduled time.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this section, a
domestic, flag, or supplemental air carrier or commercial
operator may apply the flight crewmember flight time and
duty limitations and rest requirements of this part to
flight attendants for all operations conducted under this
part provided that—
(1) The certificate holder establishes written proce-
dures that—
(i) Apply to all flight attendants used in the certificate
holder’s operation:
(ii) Include the flight crewmember requirements con-
tained in subparts Q, R, or S of this part, as appropriate
to the operation being conducted, except that rest facili-
ties on board the aircraft are not required;
(iii) Include provisions to add one flight attendant to
the minimum flight attendant complement for each flight
crewmember who is in excess of the minimum number
required in the aircraft ‘ype certificate data sheet and
who is assigned to the aiicraft under the provisions of
subparts Q, R, and S, as applicable, of this part;
(iv) Are approved by the Administrator and are de-
scribed or referenced in the certificate holder’s operations
specifications; and
(2) Whenever the Administrator finds that revisions
are necessary for the continued adequacy of the written
procedures that are required by paragraph (c)(1) of
this section and that had been granted final approval, the
certificate holder must, after notification by the Adminis-
trator, make any changes in the procedures that are found
necessary by the Administrator. Within 30 days after the
certificate holder receives such notice, it may file a peti-
tion to reconsider the notice with the FAA Flight Stand-
ards District Office that is charged with the overall inspec-
79a
tion of the certificate holder’s operations. The filing of a
petition to reconsider stays the notice, pending decision
by the Administrator. However, if the Administrator finds
that an emergency requires immediate action in the inter-
est of safety, the Administrator may, upon a statement
of the reason, require a change effective without stay.
5. Section 121.683 is amended by revising paragraph
(a) (1) to read as follows:
§ 121.683 Crewmember and dispatcher record.
( a) * k .
(1) Maintain current records of each crewmember and
each aircraft dispatcher (domestic and flag air carriers
only) that show whether the crewmember or aircraft dis-
patcher complies with the applicable sections of this chap-
ter, including, but not limited to, proficiency and route
checks, airplane and route qualifications, training, any
required physical examinations, flight, duty, and rest time
records; and
* * * *
PART 125—CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS:
AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING CAPACITY OF
20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAY-
LOAD CAPACITY OF 6,000 POUNDS OR MORE
6. The authority citation for part 125 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1354, 1421 through
1430, and 1502.
7. Section 125.37 is amended by revising the heading
and paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 125.37 Duty period limitations.
(a) Each flight crewmember and flight attendant must
be relieved from all duty for at least 8 consecutive hours
during any 24-hour period.
* * * *
meee ray > nite
80a
PART 135—AIR TAXI OPERATORS AND COM-
MERCIAL OPERATORS
8. The authority citation for part 135 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. app. 1354(a), 1355(a), 1421
through 1431, and 1502; 49 U.S.C. 106(g) (revised
Pub. L. 97-499, January 12, 1983).
9. Section 135.63 is amended by revising paragraphs
(a)(3) and (a)(4)(x), adding new paragraph (a)(5),
and revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 135.63 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) * * *
(3) A current list of the aircraft used or available
for use in operations under this part and the operations
for which each is equipped;
(4) * *
(x) The date of the completion of the initial phase
and each recurrent phase of the training required by this
part; and
(5) An individual record for each flight attendant who
is required under this part, maintained in sufficient detail
to determine compliance with the applicable portions of
§ 135.273 of this part.
(b) Each certificate holder must keep each record re-
quired by paragraph (a)(3) of this section for at least
6 months, and must keep each record required by para-
graphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of this section for at least 12
months.
* * * *
10. Subpart F is amended by revising the heading to
read as follows:
8la
Subpart F—Crewmember Flight Time and Duty Period
Limitations and Rest Requirements
11. Section 135.261 is amended by revising the in-
troductory text of the section and by adding a new para-
graph (e) to read as follows:
§ 135.261 Applicability.
Sections 135.263 through 135.273 of this part pre-
scribe flight time limitations, duty period limitations, and
rest requirements for operations conducted under this
part as follows:
* % * *
(e) Section 135.273 prescribes duty period limitations
and rest requirements for flight attendants in all opera-
tions conducted under this part.
12. Section 135.273 is added to Subpart F to read as
follows:
§ 135.273 Duty period limitations and rest time require-
ments.
(a) For purposes of this section—
Calendar day means the period of elapsed time, using
Coordinated Universal Time or local time, that begins at
midnight and ends 24 hours later at the next midnight.
Duty period means the period of elapsed time between
reporting for an assignment involving flight time and re-
lease from that assignment by the certificate holder. The
time is calculated using either Coordinated Universal
Time or local time to reflect the total elapsed time.
Flight attendant means an individual, other than a
flight crewmember, who is assigned by the certificate
holder, in accordance with the required minimum crew
complement under the certificate holder’s operations spec-
ifications or in addition to that minimum complement,
to duty in an aircraft during flight time and whose duties
include but are not necessarily limited to cabin-safety-
related responsibilities.
82a
Rest period means the period free of all responsibility
for work or duty should the occasion arise.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this sec-
tion, a certificate holder may assign a duty period to a
flight attendant only when the applicable duty period
limitations and rest requirements of this paragraph are
met.
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5),
and (b)(6) of this section, no certificate holder may
assign a flight attendant to a scheduled duty period of
more than 14 hours.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, a flight attendant scheduled to a duty period of 14
hours or less as provided under paragraph (b)(1) of
this section must be given a scheduled rest period of at
least 9 consecutive hours. This rest period must occur
between the completion of the scheduled duty period and
the commencement of the subsequent duty period.
(3) The rest period required under paragraph (b) (2)
of this section may be scheduled or reduced to 8 consecu-
tive hours if the flight attendant is. provided a subsequent
rest period of at least 10 consecutive hours; this subse-
quent rest period must be scheduled to begin no later
than 24 hours after the beginning of the reduced rest pe-
riod and must occur between the completion of the sched-
uled duty period and the commencement of the subse-
quent duty period.
(4) A certificate holder may assign a flight attendant
to a scheduled duty period of more than 14 hours, but
no more than 16 hours, if the certificate holder has
assigned to the flight or flights in that duty period at
least one flight attendant in addition to the minimum
flight attendant complement required for the flight or
flights in that duty period under the certificate holder’s
operations specifications.
(5) A certificate holder may asign a flight attendant
to a scheduled duty period of more than 16 hours, but
83a
no more than 18 hours, if the certificate holder has as-
signed to the flight or flights in that duty period at least
two flight attendants in addition to the minimum flight
attendant complement required for the flight or flights in
that duty period under the certificate holder’s operations
specifications.
(6) A certificate holder may assign a flight attendant
to a scheduled duty period of more than 18 hours, but no
more than 20 hours, if the scheduled duty period includes
one or more flights that land or take off outside the 48
contiguous states and the District of Columbia, and if the
certificate holder has assigned to the flight or flights in
that duty period at least three flight attendants in addi-
tion to the minimum flight attendant complement required
for the flight or flights in that duty period under the cer-
tificate holder’s operations specifications.
(7) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(8) of this
section, a flight attendant scheduled to a duty period of
more than 14 hours but no more than 20 hours, as pro-
vided in paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(6) of this
section, must be given a scheduled rest period of at least
12 consecutive hours. This rest period must occur be-
tween the completion of the scheduled duty period and
the commencement of the subsequent duty period.
(8) The rest period required under paragraph (b) (7)
of this section may be scheduled or reduced to 10 con-
secutive hours if the flight attendant is provided a subse-
quent rest period of at least 14 consecutive hours; this
subsequent rest period must be scheduled to begin no
later than 24 hours after the beginning of the reduced rest
period and must occur between the completion of the
scheduled duty period and the commencement of the sub-
sequent duty period.
(9) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and
(b)(6) of this section, if a certificate holder elects to
reduce the rest period to 10 hours as authorized by para-
graph (b)(8) of this section, the certificate holder may
not schedule a flight attendant for a duty period of more
84a
than 14 hours during the 24-hour period commencing af-
ter the beginning of the reduced rest period.
(10) No certificate holder may assign a flight attend-
ant any duty period with the certificate holder unless
the flight attendant has had at least the minimum rest
required under this section.
(11) No certificate holder may assign a flight attend-
ant to perform any duty with the certificate holder dur-
ing any required rest period.
(12) Time spent in transportation, not local in char-
acter, that a certificate holder requires of a flight attend-
ant and provides to transport the flight attendant to an
airport at which that flight attendant is to serve on a
flight as a crewmember, or from an airport at which the
flight attendant was relieved from duty to return to the
flight attendant’s home station, is not considered part of
a rest period.
(13) Each certificate holder must relieve each flight
attendant engaged in air transportation from all further
duty for at least 24 consecutive hours during any 7 con-
secutive calendar days.
(14) A flight attendant is not considered to be sched-
uled for duty in excess of duty period limitations if the
flights to which the flight attendant is assigned are sched-
uled and normally terminate within the limitations but
due to circumstances beyond the control of the certificate
holder (such as adverse weather conditions) are not at
the time of departure expected to reach their destination
within the scheduled time.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this section, a
certificate holder may apply the flight crewmember flight
time and duty limitations and rest requirements of this
part to flight attendants for all operations conducted un-
der this part provided that—
(1) The certificate holder establishes written proce-
dures that—
85a
(i) Apply to all flight attendants used in the certificate
holder’s operation;
(ii) Include the flight crewmember requirements con-
tained in subpart F of this part, as appropriate to the
operation being conducted, except that rest facilities on
board the aircraft are not required; and
(iii) Include provisions to add one flight attendant to
the minimum flight attendant complement for each flight
crewmember who is in excess of the minimum number
required in the aircraft type certificate data sheet and
who is assigned to the aircraft under the provisions of
subpart F of this part, as applicable.
(iv) Are approved by the Administrator and described
or referenced in the certificate holder’s operations speci-
fications; and
(2) Whenever the Administrator finds that revisions
are necessary for the continued adequacy of duty period
limitation and rest requirement procedures that are re-
quired by paragraph (c)(1) of this section and that had
been granted final approval, the certificate holder must,
after notification by the Administrator, make any changes
in the procedures that are found necessary by the Ad-
ministrator. Within 30 days after the certificate holder
receives such notice, it may file a petition to reconsider
the notice with the FAA Flight Standards District Office
that is charged with the overall inspection of the cer-
tificate holder’s operations. The filing of a petition to re-
consider stays the notice, pending decision by the Ad-
ministrator. However, if the Administrator finds that there
is an emergency that requires immediate action in the
interest of safety, the Administrator may, upon a state-
ment of the reasons, require a change effective without
stay.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on August 15, 1994.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
{FR Doc. 94-20372 Filed 8-16-94; 12.44 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-m
86a
APPENDIX C
[Filed Jul. 28, 1995]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 94-1611 September Term, 1994
SUN COUNTRY AIRLINES, INC.,
Petitioner,
Vv.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
BEFORE: Edwards, Chief Judge; Buckley and Tatel,
Circuit Judges |
ORDER
Upon consideration of petitioner’s petition for rehear-
ing filed July 14, 1995, it is
ORDERED, by the Court, that the petition is denied.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
By: Robert A. Bonner
ROBERT A. BONNER
Deputy Clerk
87a
APPENDIX D
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20591
Regulatory Docket No. 24397
In the matter of the petition of
THE ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS
AND
THE JoInT COUNCIL OF FLIGHT ATTENDANT UNIONS
to amend Parts 121 and 135 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations
DENIAL OF PETITION
By letter dated December 19, 1984, The Association
of Flight Attendants (AFA) 1625 Massachusetts Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 and by letter dated April
23, 1985, the Joint Council of Flight Attendant Unions
(JCFA), 611 Fillmore Street, Pasadena, California 91106,
petitioned for amendments to Parts 121 and 135 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The petitioners
asked for flight and duty time limitations and rest require-
ments for flight attendants engaged in passenger-carrying
operations. JCFA requested that the FAA handle the two
petitions separately because the petitions recommend sep-
arate approaches to establishing flight time limits for
flight attendants. However, the FAA determined that
since both petitions address the same issue, they should
be considered together. Therefore, the FAA included
both petitions in the same public docket and published
notices in the Federal Register asking for comments on
both petitions.
88a
Sections of the FAR affected:
The
Subparts Q, R and §S of Part 121 and Subpart F of
Part 135 prescribe flight time limitations and rest
requirements for flight crewmembers (pilot, flight en-
gineers and flight navigators) engaged in the conduct
of aircraft operations under Part 121 and 135, re-
spectively.
petitioners’ supportive informa
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.