
[Federal Register: November 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 224)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 61067-61068]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23no09-19]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 121 and 135

[Docket No. 28081]
RIN 2120-AI93 (Formerly 2120-AF63)

 
Flight Crewmember Duty Period Limitations, Flight Time 
Limitations and Rest Requirements; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing a previously published NPRM that 
proposed to establish one set of duty period limitations, flight time 
limitations, and rest requirements for flight crewmembers engaged in 
air transportation. The NPRM also proposed to establish consistent and 
clear duty period limitations, flight time limitations, and rest 
requirements for domestic, flag, supplemental, commuter and on-demand 
operations. We are withdrawing the NPRM because it is outdated and 
because of the many significant issues commenters raised. The FAA 
intends to issue a new NPRM to address flight, duty, and rest.

DATES: The proposed rule published on December 20, 1995 (60 FR 65951), 
is withdrawn as of November 23, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale E. Roberts, Air Transportation 
Division (AFS-200), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone (202) 267-5749; e-mail: dale.e.roberts@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    In June 1992 the FAA announced the tasking of the Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) Flight Crewmember Flight/Duty Rest 
Requirements working group.\1\ The tasking followed the FAA's receipt 
of hundreds of letters about the interpretation of existing rest 
requirements and several petitions to amend existing regulations. The 
working group was tasked to determine if regulations on air carrier 
flight, duty, and rest requirements were being consistently 
interpreted; to evaluate industry compliance and practice on scheduling 
of reserve duty and rest periods; and to evaluate reports of excessive 
pilot fatigue related to such scheduling. While the working group could 
not reach consensus, they submitted a final report in June 1994 with 
proposals from several working group members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 57 FR 26685; June 15, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following receipt of the ARAC's report, the FAA published the 1995 
NPRM.\2\ The proposed rule was based on proposals from the ARAC working 
group, the petitions for rulemaking from the industry and others, 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations, and 
existing knowledge of fatigue, including research by the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Subsequently, and in 
response to requests from the industry, the FAA extended the comment 
period closing date and answered clarifying questions to the NPRM in a 
1996 notice published in the Federal Register.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Flight Crewmember Duty Period Limitations, Flight Time 
Limitations and Rest Requirements notice of proposed rulemaking (60 
FR 65951; December 20, 1995).
    \3\ 61 FR 11492; March 20, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM included proposals for a 14-hour duty day for two-pilot 
operations; a 10-hour flight time limit; two options for reserve and 
standby duty; a 32-hour in 7 days limit on flight time; and a 10-hour 
rest period. It also included provisions for tail end ferry flights 
(conducted under part 91) under the proposed duty period and flight 
time limits.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA received over 2,000 comments to the NPRM. Although some 
commenters, including the NTSB, NASA, Air Line Pilots Association, and 
Allied Pilots Association, said the proposal would enhance safety, the 
same commenters had specific objections. For example, the pilot unions 
objected to the proposed increase in allowed flight time. These 
commenters also said the proposal should have included special duty and 
flight time limits for disruptions in circadian rhythm and for 
operations with multiple takeoffs and landings.
    Many industry associations opposed the NPRM, stating the FAA lacked 
safety data to justify the rulemaking, and industry compliance would 
impose significant costs. The reserve duty time provisions generated 
the most controversy. Overwhelmingly, air carrier associations and 
operators strongly criticized these provisions, asserting that they had 
no safety basis and were extremely costly.

Subsequent Fatigue Mitigation Efforts

    Given the significant issues the NPRM raised, particularly about 
reserve time, the FAA tasked \4\ ARAC in 1998 to make recommendations 
on reserve time for all types of air carrier operations. ARAC held a 
series of public meetings across the country to seek a broad cross-
section of views. While the exchange helped in identifying issues that 
needed to be resolved before issuing a final rule, in the end, ARAC was 
unable to reach consensus. The FAA had stated in the NPRM that if the 
proposal on reserve time was not adopted, the agency would undertake 
rigorous enforcement of existing flight, duty, and rest rules. 
Consequently, in a June 1999 notice of enforcement policy,\5\ the FAA 
informed the industry that the agency would conduct inspections to 
ensure compliance with current rules. Those inspections began in 
December 1999. After publication of this notice, the FAA received 
several requests for interpretation of various provisions of the rules. 
We responded to these requests in a second notice of

[[Page 61068]]

enforcement policy \6\ published in the Federal Register in May 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 63 FR 37167; July 9, 1998.
    \5\ Flight Crewmember Flight Time Limitations and Rest 
Requirements notice of enforcement policy (64 FR 32176; June 15, 
1999).
    \6\ 66 FR 27548; May 17, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 2001, the agency has undertaken other fatigue mitigation 
efforts. Among these efforts was the Part 125/135 Aviation Rulemaking 
Committee (ARC),\7\ which we convened in February 2003, to do a 
comprehensive regulatory review of 14 CFR parts 125 and 135. This 
review included rules on flight, duty, and rest. The ARC submitted its 
recommendations in September 2005. Also, in June 2008, we held an 
Aviation Fatigue Management Symposium \8\ that provided the industry 
with the latest information on fatigue science, mitigation, and 
management. Currently, the agency is developing an Advisory Circular on 
fatigue that incorporates information from the Symposium. Additionally, 
in June 2009, the FAA chartered the Flight and Duty Time Limitations 
and Rest Requirements ARC \9\ comprised of labor, industry, and FAA 
representatives to develop recommendations for an FAA rule based on 
current fatigue science and a thorough review of international 
approaches to the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 68 FR 5488; February 3, 2003 (See also 67 FR 42323; July 17, 
2003).
    \8\ See www.faa.gov/about/office%5Forg/headquarters%5Foffices/
avs/offices/afs/afs200/ for the Symposium proceedings.
    \9\ See http://www.faa.gov/about/office%5Forg/
headquarters%5Foffices/avs/offices/afs/afs200/ for the ARC Charter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reason for Withdrawal

    The FAA is withdrawing the 1995 Flight Crewmember Duty Period 
Limitations, Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements NPRM because 
it is outdated and because it raised many significant issues that the 
agency needed to consider before proceeding with a final rule. Instead 
of adopting the provisions of the 1995 NPRM, the FAA intends to develop 
a new NPRM later this year that considers the Flight and Duty Time 
Limitations and Rest Requirements ARC recommendations, scientific 
research, NTSB recommendations on fatigue and flight duty time, and the 
recommendations of the Part 125/135 ARC.

Conclusion

    The FAA is withdrawing the December 1995 NPRM for the reasons 
stated in this notice and will issue a new proposed rule to address 
flight, duty, and rest. We will provide the opportunity for comment on 
the new rulemaking through the NPRM process.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 17, 2009.
Chester D. Dalbey,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. E9-28054 Filed 11-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
