61684 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Notices 

In addition, one copy of any 

comments submitted to the FAA must 

be mailed or delivered to Mr. Mark 

VanLoh, Director of Aviation of the 

Kansas City Aviation Department at the 

following address: 601 Brasilia Avenue, 

Kansas City, Missouri 64153. 

Air carriers and foreign air carriers 

may submit copies of written comments 

previously provided to the Kansas City 

Aviation Department under § 158.23 of 

Part 158. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lorna K. Sandridge, PFC Program 

Manager, 901 Locust, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106, (816) 329–2641. The 

application may be reviewed in person 

at this same location. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

proposes to rule and invites public 

comment on the application to impose 

a PFC at Kansas City International 

Airport for use at Kansas City 

International Airport and Charles B. 

Wheeler Downtown Airport under the 

provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and 

Part 158 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). 

On April 27, 2005, the FAA 

determined that the application to 

impose and use the revenue from a PFC 

submitted by the Kansas City Aviation 

Department was not substantially 

complete within the requirements of 

§ 158.25 of Part 158. The following 

items were required to complete the 

application: Airspace determinations on 

the new aircraft rescue fire fighting 

facility, perimeter fencing replacement 

at MKC, and the upgrade of the glycol 

collection system. The Kansas City 

Aviation Department has submitted the 

supplemental information to complete 

this application. The FAA will approve 

or disapprove the application, in whole 

or in part, not later than February 9, 

2006. 

The following is a brief overview of 

the application. 

Proposed charge effective date: 

January 1, 2015. 

Proposed charge expiration date: 

February 1, 2017. 

Level of the proposed PFC: $4.50. 

Total estimated PFC revenue: 

$56,946,228. 

Brief description of proposed 

project(s): Two new aircraft rescue fire 

fighting (ARFF) vehicles, extend 

Taxiways B and D, rehabilitate 

Taxiways M and L, update airport 

master plan and Part 150 study, New 

ARFF facility, inline baggage screening 

system, rehabilitate Taxiway D, airfield 

lighting rehabilitation, perimeter 

fencing replacement—MKC, terminal 

improvements—holdrooms, upgrade 

glycol collection system, airfield snow 

removal equipment building, new 

airfield sand & deicer storage building, 

triturator and garbage facility, fuel farm 

relocation—MKC. 

Class or classes of air carriers which 

the public agency has requested not to 

be required to collect PFCs: 

Nonscheduled/On-Demand Air Carriers 

filing FAA Form 1800–31. 

Any person may inspect the 

application in person at the FAA office 

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA 

regional Airports office located at: 901 

Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. 

In addition, any person may, upon 

request, inspect the application, notice 

and other documents germane to the 

application in person at the Kansas City 

Aviation Department. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on October 

17, 2005. 

George A. Hendon, 

Manager, Airports Division, Central Region. 

[FR Doc. 05–21227 Filed 10–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22765] 

Wet Lease Policy Guidance 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: It has long been contrary to 

Federal Aviation Regulations for an air 

carrier to ‘‘wet lease’’ an aircraft from an 

individual or entity that is not 

separately authorized to engage in 

common carriage. By this notice, the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

seeks comment on proposed policy 

guidance identifying those commercial 

arrangements that would be considered 

to be unlawful wet lease arrangements 

under these regulations as well as those 

that would be permissible. Additionally, 

we seek comment on our proposed 

treatment of certain other commercial 

arrangements between air carriers and 

aircraft owners that—while not 

amounting to illegal wet leases—could 

nevertheless result in the air carrier 

impermissibly ceding operational 

control of flight to non-certificated 

entities. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before November 25, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

[identified by Docket No. FAA–2005–

22765] using any of the following 

methods: 

DOT Docket Web site: Go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions 

for sending your comments 

electronically. 

Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on the 

plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent 

Stephens, Aviation Safety Inspector, Air 

Transportation Division, Flight 

Standards Service, Room 831, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591, telephone: (202) 

267–8166. 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

submit written comments, data and 

views on the draft guidance contained 

in Section D below. The most helpful 

comments reference a specific portion of 

the proposed guidance, explain the 

reason for any recommended change, 

and include supporting data. We ask 

that you send us two copies of written 

comments. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed policy. The 

docket is available for public inspection 

before and after the comment closing 

date. If you wish to review the docket 

in person, go to the address in the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

You may also review the docket using 

the Internet at the Web address in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Privacy Act: Using the search function 

of our docket Web site, anyone can find 

and read the comments received into 

any of our dockets, including the name 

of the individual sending the comment 

(or signing the comment on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit 

http://dms.dot.gov. Before acting on this 

proposal, we will consider all comments 

we receive on or before the closing date 

for comments. We will consider 

comments filed late if is possible to do 

so without incurring expense or delay. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Notices 61685 

1This proposed guidance concerns requirements 

related to safety regulation by the FAA. Carriers and 

others should note that it does not address 

economic regulatory requirements, which are 

separate and under the purview of the Office of the 

Secretary of the Department of Transportation. 

2 It is not considered a proper exercise of 

‘‘operational control’’ for the carrier to delegate to 

the pilot in command the responsiblity for 

determining for the carrier whether the pilot in 

command and other flight crewmembers are 

qualified for the flight that day. The safety benefit 

in the FAA rules of having ‘‘redundancy’’—here, 

the carrier verifying the qualifications of the pilots 

for the flight—cannot be overstated. The carrier 

itself has to determine, for example, whether the 

flight crew meets rest period requirements and 

whether the flight crewmember has exceeded flight 

time limits. The safety benefits of having a 

redundant safety duty imposed—on both the carrier 

and the pilot—is lost if the carrier delegates its 

independent responsibility to the pilot. 

We may change this proposal in light of 

the comments we receive. 

If you want the FAA to acknowledge 

receipt of your comments on this 

proposal, include with your comments 

a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on 

which the docket number appears. We 

will stamp the date on the postcard and 

mail it to you. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

Federal Aviation Regulations provide 

that only entities properly certificated 

by the FAA may maintain operational 

control of any flight conducted for 

commercial purposes under 14 CFR 

parts 121 and 135. Recent information 

obtained by the FAA regarding certain 

arrangements in the on-demand air 

carrier industry has highlighted existing 

concern over whether the air carriers in 

such arrangements are consistently 

maintaining (as required) operational 

control of all flights purportedly 

conducted under the authority of their 

certificates. In some cases, air carriers 

have evidently allowed aircraft owners 

and lessees who hold no commercial 

certificates to conduct operations under 

the auspices of the air carrier’s 

certificate, and in a few cases, falsely 

holding themselves out to the public as 

air carriers themselves. As a result, 

some members of the traveling public 

have paid for air transportation by 

persons that do not hold proper FAA 

certification and, just as important, do 

not necessarily comply with the more 

demanding safety rules for air carriers 

and other commercial operators. 

The FAA has taken several actions to 

address this problem. We have begun 

enforcement proceedings to halt the 

effective franchising of air carrier 

certificates and the conduct of air carrier 

operations by unqualified persons. On 

June 10, 2005 the FAA’s Flight 

Standards Service issued a notice to all 

inspectors directing them to contact 

each air carrier they oversee to make 

sure that these carriers understand their 

obligations to maintain operational 

control of flights conducted under their 

certificates. In addition, the FAA has 

sent out information request to air 

carriers to ascertain the types of 

arrangements under which they conduct 

their business so as to assess whether 

those arrangements comply with these 

obligations. 

The guidance proposed in this notice 

is intended to assist air carriers and 

others in evaluating whether certain 

arrangements, including aircraft leases 

and related agreements, are consistent 

with operational control requirements.1

B. Operational Control 

In connection with its safety oversight 

and investigatory responsibilities, the 

FAA must always be able to identify 

who is accountable for the safety of each 

flight, whether commercial or not. 

Central to this inquiry is determining 

which person or entity as a factual 

matter exercise operational control of 

any particular flight. Our regulations 

provide that operational control means 

‘‘with respect to a flight, * * * the 

exercise of authority over initiating, 

conducting or terminating a flight.’’ See 

14 CFR 1.1. We attempt to determine 

who has ‘‘real-world’’ control over an 

aircraft and its crew by evaluating all 

the facts and circumstances surrounding 

that flight operation. The FAA, the 

National Transportation Safety Board, 

the courts, and others look beyond the 

written provisions of contracts and 

other commercial documents and the 

parties’ assertions regarding 

‘‘operational control’’ to determine 

who—as a factual matter—controlled a 

flight operation. 

For purposes of this guidance, a 

‘‘surrender of operational control’’ by an 

air carrier means a situation in which an 

air carrier has inappropriately allowed 

an uncertificated person or entity to 

engage in air carrier operations under 

the carrier’s name. See e.g., 

Administrator v. Darby Aviation d/b/a 

Alphajet, Inc., NTSB Order Number E–

5159 (2005). In FAA Notice N 8400.83 

(issued on June 10, 2005), the Director 

of the Flight Standards Service 

cautioned air carriers and other 

commercial operators who are 

certificated under part 119, that they 

may not franchise or lease out their 

authority to engage in part 135 

operations to third parties, as this 

constitutes a surrender of operational 

control. 

A ‘‘loss of operational control’’ or 

‘‘inadquate operational control’’

includes those situations in which the 

carrier has not surrendered control to 

another person or entity, but has 

inadequately exercised the necessary 

supervisory actions over the 

maintenance of aircraft listed on its 

operations specifications or has not 

adequately supervised and directed its 

own pilots. A carrier has inadequate 

operational control if it lacks either 

timely knowledge about the flight and 

duty status of its pilots, the means to 

communicate an order to the crew to 

delay, cancel, or divert a flight, or 

sufficient leverage or authority over its 

crews to assure compliance with the 

carrier’s lawful instructions.2

In each case in which there is a 

question about operational control the 

FAA also must ultimately make a legal 

determination as to which person 

should have exercised such control. In 

some cases the FAA will determine that 

the operational control of a commercial 

flight was actually exercised—

unlawfully—by an uncertificated person 

who did not comply with the more 

demanding safety rules that apply to 

commercial operations. In other cases, a 

properly certificated air carrier or 

commercial operator has actively 

participated or acquiesced in 

commercial arrangements that allowed 

the illegal operator to hold itself out to 

the public as a legitimate air carrier. 

Sometimes unlawful arrangements 

become apparent only after a review of 

the written contracts between the 

parties and other evidence reveals that 

the relationship obfuscates which entity 

or person has ‘‘operational control’’ of a 

flight and, thus, which entity or 

individual should be held accountable 

for the overall safety of a flight. Where 

such operations end safely, it has been 

our experience that the carrier and the 

aircraft owner typically assert that the 

commercial operation was lawfully 

conducted by the air carrier under our 

regulations. Unfortunately for the 

public, where such flights involve safety 

violations, the carriers under whose 

auspices the flights were conducted may 

claim they were unaware that a 

commercial flight occurred under their 

certificate—even though that aircraft is 

on the part 135 operator’s specifications. 

The carrier may point to the fact that it 

never had legal possession of the aircraft 

that was illegally flown in commercial 

operations, and thus the carrier will 

disclaim responsibility for the 

operation. The FAA deems 

arrangements that facilitate such 

confusion to be wholly at odds with the 

requirement that an air carrier must 

61686 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Notices 

clearly retain operational control of all 

its flights, and we will, at a minimum, 

act promptly to remove aircraft used in 

such arrangements from the air carrier’s 

operations specifications. 

Finally, it should be without saying 

that any air carrier must have in place 

personel who are knowledgeable about 

aviation, including FAA safety 

regulations, such that they can gather 

and review relevant information about 

the airworthiness of the aircraft and the 

condition of the crewmembers. If the air 

carrier does not have knowledgeable 

people in place, it is highly unlikely 

that the carrier will meet the stringent 

safety standards necessary to satisfy the 

statutory ‘‘duty * * * to provide service 

with the highest possible degree of 

safety in the public interest.’’ See 49 

USC Section 44701(d)(1). 

C. Affected Commercial Arrangement 

Commercial arrangements between 

U.S. air carriers and others must ensure 

effective operational control by an air 

carrier over its flights. Beyond avoiding 

wet leases with non-certificated entities 

(discussed below), a carrier must 

generally ensure that all business 

arrangements provide its management 

personnel with not only the contractual 

authority to direct the crewmembers to 

terminate, delay, divert or modify the 

carrier’s flights, but also with effective 

authority by virtue of their relationship 

with the crewmembers. It is not enough 

simply to assert in a contract that the 

carrier has ‘‘operational control’’ if other 

aspects of the parties’ agreements 

undermine or otherwise nullify effective 

means of control by the carrier. 

1. Wet Leases 

The FAA prohibits ‘‘wet leases’’

between a certificate holder under part 

119 and a foreign air carrier or another 

foreign person or any other person not 

authorized to engage in common 

carriage. See 14 CFR 119.53(b). To 

understand a ‘‘wet lease,’’ one must first 

understand the meaning of a ‘‘dry 

lease.’’ In aviation, a dry lease occurs 

when legal possession of an aircraft 

transfers from the owner to another 

person (whether that person is the first 

lessee or a sublessee). A ‘‘wet lease,’’

under the Federal Aviation Regulations, 

is any leasing arrangement whereby a 

person agrees to provide an entire 

aircraft and at least one crewmember. 

See 14 CFR 119.3 

The agency adopted the prohibition 

on wet leases in § 119.53(b), in part, 

because we were concerned that the air 

carrier might not exercise operational 

control over the crew leased from the 

other (non-certificated) entity, with the 

result that the entire operation would 

not be under the direction and control 

of the certificated air carrier. In a true 

dry lease, the lessee is fully accountable 

for the safety of the flight operations it 

conducts with the aircraft in its 

possession. In contrast to a dry lease 

situation, in a wet leasing arrangement, 

although the lessee nominally has legal 

possession of the aircraft, the actual 

control of the aircraft is with the entity 

directing the crewmembers. Where only 

one of the parties has been certificated 

to engage in common carriage 

operations, the other’s agreement to 

provide the crew raises significant 

issues as to who really has control over 

the crew: the lessor or the air carrier. 

2. Permissible Use of the Aircraft 

Owner’s Crew 

The FAA is well aware that many 

aircraft owners lease their aircraft to 

part 135 on-demand operators so as to 

recover overhead expenses when the 

owner does not need to use the aircraft. 

Nothing in this guidance is intended to 

bar these arrangements or to prohibit 

any air carrier from dry leasing an 

aircraft from its owners or lessor. The 

FAA has no safety objections to this 

practice so long as the air carrier—and 

no one else—exercises actual 

operational control of the for-hire 

flights. To satisfy this requirement, the 

carrier must have effective mechanisms 

in place to make sure the crews will 

adhere to the carrier’s instructions. 

Moreover, the carrier cannot participate 

in an arrangement that allows the 

aircraft owner to interfere with the 

carrier’s ability to make and implement 

safety decisions needed to comply with 

FAA air carrier safety rules. In 

particular, we think it inappropriate for 

an aircraft owner or other noncertificated entity to determine who will 

be the pilots assigned to a part 135 

flight. Thus, the carrier may not enter 

into any contract by which it agrees 

directly or indirectly to utilize only the 

aircraft owner’s or lessor’s pilots when 

conducting part 135 flights. 

By this notice the FAA does not 

intend to prohibit air carriers from using 

a pilot in part 135 operations simply 

because that pilot also is employed by 

the owner of the aircraft. A key question 

in such commercial arrangements is 

whether the carrier is obligated directly 

or indirectly to use the aircraft owner’s 

crew. In this regard, a critical factor 

would be written acknowledgements by 

the carrier, the aircraft owner, and the 

pilots that the crew serves as the agents 

of the air carrier during all part 135 

operations. An acknowledgement that 

the pilots are the carrier’s agents (even 

where the pilots remain the employees 

of the owner, as evidenced, for example, 

by the owner’s issuance of IRS Form W–

2’s) helps reduce any confusion as to 

which party has the authority and the 

responsibility to conduct a safe for-hire 

flight. We believe that such an 

acknowledgement may cause air carriers 

to exercise greater oversight of aircraft 

placed on their operations specifications 

and to take whatever steps are necessary 

to ensure the aircraft owners do not 

hold themselves out as conducting 

commercial flights under the auspices of 

the air carriers’ certificates. 

3. Other Arrangements 

Operational control issues do not 

arise solely in the context of wet leases 

to air carriers from people not 

authorized to engage in common 

carriage. Even in situations where it is 

legal for a carrier to enter into a wet 

lease (e.g., a U.S. carrier can wet lease 

from another U.S. carrier), operational 

control issues arise and thus the FAA 

requires that such leases be submitted to 

the FAA for an assessment as to which 

FAA-certificated carrier has operational 

control. See 14 CFR 119.53(a) and 

119.53(c). Typically, in such 

agreements, the wet lessor will have 

operational control instead of the lessee 

primarily because of the former’s 

business relationship with the crew. We 

permit these arrangements because there 

is an assurance that all the parties know 

that the revenue flights must be flown 

under part 121 or 135, and both parties 

have been certificated for air carrier 

operations. 

D. Proposed Guidance 

When our Flight Standards Service 

discovers contractual language or other 

evidence of wet leasing prohibited 

under section 119.53(b), our current 

policy is to take two actions. First, we 

will not add aircraft to a carrier’s 

operations specifications to the extent 

such aircraft are subject to wet leases. 

Second, we will begin an investigation 

as to the carrier’s use of other aircraft 

already on its operations specifications 

to ascertain whether they involve an 

improper wet lease under section 

119.53(b). 

1. Wet Leases 

a. If an air carrier and an aircraft 

owner (or someone having legal 

possession of the aircraft) enter into an 

agreement whereby legal possession of a 

specific aircraft is transferred from the 

owner (or first lessee) to the air carrier 

and if the owner (or first lessee) 

provides a crewmember as part of the 

lease, then such an arrangement 

constitutes a wet lease. 

b. If an air carrier and an aircraft 

owner enter into an agreement 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Notices 61687 

captioned as a ‘‘dry lease’’ of an aircraft 

from the owner to the air carrier, and in 

a separate document the same parties 

agree that the owner will provide a 

crewmember to the carrier, such an 

arrangement would still constitute a wet 

lease. The FAA would evaluate the two 

documents together. Such an 

arrangement (assuming the owner is not 

a certified air carrier) also would be 

contrary to section 119.53(b). An air 

carrier does not have actual operational 

control of the carrier flight operations if 

a person other than the air carrier can 

determine who the pilots of the aircraft 

will be or can exercise control over 

those pilots. 

c. If an air carrier and an aircraft 

owner enter into an arrangement labeled 

as a ‘‘dry lease’’ of an aircraft from the 

owner to the carrier but in a separate 

document the parties give the owner the 

right to consent to or approve of the 

selection of crew, then such an 

arrangement might be treated as a wet 

lease depending on the particular 

circumstances. If in practice only the 

owner’s pilots would be approved (as 

shown, for example, by evidence that all 

other pilots had been vetoed for use by 

the owner), the FAA would deem this 

leasing arrangement to be a ‘‘wet lease’’

in contravention of § 119.53(b). A carrier 

cannot be said to enjoy actual 

operational control of its flight 

operations if an aircraft owner (noncarrier) can effectively veto the carrier’s 

proposed pilot assignments, where 

those pilots are otherwise qualified and 

appropriately certificated and trained to 

conduct carrier flights. 

d. The following example would be 

considered a wet lease by the FAA. 

Although the carrier is not formally 

obligated to use the owner’s pilots, it is 

clear from that business arrangement 

between the carrier and the aircraft 

owner that the aircraft owner’s pilots are 

provided with the aircraft. Certain 

aircraft leases contain penalty clauses 

that provide that if the aircraft owner’s 

pilots are not available to fly the aircraft 

for the part 135 carrier, then the aircraft 

owner must compensate the part 135 

carrier for any costs the carrier incurs in 

getting other pilots to fly the aircraft. 

Because the parties contemplated that 

the owner would provide both the 

aircraft and crew, this too constitutes a 

wet lease, even though the carrier 

ultimately may use pilots who did not 

come from the aircraft owner. This type 

of arrangement is contrary to the 

provisions of section 119.53(b) of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations. 

2. Other Arrangements Raising Serious 

Concern as to Operational Control of 

Flight 

a. Operational control issues may 

arise in situations where there are no 

leases whatsoever. On occasion an air 

carrier may make arrangements with an 

aircraft owner to use its aircraft without 

entering into a real lease, and thus, the 

carrier never gets legal possession of the 

aircraft. This sort of informal 

arrangement will raise significant legal 

concerns over inadequate operational 

control when the carrier has no 

contractual arrangements with the crew, 

does not directly pay the crew for their 

service in air carrier operations, and 

receives no direct compensation by the 

customers for transporting passengers or 

property. 

b. Another arrangement raising 

serious legal concern arises when a 

certificated air carrier receives a flat 

‘‘certificate use’’ fee from the aircraft 

owner regardless of the number of 

commercial flights conducted per 

month, and the transportation customer 

pays the aircraft owner directly. Absent 

evidence to the contrary showing that 

the air carrier exercised actual and legal 

operational control of all flights, such 

arrangements constitute an 

inappropriate franchising of an air 

carrier certificate. 

c. Some air carriers only occasionally 

lease aircraft from particular owners, 

who may enter into similar 

arrangements with multiple carriers. 

Although our rules do not forbid this 

practice, each carrier must ensure in all 

of its leasing arrangements that there are 

mechanisms in place to avoid confusion 

over who is using the aircraft and when. 

Similarly, the carrier must have 

procedures that ensure that the 

crewmembers adhere to the instructions 

of the carrier, not the aircraft owner. 

E. Conclusion: Recommended Carrier 

Review of Existing Leasing 

Arrangements 

The foregoing discussion is intended 

to provide the public, including air 

carriers and aircraft owners, with a 

better understanding of the FAA’s 

concerns about the key safety issues 

linked to operational control of flights 

made under the authority of FAA 

certificates. The discussion is also 

intended to encourage air carriers to 

closely consider whether their business 

arrangements comport with the 

requirements for maintaining 

operational control. The FAA urges all 

air carriers to review the leasing and 

other arrangements they have with 

aircraft owners to ensure compliance 

with the regulations. In this regard, the 

FAA encourages carriers to consider 

whether they have sufficient controls in 

place that they have timely knowledge 

to answer the following questions: 

1. What is the actual location of each 

aircraft listed on the carrier’s operations 

specifications? 

2. Who has the carrier authorized to 

fly the aircraft? 

3. Does the carrier have mechanisms 

in place to prevent unauthorized use of 

the aircraft? 

4. Who or what is being transported 

on the aircraft? 

5. Is a given flight for compensation 

or hire? 

6. If the flight is for compensation or 

hire, are the crewmembers properly 

certificated and trained? 

7. Are the crewmembers loyal to the 

air carrier (as opposed to the aircraft 

owner or some other entity) so that they 

will adhere to the carrier’s instructions 

not to fly or to delay a flight or to divert 

a flight? 

8. What procedures and mechanisms 

are in place so that the carrier can fulfill 

its duty to ensure that the aircraft is 

airworthy and meets all of the carrier’s 

maintenance programs? 

Issued in Washington, DC on October 19, 

2005. 

James J. Ballough, 

Director, Flight Standards Service. 

Andrew B. Steinberg, 

Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 05–21226 Filed 10–19–05; 3:13 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

Preparation of Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Downtown 

Birmingham/University of Alabama 

Birmingham Activity Centers (a.k.a. Intown Transit Partnership Project) 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an 

Alternatives Analysis (AA) and 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit 

Administration and the Regional 

Planning Commission of Greater 

Birmingham are conducting an 

alternatives analysis and preparing a 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) for transit improvements in the 

Downtown Birmingham/University of 

Alabama Birmingham Activity Centers. 

The FTA is the lead federal agency and 

the DEIS will be prepared in accordance 

with National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and the applicable regulations