65832 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 119, 121, 125, 127,

and 135

[Docket No. 28154; Amendment Nos. 91–

245, 119, 121–251, 125–23, 127–45, 135–58,

SFAR 50–2, SFAR 71 and SFAR 38–12]

RIN 2120–AF62

Commuter Operations and General

Certification and Operations

Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule requires certain

commuter operators that now conduct

operations under part 135 to conduct

those operations under part 121. The

commuter operators affected are those

conducting scheduled passengercarrying operations in airplanes that

have passenger-seating configurations of

10 to 30 seats (excluding any

crewmember seat) and those conducting

scheduled passenger-carrying

operations in turbojet airplanes

regardless of seating configuration. The

rule revises the requirements

concerning operating certificates and

operations specifications for all part

121, 125, and 135 certificate holders.

The rule also requires certain

management officials for all certificate

holders under parts 121 and 135. The

rule is intended to increase safety in

scheduled passenger-carrying

operations and to clarify, update, and

consolidate the certification and

operations requirements for persons

who transport passengers or property by

air for compensation or hire.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 19, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alberta Brown, (202) 267–8321;

Katherine Hakala, (202) 267–8166; or

Dave Catey, (202) 267–8166; Federal

Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline of Final Rule

I. Introduction

II. History

III. The Problem and Related FAA Action

A. Accident Rate for Commuter Operations

B. Public Perception

C. Congressional Hearings

D. NTSB Study

E. Related FAA Action

IV. The Proposed Rule and General

Description of Comments

V. Major Issues

A. General Justification

B. Applicability

C. Aircraft Certification

D. Flight Time Limits and Rest

Requirements

E. Age 60 Rule

F. Dispatch System

G. Airports

H. Effective Date and Compliance Schedule

VI. Discussion of Specific Proposals

A. Part 121 Discussion

1. Subpart E—Approval of Routes:

Domestic and Flag Air Carriers

2. Subpart F—Approval of Routes:

Approval of Areas and Routes for

Supplemental Air Carriers and

Commercial Operators

3. Subpart G—Manual Requirements

4. Subpart H—Airplane Requirements

5. Subpart I—Airplane Performance

Operating Limitations

6. Subpart J—Special Airworthiness

Requirements

7. Subpart K—Instrument and Equipment

Requirements

8. Subpart L—Maintenance, Preventive

Maintenance, and Alterations

9. Subpart M—Airman and Crewmember

Requirements

10. Subpart N and O—Training Program

and Crewmember Qualifications

11. Subpart P—Aircraft Dispatcher

Qualifications and Duty Time

Limitations: Domestic and Flag Air

Carriers

12. Subparts Q, R, and S—Flight Time

Limitations and Rest Requirements:

Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental

Operations

13. Subpart T—Flight Operations

14. Subpart U—Dispatching and Flight

Release Rules

15. Subpart V—Records and Reports

B. Part 119— Certification: Air Carriers and

Commercial Operators

VII. Discussion of Comments Related to Costs

and Benefits

VIII. Regulatory Evaluation Summary

IX. The Amendments

Background

I. Introduction

On March 29, 1995, the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA)

published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) on ‘‘Commuter

Operations and General Certification

and Operations Requirements’’ (Notice

No. 95–5; 60 FR 16230.) In Notice 95–

5, the FAA proposed that commuter

operations conducted in airplanes with

10–30 passenger seats be conducted

under the domestic or flag rules of part

121 of title 14 of the Code of Federal

Regulations. Currently, scheduled

passenger-carrying operations in

airplanes with passenger-seating

configurations of over 30 seats or more

than 7,500 pounds payload capacity are

conducted under part 121. Scheduled

passenger-carrying operations in

airplanes with passenger-seating

configurations of 30 seats or less and

7,500 pounds or less payload capacity

are conducted under part 135. Part 121,

which provides the safety requirements

for all major air carriers (as well as for

any certificate holder conducting

scheduled or nonscheduled operations

with airplanes configured with more

than 30 passenger seats), is generally

considered to have more restrictive

requirements than part 135. The

regulatory changes were introduced in

order to address the continually

changing needs of the industry and to

fulfill the agency’s statutory

requirement. This is the final rule, based

on Notice 95–5.

II. History

Historically, the maximum

certificated takeoff weight (MCTW) of

an airplane determined both an

airplane’s categorization and operating

requirements. Beginning in 1953,

airplanes with an MCTW of 12,500

pounds or less were defined as ‘‘small

airplanes’’ and were permitted to carry

fewer than 10 passengers in on-demand

air taxi service. The rules under which

those operations were conducted were

eventually codified as part 135.

Airplanes with an MCTW of more than

12,500 pounds were defined as ‘‘large

airplanes,’’ and most large airplanes

carried 20 or more passengers in

scheduled air transportation. The Civil

Aeronautics Board (CAB) used the large/

small dividing line to separate major

airline companies, who were required to

obtain a Certificate of Public

Convenience and Necessity (CPCN)

from the CAB in order to operate in

interstate commerce as a common

carrier, from on-demand air taxi

operators, who were exempted from

obtaining a CPCN.

During this time, the CAB issued only

a small number of CPCN’s to major,

publicly-recognized companies, such as

Eastern, American, Delta, Pan Am,

TWA, etc. In contrast, on-demand air

taxi operators numbered in the

thousands. These operators were

typically fixed-base, usually at small

airports, and owned fewer than five

airplanes. They provided on-demand air

transportation as well as other services,

such as training new pilots and selling

and renting small airplanes. Typically,

the air taxi portion of such an operator’s

business was a small part of that

business and rarely involved any

scheduled operations.

Beginning in the late 1960’s, airplane

manufacturers began to design and

build small airplanes, that is, less than

12,500 pounds maximum certified

takeoff weight, that were capable of

carrying more than 10 passengers, often

close to 20. Some air taxi operators

began to offer services that resembled
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65833

the services of the major airlines, given

the economic opportunity to operate

under the less restrictive requirements

of part 135. Though these scheduled

commuter operators began to overtake

some air taxi operations, they still

remained a small percent of the

thousands of air taxi operators.

In 1978, as a result of the Airline

Deregulation Act, the airline industry

was deregulated economically and air

carriers were given more freedom to

enter and exit markets without prior

government economic approval. One of

the most significant effects of this

deregulation was that it allowed major

carriers to eliminate service to smaller

communities, where such service

proved to be uneconomical for the large

aircraft the carriers operated. Major

carriers were replaced in those

communities by the commuter carriers.

Under this ‘‘hub and spoke’’ system, the

major part 121 air carriers provided

service to the large metropolitan

airports, while the growing class of

scheduled part 135 air carriers provided

service between smaller communities as

well as feeder service from the smaller

communities to the larger cities to

connect with the major carriers’

operations. With these changes, the

traditional two categories of operations

became three categories of operations—

scheduled commuter operations,

traditional air taxis, and traditional

major air carriers.

Also in 1978, in response to the

Airline Deregulation Act, the FAA

reissued part 135 standards to upgrade

commuter and air taxi safety

requirements and make them more like

part 121. At that time part 135

certificate holders were required to meet

more stringent requirements in several

areas, including weather reporting,

flightcrew training, maintenance, and

qualifications for management

personnel.

Since 1978, the FAA has issued a

number of separate rule changes to

further align part 135 safety

requirements with those in part 121.

Despite this realignment, differences

between the regulations still exist. The

economic incentive to operate under

part 135 still exists because the

requirements in part 135 are still less

restrictive than the part 121

requirements in many instances.

For the remainder of this document

the following terms are used in the

following ways. ‘‘Commuter,’’

‘‘commuter airline,’’ and ‘‘commuter

operator’’ mean those operators

conducting scheduled passengercarrying operations under part 135 in

airplanes with a passenger-seating

capacity of 30 or fewer seats. This

current use of the word ‘‘commuter’’

does not include scheduled passengercarrying operations conducted under

part 121 in airplanes with a seating

capacity of 31 to 60 seats. The term

‘‘commuter category airplane’’ used in

this document refers to airplanes type

certificated in that category under part

23 in contrast to airplanes type

certificated under part 25 which are

transport category airplanes. The term

‘‘nontransport category airplanes’’ is

used for commuter category airplanes

and SFAR 41 and predecessor normal

category airplanes to be operated under

part 121, as well as for some older

airplanes certificated before the

predecessors of part 25 (parts 04 and 4b

of the Civil Air Regulations) came into

existence. The Department of

Transportation (DOT) uses the term

‘‘commuter’’ more broadly to include all

scheduled passenger-carrying

operations conducted in airplanes with

a passenger-seating capacity of 20 to 60

seats. (Note: The High Density Rule, 14

CFR part 93 uses ‘‘scheduled

commuters’’ differently. Its meaning

under that part is not relevant to its use

in this document.) The term ‘‘regional,’’

which is used by industry to refer to

short-haul, passenger-carrying,

scheduled operations conducted under

part 121 or part 135, is not generally

used by the FAA.

III. The Problem and Related FAA

Action

Recent part 135 commuter accidents

have focused public, government, and

industry attention on the safety of

commuter operations. While the safety

level of part 135 commuter operations

has continued to improve, accident

data, public perception, and recent

government inquiries show a need for

additional measures.

III.A. Accident Rate for Commuter

Operations

The airline industry that uses

airplanes with a passenger-seating

capacity of 60 or fewer seats to conduct

scheduled operations under parts 121

and 135 is an essential part of the air

transportation network in the U.S.

These airlines now fly more than all

airlines did in 1958. In 1993, over 50

million passengers, 12 percent of the

total passenger flights in the country,

were flown by these airlines. Half of

these passengers were flown in part 135

operations, i.e., in aircraft with 30 or

fewer seats.

Over the past two decades the safety

record of part 135 commuters has

greatly improved. The accident rate per

100,000 departures in 1993 was onefourth the accident rate in 1980.

However, the accident rate for

commuter airlines operating under part

135 continues to be higher than the rate

for domestic part 121 airlines. In the

past 2 years, several commuter airline

accidents occurred that attracted media

and public attention and caused

government and industry officials to

scrutinize the safety system for

commuter operations under part 135.

These accidents included the

December 1, 1993, crash of a Jetstream

3100, operated by Express II (as

Northwest Airlink), at Hibbing, MN; the

January 7, 1994, crash of a Jetstream

4100, operated by Atlantic Coast

Airlines (as United Express), at

Columbus, OH; and the December 13,

1994, crash of a Jetstream 3200,

operated by Flagship Airlines (as

American Eagle), at Raleigh-Durham,

NC. All of these accidents involved

fatalities.

III.B. Public Perception

With the increase in the number of

flights to many communities conducted

in airplanes with a seating capacity of

30 seats or less, some members of the

public are questioning whether they are

receiving an appropriate level of safety

in small propeller-driven airplanes

compared to the level of safety they

receive in larger aircraft. This public

concern is partly a result of the

integration of commuter carriers with

major airlines under an arrangement

known as code-sharing. The term ‘‘codesharing’’ refers to the computerized

airline reservation system that lists a

commuter flight in the reservation

system under the same code used by a

major carrier. A passenger who books

with a major carrier may have a leg of

the flight automatically booked with a

smaller commuter affiliate of the major

carrier.

With the media attention to recent

commuter accidents, the passenger may

also believe that the flight involves more

risk because the smaller airplane and its

operation may not have to meet the

same safety standards. Most passengers

probably do not realize that some

differences in standards are necessary

because of differences in the airplane

and operation and that some of the

accidents that are categorized by the

media as ‘‘commuter’’ accidents

occurred in flights that were being

conducted under part 121; that is, in

airplanes with over 30 passenger seats.

The differences in regulations were

initially based on differences in the

types of operations and differences in

the size of airplanes; these differences in

many instances still apply. But other

differences, such as certain performance

and equipment requirements,
65834 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

operational control requirements, and

passenger information requirements are

not size- or operationally-based. Some

differences between the two sets of

regulations must be maintained while

others can be eliminated to improve the

safety of commuter operations.

III.C. Congressional Hearings

On February 9, 1994, Congress held

hearings on the adequacy of commuter

airline safety regulations. The purpose

of the hearings was to determine if FAA

safety regulations should be modified to

establish a single standard for all

scheduled operations regardless of

airplane size. Representatives of

government, industry, and the public

presented testimony. Most testimony

supported the upgrading of safety

requirements.

III.D. NTSB Study

In November 1994, the National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

published a study on commuter airline

safety. (National Transportation Safety

Board Safety Study: Commuter Airline

Safety, NTSB/SS–94/02.) The study was

based on the NTSB’s analysis of

accident investigations and previous

studies, on a recent site survey of airline

operations and policies conducted at a

representative sample of commuter

airlines, and on information obtained

from a public forum on commuter

airline safety convened by the NTSB.

In the study, the NTSB found that the

commuter air carrier industry has

experienced major growth in passenger

traffic and changes in its operating

characteristics since the NTSB’s 1980

study of the commuter airline industry.

The NTSB found that there has been a

trend in the industry toward operating

larger, more sophisticated aircraft, and

many carriers have established codesharing arrangements with major

airlines. The NTSB concluded that the

regulations contained in 14 CFR part

135 have not kept pace with changes in

the industry.

As a result of the findings, the NTSB

issued the following safety

recommendations to the FAA:

• Revise the Federal Aviation

Regulations such that all scheduled

passenger service conducted in aircraft

with 20 or more passenger seats would

be conducted in accordance with the

provisions of 14 CFR part 121. (A–94–

191)

• Revise the Federal Aviation

Regulations such that all scheduled

passenger service conducted in aircraft

with 10 to 19 passenger seats would be

conducted in accordance with 14 CFR

part 121, or its functional equivalent,

wherever possible. (A–94–192)

In the 1994 study, the NTSB

examined the differences in flight

dispatch requirements between parts

121 and 135. The NTSB found that, in

the absence of support from licensed

dispatch personnel, it is difficult for a

part 135 pilot to accomplish several

tasks between flights in the short

periods of time available. The lack of

support might increase the risk of

critical mistakes that could jeopardize

the safety of flight. As a result the NTSB

issued the following recommendation to

the FAA:

Require principal operations

inspectors (POI) to periodically review

air carrier flight operations policies and

practices concerning pilot tasks

performed between flights to ensure that

carriers provide pilots with adequate

resources (such as time and personnel)

to accomplish those tasks. (A–94–193)

The FAA published all of the NTSB

recommendations in the Federal

Register (59 FR 63185, December 7,

1994) and received public comments

generally supporting the expansion of

the operational rules of part 121, except

for flight time limitations, to commuter

operations under part 135. Some

commenters had considerable

reservations about applying certain part

121 equipment requirements to smaller

airplanes. The FAA considered these

comments in developing this rule.

III.E. Related FAA Action

In December 1994, the FAA proposed

revisions to the training and

qualification requirements of certificate

holders conducting commuter

operations under part 135. The

proposed rule also addressed crew

resource management training for pilots,

dispatchers, and flight attendants in part

121. (59 FR 64272, December 13, 1994)

[Add Final Action]

IV. The Proposed Rule and General

Description of Comments

In Notice 95–5, the FAA proposed to

require that all scheduled passengercarrying operations in airplanes with a

passenger-seating configuration of 10 or

more seats (excluding any crewmember

seat) and all scheduled operations in

turbojets (regardless of the number of

seats) must be conducted under part

121. The proposal would require

certificate holders now conducting

scheduled passenger-carrying

operations under part 135 in airplanes

with a passenger-seating configuration

(excluding any crewmember seat) of 10

to 30 seats or in turbojets to be

recertificated and to conduct the

applicable operations in compliance

with part 121 requirements. In some

instances the proposed rule revised the

requirements of part 121 to make

compliance with the requirements

feasible for operations in smaller,

nontransport category airplanes.

In response to Notice 95–5, the FAA

has received over 3,000 comments from

the public. Of these, most are solely on

the issue of the Age 60 Rule. Many of

the Age 60 commenters are pilots and

other individuals who address the

current rule in part 121; very few

address the specific Age 60 issue

contained in this rulemaking, i.e. the

applicability of the Age 60 Rule to pilots

of affected commuter airplanes. These

comments are summarized in Section

V.E., The Age 60 Rule.

Approximately 200 comments were

received on the substantive issues raised

by Notice 95–5. These commenters

represent air carriers; manufacturers;

associations representing air carriers,

manufacturers, pilots, dispatchers, and

passengers; State and local

governments; the U.S. Small Business

Administration; the National

Transportation Safety Board; and

individuals. While some commenters

voice general support for the goals of

Notice 95–5, most raise concerns about

specific proposals. Industry commenters

are particularly concerned about the

costs of complying with the proposed

rule.

The FAA also conducted three public

meetings on the proposed rule: on May

18, 1995, in Anchorage, Alaska; on June

14, 1995, in Chicago, Illinois; and on

June 21, 1995, in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Testimony from the public meetings and

written statements submitted at the

meetings have been included in the

FAA public docket, have been

considered by the FAA in developing

the final rule, and are discussed in the

following discussion of comments along

with all written comments that were

submitted to the FAA docket.

In Notice 95–5, the FAA identified

major issues that the agency addressed

in developing the proposal. These

included applicability of the proposal,

aircraft certification issues, flight time

limits, the Age 60 Rule, use of a

dispatch system, certain equipment

items, and the compliance schedule.

Comments received on these major

issues and the FAA’s response to these

comments are discussed in Section V.

Comments received on specific

proposals and the FAA’s response to

these comments are discussed in

Section VI. Comments specifically

addressing cost issues are discussed in

Section VII. Below is a list of some of

the major commenters and their

associated abbreviations. The full name

of each commenter is used when the

commenter is first mentioned. In
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65835

subsequent discussions, the

commenter’s abbreviation, as shown

below, is used.

Abbreviations for Commenters

AAAE American Association of Airport

Executives

AACA Alaska Air Carriers Association

ADF Airline Dispatchers Federation

AIA Aerospace Industries Association

ALPA Air Line Pilots Association

APA Allied Pilots Association

ASA Atlantic Southeast Airlines

GAMA General Aviation Manufacturers

Association

HAI Helicopter Association International

IAPA International Airline Passengers

Association

NACA National Air Carrier Association

NATA National Air Transportation

Association

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

Penair Peninsula Airways

RAA Regional Airlines Association

V. Major Issues

V.A. General Justification

In Notice 95–5, the FAA justified the

proposed rule on the basis of the higher

accident rate for commuter airlines.

Parts of the proposed rule were also

supported by the testimony from

Congressional hearings on commuter

airline safety regulations and by the

NTSB study, based on accident

investigations and previous studies,

which found that part 135 regulations

had not kept pace with changes in the

industry.

Comments: The NTSB and the Air

Line Pilots Association (ALPA)

generally support the proposal and its

justification. A comment from the

International Airline Passengers

Association (IAPA) supports the

rulemaking justification by stating the

findings of a recently completed IAPA

study of commuter/regional airplane

safety records in the United States

covering the period 1970 through March

31, 1994. According to IAPA, during

that period carriers using airplanes with

30 or fewer seats had 29 fatal accidents

with 249 passenger fatalities; over 30

seat regional carriers had 1 fatal

accident with 2 passenger fatalities;

major airlines had 11 fatal domestic jet

accidents with 527 passenger fatalities.

In contrast to these comments, many

other commenters state that the

proposed rulemaking lacked sufficient

justification. Recent accident data, say

these commenters, have shown

significant reductions in accident rates

for commuters so that the difference in

accident rates for part 121 operations

and part 135 commuter operations is

minimal. According to at least one of

these commenters, if the accidents that

occurred in extreme environments such

as Alaska are removed, the accident rate

under the two parts would be either the

same or lower for part 135 commuter

operations.

According to some commenters, the

recent accidents cited in Notice 95–5

were all caused by pilot error and thus

would not have been prevented by this

rulemaking but could have been

prevented by improvements in training.

Some commenters state that the

proposed rule is the result of public,

media, and agency overreaction to

recent commuter accidents and that

both the public and the media drew

inaccurate conclusions about commuter

airline safety from these accidents.

According to these commenters, instead

of hastily proposing rules based on

incomplete information, the agency

should have informed the public that

many so-called commuter operations are

already being conducted under part 121.

Several commenters state that the

proposed rule will decrease safety

because in order to avoid the proposed

restrictions, certificate holders now

operating airplanes with a seating

capacity of 10 to 19 passenger seats will

switch to reciprocating-powered

airplanes with a passenger seating

capacity of 9 or less in order to continue

to operate under part 135. Furthermore,

some commenters state that if fares are

significantly increased to pay for the

more restrictive requirements,

passengers may choose ground

transportation, which has a much higher

accident rate.

Several commenters state that the

proposed rule would have a significant

economic impact on small airline

operators, in some cases forcing them to

close their businesses, thus eliminating

air transportation to some locations. In

addition, according to some

commenters, the proposed rule would

have a negative impact on competition,

particularly in the foreign market

because the cost of U.S. manufactured

airplanes would increase.

FAA Response: The FAA does not

agree with the assessment that the

proposed rule lacked sufficient

justification. The FAA recognizes the

validity of some of these comments

especially in regard to unintended

safety decrements if the aircraft

performance portions of the proposed

rule were adopted on the schedule

proposed. While the FAA recognizes the

improvements in the accident data for

commuter airlines in recent years, it

intends through this rulemaking, and

other related rulemaking actions

underway, to reduce the accident rate

even further.

Several commenters have questioned

the need for a rule that would move

affected commuters into part 121

domestic or flag operations. For instance

two commenters argue that a dispatch

system would not have prevented the

three accidents cited by the FAA in the

NPRM. It would be a mistake to assume

that the FAA is basing this final rule on

just those three accidents. Similarly, it

would be a mistake to conclude that the

FAA is justifying this rule on merely

‘‘perceptions’’ of a problem. Those

accidents were catalysts for the

Government to focus on the differences

in the part 121 accident rate and the

accident rate for 10- to 30-seat part 135

commuters. Over the next 15 years

affected commuters are expected to have

had 67 more accidents than they would

have had if the accident rate for part 135

affected commuters were the same as

that for part 121 scheduled operators.

The FAA believes that adoption of this

rule will significantly close the accident

rate gap over time.

The FAA believes that the part 121

regulatory scheme for scheduled

operations is more appropriate for the

10- to 30-seat scheduled operations. The

added safety features and requirements

in part 121 domestic/flag rules,

including the dispatcher system, will

increase safety for the affected

commuters. Because most accidents are

caused by human errors, rules such as

the part 121 training rules and the

dispatcher system rules are some of the

most valuable tools in reducing the

number of these kinds of accidents.

Rules that most directly relate to

preventing accidents caused by human

errors are being imposed on the affected

commuters on a faster schedule than

many of the other rules (e.g., aircraft

performance and certain equipment

retrofits). It can be reasonably

anticipated that applying part 121

operating rules, including these two

groups of rules, can begin to

immediately and significantly reduce

the accident rate for affected

commuters. For instance, the FAA

anticipates that requiring operators to

have someone (i.e., a certificated

dispatcher) double check the work of

the pilot and provide the flight crew

with updates on weather and alternate

airports can reduce some human factor

errors. The FAA believes that if the

flight crew is subjected to more

stringent flight and duty safeguards

(either the current part 121 domestic

flight and duty rules or the rules in a

soon to be issued NPRM in which the

FAA will propose to overhaul all the

flight and duty regulations), the dangers

of fatigue causing a human factors error

will be reduced. Enhanced part 121

training (which is being required of
65836 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

affected commuters in an associated

final rule) will also reduce some human

factor errors.

It is critically important to impose the

bulk of the part 121 regulatory scheme

on affected commuters because the

absence of any significant portion of

that regulatory scheme may lessen the

effectiveness of the rest of the safety

features in the part 121 regulatory

scheme. Even the best trained and well

rested pilot is a human being and,

therefore, subject to making errors. With

a dispatcher system, the chances of pilot

miscalculations or oversights could be

reduced. Moreover, a dispatcher can

assist the flight crew in making enroute

plans for an alternate airport (which

might be necessary due to weather

problems, air traffic control problems,

airplane equipment problems, fuel

problems, etc.) while the crew focuses

on flying the airplane. It is reasonable to

conclude that the accident rate for

affected commuters can be reduced to a

level closer to that of current part 121

domestic operations by eliminating

most of the regulatory differences that

the two different regulatory schemes

allowed.

While major air carriers may require

commuter affiliates to follow certain

part 121 standards, and in some cases

even exceed some part 121 standards,

no part 135 commuter operator

currently operates under part 121

operations specifications or totally

complies with all part 121 standards

(e.g., many part 121 requirements are

based on the assumption that transport

category airplanes are operated). Most

importantly, no part 135 commuter is

required by current FAA regulation to

comply with part 121 requirements.

Recent accidents brought to public

attention the differences between part

135 and part 121 and the lack of

continuing justification for these

differences. As Notice 95–5 pointed out,

the distinction between these two types

of operations was, in the beginning, an

obvious necessity. Major air carriers

engaged in public transportation were

entirely different from the small ondemand, air taxi operator. But with the

development and growth of what has

come to be known as commuter service,

the line between the two has blurred.

Certain segments of the commuter

industry have continued to develop

commuter category airplanes, holding

the line at 19 passenger seats in order

to stay within the limits of the less

restrictive airworthiness regulations for

nontransport category aircraft. This has

created the potential for the further

development of commuter airplanes

specifically designed to stay within the

limits of the less restrictive regulations

while at the same time becoming as

sophisticated or more sophisticated in

technology than some transport category

airplanes operated by the major carriers.

With hindsight, the FAA may not have

drawn the line as it currently is but

would have attempted from the start to

maintain one set of requirements.

Until now the line between the

requirements has not created a safety

concern, but as the commuter market

grows, the disparity between the two

sets of requirements is of more concern.

There is no longer any justification for

maintaining two sets of standards for

scheduled operations in airplanes with

a passenger-seating configuration of 10

or more seats. When a passenger pays

for a ticket on an FAA certificated

commuter operation, that passenger

must be assured of the highest possible

level of safety.

With respect to commenters—

concerns that the proposed rules will

actually decrease safety because

certificate holders will switch to

reciprocating-powered airplanes, the

FAA has modified the proposal,

especially in regard to the schedule for

some airplanes to meet part 121 airplane

performance criteria, to allow operators

sufficient time to build up capital or

credit to make changes to the existing

fleet or to purchase new airplanes that

meet the higher performance standards.

The FAA does not want to move so fast

as to force operators to use airplanes

that have even higher accident rates

(i.e., airplanes with 9 or fewer seats).

The FAA finds that safety and the

public interest require extending the

proposed compliance dates for imposing

part 121 performance criteria

requirements and some equipment

requirements until it is economically

feasible for operators of 10- to 19-seat

airplanes to acquire or lease

replacement aircraft. The FAA has

analyzed the situation and has

concluded that many operators of 10–15

seat aircraft would replace those aircraft

with 9 or fewer seat aircraft to avoid the

sudden imposition of large costs on

their current fleets. Without the FAA

modifying its proposal with regard to

airplane performance requirements,

many airplanes would be eliminated

from scheduled service at the first

compliance date (i.e., 15 months after

publication of the final rule) and

operators of other airplanes would have

to offload passenger seats, thereby

causing the economic and safety

impacts discussed previously. This

modification would be consistent with

the National Transportation Safety

Board’s (NTSB) recommendation for

airplanes with 10- to 19-seats in

scheduled service. For those aircraft, the

NTSB recommended that scheduled

passenger service be conducted in

accordance with part 121 ‘‘* * * or its

functional equivalent, wherever

possible’’.

Clearly the NTSB used the phrase

‘‘wherever possible’’ because it knew

that it was not possible for a substantial

portion of the 10- to 19-seat airplane

fleet to meet all of the requirements of

part 121. The NTSB carefully chose its

words when it made its

recommendations for 10–19 seat

airplanes used in scheduled service.

The NTSB recognized that the FAA

necessarily had to exercise judgment

about which part 121 regulations to

impose, which regulations could be

modified to achieve functional

equivalency, and which regulations

simply might not be possible.

In regard to comments that higher

fares resulting from this rulemaking will

cause passengers to switch to less safe

modes of transportation, it has been the

FAA’s observation that passengers are

usually willing to pay for safety. While

some may choose to drive rather than

fly, that has not stopped the airlines in

the past from raising fares. It should also

be noted here that the public tolerates

a higher accident rate for automobile

travel than for airplane travel. If air

transportation accident rates

approached that of ground travel, most

Americans would stop flying. The air

transportation industry is very aware of

this; it is the main reason that air

transportation is safe. As one

commenter points out, the recent

commuter accidents caused a 12 percent

drop in passengers on commuter

airlines. That is a significant cost to

industry.

The FAA has carefully considered the

economic impact of the proposed

regulations and has reviewed and

revised its analysis in light of the

comments received. (See Section VIII.)

The agency has determined that the

impact of the final rule should not

disrupt air transportation service and

that few, if any, certificate holders will

discontinue their commuter operations.

During the transition period, the FAA

will work with certificate holders who

are switching to part 121 requirements

to make the switch as smooth as

possible. It should also be noted that the

compliance schedule provides for a

gradual updating of equipment and

operations and will allow certificate

holders the choice of upgrading or

phasing out airplanes that cannot be

upgraded without significant cost.

Some may argue that there may still

be limited circumstances, even with

these changes, where the effects of this

rule (and related rulemakings on
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65837

upgraded training requirements and

pilot flight time and duty limitations)

will be so burdensome as to lead to

adverse safety consequences and/or a

loss of critical air service. This is neither

FAA’s intention nor its expectation.

Indeed, the entire premise of this

rulemaking is that safety standards can

and must be improved for the benefit of

passengers in 10–30 passenger seat

aircraft in scheduled service.

Nevertheless, there is in place in 14

CFR 11.25 a process for requesting and

granting exemptions from regulatory

requirements, including those adopted

here. As with any request for

exemption, of course, an applicant

would have to demonstrate that the

public interest justifies such an

exemption. In this case, an applicant

could show, for example, that it is

unable to comply with a particular

provision or a particular schedule date

due to circumstances beyond its

reasonable control (rather than its own

failure to act in a timely or prudent

manner), that there is convincing

evidence that alternative service is

unavailable to the public, and that the

carrier would be able to maintain an

adequate level of safety during the

period of the requested exemption.

We would expect that any exemption

from this rule would be for a limited

period only, such as the time required

for delivery of a piece of equipment that

has been ordered. Our goal would be to

permit the air carrier to come into

compliance with the rule in an orderly

manner, and not simply to delay or

avoid the cost of compliance.

The FAA considers this rulemaking a

positive step towards promoting air

transportation by renewing confidence

in commuter operations. Most

importantly, this rulemaking should

reduce the accident rate of the affected

commuters to a rate that is closer to that

of current part 121 domestic operators.

This rulemaking is consistent with the

FAA’s obligation in accordance with

section 44701(d) of Title 49 of the U.S.

Code that when prescribing a regulation

or standard to promote safety or to

establish minimum safety standards, the

Administrator shall consider the duty of

an air carrier to provide service with the

highest possible degree of safety in the

public interest. The intent of this

rulemaking is to provide the highest

possible degree of safety to affected

commuter operations.

V.B. Applicability

The FAA proposed that part 121

requirements would apply to all

scheduled passenger-carrying

operations for compensation or hire in

airplanes with a passenger-seating

configuration of 10 or more seats and to

all scheduled passenger-carrying

operations for compensation or hire in

turbojet-powered airplanes regardless of

seating capacity. (Throughout the rest of

this document these certificate holders

are referred to as the ‘‘affected certificate

holders’’ or the ‘‘affected commuters.’’)

Under the proposal, scheduled

passenger-carrying operations in nonturbojet airplanes with 9 or fewer

passenger seats, on-demand operations

with airplanes with 30 or fewer

passenger seats, operations in singleengine airplanes, and operations in

rotorcraft would continue to be under

part 135.

The proposed rule would also have

eliminated the frequency of operations

test of five round trips per week which

allowed some part 135 scheduled

operations to be conducted under the

on-demand rules of part 135.

Comments: While no commenters

specifically object to applying part 121

requirements to commuter operations in

airplanes of 20 to 30 passenger seats,

several commenters, many of them

small part 135 certificate holders, object

to applying part 121 requirements to

commuter operations in airplanes of 10

to 19 passenger seats. According to

these commenters, the FAA did not

sufficiently justify imposing the more

restrictive part 121 requirements on

operations in these size airplanes and

the small certificate holders of these

airplanes would not be able to meet the

economic burden of the proposal. A few

certificate holders state that if the

regulations are implemented as

proposed they would either have to

downgrade their airplanes, reduce the

number of passenger seats, or terminate

certain services. This is especially the

case for small fixed-based certificate

holders, who conduct mostly ondemand service with some scheduled

service, and for certificate holders who

service remote areas such as parts of

Alaska, Hawaii, or the islands of Samoa.

Commenters also state that the burden

is greater for certificate holders not

affiliated with a major airline and that

drawing the line at 10 or more includes

many small, independent certificate

holders. According to commenters,

these certificate holders provide a

different kind of service from what the

larger commuter operators provide.

One commenter, IAPA, states that part

121 requirements should apply to all

scheduled passenger-carrying

operations, no matter how many seats

are on the airplane. According to this

commenter, by leaving out the under 10-

seat aircraft from the rulemaking,

passengers would be exposed to travel

on the least safe aircraft operating in

scheduled passenger transportation.

According to the commenter, most

under 10-seat aircraft are pistonengined, with a lower level of engine

reliability and performance. The aircraft

are frequently operated in harsh

environments thereby exposing

passengers to higher risks.

Many of the commenters who object

to the applicability of part 121 to aircraft

with 10 to 19 passenger seats, also

object to the definition of ‘‘scheduled’’

in proposed § 119.3. According to these

commenters, the effect of the current

description in SFAR 38–2 of commuter

air carriers that includes 5 round trips

per week should not be changed.

Apparently some small certificate

holders that conduct mostly on-demand

service also provide one or two

scheduled service flights per week.

According to these commenters, if they

have to upgrade the airplanes and

operations to part 121 to conduct these

scheduled flights, they will downgrade

the airplanes or terminate the service.

The commenters state that they cannot

afford to comply with part 121, that the

service they provide offers one-of-a-kind

service to remote places or resorts, and

that in some instances there is no

ground transportation to these locations.

Several on-demand operators and the

National Air Transportation Association

(NATA) comment that the FAA should

not revise part 135 on-demand

requirements either at this time or at

any time. These commenters are

responding to a statement in Notice 95–

5 that additional standards for ondemand air taxi operations may be

considered in the future.

The General Aviation Manufacturers

Association (GAMA) objects to

including all scheduled passengercarrying operations in turbojets under

part 121 regardless of the number of

passengers. While GAMA agrees with

the FAA’s assumption that no turbojets

are being used in regularly scheduled

part 135 operations, it objects to the

applicability because the FAA presented

no technical justification for the

proposal. GAMA recommends allowing

turbojets with a passenger-seating

capacity of 9 or less to operate under

part 135. Aerospace Industries

Association (AIA) also objects that no

rationale was presented for including

turbojets. AIA states that the proposed

rule offers an unfair competitive

advantage for normal category

turboprops against jets with a passengerseating capacity of 9 or less. United

West Airlines states that it is a small

operation with two jets, that it costs

$70,000 a year to train its four pilots,

and that the proposed rule will put the

airline out of business.
65838 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Two individual commenters

recommend that ‘‘any scheduled

operation with airplanes seating more

than 9 passengers but less than 19

passengers’’ be operated under

supplemental rules when that

scheduled operation is a code-sharing

arrangement with another part 121

scheduled carrier.

FAA Response: The so-called

‘‘frequency of operation’’ provision in

the SFAR 38–2 definition of commuter

air carrier does not exist for current part

121 operations. Affected commuters

being upgraded to part 121 by this rule

will be required to conduct all of their

scheduled operations under part 121

regardless of the number of scheduled

operations. However, the FAA has

decided to retain the frequency of

operations distinction for those

operations conducted in airplanes with

a passenger-seating configuration of 9

seats or less by revising the definitions

of ‘‘commuter operation’’ and ‘‘on

demand operation’’ in § 119.3.

Therefore, scheduled operations in

airplanes with a passenger-seating

configuration of 9 or less (except

turbojets) and conducted on a particular

route with a frequency of fewer than

five round trips per week (regardless of

whether one or more airplanes are used

on the route) would be conducted under

the requirements applicable to ondemand operations.

The FAA believes that, because of the

nature of the operation in which small

turbojets, which are type certificated

under part 25, are used (e.g.,

transoceanic, long range, international,

etc.), they approximate the operations of

larger air carriers. For example, part 135

contains no requirements for long-range

navigational equipment or long-range

fuel considerations. In an effort to

increase the safety for passengers

carried in those kinds of operations, the

FAA has determined that any scheduled

operations of turbojet airplanes should

be conducted under part 121.

The FAA disagrees with commenters

who suggest that commuter operations

in code-sharing arrangements should be

conducted under the rules for

supplemental operations. Code-sharing,

although it may affect passengers’

perceptions, is a business/marketing

arrangement and is not the basis for an

FAA regulatory scheme. Scheduled

operations in airplanes with 10 or more

passenger seats should come under part

121 domestic or flag, as appropriate, not

under supplemental rules.

The only operators who currently

operate under part 135 on-demand rules

that would be required to conduct their

operations under part 121 scheduled

rules are those who are included

because, as discussed above, part 121

does not contain a frequency of

operation provision. If circumstances in

the future necessitate a change to these

rules, commenters will have an

opportunity to comment on any

proposed changes.

Air Tour Industry Comments: Several

comments were received from air tour

operators in the State of Nevada and the

vicinity of the Grand Canyon. Some of

these certificate holders would be

affected by the rulemaking because they

operate nontransport category airplanes

of 10 to 19 seats and because they

provide point-to-point service; for

example, from Las Vegas to Grand

Canyon Airport even though the flights

are exclusively marketed as sightseeing

and not point-to-point travel. Despite

the fact that they technically fall into

the category of a commuter operator,

these commenters claim that they are

more like an on-demand operator and

that the proposed rule would penalize

them for using larger, safer airplanes

than their competitors. One of these

commenters states that it does not fly

city to city, but flies regularly scheduled

flights that take off and land at the same

airport. This operator states that,

because of the nature of the operation

and because of the proposed definition

changes, it would be required to comply

as a scheduled operator.

According to the commenters, since

they have upgraded from 6- to 9-seat

airplanes to 19-seat airplanes, they have

been required to install ground

proximity warning systems (GPWS),

traffic alert and collision avoidance

systems (TCAS), cockpit voice recorders

(CVR), and flight data recorders (FDR),

while their competitors have not been

burdened by these costs. According to

some of these commenters, this

equipment is not beneficial in their

operating environment because they

typically fly in VFR conditions on shortrange flights of an hour or less.

The commenters complain that if the

proposed rule is implemented, they will

be forced to replace the turboprop

airplanes with smaller reciprocatingpowered planes and will thereby lose

some significant safety benefits such as

the following:

• The two-pilot crew requirement

with captains required to hold an Air

Transport Pilot rating.

• Aircraft certificated to higher levels

of aircraft performance.

• Aircraft maintenance procedures

under the more comprehensive

Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance

Program.

• Safety equipment such as GPWS,

TCAS, CVR, and weather radar.

One commenter lists some of the more

‘‘onerous’’ proposed requirements:

• ‘‘Ditchable’’ exits in case of water

landings.

• Emergency floor path exits.

• Third attitude indicator (in aircraft

flown in daylight under visual flight

rules).

• Portable protective breathing

equipment (PBE).

A commenter points out that the new

aircraft performance requirements

would limit maximum operating weight

at Grand Canyon due to the high

altitude.

According to these commenters,

switching to smaller airplanes will

increase air traffic congestion in the

Grand Canyon area, decrease safety for

passengers, and double or triple noise

levels.

According to one commenter, these

certificate holders do not have codesharing partners and while these

certificate holders sometimes provide

point-to-point service, the flights are

typically part of an all-inclusive tour

package which includes ground

transfers to Las Vegas hotels, sightseeing

flights to the Grand Canyon, and motor

coach tours of the Grand Canyon. This

is totally unlike typical commuter

operations.

Another commenter, however, says

that at least one of the air tour operators

does use code-sharing with a major

carrier and that the offering of its

scheduled flights is available by

referencing airline computers all over

the world.

Some of the commenters cite an NTSB

report (‘‘Safety of the Air Tour Industry

in the United States,’’ June 1, 1995)

which states that the implementation of

SFAR 50–2 has created a safe operating

environment for air tour operators over

the Grand Canyon. One commenter

quotes NTSB as saying, ‘‘The level of

safety of air tour operations could be

improved by creating a national

standard for air tour operations that

contains definitions specific to the air

tour industry and specific requirements,

including unique operations

specifications, to accommodate

localized unique conditions, similar to

the special conditions contained in

SFAR 50–2.’’

One commenter states that his

company recruits retired airline pilots to

provide a high level of experience and

stability to the flightcrews.

The Clark County Board of Aviation is

concerned that the proposed rule could

be devastating to individual certificate

holders and adversely affect the vitality

of the air tour industry in Southern

Nevada.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65839

The Grand Canyon Air Tour Council

states that the proposed expanded

definition of ‘‘scheduled operations’’ is

the problem and that the definition was

changed with no satisfactory

explanation or justification.

The Office of the Lieutenant Governor

of Nevada testified at the public meeting

held in Las Vegas that compliance

would affect a ‘‘$250 million industry

that we have worked hard to develop.’’

FAA Response: The FAA does not

agree that air tour operations are totally

unlike commuter operations. Much of

an air tour flight is like much of a

commuter flight. If an air tour operator

is conducting scheduled operations, as

defined in § 119.3, in airplanes with a

passenger-seating configuration of 10 or

more, it must comply with part 121

domestic or flag requirements, as

applicable. This includes operators who

fly from and return to the same point on

a scheduled basis.

The FAA agrees that certain aspects of

air tour operations make them appear to

be unlike commuter operations. For

example, portions of air tour flights are

at lower altitudes, typically over rugged

and remote terrain, and often in airspace

that is congested with other sightseeing

aircraft. The FAA has begun an air tour

industry project to study the

implications of these differences to

safety and to develop regulations, as

necessary, to address specific features of

air tour operations. If regulations are

implemented as a result of the project,

they would be in addition to current

regulations, as is SFAR 50–2 which

prescribes requirements for special

conditions relating to flights over the

Grand Canyon. The FAA project will

consider the recent NTSB study cited by

commenters. Because certain part 121

and 135 provisions are being recodified

into part 119, SFAR 50–2 and SFAR 71

are being updated to conform to this

rulemaking.

Alaskan Comments: Several

comments were received from certificate

holders in Alaska, Alaska government

agencies, and others interested in how

the proposal will affect Alaskan

operations. Currently Alaskan certificate

holders conducting scheduled

operations in airplanes of 10 to 30 seats

comply with part 135. The regulations

allow them not to comply with flight

time limitations for scheduled

operations (§ 135.261(b) and (c)) and

instead allow them to follow the

regulations for on-demand operations.

Alaskan certificate holders using

airplanes of more than 30 seats must

comply with part 121 supplemental

requirements for nonscheduled flights

and flag requirements for international

and intra-Alaska scheduled operations.

Notice No. 95–5 proposed no exceptions

for Alaska. Certificate holders whose

operations fit the applicability for

scheduled operations for airplanes of 10

or more seats would be required to

comply with part 121 domestic

requirements. International operations

would follow flag requirements of part

121 and charter operations would

follow supplemental requirements of

part 121. Alaskan operators currently

operating under part 121 flag rules

would have to operate under part 121

domestic rules except for those

operations that meet the definition of

flag operations in proposed § 119.3.

The basic thrust of the comments is

that the Alaska environment is unique

and that requiring Alaskan commuter

operators to comply with part 121

requirements would be devastating to

certain certificate holders in Alaska and

therefore to certain segments of air

transportation. Furthermore

commenters point out that most air

transportation in Alaska is conducted in

small reciprocating-powered airplanes

with passenger-seating capacities of

under 10 seats. Therefore, the proposed

rule would not have a significant effect

on air transportation safety in Alaska

and would impose an economic burden

on a few certificate holders who provide

upgraded, i.e., safer, service. According

to commenters, the accident rate for

airplanes with under 10 seats is much

higher than for turbine-powered

airplanes with 19 seats. (Accident data

analyzed by the FAA verifies that,

unlike the rest of the nation, the part of

the commuter fleet in Alaska involved

in accidents contains a large proportion

of under-10-seat aircraft.)

Peninsula Airways (Penair), as well as

other commenters, states that

characteristics of Alaska make

commuter operations in the State unlike

those in other parts of the country. In

particular flights are conducted in the

same time zone, pilots do not have long

commutes to their jobs, flights are not

usually conducted between 9 p.m. and

7 a.m., and operations subject to Air

Traffic Control (ATC) are not in

congested airspace. This rationale is

primarily in defense of using the flight

time limit requirements of part 135

nonscheduled operations.

Several commenters emphasize the

absolute necessity of air travel in Alaska

where many of the towns and villages

are not accessible by road. They say that

Alaskans are dependent on air

transportation and the cost of that

transportation must remain affordable.

High cost items in the proposal, such as

the possible need to upgrade airports,

the use of a dispatch system, the various

equipment requirements, and certain

performance requirements, would boost

the fares to levels that many residents of

Alaska could not afford. The State of

Alaska Department of Transportation

and Public Facilities states that ‘‘the

proposed air carrier and airport

regulations could devastate Alaska’s

heavily aviation dependent economy.’’

The Alaska Air Carriers Association

(AACA) states that the proposed rule

would end the growth of the 10- to 19-

seat airplane and would increase fares

by 67 to 100 percent. The proposed

airport legislation is expected to cost the

state $100 million. AACA states that the

proposed rule would directly affect only

15 certificate holders in Alaska. Twothirds of the scheduled air carriers use

aircraft with a seating capacity of 10

seats or less.

ERA Aviation, which currently

operates under part 121 flag rules,

objects to the proposal to operate as

domestic/supplemental. It operates over

100 aircraft, fixed and rotary wing,

nationally and internationally. The

commenter states that for years Alaska

part 121 operators have been operating

under flag rules, both for scheduled and

nonscheduled operations. This has

allowed increased flexibility in crew

scheduling, which is necessary because

of the length of Alaska routes, the lack

of facilities in remote locations, and the

lack of road networks or other alternate

forms of transportation to outlying

communities. Section 119.21 would

require these carriers to operate under

domestic rules, which would decrease

crew scheduling flexibility, add

substantially to costs, derogate safety,

and probably result in the elimination of

vital air transportation services to some

outlying communities. The commenter

says there is no safety justification for

such a change because Alaska part 121

operators have established an excellent

safety record under existing rules. They

say that, at the very least, Alaska

carriers currently operating under flag

rules should be allowed to continue to

operate under flag rules for both

scheduled and nonscheduled

operations.

A part of the proposal that would

have affected several Alaskan certificate

holders is the proposal that singleengine airplanes with 10 passenger seats

now operating scheduled flights under

part 135 would in effect have to remove

a seat in order to continue operating in

scheduled service under part 135.

Single-engine airplanes are ineligible for

operation under part 121. The only 10-

seat single-engine airplane model

involved is the single-engine de

Haviland DHC–3 Otter (not to be

confused with the twin-engine de

Haviland DHC–6 Twin Otter mentioned
65840 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

elsewhere in this notice). According to

AACA and other commenters, there is

no possible safety benefit in taking a

seat out of an airplane, but the cost to

certificate holders who want to continue

to use these airplanes in scheduled

operations will be significant.

NATA comments that no accident

involving the Otter would have been

prevented by limiting the seating to 9

passengers. Furthermore, according to

the commenter, the FAA cost on this

issue is another example of gross

underestimation; actual costs will be 15

times higher (almost $22,000 per

aircraft). The City and Bureau of Juneau

opposes the proposal to remove a seat

from the 10-seat airplanes so that they

can operate under part 135. This

commenter notes that there will be

additional flights, additional noise, and

additional congestion on the water and

in the air. It notes that it is

incomprehensible how the reduction of

one seat from the Otter will provide an

additional level of safety. Wings of

Alaska comments that the most costefficient floatplane used in southeast

Alaska is the single-engine DHC–3

Otter. Because there is no cost-effective

replacement aircraft available for float

operations that offers the same capacity

as the Otter, replacing them is not an

option. Wings states that it operates the

Otter about 6 months a year. Four

communities that do not have runways

receive daily service. Wings purchased

five 10-seat Otters in ’92–93 to improve

service to a wilderness sports facility,

substantially reducing noise by reducing

the number of flights by 50%. Wings

notes that considering initial operating

experience (IOE) and route check

requirements, it is being operated at a

higher level of safety than the 10 seat,

on-demand aircraft allowed under the

rule to be operated in part 135. Wings

estimates that the removal of one seat

would have cost them $85,000 in 1994.

Wings asks that the Cessna Caravan and

the Cessna Grand Caravan also be

allowed to operate with 10 seats. AACA

comments that Ketchikan Air Service,

Taquan Air Service, and Wings of

Alaska together operate 12 Otters in

southeastern Alaska.

The NTSB comments that it

intentionally excluded airlines that

operate exclusively in Alaska from its

study of commuter airline safety

because of the unique characteristics of

the environment in Alaska. The NTSB

currently is conducting a study of

commercial Alaska aviation including

commuter airlines. The NTSB held two

public meetings in Alaska during June

1995 and visited a number of scheduled

and nonscheduled part 135 certificate

holders to collect information for the

study. The NTSB intends to compare

flying operations in Alaska with the rest

of the U.S. The study is scheduled for

completion in 1995. Several other

commenters mention the study and

suggest that the FAA should wait until

the study is completed before making

any changes to Alaskan regulations.

ALPA, GAMA, and other commenters

state that safety issues are the same in

or out of Alaska and that, therefore,

Alaska should not be given a blanket

exemption from the rulemaking. ALPA

and GAMA state that Alaskan certificate

holders, as well as certificate holders in

other parts of the country, may need to

be exempted from certain requirements

that are not applicable to the type of

operations being conducted and should

go through the standard exemption

request procedures in such cases.

One comment from an individual

pilot in Alaska states that the schedule

he flies of 14 days on and 14 days off

is exhausting, and that even though he

gets 10 hours of rest in each 24 hours,

it is not enough over a 14-day period.

He is in favor of the proposed flight time

limit changes.

Some Alaskan certificate holders

comment that they rely on experienced

pilots who are familiar with the

particular demands of Alaskan

operations. Penair states that 10 percent

of its pilots are age 60 or over and that

20 percent are over age 52.

Commenters who oppose the rule

suggest either exempting Alaska

altogether, not including the 10-to-19

seat airplanes in the rule, or allowing

under-19-seat airplanes to be covered

under the supplemental rules of part

121 rather than the domestic rules.

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with

the commenters who state that safety

issues are the same in or out of Alaska.

The FAA has specifically considered the

implications of the proposal on Alaska

given its unique characteristics and has

determined that the rules should apply

to Alaska as proposed. While the NTSB

comment on Notice 95–5 states that the

NTSB excluded Alaska from its safety

study on commuter airline safety, the

NTSB states in the report that its

findings from the information obtained

in the course of the study ‘‘apply to

operations in Alaska as well as the other

49 states and U.S. Territories.’’

(‘‘Commuter Airline Safety,’’ NTSB/SS–

94/02). Therefore, this final rule does

not provide a blanket exemption for

Alaska.

In response to the single-engine

airplane issue, the FAA has decided to

allow an exception to continue.

Currently, several part 135 certificate

holders conduct scheduled passengercarrying operations in single-engine

airplanes type certificated with two

pilot seats in the ‘‘cockpit’’ and 9

passenger seats in the ‘‘cabin.’’ Some

certificate holders are authorized to

conduct scheduled operations in that

airplane, the DHC–3 Otter, under

daytime VFR, and carry a tenth

passenger in the right-hand pilot seat. In

Notice 95–5, the FAA proposed to limit

all scheduled operations of singleengine airplanes to the carriage of nine

passengers, under all conditions. (60 FR

16235, 16273) The FAA has decided to

allow the current practice to continue

for operators who currently conduct

single-engine operations under daytime

VFR with a tenth passenger.

Comments on Exemptions/

Deviations/Waivers: Currently some

certificate holders operating under part

135 that will be affected by this

rulemaking have obtained exemptions,

deviations, and waivers from certain

part 135 requirements.

AACA states that AACA has held an

exemption on behalf of its members

allowing removal and installation of

aircraft seats by certain pilots and

trained ground personnel under an

FAA-approved program. The

commenter states that it is unclear

whether or not aircraft operated

previously under part 135 in Alaska

would be allowed to continue this seat

removal and installation under part 121

with an appropriate exemption. AACA

states that taking away this option

would significantly increase air carriers’

costs and diminish their flexibility to

utilize aircraft in ‘‘combi’’ (combination

cargo/passenger) configurations. AACA

recommends that all exemptions,

deviations, or waivers held by a part 135

operator automatically be carried over

into its part 121 operation. As presently

written, Notice 95–5 would require

compliance with part 121 first, and only

then would the FAA evaluate requests

for exemptions to part 121 rules. This

places additional and unwarranted

operational costs on air carriers

transitioning to part 121.

FAA Response: The specific

exemption referred to by the AACA

applies only to operations with

airplanes with a passenger-seating

configuration of 9 or less, and therefore

is not affected by this rulemaking.

However, exemptions issued for

operations under part 135 do not

automatically continue in effect for

operations under part 121. Therefore,

affected commuters who will in the

future be operating under part 121 must

reapply for any exemptions they believe

should apply to their part 121

operations after the compliance date of

this rule. Also, general exemptions

issued to present part 121 operators will
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65841

not apply automatically to new part 121

operators so any new part 121 operator

will have to apply to be included in

these existing exemptions.

V.C. Aircraft Certification

The proposed rule would amend part

121 to require each 10- to 19-passenger

seat airplane that is to be operated in

scheduled operations and for which an

application for type certification is

made after March 24, 1995, to be type

certificated in the transport category.

Affected commuter airplanes are type

certificated under the requirements of

part 23.

In Notice 95–5 the FAA stated its

intent to review the standards of parts

23 and 25 to see if the level of safety

intended by part 25 could be achieved

for those airplanes with a passengerseating configuration of 19 or less

through compliance with a particular

standard of part 23 or another standard,

in lieu of the corresponding standard of

part 25. On completion of that review

the FAA stated its intent in future

rulemaking to consider amending part

25 as necessary to accommodate type

certification in the transport category of

certain types of airplanes previously

type certificated in the commuter

category.

The FAA also proposed that airplanes

configured with 10 to 19 passenger seats

already in service or manufactured in

the future under an already existing part

23 commuter category type certificate

would have to comply by specified

compliance dates with certain

performance and equipment

requirements in part 121. These

performance and equipment

requirements are discussed later in this

preamble.

In Notice 95–5 the FAA included a

table that set out a list of potential

modifications that were being

considered for application to airplanes

having a passenger-seating configuration

of 10–19 seats that were type

certificated in the commuter category

(or a predecessor) if the airplanes are to

be used in scheduled operations under

part 121. The table included a column

that indicated that for 12 of the 38

issues addressed, the FAA had

determined that any required upgrade

should apply only to airplanes

manufactured under a type certificate

for which application is made after

March 24, 1995. Since these 12 issues

will be the subject of a future NPRM, the

FAA is not addressing specific

comments on the substance or cost of

these issues in this document.

Comments: ALPA fully supports the

proposal to require newly-designed

airplanes to comply with the standards

of part 25 and also supports continued

use of commuter category airplanes. The

commenter does not, however, concur

that airplanes type certificated under

part 23 normal category (i.e., precommuter category) should be permitted

to remain in operation with more than

10 passenger seats, even in non-air

carrier service. ALPA appears to base its

position on differences in performance

requirements between commuter

category and the predecessor normal

category standards.

American Eagle supports the

proposed rulemaking and states that,

‘‘while there may be limited

circumstances when aircraft design and/

or manufacture may preclude or delay

compliance with FAR part 121 or FAR

part 25, cost and weight considerations

should not be an acceptable barrier to

the increase in safety which is derived

from applying the higher standards of

aircraft airworthiness, airline operations

and passenger safety which those

regulations provide.’’

In contrast, six other commenters do

not believe that any propeller-driven

airplanes with 10 to 19 passenger seats

should be required to meet the transport

category standards of part 25. Although

the commenters’ reasons vary, the

comments focus on three basic issues:

(1) Commuter category standards are

appropriate for airplanes of this class;

(2) there is no evidence that safety

would be enhanced by requiring future

airplanes to comply with part 25; and

(3) the cost of complying with part 25

would be prohibitive.

Similar comments concerning

recertification of existing part 23

airplanes under part 25 were also

offered, apparently under the

misunderstanding that airplanes already

type certificated, or derivatives of those

airplanes, would have to be

recertificated under part 25.

Some commenters believe that the

airplane certification issue is of such

magnitude that it should be held in

abeyance for a separate future

rulemaking program. In this regard, the

commenters assert that extensive

changes to part 25 would be needed to

accommodate the airplanes otherwise

certifiable under part 23 commuter

category and that those changes would

entail a considerable expenditure of

FAA resources. They further believe

that any such changes should be subject

to harmonization with corresponding

standards of the European Joint

Aviation Requirements (JAR).

Several commenters cite the FAA’s

1977 proposal to require all airplanes

used in air carrier service to meet part

25 transport category standards. That

proposal was later withdrawn.

According to commenters, the part 23

standards of that era were considerably

different from those of today’s part 23

commuter category. The level of safety

expected by the public today is much

greater than that tolerated in 1977.

A number of other commenters

address the proposed retrofitting of

existing part 23 normal and commuter

category airplanes to meet certain part

25 standards. Those comments are

addressed in the section-by-section

portion of this preamble (Section VI).

One commenter has developed and

produces a unique propulsion system in

which two turbine engines drive a

single propeller through a common

gearbox. In addition to the installations

already being made in existing

airplanes, the commenter anticipates a

future installation of this system in an

airplane of entirely new design. Since

any new model would have to be type

certificated under the provisions of part

25 in order to be eligible for operation

under part 121, the commenter requests

that part 25 be amended to

accommodate airplanes with this or

similar propulsion systems.

FAA Response: Rather than forcing

the retirement of part 23 normal

category airplanes, as recommended by

ALPA, the FAA proposed in Notice No.

95–5 to permit their continued use in air

carrier service provided certain changes

were made on a retrofit basis to enhance

their level of safety. Banning those

airplanes would be extremely costly, but

most importantly could result in an

unintended safety decrement. Indeed,

the FAA’s analysis indicates that

moving too quickly on the imposition of

part 121 standards could have the

unintended effect of lowering the level

of safety because operators would not be

in a financial position to quickly obtain

new airplanes and currently there are

not enough replacement airplanes

available that meet the higher standards.

The result could be a shift from 10- to

19-seat turbopropeller airplanes to 9-

seat or less reciprocating engine

airplanes, which have an even higher

accident rate.

The six commenters’ assertions that

commuter category standards of part 23

are appropriate for airplanes of this

class and that there is no evidence that

safety would be enhanced by type

certification under part 25 are, to a

certain extent, correct. Through a

number of recent amendments and

pending amendments, the level of safety

established by the commuter category

has been and is being enhanced

considerably. In many instances,

commuter category airplanes must meet

standards that are the same as, or very

similar to, those of part 25 transport
65842 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

category. Requiring future 10- to 19-

passenger seat airplanes to be type

certificated under part 25 would

complete this effort to ensure that these

airplanes used in air carrier service meet

the same aircraft certification standards

as the larger airplanes.

In response to comments that part 23

airplanes could not be type certificated

using part 25 standards, the FAA notes

that it did not propose in Notice No. 95–

5 that part 23 normal or commuter

category airplanes presently in

operation would have to comply with

part 25 standards for type certification.

Instead, it proposed that part 23

airplanes that will be required to be

operated under part 121 will have to

comply with certain part 121 equipment

and performance requirements.

In response to the individual

comment on a unique propulsion

system, although the commenter’s

request is beyond the scope of this

rulemaking, it will be considered during

the review of part 25 discussed above.

V.D. Flight Time Limits and Rest

Requirements

The FAA proposed that the part 121

domestic flight time limits and rest

requirements would apply to affected

commuter operators when conducting

operations within the United States.

Under the proposal affected commuter

operators, when conducting operations

to or from the United States, would

comply with the flag flight time

limitations and rest requirements of

subpart R. Additionally, if these

certificate holders use these same

airplanes for nonscheduled operations,

those certificate holders would be

required to comply with supplemental

flight time limitations and rest

requirements of subpart S of part 121.

As stated in Notice 95–5, since the

flight time limitations and rest

requirements for flag and supplemental

operations were not updated in 1985

when domestic limits were, the FAA

has developed an NPRM that is being

issued concurrently with this final rule.

(See elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register.)

Comments: Atlantic Southeast

Airlines (ASA), Regional Airlines

Association (RAA), and Big Sky Airlines

comment that the FAA should provide

specific and scientifically-based data to

support this significant change.

Fairchild Aircraft adds that the

additional time off duty provided by the

proposal will not necessarily be used for

rest. NATA comments that there are

differences in part 135 operations that

justify a different set of flight time

limitations and rest requirements: part

135 operations are generally confined to

a particular area, pilots of smaller

certificate holders rarely commute a

long distance to and from work, and

pilots have fewer overnight stays as part

of their schedules. Air Vegas comments

that unless an exception is provided,

seasonal operators would have to hire

additional crews in order not to exceed

the 7-day limit of 30 hours or the

monthly limit of 120 hours. This

commenter notes that short-term

employment of such pilots is next to

impossible. Morton Beyer and

Associates comments that the cost of

hiring additional pilots is expected to

add another $250 million to airline

costs. Twin Otter International

comments that the 1,200 yearly limit in

part 135 is based on the part 121 100-

hour-per-month concept, and that the

regulations really are similar.

Several individuals strongly urge the

FAA to adopt the part 121 standards for

the upgrading commuter pilots.

American Eagle comments that it

applies part 121 domestic rules to its

part 135 operations and believes that all

air carriers providing commercial

passenger service should use either the

domestic or flag rules of part 121.

One individual notes that the reduced

rest provision in part 135 allows for

only 8 hours of rest between scheduled

flights. Another individual comments

that commuter pilots have a high

frequency of takeoffs and landings, fly

in the busier low-altitude airspace, deal

with more controllers per flight mile,

and deal with more weather than their

part 121 counterparts. One person

comments that certificate holders

routinely schedule 3–4 hour breaks to

preclude violations of the 8 hours of

flight in 24 hours rule; however, the

effect of this is to stretch out the duty

day. The result is a higher duty time to

flight time ratio which is not accounted

for in the current rules. IAPA supports

the proposal but also expresses concern

that the current regulations fail to count,

as part of duty time, the time period

when flightcrews are on reserve duty,

standby duty, or carrying a pager or

other telephonic device. IAPA urges the

FAA to treat reserve or standby duty as

duty time.

ALPA comments that while the

upgrade to part 121 will result in an

improvement in flight time limits and

rest requirements, part 121 will

continue to be deficient in this area

until additional rulemaking action is

taken, as promised by the FAA.

Alaska commenters argue for

maintaining the current regulations.

ERA Aviation estimates that if the

proposed rule is adopted, it would

necessitate at least a 15% increase in the

number of pilots it would need,

resulting in a $500,000+ increase in

costs. Penair finds four reasons for

excepting Alaska: Operations are

conducted in the same time zone, few

Alaska pilots commute to their jobs, less

than 5% of Alaska operations occur

between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and

Alaska does not have the congested ATC

operations which are found in the lower

48 states. AACA also presents this

argument, adding that going from 1,400

hours of duty per year down to 1,000

represents a 29% decrease in

productivity. Other Alaska certificate

holders, e.g., Wings, Northern Air Cargo,

Taquan Air Service, Tanana, endorse

the AACA comment.

One individual commenter from

Alaska opposes any attempt to create

exceptions to the requirements for

Alaska. This person supports the

assertion that Alaskan operations are

basically the same as state-side

operations and should be afforded no

special exemptions.

This individual, a pilot who flew over

1,300 hours last year, states that there

were many consecutively scheduled 14-

hour duty days and many canceled days

off. Ten hours of rest may sound

adequate, but not for days on end. The

individual questions the logic that one

is more rested in one geographic area

than in another. According to the

commenter, duty cycles that are unsafe

in the lower 48, are also unsafe in

Alaska.

Another individual from Alaska states

that the FAA has shown no data to

indicate any problem with the

provisions of § 135.261(b), which allows

Alaskan scheduled operators to use

§ 135.267. The individual states that in

1994, he flew 1320 hours, had 173 days

off, slept in his own bed every night,

and never had less than 10 continuous

hours of rest in any 24-hour period. He

believes he probably had more rest and

time off than the average long-haul part

121 pilot. The commenter states that the

proposed flight/duty time limits would

cause scheduling nightmares for

operations in rural/remote parts of

Alaska.

FAA Response: The FAA is holding in

abeyance a final decision on the

proposed imposition of current part 121

flight time limitations and rest

requirements on affected commuters

pending a review and disposition of

comments on the separate flight and

duty rulemaking in which the FAA

proposes to overhaul all the flight and

duty rules. The separate rulemaking, if

adopted, would harmonize flight and

rest requirements for all part 121 and

part 135 carriers. The FAA anticipates

that the separate rulemaking will result

in a net cost savings to the industry as
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65843

a whole. In the meantime, affected

commuters will continue to operate

under the current part 135 flight and

duty rules. This will prevent needless

expenditure of resources by affected

commuters who would have to

implement flight and rest provisions

under the commuter rule proposal and

then later might have to change their

system to comply with the separate

rulemaking. For the same reasons the

FAA will allow part 121 certificate

holders operating in Alaska and Hawaii

to continue to follow the flight and duty

rules of part 121 applicable to flag

operations, even though under this

rulemaking these certificate holders are

now classified as conducting domestic

operations.

Accordingly, §§ 121.470, 121.480, and

121.500 include an exception for

affected commuters allowing that they

continue to comply with flight time

limits and rest requirements of part 135.

Additionally, § 121.470 will allow

existing Alaska and Hawaii intrastate

scheduled domestic operations to

continue to be conducted under flag

rules.

V.E. Age 60 Rule

Section 121.383(c) prohibits a

certificate holder from using the

services of any person as a pilot, and

prohibits any person from serving as a

pilot, on an airplane engaged in

operations under part 121 if that person

has reached his or her 60th birthday.

Part 135 has not had any such

limitation. The FAA proposed to impose

one age limitation on all pilots

employed in part 121 operations,

including those pilots currently

employed in affected part 135

scheduled operations. The FAA stated

in Notice 95–5 that if it determines that

it is appropriate to propose a different

age limit in another rulemaking action,

it will propose to apply the revised

limitation to all part 121 operations,

including the pilots in commuter

operations.

Comments: The age limitation

question was the subject of over 2,000

written comments (including about

1,000 postcards from members of an

airline pilot organization) and oral

presentations at public meetings. The

overwhelming majority of these

comments concern the general question

of whether there is a need for an age

limit in part 121, and do not address

any particular aspects of applying an

age rule to commuter pilots.

Several commenters, however, state

that if commuter pilots are subjected to

an age limit, the FAA should adopt a

phased-in implementation schedule to

avoid abruptly ending the careers of

pilots who had not planned on retiring

at age 60. Another commenter states that

it hires over-age-60 retired part 121

pilots.

FAA Response: As discussed above,

the FAA has identified a strong need to

enhance the safety of commuter

operations. Commuter airlines are

carrying an increasing number of

passengers over an increasing number of

miles. While safety has improved over

the past two decades, commuter airlines

operating under part 135 continue to

have a higher accident rate than

domestic part 121 airlines. The FAA can

no longer justify most distinctions

between parts 121 and 135 commuter

operations.

The part 121 regulatory scheme

provides a network of safety features.

Because most accidents are caused by

human error, rules designed to enhance

the performance of pilots are among the

most valuable in reducing the number of

accidents. Elsewhere in this preamble

the FAA discusses other provisions that

serve this purpose, such as the critical

role of the aircraft dispatch system in

double checking the work of the pilot

and providing updates on weather and

alternate airports. The training

requirements for commuter pilots are

being upgraded, and eventually part 121

flight and duty time rules or the newly

proposed rules will apply to them. The

Age 60 Rule provides an additional

measure of safety by reducing the risk

that age-related degradation will affect

pilot performance. A pilot may have the

best training in the world, and be wellsupported by an aircraft dispatch

system, but if the pilot suffers from a

subtle age-related degradation in

performance, safety will be reduced.

Also, the potential safety benefits of

training and dispatching may be

reduced by human safety lapses that

could occur or do occur more frequently

with age.

The ‘‘Age 60 Rule’’ was adopted by

the FAA in 1959 (24 FR 9767, December

5, 1959). At the time Notice 95–5 was

issued, the FAA was also considering

whether, in the interest of safety, the

Age 60 Rule should be retained as is or

revised to allow pilots to continue to fly

in part 121 operations past their 60th

birthday. The FAA completed its review

of the Age 60 Rule. In a Disposition of

Comments (Disposition) published in

the Federal Register, [cite], the FAA

announced that it will not propose to

change the Age 60 Rule at this time. The

Disposition thoroughly discusses the

various issues regarding the need for an

age limitation and what that age should

be, including the issues raised in the

comments to Notice 95–5 that concern

the Age 60 Rule in general, and those

comments will not be further discussed

here. This rulemaking deals only with

the application of part 121 rules to

affected commuter operations.

In Notice 95–5 the FAA proposed a

general compliance date (that is, a date

on which most provisions must be

complied with) of 1 year after

publication. The Notice also proposed

delayed compliance dates for several of

the requirements (other than the age

limitation), to provide time for the work

necessary to comply with the proposed

requirements. In this final rule, the FAA

has adopted a general compliance date

of 15 months after the date of

publication of this final rule in

§ 121.2(c), and also has adopted delayed

compliance dates for a number of

requirements, giving the air carriers 2, 4,

or more years to comply with certain of

the new requirements.

In response to the comments

requesting delayed compliance dates,

and after further evaluation, the FAA

has considered that there are factors

warranting delay in the compliance date

for the Age 60 Rule, as it applies to

those affected commuters that now will

be brought under part 121. The lack of

an age limitation in part 135 has created

reasonable expectations on the part of

both the affected commuter operators

and pilots regarding the length of time

that the pilots would continue in

service: Some of those operators have

spent money to hire and train pilots

with the expectation that they would

serve past the age of 60; and the pilots

have not had to plan on leaving their

positions at age 60. In fact, certain

affected commuters appear to have a

practice of hiring retired part 121 pilots,

and will no longer be able to do so.

Further, this rule requires the affected

commuters to make extensive changes

in equipment, personnel, and

procedures before the general

compliance date. Also, final rules have

been adopted that impose new

requirements for training, including

standardized pilot training and crew

resource management training. The

affected commuters operators should

not be required to stop using the

services of their over-age-60 pilots in

scheduled operations (10 or more seats)

and train replacements until these new

programs are in place, and the training

can be under the new programs.

Accordingly, the FAA has determined

that the Age 60 Rule, as it applies to

certain pilots, should have an extended

compliance date. As it applies to pilots

newly hired by commuter operators, the

Age 60 Rule will apply on the general

compliance date indicated in § 121.2(c).

Until that date, there will be no age

restrictions on the pilots of commuter
65844 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

operations that are upgrading to part

121. After that date, the affected

commuters will no longer be able to hire

pilots who have reached their 60th

birthday (except for pilots who as of that

date were employed as pilots for

another affected commuter). However,

pilots who are employed by affected

commuters on that date will be able to

continue to serve until December 20,

1999, after which the Age 60 Rule will

apply to every pilot under part 121.

The delay in applying the rule will

provide some relief from the difficulties

discussed above. The 4-year compliance

period for these pilots will permit the

affected commuters to recover services

for several more years from those pilots

in which they recently have invested in

training. Delaying the application of the

rule to new hires until the general

compliance date will give affected

commuters time to adopt new hiring

practices, at a time when the operators

will have many other new requirements

under this rule to comply with. The 4-

year compliance period for pilots will

give them time to plan for retirement or

for changing jobs. It will also give

affected commuters additional time to

make careful selections of well-qualified

pilots and train them under the new

training requirements. And, the

operators will not have to replace all of

their over-age-60 pilots at once, at a time

when so many other new requirements

must be complied with.

V.F. Dispatch System

Parts 121 and 135 require certificate

holders to exercise operational control

over all flights conducted by the

certificate holder. ‘‘Operational control’’

is defined in 14 CFR part 1 as ‘‘The

exercise of authority over initiating,

conducting and terminating a flight.’’

Operational control consists of making

decisions and performing activities on

an ongoing basis that are necessary to

operate specific flights safely. These

activities include among other things

crew and airplane scheduling,

reviewing weather and NOTAM’s

(Notices to Airmen), and flight

planning.

Parts 121 and 135 provide for three

general types of operational control

systems based on the kinds of

operations and the complexity of

operations: aircraft dispatch, flight

following, and flight locating systems.

Part 121 domestic and flag operations

require a dispatch system, part 121

supplemental requires a flight following

system, and part 135 requires a flight

locating system for any flight for which

a flight plan is not filed. In Notice 95–

5, the FAA proposed that the affected

commuters would be required to have a

dispatch system. Affected commuters

would have to meet all part 121

dispatch requirements, including

dispatcher qualification requirements,

recordkeeping, and flight release

requirements. As proposed, affected

commuters that would conduct some

nonscheduled flights under part 121

supplemental rules could use a flight

following method for the nonscheduled

flights.

The FAA also stated in Notice 95–5

that Alaskan operations pose certain

unique problems and requested

comments on alternatives that could be

considered for Alaska.

Comments: Two individuals suggest

that the use of a dispatcher and dispatch

system be an option for 10- to 19-seat

certificate holders, recommending

compliance with existing subpart F of

part 121. Both commenters believe that

the FAA should seriously consider

permitting, at least on an interim 36-

month basis, compliance with subpart F

flight following requirements in lieu of

subpart E dispatch requirements for

transition carriers. This will, in their

opinions, gain the early momentum of

the industry by making it possible for

many certificate holders to transition

early. A long lead time is necessary to

qualify existing personnel as

dispatchers under existing part 65. The

commenters remind the agency that

during the early 1980’s, by the FAA’s

own rules, 20- to 30-seat aircraft were

subject to part 121 supplemental rules,

including the flight following

requirements of subpart F. One of these

individuals also states that interim

compliance with subpart F flight

following requirements would ease the

transition to subpart E dispatch

requirements for affected certificate

holders.

NATA comments that the FAA lacks

understanding on the types of

operations 10- to 19-seat certificate

holders typically fly and recommends a

flight following system instead of a

dispatch system. NATA states that many

small, independent carriers operating

aircraft with 10 to 19 seats may have

only 2 to 4 of these types of airplanes

and may operate them over only a few

selected routes. According to NATA,

many of these carriers conduct ondemand operations in addition to their

scheduled activity. NATA believes,

along with several other commenters,

that for operations such as these, to

implement a full dispatch system will

result in significant cost with little or no

benefit.

RAA and other commenters suggest

that the FAA identify specific safety

objectives in requiring a dispatch

system for short-haul certificate holders.

One commenter believes that a formal

dispatch system for all scheduled air

carriers should be required, but points

out both the pros and cons of requiring

such a system. This commenter, as well

as others, states that pilots may be

shouldering many additional

responsibilities other than flying the

aircraft in an effort to minimize the cost

of flight operations. Due to the task

saturation of pilots and other

crewmembers, functions involving flight

planning, weather analysis, and weight

and balance calculations may not be

thoroughly performed. According to the

commenter, the majority of commuter

pilots are, as a rule, very young and

inexperienced. These crews must

continually perform at peak levels of

performance both on the ground and in

the air.

According to this commenter, as well

as others, the use of the flight dispatcher

would increase safety, operational

efficiency, and productivity. The duties

of filing the flight plans, checking

NOTAMs, planning fuel requirements

dictated by weather, and obtaining ATC

routing would be completed by the

dispatcher prior to the crew arriving for

the flight. Optimum routes based on

known ATC or weather delays would be

filed, resulting in substantial fuel

savings and improved arrival and

departure reliability. The pilots would

now be able to concentrate on flying and

be able to relax and rest between flights.

Flight could be more effectively

managed, thus saving fuel, maximizing

aircraft utilization, and passenger

satisfaction.

On the other hand, according to the

commenter, mandating the dispatch

system for part 135 air carriers may

create some heavy financial burdens. It

will require a facility, communications

hardware for the facility and the aircraft,

trained personnel, and training for

dispatchers. The initial capital outlay

would not be recovered for several

years. According to the commenter, this

mandate will place severe constraints

on many less established carriers and

may actually result in bankruptcy for

some.

Many commenters are in favor of the

role of the aircraft dispatcher in

operational control issues. One

commenter states that the requirement

for a formal dispatch system is long

overdue.

One commenter believes that dispatch

centers might create a sense of

complacency on the part of the

flightcrew and, along with other

commenters, thinks that automated

flight planning and flight following

information should be used in lieu of

dispatchers and dispatch centers. Two
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65845

of the commenters advocating

automated flight following systems state

that the three accidents cited by the

FAA in Notice 95–5 would not have

been prevented by the use of a

dispatcher. One commenter states that

in his experience PIC’s typically check

dispatcher computations but do not

duplicate the computations as the FAA

stated in Notice 95–5.

The NTSB states that in its 1994 study

report, it examined the differences in

flight dispatch requirements between

parts 121 and 135. The NTSB found

that, in the absence of support from

licensed dispatch personnel, pressures

on commuter airline pilots to

accomplish several tasks between flights

in shorter periods of time might increase

the risk of critical mistakes that could

jeopardize the safety of flight. As a

result, the NTSB recommended that the

FAA require each principal operations

inspector (POI) to periodically review

air carrier flight operations policies and

practices concerning pilot tasks

performed between flights. This review

was to ensure that carriers provide

pilots with adequate resources (such as

time and personnel) to accomplish those

tasks. According to NTSB, the proposed

rulemaking, if implemented, would

meet the intent of the safety

recommendation (A–94–193).

ASA, RAA, and Gulfstream

International Airlines support many of

the elements of the dispatcher rule.

They state that flight dispatch systems

that are required under part 121 are

extensive since they address the

dispatch and en route communications

needs for a span of air carriers from

international airlines with worldwide

flight operations to the largest U.S.

regional carriers. ASA supports the

requirement for licensed dispatchers,

believing that the most qualified

candidates for licensing as dispatchers

are the individuals currently employed

as flight followers. These commenters

request that the criteria in § 65.57 be

examined to provide guidance for

granting a dispatcher certificate based

on practical experience as a flight

follower under part 135 operations.

According to the commenters, many

flight followers have passed the written

portion of the dispatch license but have

not attended formal dispatch school and

do not hold licenses. However, they

may have extensive practical experience

in scheduled air carrier operations

performing what is essentially a

dispatcher function. According to these

commenters, the criteria contained in

§ 65.57 includes experience in

scheduled military operations. The

commenters believe that if military

experience is applicable, the experience

of a flight follower with a scheduled

airline should qualify. These

commenters also point out that the

practical portion of the dispatcher

license is administered using a Boeing

727 aircraft. The commenters believe

that while many of the functions and

decision making circumstances would

be the same, the experience of part 135

flight followers, managing flights of high

performance turbopropeller-powered

aircraft is a considerably more

significant and practical measure of

their capabilities than military

experience or demonstrating their skills

in managing a turbojet operation. The

commenters believe that the cost and

time to send current flight followers to

a formal dispatcher school is not

justified.

Samoa Air comments that since its

longest flight is only 70 miles (35

minutes), a dispatch system would not

enhance or change any of its current

requirements. Samoa has established

VFR and IFR fuel requirements to all of

its destinations and the requirements do

not change. The only alternate airport is

the destination airport. Samoa also

states that § 121.101 requires each

domestic and flag operator to show that

enough weather reporting facilities are

available along each route to ensure

weather reports and forecasts necessary

for operations. Section 135.213 allows

the pilot in command to use various

other sources, including his own

weather assessment, for VFR operations.

Of the four airports Samoa serves, only

one (departure airport) is in controlled

airspace with weather reporting

facilities and instrument approach

procedures. Enroute and terminal

weather conditions are received through

the ATC tower from their weather

station. VHF communications with the

tower cover almost the entire route, so

the aircraft has ready access to any

weather information available and

direct information on the status of

communications, navigation, and

airport facilities. A dispatcher would

not enhance safety but would add

significant cost. If Samoa is required to

provide weather conditions at each

airport to the pilot from an approved

source and the pilot can not assess the

weather himself, the rule change could

eliminate all of Samoa’s present

operations.

Similarly, Inter Island and Air Vegas

comment that the requirement for

enroute weather reporting is unfeasible

because of minimal weather reporting

facilities in the certificate holders’

regions. Air Vegas also comments that

radio communication in mountainous

terrain would be difficult if not

impossible with VHF radio systems

because mountains block radio

transmission.

Air Vegas comments that all

‘‘dispatcher duties’’ are currently being

accomplished by personnel in the

operations department, station

managers, and company pilots. All

flight following is being done by

telephone. The commenter states that

current flight following procedures meet

part 135 requirements and are

operationally safe and efficient.

Mesa Airlines comments that due to

its short flight segments and the lack of

significant weather changes in the areas

in which it operates, a dispatch system

is not needed. Mesa believes that all

enroute communications can be

accomplished by ATC.

AACA states that the requirements of

subpart E come at a time when the

availability of weather information in

Alaska has been identified as a

significant issue adversely affecting

aviation activities (proceedings of an

NTSB ‘‘Aviation Safety in Alaska’’

forum, May 1995).

The Airline Dispatchers Federation

supports the dispatch proposal and

agrees with the upgrading of current

commuter facilities to dispatch centers.

It believes this upgrading is necessary

because of the extensive use of codesharing by the aviation industry. The

commenter is not in favor of amending

part 121 dispatch rules for certificate

holders of the 10- to 19-seat category.

The commenter provides its estimate of

costs to certificate holders that could be

affected by the implementation of this

rule. The commenter notes that the costs

provided by some certificate holders

may not be accurate. For example, cost

estimates concerning flight planning

and performance issues are inaccurate

since several airlines use bulk stored

flight plans and performance

information taken directly from aircraft

flight manuals for fuel planning. The

commenter also provides its assessment

of various aircraft accidents for which it

believes dispatchers could have made a

difference in changing events that led to

the accident (crew fatigue, lack of

management oversight, operational

control issues, late arriving weather

information).

ALPA comments that dispatchers

should be required to complete their 5-

hour inflight operating experience in 10-

to 30-seat aircraft, not in larger 60-seat

aircraft, as currently allowed. ALPA

proposes that § 121.400(b) be amended

by adding a group specific to propellerdriven aircraft with a seating capacity

between 10–30 seats.

AACA comments that due to the

operating environment of Alaska, the

pilot and not the dispatcher is in a
65846 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

better position to access and evaluate

operational control information. The

commenter believes that scheduled

operations in Alaska more closely

resemble the operations conducted

under supplemental rules and not

domestic or flag operations. The

commenter notes that pilots frequently

are not in radio communication with

company offices directly, but could

communicate via Flight Service Station,

ATC, or other aircraft. According to the

commenter, enroute and destination

weather conditions are either not

accessible or not available at any time

from ‘‘official’’ sources. The commenter

notes that three affected certificate

holders in Alaska presently have a part

121 type dispatch system in place.

AACA further states that the assumption

that estimated fuel savings by

dispatchers would offset the cost of

establishing a dispatch system is not

true. AACA recommends that the FAA

adopt the flight following supplemental

rules of part 121 for Alaskan 10–19 seat

certificate holders. AACA also

recommends that current part 135

personnel be ‘‘grandfathered’’ for

dispatcher certificates if they have been

employed as flight followers. The

commenter notes that the practical

experience dealing with turboprop

aircraft and flight planning may be lost

to the industry if flight followers are

required to take extensive dispatcher

training courses, pass a written and

practical test, and lose time and money

on the job while they obtain an FAA

dispatcher certificate.

FAA Response: The FAA anticipates

that requiring operators to have a

certificated dispatcher double check the

work of the pilot and provide the

flightcrew with updates on weather and

alternate airports can reduce human

factor errors. With a dispatcher system,

the chances of pilot miscalculations or

oversights could be reduced. Moreover,

a dispatcher can assist the flightcrew in

making plans for an alternate airport

(which might be necessary due to

weather problems, air traffic control

problems, airplane equipment problems,

fuel problems, etc * * *) during the

flight while the crew focuses on flying

the airplane.

The FAA disagrees with the

recommendation to make the use of a

dispatcher and dispatch system optional

since that would not address the safety

issues involved. The FAA also disagrees

that a flight following system is an

acceptable alternative to a dispatch

system or that dispatch systems are not

needed for limited flight distances if

there is adequate weather reporting

facilities. The use of a dispatch system

is based on the type of operation

(scheduled), and not the distance of a

flight, the number of aircraft, or the type

of aircraft being flown. Flight following

systems are used for nonscheduled

operations, and could be used for

nonscheduled operations by affected

commuters under the supplemental

rules of part 121. Note: The dispatch

system requirements apply only to

scheduled passenger-carrying

operations.

The FAA disagrees with the basic idea

that the decision making process of

operational control of aircraft can be

made by automated means. While

automation has improved the accuracy

and timeliness of flight planning,

weather information, and NOTAMs,

nothing so far has replaced the decision

making capabilities of a certificated

dispatcher. Dispatchers receive training

in subject matter beyond just flight

planning, e.g. crew resource

management, hazardous materials

regulations. These subjects are just a

small representation of the subject

matter an aircraft dispatcher must know

in order to make operational control

decisions.

The FAA agrees with the comment

that dispatchers are usually in a better

position to review weather reports and

forecasts than pilots hurrying to

accomplish other postflight/preflight

aircraft duties. Operational control

issues are enhanced when both the pilot

in command and the aircraft dispatcher

are jointly responsible for the safe

conduct of a flight. As several

commenters point out the overall level

of safety is enhanced when a dispatcher

is available to assist and back up the

pilots who already may have numerous

responsibilities in addition to flying the

airplane. Thus, while it may not be

possible to pinpoint accidents that have

actually been prevented by a dispatch

system, there can be little doubt that the

existence of a dispatch system

contributes to the overall high level of

safety of scheduled operations under

part 121.

The FAA does not agree that use of

dispatchers would lead to complacency

on the part of the flight crewmembers.

Section 121.663 states that for each

domestic and flag operation, a dispatch

release must be prepared based on

information furnished by an authorized

dispatcher. The pilot in command and

an authorized dispatcher shall sign the

release only if they both believe that the

flight can be made safely. Dispatchers

provide the necessary resources and

expertise needed to review operational

control issues.

In response to comments that in some

companies ‘‘dispatch’’ functions are

being adequately performed by

individuals from three separate

departments (operations, station

managers, and company pilots), the

FAA finds that operational control

decisions can not be effectively made by

three separate groups of individuals.

The perception is that ‘‘whoever is

available’’ makes the decision. For

effective operational control, the

dispatch process should be standardized

and consistent.

In response to NATA’s and others’

comments on the nature of 10- to 19-seat

certificate holders, the FAA finds that

these certificate holders are not unique.

The same situation currently exists for

some part 121 certificate holders who

are required to maintain dispatch

systems.

In response to comments on the issue

of limited areas of operation and short

flight duration, the requirement for a

dispatch facility is not based on

distances, the type of aircraft, or

weather patterns alone. It is the type of

operation (scheduled) an air carrier is

currently operating under that

determines if dispatch systems are

required. The role of the aircraft

dispatcher in the operational control of

aircraft provides an enhancement to

safety that has clearly been established

through years of operations by many air

carriers in both domestic and flag

operations. Continuous communications

could be accomplished with HF radios

or through satellite communications,

both of which can be provided through

vendors.

The FAA agrees with commenters that

for some part 135 certificate holders,

personnel will first have to acquire the

necessary certificate and then complete

required air carrier training

requirements for dispatchers. The

average dispatcher school curriculum

lasts 5 weeks and usually includes

instruction on both the written and

practical tests. The FAA believes that

some part 135 personnel already possess

aircraft dispatcher certificates and that

these personnel would be required to

attend only the air carrier’s dispatcher

training program. Regardless, once an

air carrier employs a certificated

dispatcher, company training would

have to be completed. That training

would entail 40 hours of basic

indoctrination, differences training,

initial ground/transition of 30–40 hours

(based on the type of aircraft), and a

competency check (see § 121.422).

While the FAA does not agree with

AACA’s recommendation to

‘‘grandfather’’ dispatcher certificates to

current flight followers or flight locating

personnel, § 65.57 outlines a means of

providing credit for previous experience

in order to take the practical test. All
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65847

dispatcher applicants must complete the

appropriate written and practical tests

before a certificate can be issued. The

FAA agrees that training costs will be

incurred to prepare current flight

following or flight locating personnel to

qualify for a dispatcher certificate,

regardless of who pays for the training.

Replacement personnel will be needed

if the decision by the certificate holder

is to send current employees to

dispatcher training.

There is no requirement for

dispatchers to attend a formal school.

Section 65.57, entitled experience

requirements, allows several options in

lieu of a formal school.

In response to specific requests to

expand the criteria in § 65.57 (aircraft

dispatcher experience requirements) to

include personnel assigned to flight

locating and flight following under part

135, the FAA believes that some part

135 experience is acceptable as

equivalent experience in § 65.57.

Through current policy and guidance

provided to FAA inspectors, a review on

a case-by-case could be accomplished to

ascertain if an applicant has equivalent

experience.

In response to comments on the

current format of the dispatcher

practical exam, § 65.59 requires an

applicant for an aircraft dispatcher

certificate to pass a practical test with

respect to any one type of large aircraft

used in air carrier operations. Further,

current practical test standards require

dispatcher applicants to exhibit

adequate knowledge of applicable

aircraft flight instruments and operating

systems. The scope of the practical test

allows for turboprop aircraft and

representative commuter operations.

Practical tests are developed by the

inspector conducting the test and can be

designed for any type of large aircraft,

including turboprop airplanes.

There is only one dispatcher written

examination, the Airline Transport Pilot

question book. The selection sheet has

questions applicable only to dispatchers

and not based on any particular make

and model of aircraft. The FAA is

considering developing written tests

geared to commuter-type operations.

However, the current written exam is

valid in that it tests for areas common

to all make and models of aircraft. The

test requires knowledge of various

subject areas, i.e. the ability to interpret

weather information, interpret

regulations, handle emergencies,

compute weight and balance, etc.

The FAA disagrees with the ALPA

recommendation to require dispatchers

to receive 5 hours of operating

experience in aircraft they will actually

dispatch. Section 121.463(c) requires

the dispatcher to satisfactorily complete

at least 5 hours of operating

familiarization in one of the types of

airplanes in each group he is to

dispatch. Section 121.400(b) includes

all sizes of propeller-driven aircraft

under group 1. Therefore, the FAA

allows dispatchers to complete the

operating familiarization in airplanes

that are not exactly the same size or

configuration as the ones they will

dispatch.

V.G. Airports

Section 121.590 requires that no air

carrier or pilot conducting operations

under part 121 may operate an airplane

into a land airport in the U.S. (or

territory, etc.) unless the airport is

certificated under 14 CFR part 139.

Section 135.229 states that no certificate

holder may use any airport unless it is

adequate for the proposed operations.

Part 139 prescribes regulations

governing the certification and

operation of all land airports that are

served by any scheduled or

nonscheduled passenger air carrier

operating airplanes with a seating

capacity of more than 30 passengers.

The FAA’s authority is limited by

statute (49 U.S.C. 44706(a)) to the 30-

passenger-seat dividing line. The FAA,

in conjunction with the Department of

Transportation, has sought legislation

that would grant the agency the

authority to certificate any airport that

receives scheduled service by a

certificate holder utilizing airplanes

designed for 10 or more passenger seats.

Accordingly, pending Congressional

resolution of this issue, affected

commuters are permitted to operate into

other than part 139 certificated airports.

If the FAA receives expanded authority

over airport certification, it would

propose rulemaking standards that are

sufficiently flexible to cover the range of

airports presently served under part

135.

Comments: Nine comments were

received on this issue, with the major

concern being that airport legislation

currently being considered may include

requirements that some communities

may not be able to afford which would

negatively affect air service to these

communities.

The Las Vegas Department of Aviation

comments that it has purchased and

upgraded satellite airports in the Las

Vegas area to help relieve the congestion

at the McCarran International Airport.

The commenter is concerned that the

Clark County Department of Aviation,

the Grand Canyon Tour Operators, and

the Las Vegas Department of Aviation

may not be able to afford additional

airport upgrades. This would cause

certificate holders that currently operate

out of the non-certificated outlying

airports to move their operations back to

McCarran, thereby increasing traffic

congestion and in-flight delays.

NATA and Commuter Air Technology

concur with the FAA proposal to allow

part 135 certificate holders to continue

to operate with existing airport

requirements, but are concerned about

the airport expansion program. NATA

prefers that no new airport legislation be

adopted and that the proposed

regulatory allowance for noncertificated

airports be made permanent.

A comment from Fairchild Aircraft

mentions the Essential Air Service

Program enacted by Congress that

guarantees air service to small and

medium size communities. Fairchild

says that the commuter industry

responded to that program and provided

essential air service to small and

medium communities, and that those

communities may not be able to afford

the proposed airport expansion

program.

Other commenters state that it would

not be feasible to upgrade smaller

airports to part 139 standards. One

certificate holder states that of the five

airports it serves only one meets part

139 standards; at the other airports

where the certificate holder provides

essential air service ‘‘there is no aircraft

rescue or fire fighting equipment,

airport guidance signs, airfield

inspection procedures, airport staff,

snow and ice control plan, or airfield

pavement maintenance. . . .’’

The American Association of Airport

Executives (AAAE), RAA, Airports

Council International-North America,

and the National Association of State

Aviation Officials would like the airport

expansion issue referred to an ARAC

committee before seeking federal

legislation, to allow ARAC to develop a

cost-effective response to NTSB

recommendations that takes into

account the difference between small

airports that serve rural communities

and large airports near major cities.

ALPA believes that the FAA should

require commuters to operate out of part

139 certificated airports in the interest

of one level of safety. ALPA recognizes

that some airports in remote sites will

not be capable of complying with all

part 139 requirements. However, ALPA

does not believe that an exemption

should be provided for aircraft with

passenger-seating capacities of 30 or

less. Rather certificate holders that serve

small airports should apply individually

for an exemption or waiver.

Commuter Technology expresses

concern that a revised part 139 may

result in the application of airplane
65848 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

operator security regulations of part 108

and the airport security regulations of

part 107 to air carriers using aircraft

with a seating capacity of 30 or fewer

seats. The commenter believes that the

ARAC committee that is tasked with

recommending revisions to part 139

should also be tasked with restricting or

eliminating the applicability of part 107

to small airports. According to the

commenter the application of parts 107

and 108 to commuter air carriers and

the airports that serve them could have

a radical effect on the economic

viability of the air carriers and airports.

FAA Response: The FAA has assigned

a task to the Aviation Rulemaking

Advisory Committee (ARAC) to

recommend the requirements in part

139 that should be applicable to airports

covered under any expanded legislation

that would give the FAA authority to

certificate airports serving airplanes

with less than 30 passengers. In the

meantime, § 121.590 is adopted as

proposed to allow affected commuters

to use noncertificated airports. In

making its recommendations ARAC is to

consider accepted industry practices

regarding airport safety, personnel

available at these airports, costs

associated with meeting these

requirements (e.g. capital, operating,

and maintenance costs), and the types of

accidents/incidents that have occurred

at these airports.

In response to the comment on

security programs for airports and

operators, no changes to parts 107 and

108 are necessary as a result of this rule

because the requirements of those parts

are already tailored to the size of the

airplane.

V.H. Effective Date and Compliance

Schedule

The FAA proposed an effective date

of 30 days and a general compliance

date of 1 year after publication of the

final rule. The FAA stated in Notice 95–

5 that a final rule, if adopted, would be

published by December 31, 1995, and

that within 1 year of that date, that is,

by December 31, 1996, all affected

certificate holders that have air carrier

certification or operating certificates

issued under part 135 at the time of

publication would have completed the

approval process and obtained new

operations specifications giving them

authority to conduct domestic or flag

operations under part 121.

Under the proposal, persons who do

not already have air carrier certificates

or operating certificates who submit

applications for or obtain air carrier

certificates or operating certificates after

30 days after the publication date of the

final rule would be required to obtain

part 121 operations specifications;

however, these new entrants would

meet the same requirements as the

affected commuters, i.e., delayed dates

for retrofit of airplanes with certain

types of equipment.

Proposed § 121.2(c) and § 135.2(c)

allow for regular or accelerated

compliance with part 121 requirements.

Proposed §§ 121.2(g) and 135.2(g) also

require an affected certificate holder to

submit to the FAA a transition plan for

moving from part 135 to part 121.

Comments: Eleven comments were

received on this issue. Several

commenters express a desire for an

‘‘incremental’’ or ‘‘phased’’ compliance

schedule. Two commenters are

concerned that the proposed ‘‘turnkey’’

recertification event is high risk with no

early rewards or benefits.

RAA suggests revising proposed

§§ 121.2(c) and 135.2(c) to require

compliance ‘‘not later than’’ 1 year after

final rule publication rather than the

proposed ‘‘as of,’’ and adding the word

‘‘complete’’ before ‘‘14 CFR part 121

operations specifications.’’ RAA also

suggests adding a new paragraph to the

section that would state that a certificate

holder may be authorized under its

transition plan to comply with portions

of part 121 instead of the equivalent

portions of part 135 in advance of being

issued complete 14 CFR part 121

operations specifications. Accordingly

RAA recommends adding to the

transition plan requirements of

paragraph (g) a new subparagraph to

include in the transition plans

provisions for interim compliance with

portions of part 121 in advance of

obtaining complete 14 CFR 121

operations specifications. Other

commenters also request provisions for

complying with portions of part 121 in

advance of obtaining part 121

operations specifications.

Other commenters also state concerns

about FAA’s capacity to facilitate the

transition process on schedule. Two

commenters perceive a shortage of

trained inspectors and suggest that the

compliance date be extended if an

adequate number of inspectors are not

provided by mid year 1996. GAMA

suggests a reevaluation of the

implementation schedule of

§ 121.2(d)(1), citing a questionable

number of aircraft certification service

personnel to support the extensive

design approval activity certain to

occur. Another commenter expresses

concern over the necessary type

certification activity surrounding

modifications and suggests that 1 year is

an unrealistic compliance deadline

given the current FAA Aircraft

Certification Office backlog.

RAA is concerned that the population

of FAA inspectors qualified to perform

their duties under part 121 will not be

able to respond to the new part 121 air

carriers. According to RAA, FAA

inspectors must be trained and qualified

to help affected commuters achieve the

transition. RAA recommends a ‘‘fill in

the blanks manual’’ to achieve

standardization among FAA regions and

districts. If there is an insufficient

number of qualified FAA inspectors, the

1996 compliance date should be

delayed.

ASA proposes a standardized

transition program including three

elements: (1) a fill-in-the-blanks manual

for transitioning carriers; (2) an

automatic exemption and incremental

approval process; and (3) time

schedules from transitioning carriers

submitted to FAA.

Mesa Airlines recommends pre-formal

certification meetings with principal

operations inspectors (POI’s) at an early

date to familiarize both parties with the

certification process outlined in FAA

Order 8400.10. According to Mesa,

compliance statement development,

individual operator transition plans,

GOM (general operating manual)

development, and formal certificate

application should be scheduled for the

spring of 1996 to allow adequate review

by respective POI’s. According to Mesa

this would allow certificate holders to

be running their commuter operations

under part 121 rules by the summer of

1996. This in turn would allow for a

start-up phase for part 121 dispatch

operations and modifications to the

requirements for proving runs as

proposed in § 121.163 and would

eliminate the necessity for formal initial

operating experience (IOE).

There were several comments on

specific compliance dates. ALPA is

generally pleased with the compliance

schedule, but states that the 4-year

compliance date for the installation of

pitot heat indication systems could be

shortened to 2 years, given the relative

ease of the modification. Fairchild

Aircraft finds fault with the fact that a

2-year delay is provided for compliance

with emergency exit handle

illumination, but no delay is allowed for

compliance with § 121.310(b)(2)(ii),

which would require the replacement of

exit signs on new commuter category

airplanes. Mesa Airlines suggests that

compliance with part 121 crew flight

and duty limitations be changed to

January 1, 1997.

FAA Response: The final rule has a

30-day effective date and a general

compliance date of 15 months after

publication of the final rule. The FAA

is extending the general compliance
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65849

date to be consistent with the

compliance date in the training

rulemaking referenced in Section III. E,

Related FAA Action. Also, the proposed

delayed compliance dates for certain

retrofit requirements have been

modified in response to comments. The

final rule also establishes delayed

compliance dates for meeting the

performance operating limitations of

part 121 for certain airplanes.

Compliance dates are provided in

§ 121.2. This section has been

reorganized to separate compliance

dates for 10–19 seat airplanes and those

for 20–30 seat airplanes. Retrofit and

performance requirements compliance

dates are listed on Table 1 and

discussed in the appropriate place in

the preamble.

Because of the scope and significance

of this rulemaking, the FAA has already

begun planning for the implementation

of the final rule. Training has been

provided for inspectors who will be

responsible for overseeing the transition

of the affected commuters from part 135

to part 121 operations. Additional

training planned for January 1996 will

focus on the recertification and

transition process. Extensive guidance

material is being prepared to assist the

inspectors during the transition process.

Portions of this material will also be

made available to the affected

commuters.

The FAA agrees with Mesa Airlines

that meetings between POI’s and

affected commuters would help

facilitate the preparation of the

transition plan, which is due 90 days

from today, and the planning necessary

to ensure that normal operations can

continue during the transition phase.

The FAA believes that the training given

to its inspectors, the guidance material

being prepared, and a cooperative

working relationship between the

affected commuters and the FAA will

ensure a smooth transition to part 121

operations.

The transition plan must include the

certificate holder’s proposed calendar of

events that shows how and when it

plans to make changes in its operations

to meet the requirements of part 121.

The transition plan should also show

detailed plans for accomplishing

activities and necessary retrofits for

requirements with delayed compliance

dates. The POI and the certificate holder

will schedule the inspections necessary

to show compliance with part 121

requirements. When the inspections are

complete and the FAA has determined

that the certificate holder can comply

with part 121, the FAA will issue new

operations specifications. Until the new

operations specifications are issued, the

existing operations specifications

remain in effect. In any case the existing

operations specifications expire on: (1)

The date the new operations

specifications are issued; or (2) 15

months from this date of publication,

whichever is earlier. Affected certificate

holders who want to comply with

certain part 121 requirements in

advance of being issued complete 14

CFR part 121 operations specifications

could include in their transition plan a

phased schedule including advance

compliance for certain part 121

requirements, subject to their POI’s

approval.

Table 1—Summary of Modifications

shows the compliance dates for certain

retrofit and performance requirements

for affected commuters. Many of these

are required by the end of the basic 15-

month compliance period. Affected

commuters should be aware that by the

specified date they must comply with

all part 121 requirements, not just the

ones listed on Table 1. Although the

table includes additional items that

were not listed in the table in Notice

95–5, no new requirements are

involved. Not all requirements are in the

table. The purpose of the table is to

show the compliance dates for certain

equipment and performance

requirements that necessitate advance

planning for purchasing and

installation. Many of the delayed

requirements apply to airplanes in the

current fleet, while others apply only to

newly manufactured airplanes.

It should also be noted that § 121.2(h)

requires a certificate holder to comply

with corresponding part 135

requirements, as applicable, in the

interval between the effective date of

this rule and when the certificate holder

is in compliance with the part 121

requirements. In addition, the intent of

§ 121.2(h) is also included in specific

sections that have delayed compliance

dates.

This table does not apply to certificate

holders currently operating under part

121. The passenger seating

configuration numbers provided in the

chart do not mean that the requirement

applies only to that size airplane but

rather that the requirement is new for

that size airplane.

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF NEW EQUIPMENT AND PERFORMANCE MODIFICATIONS FOR AFFECTED COMMUTERS

Effective date of required upgrade is as stated, measured from the rule publication date Upgrade will apply to all airplanes including newly manufactured airplanesUpgrade will

apply to all

newly manufactured airplanes Issue/requirement Within 15

months

Within years

(#) After years

(#)

1. Passenger Seat Cushion Flammability, 10–19 Pax §§ 121.2, 121.312(c) ..................................... ...................... 15

2. Lavatory Fire Protection, 10–30 Pax §§ 121.2, 121.308 ................................................................ ...................... 2

3. Exterior Emergency Exit Markings, 10–19 Pax § 121.310(g) ........................................................ Yes.

4. Pitot Heat Indication System, 10–19 Pax §§ 121.2, 121.342 ......................................................... ...................... 4

5. Landing Gear Aural Warning, 10–19 Pax §§ 121.2, 121.289 ........................................................ ...................... 2

6. Takeoff Warning System, 10–19 Pax §§ 121.2, 121.293 ............................................................... ...................... .................... 4.

7. Emergency Exit Handle Illumination, 10–19 Pax §§ 121.2, 121.310(e)(2) .................................... ...................... 2

8. First Aid Kits, 10–19 Pax § 121.309(d)(1)(i) ................................................................................... Yes.

9. Emergency Medical Kits, 20–30 Pax § 121.309(d)(1)(ii) ................................................................ Yes.

10. Wing Ice Light, 10–19 Pax § 121.341(b) ...................................................................................... Yes.

11. Fasten Seat Belt Light and Placards, 10–19 Pax §§ 121.2, 121.317 .......................................... Yes 1 .................... 21.

12. Third Attitude Indicator, 10–30 Pax:.

Turbojet ........................................................................................................................................ Yes 2.

Turboprop §§ 121.2, 121.305(j) ................................................................................................... ...................... 152 15 months.2

13. Airborne Weather Radar, 10–19 Pax § 121.357 .......................................................................... Yes.

14. Protective Breathing Equipment, 10–30 Pax.

§ 121.2 ......................................................................................................................................... ...................... 2
65850 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF NEW EQUIPMENT AND PERFORMANCE MODIFICATIONS FOR AFFECTED COMMUTERS—Continued

Effective date of required upgrade is as stated, measured from the rule publication date Upgrade will apply to all airplanes including newly manufactured airplanesUpgrade will

apply to all

newly manufactured airplanes Issue/requirement Within 15

months

Within years

(#) After years

(#)

§ 121.337(b)(8)—Smoke and fume protection

§ 121.337(b)(9)—Fire fighting (20–30 only)

15. Safety Belts and Shoulder Harnesses, Single point inertial harness, 10–19 Pax §§ 121.2,

121.311(f).

...................... .................... 15 months.

16. Cabin Ozone Concentration, 10–30 Pax § 121.578 ..................................................................... Yes.

17. Retention of Galley Equipment, 10–30 Pax §§ 121.576, 121.577 ............................................... Yes.

18. Ditching approval, 10–30 Pax §§ 121.2, 121.161(b) .................................................................... Yes 3 ............ 153

19. Flotation means, 10–30 Pax §§ 121.2, 121.340 ........................................................................... ...................... 2

20. Door Key and Locking Door, 20–30 Pax § 121.313(f) & (g) ........................................................ Yes.

21. Portable O2, 20–30 Pax § 121.327–121.335 ............................................................................... Yes.

22. Additional life rafts, 10–30 Pax § 121.339 .................................................................................... Yes.

23. First Aid Oxygen, 20–30 Pax § 121.333(e)(3) .............................................................................. Yes.

24. Enroute radio communications, 10–30 Pax § 121.99 ................................................................... Yes.

25. Latex gloves, 10–30 Pax § 121.309(d)(2) .................................................................................... Yes.

26. Passenger information cards, 20–30 Pax § 121.571(b) ............................................................... Yes.

27. Flashlights-additional for flight attendant and pilot, 10–30 Pax § 121.549(b) .............................. Yes.

28. Flashlight holder for flight attendant, 20–30 Pax § 121.310(l) ..................................................... Yes.

29. DME, 10–30 Pax § 121.349(c) ..................................................................................................... Yes.

30. Single engine cruise performance data, 10–30 Pax (required for determining alternates)

§ 121.617.

Yes.

31. Performance, Obstruction Clearance, and Accelerate-stop Requirements, 10–19 Pax

§§ 121.2, 121.157, 121.173(b), 121.189(c).

Yes.4 ............ 154

1 In-service airplanes must comply within 15 months. They may use lights or placards. Newly manufactured airplanes must comply with seat

belt sign requirements of § 121.317(a) within 2 years. 2Turbojet airplanes must comply within 15 months. Newly manufactured turboprop airplanes must comply within 15 months. In-service 10–30

pax turboprop airplanes must comply within 15 years. 3Transport category must comply within 15 months. Nontransport category can operate for 15 years without ditching approval.

4 Commuter category airplanes must comply within 15 months. SFAR 41 and predecessor category airplanes must comply within 15 years.

VI. Discussion of Specific Proposals

In this section specific proposals for

part 121 and part 119 are summarized,

comments received are discussed, and

the FAA’s response to those comments

is given. In Section VII comments

received on the costs and benefits of the

proposed rule are addressed. The part

121 discussion, which applies to the

affected commuters, appears first

(Section VI.A). Table 2 provides a listing

of comparable sections in part 135 for

each specific requirement discussed in

this portion of the preamble. This is

followed by a discussion of part 119

issues, which apply to all certificate

holders under part 121 and part 135

(Section VI.B).

TABLE 2.—COMPARABLE SECTIONS IN PARTS 121 AND 135

[This table shows the comparable sections in parts 121 and 135 for each issue discussed in this preamble. Affected commuters, however, must

comply with all sections in part 121 that are applicable to their operations, not just the ones listed in this table or discussed in this preamble]

Subject 135 Section 121 Section

Subparts E and F—Approval of Routes: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations.135.213 .............................. 121.97, 121.99, 121.101,

121.107.

Subpart G—Manual Requirements ................................................................................ 135.21, .23 ......................... 121.133, .135, 121.137.

—Contents and personnel ...................................................................................... ............................................ 121.141.

—Airplane flight manual

Subpart I—Airplane Performance Operating Limitations .............................................. 135.365–.387 ..................... 121.175–.197.

Subpart J—Special Airworthiness Requirements .......................................................... ............................................ 121.217.

—Internal doors ...................................................................................................... 135.87 ................................ 121.285.

—Cargo carried in the passenger compartment .................................................... 135 App. A ......................... 121.289.

—Landing gear aural warning device ..................................................................... ............................................ 121.291.

—Emergency evacuation and ditching demonstration.

—New special airworthiness requirements (retrofit) and requirements applicable

to future manufactured airplanes.

............................................ 121.293(a) (new).

—Ditching emergency exits .................................................................................... ............................................ 121.293(b) (new).

—Takeoff warning system

Subpart K—Instrument and Equipment Requirements:

—Third attitude indicator ........................................................................................ 135.149 .............................. 121.305(j).

—Lavatory fire protection ....................................................................................... 135.163 (a), (h) ..................

—Emergency equipment inspection ....................................................................... ............................................ 121.308.

—Hand-held fire extinguishers ............................................................................... 135.177(b) .......................... 121.309(b).

—First aid kits and medical kits ............................................................................. 135.155 .............................. 121.309(c).
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65851

TABLE 2.—COMPARABLE SECTIONS IN PARTS 121 AND 135—Continued

[This table shows the comparable sections in parts 121 and 135 for each issue discussed in this preamble. Affected commuters, however, must

comply with all sections in part 121 that are applicable to their operations, not just the ones listed in this table or discussed in this preamble]

Subject 135 Section 121 Section

—Crash ax .............................................................................................................. 135.177(a)(1) ...................... 121.309(d).

—Emergency evacuation lighting and marking requirements ................................ 135.177(a)(2), 135.178(c)–

(h).

121.309(e), 121.310(c)–(h).

—Seatbacks

—Seatbelt and shoulder harnesses on the flight deck .......................................... 135.117 .............................. 121.311(e), 121.311(f).

—Interior materials and passenger seat cushion flammability .............................. 135.169(a) .......................... 121.312(b).

—Miscellaneous equipment .................................................................................... ............................................ 121.313 (c), (f), (g).

—Cockpit and door keys ........................................................................................ ............................................ 121.313(f).

—Cargo and baggage compartments .................................................................... ............................................ 121.587.

—Fuel tank access covers ..................................................................................... ............................................ 121.314, .221.

—Passenger information ........................................................................................ ............................................ 121.316.

—Instruments and equipment for operations at night ............................................ 135.127 .............................. 121.317, 121.323.

—Oxygen requirements

—Portable oxygen for flight attendants .................................................................. 135.157 .............................. 121.237–.335, 121.333(d).

—Protective breathing equipment (PBE) ............................................................... ............................................ 121.337.

—Additional life rafts for extended underwater operations .................................... 135.167 .............................. 121.339.

—Flotation devices

—Pitot heat indication system ................................................................................ ............................................ 121.340.

—Radio equipment ................................................................................................. 135.158 .............................. 121.342.

—Emergency equipment for operations over uninhabited terrain ......................... 135.177, .178 ..................... 121.353.

—TCAS

—Flight data recorders ........................................................................................... 135.180 .............................. 121.356.

—Airborne weather radar ....................................................................................... 135.152 (a), (b) .................. 121.343.

—Cockpit voice recorders ...................................................................................... 135.173, .175 ..................... 121.357.

—Low-altitude windshear systems ......................................................................... 135.151 .............................. 121.359.

—Ground proximity warning system (GPWS) ........................................................ 135.153 ..............................

Subpart L—Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and Alterations:

—Applicability ......................................................................................................... 135.411(a)(2) ...................... 121.361.

—Responsibility for Airworthiness .......................................................................... 135.413 .............................. 121.363.

—Maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration organization .................. 135.423, .425 ..................... 121.365, .367.

—Manual requirements .......................................................................................... 135.427 .............................. 121.369.

—Required inspection personnel ........................................................................... 135.429 .............................. 121.371.

—Continuing analysis and surveillance .................................................................. 135.431 .............................. 121.373.

—Maintenance and preventive maintenance training programs ............................ 135.433 .............................. 121.375.

—Maintenance and preventive maintenance personnel duty time limitations ....... ............................................ 121.377.

—Certificate requirements ...................................................................................... 135.435 .............................. 121.378.

—Authority to perform and approve maintenance, preventive maintenance, and

alterations.

135.437 .............................. 121.379.

—Maintenance recording requirements ................................................................. 135.439(a)(2) ...................... 121.380(a)(2).

—Transfer of maintenance records ........................................................................ 135.441 .............................. 121.380a.

Subpart M—Airman and Crewmember Requirements:

—Flight attendant complement ............................................................................... 135.107 .............................. 121.391.

—Flight attendants being seated during movement on the surface ...................... 135.128(a) .......................... 121.391(d).

—Flight attendants or other qualified personnel at the gate .................................. ............................................ 121.391(e), 121.417,

121.393 (new).

Subparts N and O—Training Program and Crewmember Requirements ..................... ............................................ 121.400–121.459.

Subpart P—Aircraft Dispatcher Qualifications and Duty Time Limitations: Domestic

and Flag.

............................................ 121.461–121.467.

Air Carriers

Subparts Q, R, and S—Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements: Domestic,

Flag, and Supplemental Operations.

135.261–135.273 ............... 121.470–121.525.

Subpart T—Flight Operations:

—Operational control .............................................................................................. 135.77, .79, 135.75,

135.69, .19.

121.533, .535, 121.537,

121.547, 121.551, .553.

—Admission to the flight deck ................................................................................ ............................................ 121.557, .559, 121.565

(new).

—Emergency procedures ....................................................................................... 135.117, .127 ..................... 121.571(a), 121.533, .573,

121.585.

—Passenger information ........................................................................................ 135.91(d) ............................ 121.574.

—Oxygen for medical use by passengers ............................................................. 135.121, 135.87, .122 ........ 121.575, 121.577.

—Alcoholic beverages ............................................................................................ ............................................ 121.578(b).

—Retention of items of mass ................................................................................. 135.93 ................................ 121.579.

—Cabin ozone concentration ................................................................................. ............................................

—Minimum altitudes for use of autopilot ................................................................ 135.75, 135.23(q) ............... 121.581, 121.586.

—Forward observer’s seat

—Authority to refuse transportation ........................................................................ 135.87, 135.229, .217 ........ 121.589, 121.590.

—Carry-on baggage ............................................................................................... ............................................ 121.617(a).

—Airports

Subpart U—Dispatching and Flight Release Rules:

—Flight release authority ........................................................................................ ............................................ 121.597.
65852 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 2.—COMPARABLE SECTIONS IN PARTS 121 AND 135—Continued

[This table shows the comparable sections in parts 121 and 135 for each issue discussed in this preamble. Affected commuters, however, must

comply with all sections in part 121 that are applicable to their operations, not just the ones listed in this table or discussed in this preamble]

Subject 135 Section 121 Section

—Dispatch or flight release under VFR ................................................................. 135.211 .............................. 121.611.

—Operations in icing conditions ............................................................................. 135.227, .341, 135.345 ...... 121.629.

—Fuel reserves ...................................................................................................... 135.209, .223 ..................... 121.639, .641, 121.643,

.645.

Subpart V—Records and Reports ................................................................................. 135.65(c), 135.415(a) ......... 121.701(a), 121.703 (a),

(e).

—Maintenance log: Airplane .................................................................................. 135.417 .............................. 121.705(b).

—Mechanical interruption summary report ............................................................ 135.439(a)(2), 135.443 ...... 121.707, 121.709.

—Alteration and repair reports ............................................................................... ............................................

—Airworthiness release or airplane log entry ........................................................ ............................................ 121.711, .713, 121.715.

—Other recordkeeping requirements.

VI.A. Part 121 Discussion

VI.A.1. Subpart E—Approval of Routes:

Domestic and Flag Air Carriers

Section 121.97 requires each domestic

and flag operator to show that each

route it submits for approval has enough

airports that are properly equipped and

adequate for the proposed operation.

The operator must also have an

approved system to disseminate this

information to appropriate personnel.

Although part 135 has similar

requirements, part 121 requires more

information.

Section 121.99 requires each domestic

and flag operator to have a two-way air/

ground communication system between

each airplane and the appropriate air

traffic control facility, along the entire

route. In the 48 contiguous States and

the District of Columbia, the

communications system between each

airplane and the dispatch center must

be independent of any system operated

by the United States. This would be a

new requirement for the affected

certificate holders.

Section 121.101 requires each

domestic and flag operator to show that

enough weather reporting facilities are

available along each route to ensure

weather reports and forecasts necessary

for the operation. For operations within

the 48 contiguous States and the District

of Columbia, these reports must be

prepared by the National Weather

Service. For other areas, a system must

be approved by the Administrator.

Section 135.213 has similar

requirements, except that the pilot in

command is allowed to use various

other sources, including his own

weather assessment, for VFR operations.

This section also requires reports of

adverse weather phenomena. The FAA

proposed that affected certificate

holders comply with part 121.

Section 121.107 requires each

domestic and flag operator to have

enough dispatch centers, adequate for

the intended operation. This would be

a new requirement for affected

certificate holders, as discussed in

Section V.F., Dispatch System.

Comments: ALPA comments that the

upgrade to part 121 represents a major

improvement over part 135. ALPA also

comments that Subparts E and F should

be upgraded to require that each pilot

have a set of approach and navigation

charts rather than having to share a set.

ALPA provides supportive information,

such as an NTSB recommendation (A–

95–35) for a similar requirement.

Several comments were received on

the enroute radio communication

requirements of § 121.99. ASA and RAA

question the need for airline provided

enroute radio communication capability

for short-haul flights and request that

the requirement be reconsidered.

According to these commenters, the

average enroute times for affected

certificate holders is less than an hour.

For such short flights there is little time

during the enroute portion of a flight for

company communication. The cost of

installing company communications

would be high and safety would not be

diminished without company

communication since the crew can be

contacted through Air Traffic Control.

AACA points out that this would be

a new requirement for affected

commuters. Intrastate Alaskan

operations now conducted under flag

operations rules will be conducted

under domestic rules and would be

required to comply with the

independent communications systems

requirements. Because of low altitudes,

VFR flight operations, and the lack of

Remote Communications Outlet at many

locations, maintaining communications

will require construction of a large

communications infrastructure. When

operators in Alaska use flag rules,

AACA interprets § 121.99 to not require

the communications system be

independent of any system operated by

the United States.

FAA Response: The ALPA suggestion

on requiring that each pilot have a

separate set of navigation and approach

charts is beyond the scope of this

rulemaking; however, the FAA is

planning to initiate a separate

rulemaking on the issue.

Section 121.99 requires each domestic

and flag air carrier to have a two-way

radio communication system that is

independent of any system operated by

the United States. FAA flight service

stations and air traffic control facilities

that are currently providing radio

communication service for certificate

holders are used for the control of

aircraft and were never intended to be

used by individual certificate holders to

relay information that is the certificate

holder’s responsibility, such as

scheduling changes or weather

information. Hence, an additional

expense would be incurred by

certificate holders required to contract

for communication services through

commercial services. However, it is

believed that most part 135 certificate

holders already have facilities and

communications equipment that satisfy

the dispatch requirements under part

121.

The FAA believes that there is a need

for a two-way air-ground radio

communication system that will ensure

reliable and rapid communications over

the entire route between each airplane

and the appropriate dispatch office and

between each airplane and the

appropriate air traffic control unit. The

need to show that each operator has a

two-way radio system is not new.

However, the requirement to have an

independent system is new for

operations of affected commuters and

intrastate Alaska and Hawaii operations

previously conducted under flag

operations rules. While no commenters

focus on § 121.97 or § 121.117, the FAA
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65853

points out under §§ 121.97(b)(4)(i) and

121.117(b)(4)(i) affected operators will

be required to comply with airport data

requirements which include applicable

performance requirements of Subpart I.

For affected airplanes these performance

requirements will be found in new

appendix K to part 121 as referenced in

subpart I.

VI.A.2. Subpart F—Approval of Routes:

Approval of Areas and Routes for

Supplemental Air Carriers and

Commercial Operators

This subpart is similar to subpart E

except that it applies to supplemental

operations and prescribes flight

following requirements. Under the

proposal, this subpart would apply in

cases where an affected operator uses an

airplane that is also used in domestic

operations to conduct a nonscheduled

operation. On this issue, no comments

were received and the final rule is

adopted as proposed.

VI.A.3. Subpart G—Manual

Requirements

Manual requirements: Contents and

personnel: Under subpart G of part 121

certificate holders are required to

prepare and keep current a manual

containing policies, procedures,

applicable regulations, and other

information necessary to allow

crewmembers and ground personnel to

conduct the operations properly (see

§ 121.133 and § 121.135). While the

requirements of parts 121 and 135 are

similar, part 121 manual requirements

contain a more extensive list of manual

contents (§ 121.135). Under part 121 the

manual or appropriate parts must also

be furnished to more personnel, such as

aircraft dispatchers and flight

attendants, and made available to

others, such as station agents. Notice

95–5 stated that the effect of these

differences between compliance with

part 121 versus compliance with part

135 would be significant for commuter

operators. The proposal would require

developing, producing, and distributing

new manuals appropriate to part 121. In

addition, § 121.137 requires the air

carrier to issue a manual or appropriate

parts to each crewmember and requires

each crewmember to keep the manual

up to date and have it with him or her

when performing assigned duties. Part

135 does not require that flight

attendants be issued a manual; however,

it does require that any person to whom

a manual is issued must keep it up-todate (see § 135.21).

Comments: Fairchild Aircraft states

that § 121.137 would require at least one

copy of the manual specified by

§ 121.133 to be carried in the airplane

and that this is a reasonable proposal

that they fully support. Fairchild

Aircraft also states that § 121.141(b)(2)

contains a reference to ‘‘rotorcraft’’

which should be deleted.

ALPA states that the key to an

efficient, safe airline operation can

normally be found in the manuals

developed by the airline. ALPA

supports the FAA in adopting all facets

of Subpart G. ALPA also states that

§ 121.135(b)(2) should be amended by

removing, ‘‘in the case of supplemental

air carriers and commercial operators,’’

so that the paragraph reads: ‘‘Duties . . .

of the ground organization, and

management personnel.’’ According to

ALPA, the requirement to include in the

manual duties and responsibilities of

management personnel would no longer

be applicable only to supplemental and

commercial operators since proposed

part 119 requires management

personnel for all certificate holders.

One commenter states that § 121.133

should require compliance with the

certificate holder’s manuals.

Metro International Airways states

that the cost of new manuals would be

excessive for small businesses and that

an outline of procedures would be a

more useful reference than a highly

detailed manual.

FAA Response: All but one of the

comments received regarding the

manual requirements support the

implementation of Subpart G of part

121. Only one comment regarding the

costs associated with the manuals

required by § 121.131 was received.

Additionally, the FAA has received

requests from certificate holders that

would like to begin the process of

transition prior to implementation of the

rule. This would allow those certificate

holders to spread the cost of manual

production and distribution over a

longer period of time. The question of

phased-in-implementation is not unique

to this issue and is addressed elsewhere

in this document.

The FAA agrees with ALPA’s

suggestion to revise the wording of

§ 121.135(b)(2). This is not a substantive

change from Notice 95–5 because

§ 119.65(e) also requires that manuals

contain the duties and responsibilities

of required management personnel. The

FAA also agrees with Fairchild’s

suggestion to delete the word

‘‘rotorcraft’’ from § 121.141(b)(2). These

recommendations are appropriate. In

the final rule §§ 121.135(b)(2) and

121.141(b)(2) are revised accordingly.

In response to the comment that

§ 121.133 should require compliance

with the certificate holder’s manual, the

holder of an air carrier certificate with

operations specifications to operate

under part 121 must comply with the

regulations in part 121 (and other

applicable regulations). Requirements

for preparing and maintaining a manual

serve the purpose of supplying

information to personnel. Information in

the manual must be accurate and

consistent with the regulations. Since

the manual may also include company

policy and guidance to personnel, all

portions of the manual are not

enforceable as regulations. The language

of the manual requirements does,

however, imply that the certificate

holder must adhere to all of the contents

of the manual and that the certificate

holder’s personnel must use the manual

in conducting operations.

In response to the comment that the

manual requirements will be a burden

for small businesses and that an outline

of procedures would be more helpful to

personnel, small certificate holders are

already meeting the manual

requirements of part 135; this

rulemaking requires an update of

manuals and broader distribution of the

manuals. An outline of procedures

could be used as guidance in addition

to the manuals or as part of a manual,

but under current part 135 it would not

suffice as meeting the manual

requirements.

In the final rule § 121.133 has been

revised to update the terminology.

VI.A.4. Subpart H—Airplane

Requirements

For comments and FAA responses to

the requirements in § 121.157, Aircraft

certification and equipment

requirements, see the discussion in

Section V. C., Aircraft Certification.

Single-engine airplanes. Section

121.159 prohibits operation of singleengine airplanes under part 121. No

change to this prohibition was proposed

since the FAA does not consider singleengine airplanes acceptable to part 121

standards. Under the proposal, this

section was amended to delete an

obsolete reference to § 121.9. No

comments were received on this issue

and the final rule is adopted as

proposed. For a related discussion on

the operation of single-engine Otters,

see ‘‘Applicability: Alaska,’’ in Section

V.B.

Airplane limitations: Type of route.

Section 121.161(a) requires that a twoengine or three-engine airplane except a

three-engine turbine powered airplane

must be within 1-hour flying time from

an adequate airport at normal cruising

speed with one engine inoperative,

unless otherwise approved by the

Administrator. Part 135 does not

contain a comparable requirement;

however, the FAA proposed that
65854 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

affected commuters would comply with

the requirements of § 121.161(a).

Section 121.161(b) contains a separate

requirement that (with some exceptions

for certain older airplanes) no person

may operate a land plane in extended

overwater operations unless it is

certificated or approved as adequate for

ditching. The FAA proposed that

affected commuters would also comply

with the requirements of § 121.161(b). In

Notice 95–5, the FAA invited specific

comments on the potential impact of

these proposals on operations in Alaska.

Comments: Several comments were

received on the § 121.161(a)

requirement to be within 1 hour of an

airport with one engine inoperative.

One commenter suggests that § 121.161

be rewritten to reflect today’s

environment, since no airport in the

U.S. is more than 1 hour away for these

commuter airplanes. The commenter

also states that the rule should specify

the requirements for two-engine

operations over the water.

Fairchild and AIA both state that

§ 121.161(a) would require single-engine

cruising speed data and this data is

unlikely to be included in some

Airplane Flight Manuals (AFM). The

commenters also state that there appears

to be no safety benefit and it will be

difficult to show compliance. According

to these commenters, the final rule

should except 10–30 passenger seat

airplanes.

Phoenix Air anticipates that its

operations with a Grumman G–159

Gulfstream airplane would be disrupted

due to the requirements of § 121.161,

since they intend to start service

between Honolulu and Midway Island.

There are no airports that would be

within 1 hour of the intended flight

path.

Jetstream concurs with the

requirement that airplane routes should

be within 1 hour of an adequate airport.

Three comments were received on the

certification ditching requirements of

§ 121.161(b). Fairchild and AIA note an

apparent oversight in that the FAA did

not propose to exclude part 23 Normal

or Commuter Category airplanes from

the ditching requirements of

§ 121.161(b).

AACA notes that several certificate

holders fly affected aircraft on extended

overwater routes in Alaska. Compliance

with the part 25 ditching requirements

would add certification costs, impose

equipment weight penalties, and reduce

payloads. According to the commenter,

the FAA did not calculate these costs.

The commenter supplies information

indicating that costs to comply with the

ditching requirements of part 25 are

substantial.

FAA Response: Despite the comments

to the contrary, the FAA has decided to

adopt its proposal to apply the route

limitation requirements of § 121.161(a)

to the 10- to 30-seat airplanes operated

by the affected commuters. Under that

section any route flown by a twin

engine commuter type airplane must be

flown so that it is within 1 hour of an

adequate airport for landing. Part 121

and its predecessor regulations have

applied route limitation requirements to

airplanes operating under those

requirements since 1936. While the

specific details of the route limitation

requirement have changed over the

years, the underlying safety issue has

not; the certificate holder must show,

before operating affected airplanes over

a route, that it can safely continue flight

in an emergency situation to an airport

adequate for landing. The FAA

understands that some of these

airplanes will require an AFM revision

that will provide engine-out cruise

speed data. There are routes in areas

outside of the contiguous U.S. that are

more than 1 hour flying time (with one

engine inoperative) from an adequate

airport. In accordance with § 121.161(a),

the Administrator may authorize a

deviation from the requirement, if the

operator can show that the 1-hour flight

time limit is not necessary based on the

character of the terrain, the kind of

operation, or the performance of the

airplane. Obtaining authorization to

conduct extended range operations with

two-engine airplanes is dependent upon

many factors. Some of these factors are

a type design review of the airframe

system, a review of the in-service

history of the airplane propulsion

system, and an assessment of the

certificate holder’s maintenance and

inspection program capability for

extended range operations. Advisory

Circular 120–42 provides the guidelines

for this authority. Other rules provide

the requirements for extended overwater

routes.

The Douglas DC–3 and Curtiss C–46

airplanes excluded from § 121.161(b)

were type certificated and manufactured

before the present standards of part 25

were adopted. These aircraft were

excluded because of their previous

operating experience which showed, in

some cases through actual ditchings,

that these old airplanes could ditch

satisfactorily. The Convair 240, 340, and

440 and Martin 404 airplanes were also

type certificated before the present

standards were adopted. They were

excluded because tests conducted by the

National Advisory Committee for

Aviation showed they would have

excellent ditching characteristics.

Unlike current part 25, part 23 contains

no standards for ditching approval.

Unlike those older airplanes excluded

in § 121.161, none of the part 23

airplanes have been shown to comply

with any ditching standards. Contrary to

the commenter’s assumption, requiring

part 23 airplanes used in extended

overwater operations to meet the

ditching certification requirements was

not an oversight. In Notice 95–5

preamble, the FAA concluded that these

requirements should be applied to the

operations that would be moved from

part 135 to part 121.

After considering the comments, the

FAA has determined that until 15 years

after the date of publication of the final

rule a certificate holder may operate in

an extended overwater operation a

nontransport category land airplane

type certificated after December 31,

1964, that was not certificated for

ditching under the ditching provisions

of part 25 of this chapter. Section

121.161(c) has been added accordingly.

Proving tests. Section 121.163

provides proving test requirements for

part 121. In addition to aircraft

certification tests, an aircraft to be

operated under part 121 must have at

least 100 hours of proving tests for an

airplane not previously proven for use

in part 121 operations, and 50 hours of

proving tests for an airplane previously

proven for use in part 121 operations.

The number of hours may be reduced by

the Administrator. Section 135.145

requires 25 hours of proving tests in

addition to certification tests for

certificate holders that operate turbojet

airplanes or airplanes for which two

pilots are required for operations under

VFR if that airplane or an airplane of the

same make and similar design has not

been previously proved in any

operations under part 135. Both

§§ 135.145 and 121.163 require proving

tests for materially altered airplanes.

However, under § 121.163, proving tests

apply to each airplane to be operated

under part 121. Under part 135 proving

tests apply to each aircraft or to aircraft

of similar make and design. Part 121

also describes three types of proving

tests. Under part 121, the initial

operator of a type of airplane must

conduct at least 100 hours of proving

tests, acceptable to the FAA, which can

be reduced in appropriate

circumstances. Moreover, for each kind

of operation (e.g., domestic, flag,

supplemental) that a certificate holder

conducts, 50 hours of proving tests are

required, which are reducible in

appropriate circumstances.

Comments: Six substantive comments

were received. Comair and RAA concur

with the requirement for an air carrier
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65855

to demonstrate its ability to perform in

accordance with part 121 and company

procedures. However, Comair proposes

that carriers currently conducting

operations under part 121 and part 135

(split certificates) should not be

required to conduct this demonstration.

Carriers conducting part 121 and part

135 operations have previously proven

their ability to conduct part 121

operations. If the requirement for

dispatching is adopted, flight

crewmembers will demonstrate their

proficiency with the new system during

their required line check.

RAA comments that proving flight

hours should be reduced based on

‘‘experience and performance’’ factors.

To facilitate a reduction in flight hours,

the FAA should identify those specific

procedures for which non-revenue

proving flights would be required and

specify a realistic number of flights or

flight hours which would be sufficient

to demonstrate those procedures.

ASA believes that the requirement for

proving flights will result in an increase

in both initial and recurring costs.

United Express joins ASA in proposing

that FAA recognize the experience level

of air carriers operating under part 135

and permit proving tests to be

conducted during revenue service.

United Express further proposes that the

required number of hours be reduced for

those carriers currently using a dispatch

system.

Big Sky Airlines recommends a

waiver of the requirement for a proving

test for airlines that have a good safety

record and proven experience. The

commenter justifies its recommendation

on the basis of excessive and

unnecessary burden and cost.

Commuter Air Technology requests

clarification concerning which

modifications to specific aircraft would

require 100-hour initial proving tests.

FAA Response: Section 121.163 has

two main parts. Paragraph (a) prohibits

a carrier from operating an aircraft type

in scheduled service that has never been

used in scheduled service until it has

flown 100 hours of proving flights.

These hours are in addition to any

aircraft certification tests. For the

purposes of this rulemaking, the FAA

recognizes that the current commuter

fleet has established a sufficient history

of operations and does not intend to

require the 100 hours of proving flights

for aircraft currently being operated by

those carriers affected by this

rulemaking. Paragraph (b) of § 121.163

requires 50 hours of tests for the carrier

to show that not only can it operate and

maintain the aircraft, but also that it has

the ability to conduct a particular kind

of operation (i.e., domestic or flag) in

compliance with the applicable

regulatory standards.

The FAA agrees that carriers currently

conducting operations under both part

121 and part 135 (split certificates) will

be eligible to apply for a reduction of

the number of hours required to conduct

the demonstration required by

paragraph (b). In regard to the comment

that flight crewmembers that are new to

part 121 operations will demonstrate

their proficiency during

accomplishment of a line check, the

FAA does not agree that this could take

the place of proving flights. The primary

focus of proving flights is not simply to

test the proficiency of flight

crewmembers but to test the company’s

operational control procedures for the

airplanes that will be operated in

accordance with the requirements for a

new kind of operation, i.e., flag or

domestic. The FAA supports the idea

that proving flight hours should be

reduced based on ‘‘experience and

performance’’ factors. The FAA has

begun to identify those specific

procedures for which proving flights

would be required and to specify a

realistic number of flights or flight hours

which would be sufficient to

demonstrate those procedures. This

guidance to FAA inspectors will be

provided in a revision to Order 8400.10.

The FAA agrees that proving tests will

require an expenditure of the carrier’s

financial resources. Safety requires

these proving tests to determine that an

operator can conduct operations under

part 121 safely, using new procedures,

dispatches, etc. The FAA recognizes the

experience level of air carriers operating

under part 135 and, based on the

carrier’s experience with part 121, will

provide FSDO inspectors with written

guidance on approving deviations from

the requirements of § 121.163. The FAA

believes that proving tests are an

essential part of the certification process

and also provide the carrier with an

opportunity to do some ‘‘dry-runs’’

before beginning revenue service under

a completely new set of regulatory

standards. The FAA’s intent is to

provide inspectors with the authority to

provide deviations from the proving test

requirements. FAA Headquarters will

review each proposed reduction of

proving test hours and will concur or

not concur with the proposed number of

hours for each affected commuter.

In response to Commuter Air

Technology’s request for clarification

concerning which modifications to

specific aircraft would require 100 hour

initial proving tests, § 121.163(d)

contains criteria for when a type of

aircraft is considered to be materially

altered in design.

VI.A.5. Subpart I—Airplane

Performance Operating Limitations.

Subpart I contains airplane

performance operating limitations that

apply to all part 121 certificate holders;

however, not every section in subpart I

applies to every certificate holder. For

example, §§ 121.175 through 121.187

apply to reciprocating engine-powered

transport category airplanes and

§§ 121.189 through 121.197 apply to

turbine engine-powered transport

category airplanes (with an exception

for certain reciprocating-powered

airplanes that have been converted to

turbo-propeller-powered). Sections

121.199 through 121.205 apply to

nontransport category airplanes.

In part 121 the term ‘‘nontransport

category airplane’’ is currently used to

refer to older airplanes like the Curtis

C–46, that were type certificated before

the transport category was established,

i.e., the early 1940’s. However, many

airplanes type certificated over the last

20 years used by affected commuters

(e.g., commuter category and SFAR 41

airplanes and predecessor categories),

are also nontransport category.

Therefore, the FAA proposed to delete

the term ‘‘transport category’’

throughout subpart I and to include

language where appropriate to except

airplanes type certificated before

January 1, 1965, that were not

certificated in the transport category.

This would have the effect of requiring

airplanes type certificated in the

commuter category or a commuter

category predecessor to be operated

under the performance operating

limitations of §§ 121.175 through

121.197, as applicable.

Comments: ALPA states that all

requirements of part 121 subpart I

should be complied with by all turbopropeller airplanes with a passenger

capacity of 10 or more.

AACA concurs that airplanes with 10

to 19 seats should be required to comply

with all of the proposed modifications

(in Table 1 of Notice 95–5) except for

part 121 performance and obstruction

clearance and floor proximity lighting.

(See later discussion of floor proximity

lighting.)

Jetstream, RAA and ALPA support the

overall proposals concerning the higher

level of performance requirements.

However, they join with Commuter Air

Technology, Raytheon and an

individual to point out that additional

performance data/charts would need to

be developed (for example: acceleratestop and obstacle clearance data). RAA

also recommends a 2-year time frame

instead of the proposed 1-year

performance compliance date.
65856 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Jetstream states that Notice 95–5, in

conjunction with other proposed rules

and changes, will introduce more

weight to the aircraft. In addition to this,

AC 120–27D, Aircraft Weight and

Balance Control, will increase standard

average passenger weights used for

calculations. The combined effect is that

these aircraft will no longer be allowed

to carry 19 passengers due to reduced

payload capacity. According to the

commenter, the combined effect of the

weight changes is about two passengers.

Jetstream and Raytheon comment that

current FAA policy should be revised to

allow manufacturers to increase the

maximum takeoff weights for aircraft

certificated under SFAR 41. They justify

their comments by stating that the

increase in maximum takeoff weight

will provide a mitigation of the

additional equipment weights incurred

under this rulemaking.

One commenter states that better

weight and balance control by the FAA

is necessary because many operators are

flying over maximum weight.

Fairchild, Jetstream, and AIA propose

that the FAA incorporate the language

of § 135.181(a)(2) into § 121.191, which

would provide, in their view, a more

conservative approach to one engine

inoperative enroute operations.

Jetstream also notes that there is no

requirement for commuter airplanes to

show Net En Route Flight Path data in

their AFM’s.

One commenter suggests that part 121

be written to specify the exact

performance requirements for

nontransport category airplanes to be

included in their performance manuals

so there would be no confusion with

other FAA performance requirements.

Fairchild and AIA suggest deleting all

references to ‘‘transport category’’ in

§§ 121.189 through 121.197.

FAA Response: Section 121.135(b)

requires that the manual contain

methods and procedures for

maintaining the aircraft weight and

center of gravity within approved limits.

Approved weight and balance control

procedures are the only means for an

operator/applicant to authorize the use

of other than known weights for crew,

passengers, baggage, or cargo. The

weight and balance control program,

including loading schedules and charts,

are approved on operations

specifications by the FAA. This program

must be included in the operator/

applicant’s policies and procedures

manual.

Section 121.189(c)(1) states, for

turbine engine powered takeoff

limitations, that ‘‘(c) No person

operating a turbine engine powered

category airplane certificated after

August 29, 1959, may take off that

airplane at a weight greater than that

listed in the Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM) at which compliance with the

following may be shown: (1) The

accelerate-stop distance must not

exceed the length of the runway plus

the length of any stopway.’’

The FAA agrees that new or

additional performance data would

need to be developed for certain

airplanes, and that this data would need

to be acceptable to the FAA Aircraft

Certification Office and incorporated

into the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM).

At the present time, some AFM’s (for

Beech 99, certain Metroliners, and the

Twin Otter) do not have accelerate-stop

distance data, only accelerate-slow data.

In order for the airplane operator to

comply with § 121.189(c)(1), the

operators would have to request an

AFM supplement from the airplane

manufacturers showing this required

data. The FAA has not required the

manufacturers to develop this data. If

they have developed the data, it would

still have to be certificated by the FAA

as a revision to the AFM. If the

manufacturer does not have acceleratestop data, it will have to flight test,

simulate, or analytically prove

accelerate-stop distance data to the

FAA. This process could be expensive

to the operators who would pay for the

manufacturer’s support.

This rulemaking does not require the

affected airplanes that are currently in

service or airplanes that will be

manufactured under an existing type

certificate to meet the engine-out climb

gradient performance required by part

25. These airplanes will, however, be

required to meet the obstacle clearance

limitations of § 121.189(d)(2).

Section 121.189(d)(2) states for

turbine engine powered takeoff

limitations, that ‘‘(d) No person

operating a turbine engine powered

category airplane may take off that

airplane at a weight greater than that

listed in the Airplane Flight Manual—

(2) In the case of an airplane certificated

after September 30, 1958, that allows a

net takeoff flight path that clears all

obstacles either by a height of at least 35

feet vertically, or by at least 200 feet

horizontally within the airport

boundaries and by at least 300 feet

horizontally after passing the

boundaries.’’ AFM’s for some older

airplanes with seating capacity of 10-to19 passengers do not have data to show

the required climb gradient or the

certification basis to clear obstacles after

takeoff with an engine-out at a specified

weight. As one commenter suggests,

additional certification requirements

would have to be identified in part 121

or in a new Appendix to 121 for

nontransport category airplanes, except

for the commuter category or SFAR 41,

ICAO Annex 8 airplanes, before these

airplanes could comply with

§ 121.189(d)(2) requirements.

As with accelerate-stop data, the FAA

agrees that new or additional

performance obstacle clearance data for

certain airplanes would need to be

developed, and that this data would

need to be approved by an FAA Aircraft

Certification Office and incorporated

into the Aircraft Flight Manual.

Raytheon estimates that to provide

obstacle clearance data, testing would

have to be done on all Beech 99 models

and the price per each airplane for the

new performance data would be $63,000

($53,000 for the Beech 1300). This cost

must be incurred by the manufacturer

and then passed on to all the operators.

The FAA recognizes the significant

problems in developing the necessary

performance data for airplanes type

certificated under a wide range of

standards over the past 30 years,

including part 23 (or its predecessor,

part 3 of the Civil Air Regulations)

normal category, plus additional

standards in the form of special

conditions, SFAR 23, SFAR 41C, or part

135, appendix A, or part 23 commuter

category. Development of the additional

performance data for airplanes

certificated under older standards may

be developed by conducting actual

flight tests, data analysis, or any other

methods acceptable to the Aircraft

Certification Office. The FAA believes

that the performance requirements of

§ 121.189(d)(2), obstacle clearance with

an engine-out after takeoff, contribute to

an increased level of passenger and

crew safety.

The FAA also understands that the

requirements for accelerate-stop and

obstruction clearance may, in fact,

remove certain airplanes from service in

part 121. It may also affect the

operational capability of some

operators, depending on the location

and height of obstacles, and may

terminate air carrier service to some

communities if airplanes are removed

from service.

Because of the difficulty that affected

commuters would face in meeting the

part 121 performance operating

limitations with their existing fleet, the

FAA has decided to provide delayed

compliance for these requirements.

Subpart I has been amended to state

different requirements for aircraft used

by affected commuters that were

certificated under different certification

standards, as follows:

1. Airplanes certificated under

commuter category can meet all of the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65857

airplane performance requirements of

part 121 within 15 months of the

publication of the final rule.

2. Airplanes certificated under SFAR

41 or earlier certification standards will

be allowed to continue to comply with

the part 135 Subpart I and other

airplane performance operating

limitations requirements for 15 years.

The FAA anticipates that some of the

SFAR 41 airplanes will be able to meet

the part 121 requirements within the 15-

year period so they have the choice of

either continuing to operate under the

performance requirements of part 135

for the 15-year compliance period or

complying with the performance

requirements of part 121 during the 15-

year compliance period. Some of the

airplanes certificated under earlier

certification standards, such as under

part 135, Appendix A, part 23, with

special conditions, and SFAR’s 23 and

41C, will probably never be able to meet

the part 121 standards. For affected

commuters operating these airplanes,

the 15-year period allows the operators

sufficient time to plan for and obtain

replacement airplanes or to modify

them.

Although the FAA encourages

affected commuters to comply with the

performance operating requirements

earlier than 15 years after publication of

the final rule, it is allowing that length

of time to ensure that there will be an

adequate supply of replacement

airplanes available for purchase. The

current rate of production of new

commuter category airplanes is

approximately 30 per year. But most

importantly, if the FAA were to impose

a shorter compliance period and

affected commuters were not able to

obtain new airplanes from

manufacturers, they might replace their

equipment with airplanes configured for

fewer than 10 passengers. This airplane

group is not covered by this rulemaking

and has a higher accident rate than the

10–19 passenger airplanes. Therefore,

an unintended effect of this rule could

be an increase in the accident rate.

In response to Jet Stream’s comment,

current FAA policy prohibits revisions

to airplanes certificated under SFAR 41

that would increase the maximum

weight or the number of passengers.

This SFAR was terminated on

September 13, 1983.

While the FAA understands that some

of the older airplanes (i.e., normal

category predecessors of commuter

category airplanes) may not be able to

meet certain performance requirements,

the FAA has determined that some

performance requirements, such as the

maintaining of an altitude with an

engine-out, are important safety

enhancements that provide for a higher

level of safety. This level of safety

required in part 121 should be available

to all passengers flown on carriers

operating under part 121.

Section 121.191 requires that the

AFM show a one-engine inoperative net

en route flight path which would

provide a positive slope at an altitude of

at least 1,000 feet above the terrain

(2,000 feet in mountainous terrain)

within 5 statute miles of the intended

track. Section 121.191 also provides for

a net flight path that would allow

continued flight from the cruising

altitude to an airport clearing all terrain

and obstructions. Section 135.181(a)(2)

requires airplanes to maintain a 50 feet

per minute rate of climb when operating

at the MEAs or 5,000 feet MSL

whichever is higher. It does not provide

for the continuation of the flight below

the MEA.

Section 121.191 has continuously

provided for safe engine out en route

operations while allowing some

flexibility. The flexibility allows the

certificate holder to calculate maximum

weights for maintaining a constant

engine out altitude, a continuous flight

path drift down to an airport when an

altitude cannot be maintained, and

provides off airways direct routing

engine out performance requirements.

The FAA understands that net en route

flight path data must be provided by the

manufacturer; however, the FAA

believes that part 121 air carriers

deserve the additional flexibility of

§ 121.191 and that commuters adopting

the § 121.191 requirements may gain a

flexible benefit with a continued higher

level of safety.

In response to comments, the FAA

points out that Notice 95–5 proposed to

remove the words ‘‘transport category’’

wherever they appear in subpart I.

In reviewing part 121 to resolve

comments, the FAA noted that several

formulas are printed incorrectly. In the

rate of climb formula for reciprocating

engine powered transport category

airplanes certificated under parts other

than part 4a of the Civil Air Regulations

(CAR), the parentheses are misplaced.

This formula has been printed correctly

in the corresponding part 135 section of

§ 135.371 (a) and (c)(1). Also, in the rateof-climb formula for transport category

airplanes certificated under CAR 4a

[§ 121.181 (a) and (c)(1) and § 121.183

(a)(2) and (c)(1)] it is not clear as printed

that the subscript So is to be squared.

Appropriate corrections are made to

both formulas.

VI.A.6 Subpart J—Special Airworthiness

Requirements

Internal doors. Section 121.217

prescribes that in any case where

internal doors are equipped with

louvers or other ventilating means, there

must be a means convenient to the crew

for closing the flow of air through the

door when necessary.

Comments: Raytheon Aircraft states

that a new toilet installation for the

1900D has internal partitions with

permanently open louvers. Compliance

with § 121.217 would require Raytheon

to redesign the partition louvers so a

crewmember could leave his or her

station to close the louvers when

necessary or design the louvers for

remote control closure.

FAA Response: Contrary to the

commenter’s assumption, the lavatory

partition louvers in the commenter’s

airplanes would not have to be

redesigned. As stated in § 121.213 (a)

and (b), § 121.217 applies only to

airplanes type certificated under Aero

Bulletin 7A or part 04 of the Civil Air

Regulations.

Cargo carried in the passenger

compartment. Section 121.285 requires

that cargo carried in passenger

compartments must be stowed in a fully

enclosed bin or carried aft of a bulkhead

or divider and properly restrained.

Section 135.87 allows certificate holders

to carry cargo in an approved cargo

compartment instead of a fully enclosed

bin and to carry restrained cargo

anywhere in the passenger compartment

if it is restrained by a net that meets the

requirements of § 23.787(e). The FAA

proposed to amend § 121.285 to add an

exception for commuter category (and

predecessor) airplanes that would have

the effect of allowing cargo to be carried

in the passenger compartment as it is

today under part 135.

Comments: AACA, an association of

Alaskan air carriers, fully supports the

proposal.

FAA Response: The final rule

includes provisions from § 135.87 that

have been moved into § 121.285 for

nontransport category airplanes type

certificated after December 31, 1964.

Landing gear aural warning device.

Section 121.289 contains a requirement

for a landing gear aural warning device

for large airplanes. At present this

section applies to any airplane with a

maximum certificated takeoff weight of

more than 12,500 pounds. Appendix A

of part 135 requires a landing gear

warning device for airplanes having

retractable landing gear and wing flaps,

but the device need not be aural. The

FAA considers that the cost of replacing

a warning light with a warning sound
65858 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

would be minimal. Therefore, this

section would apply to any airplane that

presently operates under part 135 and

that would be required by this final rule

to operate under part 121. To allow

adequate time for airplanes without

aural warning devices to be retrofitted,

the FAA proposed a compliance date of

2 years after the publication date of the

final rule.

Comments: Raytheon comments that

their models all provide aural landing

gear warning.

AACA notes that the FAA did not

prepare a cost analysis for this proposal,

other than to show that the cost would

be ‘‘minimal.’’ AACA shows that

various manufacturers’ comments on

similar proposals have identified

substantial administrative, engineering,

installation, and ongoing maintenance

cost. However, AACA also notes that, in

this case, Fairchild Aircraft believes that

the landing gear aural warning can be

installed without undue cost or

difficulty.

AACA also states that once an item is

installed, there are many other things

that must be done that involve cost. Cost

items identified are: revisions of the

certificate holder’s training program,

normal and emergency procedures,

maintenance MEL’s and other items

need to be amended to reflect the

change from a visible lighted warning

device to an aural device. According to

AACA, compliance costs add up

incrementally to substantial cumulative

cost and that the FAA fails to account

for.

FAA Response: Even though part 23

requires an ‘‘aural or equally effective

device,’’ the FAA is not aware of

airplanes where the ‘‘equally effective

device’’ was accepted as the only

warning for the landing gear warning.

The reason for not accepting such

devices includes the consideration of

pilot’s work load during the landing

phase of flight and the need for the

warning to attract pilot attention under

such conditions. No proposed lighted

device, by itself, has been found

acceptable to provide the needed

warning for this flight condition.

Therefore, the FAA is amending

§ 121.289 as proposed to require

installation of a landing gear aural

warning device within 2 years of the

publication of this final rule. However,

the FAA believes that all affected

airplanes already have an aural warning

system.

Emergency evacuation and ditching

demonstrations. Section 121.291

contains requirements for conducting

demonstrations of airplane evacuation

and ditching procedures. The FAA

requires these demonstrations upon

introduction of a new type and model

of airplane into passenger-carrying

operations. For airplanes with a seating

capacity of more than 44 passengers, an

actual evacuation demonstration must

show that the full capacity of the

airplane and the crewmembers can be

evacuated within 90 seconds. Also, for

airplanes with more than 44 passenger

seats a partial demonstration is required

under one of the circumstances

described in § 121.291(b).

Demonstrations have not been required

for airplanes with fewer than 44

passenger seats.

Under § 121.291(d) any certificate

holder operating or proposing to operate

one or more landplanes of any size in

extended overwater operations must

conduct a simulated ditching in

accordance with Appendix D to part

121. The purpose of the ditching

demonstration is to show that the

certificate holder’s ditching training and

procedures for a new type and model of

airplane are satisfactory. The simulated

ditching does not specifically require

the use of flight attendants; the FAA

proposed to apply this rule to any

affected commuter operator who

conducts extended overwater

operations, whether or not flight

attendants are used in the operation.

The FAA proposed to apply this

provision to the affected commuter

operators only when a new type and

model of airplane is introduced into the

certificate holder’s operations after the

effective date of the final rule. This

requirement does not apply to the

current fleet.

The FAA proposed to amend

§ 121.291(b) to clarify that the partial

demonstration procedures apply only to

airplanes with more than 44 passenger

seats.

Comments: With respect to partial

evacuation, one commenter states that

the proposed rule would reduce the

safety requirements for commuters

because the evacuation procedures

under part 121 do not apply to airplanes

with less than 44 seats and that § 23.803

requires a demonstration for commuter

category airplanes. One commenter

states that § 121.291(b) does not indicate

if the requirement applies to aircraft

with more than 44 seats or all aircraft.

Two commenters recommend

clarifying the rule language for the

ditching demonstration in § 121.291(d)

to make the FAA’s intent clear. The

commenters say that the current

language does not properly

communicate the fact that a ditching

demonstration would be required only if

an airplane is a new make/model for a

particular certificate holder’s fleet.

FAA Response: Parts 25 and 121

currently require emergency evacuation

demonstrations for transport category

airplanes with more than 44 passenger

seats. These demonstrations are

required in addition to specific detail

design requirements, e.g. aisle width,

exit size, exit slides, etc., and are

conducted to confirm the overall

evacuation capability of the airplane.

They are also conducted to show the

adequacy of the operator’s evacuation

procedures. Considering the specific

detail design requirements with which

transport category airplanes must also

comply, the FAA has not found it

necessary to require such evacuation

demonstrations for airplanes having 44

or fewer passenger seats. Since part 135

does not pertain to operations with

airplanes having more than 44

passenger seats, there has been no need

to require an emergency evacuation

demonstration in that part. Part 23, on

the other hand, does not contain the

same specific detail design requirements

for commuter or predecessor normal

category airplanes. Therefore, an

evacuation demonstration is required

for type certification of those airplanes

in lieu of the specific detail design

requirements that transport category

airplanes must meet. There will be no

reduction in safety because transport

category airplanes will still be required

to comply with the same specific detail

design requirements and the part 23

requirement for an evacuation

demonstration will remain unchanged.

As proposed, § 121.291(b) is amended to

make clear that it, as well as

§ 121.291(a), only applies to airplanes

with more than 44 passenger seats.

The FAA agrees that the language in

§ 121.291(d) for the ditching

requirement does not clearly state that

it applies to the affected commuters

only if an airplane is a new type and

model introduced after they began

operations under part 121. Therefore,

clarifying language is added to

§ 121.291(d).

New special airworthiness

requirements (retrofit) and requirements

applicable to future manufactured

airplanes:

• Ditching emergency exits. Section

25.807(e) contains requirements for

ditching emergency exits in transport

category airplanes. The ditching exits

for transport category airplanes with 10

or more passenger seats must meet at

least the dimensions of a Type III

passenger emergency exit (20 inches

wide by 36 inches high). It should be

noted that transport category airplanes

are required to have ditching exits

meeting those criteria regardless of

whether the airplane is approved for
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65859

ditching and used in extended

overwater operations. If ditching

approval is requested by the applicant,

it also must be shown that the required

life rafts can be launched successfully

through the ditching emergency exits.

Part 23, as recently amended by

Amendment 23–46 (59 FR 25772; May

17, 1994), now contains requirements

for ditching exits; however, all of the

normal or commuter category airplanes

currently in service were type

certificated before that amendment

became effective. The FAA proposed to

amend part 121 (proposed new

§ 121.293(a)) to require ditching exits for

nontransport category airplanes type

certificated after December 31, 1964.

Unlike those required for transport

category airplanes, the ditching exits

would only have to be as large as those

currently required by § 23.807(b) (19

inch by 26 inch ellipses). The FAA

proposed that compliance would be

required 2 years after the publication

date of the final rule. The proposed

requirement would not entail adding

new exits. The overwing exits of most

airplanes type certificated under part 23

would probably qualify as ditching

exits. Part 25 airplanes intended for

non-part 121 transportation sometimes

comply by providing a sheet metal dam

that can be installed in the passenger

entry doorway. If it is necessary to

consider a floor-level exit as a ditching

exit in a nontransport category airplane,

a similar sheet metal dam could be

provided.

Comments: Commuter Air

Technology, a modifier of business

airplanes for commuter airline service,

states that its product has overwing

exits that would be usable anytime the

airplane was floating. The commenter

questions whether it would be necessary

to conduct a $5,000 type certification

effort to qualify those exits as ditching

emergency exits. NATA, an association

representing certificate holders of 10- to

19-passenger-seat airplanes,

recommends rescinding the proposal

and asserts that the cost of compliance

would be extremely high. The

commenter offers no specific details

concerning costs, but does note that de

Havilland DHC–6 Twin Otters have

experienced only three ditchings in 17

million flight hours.

FAA Response: The comments

received have some validity. The

majority of the current commuter fleet,

at least those for which ditching exits

were not substantiated for certification,

includes such airplanes as the

Beechcraft 99 and 1900 and Fairchild

airplanes with low wings and overwing

exits. It is likely that these exits would

qualify as ditching emergency exits.

However, they would have to be tested.

That would also be true of all other lowwing part 23 normal or commuter

category airplanes that would be

operated under part 121.

In addition to the low-wing models,

there are also three high-wing normal or

commuter category airplane models.

These are de Havilland DHC–6, Twin

Otters, which are by far the most

numerous of the high-wing models, and

the Dornier 228 and Britten Norman

BN–2A Mk III Trislanders. (This, of

course, refers to landplanes. Many Twin

Otters operate as seaplanes on floats.)

Typically, high-wing landplanes come

to rest in the water on the fuselage with

one wing tip in the water.

The DHC–6 Series 100 and 200

airplanes have emergency exits in the

top of the fuselage forward of the wing.

These exits also meet the ditching

emergency exit requirements. The DHC–

6 Series 300 airplanes do not have such

overhead exits; instead they depend

entirely on the emergency exits in the

sides of the fuselage. In almost three

decades of service with Twin Otters,

there have been two ditchings. One

involving a Series 100 airplane occurred

in the Pacific Ocean during a ferry flight

from Long Beach, California, to

Honolulu, Hawaii. Another, involving a

Series 300, occurred in the Arctic. In

both instances, all occupants were

evacuated safely. In the latter case, the

occupants escaped through the exits on

the highest side. The FAA is not aware

of any ditchings of Trislanders or

Dornier 228 airplanes; however, because

the Dornier 228 and the Trislander are

so similar in design to the DHC–6, it is

likely that they would float the same

way that the Series 300 airplane did,

and that their exits would also meet the

ditching emergency exit requirements.

Most of the part 23 commuter and

predecessor normal category airplanes

are low-wing airplanes with overwing

exits that would comply with no further

substantiation required. The vast

majority of the airplanes would,

therefore, not be affected by the

requirement in regard to either cost or

safety benefit because they already

comply. In view of the successful

ditchings that have occurred with high

wing airplanes to date, the FAA has

decided not to adopt § 121.293(a) as

proposed.

• Takeoff warning system. Section

25.703 requires an aural warning to the

flightcrew at the beginning of the takeoff

roll when the wing flaps, leading edge

devices, wing spoilers, speed brakes,

and longitudinal trim devices are not in

a position that would allow a safe

takeoff. Part 23 does not require a

takeoff warning system (although a

requirement for such a system is

proposed in Notice No. 94–21, 59 FR

37620, July 22, 1994); in addition, part

23 airplanes typically do not have

multiple types of devices. Accidents

have occurred on transport category

airplanes when the flightcrews initiated

takeoffs when the airplanes were not in

the proper configurations for takeoff.

The FAA proposed that airplanes

manufactured after a date 4 years after

the publication date of the final rule

would be required to have a takeoff

warning system as required by § 25.703.

However, a warning system is not

required for any device for which it can

be demonstrated that takeoff with that

device in the most adverse position

would not create a hazardous condition

(§ 121.293(b)).

Comments: One commenter notes that

a takeoff warning would not be required

under § 25.703 if it is demonstrated that

a takeoff with that device in the most

adverse position would not create a

hazardous condition. This commenter

questions how one can measure the

effect of these improper settings when

compounded by other unfavorable

conditions, such as weight and balance

mistakes, but does not express support

or opposition to the proposal.

Commuter Air Technology discusses

the longitudinal trim and flap systems

on its airplanes. The commenter notes

that the pilot can visually verify that the

flaps are in correct 40° takeoff setting

from the cockpit. The commenter also

states that the longitudinal trim is

manual and has center marking visible

from both the pilot and co-pilot

positions. The commenter’s position is

that the additional cost of such a system

is not warranted.

FAA Response: The first commenter

correctly notes that a takeoff warning

system is not required for any devices

if it is demonstrated that takeoffs with

that device in the most adverse position

would not cause an unsafe condition.

While the FAA agrees that with some

airplanes it is possible to verify visually

flap positions and manual trims and

that there is a cost to install warnings,

the FAA has determined that for safety

reasons, an aural warning is needed

under the conditions described.

In considering these comments, the

FAA notes that all of the in-service

airplanes have demonstrated, by their

service histories, that there is no device

position that would cause an unsafe

condition and therefore that there

would be no need for installation of

additional takeoff warning devices.

While proposed § 121.293(b) (now

§ 121.293) does not apply to any inservice airplanes affected by this rule,

the requirement for airplanes
65860 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

manufactured 4 years after the

publication date of this rule is retained

in the final rule to ensure that future

airplanes are covered.

VI.A.7. Subpart K—Instrument and

Equipment Requirements.

Instrument and equipment

requirements are contained in part 121,

subpart K, and part 135, subpart C. The

requirements are in addition to the

airplane and equipment requirements of

part 91. The discussion below

emphasizes all new or revised

equipment requirements except for

major equipment such as FDR’s and

airborne weather radar, which are

previously discussed in the ‘‘Major

Issues’’ section of this document.

Notice 95–5 proposed to require that

commuter operators comply with part

121 airplane and equipment

requirements except in areas that were

specifically discussed.

Sections 121.303, 121.305, and

121.307 require certain airplane

instruments and equipment. Some of

the part 121 equipment is required

under part 135 only for IFR, VFR overthe-top, and VFR night operations. Most

of the airplanes used by affected

commuters already have these

instruments as well as equipment

required under part 135 (§§ 135.143 and

135.149). Under the proposal this

equipment in these part 121 sections

would be required for all part 121

operations.

Third Attitude Indicators. Section

121.305(j) currently requires a third

attitude indicator on large turbojetpowered and large turboprop powered

airplanes. Notice 95–5 proposed to

apply this requirement to airplanes that

would be operating under part 121 as a

result of this rulemaking.

Comments: Most of the commenters

on this issue oppose the requirement,

primarily because of the cost.

According to RAA, part 121 does not

include an equivalent to § 135.163(h),

which requires dual attitude indicators

which are powered by two different and

independent power sources for

nontransport category airplanes. RAA

recommends requiring the third attitude

indicator only for new production large

airplanes, deleting the proposed retrofit

requirement, and incorporating

§ 135.163(h) into part 121 for

nontransport category airplanes. RAA

also recommends considering an

equivalent means of compliance for

large nontransport category airplanes,

such as ‘‘Situation Awareness for

Safety’’ devices.

Raytheon Aircraft and Mesa state that

the requirement is excessive for

airplanes that already have two attitude

indicators, each supplied by a separate

source of power. Raytheon and Big Sky

are concerned that the requirement

might necessitate a redesign of the

instrument panel.

Twin Otter International believes the

requirement would be extremely costly

with little safety benefit. According to

Twin Otter, even if the attitude

indicator were lost, the airplane would

have adequate performance and

information to be operated without a

third attitude indicator.

Commuter Air Technology concurs

with the proposal for all aircraft

operated under part 121 and points out

that § 135.149 currently requires a third

indicator only for turbojet aircraft.

United Express states that the FAA

supporting data for a third

(independently powered) attitude gyro

is based on turbojet accident/incident

research and not on turbopropeller

accident/incident data. According to the

commenter, until the FAA can

substantiate that this will prevent

accident recurrence in turbopropeller

aircraft, it should not be required. The

commenter states that some aircraft,

such as the commenter’s fleet of

Jetstream turboprops, have a third

attitude gyro powered by the aircraft

battery system. No information has been

provided, that the commenter is aware

of, suggesting that an independent

power source will improve safety or

accident statistics in turbopropeller

aircraft.

FAA Response: Section 121.305(j)

currently requires a third attitude

indicator on large turbojet-powered and

large turboprop-powered airplanes. Part

135 requires a third attitude indicator

only for turbojet powered airplanes.

The FAA’s intent as stated in Notice

95–5 was to require all affected

airplanes to comply with the equipment

requirements of § 121.305 including the

requirement for a third attitude

indicator. The notice did not contain

amendatory language to § 121.305(j);

however, to be consistent with the

FAA’s stated intent, the rule language

has been developed to include the

intended airplanes and to provide a

compliance date.

In response to RAA’s comment that

part 121 does not have an equivalent to

§ 135.163(h), which requires two

independent sources of energy, each of

which is able to drive all gyroscopic

instruments, such an equivalent appears

in § 121.313(e).

The FAA does not agree with the

commenter that a third attitude

indicator is excessive for airplanes that

have two attitude indicators or that

there could be little safety benefit. The

final rule requires a third attitude

indicator in all turbojet powered

airplanes and all turbopropeller

powered airplanes. However, the FAA

recognizes that retrofit installation of a

third attitude indicator imposes a

burden which may require a redesign of

the instrument panel. Therefore, as with

certain other requirements, the final rule

provides for a 15-year compliance date

for turbopropeller powered airplanes

having a passenger seating configuration

of 10 to 30 seats that were manufactured

before 15 months after the date of

publication of this final rule. In effect,

this allows operators to decide whether

to retrofit these airplanes or phase them

out. Turbojet airplanes and newly

manufactured turboprop airplanes must

comply within 15 months.

Lavatory fire protection. Section

121.308 currently requires lavatory

smoke detection systems, or equivalent,

and automatically discharging fire

extinguishers in lavatory receptacles for

towels, paper, or waste for passengercarrying transport category airplanes.

The FAA proposed to apply the

requirements of § 121.308 to airplanes

formerly operated under part 135 that

are equipped with lavatories. Section

121.308 would be amended to delete the

references to transport category. The

proposed compliance section, § 121.2,

required that lavatory protection

equipment be installed within 2 years

after the publication date of the final

rule.

Comments: ALPA believes that the

FAA should require installation of the

smoke detection system within 6

months of the effective date rather than

1 year as proposed. This commenter

also believes that installation of the

lavatory fire suppression system should

be required in all airplanes newly

manufactured within 1 year of the

effective date rather than 2 years as

proposed.

ASA and RAA do not object to

compliance insofar as new airplanes are

concerned, but do suggest that the

requirement be deleted as a retrofit

requirement. These two commenters

state that the industry estimated cost of

compliance is $2,500 per airplane while

Jetstream estimates $4,000 per airplane.

Comair believes compliance would

amount to $2,500 and 20 pounds per

airplane. The commenter asserts that

compliance is not justified for airplanes

with 20 to 30 passenger seats due to the

small size of the cabin, proximity of a

trained flight attendant with a portable

fire extinguisher, and the present

smoking ban on domestic flights.

Commuter Air Technology asks

whether the proposed requirement

would apply to some of their products
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65861

that have a side facing toilet separated

from the cabin only by a curtain.

Jetstream states that there is no

evidence to support the introduction of

fire suppression of toilet receptacles on

commuter aircraft. According to the

commenter, the lavatory receptacles are

already designed to contain a fire within

the compartment; and, due to the small

cabin size of those airplanes, the

lavatory is readily accessible to the crew

if the need to suppress a fire does occur.

The commenter estimates a cost of

$4,000 per airplane. Nevertheless, the

commenter does support requiring new

aircraft to comply.

FAA Response: The FAA does not

agree with the commenter’s suggestion

that installation of smoke detectors

should be done within 6 months and

fire extinguishers within 1 year of the

publication of the final rule. This would

not allow sufficient time for

compliance.

The comments received do not

contradict the FAA’s understanding that

few, if any, of the airplanes with 10 to

19 passenger seats are equipped with

lavatories. The primary impact of the

proposed requirement for lavatory

smoke detection and fire

extinguishment, therefore, would be on

airplanes with 20 to 30 passenger seats

presently operated under part 135. (Any

such airplanes currently operated under

part 121 are already required to

comply.)

Contrary to one commenter’s belief,

the present smoking ban on domestic

flights does not eliminate the need for

lavatory smoke detection and fire

extinguishment. On the contrary, the

smoking ban could increase the

temptation for some passengers to

smoke illicitly in the lavatory and

thereby increase the possibility of a fire

originating in that compartment. The

presence of a smoke detector serves as

a deterrent to illicit smoking as well as

a means of warning when it does occur.

Contrary to the commenter’s belief,

the presence of a flight attendant in the

cabin would not compensate for the lack

of a lavatory smoke detector and fire

extinguisher. A lavatory is designed

with an effective ventilation system to

preclude normal odors from entering the

cabin. In the absence of a smoke

detector, the ventilation systems also

precludes early detection of illicit

smoking or a fire by persons in the

cabin. In addition, the materials

typically contained in the waste

receptacles are highly flammable and

could burn out of control quickly if

there were no automatically discharging

extinguishers. It is possible that a flight

attendant would not know the fire exists

until it has grown to catastrophic

proportions.

The cost estimates provided by two

commenters appear to be based on a

misunderstanding concerning the

qualifications of a required lavatory

smoke detector. Such detectors serve

primarily to enhance the capability of

crewmembers to detect lavatory fires

visually. They are, therefore, not

required to meet all of the performance

and environmental requirements

applicable to primary detectors used in

isolated compartments, such as cargo

compartments. Anything that meets the

ordinary dictionary definition of a

lavatory would be covered by this

requirement.

Therefore, because the adverse service

experience that prompted the adoption

of § 121.308 applies equally to any

airplane, large or small, with a lavatory

and because the commenters’ cost

estimates are obviously based on a

misunderstanding of the required smoke

detector qualification, the FAA is

adopting this requirement in substance

as proposed. The final rule has been

revised to provide operators 2 years

from the date of publication to comply

with the lavatory smoke detector system

and fire extinguisher requirements. In

addition, the rule states that operators of

10- to 19-seat airplanes that have a

lavatory must have a smoke detector

system or equivalent that provides

either a warning light in the cockpit or

an audio warning that can be readily

heard by the flightcrew. This will

accommodate airplanes that do not have

flight attendants.

Emergency equipment inspection.

Section 121.309(b) requires that each

item of emergency and flotation

equipment must be inspected regularly

in accordance with inspection periods

established in the operations

specifications to ensure its condition for

continued serviceability and immediate

readiness to perform its intended

emergency purpose. Section 135.177(b)

contains a similar requirement for part

135 operators of airplanes with more

than 19 seats. In this section, the FAA

proposed requiring affected commuter

operations, including those with

airplanes of 10 to 19 seats, to comply

with the existing part 121 requirement.

Other provisions in the proposal would

require affected commuters to install

additional emergency equipment. No

comments were received on this issue

and the final rule is adopted as

proposed.

Hand-held fire extinguishers. Sections

121.309(c) and 135.155 contain similar

requirements for hand-held fire

extinguishers aboard airplanes. Part 121

requires at least two of the fire

extinguishers to contain Halon, or an

equivalent, and mandates placement of

the fire extinguishers, while part 135

does not. In Notice 95–5, the FAA

proposed that affected commuters

comply with the part 121 requirements

for fire extinguishers and that

§ 121.309(c)(7) be amended to require

that at least one of the fire extinguishers

in the passenger compartment contain

Halon or the equivalent. No comments

were received on this issue and the final

rule is adopted as proposed.

First aid kits and medical kits.

Section 121.309(d) requires that both

approved first aid kits and approved

emergency medical kits be carried on

board passenger-carrying airplanes. The

medical kits are intended to be used

only by medically qualified persons,

such as doctors, who may be on board

the airplane. Section 135.177(a)(1)

requires first aid kits to be carried on

board airplanes with more than 19

passengers.

The FAA proposed that first aid kits

be required for all airplanes with more

than 9 passenger seats operating under

part 121 and medical kits be required

for airplanes that are required to have a

flight attendant. The FAA stated in

Notice 95–5 that, after review of the

comments, the FAA might decide to

require a medical kit for all 10–19 seat

airplanes.

In Notice 95–5 the FAA pointed out

that affected commuters would have to

comply with a recent rule requiring

disposable latex gloves for first aid kits

and medical kits.

Comments: Six commenters disagree

with the proposed requirement to have

first aid kits on 10- to 19-seat airplanes.

Most of the commenters cite lack of

space and the lack of necessity for the

equipment. Commenters believe that the

first aid kit would not provide enough

of a medical benefit to justify its cost.

Two of these commenters oppose the

addition of latex gloves as part of the

first aid kit. One commenter believes

that the equipment would place

additional liability on employees. One

commenter concurs with both proposed

requirements.

Two commenters provide additional

cost information for first aid kits. One of

the commenters estimates $1,500 per

airplane and the other estimates $1,500

without specifying the number of

entities involved (i.e., airplane(s) or

fleet).

AACA agrees with the requirement for

first aid kits on all commuter airplanes

whether a flight attendant is available or

not. According to the commenter,

regardless of the size of the airplane,

inflight emergencies could occur and a

first aid kit may be needed. In the
65862 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

absence of a flight attendant, a

crewmember or passenger could use the

first aid kit. The commenter also

estimates costs of $4,359 for Alaskan

commuter air carriers in the first year

and $436 each year thereafter to meet

the requirement, but there is no

explanation of the detail.

Four commenters disagree with the

required medical kits on 20 to 30 seat

airplanes. These commenters cite lack of

space and the lack of necessity for the

equipment. Three commenters argue

that medical kits should not be required

on airplanes with less than 30 seats due

to the lack of trained personnel and the

low likelihood that a medical

professional would be on board. One

commenter believes that the equipment

would place additional liability on

employees. One commenter concurs

with the proposed requirements.

One commenter provides a cost

estimate of about $2,000 per airplane for

the medical kit requirement. However,

the cost estimate is not supported by

any documentation.

FAA Response: The FAA maintains

that certain of these requirements are

necessary to enhance safety. The ability

to respond in the early stages of a

medical emergency is critical and could

save lives in the event of an in-flight

injury or an accident. Additionally, the

FAA maintains that latex gloves as were

required by a 1994 rule change (59 FR

55208, November 4, 1994) should be

included in these first aid kits because

they guard against transmission of

disease through spilled blood. In sum,

no commenter provides any compelling

reason to eliminate the first aid kit

requirement, especially considering that

these airplanes often operate in remote

areas where medical assistance may not

be available. The FAA has determined

that emergency medical kits will be

required for airplanes requiring a flight

attendant. For airplanes not having a

flight attendant, requiring a medical kit

poses problems, such as a lack of

security, no one to monitor the use of

the kit, and no one to check the

credentials of a person who professes to

be a doctor and able to administer the

medical treatment.

The regulations allow flexibility in

the location and mounting methods of

kits. Depending on the weight of the kit

and Velcro surface area, Velcro may be

sufficient. Even if Velcro is not practical

in a particular instance, other low-cost

alternatives, such as leather straps with

buckles, are acceptable.

Crash ax. Section 121.309(e) requires

that each airplane be equipped with a

crash ax, while § 135.177 requires a

crash ax for airplanes with a passenger

seating configuration of more than 19

passengers. Under part 135 the crash ax

is to be accessible to the crew but

inaccessible to the passengers during

normal operations. The FAA proposed

in § 121.309(e) to require a crash ax for

each airplane that has a flight deck

separate from the passenger cabin and a

lockable door.

Comments: One commenter disagrees

with the FAA assertion in Notice 95–5

that the crash ax is useful only for egress

from the flight deck to the cabin in the

event of an emergency. The commenter

says that the Airplane Flight Manual of

one popular 19-seat commuter airplane

suggests that preparation for certain

gear-up landings include opening an

overwing exit inflight, because even

relatively minor distortion of the

fuselage in a small airplane can render

exits unusable. Thus, the crash ax could

be used for prying open an exit.

Raytheon states that if a key lock is

required as proposed on lockable doors

in 10- to 19-seat airplanes, then a crash

ax would be required. The commenter

states that removal of the door would

eliminate the requirements for a lock

and a crash ax.

A third commenter supports the

proposal as written in Notice 95–5 to

require a crash ax only in airplanes that

have a separate flight deck with a

lockable door.

FAA Response: The primary purpose

in requiring that a crash ax be carried is

to allow emergency egress after an

accident if airplane exits are unuseable.

However, the FAA agrees with

commenters that there could be other

uses for the ax including egress of the

cockpit crew.

After considering the comments and

reviewing the proposed requirement,

the FAA has determined not to require

crash axes on nontransport category

airplanes type certificated after

December 31, 1964, primarily because

these airplanes are not required to have

a lockable door. The FAA has

determined that the lockable doors that

exist in nontransport category airplanes

type certificated after December 31,

1964, are frangible and obviate the need

for a crash ax on the flight deck. Also

carrying a crash ax in these airplanes

creates a security risk since the ax

would not be inaccessible to passengers.

Emergency evacuation lighting and

marking requirements. Section

121.310(c), by referencing § 25.812(e),

requires emergency evacuation lighting

for passengers when all sources of

illumination more than 4 feet above the

floor are totally obscured. This

requirement applies to all transport

category airplanes regardless of how

many passenger seats they have. There

is no corresponding requirement in part

23 or in part 135 for airplanes having a

passenger-seating configuration of less

than 20 seats.

Section 121.310(d) for emergency

light operation requires that each light

required by paragraphs (c) and (h) must

be operable manually and must operate

automatically from the independent

lighting system. As proposed, these

requirements would apply to affected

commuters. In § 121.310(d)(2)(i) each

light must be operable manually both

from the flightcrew station and from a

point in the passenger compartment that

is readily accessible to a normal flight

attendant seat.

Section 121.310(e) requires that an

exit operating handle may not be used

if its brightness decreases below a

specified level. Section 135.178(e)

contains an identical requirement for

airplanes having a passenger seating

configuration of more than 19 seats.

Under the proposal the requirement

would also apply to airplanes with a

passenger configuration of 10–19 seats.

Section 121.310(f) contains standards

for access to various exit types that

presently apply only to transport

category airplanes. Section 135.178(f) is

identical to § 121.310(f) for airplanes

having a passenger configuration of

more than 19 seats. The FAA proposed

to amend § 121.310(f) to exclude

nontransport category airplanes.

Section 121.310(g) (and its parallel

requirement in § 135.178(g) for more

than 19 passenger seat airplanes)

requires emergency exits to be marked

on the outside by a 2-inch band

contrasting in color with the

surrounding fuselage. Most airplanes

with a passenger-seating configuration

of less than 20 seats operating under

part 135 are already required to meet

this requirement and, for those that do

not, compliance with this requirement

as proposed would merely require

painting the bands around each exit.

Section 121.310(h) requires airplanes

for which the application for type

certification was made before May 1,

1972, to meet the exterior emergency

lighting standards of § 25.812, in effect

on April 30, 1972, or any later standards

in effect if the application for type

certification was made later. The FAA

proposed to require nontransport

category airplanes type certificated after

December 31, 1964, (i.e., part 23 normal

and utility category) to comply with

§ 25.812 in effect April 30, 1972, within

2 years after the publication date of a

final rule.

The FAA proposed that airplanes

with a passenger-seating configuration

of less than 20 seats previously operated

under part 135 be required to comply

with the above-described emergency
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65863

lighting systems (that is, emergency exit

signs, interior lighting, exit handles, and

exterior lighting) and, except for the

marking requirement discussed above,

proposed a compliance date 2 years

after the publication date of a final rule.

Comments: Sixteen comments were

received on proposed § 121.310. All

commenters oppose the proposal to

retroactively require any additional

emergency exit signs or emergency

lighting on 10-to-19 passenger seat

commuter airplanes.

Several commenters state that the cost

of retrofitting in-service airplanes with

an emergency lighting system would be

much more expensive than the FAA

expected when the notice was prepared.

Six commenters note the size of the

cabin area of these airplanes and that no

person is seated more than 8 feet (or two

or three rows) from an exit. One of these

six also notes that no person is more

than 12 feet from two exits.

Four commenters note that an

emergency evacuation demonstration is

required for the certification of

commuter category airplanes and that

these demonstrations have shown that

the airplanes can be evacuated, under

conditions of total darkness, in less than

90 seconds. Two other commenters note

that there is no known service history or

adverse accident data related to

commuter operations to support the

need for this proposal. Therefore, all six

of these commenters believe there is no

justification for the proposal and each of

them recommends that it be withdrawn.

One commenter believes that the

current briefing on exit locations and

their use is sufficient and that no further

action is needed. Two commenters

believe that the requirement in

§ 121.310(c)(3) to show compliance with

§ 25.812(e) does not add any safety to

these airplanes. They point out that the

height of the ceiling in their airplane is

only 43⁄4 feet high and question the need

to comply with the provision of

§ 121.310, which requires compliance

with § 25.812(e). Section 25.812(e)

requires escape path markings for

passenger guidance, ‘‘when all sources

of illumination more than four feet

above the cabin aisle floor are totally

obscured.’’ According to commenters,

with a ceiling height of only 43⁄4 feet, it

is likely that the required exit markings

are located less than 4 feet above the

floor and that compliance with

§ 121.310(c)(3) is not necessary. Another

commenter believes that the

requirement in § 25.812 for emergency

lighting to operate for 10 minutes is not

needed for these airplanes. The

commenter points out that the required

emergency evacuation time for these

airplanes is much less than 10 minutes

and that this requirement should be

adjusted accordingly. One other

commenter suggests that flashlights be

made available. Finally, two

commenters acknowledge that

emergency lighting may enhance safety;

however, they also believe that this

enhancement in safety can be provided

by a lighting system that is less

expensive, less complex, and much

lighter than the one envisioned by

§ 121.310. Accordingly, they provide

some suggestions for such a system.

Embraer, a foreign manufacturer of

transport category airplanes, believes

that § 121.310(f) should also be

amended to exclude smaller (e.g., 20 to

30 passenger) transport category

airplanes as well as nontransport

category airplanes. The commenter

believes that a passenger seat would

have to be removed from its product for

operation under part 121 if smaller

transport category airplanes were not

also excluded from this section.

AACA supports the proposed

amendment to § 121.310(g).

The only other comment received

concerning this issue was from an

individual who requests resolution of

the issue of whether the 2-inch wide

contrasting band has to be on the

fuselage surrounding the emergency exit

or on the exit itself.

FAA Response: Section 23.803 does

require an emergency evacuation

demonstration, as noted by the

commenters; however, the

demonstration is required primarily to

compensate for the differences in

evacuation design features (e.g. aisle

width, exit size, etc.) required by part 23

and those of part 25. Like the

demonstrations required by part 25 for

airplanes with more than 44 passengers,

the demonstrations are intended to

evaluate the evacuation capability of the

airplane under standard conditions and

are not intended to show the evacuation

capability of the airplane under the

most adverse condition that could be

encountered. They are not intended, for

example, to demonstrate the evacuation

capability of the airplane when there is

dense smoke in the cabin or when there

is hazardous, damaged structure in the

vicinity. The applicability of the

required evacuation demonstrations to

the need for emergency lighting is

therefore limited.

Passengers must egress rapidly in the

event of fire. Contrary to the

commenters’ assertions concerning a

lack of adverse service experience, the

FAA is aware of at least six instances

since 1980 in which passengers had to

be evacuated because of fire from such

nontransport category airplanes or

transport category airplanes with cabins

of similar size. There is no doubt that

safety can be enhanced considerably by

requiring compliance with the

emergency lighting requirements

proposed in Notice 95–5. Nevertheless,

the installation of such lighting is very

costly.

In response to excluding smaller

airplanes from the requirements

pertaining to access to exits,

§ 121.310(f)(2) states, in part, that there

must be enough space next to each Type

I or Type II emergency exit to allow a

crewmember to assist in the evacuation

of passengers without reducing the

unobstructed width of the passageway

below that required (20 inches wide).

Part 135 contains the same requirement

for airplanes having a passenger seating

capacity of more than 19 seats.

Since the commenter’s product has

more than 19 passenger seats and

numerous examples are already in

service in this country, the airplanes

have presumably been shown to comply

with either § 135.178(f)(2) or the

identical text of § 121.310(f)(2). Thus,

this rulemaking would not impose any

new burden on airplanes with more

than 19 passenger seats.

Section 121.310(g) states that exterior

exit markings ‘‘must be a 2-inch wide

colored band outlining each passenger

exit on the side of the fuselage.’’ Since

the band is outlining the exit it would

be on the fuselage, not on the exit.

After reviewing the costs and benefits

associated with the proposed emergency

lighting requirements, the FAA has

decided to revise the final rule as

follows:

1. The floor proximity lighting

requirements in § 121.310(c) will apply

to all airplanes except non-transport

category airplanes type certificated after

December 31, 1964. In effect, this is not

a change from current requirements.

Affected airplanes with 10 to 19

passenger seats will not have to comply

because of the small cabin size, the

probability that passengers would be

able to find the emergency exits without

floor lighting, and the high cost of

retrofitting for these requirements.

2. The interior light operation

requirements of § 121.310(d) do not

apply in the final rule to nontransport

category airplanes certificated after

December 31, 1964, since the

requirements of § 121.310 (c) and (h)

apply only to transport category

airplanes.

3. The requirement for an illuminated

exit operating handle (§ 121.310(e))

remains as proposed. The compliance

date for retrofit requirements for 10- to

19-seat airplanes is 2 years after

publication of the final rule.
65864 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

4. Section 121.310(f) was proposed to

apply to airplanes with a passengerseating configuration of more than 19

seats. This remains in the final rule.

5. The requirement for marking

emergency exits on the outside in

§ 121.310(g) remains as proposed since

compliance is relatively simple and

inexpensive for all affected operators.

6. The exterior lighting standards in

§ 121.310(h) are revised to except

nontransport airplanes type certificated

after December 31, 1964..

Seatbacks. Section 121.311(e)

prohibits a certificate holder from taking

off or landing unless passenger seats are

in the upright position. Section 135.117

requires only that passengers be briefed

that seats should be in the upright

position. The FAA proposed that

affected commuters be required to

comply with § 121.311.

Comments: One commenter objects to

the requirement because the pilots

cannot assure compliance in a 19-seat

airplane, especially during landing.

FAA Response: The FAA intended for

those flights with flight attendants to be

operated in accordance with the current

§ 121.311. For these flights on

nontransport airplanes type certificated

after December 31, 1964, the FAA has

included wording to clarify that the

pilot must only instruct the passengers

to place their seatbacks in the upright

position. The final rule has also been

revised to add a new subparagraph to

§ 121.311(e) that provides that on an

airplane with no flight attendant, the

certificate holder may take off or land as

long as the flightcrew instructs each

passenger to place his or her seatback in

the upright position. This change is

needed to clarify what is required for

airplanes that do not have a flight

attendant.

Seat belt and shoulder harnesses on

the flight deck. Section 121.311(f)

requires a combined seat belt and

shoulder harness with a single-point

release that meets the requirements of

§ 25.785. Part 135 does not contain a

requirement for a single-point release

system although the FAA believes that

virtually all commuter category

airplanes being manufactured today

have such a system. To ensure that this

is the case for newly manufactured

airplanes, the FAA proposed in

§ 121.2(e)(1) to require that airplanes

manufactured after 1 year after

publication of the final rule meet the

requirements of § 121.311(f).

Comments: One commenter concurs

with the proposal.

FAA Response: The final rule remains

substantively as proposed, except that

compliance is within 15 months after

publication of the final rule. However,

to clarify that § 121.311(f) applies to

newly manufactured nontransport

category airplanes, appropriate language

is added to that paragraph.

The final rule also revises

§ 121.311(h) to allow crewmembers for

affected commuters to release the

shoulder harness if they cannot perform

their duties otherwise.

Interior materials and passenger seat

cushion flammability. Section 25.853(b)

was amended in 1984 to require seat

cushions to meet greatly enhanced

flammability standards. At the same

time, §§ 121.312(b) and 135.169(a) (but

not for commuter category airplanes)

were amended to require airplanes

already in service to meet the improved

seat cushion flammability standards

after November 1987. In the years that

have passed since that date, the

improved cushions are credited with

saving a number of passengers’ lives.

The FAA proposed to require

nontransport category airplanes type

certificated after December 31, 1964, to

comply with the same seat cushion

flammability standards that apply to

other airplanes operated under part 121.

The proposed compliance date was 2

years after the publication date of the

final rule or on the first replacement of

the cushions, whichever occurs first.

The proposed rule also allowed for

granting deviations for up to 2

additional years when justified by

unique integral-seat cushion

configurations.

The FAA also proposed that the

interior components of nontransport

category airplanes manufactured after 4

years or more after the publication date

of the final rule must meet the same

standards that those components must

meet when installed in transport

category airplanes with 19 or fewer

passenger seats. Those standards, which

involve testing with Bunsen burners, are

not to be confused with the Ohio State

University (OSU) radiant rate of heat

release testing required for large-surfacearea components installed in airplanes

with 20 or more passenger seats. (See

proposed § 121.2(e)(2)(ii).)

Comments: ALPA supports the

proposed retroactive requirements,

including this proposal.

Fairchild and AIA present identically

worded statements opposing the

proposed requirement that seat cushions

would have to comply with the

flammability standards of §§ 25.853(b)

and 121.312(b). In that regard, they state

that they know of no evidence that

compliance would provide a significant

safety benefit in 10 to 19 passenger

airplanes. They do not believe that

compliance would delay the spread of a

fire enough to be an important factor in

survival. In that regard, they note that

the seats in smaller airplanes tend to be

lightweight and offer relatively little

mass of material to fuel a fire. Also, they

believe that cabin fires are less likely to

occur because the small size of the cabin

restricts the amount of carry-on baggage

and makes inappropriate passenger

activity less likely. Finally, they believe

that the FAA would have proposed such

rulemaking already if warranted. NATA

also believes the higher flammability

standards would not be effective in

smaller airplanes. That commenter

asserts the cost of compliance would be

$20,000 per airplane.

Commuter Air Technology observes

that the Beech King Air executive

airplanes they modify for commuter air

service would not have to comply in

their original executive configuration

because they have fewer than ten seats,

yet would have to comply as modified

because they have more than ten seats.

Big Sky Airlines and RAA suggest that

the compliance period should be

extended to enable replacement during

the routine seat replacement cycle. One

of these commenters quotes a

compliance cost of $30,000 for each 19

passenger airplane.

Mesa does not express support or

opposition to the proposal, but states

that compliance would entail $12,000,

36 pounds, and 10 hours for a Beech

1900C, or $3,400, 38 pounds, and 10

hours for either a Beech 1900D or

Jetstream 3100.

No comments were received

concerning the proposal to require

commuter category airplanes produced

four years or more after the effective

date to comply with the Bunsen burner

test of part 25 (§ 25.853(a)). One

commenter states that the installation of

interior materials complying with

§ 25.853(c) would not improve the level

of safety of airplanes with 10 to 19

passenger seats.

FAA Response: The commenters focus

on the cost of compliance and the lack

of a need for added fire protection in

smaller airplanes.

In regard to costs, the commenters

appear to have a misconception

concerning the scope of the rulemaking.

The costs fall into one of two

categories—the cost of developing and

testing suitable cushion materials and

the actual cost of replacing individual

seat cushions. In regard to the former,

§ 25.853(c) does not require each seat

cushion to be tested, nor does it require

each seat cushion design to be tested.

Instead it simply states that each

cushion must meet the flammability

standards. An applicant has the option

of utilizing a seat cushion material that

meets the flammability standards;
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65865

however, most choose to comply by

using a covering material that protects

the cushion from the fire. (The latter are

usually referred to as ‘‘fire-blocked

seats.’’) Individual seat cushions or

individual seat cushion designs do not

have to be tested if they can be shown

to meet those standards by similarity to

other cushions that have been tested

previously and found to meet the

standards. Advisory Circular (AC)

25.853–1, Flammability Requirements

for Aircraft Cushions, issued September

17, 1986, provides guidance in that

regard. In the years that have passed

since transport category airplanes used

in part 121 or 135 service were first

required to comply, many different

possible seat cushion designs have

already been tested and found

satisfactory. It is, therefore, quite

possible to utilize a seat cushion

material or fire-blocking material that

has already been shown to comply with

the flammability standards. In that

regard, many of the affected airlines are

affiliated with major airlines and have

ready access to the same means of

compliance adopted several years

earlier by those major airlines.

Contrary to some commenters’ beliefs,

the use of seat cushions meeting these

flammability standards is quite effective

in the cabins of smaller airplanes. Some

commenters note that the amount of

cushion material is relatively small in

10- to 19-passenger airplanes. While the

amount of cushion material in those

airplanes is obviously much less than

that in larger airplanes, it represents

approximately the same portion of the

total flammable material in those

airplanes as in the larger airplanes. In

addition to representing a large portion

of the materials in the cabin that are

flammable, the foam materials typically

used for seat cushions are, by far, the

most flammable of all the materials used

in the cabin. A secondary, but no less

significant, benefit is that cushions

meeting these flammability standards

are much less likely to ignite and

sustain a flame than those that do not

meet the standard. Precluding a fire

from occurring is obviously the best

possible form of fire protection.

The FAA conducted a series of 12

full-scale fire tests at its Technical

Center at Atlantic City, New Jersey,

using the fuselage of a Metroliner. The

cabin of the Metroliner is typical of

those of the part 23 Normal or

Commuter Category airplanes with 10 to

19 passenger seats. Under the test

conditions, it was shown that using seat

cushions meeting these flammability

standards, in lieu of the flammability

standards that would otherwise be

applicable, would afford passengers

approximately 45 additional seconds in

which to escape.

The primary benefit of having seat

cushions that meet these flammability

standards is to afford occupants more

time in which to egress in a post-crash

fire situation; however, such cushions

also provide additional protection

should an inflight cabin fire occur.

Contrary to the beliefs of commenters in

that regard, the FAA is aware of at least

six instances in which cabin fires have

been experienced since 1980 in

nontransport category airplanes or

transport category airplanes with cabins

of similar size.

In their recommendation A–88–96,

the National Transportation Board

(NTSB) recommended the use of fireblocking materials on seats in part 23

normal and commuter category

airplanes. Fairchild, AIA, and others

state that the fact that the FAA has not

previously adopted seat cushion

flammability standards for those

airplanes is evidence that they would

not result in a significant improvement

in safety. The FAA has, in fact, initiated

separate rulemaking in that regard

(Notice No. 93–71, 58 FR 38028, July 14,

1993).

The intent of Notice 95–5 was to

mitigate the cost by allowing

compliance to coincide with the normal

wear replacement cycles. Since

compliance can be achieved whenever

the seat cushions or seat coverings are

being replaced due to normal wear, the

cost of compliance for each seat is just

the additional cost of including the fireblocking layer along with the covering.

Based on the above, the FAA has

decided to adopt the seat cushion

flammability standards of § 121.312(c),

but to allow a compliance period of 15

years after the publication date of this

rule. The FAA felt that the immediate

cost of this retrofit would have

negatively affected the industry. By

allowing up to 15 years, it should be

possible for all replacements to be

scheduled within normal replacement

cycles. An additional benefit of a 15-

year compliance period is that

certificate holders can coordinate their

compliance with this section with their

plans for meeting other extended

compliance times, i.e., meeting the

performance and accelerate-stop

requirements and installation of a third

attitude indicator.

As noted above, the FAA also proposed

that the interior components of nontransport

category airplanes newly manufactured 4

years or more after the publication date of the

final rule must meet the same standards that

those components must meet when installed

in transport category airplanes with 19 or

fewer passenger seats (i.e. Bunsen burner

testing). After reviewing the present

requirements, the FAA determined that the

interior components of those airplanes are

already required to meet the same

flammability standards for type certification.

Since the standards are identical, it is not

necessary to specify the flammability

standards as an additional requirement for

newly manufactured airplanes. Section

121.312(a) has been amended in the final rule

to clarify the applicability of the flammability

standards to nontransport category airplanes

used by affected commuters.

Section 121.312 provides the interior

material flammability standards for

airplanes operated under that part. As

described above, the substantive

provisions of that section are being

retained, and the provisions applicable

to airplanes being brought over from

part 135 are being incorporated. In this

final rule, § 121.312 is reorganized to

highlight the applicable provisions and

to provide greater clarity; the

appropriate substantive text has been

retained. Furthermore, appendix L is

being added to part 121 to explain the

regulatory citations for the part 25

provisions that have been superseded.

Although those standards are not

current insofar as new type certification

under part 25 is concerned, they are

referenced in part 121 and remain

applicable for compliance. The addition

of appendix L only clarifies existing

requirements; therefore, it is adopted

without prior notice and comment.

Miscellaneous Equipment. Notice 95–

5 specifically discussed the proposal

that would require affected commuters

to comply with the miscellaneous

equipment requirements of § 121.313(f)

and (g). However, although not

specifically discussed in Notice 95–5,

§ 121.313(c) pertaining to a power

supply and distributive system would

also be required.

Comments: Fairchild Aircraft notes

that § 121.313(c) requires a power

supply and distribution system that

meets the requirements of six sections of

part 25. Because § 121.313(c) does not

assign an effective date to this list of

part 25 sections, Fairchild assumes that

it is the current version of each section

that would be applicable. Fairchild also

questions whether all airplanes

currently operated under part 121 meet

the current standards of part 25. Based

on their assumption that their airplanes

would have to meet current sections of

part 25 and the fact that SFAR 23 and

SFAR 41 airplanes do not meet those

requirements, Fairchild proposes

amending § 121.313(c) to except

nontransport category airplanes type

certificated after December 31, 1964,

from this requirement.

FAA Response: The commenter has

correctly identified the sections of part
65866 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

25 that are listed in § 121.313(c):

however, the commenter has apparently

overlooked the alternative provisions

contained in that section. In part,

§ 121.313(c) also reads: ‘‘or that is able

to produce and distribute the load for

the required instruments and equipment

* * * .’’ This additional text of

§ 121.313(c) allows the use of a power

supply and distribution system that

performs this function regardless of

whether it complies with the listed

sections of part 25. The commenter’s

proposed amendment is not needed

because § 121.313(c) already includes

provisions for alternate means of

compliance. The commenter’s products

have already been shown to comply

with this alternative.

The commenter is correct in believing

that some airplanes currently operated

in part 121 service might not meet the

current sections of part 25 listed in

§ 121.313(c). The issue is moot,

however, since § 121.313(c) provides for

alternative means of compliance.

Cockpit doors and door keys. Section

121.313 (f) and (g) require that there be

a lockable door between the cockpit and

the cabin and that there be a key for

each cockpit door that is readily

available to each crewmember. Part 135

does not have such requirements. The

FAA proposed that the affected

commuters be required to comply with

the part 121 rules if there is a door with

a lock or a door that can be retrofitted

with a lock. (Curtains or accordion

doors are not considered lockable

doors.) If a lockable door already exists

or can be retrofitted, the certificate

holder would be required to provide a

cockpit key that is readily available to

each crewmember. Accordingly, the

language of § 121.313(f) was changed to

except nontransport category airplanes

certificated after December 31, 1964,

without a door. Transport category

airplanes already are required to have a

door and a lock with a key.

Comments: Most of the comments

received on this issue oppose the

requirement for a locking cockpit door

and key. Several commenters say that

the cockpit door on EMB–120 airplanes

cannot be locked when the observer

jumpseat is in use. These commenters

are concerned that strict adherence to

the wording of the rule would require

them to retrofit the door, redesign the

cabin, and probably remove a revenue

seat, all at a high cost. These

commenters recommend that the EMB–

120 be exempted from the requirement

when the observer jump seat is in use.

One commenter states that some

nontransport category aircraft that will

transition to part 121 do not have a

cockpit door lock and key and may not

be able to install one. One commenter

states that operators will be required to

obtain a supplemental type certificate to

retrofit airplane doors with key locks.

Another commenter states that this

requirement would force operators to

choose between removing the highquality cockpit door installed at great

expense on BE 1900D aircraft which

provides protection from cabin

illumination glare during night

operations, or installing and using a

lock on this door, both of which are

contrary to safety. One commenter states

that the 1900C and 1900D airplanes

have frangible doors between the

cockpit and cabin to reduce distractions.

According to the commenter, as

proposed, the rule would require

installation of locks on those doors.

Finally, one commenter says that the

wording of the cockpit door requirement

should be clarified to exclude 10 to 19

seat aircraft not yet produced.

According to the commenter, the

proposal resolves the problem for

existing 10–19 seat airplanes. However,

proposed § 121.2(f) would require all

new airplanes to be certificated in

transport category. The commenter

states that new 10–19 passenger

airplanes will have the same problem as

existing nontransport category types;

that is, cockpit doors will neither be

practical nor appropriate. The

commenter recommends amending

§ 121.313(f) to read ‘‘* * * except that

airplanes type-certificated for a

maximum of 19 or fewer passengers are

not required to comply with this

paragraph.’’

AACA notes that the language of

§ 121.313(f), which lists required

equipment for operating an aircraft,

should be changed to exclude airplanes

that do not have cockpit doors.

FAA Response: The FAA maintains

that the cockpit key and door lock

requirement should be retained to

enhance aviation safety. However, the

final rule language is clarified to require

compliance only for airplanes with a

passenger-seating configuration of 20 or

more seats. Therefore, the requirement

for a door lock and cockpit key does not

apply to nontransport category airplanes

type certificated after December 31,

1964 even if the airplane has a cockpit

door.

In response to the comments

regarding the EMB–120, § 121.587

allows for the door to remain open, if

necessary, to provide access for a person

authorized admission to the flightcrew

compartment. This allows for the door

to be open if the jump seat is in use by

an authorized person. Section 121.587

applies to large airplanes which

includes the EMB–120.

The FAA acknowledges that the

commenters correctly state that keyless

locks in airplanes with a passenger

seating configuration of 20 or more

would have to be retrofitted to work

with keys. Certificate holders that

would have to retrofit their door locks

would incur a higher cost to comply

with the requirement. Yet, the FAA

strongly believes that keyless locks

which only lock from the cockpit side

pose a severe safety hazard if the pilots

become incapacitated. The FAA

maintains that an extended time period

to retrofit locks is not justified in light

of the many other new requirements

which are even broader in scope.

Cargo and baggage compartments.

Part 25 (as referenced in § 121.314)

contains requirements for cargo or

baggage compartment liners, smoke

detection, and fire extinguishment for

various classes of compartments. The

compartment classification system, also

duplicated in § 121.221 (which as

previously discussed applies only to

certain airplanes type certificated before

November 1, 1946), is based on the

compartment’s accessibility for fire

detection and extinguishment. Part 25

was amended in 1989 to require the

liners of Class C and D compartments to

meet more stringent flammability

standards. Section 121.314 was also

adopted at that time to require the

improved liners in existing transport

category airplanes on a retroactive basis.

Part 23 contains no classification

system or requirements for compartment

fire protection; however, a proposed

rule to add comparable requirements

was issued on July 22, 1994 (59 FR

37620). The FAA proposed in

§ 121.2(e)(2)(ii) by referencing § 121.314

to require this modification for

commuter category (or its predecessor)

airplanes manufactured 4 years or more

after the publication date of the final

rule. However, in Notice No. 95–5, the

FAA did not propose to amend

§ 121.314, which currently applies only

to transport category airplanes.

Comments: Two commenters

submitted identical comments

concerning this proposal. Both

commenters believe that the cargo or

baggage compartment classification

system of § 25.857, referenced in

§ 121.314, is not suitable for smaller

airplanes with fewer than 20 seats and

that the smoke detector and fire

extinguisher requirements are

unreasonable and unnecessary in those

airplanes. In that regard, they note that

many commuter category airplanes are

convertible from a full passenger

configuration with a relatively small

baggage compartment to combination

passenger/cargo (combi) configurations
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65867

to cargo only. They do not believe that

it is practical to modify any of the combi

configurations to comply with any of

the cargo compartment classes defined

by § 25.857. They assert there has been

no history of service problems

indicating a need for such features.

No comments were received

concerning compartments other than

those of combi airplanes. Also, no

commenters responded to the request in

the preamble to Notice No. 95–5 for

information concerning less-costly

alternatives such as requiring only

liners and smoke detection.

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that

the present requirements of § 25.857 are

not entirely suitable for airplanes with

a passenger seating capacity of less than

20 and the FAA has initiated a

rulemaking project to develop and

propose similar standards that would be

suitable for these airplanes. In view of

this project the FAA has decided to

defer this proposal for future

rulemaking.

Fuel tank access covers. As a result of

the 1985 Manchester British Air Tours

accident (in which a piece of metal from

the aircraft engine punctured the fuel

tank access panel and created a fire),

§ 25.963(e) was amended in 1989 to

require that all covers located in an area

where a strike by foreign objects is

likely must have as much resistance to

fire or debris penetration as the

surrounding structure. Concurrent with

the part 25 amendment, § 121.316 was

amended to require airplanes already in

service to comply with § 25.963(e) on a

retrofit basis. These requirements

pertain to all transport category, turbinepowered airplanes. Due to their smaller

size and turbo-propeller configuration,

part 23 airplanes generally do not

present the same hazard. The FAA did

not propose to require part 23 airplanes

to comply with §§ 25.963(e) and

121.316. Since § 121.316 applies only to

‘‘turbine-powered transport category’’

airplanes, no rule change is needed. The

FAA points out that turbine-powered

transport category airplanes previously

operated under part 135 would have to

comply with § 121.316.

Comments: Raytheon Corporation

submitted comments on the costs of

complying with § 25.963(e) for airplanes

that in the future would be required to

be type certificated in the transport

category under part 25.

FAA Response: As previously

discussed, the applicability of all

present part 25 requirements to

airplanes with a passenger seating

capacity in the 10–19 range for which a

type certificate is applied for after

March 29, 1995, will be dealt with in a

future rulemaking action. Since Notice

No. 95–5 did not propose any change for

airplanes in existence or for airplanes

newly manufactured under existing type

certificates, this issue need not be

discussed further in this rulemaking.

Passenger information. Notice 95–5

proposed that affected commuters

would comply with the passenger

information requirements in § 121.317.

There was no preamble discussion of

this section because the FAA

determined that current requirements

for affected commuters in §§ 135.127

and 91.517 were substantively the same

as those in § 121.317.

Comments: Three comments were

received on this section. Commuter Air

Technology suggests that seatbelts

should be worn the entire time for

flights of less than an hour and a half.

According to the commenter, requiring

seatbelts at all times while engines are

running would provide better passenger

safety, remove an unnecessary checklist

item from the flight station, and

eliminate the probability of missing a

flight due to an inoperative sign.

According to the commenter, each seat

could be placarded and the co-pilot

could make a visual check of passenger

compliance after closing the door hatch

prior to departure.

Two commenters state that

§ 121.317(a) should be revised to allow

permanently lighted no-smoking signs

or conspicuous placards, since smoking

is prohibited on all flights.

FAA Response: Section 121.317 sets

minimum requirements. Both

§§ 121.317 and 135.127 allow the use of

no smoking placards that meet the

requirements of § 25.1541 if the placards

are posted during the entire flight

segment. Section 121.317(a) requires

passenger information signs (fasten

seatbelt signs and no smoking signs)

that the pilots can turn on and off and

§ 121.317(b) specifies when fasten

seatbelt signs must be turned on. To

ensure that the present requirements of

§ 121.317 are not interpreted so as to

prohibit the use of placards in certain

airplanes, a clarifying amendment is

included in the final rule. New

§ 121.317(l) provides that a person may

operate a nontransport category airplane

type certificated after December 31,

1964, having a passenger-seating

configuration of 10–19 seats

manufactured before 15 months after the

publication date of this final rule if it is

equipped with one placard that is

legible to each person seated in the

cabin that states ‘‘Fasten Seat Belt’’ if

the flightcrew orally instructs the

passengers to fasten their seatbelts at the

necessary times. Newly manufactured

airplanes must comply with lighted seat

belt sign requirements of § 121.317(a)

within 2 years after the date of

publication of this final rule. In

addition, § 121.317(d) requires one

legible sign or placard that reads ‘‘fasten

seat belt while seated’’ that is visible

from each passenger seat. Affected

commuters must comply with

§ 121.317(d) at the time of recertification

under part 121, or within 15 months,

whichever occurs first.

Instruments and equipment for

operations at night. Section 121.323

requires two landing lights for night

operations. Under the proposal, the

requirement would apply to all affected

commuters. While no comments were

received on the proposal, the FAA had

intended to revise § 121.323 to except

nontransport category airplanes

certificated after December 31, 1964,

from having more than one landing

light. The exception was intended

because small airplanes with shorter

wing spans can be operated safely with

only one landing light. The exception

was inadvertently omitted from Notice

95–5 but is included in the final rule.

Oxygen requirements. Sections

121.327 through 121.335 cover

supplemental oxygen requirements and

oxygen equipment requirements. The

requirements are similar to the oxygen

requirements in § 135.157 except that

for certain airplanes, part 121 requires

less oxygen. Each affected commuter

who would have to comply with part

121 oxygen requirements as a result of

this rulemaking should be able to

operate its airplanes in accordance with

the oxygen requirements specified in

part 121.

Comments: Fairchild Aircraft

comments that the first aid oxygen

requirements of § 121.333(e)(3) are

inappropriate for smaller commuter

service and that this section should be

revised to exclude airplanes with fewer

than 20 seats. This commenter also asks

that § 121.335 be revised to allow

oxygen flow rates based on the

airplane’s certification basis rather than

Civil Air Regulation 4b.651. Fairchild

finds that this would avoid unnecessary

complication and expense.

FAA Response: In the case of first aid

oxygen, since Notice 95–5 proposed no

flight attendant for the 10- to 19-seat

airplane, requiring the first aid oxygen

that would be dispensed by a flight

attendant would not be logical. Since

the airplanes operated by the affected

commuters were not type certificated for

flight above 25,000 feet and since

§ 121.333(e)(3) only applies to

pressurized airplanes that operate above

25,000 feet, it would not as a practical

matter apply to commuter (or

predecessor) airplane operations. The

requirement does apply to airplanes
65868 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

with 20 to 30 passenger seats, as

proposed.

In the case of § 121.335, the FAA

finds that parts 23 and 25 provide

standards for oxygen that either meet or

exceed the standards in section 4b.651

of the CAR. Section 4b.651 has a built

in deviation authority.

Portable oxygen for flight attendants.

Section 121.333(d) requires that each

flight attendant shall, during flights

above 25,000 feet, carry portable oxygen

equipment with at least a 15-minute

supply of oxygen, unless enough

portable oxygen units with masks or

spare outlets and masks are distributed

through the cabin to ensure immediate

availability of oxygen to each flight

attendant regardless of his or her

location at the time of cabin

depressurization. Part 135 does not have

a similar requirement for portable

oxygen for flight attendants. In Notice

95–5, the FAA proposed that affected

commuters who use flight attendants in

their operations and that operate above

25,000 feet be required to comply with

the part 121 requirement. No comments

were received on this issue and the final

rule is adopted as proposed. For a

related discussion on the use of oxygen,

see the discussion under ‘‘Oxygen

Requirements.’’

Protective breathing equipment (PBE).

Section 121.337 contains requirements

for equipping the flight deck and

passenger compartments of transport

category airplanes with PBE. Part 135

does not currently require any type of

PBE.

Section 121.337(b)(8) (smoke and

fume protection) requires PBE, either

fixed or portable, to be conveniently

located on the flight deck and easily

accessible for immediate use by each

flight crewmember for smoke or fume

protection at his or her duty station. In

addition, § 121.337(b)(9) (fire

combatting) requires that for combatting

fires a portable PBE must be located on

the flight deck with easy access by each

flight crewmember for fighting fires.

Also portable PBE in the passenger

compartment must be located within 3

feet of each hand fire extinguisher. Both

of these requirements provide that the

Administrator may authorize another

location if special circumstances exist

that make compliance impractical and

the proposed deviation would provide

an equivalent level of safety.

The proposal required affected

commuters to comply with the PBE

requirements of § 121.337. To be in

compliance, an airplane with a

passenger-seating configuration of 10 to

19 seats would have to have at least

three PBE: one PBE, fixed or portable,

for each flight crewmember at his or her

station, and an additional portable PBE

on the flight deck for use in fighting

fires. An airplane with a passengerseating configuration of 20 to 30 seats

would have to have at least four PBE:

one PBE, fixed or portable, for each

flight crewmember at his or her station;

an additional portable PBE on the flight

deck for fighting fires; and a portable

PBE in the passenger compartment

located within 3 feet of the required

hand fire extinguisher.

The proposal revised the applicability

of the current rule to include other than

transport category airplanes. Proposed

§ 121.337(b)(9)(iv) was also revised to

except airplanes having a passengerseating configuration of fewer than 20

seats and a payload capacity of 7,500

pounds or less from the requirement to

have a PBE in the passenger

compartment. The exception is needed

because these airplanes are not required

to have a flight attendant; for these

airplanes, the portable PBE on the flight

deck could be used by a flight

crewmember for fighting a fire.

The FAA proposed to require

compliance with § 121.337 by a date 2

years after the publication date of the

final rule. (See § 121.2)

Comments: Several commenters

oppose the PBE requirement. These

commenters are concerned about the

lack of space in the plane, the high

compliance cost, and the lack of benefits

in having the equipment. These

commenters state that PBE equipment

on non-pressurized aircraft is not

justified. Two commenters claim that

their current equipment (built in oxygen

supply systems and masks) ought to

exempt them from the PBE requirement.

One commenter incorrectly believes that

a PBE would be required for the cabin

on METRO aircraft (a 19 seat airplane).

One commenter suggests that in the

interest of safety the FAA should reduce

the compliance time for PBE equipment

to 6 months. Though commenters

provide cost estimates to install PBE on

their airplanes, costs are provided only

for 10 to 19 seat airplanes, which would

not be required to have PBE in the

cabin.

FAA Response: The FAA maintains

that the proposed PBE requirement for

affected commuters is appropriate.

There are several safety benefits for

requiring smoke and fume PBE. The use

of smoke and fume PBE required by

§ 121.337(b)(8) would help prevent the

injury or death of flight crewmembers

from smoke or harmful gases.

The FAA contends that there is

adequate space in the cabin of 20- to 30-

seat commuter airplanes to

accommodate portable PBE for fire

combatting, and no major cabin retrofits

would be required. With regard to

firefighting PBE, the FAA has

determined that such equipment is not

appropriate for operations with 10–19

passengers. There are no flight

attendants on these flights and the pilots

generally remain on the flight deck to

operate the aircraft during an

emergency. In an emergency, passengers

will have access to a fire extinguisher

and will be able to assist in

extinguishing any flames within the

cabin. However, passengers are not

trained in the use of fire combatting PBE

and would not know how to operate

such equipment. Accordingly,

nontransport category airplanes type

certificated after December 31, 1964,

having a passenger-seating configuration

of 10- to 19-seats are excepted in the

final rule from the requirements in

§ 121.337(b)(9) for having PBE’s for

combatting fires.

In response to other comments, the

lack of a pressurized cockpit does not

diminish the need for PBE to enhance

safety in case of fire, nor can existing

oxygen systems provide adequate

protection for fighting a fire. Approved

PBE in the cabin must have a protective

hood and be fully mobile.

Due to the broad scope of this

rulemaking action, certificate holders

will have to deal with many new

requirements. Therefore, as proposed, a

consistent compliance period of 2 years

is applied to all affected airplanes for

acquiring PBE.

Emergency equipment for extended

overwater operations. Sections 121.339

and 135.167 require that airplanes

engaged in extended overwater

operations (more than 50 nautical miles

from the nearest shoreline) provide the

following: enough life rafts of a rated

capacity and buoyancy to accommodate

the occupants of the airplane; a life

preserver equipped with an approved

survivor locator light for each occupant

of the airplane; a pyrotechnic signaling

device for each life raft; a survival kit

and a survival type emergency locator

transmitter. In addition, § 121.339

requires that unless excess rafts of

enough capacity are provided, the

buoyancy and seating capacity of the

rafts must accommodate all occupants

of the airplane in the event of loss of

one raft of the largest rated capacity. In

practice, this requirement is typically

met by carrying a spare raft of the largest

rated capacity.

The FAA proposed that the affected

commuters that engage in extended

overwater operations should be required

to meet the part 121 requirements. As

with current part 121 certificate holders,

affected commuters can apply for

deviations, and the FAA can decide, on
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65869

a case by case basis, if a deviation is

appropriate. These deviations are issued

pursuant to § 121.339(a) which permits

the Administrator to allow deviation

from the requirement to carry certain

equipment for extended overwater

operations. Since there are few extended

overwater operations conducted by

commuters, the FAA does not expect

this proposed requirement to have a

significant impact.

Comments: Four commenters argue

against the requirement for a spare life

raft on commuter airplanes. One

commenter says that the spare life raft

is not necessary because seats can be

equipped with additional life vest

storage pouches. Another commenter

says that the spare life raft is

appropriate for larger airplanes but not

for 10 to 30 seat aircraft. This

commenter also suggests that the rule

should remain as presently written

under § 135.167, and, on a case-by-case

basis, the FAA can require certificate

holders to obtain a spare life raft.

Another commenter states that spare life

rafts should not be required on aircraft

with less than 20 passenger seats

because the requirement will increase

operating costs and reduce passenger

revenues. A fourth commenter states

that the cumulative weight, space, and

compliance costs will be significant for

affected Alaskan operators and that

these costs cannot be spread across a

large number of passenger seats as can

be done with a larger aircraft.

Three commenters state that the

requirement in § 91.205 (b)(11) for a

pyrotechnic signaling device is

understandable for general aviation

aircraft, but is impractical and

superfluous for airplanes operating

under part 121 in scheduled air carrier

service. The commenters recommend

that § 91.205 be revised to exclude

airplanes operating under part 121.

FAA Response: The FAA maintains

that airplanes conducting extended

overwater flights need to carry enough

life rafts to accommodate all passengers

in the event of the loss of the life raft

with the largest rated capacity. Such a

requirement will enhance safety in the

event of an accident. Individual

flotation devices are not adequate for

safety in the event of a water ditching

because passengers tend to separate in

open water. A life raft enables

passengers to stay together. An even

greater threat is hypothermia, a

sequence of physical reactions resulting

from the loss of body heat. In cold

water, a person will experience

increased difficulty with mobility and

intense shivering occurs. In arctic

waterways, survival time can be as little

as 2 or 3 minutes. Thus, a spare life raft

is appropriate for affected commuters to

enhance passenger safety. The

requirement in part 121 for equipping

each life raft with a pyrotechnic

signaling device is identical to part 135

for extended overwater operations. The

recommendation to except scheduled

air carriers from the provisions of

§ 91.205(b)(11) is beyond the scope of

this rulemaking. Moreover, under

§ 119.1(c) persons subject to part 119

must comply with other requirements of

this chapter, except where those

requirements are modified by or where

additional requirements are imposed by

parts 119, 121, 125, or 135 of this

chapter. Therefore, the final rule

requires commuter airplanes to adhere

to part 121 standards and provides

deviation authority on a case by case

basis.

Flotation devices. Section 121.340

requires that a large airplane in any

overwater operation must be equipped

with life preservers or with an approved

flotation means for each occupant.

Because it is practically impossible to

operate any place without flying over a

body of water of sufficient depth to

require some sort of flotation means,

§ 121.340 has been applied so that

virtually every airplane is equipped

with either flotation cushions or life

preservers. In parts 121 and 135, life

preservers are required only for

extended overwater operations,

(§§ 121.339 and 135.167). Therefore,

airplanes used in extended overwater

operations are already equipped with

life preservers and do not need to have

flotation cushions.

The FAA proposed that airplanes

equipped with 10 or more seats

operating in scheduled passenger

operations would comply with

§ 121.340 and accordingly proposed

revising the section to delete the word

‘‘large.’’ To allow any replacement of

seat cushions to be coordinated with the

seat cushion flammability requirements

of § 121.312(c), the FAA proposed a

compliance date of 2 years after the

publication date of the final rule.

Comments: The FAA received three

comments that oppose the requirement

for flotation devices. One commenter

opposes the requirement because of the

equipment cost and weight penalty.

This commenter determines that the

seat cushions in the METRO aircraft

would not serve as effective flotation

devices. The commenter provides a cost

estimate for acquiring and retrofitting

individual flotation devices for METRO

airplanes. The commenter also states

that each flotation device for 10 to 30

seat airplanes would have to be

equipped with an approved survivor

location light. A second commenter

states that the rule should allow

exemptions for operations that do not

fly over or near large bodies of water.

This commenter does not believe that

flotation devices would enhance safety.

Finally, a third commenter states that

flotation devices are already required for

extended overwater flights for all

airplanes by § 91.205.

FAA Response: The FAA concurs that

if the seat cushions in a particular

airplane model do not serve as flotation

devices, then individual flotation

devices would have to be acquired. If

life preservers are provided as

individual flotation devices they would

have to have an approved survivor

locator light as required by

§ 121.339(a)(1).

The FAA found during previous

rulemaking that all flights traverse a

body of water of at least 6 feet deep

during the course of a year. Therefore,

individual flotation devices or life

preservers for 10 to 30 seat airplanes are

required on all flights. Section

121.340(b) contains provisions for

requesting an approval to operate

without the flotation means if the

operator shows that the water over

which the airplane is to be operated is

not of such size and depth that life

preservers or flotation devices would be

needed for survival.

The FAA concurs with one of the

commenters that § 91.205 requires

flotation devices for all airplanes

involved in extended overwater flights.

Section 121.340 is clearly more

restrictive.

Although the compliance date for

meeting passenger seat cushion

flammability requirements has been

extended to 15 years, the compliance

time of 2 years for providing flotation

devices is the same as proposed.

Equipment for operations in icing

conditions. Section 121.341 requires

certain equipment for operations in

icing conditions. The proposal would

require affected operators to comply

with this section. In accordance with

§ 121.341(b), to operate an airplane in

icing conditions at night, a wing ice

light must be provided or another means

of determining the formation of ice on

the parts of the wings that are critical

from the standpoint of ice

accumulation. This would be a new

requirement for 10- to 19-passenger seat

airplanes.

No comments were received on this

proposal; however, the FAA has

determined that the requirements of

§ 135.227 (c), (e), and (f) need to be

incorporated into § 121.341 to

accommodate certain affected airplanes.

These requirements pertain to operating

limitations for flying into known icing
65870 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

conditions if the airplane is not

equipped for icing conditions. Thus the

final rule § 121.341 incorporates the part

135 language.

Pitot heat indication system. Section

25.1326 requires a pitot heat indication

system to indicate to the flightcrew

when a pitot heating system is not

operating. Part 23 currently requires

pitot heat systems for airplanes

approved for IFR flight or flight in icing

conditions, but does not require pitot

heat indicators. Section 121.342

currently requires a pitot heat indication

system on all airplanes that have pitot

heat systems installed.

In recommendation A–92–86, the

National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) recommended that small

airplanes certificated to operate in icing

conditions and at altitudes of 18,000

feet mean sea level and above should be

modified to provide a pitot heat

operating light similar to the light

required by § 25.1326. As recommended

by the NTSB, the FAA proposed to

amend part 23 to require such

indication for commuter category

airplanes (Notice No. 94–21, 59 FR

37620, July 22, 1994). This new

requirement, when adopted, will apply

to new type certification and will not

affect existing in-service commuter

airplanes or future production of

currently approved commuter airplanes.

In Notice 95–5, the FAA proposed to

amend § 121.342 to require nontransport

category airplanes type certificated after

December 31, 1964, to incorporate pitot

heat indication systems. Affected

commuters would have to comply

within 4 years after the publication date

of this rulemaking.

Comments: Three comments were

received on this proposal. Fairchild

Aircraft Co., a manufacturer of

commuter airplanes fully supports the

proposal.

RAA notes that FAA’s cost estimate of

$500 was significantly lower than the

commenter’s estimate of between $1,500

and $25,000 per airplane. The

commenter further states that there was

no known history of accidents or

incidents to justify the cost of retrofits

and recommends that the requirement

apply only to newly manufactured

airplanes.

Commuter Air Technology, an aircraft

modifier, notes that pitot tubes are

accessible to ground personnel who

could ascertain their proper function

prior to flight. The commenter argues

that because of the short duration of

commuter flights (usually 1 hour)

failure in flight would probably allow

for continued flight to the next airport.

FAA Response: As a result of

comments received in response to

Notice 95–5, the FAA re-examined the

cost estimates of this rulemaking. Those

revised cost estimates, which are higher

than those in the proposal, are included

in the Regulation Evaluation Summary

of this rulemaking.

The FAA disagrees with the

commenter’s contention that ground

checks and short flights preclude the

need for pitot tube heat indicators.

Airspeed indicating errors caused by

unheated pitot tubes have contributed to

icing-related accidents. Airspeed

indicating errors are not always obvious

to the pilot who may make decisions

based on the resulting erroneous

information. A system which indicates

when the pitot tube is, or is not, heated

will provide the crew with the status of

the system.

Therefore, the FAA is amending

§ 121.342, as proposed, to require

nontransport category airplanes type

certificated after December 31, 1964,

that are equipped with a flight

instrument pitot heating system to

incorporate pitot heat indication

systems within 4 years after the effective

date of this rulemaking.

Flight data recorders (FDR’s). Notice

95–5 did not propose any substantive

revisions to current part 121 or part 135

flight data recorder (FDR) requirements.

According to the proposal, affected

commuters would continue to meet part

135 requirements while the FAA is

developing updated FDR requirements

for both parts 121 and 135.

Comments: One commenter states that

some of the current equipment being

used is providing inadequate records

and that part 121 and 135 certificate

holders should be required by December

31, 1999, to install new FDR on all

airplanes. He further states that industry

data indicates the changeover will cost

$29 million divided by 454 million

passengers a year, and that equates to 6

cents increase in ticket prices.

AIA and Raytheon state that following

NTSB safety recommendations on FDR’s

could result in as large an impact on the

economic viability for current and

future aircraft in this category as the

effects of Notice 95–5. They further state

that although additional information

from FDR’s is needed, the safety

recommendations as written would

require 56 to 84 channels of data on a

1900D and would be excessive for most

data requirements. This would result in

a large redesign effort and related

increases in costs.

American Eagle comments that it

believes that this equipment, as well as

cockpit voice recorders, is important in

the post-incident investigation process

and, as a result, has installed FDR’s on

all its aircraft even though not all

aircraft operated under part 135 are

required to have them. It strongly

supports extending the current part 121

requirement to all aircraft with 10 or

more seats operating in scheduled

passenger service. In addition, the

commenter supports regulations which

would require such equipment to meet

a new, higher minimum standard.

FAA Response: A recommendation for

a rule change on FDR’s is being

addressed by the Aviation Rulemaking

Advisory Committee (ARAC), and the

concerns of the commenting parties will

be reflected in that separate rulemaking

if a rule change is proposed. This

rulemaking did not propose any

increase in channels for existing FDR’s.

For clarification the proposed rule

language has been revised in § 121.344

of the final rule to state that § 135.152

FDR requirements will apply to

airplanes with a payload capacity of

7,500 pounds or less and a passenger

seating configuration, excluding any

pilot seat, of 10–30 seats. The proposed

rule had not specified passenger seating

capacity.

Radio equipment. Sections 121.345

through 121.351 cover radio equipment

requirements. Part 121 specifies radio

equipment requirements for operations

under VFR over routes navigated by

pilotage, for operations under VFR over

routes not navigated by pilotage or for

operations under IFR or over-the-top,

and for extended overwater operations.

The requirements are more specific and

restrictive than those in § 135.161. The

radio equipment requirements in part

121 are cumulative; that is, the

regulations prescribe basic radio

equipment requirements for VFR over

routes navigated by pilotage and

additional equipment for VFR over-thetop or IFR. Almost all part 121

operations are conducted under IFR.

The proposed rule would require

affected commuters to comply with part

121 radio equipment requirements.

The final rule revised § 121.349 (radio

equipment for operations under VFR

over routes not navigated by pilotage or

for operations under IFR or over the top)

by adding a new paragraph (e) which

incorporates requirements in

§ 135.165(a). This change is necessary

because part 121 does not have

comparable requirements.

Emergency equipment for operations

over uninhabited terrain. Section

121.353 prescribes the emergency

equipment needed for operations over

uninhabited terrain for flag and

supplemental operations. The

requirements include pyrotechnic

signaling devices, emergency locator

transmitters (ELT’s), and survival kits

equipped for the route to be flown. The
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65871

proposed rule would require

compliance with § 121.353.

Comments: Two commenters state

that application of § 121.353 to affected

commuters would provide relief from

compliance with § 91.205, which would

reduce the standards. One of these

commenters claims that S-type ELT’s as

required by § 121.353 are useful for sea

ditching but are of no use over

uninhabited terrain. According to the

commenter, they are intended for

extended overwater operations, are

immersion activated, are not intended

for fixed installation on aircraft, lack

any impact G-force activation feature,

are very bulky, are extremely expensive,

and, by design, are not suitable for

surviving situations other than sea

ditching. The commenter states that

incapacitated survivors on uninhabited

terrain cannot expect any help from an

S-type ELT. The commenter

recommends revising § 121.353 to state

that the provisions are in lieu of part 91

provisions and that an airplane subject

to part 121 must be equipped with an

ELT or pyrotechnic signal device in

accordance with § 121.353 or § 121.339

(extended overwater).

RAA also states that the requirement

for pyrotechnic signaling devices is

impractical for airplanes operating

under part 121 and recommends that

§ 91.205(b)(11) be amended to exclude

these certificate holders.

RAA and ASA point out that the

requirement for ELT’s in § 91.207

exempts turbojet-powered aircraft and

aircraft engaged in scheduled flights by

scheduled air carriers. RAA and ASA

believe that all jet-powered airplanes

that normally operate under part 121

whether or not they utilize propellers

should be exempt from the requirements

of § 91.207 during flight operations

under part 91, such as ferry, training,

testing, proving runs, which are

incidental to or in support of scheduled

operations. RAA and ASA recommend

revising § 91.207(f)(1) to read: ‘‘Large

turbine powered airplanes.’’

AACA indicates that the economic

analysis did not include the weight

penalties or costs for installing,

maintaining, repairing, and training for

the use of survival kits. AACA also

states that the rule is unclear as to when

the kits are required since ‘‘uninhabited

areas’’ is not defined. AACA

recommends clarifying the applicability

of these requirements to Alaska. AACA,

as well as other commenters, also states

that there is an Alaskan state law

requiring extensive survival equipment

on board any aircraft operated in the

State.

FAA Response: In response to the

applicability to Alaska, although

scheduled intrastate operations within

the States of Alaska and Hawaii are

currently conducted under flag rules, as

a result of this final rule, these will now

be domestic operations and the survival

equipment requirements do not apply to

domestic operations. The FAA did not

intend to reduce requirements for

operations over uninhabited terrain in

Alaska or Hawaii as currently

applicable. Therefore, the title of

§ 121.353 has been revised and an

applicability statement added to include

Alaska and Hawaii. Since these

operators have been meeting flag

requirements, this revision will not be a

change for them.

The revisions requested to part 91 to

exempt ferry flights and other types of

flight incidental to scheduled flights is

a separate issue from the requirements

of § 121.353 which pertain only to

emergency equipment for operations

over uninhabited terrain. Any

amendment to part 91 would need to be

part of a separate rulemaking.

The FAA does not agree that the

language of § 121.353 should be revised

to clarify that it replaces the

requirements for pyrotechnic signaling

devices in § 91.205(b)(11) pertaining to

aircraft for hire operated over water

beyond power off gliding distance to

shore. The proposed applicability of

§ 121.353 to affected commuters if they

fly a supplemental or flag operation

does not affect the applicability of part

91 requirements. The requirements of

§ 91.205(b)(11) would continue to apply

under applicable circumstances. Part

121 requirements are in addition to part

91, not in lieu of part 91.

The FAA does not agree with the

commenter’s claim that survival-type

ELT’s do not work except in water

ditchings. It is true that S-type ELT’s

must meet certain buoyancy,

waterproofness, and immersion in salt

water requirements. While many S-type

ELT’s employ water-activated batteries,

they are not required. Regardless of the

type of battery used, each ELT must

have a means by which it can be

activated manually.

In addition, this rulemaking does not

define ‘‘uninhabited terrain.’’ When the

predecessor regulation to § 121.353 was

proposed in CAB draft release 58–24 in

1960, ‘‘uninhabited terrain’’ was defined

as ‘‘flights for long distances over frigid

or tropical land areas for which the

Director finds such equipment to be

necessary for search and rescue

operations because of the character of

the terrain to be flown over.’’ When the

rule was adopted, the wording was

changed to provide the Administrator

more flexibility in identifying

uninhabited areas. Since

implementation is on a case-by-case

basis through operations specifications,

it was determined that the proposed

wording was not necessary. This

provision has been in effect for over 30

years without any problem about the

meaning of ‘‘uninhabited areas.’’

Airborne weather radar. The proposed

rule would require all affected

commuters to have airborne weather

radar in accordance with § 121.357.

Currently, part 135 requires weather

radar for 20–30 passenger seat airplanes

and weather radar equipment or

approved thunderstorm detection

equipment for 10–19 passenger

airplanes.

Comments: Three comments were

received on the proposal. RAA and

AMR Eagle support the proposed

requirement. AMR Eagle states that

commuter operations are typically

characterized by high frequency

operations at lower altitudes with short

stage lengths which necessarily limits

preplanning, planning, or executing a

desired deviation in flight profile

because of changing weather. Hence a

flightcrew needs all available tools to

conduct safe operations.

One commenter states that airborne

weather radar is not needed in Alaska

because severe thunderstorms and

tornadoes do not occur there.

AACA claims that Notice 95–5 is

silent about the exceptions for

operations within the states of Alaska

and Hawaii and within parts of Canada.

AACA requests that the FAA

specifically address the issue that

airborne weather radar and airborne

thunderstorm detection equipment will

not be required for operations

previously excepted under part 121 and

part 135 (§§ 121.357(d) and 135.173(e)).

According to the commenter, there have

been no meteorological changes in

Alaska since the regulation was

originally written; therefore, this

equipment is no more necessary now

than it ever was.

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with

AACA that, in accordance with

§ 121.357(d), airborne weather radar is

not required for airplanes used solely

within the State of Hawaii or the State

of Alaska or that part of Canada west of

longitude 130 degrees W, between

latitude 70 degrees N and latitude 53

degrees N, or during any training, test,

or ferry flight. This exception is retained

in the final rule. In Notice 95–5 the FAA

did not propose to delete the

§ 121.357(d) exception.

All other affected operators would

have to have airborne weather radar

within the 15-month compliance period.

Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance

System (TCAS). Under the proposal,
65872 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

affected carriers would be required to

comply with part 121 TCAS

requirements in § 121.356. There are no

substantive differences between part

121 and part 135 TCAS requirements for

aircraft with passenger seating

configurations of 10–30 seats.

Comments: Fairchild Aircraft

recommends that the words,

‘‘combination cargo’’ be deleted from

§ 121.356(b).

ALPA says that the FAA should

require TCAS II for aircraft with fewer

than 30 passenger seats, including cargo

aircraft (which have increased in recent

years).

RAA recommends revising

§ 121.356(a) to require that ‘‘* * * each

certificate holder shall equip its

airplanes with an approved TCAS II

traffic alert and collision avoidance

system and the appropriate class of

Mode S transponder. * * *’’

Two certificate holders, Samoa Air

and Inter Island Air, say that TCAS is

expensive and useless for their

operating environment, i.e., airspace

with little air traffic.

Fairchild Aircraft states that

§ 121.345(c)(2), which requires Mode S

transponders, is similar to a requirement

in part 135 (§ 135.143(c)(2)). According

to the commenter, the Mode S

equipment has not been installed and

the commenter believes that the FAA is

granting exemptions to the requirement

for part 135 certificate holders. If

exemptions would not be granted under

part 121, significant cost would be

involved.

FAA Response: The intent of the

proposed rule § 121.356 was that

airplanes with a passenger seating

configuration of 10 to 30 seats must be

equipped with at least a TCAS I system

which is the same as the present part

135 requirement for the affected

airplanes. TCAS I systems are not

required to be equipped with Mode S

transponders.

As a commenter states, unrelated to

TCAS I requirements, exemptions to the

Mode S requirements of part 135 are

currently in effect. Any affected

commuters who hold an exemption

from the part 135 requirement or from

§ 135.143, Mode S requirements, after

this final rule must reapply to be

exempted from the Mode S

requirements of part 121.345.

The commenter’s recommendation to

require TCAS for all-cargo operations is

beyond the scope of this rulemaking, as

are the recommendations to require

TCAS II for all airplanes and to exempt

certain affected certificate holders from

the requirement for certificate holders to

have TCAS I by December 1995.

Low-altitude windshear systems.

Section 121.358 requires an approved

airborne windshear warning system for

most turbine powered airplanes. It

specifically excludes turbopropellerpowered airplanes. No comments were

received concerning this section and the

final rule is adopted as proposed.

Comments received on windshear

training requirements are discussed

under subpart N.

Cockpit voice recorders. No comments

were received on this issue; however,

the FAA is making a change in the final

rule language to correctly incorporate

the current CVR requirements that apply

to airplanes with 10–30 passenger seats.

Ground proximity warning system

(GPWS). Under the proposed rule,

affected commuters would have to

comply with the GPWS requirements of

§ 121.360. By the compliance date of

this rulemaking, all part 135 operators

of turbine powered airplanes having a

passenger seating configuration of 10 or

more seats would have to have GPWS.

All affected commuters are included in

this requirement. The GPWS required

under part 135 would meet the

standards of part 121.

No comments were received on this

issue; however, the FAA has discovered

that the word ‘‘large’’ was not deleted

from § 121.360. This deletion is

necessary if the requirements are to

apply to all affected commuters.

Accordingly the word ‘‘large’’ is deleted

in the final rule.

VI.A.8. Subpart L—Maintenance,

Preventive Maintenance, and

Alterations

Applicability. Part 121 certificate

holders are required to adopt a

continuous airworthiness maintenance

program (CAMP), which has a proven

track record for large transport category

airplanes. Under § 135.411(a)(2),

airplanes that are type certificated for a

passenger-seating configuration of 10

seats or more are already required to

comply with a CAMP similar to part 121

requirements. The proposed rule would

require all airplanes type certificated for

10 or more passengers to comply with

part 121 CAMP requirements. These

requirements are consistent with

present-day maintenance standards and

techniques to manage airplane

airworthiness. The proposal to include

affected commuters under part 121

maintenance requirements would not

necessitate a revision to § 121.361.

Section 121.361(b) contains a

deviation provision allowing certain

foreign noncertificated persons to

perform maintenance. Affected

commuters would now have this option

available. Since many of the airplanes

that are the subject of this rulemaking

are manufactured outside the United

States, this deviation provision would

allow certificate holders to have the

original equipment manufacturers

perform some overhauls and repairs.

Comments: Jetstream Aircraft Limited

supports the proposals to apply this

subpart to affected commuters.

American Eagle encourages proposed

rulemaking which would mirror current

parts 121 and 25 maintenance and

inspection requirements for aircraft

certificated under part 23 or SFAR 41

and used in commercial aviation of any

type.

FAA Response: Since the comments

in effect support the proposed rule

changes, they are adopted as proposed.

Responsibility for airworthiness.

Section 121.363 places the

responsibility for airworthiness of an

airplane on the certificate holder;

§ 135.413 contains a similar

requirement. Under the proposal,

affected commuters must comply with

§ 121.363. Section 135.413(a) requires a

part 135 operator to have defects

repaired between required maintenance

under part 43. This provision does not

appear in part 121. Part 121 operators

are required to have defects repaired in

accordance with their maintenance

manual. Since an FAA-approved

maintenance manual requires no less

than the part 43 requirements, affected

commuters would experience no change

in requirements under the proposal. On

this issue, no comments were received

and the final rule is adopted as

proposed.

Maintenance and preventive

maintenance, and alteration

organization. Section 121.365 requires

the certificate holder to have an

adequate maintenance organization for

the accomplishment of maintenance,

preventive maintenance, and alterations

on its airplanes. The provision allows

the certificate holder to arrange with

another person to accomplish the work,

provided that the certificate holder

determines that the person has an

organization adequate to perform the

work. This provision requires separate

inspection functions to ensure that

those items directly affecting the safety

of flight are verified to be correct by

someone other than the person who

performed the work.

The FAA recognizes that other

provisions of the proposed rule in

Notice 95–5, which would require

affected certificate holders to install

new equipment and might lead to

replacement of part 23 type certificated

airplanes with part 25 type certificated

airplanes, could necessitate that

maintenance personnel (as required by
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65873

this section and by §§ 121.367 and

121.371) have additional skills and

training.

Comments: American Eagle supports

the proposal.

FAA Response: Since the only

comment on this issue is supportive, the

rule is adopted as proposed.

Manual requirements. Sections

121.369 and 135.427 have almost

identical requirements specifying that

the certificate holder include in its

manual a description of the organization

required by § 121.365 and a list of

persons with whom it has arranged for

the performance of any required

inspections, other maintenance,

preventive maintenance, or alterations.

The manual must contain the programs

required by § 121.367, including the

methods of performing required

inspections, other maintenance,

preventive maintenance, or alterations.

This manual is necessary to ensure that

the certificate holder has provided an

adequate maintenance program for the

airworthiness of its airplanes and to

inform its personnel, or other persons

who perform maintenance, of their

responsibilities regarding the

performance of maintenance on the

airplane. In the proposal, the FAA

required affected commuters to comply

with part 121. No comments were

received on this issue and the final rule

is adopted as proposed.

Required inspection personnel.

Sections 121.371 and 135.429 contain

similar requirements for inspection

personnel, including provisions for

specific qualifications for and

supervision of an inspection unit.

Included is a requirement for listing

names and appropriate information of

persons who have been trained,

qualified, and authorized to conduct

required inspections. This requirement

ensures that competent and properly

trained inspection personnel are

authorized to perform the required

inspections. In Notice 95–5, the FAA

required affected commuters to comply

with part 121. No comments were

received on this issue and the final rule

is adopted as proposed.

Continuing analysis and surveillance.

Section 121.373 on continuing analysis

and surveillance is almost identical to

the provisions of § 135.431. The FAA

proposed that affected commuters

comply with § 121.373. Section 121.373

provides for: the establishment by the

certificate holder of a system to

continually analyze the performance

and effectiveness of the programs

covering maintenance, preventive

maintenance, and alterations; the

correction of any deficiencies in those

programs; and the requirement by the

Administrator that the certificate holder

make changes in either or both of its

programs if those programs do not

contain adequate procedures and

standards to meet the requirements of

this part. No comments were received

on this issue and the final rule is

adopted as proposed.

Maintenance and preventative

maintenance training programs.

Sections 121.375 and 135.433 contain

identical requirements prescribing

training programs that ensure that

persons performing maintenance or

preventive maintenance functions

(including inspection personnel) are

fully informed about procedures,

techniques, and new equipment in use

and that those personnel are competent

to perform their required duties. The

FAA proposed that operators comply

with part 121. On this issue, no

comments were received and the final

rule is adopted as proposed.

Maintenance and preventive

maintenance personnel duty time

limitations. Section 121.377 establishes

the requirements for maintenance

personnel to be relieved from duty for

a period of at least 24 consecutive hours

during any 7 consecutive days, or the

equivalent thereof within any calendar

month. This requirement is for

maintenance personnel within the

United States. This provision would be

a new requirement for affected

commuters.

Comments: AACA states that most

Alaskan certificate holders utilize mixed

fleets ranging from under 9 passenger

seats, 10–19 seats, and more than 20

seats. These carriers frequently employ

maintenance personnel who are

qualified to work on all the aircraft in

a particular certificate holder’s fleet,

regardless of the aircraft’s seating

capacity. If the rule is adopted as

proposed, these certificate holders will

have to schedule maintenance

personnel according to part 121

standards to avoid inadvertently

violating the maintenance personnel

duty time limitations. At locations with

limited maintenance personnel and

mixed fleets of 1-to-9, and 10-to-29 seat

aircraft, this new requirement would

place an additional administrative

scheduling burden and financial

compliance cost on the air carrier.

Alternatively, an air carrier might have

to develop and apply two separate work

schedules for mechanics, one for part

121 mechanics and aircraft and another

for part 135 mechanics and aircraft.

AACA states that the FAA’s economic

analysis failed to address any cost

impacts of this requirement. AACA also

asks for guidance for those operators

who employ maintenance personnel

that might work under both part 121

and part 135.

FAA Response: The existing rule

requires only 24 consecutive hours off

during any 7 consecutive days. While it

may have been possible to work

mechanics under part 135 7 days a

week, without rest, the FAA believes

that the combination of union work

rules, Department of Labor regulations,

and general practice of a day of rest each

week would, in effect, accomplish the

same result as the rule.

Mechanics must receive adequate rest

in order to properly perform their

duties. Prescribing a minimum standard

will ensure that some rest is provided.

It would be inconsistent to require rest

for the pilots and flight attendants but

not for the people responsible for

maintaining the airplane. The FAA

believes that the burden of scheduling

and providing a day of rest would be

minimal. Standard time cards, a

common practice, could be used to

show compliance.

No FAA regulation prevents a

mechanic from working for both a part

121 and a part 135 employer when the

mechanic is qualified and, when

working on airplanes operated under

part 121, the certificate holder meets the

regulatory requirements of part 121 for

time free from duty.

It should also be noted that the rule

allows flexibility by requiring that a

certificate holder shall relieve each

person performing maintenance or

preventive maintenance from duty for at

least 24 consecutive hours during any 7

consecutive days, ‘‘or the equivalent

thereof within any calendar month.’’

The final rule is adopted as proposed.

Certificate Requirements. Sections

121.378 and 135.435 contain identical

requirements specifying that each

person, other than a repair station

certificated under the provisions of

subpart C of part 145, who is directly in

charge of maintenance, preventive

maintenance, or alterations, and each

person performing required inspections,

hold an appropriate airman certificate.

The FAA proposed that affected

commuters comply with part 121. No

comments were received on this issue

and the final rule is adopted as

proposed.

Authority to perform and approve

maintenance, preventative

maintenance, and alterations. Sections

121.379 and 135.437 contain similar

requirements allowing certificate

holders to perform or make

arrangements with other persons to

perform maintenance, preventive

maintenance, and alterations as

provided in its continuous

airworthiness maintenance program and
65874 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

its manual. In addition, a certificate

holder may perform these functions for

another certificate holder. The rules

require that all major repairs and

alterations must have been

accomplished with data approved by

the Administrator. The FAA proposed

that affected commuters comply with

part 121. No comments were received

on this issue and the final rule is

adopted as proposed.

Maintenance recording requirements.

Section 121.380 provides for the

preparation, maintenance, and retention

of certain records using the system

specified in the certificate holder’s

manual. The rule also specifies the

length of time that the records must be

retained and requires that the records be

transferred with the airplane at the time

it is sold. A small change was proposed

to § 121.380(a)(2) to accommodate

propeller-driven airplanes used by some

affected commuters and to

§ 121.380(a)(2)(v) to adopt the language

found in § 135.439(a)(2)(v) to provide

more complete records on airworthiness

directive compliance.

Comments: Zantop International

Airlines, Inc. (a current part 121

certificate holder) objects to the

proposed change to § 121.380(a)(2)(i)

that would add engine and propeller

total time in service to the list of items

that must be recorded. Zantop says that

the engine and propeller requirement is

new for them and that the aircraft

(airframe) total hours in service is the

only time transferred on many of its

older aircraft. The new requirement

would result in searching maintenance

records to determine the historical time

on the engine and propeller. In some

cases this information may not be

available. Zantop recommends that an

exemption be provided for older aircraft

or that these records only be required

for future certifications.

FAA Response: Although current

§ 121.380(a)(2)(i) does not specifically

call for total time in-service records of

engines or propellers, it does require a

record of life-limited parts for these

components. The only way to

accomplish this is by keeping records

for total time in service. Total time in

service records may consist of aircraft

maintenance record pages, separate

component cards or pages, a computer

list, or other methods as described in

the applicant’s manual.

Tracing a life-limited part back to its

origin would be required only in those

situations where the certificate holder’s

records are so incomplete that an

accurate determination of the time

elapsed on the life-limited part could

not be made.

The part 135 certificate holders

moving to part 121 will have no impact

from this rule, since they are already

tracking airframe, engine, and propeller

time under § 135.439(a)(2)(i).

The airframe, engine, and propeller

information is helpful in tracking

airworthiness directive compliance and

life limits for life-limited parts. It also

standardizes language between part 135

and part 121. The FAA believes that at

least some of the current part 121

certificate holders have the information

in existing required records in order to

show compliance with life-limited

components. However, the FAA has

decided to allow current part 121

operators some time to come into

compliance with the requirements for

recording total time for engines and

propellers. The final rule for § 121.380

has been revised accordingly.

Transfer of maintenance records.

Section 121.380a requires the certificate

holder to transfer certain maintenance

records to the purchaser at the time of

the sale, either in plain language form

or in coded form. This section is worded

the same as § 135.441 except that the

part 121 provision allows the purchaser

to select the format of the transferred

records. Notice 95–5 specified that

affected commuters comply with part

121. No comments were received on this

issue and the final rule is adopted as

proposed.

VI.A.9. Subpart M—Airman and

Crewmember Requirements

Flight attendant complement. Section

121.391 requires one flight attendant for

airplanes having a seating capacity of

more than 9 but less than 51 passengers.

Section 135.107 requires one flight

attendant for airplanes having a

passenger seating configuration,

excluding any pilot seat, of more than

19 passengers. The FAA retained the

requirement for a flight attendant for

more than 9 passengers for current part

121 airplanes and proposed to amend

the section to require a flight attendant

for affected commuters only in airplanes

with more than 19 passenger seats. No

comments were received on this issue

and the final rule is adopted as

proposed.

Flight attendants being seated during

movement on the surface. Section

121.391(d) states that during movement

on the surface, flight attendants must

remain at their duty stations with safety

belts and shoulder harnesses fastened

except to perform duties related to the

safety of the airplane and its occupants.

Part 135 has a similar provision in

§ 135.128(a), except that it does not

specify that flight attendants may be

performing safety duties during

movement on the surface. The FAA

proposed that affected commuters

comply with part 121. On this issue, no

comments were received and the final

rule is adopted as proposed.

Flight attendants or other qualified

personnel at the gate. The FAA

proposed that all airplanes being

operated by affected commuters be

required to comply with current

§ 121.391(e); that is, they must have a

flight attendant or substitute (such as a

flight crewmember or trained gate agent)

on board when the airplane is parked at

the gate and passengers are on board.

The substitutes must be given training

in the emergency evacuation procedures

for that airplane as required by

§ 121.417 and they must be identified to

the passengers. If there is only one flight

attendant or other qualified person on

board the airplane, that person must be

located in accordance with the

certificate holder’s FAA-approved

operating procedures.

As a result of the proposed rule,

§ 121.391(e) applies in the future to

some operations that do not require

flight attendants. Therefore, the FAA

proposed to move § 121.391(e) to a new

separate section, proposed § 121.393, to

highlight the crewmember requirements

that apply when an airplane is on the

ground and passengers remain on board

before continuing to another

destination.

Comments: AACA opposes the

requirement for flight attendants at the

gate. The commenter states that it would

be impossible for one of the two

crewmembers on the 10-to-19 seat

airplanes to stay on board with

passengers while parked at the gate.

Both crewmembers would be needed to

assist in the loading and unloading

process. Furthermore, the commenter

states that deplaning passengers would

not be a viable option because airports

do not have the proper facilities. Most

airplanes are not met by a gate agent in

rural Alaska airports, and airplanes do

not pull up to a terminal. Therefore, the

commenter states that a trained

substitute would have to stay on board

the airplane with the passengers while

parked at the gate 100% of the time. The

commenter states that the FAA has

underestimated the training costs and

wage costs for the option of using a

substitute. The commenter estimates

that this requirement would cost about

$2.9 million (costs not broken down)

each year for all of the Alaskan

commuter air carriers to comply.

FAA Response: While many of the

affected airplanes are operated

seasonally and do not fly in the winter,

some operate during extreme weather

conditions into airports that do not have
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65875

terminals to use for deplaning. To the

extent possible the FAA would like a

flight attendant or pilot on board

whenever passengers are on board.

Since the affected 10- to 19-passengerseat airplanes do not require a flight

attendant, it would be inconsistent to

require one only during ground

operations. However, each of the

affected commuter airplanes require two

pilots for their operations. One can stay

on board while the other does any

necessary work off the airplane. Other

options are to deplane the passengers or

use a trained substitute.

The FAA recognizes that part 121 was

written with the expectation that flight

attendants would be available and that

pilots would not be loading baggage or

performing other duties outside the

airplane. Therefore, the FAA is revising

§ 121.393 for airplanes for which a flight

attendant is not required to allow a

crewmember or qualified person to be

on board or near the airplane. If the

crewmember or qualified person is not

on board the crewmember or qualified

person must be near the airplane and in

a position to adequately monitor

passenger safety. Airplane engines must

be shut down and at least one floor level

exit must remain open to provide for the

deplaning of passengers. This

amendment is consistent with current

FAA policy for refueling with

passengers on board. The FAA has

determined that this option is

functionally equivalent to having a

qualified person on board since these

airplanes are small enough to monitor

passenger compartments from outside

the airplane.

VI.A.10. Subparts N and O—Training

Program and Crewmember

Qualifications

Subpart N, Training. As the

discussion earlier in this preamble

points out, the issue of training has been

the subject of separate rulemaking.

However, several comments were

received on training requirements.

Comments: AIA states that Notice 95–

5 is virtually silent on training;

however, this is an important part of the

total picture. AIA states that the

separate initiative on training should be

reviewed in conjunction with this

NPRM.

Raytheon echoes AIA’s comments on

training, and adds that successful

implementation of the training actions

would be expected to have a dramatic

impact on future accident statistics.

Training should be the principal focus

for safety improvement together with

future programs for safety system

monitoring. Raytheon also states that

while NPRM 95–5 was not intended to

cover training, Notice 95–5 probably

would not have been proposed if

training were more effective.

Air Vegas comments that all

additional flight training would have to

be done in the aircraft because there is

no Beech 99 simulator in existence. This

would increase the hours for initial and

transition training and nearly double

training costs.

Fairchild Aircraft says that, under

§§ 121.424 and 121.427 as well as part

121 Appendix E, windshear training

must be performed in a simulator and

that such simulators are not likely to be

available to many commuter airline

operators. This commenter adds that

there is no evidence that the part 135

windshear program is inadequate.

Fairchild Aircraft recommends that

§§ 121.424 and 121.427, as well as

Appendix E, be amended to provide

relief from windshear simulator training

for certificate holders of turbopropeller

airplanes with 30 or fewer passenger

seats. An individual commenter

recommends that low-altitude

windshear training be made a part of

both ground and flight (simulator)

training under part 135. This

commenter says that, currently,

commuter aircraft are not equipped to

receive advance warning of low-level

windshear and that training would help

pilots to better deal with such

occurrences. ALPA proposes that

§ 121.400(b) be amended by adding a

group specific to propeller-driven

aircraft with a seating capacity between

10 and 30 seats. This will ensure that

personnel, particularly dispatchers and

meteorologists, understand and

appreciate the working environment of

these aircraft, including the facilities

and capabilities associated with

weather, airports, maintenance, and

logistics, etc.

An individual commenter supports

increased commuter training for several

reasons: Most accidents are related to

human (not equipment) error, there is a

need for more simulator training among

commuters, and part 135 aircrews must

deal with a high number of regional

landings and takeoffs as well as varied

weather conditions.

Jetstream Aircraft Limited and

American Eagle support the proposed

rulemaking to strengthen part 135

crewmember training.

FAA Response: The comments on

appropriate training requirements,

while generally supportive of the FAA’s

goals in this rulemaking, are actually

more relevant to the separate

rulemaking addressed in Section III.E,

Related FAA Action. The windshear

simulator training requirements only

affect turbine powered airplanes

(turbojets) on which windshear

equipment is required by § 121.358.

Subpart O, Crewmember

Qualifications. Because of the separate

rulemaking previously discussed, the

FAA did not propose any changes to

subpart O except for the removal of an

obsolete section (§ 121.435).

Nonetheless, a number of comments

were received.

Comments: RAA, ASA, Gulfstream,

United Express, Big Sky Airlines, and

an individual oppose the requirement

that currently qualified first officers

performing the duties of second in

command obtain initial operating

experience (IOE) under § 121.434.

However, these commenters do support

an IOE requirement for newly

designated first officers and new hires.

United Express recommends that air

carrier proving runs be used for

operations evaluation and that if, during

the proving runs, an airline does not

meet performance criteria, operations

should terminate until a satisfactory fix

is established.

American Eagle supports IOE

requirements for all first officers and

believes that the additional costs

associated with such a requirement are

worth it to ensure that these pilots are

fully qualified.

RAA, ASA, and Gulfstream believe

that a basis and criteria for

‘‘grandfathering’’ these current and

qualified seconds in command can be

the training records of each of these

airmen as well as the flight records

documenting their experience as first

officers.

An individual commenter says that a

precedent for grandfathering these pilots

is the ‘‘N & O’’ exemptions held by

certain 135 certificate holders which

allows training under part 121 but does

not require repetition of unique part 121

IOE for crews which have been

conducting scheduled operations under

part 135.

Fairchild Aviation recommends that

§ 121.437(a) be amended to recognize

the fact that not all 10–19 passenger

airplanes are large airplanes. This

commenter says that this section should

be changed to read, ‘‘* * * and, if

required, an appropriate type rating for

that aircraft.’’

FAA Response: The comments on

appropriate crewmember qualification

requirements are actually more relevant

to the separate rulemakings addressed

in Section III.E, Recent FAA Actions.

The concerns raised by these

commenters have been considered in

those rulemaking actions.
65876 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

VI.A.11. Subpart P—Aircraft Dispatcher

Qualifications and Duty Time

Limitations: Domestic and Flag

Operations

Requirements for dispatch systems

and aircraft dispatcher qualifications are

discussed in Section V.F., Dispatch

system.

VI.A.12. Subparts Q, R, and S—Flight

Time Limitations and Rest

Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and

Supplemental Operations

Requirements for flight time limits

and rest requirements are discussed in

Section V.D., Flight time limits and rest

requirements.

VI.A.13. Subpart T—Flight Operations

Operational control. Sections 121.533

and 121.535 require each domestic and

flag operation to be responsible for

operational control and specify the

responsibilities for aircraft dispatchers

and pilots for each flight release. No

comments were received on these

sections and the final rule is adopted as

proposed; however, related comments

on dispatch system requirements are

discussed in Section V.F., Dispatch

system.

Admission to flight deck. Section

121.547 specifies who may be admitted

to the flight deck of a passenger-carrying

airplane. The part 121 section is similar

to § 135.75 but provides for additional

types of persons who may be admitted.

FAA proposed that affected commuters

comply with part 121. No comments

were received concerning this section

and the final rule is adopted as

proposed.

Flying equipment. Section 121.549(b)

requires that each crewmember shall, on

each flight, have readily available for his

or her use, a flashlight that is in good

working order. This is a new

requirement for 10- to 30-passenger seat

airplanes for co-pilots that was not

specifically discussed in Notice No. 95–

5. No comments were received and the

final rule remains as proposed.

Emergency procedures. Parts 121 and

135 require that, when the certificate

holder or PIC knows of conditions that

are a hazard to safe operations, the

operation must be restricted or

suspended until the hazardous

conditions are corrected. For a

discussion of this issue, see ‘‘Emergency

Operations (Proposed §§ 119.57 and

119.58)’’ later in this preamble.

Briefing passengers before takeoff.

The FAA proposed to amend

§ 121.571(a) to bring over from § 135.117

requirements for additional passenger

information for airplanes with no flight

attendant. This additional information

includes instructions on location of

survival equipment, normal and

emergency use of oxygen equipment for

flights above 12,000 MSL, location and

operation of fire extinguishers, and

placement of seat backs in an upright

position for takeoffs and landings. The

FAA proposed that the affected

commuters otherwise comply with the

part 121 rules on passenger information.

The printed cards would need to be

revised or supplemented to provide

information on flotation cushions or

other required flotation devices once

these devices are installed.

A small change was proposed for

§ 121.571(a)(3) to allow a flight

crewmember (instead of a flight

attendant) to provide an individual

briefing of a person who may need

assistance in the event of an emergency,

in cases where an airplane does not

have a flight attendant.

Comments: AACA disagrees with the

FAA’s cost estimate for the required

passenger information cards and

briefings. The commenter states that the

FAA’s cost estimate appears to be low.

Alaskan air carriers would need to

devise a more comprehensive

information system due to the many

nationalities and native languages in

Alaska. Many local passengers are not

native speakers of English or are not

fluent in its comprehension. Briefing

cards must be painstakingly translated

into many Alaskan Native languages at

great expense. Some air carriers have

also had to translate into Japanese,

Korean, and Russian for tourists from

the Pacific Rim nations. Based on

experience, the commenter states that

the FAA’s assumption of a 3-year life

expectancy for information cards is high

and that information cards normally last

less than a year due to wear and theft.

The commenter also estimates costs of

$26,000 for Alaskan commuter air

carriers in the first year and $4,224 each

year thereafter to meet the requirement.

FAA Response: While the FAA

recognizes the benefits of translating

passenger information on briefing

information, this has never been a

requirement but an option undertaken

by the operator to improve service and

safety.

The 3-year life expectancy of briefing

cards is based on past experience. There

is nothing unique to Alaska that would

warrant a deteriorated state sooner than

within 3 years.

Part 135 10- to 19-seat airplane

briefing card requirements are being

incorporated into part 121. New cards

need not be revised immediately and

normal wear cycles prevail so that this

rule would not impose additional costs.

Oxygen for medical use by

passengers. Section 121.574 provides

that a certificate holder may allow a

passenger to carry and operate

equipment for dispensing oxygen if,

among other requirements, the

equipment is furnished by the certificate

holder. The proposal would require

affected certificate holders to comply

with § 121.574.

Under current § 135.91, the certificate

holder may allow a passenger to carry

and operate equipment for dispensing

oxygen provided certain requirements

are met. Section 135.91(d) contains a

provision for permitting a

noncomplying oxygen bottle provided

by medical emergency service personnel

to be carried on board the airplane

under certain circumstances; this

provision was not proposed to be

carried forward into part 121.

Comments: AACA states that many

medevac operations take place on board

scheduled and on-demand flights.

Without aviation oxygen available at

village health clinics, the flexibility of

§ 135.91(d) would be lost if it is not

carried forward into part 121. AACA

recommends allowing a noncomplying

oxygen bottle on aircraft operating

solely within the State of Alaska. To

prohibit this will mean medevac costs

will increase and patient transports will

have to be done on board charter flights

that can originate from a hub point

where medical oxygen and stretcher

units can be installed on the airplane.

FAA Response: The FAA does not

find it necessary to move the language

of § 135.91 to § 121.574. The FAA has

issued exemptions on this requirement

to part 121 certificate holders operating

in Alaska.

Alcoholic beverages. Sections 121.575

and 135.121 contain requirements

controlling the serving and

consumption of alcoholic beverages on

the airplane. The requirements are

similar except for three minor

additional requirements in § 121.575.

The FAA proposed that affected

commuters comply with the

requirements of § 121.575 and since no

comments were received on this issue,

the final rule is adopted as proposed.

Retention of items of mass. Section

121.576 requires that certificate holders

must provide and use a means to

prevent each item of galley equipment

and each serving cart, when not in use,

and each item of crew baggage, which

is carried in the crew or passenger

compartment, from becoming a hazard.

Section 121.577 prohibits a certificate

holder from moving an airplane on the

surface or taking off unless such items

are secure. Sections 135.87 and 135.122

require certificate holders to ensure that
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65877

such items are secure before takeoff. The

FAA proposed that the affected

commuters comply with § 121.577,

which is substantively the same as

§ 135.122. No comments were received

on this issue and the final rule is

adopted as proposed.

Cabin ozone concentration. Section

121.578 sets maximum levels of ozone

concentration inside the cabins of

transport category airplanes operating

above 27,000 feet. The affected

commuters do not generally operate at

these altitudes. The FAA believes that

these rules should apply whenever the

altitudes are exceeded. The FAA

proposed to amend § 121.578(b) to

delete the reference to transport

category airplanes.

Comments: Commuter Air

Technology states that it does not

operate above 25,000 feet. The

commenter asks if operation in part 135

now requires ozone monitors and if part

91 flights of 10 or more passengers

operated above 27,000 require ozone

monitors.

FAA Response: For operations at or

below 27,000 feet the ozone

requirements do not apply. The answer

to both questions of the commenter is

no. Part 91 and part 135 do not have

ozone provisions. The final rule is the

same as proposed.

Minimum altitudes for use of

autopilot. Sections 121.579 and 135.93

establish minimum altitudes for use of

autopilots. The two sections are similar;

however, part 135 does not specify

weather requirements for an approach.

In a recent NPRM proposing to revise

the minimum altitude for use of an

autopilot (59 FR 63868, December 9,

1994), which is under consideration, the

minimum altitude for autopilot use

corresponds to that designated in the

type design of the autopilot and stated

in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). If

the rule is adopted as proposed, the

AFM would establish guidance that

would be edited and approved in the air

carrier’s operations specifications.

Comments: Commuter Air

Technology comments that it has

aircraft without autopilots and

questions how the rule would affect

those aircraft.

AACA states that an NPRM published

on December 9, 1994, will require the

AFM to establish guidance that would

be edited and approved in the affected

air carrier’s operations specifications.

FAA Response: If the airplane does

not have an autopilot, § 121.579 does

not apply.

Section 135.93 is similar to § 121.579;

however, there are differences that

would necessitate manual and training

changes regarding the use of the

autopilot.

The above mentioned proposal

includes the recommendations of the

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee (ARAC). The FAA has

proposed in that rulemaking that

instead of the 500 ft. minimum stated in

the regulations, the autopilot could be

engaged at whatever the airplane flight

manual says it is capable of (200 ft., 100

ft., etc.). Comments were favorable. If

adopted, the results of that separate rule

will apply to the affected commuters.

Observer’s seat. Section 121.581

requires a certificate holder to make

available a seat on the flight deck of

each airplane for use by the

Administrator while conducting routine

inspections. Comparable § 135.75

requires, for inspections, a forward

observer’s seat on the flight deck or a

forward passenger seat with headset or

speaker. Because airplanes in the 10- to

30-seat range may not have an

observer’s seat on the flight deck, the

FAA proposed to move the option of

providing a forward passenger seat into

part 121 and require compliance with

part 121 for affected commuter

operators. No comments were received

regarding this issue and the final rule is

adopted as proposed.

Authority to refuse transportation.

Section 121.586 prohibits a certificate

holder from refusing transportation to a

passenger on the basis that the

passenger will need the assistance of

another person to move quickly to an

exit in the event of an emergency unless

the certificate holder has established

procedures for the carriage of such

passengers and the passenger either fails

to comply or cannot be carried in

accordance with the procedures.

Comments: Commuter Air

Technology states that their aircraft has

no place for a wheelchair and that the

seat opposite the main cabin door has

increased pitch which normally

accommodates individuals with

movement restrictions.

FAA Response: In response to the

specific comment, if a certificate holder

has no room on board an airplane to

handle a wheelchair as carry-on

baggage, the wheelchair may be checked

as cargo baggage.

The Air Carrier Access Act is

implemented in 14 CFR part 382.

Aircraft accessibility requirements

found in § 382.21 generally exempt

aircraft operated under part 121 with

fewer than 30 passengers and aircraft

operated under part 135. The rule

requires that these aircraft comply ‘‘to

the extent not inconsistent with

structural, weight and balance,

operational and interior configuration

limitations.’’

The FAA anticipates that affected

commuters will establish procedures in

accordance with § 121.586. These

procedures must be developed in

accordance with § 382.21. Since

operators under parts 121 and 135 are

already in compliance with § 382.21,

this rulemaking poses no new

requirements other than establishing

procedures for the carriage of passengers

who may need special assistance in an

emergency.

Carry-on baggage: The FAA proposed

that the affected commuters comply

with the § 121.589 carry-on baggage

rule. This would require the preparation

and approval of a carry-on baggage

program.

Comments: Commuter Air

Technology states that its aircraft have

no carry-on baggage storage other than

for a standard briefcase under the seat.

According to the commenter, carry-on

baggage is removed from passengers and

placed in the pod upon entry. The

interior is also placarded to require

adequate securing of any interior cargo.

AACA is concerned about the cost of a

baggage scanning program.

FAA Response: Even if the aircraft

allows only limited carry-on baggage,

the certificate holder must still have a

carry-on baggage program that complies

with § 121.589. Interior cargo must be

secured in accordance with § 121.285.

(See discussion of § 121.285, Carriage of

cargo in passenger compartments in this

notice.) The final rule revises references

in accordance with other changes in this

rulemaking. Although affected operators

must develop a program for their

approved manuals, compliance will not

result in any significant substantive

operational burden.

Use of certificated airports. For a

discussion of the issue of airports

certificated under part 139, see Section

V.H., Airports.

VI.A.14. Subpart U—Dispatching and

Flight Release Rules

Flight release authority. Section

121.597, which applies to supplemental

operations, requires a flight release

signed by the pilot in command when

the pilot and the person authorized by

the certificate holder to exercise

operational control believe that the

flight can be made safely. Under part

135 releases are not required for either

scheduled or on-demand flights. The

FAA proposed requiring compliance

with part 121. This requirement would

apply to affected commuter airplanes

when those airplanes are used in

nonscheduled service with a passengerseating configuration of 10 or more. No
65878 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

comments were received on this issue

and the final rule is adopted as

proposed.

Dispatch or flight release under VFR.

Section 121.611 states that no person

may dispatch or release an airplane for

VFR operation unless the ceiling and

visibility en route, as indicated by

available weather reports or forecasts,

are and will remain at or above

applicable VFR minimums until the

airplane arrives at the airport.

Comments: One commenter states that

VFR is certainly an acceptable standard

for sightseeing operations or for smaller

carriers. Scenic Air states that airplanes

typically used in the tour business can

only operate day VFR. Grand Canyon

Airways said 99 percent of its flights are

VFR.

An individual states that the proposal

on § 121.611 concerning VFR dispatch

is unclear as to whether part 135

certificate holders will be required to

comply. The commenter believes they

should be covered by § 121.611 because

it is the safe way and costs nothing.

FAA Response: In the final rule,

affected commuters are required to

comply with § 121.611. The FAA will

develop additional operations

specifications paragraphs and guidance

for VFR tour operations, remote area

operations (e.g. Samoa, Alaska) or other

operations that are not capable of being

conducted under IFR because they have

no airways, IFR approaches, navaids,

etc.

Alternate airport for departure.

Section 121.617(a) requires an alternate

departure airport during certain weather

conditions and specifies that for aircraft

having two engines the alternate airport

must be not more than one hour from

the departure airport at normal cruising

speed in still air with one engine

inoperative. Under the proposed rule,

affected commuters would have to

comply with the requirement. This

requirement was not specifically

discussed in the proposed rule.

Comments: Fairchild Aircraft

comments that this requirement requires

single-engine cruising speed data that

are unlikely to be included in the FAAapproved airplane flight manual of 10–

19 passenger airplanes. Comparable

§ 135.217 requires an alternate airport

‘‘within 1 hour’s flying time (at normal

cruising speed) in still air.’’ The

commenter requests that the part 135

wording be inserted in the part 121

section.

FAA Response: Fairchild is correct,

but the FAA is retaining the

requirement and it will be necessary for

affected commuters to work with

airplane manufacturers to develop

appropriate data for normal one-engine

inoperative cruising speed for the

airplane flight manual within 15

months. (See also Section VI.A.4

Airplane limitations: Type of route for

discussion of one engine inoperative

data).

Operations in icing conditions. No

comments were received on this

proposal and the final rule is adopted as

proposed. (See also VI.A.7. Equipment

for operations in icing conditions).

Fuel reserves. Sections 121.639,

121.641, 121.643, and 121.645 contain

fuel reserve requirements based on the

type of operation to be conducted.

These fuel reserve requirements do not

distinguish between VFR and IFR

operations. Section 121.639 requires 45

minutes of fuel reserve for domestic air

carriers and for certain other air carrier

operations.

Section 135.209 requires 30 minutes

of fuel reserve for day VFR conditions

and 45 minutes for night VFR

conditions. Section 135.223 requires 45

minutes for IFR conditions.

The FAA proposed to require affected

commuters to comply with the fuel

reserve requirements of part 121.

Comments: Fairchild Aircraft

comments that the FAA failed to take

into consideration that § 121.639

requires fuel to fly to an alternate airport

regardless of conditions, and finds that

the proposed rule would have a

detrimental impact economically, with

no related gain in safety. Fairchild

suggests that the FAA adopt § 135.209,

which requires a 30-minute reserve for

airplanes with fewer than 31 seats.

Samoa Air comments that the proposal

would require a 45-minute reserve for

flights that average 30 minutes and is

therefore unnecessary. Raytheon adds

that its aircraft would have to give up

one of 19 passengers to carry the

additional fuel. Raytheon argues that

smaller airplanes make shorter flights

than big airliners, can operate to and

from shorter runways, and are closer to

an alternate airport. Therefore, the 10–

19 seat airplane should be exempt from

this requirement. Commuter Air

Transport comments that all of its

current route analysis is done on a 45-

minute reserve.

AACA states that fuel reserve

requirements for part 121 are 50 percent

higher than for operating identical

aircraft under part 135. According to

AACA, the large fuel reserves required

for dispatching smaller turboprop

aircraft under part 121 make those

aircraft marginally economical to

operate when faced with competition

from piston-powered twins operated

under part 135.

At the Las Vegas public hearing, Twin

Otter International stated that taking the

VFR fuel reserve from 30 to 45 minutes

is 150 pounds of fuel. That is reducing

the capacity of the airplane by one

passenger. The commenter is not sure

there would be any safety benefit for

sightseeing operations.

A pilot in Alaska comments that the

part 135 fuel reserve requirements are

adequate and that adding more reserves

would degrade the already limited

payload of many affected aircraft. Two

commenters point out that operations

that begin as VFR may end up IFR and

that a 45-minute reserve provides more

options, than a 30-minute fuel reserve.

Another individual recommends

adopting the 45-minute fuel reserve.

While it may be argued that there are a

greater number of potential alternate

airports within 30 minutes flying time

of a destination airport that are capable

of handling smaller, commuter-type

airplanes, some of these potential

alternates may not be acceptable from

the standpoint of having weather

reporting or aircraft rescue and

firefighting capability. Additionally,

once airborne, fuel time and the 30-

minute reserve (some of which is

unusable) might pressure some crews

into poor operational situations. A

standard 45-minute reserve provides

more options.

One individual states that commuters

can quantify the costs of the additional

15 minutes of fuel reserve, which

cannot be significant. The

standardization and extra fuel safety

margin should be worth the cost.

FAA Response: The FAA recognizes

that there are some operations that

appear not to require a 45-minute fuel

reserve. One of these is the flight that

only takes 30 minutes. The logical

solution would be to carry 30 minutes

of reserve fuel so that, at worst, the

airplane could return to its airport of

origin. However, in some circumstances,

such as the sudden occurrence of bad

weather, returning may not be possible.

Therefore, the FAA agrees with

commenters who point out that a 45-

minute fuel reserve provides more

options.

The FAA also acknowledges that for

some airplanes the additional fuel may

require the loss of a passenger seat and

the FAA recognizes the burden of the

45-minute reserve. Accordingly, the

FAA is allowing relief in the final rule

for those who operate day VFR per

operations specifications. However, the

FAA retains the requirement for a 45-

minute reserve whenever on an IFR

flight plan, including under VFR

conditions. The special rule allows

relief to those who are truly VFR such

as air tour operators and certain Alaskan

operations. The relief applies only to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65879

10–19 passenger seat operators with

airplanes certificated after 1964. These

smaller airplanes have more flexibility

in VFR to find a suitable landing airport.

This flexibility provides functional

equivalency to part 121.

VI.A.15 Subpart V—Records and

Reports

Subpart V prescribes requirements for

the preparation and maintenance of

records and reports for all certificate

holders operating under part 121.

Although many of the requirements are

identical to or similar to the

recordkeeping requirements in

§§ 135.63 and 135.65, part 121 requires

additional information, including new

records and reports. Notice 95–5

proposed that affected commuters

comply with the recordkeeping

requirements of part 121.

Comments: Jetstream supports the

application of subpart V to affected

commuter operations.

RAA and ASA point out that

§ 121.715 on in-flight medical

emergency reports is an obsolete

requirement that should be eliminated.

These commenters also contend that

§ 121.711 on retention of

communication records would require

affected commuters to record each

enroute radio contact and keep the

record for 30 days. According to these

commenters, recent interpretations of

this requirement have caused some

certificate holders to establish elaborate

recording systems. The commenters

question the need for these records and

suggest that the requirement be

eliminated if it no longer serves a useful

purpose.

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with

commenters that § 121.715, relating to

inflight medical emergencies, is obsolete

and it has been deleted in the final rule.

The commenters are correct that

§ 121.711 requires certificate holders to

record each en route radio contact and

keep the record for 30 days. This

requirement is necessary for all

certificate holders and has been retained

in the final rule.

VI.B. Part 119—Certification: Air

Carriers and Commercial Operators:

Summary

Part 119 is a new part that consolidates

into one part the certification and operations

specifications requirements for persons who

operate under parts 121 and 135. For the

most part, these regulations are currently in

SFAR 38–2, which replaced the certification

and operations specification requirements in

parts 121 and 135 in response to the Airline

Deregulation Act of 1978.

Part 119 was originally proposed in 1988

(53 FR 39853; October 12, 1988; Docket No.

25713). Based on comments received on the

definition of ‘‘scheduled operation’’ in that

notice, the FAA published a Supplemental

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) in

1993 (58 FR 32248; June 8, 1993; Docket No.

25713). In Notice 95–5, the FAA republished

the entire text of part 119 for comment

because of the length of time since the first

NPRM, the number of changes that were

made to the proposed text, and the

significance of the changes to part 119 that

resulted from the review of commuter

operations. Each section of part 119 that had

been changed since the previous notices was

explained in the preamble to Notice 95–5.

The first objective of part 119 is to

establish a permanent guide in a new part

that will enable persons who provide

transportation of people or cargo to

determine what certification, operations,

maintenance, and other regulatory

requirements they must comply with. A

second objective is to set out procedural

requirements for the certification process that

apply to all certificate holders conducting

operations under part 121 or part 135.

Part 119 accomplishes the following:

(1) Incorporates much of SFAR 38–2 as

Subparts A and B;

(2) Revises certification procedures now in

parts 121 and 135 and consolidates them as

Subpart C;

(3) Revises wet leasing requirements;

(4) Provides definitions for terms such as

‘‘direct air carrier’’ and ‘‘kind of operation,’’

and clarifies the requirements for operations

specifications by adding definitions for terms

such as ‘‘domestic operation’’ and

‘‘supplemental operation;’’

(5) Provides a roadmap for certificate

holders to lead them to the operating rules

in part 121, 125, or 135 that they must

comply with for the kind of operations that

they conduct;

(6) Adds a new requirement for a Director

of Safety; adds management requirements for

domestic and flag operations conducted

under part 121 consistent with those that

now exist for supplemental operations

conducted under part 121; and consolidates

part 121 and part 135 management

requirements;

(7) Rescinds part 127 and any requirements

that pertain solely to helicopters in part 121,

Subparts A through D; and

(8) Throughout part 121, Subparts A

through D, and part 135, Subpart A, changes

various references from CAB requirements to

DOT requirements, changes terminology

where needed, and makes incidental editorial

changes.

Comments on Part 119

This section contains a summary and

a response to the comments received on

specific sections of part 119.

General Comments on part 119.

USAir Express expresses concern over

the 7-year time lag between when part

119 was originally introduced and the

issuance of Notice 95–5. This

commenter suggests that since many

changes have occurred in the air

industry and in the FAA, it may be best

to issue subparts A and B of part 119,

but to leave the requirements in subpart

C in their current form in parts 121 and

135. NATA similarly contends that ‘‘the

unknown effects of the requirements

contained in part 119 are not adequately

considered in Notice 95–5’s cost-benefit

analysis.’’ Both of these commenters

believe that the new requirements in

part 119 impose unnecessary

administrative burdens for certificate

holders.

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees

with the arguments presented by the

commenters. For the most part,

subchapter C is a recodification of the

existing part 121 and 135 certification

requirements for applicants for air

carrier or operating certificates. In some

instances, such as wet leases under

§ 119.53, recency of operation under

§ 119.63, and management personnel

under §§ 119.65 and 119.67, where

substantive changes are made, further

discussion is contained elsewhere in

this preamble.

Section 119.2—Compliance. The final

rule contains a new § 119.2 that states

that certificate holders shall continue to

comply with SFAR 38–2 until 15

months after the publication date of the

final rule or the date on which the

certificate holder is issued part 121

operations specifications, whichever

occurs first.

Section 119.3—Definitions. Section

119.3 contains definitions for the five

kinds of operations conducted under

parts 121 and 135 (Domestic, Flag, and

Supplemental in part 121 and

Commuter and On-demand in part 135).

The FAA proposed to move the affected

commuters to part 121 by changing the

definitions for ‘‘Commuter operations,’’

‘‘Domestic operations,’’ and ‘‘Flag

operations.’’ Comments on these

definitions as they relate to affected

commuters are discussed earlier in the

preamble under ‘‘V.B. Applicability.’’

Other comments on proposed

definitions are discussed in this section.

General comments on definitions.

There were several comments on the

lack of definitions for certain terms in

the proposed rule, and, in some cases,

the lack of distinctions drawn among

certain terms. Helicopter Association

International (HAI) cites the lack of a

definition for ‘‘common carrier,’’ saying

that it is hard to understand the

difference between this and the

‘‘noncommon carrier.’’ One commenter

recommends that ‘‘nonscheduled

operations’’ should substitute for ‘‘ondemand operations’’ and ‘‘supplemental

operations’’ and that ‘‘scheduled

operations’’ should replace the words

‘‘domestic,’’ ‘‘flag,’’ and ‘‘commuter’’ in

order to simplify and standardize the

regulations. Additionally, whenever the

phrase ‘‘flag operations’’ needs to be
65880 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

distinguished, ‘‘scheduled foreign

operations’’ could be used instead.

Further, this commenter suggests that

‘‘since the term ‘scheduled’ now means

any scheduled flight, there would be no

need to define it, as the five round trips

per week definition has been dropped.’’

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees

with the comment that ‘‘scheduled’’ and

‘‘nonscheduled’’ should be substituted

for the terms ‘‘domestic,’’ ‘‘flag,’’

‘‘commuter,’’ ‘‘supplemental,’’ and ‘‘ondemand.’’ These are five distinct kinds

of operations that the FAA needs to

identify and regulate separately

according to the characteristics of each

kind of operation and the terms are

presently used throughout the

regulations. Also, the ‘‘five round trips

per week’’ concept has been reinstated

for commuter operations with 9 or fewer

passengers, as discussed in Section V.B.,

Applicability.

‘‘Common carrier’’ is a term that has

been discussed in numerous court cases.

‘‘Non common carriage’’ is being

defined in § 119.3.

‘‘All-cargo operations’’. Proposed

§ 119.3 defines ‘‘all-cargo operation’’ to

mean any operation for compensation or

hire that is other than a passengercarrying operation. These operations

follow the rules for on-demand or

supplemental operations, regardless of

whether the all-cargo operation is

conducted on a regular, ‘‘scheduled’’

basis.

Comments: ALPA proposes that the

FAA should discontinue the distinction

between scheduled passenger and

scheduled all-cargo operations and

reserve that distinction for the

nonscheduled all-cargo operation

because there is little difference

between the scheduled passenger and

scheduled all-cargo operations.

FAA Response: The FAA has

considered ALPA’s suggestion;

however, it is outside the scope of this

rulemaking. However, the definition has

been slightly modified so that

passengers described in §§ 121.583(a)

and 135.85 can be carried without the

operation losing its all-cargo status.

‘‘Commuter operations’’. The

proposed definition for ‘‘commuter

operations’’ limits the use of this term

to scheduled operations in airplanes

having 9 or less passenger seats or in

any size rotorcraft.

Comments: Fairchild Aircraft states

that applying the term ‘‘commuter

operations’’ to operations with 9 or

fewer passenger seats or to rotorcraft is

inappropriate because this use of the

term differs from the generally accepted

meaning, i.e. frequent service over short

stage lengths and service to small

communities. According to the

commenter, under this proposed

definition, commuter category airplanes

will no longer be used in commuter

operations. The commenter also states

that the proposed definition is

inconsistent with the use of the term

‘‘commuter operator’’ in part 93. The

commenter suggests that a new term be

invented for scheduled operations with

9 or fewer passenger seats or rotorcraft.

FAA Response: As was discussed in

Notice 95–5 and earlier in this

preamble, the term ‘‘commuter’’ is

presently used in several different ways.

The FAA agrees with the commenter

that the proposed definition does not

accommodate all of the different uses of

the term ‘‘commuter.’’ However,

operators of aircraft with 9 or fewer

passengers do provide frequent service

over short stage lengths and service to

small communities. Therefore, the term

is appropriate for these operations. The

FAA acknowledges that this definition

differs from the definition of ‘‘commuter

operator’’ in part 93 and from the DOT

definition. That inconsistency will

continue.

‘‘Domestic operation’’. Proposed

§ 119.3 defines ‘‘domestic operation’’ to

mean any scheduled operation in

specified airplanes ‘‘between any points

within the 48 contiguous States of the

United States or the District of

Columbia’’ (2)(i); ‘‘between any points

entirely within any State, territory, or

possession of the United States’’ (2)(ii);

or ‘‘between any point within the 48

contiguous States of the United States or

the District of Columbia and any

specifically authorized point located

outside the 48 contiguous States of the

United States or the District of

Columbia’’ (2)(iii).

The only comment received on this

proposed definition is the comment on

its inclusion of a tour operation that

departs from and returns to same point

which is discussed earlier. One change

in the proposed definition is replacing

the words ‘‘any required crewmember’’

with the words ‘‘each crewmember’’ to

be consistent with the treatment of the

single-engine Otter airplane as

previously discussed. Additionally, the

final rule has been slightly modified to

include some of the language currently

used in SFAR 38–2.

‘‘Flag operation’’. Proposed § 119.3

defined ‘‘flag operation’’ to mean a

scheduled operation conducted in

specified airplanes ‘‘between any point

within the State of Alaska or the State

of Hawaii or any territory or possession

of the United States and any point

outside the State of Alaska or the State

of Hawaii or any territory or possession

of the United States, respectively’’ (2)(i);

or ‘‘between any point within the 48

contiguous States of the United States or

the District of Columbia and any point

outside the 48 contiguous States or the

District of Columbia (2)(ii).

Comments: AACA comments that

currently Alaskan operations conducted

under part 121 are conducted under the

flag rules of part 121. According to the

commenter, a number of Alaska

operators currently hold operating

authority and operations specifications

to fly scheduled or charter service to

Canada, and to the Commonwealth of

Independent States (the Russian

Federation). The commenter states that

the rulemaking should clarify what

operating rules are to be used for

operations that previously operated

solely under flag rules. According to the

commenter, since most of the flights to

the Russian Federation are on-demand,

the impact of part 119 on these flights

needs to be thoroughly analyzed.

FAA Response: Other than minor

changes, the proposed definition of

‘‘flag operations’’ remains in the final

rule as proposed. Accordingly,

scheduled operations conducted under

part 121 between a point in Alaska to a

point outside of Alaska will be

considered flag operations. Scheduled

operations between a point in Alaska

and another point in Alaska will be

considered domestic operations. In fact,

scheduled operations from one point in

Alaska (or any other state) to the same

point are considered domestic

operations. Nonscheduled operations,

whether between points within Alaska

or between a point in Alaska and a point

outside of Alaska, will be considered

supplemental operations or on-demand.

One minor change in the definition

adds operations between two foreign

points to the list of locations included

as flag operations.

‘‘Maximum payload capacity’’. The

proposed definition for ‘‘maximum

payload capacity’’ is the same as the one

currently used in SFAR 38–2, except for

the allowances for determining the

standard average weights for

crewmembers.

Comments: GAMA comments that the

standard oil allowance of 350 pounds

found in the definition of ‘‘maximum

payload capacity’’ should be changed to

coincide with the type certificated oil

value. The commenter points out that

the 350 pound value greatly exceeds any

value found among present and future

10–19 passenger commuter airplane

designs. Fairchild suggests that the

definition refer to ‘‘full oil’’ and that the

specific 350 pound allowance should be

deleted. RAA states that the definition

uses obsolete values for minimum oil

and fuel and recommends that the FAA

eliminate the distinction in the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65881

definition between aircraft with and

without a maximum zero fuel weight

and eliminate specific minimum

weights for crewmembers, oil, and fuel.

FAA Response: In response to

comments on the standard oil

allowance, the FAA has revised the

standard oil allowance in the definition

of ‘‘maximum payload capacity’’ to add:

‘‘or the oil capacity as specified on the

Type Certificate Data Sheet.’’ The FAA

did not eliminate specific weights for

crewmembers, oil, and fuel from the

definition, as requested by commenters,

because these weights are necessary

guidelines for determining maximum

payload capacity. They are not

operational weight values but are used

merely to establish the air operator

certification and operation requirements

for all-cargo and combination of cargo

and passenger aircraft. This definition is

not used in the computation of weight

and balance.

‘‘On-demand operation’’ and

‘‘Supplemental operation’’. The

definitions of ‘‘on-demand operation’’

and ‘‘supplemental operation’’ were

rewritten for Notice 95–5 to make it

clearer which operations fall into these

categories. The proposed definitions did

not change significantly from current

rules or from the original 1988 NPRM,

except for one important difference.

Notice 95–5 does not change the basic

dividing line between on-demand and

supplemental operations. A

configuration of more than 30 passenger

seats or a payload capacity of more than

7,500 pounds is a supplemental

operation, while a configuration of 30 or

less passenger seats and a payload of

capacity of 7,500 pounds or less is an

on-demand operation. However, if a

specific airplane with a passengerseating configuration of 10 to 30 seats is

used in domestic or flag operations as a

result of this rule, any nonscheduled

operation conducted with that airplane

must be conducted under the part 121

supplemental rules, instead of under the

on-demand rules of part 135.

Comments: Fairchild Aircraft suggests

that airplanes’ switching between

regulatory parts should not be difficult

and asks that the FAA eliminate all

unnecessarily burdensome conformity,

equipment, and record checks.

FAA Response: This requirement is

necessary because an airplane must be

listed in a certificate holder’s operations

specifications as either a part 121 or a

part 135 airplane; it cannot be switched

back and forth between parts without a

major investment of time and resources

by both the certificate holder and the

FAA. Switching between parts entails

many things, including airplane

conformity checks, equipment checks,

and record checks. These are all

necessary checks that the FAA must

perform to fulfill its safety oversight

function.

Section 119.5—Certifications,

Authorizations, and Prohibitions. This

section identifies the type of certificate

(air carrier or operating) the

Administrator issues to certificate

holders, depending on the nature of

their operations, and specifies certain

authorizations and prohibitions

associated with those certificates for

specific types of certificate holders.

Comments: A commenter claims that

the distinction between the air carrier

certificate and the operating certificate

is ambiguous. He poses two questions:

‘‘Why would we prohibit a 737, 121

certificated, intrastate, common carriage

operator (who presumably would have

an operating certificate) from engaging

in other common carrier operations?’’

The second question is ‘‘why would we

prohibit a part 121 common carriage

operator with an air carrier certificate

from providing non-common carriage?’’

FAA Response: An intrastate common

carrier who wishes to conduct interstate

operations must first obtain economic

authority to conduct those operations

from the Department of Transportation.

Once that authority is granted, the FAA

would issue an air carrier certificate to

that operator if the FAA concluded that

the operator could safely conduct those

operations. In regard to the distinction

between common carriage and

noncommon carriage, the essential

difference is the presence or absence of

a holding out. The FAA believes that an

operator engaged in common carriage

(holding out) cannot unequivocally

claim that it can engage in a

noncommon carriage operation that

would not have benefited from the

holding out activities of the common

carriage operation.

Section 119.7—Operations

Specifications. In § 119.7 the FAA

proposed identifying items that must be

contained in each certificate holder’s

operations specifications. No comments

were received on this issue and the final

rule is adopted as proposed.

Section 119.9—Use of Business

Names. In this section, the FAA

proposed to prohibit certificate holders

that operate airplanes under part 121 or

135 from using a business name other

than the name appearing in a certificate

holder’s operations specifications. The

FAA proposed that the name of the

certificate holder conducting the

operation must be displayed on the

airplane and clearly visible and readable

to a person standing on the ground at

any time except during flight time, and

that the means of displaying the name

must be acceptable to the Administrator.

Comments: Gulfstream Air, NATA,

RAA, SP Aircraft, and two individuals

address the requirement to have the

certificate holder’s name on the aircraft.

Four recommend that the requirement

not apply to on-demand operations. One

opposes the requirement because, as an

on-demand operator, his customers

often do not want the name of an airline

appearing on the aircraft, but rather

prefer to arrive in what is believed to be

their corporate aircraft. One commenter

supports the proposal but recommends

that the name of the certificate holder

should be near to and visible from the

main cabin entry door, not just

anywhere on the aircraft. Commenters

request clarification of ‘‘clearly readable

and visible’’ since this could imply that

very large letters must be used. Also,

three commenters indicate that the

phrase ‘‘acceptable to the

Administrator’’ needs to be defined.

FAA Response: The purpose of this

requirement is for the FAA to be able to

identify, primarily for purposes of ramp

inspections, those who appear to have

operational control of the airplane.

Some carriers use names for their

businesses other than their corporate

name. These are often called ‘‘doingbusiness-as’’ or ‘‘DBA’’ names. All of a

certificate holder’s DBA names must be

listed in its operations specifications. A

certificate holder may also paint a DBA

name on the outside of the aircraft.

However, in order to be in compliance

with this section, the certificate holder’s

name must also appear on the outside

of the aircraft.

Because this regulation applies to

airplanes ranging in size from a small

reciprocating-engine-powered airplane

to a Boeing 747, it is not practical for the

FAA to define the size letters that would

be required. Any means of identification

which satisfies this requirement is

acceptable, including signs temporarily

affixed in windows or on the door or

fuselage of the airplane.

The term ‘‘acceptable to the

Administrator’’ is interpreted to mean

acceptable to an authorized

representative of the Administrator. In

this case, a certificate holder’s principal

inspector would determine if the means

of displaying the name is acceptable,

based on written guidance from FAA

Headquarters. The final rule is the same

as proposed.

Section 119.21—Direct air carriers

and commercial operators engaged in

intrastate common carriage with

airplanes. Section 119.21 contains the

regulatory roadmap that requires

domestic, flag, and supplemental

operations to be conducted under part
65882 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

121 and commuter and on-demand

operations to be conducted under part

135. Section 119.21(a)(3) states that the

Administrator may authorize or require

that (1) Certain certificate holders

conducting supplemental operations

between airports that are also served by

the air carrier’s domestic or flag

operations, conduct those operations

under the domestic or flag rules; and (2)

certain all-cargo operations that

regularly and frequently serve the same

two airports may be required to be

conducted under the domestic or flag

rules.

Comments: The National Air Carrier

Association (NACA) recommends

deleting ‘‘or require’’ in the second

sentence of proposed § 119.21(a)(3). The

language goes far beyond the current

language of SFAR 38–2.4(a)(3) or part

121 in its application to supplemental

passenger operations conducted

‘‘between points that are also served by

the certificate holder’s domestic or flag

operations.’’ The preamble does not

provide sufficient explanation or

justification to require the application of

domestic or flag operating requirements

to supplemental passenger operations

that are operated over routes where an

operator also has domestic or flag

operations. There are sufficient

economic and operational safeguards

already in place to preclude abuse.

NACA believes that what ‘‘may be

required’’ will quickly become ‘‘what is

required,’’ with the FAA unilaterally

imposing the requirement to operate

certain nonscheduled passenger

operations under domestic or flag rules.

There is no safety or accident history to

justify more restrictive regulations.

NACA concurs that frequency of service

between a pair of points should not be

the criterion for determining which

rules apply.

FAA Response: The FAA concurs

with the comments from NACA on the

wording of the rule and the words ‘‘or

require’’ have been removed in the final

rule.

Section 119.25—Rotorcraft

operations. Section 119.25 directs that

all rotorcraft operations be conducted

under part 135 regardless of the size or

seating capacity of the rotorcraft.

However, external-load operators and

agricultural aircraft operators must

comply with part 133 or part 137 of the

FAR, respectively.

Notice 95–5 proposed to rescind part

127 because rotorcraft operators that

previously operated under part 127 are

directed in § 119.25 to conduct those

operations under part 135. Part 135 has

been more recently updated and,

therefore, provides a more appropriate

level of safety for rotorcraft operators

than part 127.

Comments: HAI opposes removing

part 127 at this time. HAI supports a

review and update of this part in the

future, but states that to simply remove

this part now would be to allow the

certificate-issuing district office

unlimited discretionary powers in the

design of appropriate operations

specifications.

FAA Response: Part 127 is not a

current part because SFAR 38–2

directed all rotorcraft operators to

conduct their operations under part 135.

Appropriate operations specifications

for each certificate holder operating

either airplanes or any size rotorcraft are

developed by FAA Headquarters. The

standard paragraphs are completely

designed by Headquarters, while

nonstandard paragraphs are reviewed

and concurred on by Headquarters.

Therefore, the certificate-holding

district office does not have unlimited

discretionary powers.

Section 119.33—General

requirements. In § 119.33 the FAA

proposed that applicants for certificates

be required to conduct the proving tests

required for certification under the

appropriate requirements of part 121 or

part 135. The purpose of the tests is to

demonstrate (as one of the last steps in

the certification process) that the

applicant is qualified and eligible to

receive a certificate. The change permits

applicants to complete the certification

process without having to obtain either

a deviation or certification to conduct

operations under part 125. The FAA

also proposed to amend §§ 121.163,

125.1, and 135.145 to make the proving

test requirements consistent in those

parts. No comments were received on

these § 119.33 issues and the final rule

is adopted as proposed.

Section 119.35—Certificate

application. This section requires a

certificate applicant to submit the

application 90 days prior to the

intended date of operation instead of the

current standard of 60 days. This length

of time accounts for the actual amount

of time required by the FAA to properly

process applications and to allow for

agency documentation in the formal

review period.

Paragraphs (c) through (h) of this

section are a recodification of §§ 121.47,

121.48, and 121.49, which deal

generally with the disclosure of

financial information and of people/

entities that would control the new

certificate holder, applicable only to two

categories of carriers: those who are not

air carriers and those applying for

authority to engage in intrastate

common carriage but have not

undergone fitness review by the

Department of Transportation. The FAA

believes that these requirements are

crucial to ensuring safety by providing

a check of financial, management, and

other information about of the certificate

holder and his or her ability to conduct

safe operations.

Comments: NATA expresses concern

about the utility of requiring detailed

financial reporting, because safety

problems are ‘‘more appropriately

discovered through operational

inspections’’ than through financial

data. SP Aircraft comments that

requiring detailed financial reporting

seems excessive for small craft operators

of on demand service since this

requirement has not been proposed

before now, and no explanation was

provided for it in Notice 95–5. This

commenter shares the concern that the

reporting of financial records would in

no way enhance the safety of operations

that the FAA claims this proposal

serves. Additionally, the commenter

criticizes the requirement for insurance

in that requiring the applicant to have

insurance prior to submitting the

application is an unnecessary burden

due to the uncertain time span before

application and review is complete.

Thus, it recommends requiring that

insurance should be in place before

operations begin.

Fairchild Aircraft comments that

§ 119.35 fails to define the requirements

for submitting detailed financial data,

and recommends that the FAA establish

the minimum qualifications that must

be met under part 119, subpart C.

FAA Response: The financial

reporting requirements in § 119.35(c)

through (h) apply only to persons who

are not air carriers, commonly called

‘‘commercial operators,’’ and who are

applying for authority to engage in

intrastate common carriage but have not

undergone a fitness review by the

Department of Transportation. The rule

language has been updated to make it

consistent with new definitions and

certification requirements applicable to

these operators. For persons applying

for authority to conduct intrastate

common carriage operations under part

135 these would be new requirements,

as commenters point out. The FAA

believes these requirements are

necessary because financial information,

management information, and

information concerning who controls

the certificate holder can reveal

potential shortcomings on the

applicant’s ability to conduct a safe

operation. The requirement for

insurance information in § 119.35(h)(7)

provides that the applicant report the

period of coverage, not that it be in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65883

effect before the application is

submitted. Therefore the date that

insurance coverage begins can be

coordinated with the estimated date that

operations begin. In order to make it

clear that § 119.35 (c) through (h) apply

only to applicants who are commercial

operators, the final rule includes cross

references within paragraphs (c) through

(h), and paragraphs (g) and (h) have

been switched.

Section 119.41—Amending a

certificate. FAA proposed new

procedures for making changes to the

operating certificate. These procedures,

modeled after 49 U.S.C. Section 44709

and similar to the procedures used to

amend operations specifications, would

standardize the amendment process.

Applications for amendments to

certificates would have to be submitted

15 days in advance of the time the

operator wants the amendments to be

effective, unless the Administrator

approves a shorter period when

circumstances warrant. No comments

were received on this issue and the final

rule is adopted as proposed.

Section 119.47—Maintaining a

principal base of operations, main

operations base, and main maintenance

base; change of address. Section 119.47

requires that a certificate holder

maintain a principal base of operations

and allows the certificate holder to

establish a main operation and main

maintenance base. Written notification

must be provided to the certificateholding district office before

establishing or relocating a principal

base of operation, a main operations

base, or a main maintenance base. The

proposed terminology clarified that the

FAA needs to know the location of the

primary point of contact between the

FAA and the certificate holder.

Certificate holders would no longer be

required to report changes of address for

business offices. No comments were

received on this issue and the final rule

is adopted as proposed.

Section 119.49—Contents of

operations specifications. Section

119.49 requires that each certificate

holder obtain operations specifications

that list other business names under

which the certificate holder may

operate. Under part 121, there are no

restrictions on the use of alternate

business names on their operating

certificates. Part 135 currently requires

certificate holders to list their alternate

business names on their operating

certificates. The FAA proposed to

require that alternate business names be

shown on the operations specifications

rather than on the operating certificate.

No comments were received on this

issue and the final rule is adopted as

proposed.

Section 119.49 adds the requirement

that operations specifications contain a

reference to the economic authority

issued by the OST. The economic

authority issued by the OST is not a

new requirement; the FAA proposed

this reference to clarify that the

requirement still exists. No comments

were received on this issue and the final

rule is adopted as proposed.

Section 119.49 also requires a

certificate holder conducting domestic,

flag, or commuter operations to obtain

operations specifications that list each

type of aircraft authorized for use and

each aircraft’s registration markings and

serial number. Under part 121, the

requirement to list registration markings

is not required for domestic, flag, or

commuter operations. The FAA

proposed this requirement in the

interest of consistency and to facilitate

FAA enforcement and surveillance

functions. No comments were received

on this issue and the final rule is

adopted as proposed.

Section 119.51—Amending

Operations Specifications. Under

§ 119.51 applications for amendments to

operations specifications would have to

be submitted 15 days in advance for

minor or routine amendments; however

the FAA proposed to require that

certificate holders file applications to

amend operations specifications at least

90 days before the date proposed by the

applicant for the amendment to become

effective in cases of mergers; acquisition

or airline operational assets that require

an additional showing of safety (e.g.,

proving tests); changes in the kind of

operation as defined in § 119.3;

resumption of operations following a

suspension of operations as a result of

bankruptcy actions; or the initial

introduction of aircraft not before

proven for use in air carrier or

commercial operator operations. It has

been the FAA’s experience that these

types of major changes do take at least

90 days for the agency to determine that,

as a result of the change, the applicant

is properly and adequately equipped

and is able to conduct a safe operation.

Under § 119.51(b), if the

Administrator initiates an amendment

to operations specifications, the

certificate holder would have 7 days to

submit written information or

arguments on the amendment.

Under § 119.51(d), a certificate holder

may petition for reconsideration of a

decision on an amendment to

operations specifications. If the

amendment is not related to an

emergency situation, the petition

suspends the effectiveness of the

amendment.

Comments: USAIR Express, RAA,

Mesa, ASA address the required lead

times proposed for making either

desired or directed changes to

operations specifications. Commenters

state that the proposed requirements to

file an air carrier-desired operations

specifications change 90 days before the

effective date is excessive. Additionally,

the requirement to respond to changes

in operations specifications within 7

days when directed by the

Administrator and complete

implementation within 30 days is

unreasonable.

An individual, ASA, and RAA

indicate that the proposed language in

§ 119.51(d) would not permit the

continuation of the practice of staying

the effectiveness of an amendment

when an air carrier submits a petition

for reconsideration. The commenters

recommend that the petition for

reconsideration stay the effective date of

an amendment pending the final review

of the petition.

FAA Response: In response to

comments that a request to change

operations specifications must be filed

90 days in advance of the desired

effective date, the FAA will add ‘‘unless

a shorter time is approved’’ to

§ 119.51(c)(1)(i) so as not to imply that

a carrier must allow the full 90 days.

The rest of paragraph (c) reflects current

part 121 and part 135 language and is

adopted as proposed.

Since § 119.51(d)(3) clearly states that,

if a petition for reconsideration is filed

within 30 days and if no emergency

situation exists, the effectiveness of an

amendment to operations specifications

issued by the certificate-holding district

office is stayed pending final review of

the petition. The procedures for

emergency situations, spelled out in

paragraph (e), are not substantially

different than currently found in

§§ 121.79 and 135.17. Therefore there

will be no changes to current

procedures as a result of new § 119.51

(d) and (e).

Section 119.53—Wet leasing of

aircraft and other transportation by air

arrangements. Proposed § 119.53 on wet

leasing would be revised from current

§ 121.6 to do the following: (1) clarify

that the leasing requirements pertain

only to wet leasing (which is defined in

§ 119.3 as a lease of an aircraft that

includes the provision of any

crewmember); (2) extend the wet leasing

requirements to part 135 operations; (3)

prohibit a wet lease from a foreign air

carrier or any other foreign person; (4)

prohibit a wet lease from any person not

authorized to engage in common
65884 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

carriage; (5) specify that the

Administrator, upon approval of the wet

lease, would determine which party to

the agreement has operational control

and would amend the appropriate

operations specifications of both parties,

if necessary; and (6) allow a wet lease

charter flight to transport passengers

who are stranded because of the

cancellation of their scheduled flight,

provided that the wet lease flight is

authorized by OST or the Administrator,

as applicable, and that the charter flight

is conducted under the rules applicable

to a supplemental or on-demand

operation. These clarifications reflect for

the most part current administrative

procedures.

Comments: NACA proposes

reorganization of § 119.53, including a

new paragraph regarding operations

specifications for short term wet leases

(short term substitute service) that could

occur without prior FAA approval in a

situation where there is insufficient

time to permit compliance with the

usual requirements for a wet lease.

USAir Express sees this issue as an

example of part 119 addressing changes

which are not relevant to the goal of

bringing commuter operations up to the

standards of part 121, and imposing

new restrictions on wet lease activities

at the same time. This company finds

fault with the fact that § 119.53 requires

certificate holders conducting

operations to be held to the same

operations authorities as certificate

holders arranging for the substitute

operations.

British Airways objects to § 119.53

because it prohibits any wet leasing to

U.S. carriers from foreign air carriers

without any safety justification. British

Airways sees this prohibition as

interfering with healthy competitive

relationships between carriers in an

international market. Japan Airlines

agrees with British Airways’ point and

adds that this ‘‘discriminatory’’

prohibition contradicts the Department

of Transportation’s economic

regulations providing for wet leasing of

aircraft by foreign air carriers to U.S. air

carriers. Japan Airlines argues that

foreign air carriers are permitted to

operate aircraft in the U.S. only if they

meet rigorous requirements of part 129

of the FAA regulations, which would

imply that these aircraft are safe. Japan

Airlines also claims that this regulation

might be contrary to a friendship treaty

between the United States and Japan.

The company suggests that the FAA

address any specific foreign carrier

safety concerns with something other

than a blanket prohibition of the type

proposed.

FAA Response: The changes to

current requirements for wet leasing in

§ 119.53 codify existing FAA policy on

wet leasing. The FAA requires operators

conducting wet leasing operations to

hold operations specifications for the

same kind of operation as that being

conducted in order to be sure that the

operator is qualified to conduct that

kind of operation. Since foreign air

carriers may conduct operations only

under part 129, they do not hold

operations specifications for current

part 121 or part 135 certificate holders

and, therefore, may not conduct wet

leasing operations for part 121 or part

135 certificate holders. The FAA is

considering NACA’s suggestion

regarding short term wet leasing and

intends to request that ARAC develop

recommendations on this issue.

Regulatory language is amended to

allow short notice wet lease operations

to be conducted prior to providing

information required by § 119.53(c).

Section 119.55—Obtaining deviation

authority to perform operations under a

U.S. military contract. Proposed

§ 119.55 establishes a new procedure to

obtain deviation authority to perform

under a U.S. military contract. This

would require the certificate holder to

submit this deviation authority request

to DOD’s Air Mobility Command

(AMC), who would review the request

and, in turn, forward it and the AMC

recommendation on to the FAA for final

review. The logic behind having the

AMC review this is to provide an

additional, and more efficient,

evaluation by a more qualified authority

on the needs of the military operation.

Comments: One commenter expresses

concern about the FAA’s need to have

the AMC serve as an extra check on

FAA knowledge of deviation authority.

The commenter states that adding

another agency to the process does not

serve the interest of readiness, for

during military operations, the demands

from the military come ‘‘fast and furious

with many changes.’’

FAA Response: As the FAA explained

in Notice 95–5, during the Desert

Shield/Desert Storm operations, the

agency was inundated with requests for

deviations. The AMC has the resources

to consolidate these requests, identify

the specific regulations from which

relief is sought, and evaluate the

requests to determine whether the relief

sought would be needed to accomplish

the military mission. This procedure

will enable the agency to process these

requests more efficiently, should the

need arise in the future.

Emergency Operations (§§ 119.57 &

119.58). These two proposed new

sections generally recodify §§ 121.57(c),

121.557, 121.559, and 135.19. Section

119.57 addresses emergency situations

where it is impossible for the certificate

holder who intends to conduct

emergency operations to act without

thorough and complex planning, such

as during natural disasters like floods or

earthquakes. Section 119.58 is tailored

to emergency operations where

thorough and complex planning are

inherently impossible due to the critical

issue of time and the nature of the

emergency.

Comments: Three commenters

express concern about this proposed

section. One of the commenters believes

that this consolidation of two related yet

distinct categories would cause

confusion: ‘‘Section 119.57 relates to

certificate authority to conduct certain

operations on an emergency approval

basis, while § 119.58 relates to

emergency operational situations that

may require emergency deviation from

prescribed procedures and methods,

weather minimums, and FARs to the

extent required for flight safety.’’ The

commenter recommends renaming

§ 119.57 to read ‘‘Obtaining Emergency

Deviation Authority to Perform

Unapproved Operations’’ and § 119.58

to be ‘‘Operational Emergencies

Requiring Immediate Decision and

Action.’’ Additionally, the commenter

expresses concern that § 119.58(b) needs

to be modified to more clearly reflect

dispatcher capability/responsibility,

joint responsibility, and a cross-check

mechanism to ensure critical

operational decisions are not made at

the exclusion of safety.

Another commenter states that while

he supports the NPRM, he believes that

this recodification would cause greater

confusion and contradict the purpose of

existing safety rules because it goes

beyond the scope of the NPRM. He

claims that ‘‘[t]he two types of

‘Emergency Authority’ are of totally

different contexts, are truly irrelevant to

each other and there is no apparent

advantage to this proposed

modification’’; hence, this proposed

action is ‘‘clearly unwarranted.’’

The Airline Dispatchers Federation

objects to the recodification of

§§ 121.557, 121.559, and 135.19 as new

§ 119.58 on the grounds that emergency

procedures are an operational issue, not

a certification issue and thus should be

located in the operational rules of part

121 and 135.

FAA Response: The FAA accepts the

commenters’ suggestions. Therefore

§ 119.58 does not appear in final part

119. Instead §§ 121.557, 121.559 and

135.19 will be retained in parts 121 and

135. However, the substance of

proposed § 119.57 on obtaining
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65885

deviation authority for certain

emergency operations does not appear

in current part 121 or part 135.

Therefore, this section is retained in the

final rule. This new section will provide

procedures for such situations as the

recent hurricane in the U.S. Virgin

Islands. Deviation authority was needed

in order to allow rescue and supply

flights into and out of damaged airports.

Section 119.59—Conducting tests and

inspections. In § 119.59, the FAA

proposed language to emphasize both

the authority of FAA inspectors to gain

access to a certificate holder’s books and

records and the fact that a certificate

holder risks suspension of part or all of

its operations specifications if it fails to

provide that access. Without access to

those records, the FAA cannot fulfill its

safety mission. No comments were

received on this issue and the final rule

is adopted as proposed.

Section 119.61—Duration of

certificate and operations specifications.

Section 119.61 sets out the conditions

under which certificates or operations

specifications become ineffective.

Comments: Two commenters

recommend that when operations

specifications are changed or

superseded, the carrier should be

required to surrender the obsolete

copies to the FAA. This would preclude

the chance of outdated operations

specifications being in the hands of the

‘‘field operators.’’

FAA Response: It is the responsibility

of the certificate holder to have

procedures in place to ensure that the

most current copies of the operations

specifications are adequately and

accurately distributed. The FAA is not

requiring that outdated operations

specifications be surrendered to the

FAA because of the administrative

burden that such a requirement would

entail. However, the FAA has decided to

incorporate into § 119.61 a new

paragraph (c), which contains the

§ 135.35 language for surrender of

operations specifications and certificate

if a certificate holder terminates

business.

Section 119.63—Recency of

operation. Proposed § 119.63 would

prohibit a certificate holder from

conducting a kind of operation if that

kind of operation has not been

conducted for a period of 30

consecutive days. The certificate holder

must advise the Administrator at least 5

consecutive calendar days prior to

resumption of that kind of operation

and make itself available for any FAA

reexamination that the FAA considers

necessary.

Comments: Eight commenters address

this proposed requirement. One says

that 30 days is too short a period and

recommends a 6–12 month period.

NACA recommends a 6-month period.

Comair comments that the requirement

is burdensome to active air carriers

wanting to conduct supplemental

operations; this commenter says that the

requirement should be changed to apply

to certificate holders or air carriers who

have not conducted any operations, not

just a particular kind of operation, in the

previous 30 calendar days. A similar

comment is made by another individual.

NACA comments that this requirement

is burdensome to air carriers conducting

any type of operation (domestic, flag, or

supplemental), especially to carriers

who provide these services under shortterm, short notice wet leases. USAir

Express states that the proposed rule

would seriously impact the ability of

part 121 domestic and flag operators to

conduct occasional supplemental

operations since these operations are

often required on less than 5 days

notice. Also, since many part 121

certificate holders conduct their

supplemental operations using the same

procedures as their scheduled

operations, there is no benefit from this

requirement. SP Aircraft says that the

requirement would be burdensome to

on-demand small aircraft operators and

to the FAA and that the rule should

provide relief for these certificate

holders.

Mesa and RAA point out that the

proposed rule is unclear in its use of the

term ‘‘kind of operation’’ and

recommend that the FAA define this

term.

FAA Response: In response to

comments, the FAA has made the

following changes to § 119.63 in the

final rule:

If part 121 and part 135 scheduled

operators do not conduct scheduled

operations for more than 30 days, the 5-

day notification provision would apply.

For part 121 and 135 scheduled

operators, no notification is required to

conduct supplemental or on-demand

operations provided they continue to

conduct scheduled operations without

being dormant for more than 30 days.

Part 121 supplemental operators or

part 135 on-demand operators who have

not conducted supplemental or ondemand operations for more than 90

days must notify the FAA at least 5 days

before resuming operations.

In response to the comment to define

‘‘kind of operations,’’ § 119.3 defines

five kinds of operation as one of the

various operations a certificate holder is

authorized to conduct as specified in

the operations specifications; that is,

domestic, flag, supplemental,

commuter, or on-demand.

Management Requirements (Proposed

Sections 119.65 through 119.71). Notice

95–5 proposed to consolidate

management personnel requirements for

operations conducted under part 135 or

part 121 into new part 119 and to apply

management personnel requirements to

domestic and flag operations. The

management personnel requirements for

operations conducted under part 135

(§§ 119.69 and 119.71) would be

substantially the same as those currently

in §§ 135.37 and 135.39. The

management personnel requirements for

operations conducted under part 121

(§§ 119.65 and 119.67) would be similar

to those currently in §§ 121.59 and

121.61, which now apply only to

supplemental operations.

The only significant changes under

the proposed management requirements

for part 121 and part 135 are as follows:

Director of safety. The FAA proposed

that each certificate holder that

conducts operations under part 121

must have a director of safety. This

person would be responsible for keeping

the highest management officials of the

certificate holder fully informed about

the safety status of the certificate

holder’s entire operation. The FAA

believes that an independent, full time

position is important if at all available

or possible. However, it recognizes that

in smaller operations, the director of

safety function may be an additional

function of a current manager. Section

119.65(b) provides flexibility in the

requirements for positions and number

of positions for management personnel,

including the director of safety.

Director of operations. The FAA

proposed for § 119.67(a) to require a

director of operations to have both 3

years experience as a PIC of an aircraft

under part 121 or part 135 and 3 years

supervisory experience in a position

that exercised control over any

operations conducted with aircraft

under part 121 or part 135.

In the case of a person becoming a

director of operations for the first time,

the FAA proposed that the PIC

experience in large aircraft be recent,

i.e., 3 years of experience within the

past 6 years. (See proposed

§ 119.67(a)(3)(i).) Additionally, for all

directors of operation under part 121,

the minimum of 3 years of supervisory

or managerial experience must have

been obtained within the last 6 years.

(See proposed § 119.67(a)(2).)

Additionally, for operations

conducted under part 135, the FAA

proposed that the director of operations

have the following experience:

(1) At least 3 years of supervisory or

managerial experience within the last 6

years, in a position that exercised
65886 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

operational control over any operations

conducted under part 121 or part 135;

or

(2) For a person with previous

experience as a director of operations, at

least 3 years experience as a PIC of

aircraft operated under part 121 or part

135; or for a person becoming a director

of operations for the first time, the 3

years of PIC experience must have been

obtained within the past 6 years.

Director of maintenance. To

standardize the certificates required for

the director of maintenance, proposed

§ 119.67(c) and 119.71(e) would require

that a director of maintenance hold a

current mechanic certificate with both

airframe and powerplant ratings.

Also, the requirement in present

§ 135.39(c) that the required experience

in maintaining aircraft must include the

recency requirements of § 65.83 has

been added to proposed § 119.67(c) and

carried over to proposed § 119.71(e).

Chief pilot. Proposed § 119.71(c)(1)

and (d)(1) omitted the word ‘‘current’’

from existing § 135.39(b)(1) and (b)(2)

because these pilot certificates no longer

have an expiration date and are revoked

only for cause. The words ‘‘and be

qualified to serve as PIC in at least one

type of aircraft used in the certificate

holder’s operation’’ are added to clarify

that the chief pilot must meet recency

of experience requirements and medical

requirements.

In addition to holding the appropriate

certificate, in order to be eligible to be

a chief pilot in part 121 or 135

operations, a person must have at least

3 years experience as a PIC of aircraft

operated under parts 121 or 135.

However, if that person is becoming a

chief pilot for the first time, the 3 years

experience must have been obtained

within the previous 6 years.

Chief inspector. Proposed § 119.67(d)

requires a chief inspector for each

operator conducting part 121

operations. In addition to the existing

eligibility requirements, the chief

inspector would be required to have at

least 1 year of experience in a

supervisory position maintaining large

aircraft.

Deviation authority. Proposed

§§ 119.67(e) and 119.71(f) authorize the

Manager of the Flight Standards

Division in the region of the certificateholding district office to authorize a

certificate holder to employ a person

who does not meet the qualifications in

proposed §§ 119.67 or 119.71. For a

certificate holder or applicant that

wants to employ a person who does not

hold the required airman certificate

(e.g., ATP certificate, commercial pilot

certificate, airframe and powerplant

certificate), the deviation authority

sections would not cover such a lack of

airman certification situation. The

deviation authority provides a means for

competent and qualified personnel who

do not meet the management personnel

qualifications to be employed in

required positions.

Comments: A number of commenters

responded to the proposed management

requirements for part 119. These are

discussed below.

Director of Safety. United Express

comments that the creation of the

director of safety position is in the best

interest of the flying public but that the

position’s responsibilities will depend

on airline size, equipment, and type of

operations. This commenter says that

for small certificate holders, the chief

pilot or current director of operations

could assume the duties. United Express

also says that this position should

qualify under current § 121.61.

NTSB and several other commenters

say that the director of safety should be

independent from operational functions

and have direct access to the highest

levels of management.

ALPA recommends that in codesharing operations, the director of safety

should report directly to the mainline

Safety Vice President; if a code sharer

does not have a director of safety, then

code-sharing pilots should have access

to the mainline safety organization.

ALPA also recommends that the

director of safety maintain a toll free

telephone hotline. In addition, ALPA

recommends that the director of safety’s

qualifications include at least 3 years of

supervisory experience and possession

of one of the following: an Airline

Transport Pilot (ATP) license, Airframe

and Powerplant (A & P) license or

Dispatcher license, or demonstration of

other approved equivalent aeronautical

training.

Fairchild states that a separate

director of safety position is

unnecessarily burdensome and that

safety is a concern of all managers. This

commenter recommends changing

§ 119.65(a) so that the director of safety

is not required to be a full-time position.

Comair, ASA, Gulfstream, and RAA

say that § 119.67 does not provide any

qualification requirements for the

director of safety. These commenters

request that the FAA permit certificate

holders to designate directors of safety

based upon their needs and without an

FAA approval process.

Big Sky Airlines and NATA

recommend that smaller certificate

holders be allowed to combine the

director of safety position with an

already existing position. Metro

International Airways also points out

the burden of this requirement on small

certificate holders (e.g., those with 10–

15 employees or one or two aircraft).

This commenter recommends that these

certificate holders be allowed to

determine which management

personnel, especially the director of

safety and chief inspector, are needed

and to combine these and other

positions as well.

One commenter recommends that

smaller operations be permitted to

employ contracted or part-time safety

officers who could act for more than one

carrier. This could reduce these

certificate holders’ financial burden

associated with hiring additional

personnel.

One commenter recommends that the

director of safety have direct

communication paths with dispatch,

maintenance, flight attendant, and

ground operations.

Samoa Air also points out that the

requirement for additional management

personnel for certificate holders with

three or fewer aircraft is burdensome

and that a proper internal evaluation

program should keep management

informed of the certificate holder’s

safety status.

One commenter says that § 119.69

does not require a part 135 certificate

holder to have a director of safety and

that this position should be required for

these certificate holders.

One commenter recommends that the

director of safety be excluded from

enforcement action similar to the

Aviation Safety Reporting System under

§ 91.25.

Inter Island recommends that the

safety officer be any line pilot with 6

months experience with the company

and that this position be kept from the

working ranks of line pilots. According

to the commenter, this function should

not be given to the chief pilot or director

of operations.

Other comments on management

requirements: USAir Express says that

the requirements of this proposed

section are burdensome to large

certificate holders because it imposes

requirements which are designed for

small certificate holders onto these large

certificate holders. This commenter

states that large certificate holders might

have many positions at the Vice

President or Director’s level to fulfill

these management functions that a

small certificate holder would fulfill

through the positions of director of

operations, director of maintenance,

chief pilot or chief inspector. This

commenter also notes that the

management of large carriers is more

complex, involving knowledge of such

areas as labor relations, legal issues,

finance, and quality assurance. To
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65887

assume that these subjects can be

mastered while also obtaining the

required number of years of experience

for each management position is

unrealistic. Finally, this commenter

objects to the explanation of deviation

authority regarding the allowance of

unlicensed persons to hold management

positions and says that it is inconsistent

with the language of the proposed rule

itself.

Fairchild Aircraft finds § 119.67 to be

more stringent than its corresponding

section in part 121 (§ 121.61). This

commenter suggests that § 119.67(a)(1)

be changed to allow the director of

operations to hold or have held an ATP

certificate and also to delete the words

‘‘large aircraft’’ in order to recognize

that not all former part 135 certificate

holders have been operating large

airplanes.

RAA and many other commenters

support ‘‘grandfathering’’ existing key

management personnel in the wake of

the proposed rule’s more stringent

experience and qualification

requirements. These commenters point

out that existing personnel, such as the

directors of operations and

maintenance, chief pilot, and chief

inspector, may already possess excellent

management skills, and that to hire new

personnel would be unnecessary and

burdensome. Action Airlines suggests

that instead of having to replace existing

personnel when air carriers upgrade

their equipment, they should have the

option to get deviation or wavier

authority and continue to use existing

directors of operations, chief pilots, and

directors of maintenance.

Metro International Airways states

that the addition of management

personnel would have a significant

impact on operators that only operate

two or three affected aircraft. The

positions of chief inspector can be

handled effectively by the director of

maintenance. With such a small fleet of

aircraft, the chief inspector would spend

many hours idle. Also, a small

commuter is more likely to contract out

most, if not all, maintenance functions.

In this situation, the director of

maintenance could easily oversee that

all work is completed to FAA standards

and signed off by an appropriate person

with an IA rating.

The commenter also opposes the

proposed increase in management

experience, indicating it will have a

significant impact on small and

proposed commuter airlines. Not only

will higher wages be needed to attract

those applicants that have the necessary

experience, but the operators will need

to lure those who qualify from secure

positions within the industry. The

commenter requests that the FAA define

‘‘large,’’ stating there is a difference

between a B747 and a Beech 1900C. The

commenter recommends that the FAA

retain the part 135 provision that allows

the combinations of one or more of the

required management personnel. As the

airline grows it is understandable that

the management functions would

separate and the manager’s experience

level would rise. The addition of a chief

inspector and a director of safety would

create a top heavy airline that could not

operate at a reasonable cost. Combining

these positions must be allowed so new

entrants with small fleets will have the

chance to build an organization proudly

serving the public and the public’s

interest.

American supports modifying the

minimum requirements for director of

operations, chief pilot, director of

maintenance, and chief inspector under

§ 135.37 operations to reflect part 121

standards.

One commenter objects to the

proposed requirement that a director of

maintenance have 5 years experience in

the past 5 years because it could

disqualify those in management

positions who may have been the

victims of downsizing and companies

going out of business.

One commenter disagrees with the 6-

year currency requirement for the 3

years as PIC (under proposed

§ 119.67(a)) for a person becoming a

director of operations for the first time.

This commenter believes that PIC time

is much more relevant to a director of

operations’ administrative

responsibilities and that the currency

requirement should apply to the chief

pilot, whose function is much more

technical. This commenter also

disagrees with proposed § 119.71(c)(1)

and (d)(1) which exempts the chief pilot

from being qualified to serve as PIC in

operations conducted under part 121.

He believes that since the chief pilot is

directly responsible for the proficiency

of the pilots, he should be able to serve

in this capacity.

Commuter Air Technologies says that

4 years in an aircraft type is more

important than 4 years in maintaining a

large aircraft as qualification for chief

inspector. This commenter adds that

small certificate holders rely on senior

maintenance personnel, such as,

director and chief inspector, for

technical and administrative leadership

and that experience in aircraft type

would better provide this type of

experience and skill as opposed to

experience in maintaining large aircraft.

Similarly, one commenter objects to the

use of the phrase ‘‘large aircraft’’ when

many commuter predecessors are not

‘‘large’’ aircraft (by the definition of

SFAR 41); this could exclude qualifying

excellent candidates from such

management positions as director of

operations, chief pilot, and director of

maintenance.

FAA Response: The FAA contends

that most currently employed directors

meet the new standards. For those

directors who do not, § 119.67(e) allows

operators to request authorization from

their district office for the continued

employment of those directors.

However, note that §§ 119.67(e) and

119.71(f) provide for exceptions from

experience requirements, but not from

requirements to hold necessary

certificates. The FAA anticipates that

most operators whose directors do not

meet the new requirements will request

authorization and that those requests

will be granted. The FAA agrees that in

some cases the proposed recency

requirements would place an

unnecessary burden on those directors

who may have extended periods of

unemployment prior to being hired.

Thus, for the final rule, the FAA is

changing some of the recency

requirements. The final rule also

standardizes the language as much as

possible between operations and

airworthiness management positions.

The final rule gives relief for those

operators who do not operate large

aircraft.

The FAA will develop handbook

guidance on management personnel to

provide FAA inspectors with criteria to

respond to requests concerning issues

raised by commenters, such as the

combining of certain positions in the

case of small operators. In analyzing

such requests, the FAA will consider

the number of airplanes being operated,

the number of employees, the

complexity of the operation, the ability

of the operator to perform required

tasks, and the equivalent level of safety.

The final rule contains the following

requirements:

Director of Safety

The major carriers have told FAA that

they already have established this

position and are already fulfilling this

function. For other operations,

§ 119.65(b) provides flexibility for

establishing this position.

Director of Operations

Section 119.67 requires 3 years of

experience as PIC of a large airplane

operated under part 121 or part 135 of

this chapter when the certificate holder

operates large airplanes. If the certificate

holder uses only small airplanes in its

operation, the experience may be

obtained in either large or small
65888 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

airplanes. For first time applicants, both

§§ 119.67 and 119.71 require that the 3

years PIC experience must have been

obtained within the past 6 years.

Chief Pilot

Section 119.67 requires 3 years of

experience as PIC of a large airplane

operated under part 121 or part 135 of

this chapter when the certificate holder

operates large airplanes. If the certificate

holder uses only small airplanes in its

operation, the experience may be

obtained in either large or small

airplanes. For first time applicants, both

§§ 119.67 and 119.71 require that the 3

years PIC experience must have been

obtained within the past 6 years.

Director of Maintenance

Section 119.67 requires 3 years of

experience within the last 6 years in

maintaining or repairing aircraft.

Section 119.71 requires 3 years of

experience within any amount of time

in maintaining or repairing aircraft. The

requirement in § 119.67(c)(4)(i) that the

director of maintenance have experience

in maintaining ‘‘large aircraft’’ has been

changed to ‘‘aircraft with 10 or more

passenger seats’’ to provide for

maintenance experience acquired by

work for an affected commuter.

Chief Inspector

The requirement in § 119.67(d)(2) and

(d)(3) that the chief inspector have

experience in maintaining ‘‘large

aircraft’’ has been changed to ‘‘aircraft

with 10 or more passenger seats’’ to

provide for maintenance experience

acquired by work for an affected

commuter.

Derivation and distribution tables.

The purpose of the revisions to part 121,

Subparts A, B, C, and D, and part 135,

Subpart A, is to delete all sections

which have been moved to part 119,

such as requirements using outdated

terminology. Subparts B, C, and D, and

certain sections of Subpart A of part 121

are entirely deleted as well as certain

sections of subpart A of part 135

because these requirements are either

obsolete or have been moved to

proposed part 119. SFAR 38–2

terminates 15 months after the date of

publication of this final rule and many

of its provisions have been moved to

part 119. Also part 127 is deleted as

discussed above under ‘‘§ 119.25-

Rotorcraft operations.’’ Table 3 is a

derivation table, showing the origin and

current source in SFAR 38–2, part 121,

or part 135 of many of the new sections

in part 119. Table 4 is a distribution

table, showing the location in part 119

for each section removed from part 121,

part 135, and SFAR 38–2.

TABLE 3.—DERIVATION TABLE FOR PART 119

New section Based on

Subpart A:

119.1(a) .......... New language.

119.1(b) .......... SFAR 38–2, Section 1(a).

119.1(c) .......... New language.

119.1(d) .......... New language.

119.1(e) .......... New language.

119.2 .............. New language.

119.3 .............. SFAR 38–2, Section 6 and new language.

119.5(a) .......... SFAR 38–2, Section 2(a).

119.5(b) .......... SFAR 38–2, Section 2(b).

119.5(c) .......... New language.

119.5(d) .......... SFAR 38–2, Section 1(a)(3).

119.5(e) .......... SFAR 38–2, Section 1(a)(3).

119.5(f) ........... SFAR 38–2, Section 1(b).

119.5(g) .......... SFAR 38–2, Section 1(c), 121.4, 135.7.

119.5(h) .......... SFAR 38–2, Flush paragraph following Section 1(a)(3) and new language.

119.5(i) ........... 121.27(a)(1), 121.51(a)(1), 135.13(a)(3).

119.5(j) ........... 135.33.

119.7(a) .......... SFAR 38–2, Section 3.

119.7(b) .......... 121.23, 121.43.

119.9(a) .......... 135.29.

119.9(b) .......... New language.

Subpart B:

119.21(a) ........ SFAR 38–2, Section 4(a), 121.3.

119.21(b) ........ SFAR 38–2, Section 4(b).

119.21(c) ........ New language.

119.23(a) ........ SFAR 38–2, Section 5(a).

119.23(b) ........ SFAR 38–2, Section 5(b).

119.25(a) ........ SFAR 38–2, Section 4(c), 5(c), and (d) and new language.

119.25(b) ........ SFAR 38–2, Section 4(c), 5(c), and (d) and new language.

Subpart C:

119.31 ............ SFAR 38–2, Section 1(c), 2(a) and (b), 121.3, and 135.5.

119.33(a) ........ SFAR 38–2, Section 1(c), 2(a) and (b), 3, 121.3, 135.5, 135.13(a).

119.33(b) ........ SFAR 38–2, Section 1(c), 2(a) and (b), 3, 121.3, 135.5, 135.13(a).

119.33(c) ........ SFAR 38–2, Section 1(c), 2(a) and (b), 3, 121.3, 135.5, 135.13(a).

119.35(a) ........ 121.26, 121.47(a), 135.11(a).

119.35(b) ........ 121.26, 121.47(a), 135.11(a).

119.35(c) ........ 121.47(a).

119.35(d) ........ 121.47(b).

119.35(e) ........ 121.47(c).

119.35(f) ......... 121.47(d).

119.35(g) ........ 121.48.

119.35(h) ........ 121.49.

119.37(a) ........ 121.25(a), 121.45(a), 135.11(b)(1) and new language.

119.37(b) ........ 121.25(a), 121.45(a), 135.11(b)(1) and new language.

119.37(c) ........ 121.25(a), 121.45(a), 135.11(b)(1) and new language.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65889

TABLE 3.—DERIVATION TABLE FOR PART 119—Continued

New section Based on

119.37(d) ........ 121.25(a), 121.45(a), 135.11(b)(1) and new language.

119.37(e) ........ 121.25(a), 121.45(a), 135.11(b)(1) and new language.

119.39(a) ........ 121.27(a)(2), 121.51(a)(3), 135.11(b)(1).

119.39(b) ........ 121.27(a)(2), 121.51, 135.13(a)(2) and (b).

119.41(a) ........ 121.77(a), 135.15(a).

119.41(b) ........ New language.

119.41(c) ........ 121.77(b), 135.15(b).

119.41(d) ........ 121.77(c), 135.15(d).

119.43(a) ........ 121.75(b), 135.63(a)(2).

119.43(b) ........ 121.75(b), 135.63(a)(2).

119.47(a) ........ 135.27(a).

119.47(b) ........ 121.83, 135.27(b).

119.49(a) ........ 121.5, 121.25(b), 121.45(b), 135.11(b), and new language.

119.49(b) ........ 121.45(b), 135.11(b)(1) and new language.

119.49(c) ........ 135.11(b)(1) and new language.

119.49(d) ........ 121.75, 135.81.

119.51(a) ........ 121.79(a), 135.17(a).

119.51(b) ........ 121.79(b), 135.17(d).

119.51(c) ........ 121.79(c), 135.17(b), and new language.

119.51(d) ........ 121.79(d), 135.17(c) and (d).

119.51(e) ........ 121.79(b), 135.17(c) and (d).

119.53(a) ........ 121.6(a).

119.53(b) ........ New language.

119.53(c) ........ 121.6(b).

119.53(d) ........ 121.5(c).

119.53(e) ........ New language.

119.53(f) ......... New language.

119.55(a) ........ 121.57(a) and (b).

119.55(b) ........ 121.57(a) and (b).

119.55(c) ........ 121.57(a) and (b).

119.55(d) ........ 121.57(a) and (b).

119.55(e) ........ 121.57(a) and (b).

119.57(a) ........ 121.57(c).

119.57(b) ........ New language.

119.58(a) ........ 135.19(b).

119.58(b) ........ 135.19(a).

119.58(c) ........ 135.19(c).

119.59(a) ........ 121.81(a), 135.73, and new language.

119.59(b) ........ 121.73, 121.81(a), 135.63(a), 135.73, and new language.

119.59(c) ........ 121.81(a).

119.59(d) ........ New language.

119.59(e) ........ New language.

119.59(f) ......... New language.

119.61(a) ........ 121.29(a), 121.53(a), (c), and (d), 135.9(a).

119.61(b) ........ 121.29(a), 121.53(c), and new language.

119.61(c) ........ 135.35.

119.63(a) ........ New language.

119.63(b) ........ New language.

119.65(a) ........ 121.59(a).

119.65(b) ........ 121.59(b).

119.65(c) ........ 121.59(b).

119.65(d) ........ 121.61 and new language.

119.65(e) ........ 121.59(c).

119.67(a) ........ 121.61(a) and new language.

119.67(b) ........ 121.61(b) and new language.

119.67(c) ........ 121.61(c), 135.39(c) and new language.

119.67(d) ........ 121.61(d) and new language.

119.67(e) ........ 121.61(b), 135.39(d).

119.69(a) ........ 135.37(a).

119.69(b) ........ 121.59(b), 135.37(b).

119.69(c) ........ 121.59(b).

119.69(d) ........ 135.39 and new language.

119.69(e) ........ 121.59, 135.37(c).

119.71(a) ........ 135.39(a)(1) and new language.

119.71(b) ........ 135.39(a)(2) and new language.

119.71(c) ........ 135.39(b)(1) and new language.

119.71(d) ........ 135.39(b)(2) and new language.

119.71(e) ........ 135.39(c) and new language.

119.71(f) ......... 135.39(d) and new language.
65890 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 4.—DISTRIBUTION TABLE FOR PART 121, PART 135, AND SFAR 38–2 SECTIONS BEING REPLACED BY PART 119

Replaced by

Part 121:

121.3 .............. 119.21(a); 119.31; 119.33.

121.4 .............. 119.5(g).

121.5 .............. 119.49(a).

121.6(a) .......... 119.53(a).

121.6(b) .......... 119.53(c).

121.7 .............. 119.21.

121.9 .............. deleted.

121.13 ............ 119.25.

121.21 ............ 119.1.

121.23 ............ 119.7(b).

121.25(a) ........ 119.37(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g).

121.25(b) ........ 119.49(a).

121.26 ............ 119.35 (a) and (b).

121.27(a)(1) ... 119.5(i).

121.27(a)(2) ... 119.39 (a) and (b).

121.29(a) ........ 119.61 (a) and (b).

121.41 ............ 119.1.

121.43 ............ 119.7(b).

121.45(a) ........ 119.37(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g).

121.45(b) ........ 119.49 (a) and (b).

121.47(a) ........ 119.35(a), (b), and (c).

121.47(b) ........ 119.35(d).

121.47(c) ........ 119.35(e).

121.47(d) ........ 119.35(f).

121.48 ............ 119.35(g).

121.49 ............ 119.35(h).

121.51 ............ 119.39(b).

121.51(a)(1) ... 119.5(i).

121.51(a)(3) ... 119.39(a).

121.53(a) ........ 119.61(a).

121.53(c) ........ 119.61 (a) and (b).

121.53(d) ........ 119.61(a).

121.55 ............ deleted.

121.57(a) ........ 119.55(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).

121.57(b) ........ 119.55(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).

121.57(c) ........ 119.57(a).

121.59 ............ 119.69(e).

121.59(a) ........ 119.65(a).

121.59(b) ........ 119.65 (b) and (c); 119.69 (b) and (c).

121.59(c) ........ 119.65(e).

121.61 ............ 119.65(d).

121.61(a) ........ 119.67(a).

121.61(b) ........ 119.67 (b) and (e).

121.61(c) ........ 119.67(c).

121.61(d) ........ 119.67(d).

121.71 ............ 119.1.

121.73 ............ 119.59(b).

121.75 ............ 119.49(d).

121.75(b) ........ 119.43 (a) and (b).

121.77(a) ........ 119.41(a).

121.77(b) ........ 119.41(c).

121.77(c) ........ 119.41(d).

121.79(a) ........ 119.51(a).

121.79(b) ........ 119.51 (b) and (e).

121.79(c) ........ 119.51(c).

121.79(d) ........ 119.51(d).

121.81(a) ........ 119.59(a), (b), and (c).

121.83 ............ 119.47(b).

Part 135:

135.5 .............. 119.31; 119.33(a), (b), and (c).

135.7 .............. 119.5(g).

135.9(a) .......... 119.61(a).

135.11(a) ........ 119.35 (a) and (b).

135.11(b) ........ 119.49(a).

135.11(b)(1) ... 119.37(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g); 119.39(a); 119.49 (b) and (c).

135.13(a) ........ 119.33(a), (b), and (c).

135.13(a)(2) ... 119.39(b).

135.13(a)(3) ... 119.5(i).

135.13(b) ........ 119.39(b).

135.15(a) ........ 119.41(a).

135.15(b) ........ 119.41(b).
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65891

TABLE 4.—DISTRIBUTION TABLE FOR PART 121, PART 135, AND SFAR 38–2 SECTIONS BEING REPLACED BY PART

119—Continued

Replaced by

135.15(d) ........ 119.41(d).

135.17(a) ........ 119.51(a).

135.17(b) ........ 119.51(c).

135.17(c) ........ 119.51 (d) and (e).

135.17(d) ........ 119.51(b), (d), and (e).

135.19 ............ 119.58.

135.27(a) ........ 119.47(a).

135.27(b) ........ 119.47(b).

135.29 ............ 119.9(a).

135.31 ............ 119.5.

135.33 ............ 119.5(j).

135.35 ............ 119.61(c).

135.37(a) ........ 119.69(a).

135.37(b) ........ 119.69(b).

135.37(c) ........ 119.69(e).

135.39 ............ 119.69(d).

135.39(a)(1) ... 119.71(a).

135.39(a)(2) ... 119.71(b).

135.39(b)(1) ... 119.71(c).

135.39(b)(2) ... 119.71(d).

135.39(c) ........ 119.67(c); 199.71(e).

135.39(d) ........ 119.67(e); 119.71(f).

135.63(a) ........ 119.59(b).

135.63(a)(2) ... 119.43 (a) and (b).

135.73 ............ 119.59 (a) and (b).

135.81 ............ 119.49(d).

SFAR 38–2:

Section 1(a) ... 119.1(b).

Section 1(a)(3) 119.5 (d) and (e); 119.5(h).

Section 1(b) ... 119.5(f).

Section 1(c) .... 119.5(g); 119.31; 119.33 (a), (b), and (c).

Section 2(a) ... 119.5(a); 119.31; 119.33 (a), (b), and (c).

Section 2(b) ... 119.5(b); 119.31; 119.33 (a), (b), and (c).

Section 2(c) .... 129.1.

Section 3 ........ 119.7(a); 119.33 (a), (b), and (c).

Section 4(a) ... 119.21(a).

Section 4(b) ... 119.21(b).

Section 4(c) .... 119.25 (a) and (b).

Section 4(d) ... 119.25 (a) and (b).

Section 5(a) ... 119.23(a).

Section 5(b) ... 119.23(b).

Section 5(c) .... 119.25 (a) and (b).

Section 5(d) ... 119.25 (a) and (b).

Section 6 ........ 119.3.

VII. Discussion of Comments Related to

Costs and Benefits

This section of the preamble discusses

those costs and benefits related

comments submitted to the docket for

the NPRM. The comments are presented

by topic within their respective areas of

concern.

1. Operations

Flight Time Limitations. A commuter

operator from Alaska voiced its

concerns about the potential high cost

($502,000) of compliance associated

with the proposed requirement for flight

time limitations. According to this

operator, compliance with the proposed

rule would require hiring an estimated

15 to 75 percent more pilots, depending

on the location of its operations in

Alaska. Also, there would also be

additional costs incurred for training.

FAA Response: The FAA is holding in

abeyance a decision concerning flight

time limitations because of a new

proposal that, if adopted, would

overhaul all of the flight and duty rules.

Dispatchers. There were a number of

comments submitted on the

establishment of a dispatcher system.

However, none of the comments were

directly related to costs. Among those

comments related to costs, the primary

concern pertained to the idea that there

would be significant costs incurred by

operators in remote areas (i.e., most of

Alaska) or those operators with a small

number of airplanes (fewer than five).

FAA Response: There are four points

to make in reference to the comments.

First, the commenters failed to provide

any specific cost information to

substantiate their claims of incurring

significantly high compliance costs for

establishing a dispatch system. Second,

it is the FAA’s position that nearly all

part 135 commuters already have the

basic communication equipment needed

for a dispatch system because they

already have flight locators and flight

followers conducting some degree of

operational control. Third, even in

remote areas carriers have access to

contracted communications systems.

Fourth, in regard to the personnel costs

associated with the dispatch system,

these operators are expected to upgrade

most of their existing flight locators and

flight followers to be dispatchers, at an

hourly wage increase of $1.60 (or $4,193

annually). Some dispatchers will be

hired outside of the company at an
65892 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

annual wage of $24,000. This position is

based on information obtained from the

Aircraft Dispatchers Federation (ADF)

and a survey of several part 135

operators with dual operations

specifications (parts 121 and 135). The

FAA estimates a cost of $13,000 as the

average minimum annual operating cost

of establishing a dispatch system

(assuming nothing is in place by a

particular operator). This includes costs

for telephone service, office space, office

furniture, access to a current weather

service, and access to air-ground

communications.

Pilot Qualifications. Several

commenters are opposed to the

proposed requirements for pilot

qualifications on the basis of an

anticipated high cost of compliance.

FAA Response: The final rule does

not contain requirements for

crewmember training and pilot

qualifications. These requirements are

contained in a separate rulemaking

action that pertains to operators under

parts 121 and 135.

Cockpit Protective Breathing

Equipment (PBE). One airplane

manufacturer questions the need for

fire-fighting PBE on the flight deck of

commuter airplanes with 10 to 19

passenger seats. The commenter asserts

that it would cost an additional $23,800

dollars (rather than the FAA’s cost

estimate of $400 per PBE unit) to equip

each one of its 10-to-19-seat airplanes

with such PBE on the flight deck. This

cost estimate does not include a onetime $52,000 for development costs.

According to the commenter, its

airplanes are already equipped with

fixed smoke-and-flame protection PBE

at each of the two pilot stations. Thus,

the only potential cost would be for a

fire-fighting PBE on the flight deck.

FAA Response: The FAA has decided

to drop the proposed requirement for

fire-fighting PBE on the flight deck of

affected airplanes with 10 to 19 seats.

Costs of Compliance—All Items.

According to one commenter, the FAA’s

analysis grossly underestimated costs.

The cost of the proposed rule should be

$1.6 billion instead of the FAA’s

estimate of $275 million.

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees

with the commenter. The FAA

contacted the commenter to acquire

information on the methodology and

basic assumptions or rationale used to

derive the cost estimate. With regards to

the methodology, the commenter

indicated that he used his own

judgment and information provided by

other commenters. None of his analysis

was supported empirically by outside

sources or seemed to be more credible

than that used by the FAA. As to the

basic assumptions, the commenter said

there was no documentation that

detailed the methodology used to derive

his cost estimate of $1.6 billion.

Therefore, since the commenter was

unable to substantiate the cost estimate,

the FAA will retain its cost estimate and

all associated methodology.

2. Cabin Safety

First Aid and Medical Kits. Several

commenters provided cost estimates

ranging from $1,500 to $2,000 per

airplane for the first aid and medical kit

requirement, but these cost estimates

were submitted without any detailed

documentation. An additional

commenter, who was contacted, agrees

with the cost per first aid kit, but argues

that the turnover rate should be 100%

a year due to pilfering.

FAA Response: The cost estimates

provided by the commenters are higher

than the FAA’s original estimates. The

FAA based the equipment costs on offthe-shelf prices that would be available

to all operators. The FAA contacted one

commenter that estimates the cost of

$1,500 per airplane for a first aid kit.

The commenter’s cost estimate includes

up front costs such as the engineering

designs, administrative paperwork, cost

of tooling, as well as the cost of

equipment and materials. The FAA

assumes that the first aid kits, as well as

medical kits, can be secured with Velcro

tape and would be secure enough to

meet the 18–G requirement. As to

design and administrative costs

involved with securing first aid and

medical kits, the FAA is using the upfront costs of $1,500 submitted by the

commenters. With regards to pilferage,

none of the large airlines complain

about first aid kits being stolen, and the

FAA believes that if any kits are stolen,

air carriers would take positive steps to

stop such activity.

Locking Cockpit Door and Key.

Several commenters are concerned that

some locking cockpit doors would have

to be retrofitted to work with a key, but

cost estimates are not provided.

FAA Response: The FAA

acknowledges that the commenters

correctly state that keyless locks on

affected lockable cockpit doors would

have to be retrofitted to work with keys.

Based on information from FAA

technical personnel, the FAA is

assuming that all of the 20-to-30-seat

airplanes would have their locks or

doors retrofitted, at a total cost of $182

per retrofit ($100 equipment + $82

labor).

Flotation Cushions and Life Vests.

One commenter opposes the

requirement because of the equipment

cost and weight penalty. This

commenter states that the seat cushions

in the METRO airplane would not serve

as effective flotation devices. In

addition, this commenter provides a

cost estimate for acquiring and

retrofitting individual flotation devices

for METRO airplanes.

FAA Response: The FAA concurs that

if the seat cushions in a particular

airplane model do not serve as flotation

devices, then individual flotation

devices would have to be acquired.

Also, the FAA verified the commenter’s

cost estimate and has incorporated it

into the regulatory evaluation for the

final rule.

Halon Fire Extinguishers. One

commenter from Alaska provides an

aggregate cost estimate for the required

halon fire extinguishers which was

substantially higher than the estimate in

the NPRM. The commenter does not

provide additional commentary on the

requirement beyond the costs.

FAA Response: The FAA partially

disagrees with this commenter. A onetime cost estimate to account for upfront administrative and engineering

costs to comply with Type Data

Certificates was submitted by the

commenter. The FAA verified this costestimate and has incorporated it into the

cost of the final rule. However, the FAA

contends that there would be no major

retrofit costs because the halon fire

extinguishers would replace existing

fire extinguishers with the same size

canister. The FAA’s equipment costs

were based on off-the-shelf prices for

halon which would be available to all

operators.

Carry-on Baggage. A commenter from

Alaska believes that the FAA’s cost

estimate for the carry-on baggage

screening program implementation is

too low. This commenter reasons that

the wage rates and paperwork burden

would be higher for the Alaska air

carriers. In addition, the commenter

strongly objects to applying the

scanning program at locations that do

not have terminal facilities. This

commenter believes that each operator

will need to develop a measurement

device to check each item of carry-on

baggage which will result in delays. All

of this will cost $156,000 per year for

each Alaskan commuter air carrier;

there is no detailed explanation of what

this entails. Another commenter, who

was contacted, believes that for

crewmembers to enforce the carry-on

baggage program will delay each flight

one minute; this flight delay will need

to be costed out.

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees

with these commenters. The FAA is

unable to evaluate the Alaska

commenter’s cost estimate without a
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65893

detailed explanation of the cost

breakdown. However, it is important to

note that the wage rate and the

paperwork hours assumed in the NPRM

were national averages, so these

numbers could be higher in some parts

of the country, like Alaska, and lower in

others. In addition, no carrier would be

required to have a measuring device to

carry out this program; the baggage

screening program is visual in nature,

and the requirements and costs involved

only refer to preparing baggage

screening procedures for the carrier’s

operations manual and an addendum to

the Operations Specifications. Finally,

the FAA does not believe that there

would be delays on any flights due to

such a program as crewmembers would

be ‘‘eye balling’’ carry-on baggage as

passengers are boarding at the same

speed they have always boarded.

Flight Attendants at the Gate. A

commenter believes that all operators

would only use trained, authorized,

substitute personnel when coverage is

needed. This commenter believes that

these trained persons would all be new

hires and paid annual salaries of

$12,000. One commenter from Alaska

opposes the requirement for flight

attendants at the gate. The commenter

states that both crewmembers on the 10-

to-19 seat airplanes would need to assist

in the loading and unloading process,

and hence neither could stay on board

with passengers. Furthermore, the

commenter states that deplaning

passengers would not be a viable option

because airports in Alaska do not have

the proper facilities. Therefore, the

commenter states that a trained

substitute would have to stay on board

the airplane with the passengers 100%

of the time. The commenter states that

the FAA has also underestimated the

training costs and wage costs so that this

requirement would cost about $2.9

million each year for all of the Alaska

commuter air carriers to comply.

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees

with these commenters. The authorized

personnel would need to be trained,

reliable, and have a low turnover rate;

an annual salary of $12,000 would not

be high enough to attract such people.

These airplanes typically fly only

during the summer months so

passengers can be deplaned. The FAA

contends that one of the crewmembers

can stay on board the airplane some of

the time; loading and unloading

responsibilities can often times be

accomplished with one crewmember.

The final rule has been changed to allow

a crewmember to stay on or in close

proximity to the airplane to comply

with this requirement. The FAA does

not believe it is likely that air carriers

in Alaska would have trained substitute

personnel waiting at each intermediate

stop. Accordingly, the FAA believes that

Alaskan air carriers would either

deplane passengers or use a

crewmember.

Passenger Information. One

commenter from Alaska disagrees with

the FAA’s cost estimate for passenger

information cards and believes that it is

too low. Alaskan air carriers would need

to devise a more comprehensive

information system due to the many

nationalities and native languages in

Alaska and this would entail great

expense. Some air carriers would also

have to translate into Japanese, Korean,

and Russian for tourists from the Pacific

Rim nations. The commenter also

thought that the FAA’s assumption of a

three year life expectancy for

information cards was too high. Based

on experience, the commenter states

that information cards last less than a

year due to wear and theft. The

commenter also estimates costs of

$26,000 for Alaskan commuter air

carriers in the first year and $4,224 each

year thereafter.

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees

with this commenter and believes that

the commenter misunderstood the

requirements of this proposed section.

There is no current or proposed

requirement to translate any passenger

information cards into any other

language. In addition, the industry

average for passenger information cards

is three years, so the FAA will use the

NPRM costs.

3. Certification

Performance Criteria. Of seven

comments received, only one

manufacturer provided cost

information. This manufacturer reports

that, for their part 23 commuter category

certificated airplanes, there would be no

compliance costs. However, for their

SFAR 41C certificated airplanes,

developing the data needed to comply

with the part 121 requirements for

obstacle clearance and for acceleratestop would be $3,000 per airplane for

obstacle clearance and $2,500 per

airplane for accelerate stop. For their

pre-SFAR 41C airplanes, it would be

$63,000 per airplane to develop

performance data for obstacle clearance

and $145,000 per airplane to develop

anti-skid data, to purchase and install

anti-skid systems, and to incur the 35 lb.

weight penalty for accelerate-stop.

FAA Response: In the Notice, the FAA

stated that all part 135 scheduled

airplanes would be able to meet these

performance criteria and that the only

cost would be a $5,000 per type

certificate to provide the data and obtain

FAA approval for inclusion into the

airplane flight manual. After additional

review, however, the FAA realizes that

SFAR 41 and predecessor category

airplanes will be unable to meet all of

the part 121 performance criteria

without having to offload so many

passengers or cargo as to become

unprofitable to operate in scheduled

passenger service. If operators substitute

airplanes configured with 9 or fewer

passenger seats for these airplanes, there

could be a substantial economic loss

and potential safety reduction. Thus, the

FAA will allow the operators of these

airplanes to have 15 years to meet the

part 121 performance requirements.

This will allow operators sufficient time

to plan for the replacement of these

airplanes without incurring an

enormous economic loss. It also will

allow manufacturers time to develop

better substitutes for these airplanes.

Engine-Out-En-Route-Net-Flight Data.

There were three commenters on this

issue. One manufacturer commenter

reports a one-time cost of $24,774 to

create the required one-engineinoperative-en-route-net-flight-path data

which do not exist for any 10-to-19-seat

airplanes. Another commenter reports

that these flight data are not included in

the FAA approved airplane flight

manual.

FAA Response: The FAA concurs

with these commenters and has adopted

the commenter’s cost estimate.

Cargo Compartment Smoke Detector

and Fire Extinguishing Systems and

Cargo Compartment Liners. Two

commenters report a per-airplane cost of

$15,230 to $15,580 to install smoke

detectors and fire extinguishers in the

cargo compartments of newlymanufactured 10-to-19-seat airplanes.

The commenter also reports a perairplane-retrofitting cost of $17,420; a

one-time cost of $85,400 for

engineering, designing, testing, and

paperwork for FAA approval; and 32

lbs. of added weight to each airplane.

The commenter also reports a perairplane cost for cargo and baggage

compartment liners of $13,000 for a

retrofit; $10,420 for a newlymanufactured airplane; a $463,950 cost

for a one-time engineering, designing,

testing, and paperwork to obtain FAA

approval cost; and 9 lbs. of additional

weight. Another commenter reports a

per airplane cost of $26,400 and a

weight of 15 lbs. This commenter also

notes that the NPRM did not propose

any retrofitting.

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees

with the commenter. The FAA proposal

would only apply to newlymanufactured airplanes beginning four

years after the effective date. Thus, there
65894 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

would be no retrofit costs. (After

additional analysis, the FAA has

decided that this topic needs to be

specifically addressed in a separate

rulemaking. Thus, there would be no

compliance costs for this in the

commuter rule.)

Landing Gear Aural Warning. Two

manufacturers and one operator report

that all of their 10-to-19-seat airplanes

have aural landing gear warnings. Two

of these commenters report no

compliance cost. The other commenter

reports a one-time manufacturer’s cost

of $2,620 to obtain FAA approval of the

flight-manual changes.

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees

with the commenter who reported a

one-time cost because the presence of

the aural warning device in existing

airplanes means that this equipment

was already included and approved in

the airplane flight manual. As the FAA

believes that all affected airplanes

already employ an aural warning

system, there are no compliance costs.

Ditching Approval. There were five

commenters who addressed this issue.

One commenter reports a $7,430 cost for

its DeHavilland Twin Otters to comply

with this provision. Another commenter

reports that it would be impossible for

the Twin Otter to comply with the

ditching requirement due to its fixed

landing gear; also the commenter says

that other airplane operators would

incur a $180 per airplane paperwork

cost to demonstrate compliance.

Another commenter reports that the

costs would be extremely high. Two

commenters report that there would be

a $1,500 one-time paperwork cost to

demonstrate compliance to the FAA for

revision of the approved flight manual.

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with

the commenters. For the final rule, the

compliance period will be extended to

15 years. Thus, the potential cost of

compliance will be minimal.

Take-Off Warning System. One

manufacturer reports that the per

airplane cost to install take-off warning

devices would be $24,920 on a newlymanufactured airplane; $26,500 for a

retrofit; and $150,260 for a one-time

engineering, development, testing, and

FAA-approval cost. Also, these devices

would weigh 5 lbs. Another commenter

reports that it would cost $12,600 per

airplane to install a 2 lb. take-off

warning device on a newly

manufactured airplane. One commenter

reports that it would cost $11,350 per

airplane to install a take-off warning

device on a newly manufactured

airplane.

FAA Response: The FAA estimates

that the per airplane cost for a newly

manufactured airplane would be

$16,000 for engineering, developing,

testing, and installing, plus an annual

$1,600 inspection, maintenance, and

repair cost. The FAA also did not

estimate any additional weight for this

device. However, after further technical

review, the FAA concludes that none of

these airplane models (except the Beech

99) would need a takeoff warning

system because a takeoff with a device

in the most adverse position does not

create a hazardous condition. For the

Beech 99, that problem was resolved

when the FAA issued an Airworthiness

Directive (AD) requiring these airplanes

to install a takeoff warning system.

Thus, there are no compliance costs

associated with this requirement.

Third-Attitude Indicator. Two

commenters report that there would be

no compliance cost for newlymanufactured airplanes because third

attitude indicators are standard

equipment. One of these commenters

reports that there would be a $1,500

one-time manufacturer’s paperwork cost

to obtain FAA approval to changes in

the flight manual. The same commenter

reports that it would cost $10,865 to

retrofit an airplane. The other

commenter reports that the per-airplaneretrofit cost would be between $40,600

for a Beech 1900C and $48,800 for a

Beech 99, and that a third-attitude

indicator would weigh 15 lbs. An

airplane operator reports that it would

cost $40,000 per airplane to retrofit its

Beech 1900Cs. Another airplane

operator reports that it would cost

$17,000 per airplane to retrofit its

DeHavilland Twin Otters. Finally, a

commenter reports that it would cost

$53,170 per airplane to retrofit

airplanes. In addition to the reported

costs, the commenter states that there

was insufficient time for operators to

retrofit these airplanes within the oneyear period proposed by the NPRM.

FAA Response: The FAA estimates

that the per airplane cost would be

$16,000 for a retrofit and $8,000 for a

newly-manufactured airplane. The

annual maintenance, inspection, and

repair costs would be 10 percent of the

retrofitting costs. The third-attitude

indicator and wiring would weigh 5 lbs.

Based on the manufacturer information,

this device has been installed on all

turbo-jet and commuter category

airplanes.

The FAA contends that its cost

estimates in the NPRM are valid.

However, the FAA accepts the comment

that the additional weight would be 15

lbs. After additional analysis, and in

light of the potential high-costs of this

proposal, the FAA believes that this

requirement should be handled

consistently with the principle

espoused in the performance

requirements. On that basis, the final

rule will have a 15-year retrofit

compliance period for affected 10–19

seat airplanes and predecessor category.

Lavatory Fire Protection. Concerning

10-to-19 seat airplanes, two

manufacturer commenters state that

very few of their airplanes had

lavatories. For those few that do, one

manufacturer reports that installing a

lavatory smoke detector and a built-in

automatic fire extinguisher in each

lavatory-waste receptacle would cost

$59,200 per retrofit, $8,800 for a newly

manufactured airplane, and would

weigh 10 lbs. The other commenter

reports it would cost $8,350 for a

retrofit, $7,800 for a newlymanufactured airplane, involve a onetime engineering cost of $49,000, and

would increase each airplane’s weight

by 16 lbs. Another commenter reports

that a retrofit would cost $725.

Concerning 20-to-30-seat airplanes,

two manufacturer commenters report

that it would cost $4,000 to retrofit their

airplane lavatories. One of these

commenters also states that only one

half of the newly manufactured

airplanes with lavatories have these

devices. Two airlines and one

association report that it would cost

$2,500 to retrofit their airplane

lavatories. One of the airlines reports

that these devices would weigh 20 lbs.

FAA Response: Section 121.308(a)

requires each lavatory to have a smoke

detector system connected to either: (1)

A warning light in the flight deck; or (2)

a warning light or an aural warning in

the passenger cabin that can be readily

detected by a flight attendant. Section

121.308(b) requires each lavatory to

have a built-in automatic fire

extinguisher in each waste-disposal

receptacle in the lavatory. These

requirements are also found in section

25.854 but only for airplanes type

certificated after 1991. There are no

similar provisions in part 135 or part 23.

In reviewing these comments for the

20-to-30-seat airplanes, the FAA

believes, although these commenters

did not document the sources for their

estimates, that these estimates appear to

be based on the cost of a flight deck

warning light system, which would

involve some airplane rewiring.

However, the FAA’s estimate is based

on the operator electing the second

option allowed in the proposed rule—an

aural warning device that could be

heard by the flight attendant. That

option is clearly the cost-effective

option for 20-to-30-seat airplanes that

are required to have a flight attendant.

These provisions are largely

unimportant for the 10-to-19-seat
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65895

airplanes because very few have a

lavatory. In fact, one manufacturer

reported that none of their airplanes

operating in the U.S. has one. The FAA

believes that the reported costs for these

individual airplanes are so large because

any costs to engineer, design, and test

would be distributed over so few

airplanes. However, for those few 10-to19-seat airplanes that do have a

lavatory, the FAA changed this rule to

allow an aural warning system that can

be heard by the flight crew. On that

basis, the FAA determined that it would

cost about $175 to retrofit or to install

in a newly manufactured airplane a 5 lb.

aural smoke detector that requires $50 a

year in maintenance and inspection and

$15 a year for replacement batteries. The

FAA also determined that it would cost

$300 to retrofit a 5 lb. receptacle

automatic fire extinguisher that requires

$75 a year in maintenance and

inspection and $50 a year for

recharging. These costs are $50 a year

more than the costs estimated in the

NPRM.

The FAA also estimates that half of

the 272 existing 20-to-30 seat airplanes

certificated before 1991 did not have

these devices whereas 90 percent of the

newly-manufactured airplanes have

them. The FAA accepts the commenter’s

statement that only half of these newlymanufactured airplanes have these

devices.

Emergency Exit Marking. One

manufacturer reports that installing an

emergency exit marking light would

cost $11,050 for a retrofit, $9,100 for a

newly manufactured airplane, and

would involve a one-time

manufacturing cost of $87,280 to

engineer, design, test, and obtain FAA

approval for this device.

FAA Response: The cost of this

provision was a part of the FAA’s

estimated emergency lighting cost. After

additional analysis, the FAA believes

that given the passenger’s close

proximity to emergency exits and the

high cost of complying with the lighting

requirements, affected airplanes will not

be required to comply with certain

lighting provisions in 121.310.

Floor Proximity Lighting. One

manufacturer commenter reports that

installing emergency floor proximity

lighting would cost between $27,600

and $36,000 for a retrofit, $20,800 for a

newly manufactured airplane, and the

installed lighting would weigh 12 lbs. A

second manufacturer commenter reports

that it would cost $19,000 for a retrofit;

$15,000 for a newly manufactured

airplane; there would be a one-time

engineering, developing, testing, and

obtaining FAA approval cost of $52,650,

and the installed lighting would weigh

10 lbs. This commenter also proposes an

alternative interior lighting of the exit

and exterior emergency exit lighting as

a substitute for the full-scale floor

proximity and exterior emergency exit

lighting in the NPRM. This alternative

lighting system is required for their

airplanes in Great Britain. But this

commenter did not report the cost of

their proposed alternative. A third

manufacturer commenter reports that it

would cost $8,000 for a retrofit. One air

carrier commenter reports that it would

cost about $17,700 to retrofit its

DeHavilland Twin Otters. Another air

carrier commenter reports that it would

cost $26,800 to retrofit its Beech 1900Cs

and $22,800 to retrofit its Jetstream 31s

and Beech 1900Ds. One association

reports that it would cost between

$20,000 and $50,000 for a retrofit. A

second association reports it would cost

$11,000 for a retrofit. A third association

reports it would cost $19,000 for a

retrofit. Finally, an aviation consultant

group reports it would cost $8,000 for a

retrofit.

FAA Response: The FAA estimates

that the cost to comply with the

emergency lighting requirements in

121.310 would be $2,500 to retrofit

existing airplanes and $2,000 to install

in newly-manufactured airplanes. After

additional analysis, the FAA agrees with

these commenters that the earlier FAA

costs severely underestimated the

retrofitting and new installation costs.

As a result, the FAA determines that 10-

to-19-seat airplanes would not be

required to meet these lighting

requirements in 121.310.

Emergency Exit Exterior Lighting. One

manufacturer commenter reports that

the per airplane cost would be $13,400

to install a 15 lb. emergency exit

exterior lighting system on a newly

manufactured airplane and $17,950 for

a retrofit. In addition, they report a onetime engineering, design, testing, and

paperwork for FAA approval cost of

$64,525. However, as noted in the

previous section, their suggested

alternative to floor proximity lighting

would also contain an exterior

emergency lighting capability. Another

manufacturer commenter reports that

the per airplane cost would be $11,800

to install a 12 lb. emergency exit

exterior lighting system on a newly

manufactured airplane and $17,250 to

$23,550 for a retrofit. One air carrier

reports that it would cost $9,400 per

airplane to retrofit its DeHavilland Twin

Otters. Another air carrier reports that it

would cost $16,640 to retrofit its Beech

1990Cs, 1900Ds, and its Jetstream 31s.

FAA Response: The FAA provided

one aggregated cost estimate for the

emergency lighting system. However, as

that total cost estimate for all lighting

required by Section 121.310 was $2,500,

the FAA reevaluated its exteriorlighting-cost estimate. After additional

analysis, the FAA agrees with these

commenters that the earlier FAA costs

severely underestimated the retrofitting

and new installation costs. As a result,

the FAA determines that 10-to-19-seat

airplanes would not be required to meet

these lighting requirements in 121.310.

Exterior Emergency Exit Marking. One

manufacturer commenter reports that it

would cost between $350 and $650 for

an airplane operator to install these

markings on the exterior of the

emergency exits. One association

commenter reports that it would cost

$74 to install these markings. Neither

commenter discusses the number of

airplanes that would need to have these

markings installed.

FAA Response: The FAA estimated

that about 10 percent of the 10-to-19-

seat airplanes would need to comply

with this requirement at a cost of $100

per airplane. However, the FAA notes

that this section is identical to Section

135.178(g). As a result, there are no

compliance costs.

Pilot Shoulder Harnesses. One

manufacturer commenter reports that

even though all of their airplanes are

now manufactured with the single point

pilot shoulder harness, they would still

incur a $22,500 one-time cost—

presumably to obtain FAA approval for

inclusion in the flight manual. One

association commenter reports that it

would cost $440 to retrofit a single point

shoulder harness.

FAA Response: The FAA did not

estimate any cost for this provision

because the proposal did not require

retrofitting and the FAA was informed

by industry that the single point inertial

harness for pilots is standard equipment

on all currently-manufactured airplanes.

Thus, the FAA determines that there is

no compliance cost.

The FAA disagrees with the

commenter who reported a one-time

manufacturer’s cost because this

equipment is already in airplanes and,

hence, approved in the airplane flight

manual.

Interior Panel Heat and Smoke

Release Standards. There were two

commenters on this issue. One

manufacturer commenter reports that

the per airplane cost for requiring the

more stringent fireproofing material for

cabin interiors would be $77,550 for a

retrofit, $67,500 for a new installation,

and there would be a one-time

engineering, designing, testing,

retooling, and obtaining FAA approval

cost of $627,910. Another manufacturer

commenter reports that it would cost
65896 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

$90,000 per airplane to install in a

newly manufactured airplane and also

notes that the Notice did not propose a

retrofit. It should be noted that the

commenter’s methodology averages any

one-time engineering and development

costs into the expected number of future

sales of the Beech 1900D.

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees

with the commenters. Manufacturers

would only have to comply with the

existing type-certification standard.

Therefore, there would be no

compliance cost.

Passenger Seat Cushion Flammability.

There were eight commenters on this

issue. One manufacturer commenter

reports that the per airplane cost would

be $11,250 to retrofit one of its airplanes

with fire-blocked-seat cushions; $10,250

per airplane to install in a newly

manufactured airplane; there would be

a one-time engineering, design, testing,

and FAA-approval costs of $85,415; and

it would add 20 lbs. A second

manufacturer commenter reports that

the per airplane cost would be between

$20,000 and $22,600 for a retrofit;

$3,400 in newly manufactured

airplanes; and would weigh 38 lbs. One

air carrier reports that the per airplane

cost would be $12,600 to retrofit its

Beech 1900Cs and $4,000 to retrofit its

Beech 1900Ds and Jetstream 31s.

Another air carrier reports that the per

airplane cost would be $35,000 to

retrofit its DeHavilland Twin Otters.

Another air carrier reports that the per

airplane cost would be $20,000 to

retrofit its fleet. Three associations

report that the per airplane retrofitting

costs would range from $20,000,

$42,950, and $50,000.

FAA Response: The FAA estimated

that the per-airplane-incremental cost

would be $20,000 to retrofit fireblocked-seat cushions, $5,000 to install

these seat cushions on newlymanufactured airplanes, and $10,000 to

replace these seat cushions on airplanes

that have fire-blocked-seat cushions. An

additional cost would be the 38 lbs. of

weight these seats add to the airplane.

The FAA acknowledges the fact that

different airplanes would have different

retrofitting and new installation costs.

After additional analysis, the FAA

accepts the manufacturer commenters’

cost estimates for their airplanes as well

as accepts the air carrier estimates

provided for the DeHavilland Twin

Otter and the Jetstream 31. For the other

types of airplanes that would need to be

retrofitted, the FAA uses an average of

these reported retrofitting costs

weighted by the number of each type of

this airplane still in service. The FAA

also accepts the commenters weight

estimates for each of their own

airplanes. After additional analysis, the

FAA finds that, for the final rule, a 15-

year compliance period is appropriate

for 10-to-19-seat airplanes.

‘‘Fasten Seat Belt’’ Lighted Sign.

There were two commenters on this

issue. One manufacturer reports that

installing a fasten seat belt light would

cost between $3,025 and $4,000 for a

retrofit and $1,600 for a newly

manufactured airplane. One association

reports that it would cost $11,000 per

airplane.

FAA Response: The FAA had not

estimated any compliance costs for

section 121.317(b) because it was

believed that commuter airplanes had

these signs. However, after additional

analysis, the FAA determines that a

placard and a pre-flight briefing provide

an equivalent level of safety to a lighted

sign. As these are industry practices,

there is no compliance cost.

Wing Ice Light. There were two

comments on this issue. One

manufacturer reports that there would

be no compliance costs for any of their

airplanes. One association reports that it

would cost $11,000 to install wing ice

lights on its members’ airplanes.

FAA Response: In the Notice, the FAA

did not estimate any costs for this

provision because the provision states

‘‘No person may operate an airplane in

icing conditions at night unless means

are provided for illuminating or

otherwise determining the formation of

ice on the parts of the wings that are

critical from the standpoint of ice

accumulation.’’ The FAA holds that all

of the airplanes have either the wing ice

lights or an acceptable alternative

method for determining the icing

accumulation on the wings. As a result,

there is no compliance cost.

Pitot Heat Indication. There were five

commenters on this issue. One

manufacturer reports that the perairplane cost would be $9,250 to retrofit

pitot heat indication tubes, $10,600 to

install on a newly-manufactured

airplane, there would be a one-time cost

to apply, engineer, design, and test of

$31,670; and it would weigh 4 lbs.

Another manufacturer commenter

reports that it would cost between

$3,000 and $5,700 per airplane to

retrofit its models no longer in

production and it would weigh 1 lb.

This commenter also reports that all of

its currently manufactured airplanes

have pitot heat indication systems. One

air carrier reports it would cost $1,650

to retrofit its DeHavilland Twin Otters

with pitot heat indication tubes. One

association reports that it would cost its

members $11,000 per airplane for a

retrofit while another association

reports that it would cost its members

between $1,500 and $25,000 per

airplane for a retrofit.

FAA Response: Based on information

contained in the Draft Regulatory

Evaluation to the FAR/JAR

Harmonization, the FAA had estimated

that the per airplane costs would be

$500 for a retrofit and $250 for a newlymanufactured airplane. After review of

these comments, the FAA has revised

these cost estimates to $4,000 for a

retrofit, $2,000 for installation on a

newly manufactured airplane, and an

additional 5 lbs. of weight to the

airplane.

Power Distribution System. One

commenter reports that Section

121.313(c) requires a power supply and

distribution system that meets the

requirements of six sections of Part 25.

They state that this would require a

major redesign of their airplanes’

electrical power distribution system.

They report a per airplane cost of

$15,605 for a retrofit, $12,660 for a

newly manufactured airplane, and a

one-time engineering, design, testing,

and paperwork for FAA approval of

$156,256.

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees

with this commenter. They did not

notice that the further text in part

121.313(c) reads ‘‘* * * or that is able

to produce and distribute the load for

the required instruments and

equipment, * * *’’ The requirement

allows the use of a power supply and

distribution system that has been shown

to perform its functions. Thus,

compliance can be established by means

other than part 25. As a result, there are

no compliance costs.

Out-of-Service Time to Install

Airplane Equipment. Four commenters

note that the FAA failed to include the

cost for the additional out-of-service

time that will be needed to install all the

equipment required to comply with the

proposal. Although no exact costs were

provided, these commenters assert that

this time out of service would result in

a substantial revenue loss.

FAA Response: Even though the FAA

attempted to design the proposed rule to

minimize out-of-service time, the

agency agrees with these commenters

that there would be some out-of-service

time for some of the affected airplanes.

However, as a result of the changes from

the NPRM to the final rule, the FAA

contends that all of the required

equipment by the final rule can be

installed during regularly scheduled

maintenance and there will be no

additional out-of-service time.

4. Maintenance

The Alaska Air Carriers Association

(AACA), citing the uniqueness of the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65897

Alaskan operating environment and the

absolute necessity of air travel in

Alaska, notes that most Alaskan

operators utilize mixed fleets and

employ maintenance personnel who

work on all airplanes in such mixed

fleets. The AACA maintains that

requiring the scheduling of maintenance

personnel according to part 121

standards would place an additional

administrative burden and financial

compliance cost on air carriers at

locations with limited personnel and

mixed fleets. The AACA contends that

the part 121 specification of

maintenance personnel duty time

limitations would require the air carrier

either to develop and apply separate

work schedules for part 121 and part

135 mechanics or to hire additional

mechanics.

FAA Response: With few exceptions,

the FAA agrees with the commenters.

Part 121 requires 24 hours off during

any 7 consecutive days; part 135 makes

no such provision. In its original

assessment of maintenance and

preventive maintenance personnel duty

time limitations, the FAA assumed the

issue to be non-controversial; the

existence of union work rules,

Department of Labor regulations and the

generally accepted notion of a ‘‘day of

rest’’ were believed to be sufficient to

accomplish the same result. As a

consequence, the FAA did not assess

any costs associated with the burden of

scheduling and providing a day of rest

for part 135 mechanics as is required

under part 121 where operators must

ensure adequate rest for their

mechanics.

The FAA maintains that mechanics,

similar to pilots and flight attendants,

must receive adequate rest in order to

perform their duties properly and that

the minimum standard required under

part 121 would ensure that the

opportunity for rest is provided. The

FAA, however, concurs with the AACA

that the extending of duty time

limitations to the Alaskan operators of

mixed fleets utilizing maintenance

personnel under both parts 121 and 135

would be an additional cost burden.

Therefore, based on cost information

provided by the AACA, the FAA has

adjusted its original maintenance cost

estimates accordingly. The adjustment

is two-fold: 1) the full cost burden

inclusive of potential added labor costs

were estimated for Alaskan 10–19 seat

category air carriers; and 2) the

administrative maintenance personnel

scheduling costs without the labor cost

factor were estimated for the remainder

of the 10-to-19-seat non-Alaskan

commuter fleet as well as the 20-to-30-

seat commuter fleet.

Maintenance Recordkeeping

Requirements (Recording). The AACA

also criticizes the FAA’s estimate of a

one-time cost for compliance with the

commuter rule’s maintenance

provisions. The AACA maintains that

the one-time cost is underestimated and

that there would be on-going

maintenance recordkeeping costs.

FAA Response: The FAA concurs and

has adjusted its original maintenance

cost estimates accordingly. In this

instance, however, the FAA has

apportioned the added required

maintenance recordkeeping costs

between 10-to-19-seat and 20-to-30-seat

airplanes for the total domestic

commuter industry.

Maintenance Recordkeeping

Requirements (Records Transfer). One

commenter objects to the proposed

change requiring engine and propeller

total time in service to be added to the

list of required recorded items.

Typically, under part 121, only the total

hours in service of an airplane’s

airframe is transferred information on

older airplanes because operators have

not been required to retain engine and

propeller time in service data.

According to the commenter, this

change would necessitate operators of

older 121 airplanes to undergo an

extensive search of maintenance records

to determine the historical times on the

engine and propeller if such data is

available at all.

FAA Response: The FAA concurs

with the commenter. The adoption of

part 135 wording imposes the more

comprehensive part 135 maintenance

recording requirements on part 121

operators and this might require an

extensive search of maintenance records

with some additional cost to an operator

of older part 121 airplanes. The FAA,

however, believes that any additional

cost as a result of such a search would

be minimal and has been taken into

account with the cost adjustment

provided under the maintenance

recordkeeping requirements for

recording addressed in an earlier

comment. The FAA believes that the

additional cost would be minimal

because only seven existing part 121

operators of older propeller-driven

airplanes would be affected by the new

requirement. Typically, most part 135

operators utilizing propeller-driven

airplanes already retain engine- and

propeller-total-time-in-service data and

most part 121 operators utilize jetdriven airplanes.

Continuous Airworthiness

Maintenance Program (CAMP). One

commenter estimates that the cost

associated with the CAMP was

considerably greater ($1.6 million)

relative to the FAA’s estimate to

develop or revise and upgrade the

CAMP ($105,000) as a result of the

commuter rule.

FAA Response: The FAA does not

concur with the commenter’s estimate.

The FAA maintains that nearly all

operators of airplanes with 10-to-19- or

20-to-30-seat configurations regardless

of whether operating under part 121 or

part 135, are either conducting their

scheduled maintenance under an

approved CAMP or have adopted a

CAMP as the basic guideline for their

scheduled maintenance. As a

consequence, the FAA based its original

estimates on the cost associated with the

minimum editorial changes to operators’

CAMP’s necessitated by the commuter

rule.

The FAA however, has adjusted its

maintenance cost estimates for

recordkeeping requirements based on

the comments already discussed and

detailed above. The FAA believes the

costs described by the commenter are

costs associated with the new

recordkeeping requirements, not

administrative costs associated with the

modifications to existing CAMP’s.

5. Part 119

Single-Engine Airplanes. Several

commenters state that the NPRM cost

estimates for not allowing a passenger to

sit in the co-pilot seat on a single-engine

Otter are understated. One commenter

states that the data the FAA used was

based on national averages while all of

the airplanes in question are located in

Alaska. The commenters also state that

the load factors and operating costs in

Alaska are much higher than the rest of

the country.

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with

the commenters and will not prohibit

qualified (as prescribed by § 135.113)

single-engine airplanes, namely singleengine Otters, from carrying a revenue

passenger in the copilot seat.

Proving Tests. Several commenters

suggest that for operators who are

switching from part 135 to part 121, the

FAA should allow proving tests on

revenue flights. Other commenters

contend that since the airplanes they are

using and the routes they are flying are

not changing, the FAA should not

require a proving test. Still other

commenters state that the FAA’s

estimate of $437 hourly airplane

operating costs was too low. (This rate

includes crew, maintenance, and fuel

costs.) The commenters’ estimates range

from $750 to $1,050 per hour versus the

FAA’s average estimate of $483 per hour

for 20-to-30-seat airplanes and $463 per

hour for 10-to-19-seat airplanes. Finally,

some part 135 operators commented
65898 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

that they already meet many of the part

121 requirements and should not have

to have a proving test.

FAA Response: For most part 135

operators, the biggest affect the NPRM

would have on them would be the

establishment of a dispatch system.

Thus, for some operators, the FAA

could devise tests that would entail only

limited in-flight proving tests. This

could be done almost entirely from the

operator’s dispatch center. For the

initial upgrade to part 121, the FAA will

not require compliance with the initial

airplane proving tests requirements of

Section 121.163(a) for airplanes already

used by the affected commuters in Part

135 operations.

As for the hourly airplane operating

cost, some of the commenters provided

hourly-charter rates. However, the cost

of the rule would not necessitate that

operators give up a revenue or charter

flight to complete the proving test.

Therefore, the cost of the rule would be

only the direct operating cost of the

airplane based on a direct operating cost

rate and not the charter rate. The FAA’s

estimate was consistent with estimates

provided by several airplane

manufacturers.

Management Personnel. One

commenter says that a number of their

management personnel would not meet

the new criteria and that they would

have to hire all new personnel or a

consultant. Other commenters argue

that existing personnel should be

‘‘grandfathered in’’ under the final rule.

Another commenter says that the

requirement for part 121 operators that

a director of maintenance have five

years of experience within the past five

years excludes people who may have

not worked for an extended period

during a job search.

FAA Response: The FAA contends

that most currently employed directors

meet the new standards. However, for

those directors who do not, section

119.67(e) allows for operators to request

deviation for the continued employment

of those directors. The FAA anticipates

that operators whose directors do not

meet the new requirements would

request deviation.

In addition, the FAA agrees that the

five years experience within five years

places an unnecessary burden on those

directors who may have extended

periods of unemployment within the

five year period prior to being hired.

Thus, the FAA is changing the

requirement to three years of experience

in the past six years.

Definition of Commuter Air Carrier.

Several commenters disagree with the

FAA’s proposal to remove the frequency

of operation from the definition of a

‘‘commuter operations’’. The existing

requirement defines a commuter as one

conducting five or more scheduled

round-trips per week. This allows ondemand operators to conduct up to four

scheduled operations per week. The

commenters provide only general

comments that the new definition

would impose costs.

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with

the commenters that the frequency of

operations test in part 135 should

remain.

6. Benefits

The comments received on the

estimated benefits mostly pertained to

the FAA’s use of a general-accident-rate

approach to estimating benefits. The

commenters object to the FAA’s use of

a broad-based accident rate rather than

identifying specific historic accidents

that the NPRM could have prevented.

Other commenters note that the FAA

deviated from its usual method of

calculating benefits. This method is to

identify specific types of accidents

(based on the historical record) that

would be prevented by a corresponding

requirement of the proposed rule. Also,

commenters indicate that the commuter

accident rate has been declining over

the past several years thereby making

much of the rule unnecessary. Finally,

commenters note that most of the

accidents involved pilot error, which is

not being addressed by the NPRM.

FAA Response: The FAA agrees that

most of the historic accidents involved

pilot error. However, many of the pilot

error accidents were the result of the

pilot’s improper response to an

emergency situation. An example of this

would be an accident where an airplane

experiences some mechanical problem

or adverse weather and the pilot fails to

follow the appropriate corrective

procedures to prevent the accident.

Even if the accident could not have been

prevented, the pilot may have reacted in

such a way that the damage or casualties

were not mitigated to the extent that

they could have been.

The FAA used a general or broadbased accident rate because the scope of

the NPRM was broad, encompassing a

wide range of safety issues from

certification, operations, cabin safety,

maintenance, etc. Similarly, the types of

accidents the NPRM would prevent are

also broad, based on a wide range of

probable causes of historic accidents.

For most of the accidents, the FAA

could not determine if any one

requirement of the NPRM alone could

have prevented or mitigated the

accident. This made it very difficult to

divide the various probable causes of

the accidents to the various

requirements that could have prevented

them. Thus, for the NPRM, the FAA

contends that a general broad based

accident rate is more appropriate.

The FAA agrees that the historic

accident rate for part 135 operators has

declined. However, that rate is still

consistently higher than commuter-type

operations under part 121. In the NPRM,

the FAA acknowledged that in some

respects the part 135 accident rate is

higher due to some inherent differences

in part 135 and part 121 commuter-type

operations. In other respects, the part

135 rate is higher because those

operators follow a different and less

stringent set of safety rules than part

121. The FAA contends that much of

the gap in the accident rate could be

closed if all commercial passengercarrying operators adhered to the higher

part 121 standards of safety.

7. Other Areas of Interest

Projected Ticket Prices. Several

commenters state that the projected

ticket price increases of $1.91 and $.68,

respectively for 10-to-19- and 20-to-30-

seat airplanes is far off. Commenters

from Alaska presented the strongest

disapproval of FAA’s projected ticketprice estimates.

FAA Response: The FAA’s cost

estimates of $1.91 and $.68 were not far

off because most of the commenters’

higher costs claims did not have merit.

Except for some commenters from

Alaska, the FAA did not receive any

direct-cost comments related to these

two estimates. Since these two cost

estimates were based on the total cost of

compliance for the proposed rule, they

would only change if there were a

change in costs for the commuter rule.

The FAA reviewed all of the cost

comments submitted on the proposed

rule and rejected the vast majority of

them due to the comments’ failure to

substantiate their claims of higher costs.

In terms of the comments received

from Alaskan operators, the FAA agrees

that their costs would be higher than

$1.91 and $.68, respectively. It is

important to note that these projected

ticket price increases represent averages

over the 10-year period. They are based

on the cost of compliance for each of the

10 years, summed over the period, and

divided by the number of years.

Therefore, if particular operators were to

incur disproportionate higher costs,

they would be expected to pass those

costs on, to the extent possible, in the

form of higher ticket prices. Ticket price

increases would be highest for all

impacted operators during the first two

to three years and decrease gradually

thereafter.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65899

After accepting some of the cost

comments and making adjustments for

changes in performance and certain

equipment requirements, the commuter

rule is estimated to cost $118 million (as

opposed to $275 million in the NPRM).

Based on this estimate, the average

annual per ticket price increase for each

of the two airplane-seat categories, over

the next 15 years, will be far less than

the original estimates.

VIII. Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Changes to Federal regulations must

undergo several economic analyses.

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that

each Federal agency shall propose or

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned

determination that the benefits of the

intended regulation justify its costs.

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act

of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the

economic effect of regulatory changes

on small entities. Third, the Office of

Management and Budget directs

agencies to assess the effect of

regulatory changes on international

trade. In conducting these analyses, the

FAA has determined that this Final Rule

will generate benefits that justify its

costs and is ‘‘a significant regulatory

action’’ as defined in the Executive

Order. The FAA estimates, however,

that the final rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. No

part of the final rule will constitute a

barrier to international trade. These

analyses, available in the docket, are

summarized below.

A. Sections Without Cost Impacts

Those part 121 sections that the FAA

has determined will not impose

additional costs on part 135 commuter

operators are not described in this

summary evaluation. Each of those part

121 sections will not impose costs for

one of the following reasons: (1) Current

practice is identical or very similar to

the new requirement; (2) the new

requirement represents minor

procedural changes; (3) the section

determines general applicability and

does not specifically impose any costs;

or (4) certain requirements of part 135

would be incorporated into part 121

without change. Those part 121 sections

without costs are described in the full

evaluation under each of the areas for

which they apply. While not shown in

this summary evaluation, it is important

to note that 10 of the sections in the

final rule were identified as having

negligible costs. These negligible costs,

even when combined, will not be

significant.

B. Sections With Cost Impact

The rule will impose costs on part 135

operators with 10-to-30-seat airplanes.

The FAA estimates the total cost of the

rule will be $117.80 million over the

next 15 years in 1994 dollars, with a

present value of $75.19 million (7

percent discount rate). The total

potential costs for 10-to-19- and 20-to30-seat airplanes are presented in the

following areas:

10–19

seats

20–30

seats Total cost Presentvalue

Operations ................................................................................................................................................... $48.32 $24.87 $73.19 $46.18

Maintenance ................................................................................................................................................ 12.93 5.26 18.19 11.93

Cabin Safety ................................................................................................................................................ 5.99 5.58 11.57 8.20

Part 119 ....................................................................................................................................................... 2.73 0.63 3.36 2.30

Certification .................................................................................................................................................. 10.39 1.10 11.49 6.58

Total ...................................................................................................................................................... $80.36 $37.44 $117.80 $75.19

Based on the $80.36 million figure

shown above, the FAA estimates that,

on average over the next 15 years, the

price of a one-way airline ticket will

increase by $0.62 for affected operators

with 10-to-19-seat airplanes. Similarly,

based on the $37.44 million figure, the

ticket price will increase by $0.30 for

affected operators with 20-to-30-seat

airplanes.

It is important to note that the total

cost per airplane in each of the first four

years of the rule sheds light on the

initial compliance costs. These costs per

airplane are as follows:

10-to-19-

seat

airplanes

20-to-30-

seat

airplanes

1996 .................. $19,400 $21,900

1997 .................. 7,600 6,600

1998 .................. 7,000 6,300

1999 .................. 7,200 5,900

1. Operations

This section of the regulatory

evaluation examines the costs of the

changes with regard to operations.

Fifteen-year costs for operations

requirements will total $73.19 million

($46.18 million, present value). The cost

items, by section, are provided below.

Section 121.97: Airports Required

Data. Each domestic and flag air carrier

must show that each route it submits for

approval has enough airports that are

properly equipped and adequate for the

proposed operation. Consideration is

given items as size, surface,

obstructions, etc. In short, this

requirement will ensure that in the

event of a single-engine failure each

operator’s airplane type (regardless of

the number of airplanes) can either stop

at the end of the runway or, if it

continues to fly, can safely clear all of

the obstacles in the flight path.

To estimate the potential cost of this

requirement, the FAA contacted several

commuter operators. According to these

operators, the potential cost of

compliance is based on performanceobstacle-data analyses for airplane types

at particular airports. To ensure that the

performance objective will be met,

operators are required to make certain

that the maximum-allowable-takeoff

weight is always achieved under certain

temperature conditions. This is done by

conducting performance analyses for

each airplane type at the airport it

intends to operate. To achieve this

objective, operators typically hire a

contractor to perform obstacle-location

and height surveys. The contractor uses

the airplane’s flight-manualperformance data to assess flap settings

and runway-end capability for a

particular airport for information related

to takeoff-run-acceleration distance,

runway length, anti-skid, etc.

The typical contractor fee is $20 per

runway. For example, ABC airlines is a

commuter operator with 5 types of

airplanes that it wishes to operate at

airports in 10 cities. Each city has an

airport with 10 runways. The operator,

however, only intends to use two

runways per airport in each of the 10

cities. The cost performing the needed

obstacle performance data analyses is

$2,000 ($20 per runway ×10 airports ×2

runways per airport ×5 airplane types).

While this is a simple example of

estimating a fictitious operator’s

potential cost of compliance, it sheds

light on the difficulty of deriving such
65900 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

costs reliably. Although reliable

information is available on the cost of

contractor conducted obstacleperformance-data analyses, the same

reliability does not apply to the number

of runways or airports commuter

operators will use. Potential costs for

this requirement cannot be estimated

reliably without knowing what airports,

runways, and the types of airplanes

operators will use. It is for this reason

that this section of the evaluation

contains no estimate for costs. Despite

this situation, the FAA contends that

this requirement is an important

element in achieving the one-level-ofsafety objective.

Section 121.99: Communications

Facilities. Currently, this section

requires each domestic and flag air

carrier to show availability of a two-way

air/ground radio communication system

at points that will ensure reliable and

rapid communications, under normal

operating conditions over the entire

route (either direct or via approved

point-to-point circuits). Each carrier also

must show that the system is accessible

between each airplane and appropriate

dispatch office, and between each

airplane and the appropriate ATC unit.

In addition, each system must be

independent of any other system

operated by the United States.

To estimate the potential cost, the

FAA contacted several industry sources,

including operators and data link

service venders. These sources

indicated that the least expensive option

for most operators would be a voice data

link service from an FAA-approved

vender. According to Aeronautical

Radio, Inc. (ARINC) and several

operators with operations specifications

for parts 121 and 135 (scheduled), the

needed voice-data-link service consists

of a monthly access fee of $35 per

operator and a fee of $14 per contact.

Contact refers to any form of voice

communication between the pilot while

in flight and the home dispatcher.

If, from a worst case standpoint, none

of the current commuters have this

access service, the total cost will be the

number of affected operators times the

monthly access fee of $35 over the next

15 years. This evaluation estimates that

the number of commuter operators will

range from 63 in 1996 to 73 in 2010.

This will result in a total cost of $445

million ($269 million, present value).

The contact fee cost can be estimated in

a similar manner, though it employs a

great deal more of uncertainty because

the actual number of contacts each

operator will make annually is

unknown and usually varies among

operators. According to industry

sources, there will be a certain

percentage of contacts per annual

departures for each airplane in an

operator’s fleet. Based on information

contained in the Regional Airlines

Association’s Annual Report for 1994,

each airplane in the U.S. commuter fleet

makes an average of 5.68 departures per

day or 2,074 annually. The number of

airplanes with 10 to 30 seats in the U.S.

commuter fleet is projected to range

from 950 in 1996 to 1,099 in 2010.

Initially for this evaluation, the FAA

assumed at least one contact per

departure. Multiplying the 2,074 annual

departures times the $14 contact fee

gives the total potential contact cost of

$445 million ($269 million, present)

over the next 15 years. In realistic terms,

however, this cost estimate is too high

because it does not reflect the actual

practice in industry. According to

several operators, contacts via ARINC or

a similar service would only be made

during emergency situations (for

example, flight delays, inclement

weather, etc.). Within an average radius

of 50 nautical miles, contacts can be

made directly between the airplane pilot

and the home dispatcher, without the

aid of an external-communicationsvoice-data network (e.g., ARINC or a

similar service). In flat lands, this

communication can be made up to 100

miles, when the dispatcher is located at

the hub. In high terrain areas,

communication with the home

dispatcher would have a radius of less

than 50 miles. In emergency situations

that arise beyond the average radius of

50 miles, ARINC or similar service

would be needed. This would be

especially true in remote areas such as

the U.S. northern frontier (Montana,

Idaho, etc.), Alaska, American Samoa,

and Hawaii. This information indicates

that frequency of use of ARINC or a

similar service may not be as high as

originally expected. According to some

operators, the likelihood of having at

least one contact via ARINC per airplane

departure by an operator, on average,

could range from 5 to 10 percent. When

considering that contacts via ARINC or

a similar service beyond the 50-mile

radius would only be made in

emergency situations, operators, on

average, would make contact on 10

percent of their airplane departures.

Employing this approach, costs will

amount to $44 million ($26 million,

present value) over the next 15 years.

In addition to the information above,

industry sources contacted indicated

that commuter operators with dual or

split operations specifications (both

parts 121 and 135) already have this

capability. These operators

(approximately 19) account for over 60

percent of all the airplanes in the U.S.

commuter fleet. This scenario will result

in estimated costs of $18.9 million

($11.5 million, present value) over the

next 15 years. This cost estimate also

recognizes that the number of contacts

will be lower because pilots typically

contact ATC for information related

primarily to weather and air traffic

delays. Therefore, this evaluation

assumes only 10 percent of the

commuter airplane departures, by

operators without dual operations

specifications, will engage in contacts

via ARINC or similar service.

Section 121.135—Contents of Manual.

This section will require an extensive

list of manual contents for operators.

Unlike part 135, part 121 requires more

detailed instructions to flight and

ground personnel, including dispatch

procedures, airport information, and

approach procedures. The manuals of

part 121 operators are, on average, three

times as voluminous as those of part 135

operators. Thus, compliance with the

final rule will result in major rewrites of

manuals. Based on cost information

received from industry, affected

operators will spend an additional

$50,000 on average ($30,000 to $70,000)

each for new manuals. This cost

estimate multiplied times the number of

operators over the next 15 years will

total approximately $3.65 million,

($3.28 million, present value). This cost

estimate for manuals takes into account

additional preparation and distribution

requirements.

Section 121.337—Protective Breathing

Equipment (PBE) for the Cockpit. This

section will require PBE units for

persons operating airplanes under part

121. Part 135 has no PBE requirement.

While commuter airplanes are typically

smaller than airplanes operating under

part 121, the accessibility of PBE in the

cockpit will provide smoke-and-fumes

protection for pilots. The airplane

operator is allowed to use fixed

equipment such as oxygen masks and

smoke goggles at each pilot station.

Depending on the present airplane

configuration, this may require

substantial modifications.

According to FAA’s technical

personnel, airplanes with 20-to-30 seats

already have fixed PBE units for pilot

stations in the cockpit for smoke and

fume protection but they are not

equipped with a portable PBE unit for

fire fighting. In terms of operators with

10-to-19-seat airplanes, the FAA is

uncertain as to how many part 135

operators are already equipped with

PBE (portable or fixed) in the cockpit.

As the result of this uncertainty, this

evaluation assumes that part 135

operators with 10-to-19-seat airplanes

are not currently equipped with PBE in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65901

the cockpit. This evaluation also

assumes that operators with 20-to-30-

seat airplanes do not have portable PBE

in the cockpit for firefighting. The

installation of fixed PBE in some

commuter airplanes could be

prohibitively expensive because of

complex breathing gas supply

requirements. Since portable PBE is

much cheaper than fixed PBE, operators

with 10-to-19-seat commuter airplanes

are assumed to acquire and install

portable smoke and fume PBE in the

cockpit if not equipped with an oxygen

system. Each portable PBE is estimated

to cost $400 per unit. In 1996 and

subsequent years, operators with 10-to19-seat airplanes are assumed to install

two smoke-and-fumes portable PBE

units in the cockpit: one at each of the

two pilot stations. Over this same

period, operators with 20-to-30-seat

airplanes are assumed to install one

additional fire-fighting-portable PBE

unit in the cockpit. In addition to PBE

units, costs are also estimated for the

weight penalty of each PBE unit. Each

of the cost components multiplied by

the number of airplanes in existence,

over the next 15 years, will result in an

estimated cost of $2.64 million, ($1.81

million, present value).

Section 121.357—Airborne Weather

Radar. This section will require part 135

commuters to equip their airplanes with

approved weather radar. Currently,

section 135.173 requires that operators

equip their airplanes with either

thunderstorm detection equipment or

approved weather radar. However,

section 135.175 requires operators of

airplanes with 20 to 30 passenger seats

to equip their airplanes with weather

radar. An estimated 90 percent of all

commuter airplanes with 10-to-19

passenger seats already have approved

weather radar equipment. Based on this

information, the rule will only affect an

estimated 10 percent of those operators

of airplanes with 10-to-19 seats

(excluding commuter operators in

Alaska and Hawaii which are not

covered by the rule). Because of their

unique flying environments, commuter

operators in Hawaii and Alaska are not

required under current regulations to be

equipped with weather radar

equipment. Weather radar costs

approximately $30,000 per airplane,

including installation. Each weather

radar unit weighs 25 pounds. This

weight translates into an average weight

penalty of 87 gallons of fuel per airplane

per year. The sum of these cost

components multiplied by the number

of commuter airplanes over the next 15

years will total $5.08 million ($3.73

million, present value).

Sections 121.593–595: Dispatching

authority for domestic and flag air

carriers; 121.107: Dispatch centers;

121.533–535: Responsibility for

operational control; 121.683:

Crewmember and dispatcher record;

121.687: Dispatch release; and other

sections that assign specific duties to

dispatchers. The rule will require that

flights in scheduled commuter

operations with 10-to-30 seat airplanes

be authorized by a dispatcher.

Dispatchers currently are not required

under part 135. The FAA assumes that

the majority of operators currently

certificated only under part 135 do not

employ fully qualified dispatchers.

These operators primarily employ fulltime flight locators. The FAA further

assumes that operators conducting both

parts 121 and 135 operations currently

employ half as many qualified

dispatchers as they will need to

dispatch all of their flights.

The number of dispatchers was

primarily calculated using information

provided by Airline Dispatchers

Federation (ADF) and industry sources.

The ADF estimated that an air carrier

with 30 airplanes will need eight or

nine dispatchers to staff a 24-hour

operation. The FAA used a ratio of eight

dispatchers to 30 airplanes of 10 or

more passenger seats for each part 135

commuter air carrier. The total number

of required dispatchers was computed

by multiplying the number of airplanes

with 10 or more passenger seats

operated by each air carrier by the ratio

8 to 30. However, to take into account

that an 8-hour day might not cover all

of an air carrier’s daily flights, as well

as vacation and sick leave, the FAA

assumes that each air carrier will need

at least two dispatchers. In 1996, 307

dispatchers will be needed to meet the

requirements of this rule. In 1997, the

number of dispatchers will be 318 and

will grow to 353 by 2010.

Unlike in regulatory evaluation for the

proposed rule, the cost of compliance

for the final rule is based primarily on

the median annual salary differential

between flight locators and dispatchers.

The FAA estimated the median annual

salary of a part 135 dispatcher on the

hourly wage of $9.10 reported by the

ADF. The FAA computed an annual

median salary of $23,849 for a

dispatcher by multiplying the ADF’s

hourly wage rate estimate of $9.10 times

a fringe benefits factor of 1.26 (or 26

percent) and full-time yearly hours of

2,080 (52 wks. × 40 hrs.). Similarly, the

median annual salary of a flight locator

was estimated to be $19,656

($7.50×1.26×2,080). The annual median

salary differential was estimated to be

$4,193 ($23,849 less $19,656).

Based primarily on information

received from FAA technical personnel

and industry (operators and ADF’s

comments on the NPRM), about 67

percent of the required flight

dispatchers will come from existing part

135 flight locators and approximately 33

percent of the required dispatchers will

be hired from outside by operators.

Some of these new hires will be

supervisors/trainers. According to

several commuter operators contacted

recently, they will have to hire

dispatchers from outside of their

company in order for them to meet the

proposed dispatcher requirements. The

decision to hire dispatchers from the

outside is based primarily on: (1) The

need for additional supervisory

personnel because of the projected

number of inexperienced dispatchers to

be hired under part 121 and (2) all of

their existing personnel (flight locators

and to some flight followers) cannot be

trained at once without seriously

disrupting daily operations. Thus, of all

the new dispatchers projected to be

hired over the next 15 years, about 67

percent will be from existing personnel

(upgraded from flight locators and some

flight followers) with the affected

commuter operators and 33 percent

from the outside (or non-upgraded

employees).

Training costs include 40 hours of

initial training, 10 hours of recurrent

training, and 5 hours of operating

familiarization for dispatchers who

authorize turbopropeller flights (as

required by sections 121.422(c)(1)(ii),

121.427(c)(4)(ii), and 121.463(a)(2)). Air

carriers are assumed to incur the cost of

dispatchers’ salaries during training. In

addition to salary costs, the FAA

assumes that the air carrier will incur

$1,000 in costs for initial training for

each dispatcher and $500 in costs for

recurrent training for each dispatcher.

The FAA estimates that each carrier will

incur $1,000 in administrative costs for

each dispatcher hired. The FAA

recognizes that during the initial and

follow-up training for new dispatchers,

operators may incur additional costs in

the form of reduced operational

efficiency, though to what extent is

unknown. However, in view of all

available information, the FAA has no

indication that such costs would be

significant.

Total personnel-related costs were

calculated by adding the salary,

training, administrative costs, and

multiplying by the number of new

dispatchers required. The FAA

estimates that the dispatcher

requirement will cost $42.86 million

($25.9 million, present value) over the

next 15 years. Approximately $25.66
65902 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

million ($15.49 million, present value)

will be borne by operators of 10-to-19-

seat airplanes, and the remaining $17.20

million ($10.38 million, present value)

will be borne by operators of 20-to-30-

seat airplanes.

According to the ADF, most part 135

operators already have facilities and

communications equipment that satisfy

the dispatch requirements under part

121. Accordingly, the FAA has not

included estimates of additional costs

attributable to facilities and equipment.

The FAA acknowledges that this is a

reasonable assessment since all

commuter operators exercise some

degree of operational control with the

use of either flight locating or flight

following. The provision of either one of

these services requires communication

facilities and associated equipment.

Section 121.383: Age-60 Requirement.

This section will prohibit operators of

airplanes in scheduled service with 10-

to-30 passenger seats from using people

over the age of 60 as pilots for that

service. Currently there is no age

restriction for pilots in part 135

operations. Based on data provided by

the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA),

the FAA estimates that only about 0.55

percent of part 135 commuter pilots are

currently over the age of 60. The FAA

estimates that about 45 pilots will be

affected if the requirement takes effect

in the year 1999. The FAA also

estimates, based on ALPA data, that

0.32 percent of current part 135 pilots

would reach age 60 in subsequent years

and thus about 27 pilots would need to

be replaced each year from 1999 on.

The FAA is unable to quantify the

costs to operators or to affected pilots.

The nature and magnitude of these costs

depend upon the alternatives available

to each party, which the FAA has been

unable to identify in sufficient detail to

estimate costs. The FAA believes that

the four-year phase-in of this

requirement will help to minimize any

potential disruptions the rule may cause

and that the resulting cost are not likely

to be substantial. The FAA also believes

that the age 60 requirement is essential

to achieve the ‘‘one level of safety’’ goal

established by the Secretary of

Transportation and that any cost of this

requirement is justified by its benefits.

2. Cabin Safety

This section of the regulatory

evaluation examines the costs of the

changes with regard to cabin safety.

Over the next 15 years, costs for cabin

safety items will total $11.57 million

($8.20 million, present value). The cost

items, by section, are provided below.

Sections 121.133, 121.135, and

121.137—Flight Attendant Manual.

These sections will require all flight

attendants to have an operations

manual. There is no such requirement

for flight attendants currently working

for part 135 operators. This requirement

necessitates preparing such manuals for

each flight attendant . Since each flight

attendant is required to have a manual,

the number of manuals equals the

number of flight attendants. The 15-year

cost for the preparation, copying, and

binding of these manuals is $61,600

($47,200, present value). The costs

involve the preparation of the manual

contents and the copying and binding of

the finished manual. FAA analysis

projects 277 20-to-30-seat airplanes in

20 air carriers in 1996, increasing to 556

such airplanes in 39 air carriers by 2010.

Each air carrier will employ a flight

attendant supervisor (paid at $24.19 per

hour) and a clerical worker (paid at

$11.00 per hour) to spend 40 hours each

preparing a manual; hence, it will cost

each air carrier about $1,400 to prepare

a manual. The manual is an average of

100 pages long; at $.10 to copy each

page, and $2 to bind each manual, total

copying and binding costs is expected to

total $12 for each manual. Existing air

carriers with new airplanes in the future

will have to reproduce a new manual for

each airplane. All new air carriers with

20-to-30-seat airplanes, which will total

19 by 2010, will also have to prepare

and publish flight attendant manuals.

Section 121.285 and 121.589—CarryOn Baggage. These sections will require

affected operators to stow carry-on

baggage and develop a program to

screen carry-on baggage. Screening, in

this context, refers to a visual check to

ensure that the carry-on baggage is the

proper size and could be stored properly

on the airplane; it does not refer to

security screening. Currently, part 135

airplanes adhere to substantive baggage

stowage procedures, but part 121.589

requires that a crewmember verify that

all baggage is properly secured before all

doors are closed and the airplane leaves

the gate. Some air carriers argue that

this requirement will increase time at

the gate, reduce airplane utilization

time, and thus result in lower revenue

to air carriers. The FAA contends that

there will be no costs for this procedure

due to the minimal time necessary to

properly secure carry-on baggage and

the fact that airplanes experience

routine delays anyway while waiting for

clearance on the runway. The cost of the

rule will involve the preparation of an

addendum to the Operations

Specifications in which each carrier will

outline its procedures for a baggage

program.

The 15-year cost for operators of 10-

to-30-seat airplanes to prepare a carryon baggage addendum to the Operations

Specifications will be $20,600 ($18,500,

present value). This cost is divided

between 10-to-19-seat airplanes

($12,300) and 20-to-30-seat airplanes

($8,300). For each air carrier, this

process involves two people—a flight

attendant supervisor for 20-to-30-seat

airplanes or a crewmember supervisor

for 10-to-19-seat airplanes (both paid at

$24.19 per hour) and a clerical person

($11.00 per hour) to do the paperwork

(average of 8 hours each) and to develop

the addendum. Each carrier will bear

the cost of developing the addendum for

the airplanes in its fleet; it costs each air

carrier about $280 for this work. The

number of air carriers is projected to rise

from 63 in 1996 to 73 in 2010. Finally,

the actual baggage screening function

will not impose costs because part 135

crewmembers are already required to

screen baggage in order to secure it.

Section 121.291(d)—Ditching

Demonstration. This section requires

new air carriers to conduct a ditching

demonstration for each airplane type it

proposes to operate in extended

overwater operations. There is no

similar requirement in part 135.

In the NPRM, the FAA used an

estimate that 25 percent of all 10-to-30-

seat airplanes conduct extended

overwater flights. Upon further

examination, this assumption turned

out to be too high. Based on a recent

survey, the FAA has ascertained that

less than 3 percent of all 10-to-19 seat

airplanes (14 airplanes) and no 20-to-30-

seat airplanes currently conduct

overwater flights. The percentages were

projected into the future. Based on this

paucity of airplanes certificated for

extended overwater flights, the FAA

tried to estimate the costs for part 135

operators to conduct ditching

evacuation demonstrations for new 10-

to-30-seat airplanes using two different

methods. In both cases, as will be

shown below, the 15-year cost for part

135 operators to conduct ditching

evacuation demonstrations for new 10-

to-30-seat airplanes will be zero.

The first method involves taking an

aggregate approach and examining the

entire fleet using the same methodology

used in the NPRM. This involves a

demonstration which requires

crewmembers to perform ditching

evacuation drills and safety procedures

including the deployment of one raft.

For both 10-to-19- and 20-to-30-seat

airplanes the annual incremental change

in the number of airplanes times the

applicable percentage of airplanes

conducting extended overwater flights

was zero for every year between 1996

and 2010. Accordingly, using this

methodology, the cost will be zero.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65903

The second method involved

individually examining those air

carriers that this provision affects. The

FAA was able to identify those

operators that conduct extended

overwater operations with 10-to-30-seat

airplanes. In every case, the airplanes

involved were 10-to-19-seat types. Since

the FAA is projecting only a modest

increase in such airplanes through 1997

and an overall decline in 10-to-19-seat

airplanes after 1997, it is highly unlikely

that these operators will seek to increase

their fleet size with a new airplane make

and model currently not in its fleet that

will require a ditching evacuation

demonstration. Therefore, there will be

no cost.

Both the operator and the FAA incur

labor costs to complete a ditching

demonstration. The actual

demonstration takes about one hour to

complete and requires two sets of crews.

If an operator should need to conduct a

ditching demonstration, the FAA

estimates the cost for a 10-to-19 seat

airplane at $1,025 per demonstration.

Section 121.309—Medical Kits. This

section will require affected commuters

to have one medical kit on each 20-to30-seat airplane for those operators. The

FAA has decided to except 10-to-19-seat

airplanes from this requirement due to

their smaller size and the unlikelihood

that a medical professional will be on

board or a flight attendant to administer

the use of the kit.

The FAA estimates that the 15-year

cost for providing medical kits on the

20-to-30-seat airplanes operating under

part 135 will be $1.11 million

($674,300, present value). The costs of

providing medical kits are composed of

acquisition ($200 each) with a 60

percent spares reserve, installation,

annual replacement (5 percent), annual

maintenance ($20 per kit), a weight

penalty (7 pounds per unit), physician

consultation expenses ($500 per

consultation), engineering and

administrative costs, and record keeping

(1 hour each time a kit is used at $20.58

per hour).

Acquisition, replacement, and

maintenance costs for kits are a function

of the number of airplanes. In the first

year of the rule, the bulk of the medical

kits will be purchased; 443 kits will be

needed for 277 airplanes, which takes

into account the 60 percent spares

reserve. Additional kits are purchased

in the future as the airplane fleet

increases to 556 airplanes in 2010, and

to take into account a 5 percent annual

replacement rate. Maintenance costs are

calculated based on the number of units

that were in use the previous year. The

annual maintenance cost equals $8,860

($20 per kit×443 kits) for all kits (active

and spares) in 1997.

Historical data on part 121 airplanes

shows one medical emergency for every

124,647 passenger enplanements. The

FAA assumes that the medical

emergency rate is the same on 20-to-30-

seat airplanes since all air carriers serve

the same base population. The FAA

estimates 70 medical emergencies in

1996 and 77 medical emergencies in

1997. A physician consultation will be

required twice a year per air carrier to

obtain certain contents, such as

prescription drugs, for the medical kits

at a cost of $500 per consultation. In

1996, for the 20 projected air carriers,

total consultations will total $20,000.

Record keeping will be needed per

medical emergency; it will take one

hour to write up each emergency. At

$20.58 per hour, in 1996, record keeping

costs will total $1,433.

In the NPRM, the FAA assumed that

the medical kits could be secured and

installed with industrial strength Velcro

tape. The FAA still believes that

securing these kits with Velcro (a low

cost option, at $20 per kit plus two

hours for a Maintenance worker at

$20.58 per hour) will meet the 18–G

requirement. Also, airplane

manufacturers will need to spend

$1,500 for each make and model to

account for the design and

administrative costs involved with

securing these kits and to comply with

FAA regulations; with 8 makes and

models, this totals $12,000. This cost

will be spread across the entire

population of each make and model.

Section 121.309—First Aid Kit. This

section will require 10-to-19-seat

airplanes to have at least one first aid

kit. Currently, part 135 requires all

airplanes with greater than 19 seats to

have one kit, but there is no requirement

for airplanes with 10 to 19 seats to have

a kit.

The 15-year cost of this requirement

will be $371,400 ($267,400, present

value). The costs of providing first aid

kits are composed of acquisition ($70

each based on industry survey) with a

35 percent spares reserve, installation,

annual replacement rate (5 percent of

total), a weight penalty (4 pounds),

engineering and administrative costs,

and annual maintenance ($7 per kit).

Costs are a function of the 10-to-19-seat

airplane count, which ranges from 673

in 1996 to 543 in 2010.

Section 121.309—Halon Fire

Extinguisher. This section will require

commuter operators of 10-to-30-seat

airplanes to replace existing or install

fire extinguishers (2 per 10-to-30-seat

airplane (one in cabin and one in

cockpit) with halon fire extinguishers.

For this analysis, the FAA assumes that

no part 135 airplanes are currently

equipped with halon fire extinguishers.

Since part 135 airplanes are already

equipped with fire extinguishers prior

to complying with part 121 standards,

there will be no additional maintenance

costs or weight penalties for this

equipment.

The 15-year cost of this requirement

is $442,900 ($346,500, present value).

The cost of this provision will involve

purchasing the requisite number of

halon fire extinguishers per airplane in

1996, a 13 percent spares reserve ratio,

and a 5 percent recharge rate per year

after 1996, and up-front administrative

costs.

Section 121.549—Flashlight. This

section will require commuter operators

of 20-to-30-seat airplanes to acquire two

additional portable flashlights for use by

the flight attendant and the copilot. This

section will also require 10-to-19-seat

airplanes to acquire one additional

portable flashlight for use by the copilot.

The analysis assumes that no part 135

airplanes with 10-to-30 seats are

equipped with portable flashlights.

Based on a recent survey, a portable

flashlight costs $5 and 2 D alkaline

battery cells cost $2.25.

The 15-year cost of this requirement

will be $134,400 ($82,000, present

value) broken out between $56,500 for

10-to-19-seat airplanes and $77,900 for

20-to-30-seat airplanes. The cost of this

provision will involve purchasing the

requisite number of flashlights for

airplanes in 1996 and for airplanes

added to the fleet through 2010, 10

percent spares, 5 percent replacement

rate for every year after 1996, and a

weight penalty (1 pound per flashlight).

The analysis also assumes that all

batteries will be replaced each year.

Section 121.313—Cockpit Key. This

section will require all required

crewmembers of affected operators to

have access to a key for the locking

cockpit door. This lock and key

requirement will provide additional

security for equipment and instruments

in the cockpit. This requirement only

applies to 20-to-30-seat airplanes.

Airplanes with 10 to 19 seats are not

required to have locking cockpit doors

and will not be affected by this

requirement. The rule will require 20-to30-seat airplanes to retrofit the cockpit

door with a lock and copy a key ($1 per

key). If an airplane does not have a lock,

then the operators will be required to

install one.

The 15-year cost is $102,900 ($78,500,

present value). The highest yearly cost

($51,245) will occur in 1996 when all of

the 277 20-to-30-seat airplanes will have

their cockpit doors retrofitted with locks
65904 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

and keys. Subsequent yearly costs are

based on the annual increase in

airplanes. Hence, in 1997, with 30 new

airplanes, costs total $5,550 ($90 for

new keys + $5,460 for door retrofit

costs).

Section 121.333—Portable Oxygen.

This section will require airplanes that

are certificated to fly above 25,000 feet

to have a portable oxygen unit for each

flight attendant. This requirement will

only apply to commuter airplanes

having more than 19 seats. This is

because currently no 10-to-19-seat

airplanes in commuter operations are

certificated to fly above 25,000 feet.;

also, 10-to-19-seat airplanes are not

required to have flight attendants on

board. Of the 249 20-to-30 seat airplanes

in 1995, 146 fly over 25,000 feet.

The 15-year cost to equip all affected

20-to-30-seat part 135 airplanes will be

$472,900 ($299,200, present value).

Costs primarily are composed of $400

per oxygen unit and weight penalty.

Parts 121.333, 121.571, 121.573—

Passenger Information. New cards will

have to be prepared for 20-to-30-seat

airplanes. Industry experience has

shown that each card has a lifetime of

approximately 3 years. Thus, every year,

only one-third of the cards will

normally be replaced.

The 15-year cost for the preparation of

these cards will be $125,000 ($72,300,

present value). Each air carrier having

20-to-30 seat airplanes (20 in 1996

growing to 39 in 2010) will incur

preparation costs and will then need to

prepare enough passenger information

cards for all airplanes in its fleet.

Preparation costs involve two people

two hours each: a flight attendant

supervisor ($24.19 per hour) and a

paperwork layout specialist ($20.58 per

hour). There will be no training costs, as

the flight attendant could read the new

passenger information material directly

from the manual. Based on an industry

survey, the FAA assumes that it costs $1

to print and distribute each information

card; a total of 5,353 cards will need to

be produced in 1996.

Section 121.337—Protective Breathing

Equipment (PBE) for the Cabin. This

section requires a fire fighting PBE unit

in the cabin on all 20-to-30-seat

airplanes. The 15-year costs to supply

all 20-to-30-seat airplanes total $936,800

($595,600, present value). Costs are

composed of PBE acquisition ($400 per

unit) with a 40 percent spares reserve

ratio, installation (two hours of

mechanic labor), engineering and

administration costs, a 5 percent

replacement rate per year, annual

maintenance ($40 per unit performed

annually), and a weight penalty (5

pounds per unit, one unit per airplane).

Section 121.339—Life Rafts. This

section requires all affected commuters

conducting extended overwater

operations to carry an additional life

raft. The 15-year cost to equip the

affected airplanes with an additional life

raft will be $265,100 ($183,800, present

value).

Section 121.340—Flotation Cushions

and Life Vests. This section requires

operators to provide a flotation cushion

or life vest for each passenger seat on

each airplane. In 1995, 10-to-19-seat

airplanes average 18.66 seats per

airplane and 20-to-30-seat airplanes

average 28.99 seats per airplane. In this

analysis, the FAA assumes that these

ratios remain constant into the future.

The 15-year cost for providing

flotation cushions or life vests on 10-to30-seat airplanes will be $7.50 million

($5.53 million, present value) composed

of $5.03 million for 10-to-19-seat

airplanes and $2.47 million for 20-to-30-

seat airplanes. The FAA assumes that

10-to-19-seat airplanes will not be able

to install flotation cushions and hence

will obtain life vests. In addition, even

though some airplanes may have

flotation cushions currently installed,

the analysis assumes that all operators

of 20-to-30-seat airplanes will replace

existing seat cushions with flotation

cushions. Data from industry sources

place the same cost and weight on both

items: $50 and 2 pounds each. As the

current seat cushions weigh the same

amount, there will not be a weight

penalty on the 20-to-30-seat airplanes.

The total number of life vests and

cushions per year is derived by

multiplying the number of seats per

airplane times the projected airplane

count for the 10-to-19-seat and 20-to-30-

seat airplane categories.

Section 121.391—Flight Attendants

At The Gate. This section requires a

flight attendant or other authorized

person to stay on the airplane during

intermediate stops while passengers are

on board. The final rule adopts new

section 121.393(a) for 10-to-19 seat

airplanes to allow crewmembers (not

necessarily a flight attendant) to stay

near the airplane.

The only costs imposed on operators,

as a result of this rule will be the

training and documentation of

authorized substitute personnel. Based

on information received from FAA

technical personnel, there will be no

additional crewmember personnel costs

for flight attendants or other

crewmembers at the gate requirement

due to the delay. In the NPRM, the FAA

attributed additional compensation

costs to operators in the event of a flight

delay due to additional time spent by

personnel to monitor passengers. FAA

technical personnel state that delay

costs are a result of the air carrier

operations system and not the final rule.

The air carrier operations system

currently compensates any additional

personnel costs due to delays.

Individual operators can comply by

having a flight crewmember near the

airplane (no cost) or by following one of

three scenarios. Under the first scenario,

operators could require all passengers to

deplane during intermediate stops at the

gate. Because deplaning will cause

inconvenience to the passengers, air

carriers will not use this option all the

time. The FAA acknowledges that the

deplanement of passengers under this

scenario may impose some cost on

passengers in the form of

inconvenience; however, the FAA is

unable to quantify this cost. Under the

second scenario, operators can require

either a flight attendant or pilot to

remain on the airplane at intermediate

stops as long as passengers are on board.

Generally, the 20-to-30 seat airplanes

will use a flight attendant, while 10-to19 seat airplanes will use a pilot. Under

the third scenario, operators can allow

a trained, authorized person to stand in

for the flight attendant or pilot when

coverage is needed due to flight delay.

Not all air carriers have authorized

personnel at all intermediate stops; this

will put a cap on the amount of time

that this option will be used. This third

scenario will require 24 hours of

training for each authorized person

($16.48 per hour) and documentation of

personnel records by a clerical worker

(paid at $11.00 per hour for one hour of

work per record). In the NPRM, the FAA

assumed that non-Alaska operators

would use the third scenario 20 percent

of the time, and the FAA is keeping this

percentage. Based on industry sources,

the FAA does not believe it is very

likely that air carriers in Alaska will

have trained substitute personnel

waiting at the intermediate stops to be

used in the event that the airplane is

delayed; thus, the third scenario will

not be used. Currently, 88.4 percent of

all 20-to-30 seat airplanes and 91.9

percent of all 10-to-19 airplanes fly in

areas other than Alaska, and this

analysis projects these percentages into

the future.

The 15-year cost for training and

documentation of authorized personnel

in areas other than Alaska on 10-to-30-

seat airplanes will be $20,500 (present

value, $12,700). This cost is the

summation of the 10-to-19-seat airplane

cost and the 20-to-30-seat airplane

category cost. The cost for the 10-to-19-

seat category is derived by multiplying

the total 15-year cost for training and

documentation ($67,500) by the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65905

expected probability of occurrence for

the third scenario (20%) and then

multiplying by the percentage of the

fleet not operating in Alaska (91.9%).

The cost for the 20-to-30-seat category is

derived by multiplying the total 15-year

cost for training and documentation

($45,500) by the expected probability of

occurrence for the third scenario (20%)

and then multiplying by the percentage

of the fleet not operating in Alaska

(88.4%).

3. Certification

This section examines the costs of the

rule with regards to airplane

certification and performance. The total

15-year costs for certification are $11.49

million with a present value of $6.58

million.

Part 121 Subpart I: Performance

Criteria. In the NPRM, the FAA had

stated its belief that all of the commuter

airplanes would be able to meet the part

121 performance standards.

Consequently, the only compliance cost

would be a manufacturer’s one-time

recertification cost of $5,000 per

airplane. However, after additional FAA

analysis and input from several

commenters, the FAA realizes that some

of these airplanes are not able to meet

the part 121 performance standards.

Further, there will be an enormous

economic impact if the proposed rule

were to be adopted for all commuter

airplanes.

Airplanes operating under part 121

face stricter performance requirements

than those faced by airplanes operating

under part 135. Part 135 performance

requirements allow greater gross take-off

weights for a given runway length and,

conversely, allow a shorter runway for

a given gross take-off weight than are

allowed under part 121 for high altitude

and/or high temperature conditions.

However, as airplane models’

performance capabilities differ, a change

in performance requirements has a

different effect across airplane models.

For example, the SFAR 41 and

predecessor category commuter airplane

performance capabilities are such that

compliance with the part 121

performance requirements would

require them to offload so many

passengers or cargo as to become

unprofitable to operate in scheduled

passenger service. Due to the potential

substantial economic loss and the

potential safety reduction that would

result when many of these airplane

operators substitute airplanes with

fewer than 10 passenger seats for these

airplanes, the FAA decides that they

will have 15 years to meet the part 121

performance requirements. By allowing

these airplanes to remain in scheduled

passenger service, their operators will

have a sufficient amount of time to

profitably exploit these airplanes, to

plan their replacement, and to reduce

the potential impact on the resale price

in other uses of these airplanes. In

addition, this 15-year period will

provide an opportunity for

manufacturers to develop future

airplanes that may be better substitutes

than the current available substitute

airplane models. Further, this 15-year

allowance will reduce the tendency for

many of these operators to substitute

smaller airplanes with less than 10

seats. These airplanes have an accident

rate 14 times that of 10-to-15-seat

commuter airplanes. Nevertheless, some

of these airplanes will be phased out of

scheduled passenger service before they

would have been phased out if there

were no commuter rule.

Currently, there are 112 pre-SFAR 41

commuter airplanes in part 135

scheduled service. As the FAA was

unable to directly obtain the ages of

these airplanes, the FAA used a data

source to construct an approximate ageprofile distribution for each of these

airplane models and then assigned the

appropriate number of airplanes to

individual years based on those

distributions. The FAA determines that,

due to the increasing maintenance costs

as airplanes age, the economic lifespan

of these airplanes in scheduled

passenger service is 30 years for the

Twin Otter and 25 years for all of the

other models. On that basis, the FAA

projects that, in the absence of the

commuter rule, 4 of these airplanes

would still be in scheduled passenger

service after 15 years.

Finally, these airplanes’ market values

will fall over time because the airplane

ages because it takes an increasing level

of expenditure on maintenance and

replacement to keep the airplane

airworthy for scheduled passenger

service. Currently, the average market

values for the pre-SFAR 41C airplanes

are $500,000 for the Twin Otter and the

EMB–110; $350,000 for the Beech 99;

and $250,000 for the SA–226 and the

Beech 200.

In light of those factors as they relate

to the pre-SFAR 41 airplanes, the FAA

determines that a one-year compliance

date would generate a 60 percent loss in

these airplanes’ average market values

and this percentage loss is reduced by

2.5 percentage points per year for four

years (e.g., the second year would have

a percentage loss of 57.5 percent, the

third year will be 55 percent, etc.) and

by 5 percentage points per year

thereafter. Thus, the percentage loss of

the market value of these airplanes in 15

years will be 5 percent of that airplane’s

market value. On that basis, the FAA

determines that in 15 years these

airplanes will incur a reduction in

market value of $56,000 ($20,000,

present value).

SFAR 41 airplane models would also

be affected by the part 121 performance

criteria because these criteria are stricter

than those in part 135. However, the

part 121 performance requirements are

very similar to the performance

requirements in the ICAO Annex 8

flight operating requirements—the flight

operating requirements under which

these airplanes must fly in European

scheduled service. As all of these

airplanes are used in European

scheduled service, they can comply

with the part 121 performance

requirements, but at a potential payload

loss. There are some combinations of

temperature, airport elevation (pressure

altitude) and airport runway length that

would require SFAR 41C airplanes

either: (1) To unload one, two, or even

three passengers from the currently

permitted part 135 gross take-off weight;

or (2) to operate out of airports with

longer runway lengths in order to meet

the ICAO Annex 8 performance

requirements. For example, the

minimum runway length for a Beech

1900–C airplane with a 16,600 lb.

maximum takeoff weight (its maximum

certificated load) from a pressure

altitude of 1,000 ft. (a typical

Midwestern airport) at 13 degrees

Centigrade (standard day) would be

4,700 ft. under part 135 but would be

5,900 ft. under ICAO Annex 8. From

another perspective, in order for a Beech

1900–C to operate under ICAO Annex 8

from an airport with a 4,700 ft. runway,

the maximum allowable takeoff weight

would be 14,900 lbs. in comparison to

the 16,600 lbs. allowable under part

135. One commenter reports that these

operating limitations may affect these

SFAR 41 airplanes at as many as 65

airports at some point during the year.

Nevertheless, for most of the

temperatures, airport elevations

(pressure altitude), runway lengths, and

actual takeoff loads faced by these

airplanes, the part 121 performance

requirements, ICAO Annex 8 rules, and

the part 135 performance requirements

would have the same limiting effect on

these airplanes’ operations.

As a result, the FAA will allow SFAR

41 and predecessor category airplanes

15 years to comply with the part 121

performance requirements. With a 15-

year time horizon, operators will be able

to organize their schedules (for example,

departing high temperature airports

earlier in the morning), their airplane/

airport pairings, etc. such that the costs

in 15 years will be minimal.
65906 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Finally, the commuter category

airplanes have the performance

capability of meeting part 121

performance requirements. However,

the manufacturers will need to

document these capabilities for the

approved flight manuals. This

documentation will require about 20

hours of flight time at a per hour cost

of $1,500 (includes instrument

calibration, engineering analysis,

ground personnel review, etc.) for a total

cost of $30,000 per type certificate. In

addition, there will be a one-time

manufacturer’s cost of $5,000 per type

certificate to obtain FAA approval for

this flight manual revision. Thus, the

one-time first-year cost for commuter

category airplanes will be $105,000.

Section 121.161(a)—Airplane

Limitations: Type of Route. Section

121.161(a) requires that an adequate

airport be within one hour flying time

at single engine cruising speed along all

points of the designated flight route.

There is no similar requirement in part

135. This requirement is not expected to

affect scheduled operators in the lower

48 states. In the Regulatory Evaluation

for the NPRM, the FAA had estimated

that 150 round-trip flights in Alaska

would be affected annually, with

reroutings adding one-half hour to each

round-trip, for a total of 75 hours

increased flying time. Applying an

hourly variable operating cost for

Alaskan air carrier commuter category

airplanes of $500, the FAA had

estimated that annual operating costs

would increase $37,500. The 15-year

total costs would be $375,000 ($265,000,

present value). As no comments were

made on the estimated costs of this

provision, the FAA affirms its previous

calculations. However, carrying them

out for 15 years generates a cost of

$570,000 ($346,000, present value).

Section 121.191—Engine Out En

Route Net Flight Data. Although the

FAA had not estimated a compliance

cost for this provision in the Regulatory

Evaluation for the NPRM, three

commenters report that these data do

not currently exist for 10-to-19-seat

airplane models and there is a cost to

developing these data. Based on those

comments, the FAA determines that

manufacturers’ will incur a one-time

first-year cost of $1,900 per type

certificated model, resulting in a onetime first-year compliance cost of

$24,700 for the 13 type-certificated

airplanes.

Section 121.305(j)—Third Attitude

Indicator. This section requires that a

third attitude indicator be retrofitted on

all affected airplanes (manufactured

before March, 1997) within 15 years of

the rule’s effective date. Any affected

airplane manufactured after March,

1997, must have the device. This device

is not required under part 135 or part

23.

In the Regulatory Evaluation for the

NPRM, the FAA had estimated that it

would cost $16,000 for a retrofit that

would add about 5 lbs. of weight while

the annual maintenance, inspection,

and replacement costs would be about

10 percent of the retrofitting costs. The

FAA had also estimated it would cost

$8,000 for an installation on a newlymanufactured airplane. The FAA had

also determined that a third attitude

indicator is standard equipment on the

Beech 1900–D. The proposed rule had a

1-year compliance date. On that basis,

the FAA had estimated that the 10-year

cost would be $19.2 million ($18.4

million, present value).

The FAA estimates that the

retrofitting cost will be $16,000 and will

add 15 lbs. of weight to the airplane. To

eliminate the potential for down time,

operators will retrofit this device during

one of the airplane’s 200-hour

scheduled checks. On that basis, the

FAA expects that this device will be

installed in half of the 58 SFAR 41C

airplanes in scheduled passenger

service during the 13th year and in the

remaining half during the 14th year. On

that basis, the FAA determines that the

15-year compliance cost will be

$319,000 ($116,000, present value).

Section 121.308—Lavatory Fire

Protection. This section requires each

lavatory to have a smoke detector

system connected to either: (1) a

warning light in the flight deck; or (2)

a warning light or an aural warning in

the passenger cabin that can be readily

detected by a flight attendant. Section

121.308(b) requires each lavatory to

have a built-in automatic fire

extinguisher in each of its disposal

receptacles. These requirements are also

found in section 25.854 but only for

airplanes type certificated after 1991.

There are no such provisions in part 135

or part 23.

On that basis, the FAA estimates that

for the 20-to-30-seat airplanes, there will

be a first-year compliance cost of

$78,000 and an annual cost in each

succeeding year of $45,000 to $58,000.

The 15-year total cost will be $858,000

($519,000, present value). In the

Regulatory Evaluation for the NPRM,

the FAA had estimated a 10-year total

cost of $263,000 ($206,000, present

value).

Section 121.310(l)—Flight Attendant

Flashlight Holder. This section requires

an emergency flashlight holder be

available to the flight attendant. A

flashlight holder is needed to keep the

flashlight available and within reach of

the flight attendant seat. This provision

requires retrofitting within one year of

the effective date of the rule. The FAA

had not estimated any compliance cost

for the flashlight holder in the

Regulatory Evaluation for the NPRM.

However, after additional analysis, the

FAA found that there will be a per

airplane cost of $50 for a retrofit and

$25 for an installation on a newlymanufactured airplane. It will increase

the airplane’s weight by 2 lbs. In

addition, there will be a one-time

engineering design, development, and

FAA approval cost of $250 for each type

certificated model. As there are no flight

attendants in 10-to-19-seat airplanes, no

flight attendant flashlight will be

required and there will be no

compliance cost for those airplanes. For

20-to-30-seat airplanes, the first-year

cost will be $42,000 and the annual cost

thereafter will be between $2,000 and

$6,000. The 15-year total cost will be

$88,000 ($68,000, present value).

Section 121.312(b)—Passenger Seat

Cushion Fire Blocking Materials. This

section requires that 10-to-30-seat

airplane seat cushions comply with the

fire protection standards in Section

25.853(b) within 15 years. The proposed

rule had allowed a two-year compliance

period with an option for two additional

years if there were demonstrated

compliance difficulties.

In the Regulatory Evaluation for the

NPRM, the FAA had assumed that this

provision would affect only the 10-to19-seat airplanes because the 20-to-30-

seat airplanes are type-certificated

under part 25, which requires fireblocked seats for airplanes typecertificated after 1991. As those

airplanes are used in both part 121 and

part 135 service, the FAA believed that

they have already been retrofitted and

are being manufactured with fire

blocking cushions. As there were no

comments to the contrary, the FAA has

retained that assumption.

In the Regulatory Evaluation for the

NPRM for 10-to-19-seat airplanes, the

FAA had estimated that it would cost

$20,000 for a retrofit, $5,000 for

installation on newly-manufactured

airplanes, and fire blocking would add

2 lbs. per seat cushion. In addition, the

FAA had believed that the incremental

compliance costs from replacing a fireblocked cushion with another fireblocked cushion (due to normal wear

and tear) would be only due to the

difference in the costs of the fireblocking material, which was estimated

to be $5,000. There would be no

incremental labor costs because it

would take as long to replace a fireblocked cushion with a fire-blocked

cushion as it would take to replace a
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65907

non-fire-blocked cushion with a nonfire-blocked cushion. The FAA had also

estimated that 10 percent of the 10-to19-seat airplanes have fire blocked seats

because they are offered as an option on

currently manufactured models.

Further, the FAA had estimated that it

would cost $50,000 for engineering,

developing, testing, and documenting

the results for FAA approval for those

airplanes no longer in production.

Finally, allowing operators four years to

comply means that they can schedule

this retrofitting to fit into the normal

cushion reupholstery schedule.

Consequently, the existing cushions

would not have been prematurely

replaced before they would have been

replaced due to normal wear and tear.

Based on information received from

industry, the FAA estimates that the

average retrofitting cost (weighted by

the number of each type of airplane

model in the existing fleet) will be

$21,500 and the average newinstallation cost (weighted by the

number of new airplanes projected to be

sold by each manufacturer) will be

$4,875. The average weight of 38 lbs.

(for a 19 seat airplane) results in a yearly

per airplane fuel cost of $105. In

addition, an industry source reports that

airplane operators normally reupholster

their seat cushions every four years.

Further, the FAA estimates that there

will be no engineering costs for current

commuter category airplanes because all

of the manufacturers offer the fire

blocked seat cushions as an option and

the engineering and FAA-approval costs

have already been incurred. However,

the FAA revises its engineering costs for

each out-of-production airplane model

from $10,000 to $5,000 because there

are a sufficient number of fabrics that

have been approved so that each

manufacturer will not have to

completely reengineer its seats.

In response to the increase in time

(from 4 years to 15 years) to comply

with the rule, the FAA assumes that no

airplane that will be withdrawn from

scheduled-passenger service during

those 15 years will be retrofitted with

fire-blocking-seat-cushion materials.

Further, an operator of an existing

airplane that will be employed in

scheduled passenger service beyond the

15-year period will wait until the last

moment (13 to 14 years) before

performing the retrofit. Based on

industry statements, commuter-category

airplanes are being built with the

expectation of a 25-to-30-year lifespan.

Also based on industry statements, the

initial cost (plus one or two cushion

reupholsteries) is less than or about the

same as a retrofit 10 or fewer years in

the future. The FAA anticipates that

beginning in 5 years, operators will only

purchase new airplanes that have

factory-installed-fire-blocked seat

cushions. Over time, the compliance

costs will increase because a greater

number of these airplanes will carry the

extra 38 lbs. of weight. On that basis, the

annual compliance costs will begin at

$150,000 in the sixth year after the

effective date and increase to $1.25

million by the 13th year. The 15-year

total will be $5.88 million ($2.55

million, present value).

Section 121.317(b)—Fasten Seat Belt

Lighted Sign. This section requires that

there be a lighted ‘‘fasten seat belt’’ sign

that can be controlled by the pilot. In

the Regulatory Evaluation of the

Proposed Rule, the FAA had not

estimated any compliance costs because

it was believed that affected airplanes

had these lighted signs. Based primarily

on information received from industry,

the FAA estimates that the total 15-year

cost for the 2 lb. device will be $522,000

($269,000, present value).

Section 121.342—Pitot Heat

Indication System. This section requires

all affected airplanes, within 4 years of

the rule’s effective date, to have a pitot

heat indication system that indicates to

the flight crew whether or not the pitot

heating system is operating. Section

23.1323 requires a pitot heat system for

most commuter category airplanes, but

there are no requirements for a heat

indication system.

In the Regulatory Evaluation for the

NPRM, the FAA estimated a per

airplane cost of $500 for a retrofit and

$250 for installation on a newlymanufactured airplane. The FAA did

not estimate a weight penalty or costs

for inspection, maintenance, and repair,

but it had estimated a one-time

manufacturer cost of $10,000 for initial

engineering design, testing, and

documentation for FAA approval. On

that basis, the FAA had estimated that

the compliance cost during each of the

first four years would be $280,000 and

$10,000 per year thereafter. The 10-year

total costs were estimated to be $1.184

million or $993,000, present value.

After additional analysis, the FAA is

persuaded that its initial cost estimates

need revision. Based on its analysis of

the technology required to install these

devices, the FAA determines that there

is a per airplane cost of $4,000 for a

retrofit and $2,000 for installation in a

newly-manufactured airplane. However,

the number of airplanes expected to be

sold by the manufacturer who reported

this device is standard equipment is

subtracted from the expected number of

newly-manufactured airplanes that will

need to install this device. In addition,

the associated equipment and wiring

will add 5 lbs. to the airplane. Finally,

there will be a $10,000 one-time cost to

engineer, design, test, and obtain FAA

approval for the manufacturer of each

type certificate.

On that basis, the annual costs in each

of the first 4 years will be between

$515,000 and $535,000 and the annual

costs in each year thereafter will be

between $17,000 and $23,000. The 15-

year total costs will be $2.29 million

($1.87 million, present value).

Section 121.349(c)—Distance

Measuring Equipment. This section

requires at least one approved distance

measuring equipment (DME) unit

within 15 months of the final rule

publication date for operations under

VFR over routes not navigated by

pilotage or for operations under IFR or

over-the-top. The FAA had estimated no

compliance costs for this provision and

there were no comments on this

provision. After additional analysis,

however, the FAA determines that some

airplanes are affected by this

requirement.

Based on the 1994 AOPA Pilot

General Aviation Aircraft Directory and

Avionics Directory and Buyer’s Guide,

the FAA estimates that the average price

of a 25 lb. DME for an airplane is $7,000

and it will cost another $7,000 to retrofit

for a total cost of $14,000. The FAA

General Aviation and Air Taxi Activity

and Avionics Survey for 1993 reports

that 3.1 percent of the turboprops in

service (twenty-three 10-to-19-seat

airplanes and ten 20-to-30-seat

airplanes) do not have this device but

that all newly-manufactured airplanes

will have this device installed. On that

basis, the FAA estimates that the firstyear-compliance cost is $434,000

($294,000 for 10-to-19-seat airplanes

and $140,000 for 20-to-30-seat

airplanes) and the 15-year-compliance

cost is $452,000 of which $303,000 is

for 10-to-19-seat airplanes and $149,000

is for 20-to-30-seat airplanes ($418,000,

present value of which $281,000 is for

10-to-19-seat airplanes and $137,000 is

for 20-to-30-seat airplanes).

4. Maintenance

The FAA estimates that over the 15-

year period, the total cost of compliance

for the relevant maintenance sections

affected by the final rule will amount to

an estimated $18.18 million ($11.92

million, present value). A discussion of

the individual maintenance costs is

presented below.

Section 121.361 Applicability. The

final rule requires all affected commuter

operators to have an airplane

maintenance program that is

appropriate for part 121 operations. All

part 135 commuters currently operating
65908 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

under a part 135 continuous

airworthiness maintenance program

(CAMP) will be required to revise and

possibly upgrade their programs in

accordance with the new part 121

standards. Currently, commuter

operators of airplane type-certificated

with a passenger seating configuration

of 10 seats or more operate under a

CAMP as specified in section

135.411(a)(2). Most differences among

the respective part 135 operators’

CAMP’ arise from the varying

complexity of the different airplanes,

not solely from the type of operation.

Therefore, the only new requirement

will be to revise and possibly upgrade

part 135 operators’ existing CAMP’s, not

to develop entirely new maintenance

programs.

The FAA estimates the one-time total

compliance cost of the maintenance

applicability section is $104,000. Of this

total, $63,000 will be incurred by

operators of 10-to-19-seat airplanes and

$41,000 will be borne by operators of

20-to-30-seat airplanes. The FAA

assumes, based on information received

from its technical personnel, that an

average of 80 hours will be required of

each affected operator’s maintenance

shop foreman to review an operators’

CAMP to ensure compliance with the

final rule. Assuming a loaded hourly

wage of $20.58 for a maintenance

foreman, the one-time cost estimate for

each operator will be approximately

$1,650 (80×$20.58).

Section 121.377 Maintenance And

Preventive Maintenance Personnel Duty

Time Limitations. The final rule will

require all commuter operators to

adhere to the part 121 limitation of time

that maintenance and preventive

maintenance personnel can be required

to remain on duty. Section 121.377

requires maintenance personnel to be

relieved from duty for a period of at

least 24 consecutive hours during any 7

consecutive days, or the equivalent

thereof within any one calendar month.

Maintenance and preventive

maintenance personnel employed by

part 135 operators have no such duty

time limitation.

The FAA maintained in the NPRM

that simple adjustments in work

scheduling or duty requirements of

maintenance personnel were on-going

costs of doing business which would

not be affected by the commuter rule.

Furthermore, the FAA held that the

existence of union work rules,

Department of Labor regulations and the

generally accepted notion of a ‘‘day of

rest’’ would be sufficient to limit the

amount of time that part 135

maintenance and preventive

maintenance personnel remained on

duty. The FAA, therefore, did not

estimate any incremental costs

associated with this section, and treated

it as one not contributing to the total

maintenance costs.

For the final rule, in considering the

unique operating environment of

Alaska, the FAA has determined that

imposing the requirements of the

maintenance and preventivemaintenance-personnel-duty-time

limitations for part 121 operators onto

part 135 operators will be a cost factor.

The cost for the Alaskan operators is

$312,000 per year for all Alaskan 10-to19-seat airplane operators. This cost

estimate was provided by the Alaskan

Air Carriers Association (AACA) and

adopted by the FAA for this analysis.

For the remaining operators, the annual

cost is an estimated 80 hours per year

at $20.44 per hour for the maintenance

foreman to perform the additional

scheduling necessary to comply with

the rule. The FAA estimates that a

maintenance foreman will spend

approximately 80 additional hours per

year to meet the part 121 standards.

Thus, the cost for non-Alaskan 10-to-19-

seat operators in 1996 will be 23

operators × $20.58 × 80 hours or

$37,870. For 20-to-30-seat seat

operators, the cost in 1996 will be 25

operators × $20.58 × 80 hours or

$41,000. The calculations would be the

same in subsequent years.

Over the 15-year period, the total cost

imposed due to the new duty-timelimitation requirement will be

approximately $6.02 million ($3.65

million, present value). Most of this

cost, $4.68 million, falls on Alaskan part

135 operators of 10-to-19-seat airplanes.

This disproportionate amount reflects

the probable added labor requirements

of Alaskan operators owing to the

uniqueness of the Alaskan operating

environment.

Section 121.380 Maintenance

Recording Requirements. This section

provides for the preparation,

maintenance, and retention of certain

records using the system specified in

the certificate holder’s manual. It further

specifies the length of time records must

be retained and the requirements for

records to be transferred with the

airplane at the time the airplane is sold.

Section 121.380a, Transfer Of

Maintenance Records, develops the

transfer of records in more detail. It

requires the certificate holder to transfer

certain maintenance records to the

purchaser, at the time of sale, in either

plain language or coded form which

provides for the preservation and

retrieval of information. The section

ensures that a new owner receives all

records that are to be maintained by an

operator as required under section

121.380.

In the NPRM, the FAA maintained

that because section 135.439 was

essentially identical to 121.380, there

would be minimal new recordkeeping

requirements imposed on part 135

operators and thus, assumed no

incremental costs would result from

changes to this section. The FAA also

maintained that there would be no

incremental cost impact resulting from

changes to part 121.380a. Upon review

of the proposal and subsequent

comments received, the FAA has

determined that the merging of the

recordkeeping requirements of sections

121.380 and 135.439 brought on by the

commuter rule will involve incremental

administrative costs. The FAA therefore,

has revised its NPRM position of no

costs, and estimated the administrative

costs for the new requirements

incorporated in the changes to sections

121.380, 121.380a and 135.439.

The cost was derived from averaging

the total recording cost for Alaskan

commuter airplanes as provided by the

AACA and applied to the total 10-to-19-

seat airplane fleet. The AACA estimated

the total first-year cost for Alaska

operators to be $156,000. This was

divided by the number of 10-to-19-seat

airplanes in Alaska (44) for an average

cost of $3,545 per airplane. This was

then multiplied by the total number of

airplanes in the 1996 U.S. fleet. In 1996,

the number of airplanes will be 629

(673–44), 44, and 277 for 10-to-19-seat

non-Alaska airplanes, 10-to-19-seat

Alaska airplanes, and 20-to-30-seat

airplanes respectively. For subsequent

years, the additional reporting cost will

be $26,000 for the 10-to-19-seat

airplanes in Alaska. The FAA divided

that cost by the number of Alaskan

airplanes (44) and then multiplied it by

the total U.S. fleet. Thus, in 1997 the

fleet count is 639 (683–44) 10-to-19-seat

non-Alaska airplanes and 307 20-to-30-

seat airplanes. The total costs for 1997

are $26,000 for Alaska, $377,590

($26,000/44×639) for 10-to-19-seat nonAlaska, and $181,409 ($26,000/44×307)

for 20-to-30-seat airplanes. The same

procedure is used for the remaining

years. The total cost imposed on

operators of part 135 airplanes due to

the additional recordkeeping required to

merge parts 121 and 135 maintenance

recording requirements is

approximately $11.5 million ($7.8

million, present value) for the 15-year

period.

As a final point, this rule will impose

costs on some part 121 operators by

requiring them to maintain information

on engine and propeller time in service

as specified in section 135.439/121.380.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65909

The FAA concurs with a commenter’s

objection that for the few operators of

older, part 121 propeller-driven

airplanes, this will necessitate a

substantial search-cost for historical

records. In this instance the costs will

not be borne by part 135 operators who,

for the most part, utilize propellerdriven airplanes, but rather, by a few

part 121 operators who do not utilize

jet-driven airplanes. However, in the

final rule, the FAA will make this

requirement prospective only; those part

121 operators of propeller-driven

airplanes will be required to maintain

information on engine and propeller

time in service only from the date of the

first overhaul of the engine or propeller

as applicable. Thus, this new

requirement should only impose

negligible costs on these part 121

operators.

5. Part 119

Part 119 is a new part that

consolidates the certification and

operations specifications requirements

for persons who operate under parts 121

and 135. Most of these regulations are

currently in SFAR 38–2; therefore,

moving them to part 119 would not

impose any additional cost. However,

some sections currently under parts 121

and 135 would be moved to part 119.

The costs imposed on affected operators

by those sections are presented below.

Over 15 years, the costs of these

provisions are estimated to be $3.36

million ($2.30 million, present value).

Sections 119.33(c) and 121.163—

Proving Tests. When an operator

changes the type of operation it

conducts or purchases an airplane that

is new to a certain type of operation,

that operator must undertake a proving

test. A proving test generally consists of

a non-passenger flight in which the

operator proves that it is capable of

safely conducting that type of operation

or airplane. Going from a part 135

operation to a part 121 operation would

be a change in operation and be subject

to a proving test. Under the final rule,

there would be two costs associated

with proving tests—initial and

recurring. The initial cost would be

proving tests for upgrading the existing

part 135 fleet that would become part

121. The recurring costs would be for

any future operational or airplane

changes that would normally require a

proving test (as required by the existing

rule).

The current regulation prescribes 50

hours of flight for a part 121 (section

121.163(b)(1)) proving test. This is the

number that part 135 operators

switching to part 121 will be subject to.

However, the current rule also allows

for deviations from the 50-hour

requirement. A sample of FAA records

on proving tests shows that, since 1991,

there has been a wide range of hours

actually flown for proving tests. This is

because the amount that the operator is

allowed to deviate from the prescribed

number of hours is based on what that

operator requests and on what the FAA

will allow. However, based on the above

sample, the FAA assumes for the

purposes of this analysis that the

average deviation will be down to a total

of 15 hours.

The FAA recognizes that some

operators who currently operate under a

split certificate already have experience

operating under part 121. Also, some

part 135 operators already voluntarily

comply with part 121 requirements for

much of their operation. To the extent

practicable, for these and possibly other

operators, the FAA will not require a

proving flight. However, some operators

who will have to make significant

changes to the operation as a result of

the final rule will have to have a

proving flight. The FAA anticipates that

50 percent of the estimated number of

proving tests will not have to include a

proving flight. The only cost to these

operators will be the preparation and

completion of the test for the dispatch

system. For this analysis, the FAA

assumes three days preparation for the

manager, maintenance director, and

secretary.

For those operators who must take the

proving test, the cost will be the same

three days preparation plus the 15 hours

of flight time. The FAA estimates that

the 15 hours of proving test flights will

cost the operator approximately $8,560

for a 20-to-30-seat airplane and $7,000

for a 10-to-19-seat airplane. The

difference in cost is due to the flight

attendant being on board in the 20-to30-seat airplanes.

The FAA estimates that there will be

90 proving tests necessary in 1996 to

bring the existing fleet up to part 121

standards (assuming a proving test for

each type of airplane for each part 135

carrier affected by the final rule.) The

cost to the 60 part 135 operators in 1996

to complete the initial 90 proving tests

would be approximately $393,660

($367,900, present value). Of this cost,

approximately $128,300 would be

incurred by operators with 20-to-30-seat

airplanes and $265,360 by operators

with 10-to-19-seat airplanes.

The recurring costs would accrue over

the next 15 years as affected operators

conduct part 121 proving tests instead

of part 135 proving tests. If the

prescribed number of hours for part 135

and part 121 operators is 25 and 50

respectively, and the average deviation

is 50 percent, then the difference in

hours would be 13 [(50–25) × .5]. Also,

the FAA found from the survey of its

records that, on average, operators

conduct one proving test every four

years, which equates to approximately 3

tests over the 15-year period.

The average number of operators in

any given year over the next 15 years is

68. Based on this, the FAA will conduct

approximately 14 ((68 operators × 3

tests)/15 years) proving tests annually: 8

for 10-to-19-seat airplanes and 6 for 20-

to-30-seat airplanes. The FAA estimates

that the increased cost of a proving test

per part 135 operator would be $6,050

for a 20-to-30-seat airplane and $5,800

for a 10-to-19-seat airplane. For all

affected operators, the final rule will

impose approximately $82,700 annually

in additional costs for proving tests.

Over the next 15 years, the total

recurring cost of this provision would

be $1.24 million ($0.75 million, present

value).

Sections 119.65, 119.67, 119.69, and

119.71—Directors of Maintenance,

Operations, and Safety; Chief Inspector;

and Chief Pilot. The existing

requirements for establishing and the

eligibility of management personnel

only apply to part 135 operators

(excluding those that use only one pilot)

and supplemental and commercial part

121 operators. The final rule will

expand the applicability of the

requirement for management positions

to all part 121 operators as well.

However, the FAA contends that part

121 operators, by the very nature and

size of their operations, already have

personnel in these positions (or the

equivalent of these positions). Thus,

there will be no cost to incorporate part

121 operators under these requirements.

There are three other potential cost

areas for the management positions

required in the final rule. First, is the

new recency of experience for first time

Directors of Operations and

Maintenance. Second, is the new

Director of Safety position for both part

121 and part 135 operators. Third is the

Chief Inspector, which will be a new

position for those part 135 commuters

who upgrade to part 121.

Recency of Experience. The final rule

will impose new recency of experience

requirements for those Director of

Maintenance and Operations candidates

who will have that title for the first

time. In addition to other requirements,

these candidates will have to have three

years of experience (within their

respective fields) within the past six

years to be eligible for a Director

position. This will ensure that those

candidates who do not have any

experience as a Director at least have
65910 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

recent on-the-job experience in their

respective fields.

The potential cost of the recency of

experience requirement is the reduction

at any given time in the number of firsttime candidates available for these

positions. This is because some firsttime candidates may have to acquire

additional years of experience if they do

not have it at the time that they are

being considered for a Director position.

It is extremely difficult to project how

many future first-time Director

candidates will be affected by the final

rule. However, this will have little if any

effect on an operator’s ability to find

potential applicants to fill a Director

position. This is for three reasons. First,

the FAA contends that the number of

potential candidates who do not meet

the recency of experience requirement

both now and in the future is small in

relation to the total number of potential

applicants for a Director position.

Second, the FAA contends that the

supply of existing personnel who would

qualify for a Director position, plus

those who are already a Director, is

sufficient to keep wages from increasing

as a result of the new qualification

requirements. Further, the new

requirements are not substantive enough

to cause wages to increase. Third,

operators can always request

authorization from the FAA to hire an

applicant who has comparable

experience. For the initial upgrade to

part 121, the FAA will approve these

authorizations to the extent practicable.

Thus, the FAA contends that the final

rule will not impose a hardship on

operators in having enough potential

qualified applicants to fill the Director

positions.

Director of Safety. This is a new

position for part 121 but the FAA

contends that this position will impose

little if any additional cost to operators.

The rationale for this assessment is

based on two factors: (1) There are no

eligibility requirements for the Director

of Safety so virtually anyone can be

designated as such; and (2) most

operators already have a Director of

Safety or the equivalent.

Chief Inspector. For existing part 135

commuter operators who will now

operate under part 121, the position of

Chief Inspector will be new. The FAA

contends that this requirement will

impose little if any additional cost.

Many part 135 operators already have

personnel that are the equivalent of a

Chief Inspector. The operator may

petition the Administrator to combine

positions or request authorization to

appoint someone who has comparable

experience. For the initial upgrade to

part 121, the FAA will consider these

requests on a case-by-case basis.

On-Demand Operators Conducting

Scheduled Operations. Under part 135,

on-demand operators will be allowed to

conduct up to four scheduled operations

a week and still remain an on-demand

operator. There is no such allowance in

part 121. Thus, if a current on-demand

operator conducts even one scheduled

passenger flight with a 10-to-30-seat

airplane, then that airplane must be

upgraded to and the operation flown

under part 121. The FAA has identified

5 airplanes in the current fleet with 10

to 19 seats that are used by on-demand

operators in scheduled service. To bring

these airplanes up to the part 121

standards will cost approximately $1.73

million ($1.18 million, present value).

The components behind this estimate

are provided below (explanations of

these costs components are provided in

their respective sections).

C. Benefits

The commuter segment of the U.S.

airline industry is a vital and growing

component of the nation’s air

transportation system. Commuter

airplanes transport passengers between

small communities and large hubs, and

they play a vital role in transporting

passengers over short distances,

regardless of airport or community size.

In many cases, they are a community’s

only convenient link to the rest of the

nation’s air transportation system.

Over the past 15 years, the size of the

commuter industry has grown

considerably. In 1993, for example,

enplanements for commuter carriers

grew by over 10 percent, far outpacing

the one percent growth of enplanements

on larger carriers. Forecasts of

commuter industry activity give every

indication that growth in this segment

of the airline industry will continue to

be robust during the next 15 years.

Many commuter carriers operate in

partnership with large air carriers,

providing transportation to and from

hub locations that would be

unprofitable with larger airplanes.

These partnerships frequently operate

within a seamless ticketing

environment, in which the large carrier

issues a ticket that often includes a trip

segment on a commuter airplane. As

these relationships between large

carriers and commuter airlines continue

to grow, it will become more common

for the average long distance flyer to

spend at least one flight segment on

commuter airplanes.

The combined effect of a continuing

growth in the commuter industry and

the ever growing relationship between

large carriers and their commuter

counterparts will progressively blur the

distinction between commuter carriers

and larger air carriers. In other words,

passengers will no longer readily

distinguish between one type of carrier

and another, but will simply view each

component as a part of the nation’s air

transportation system. It is imperative,

therefore, that a uniform level of safety

be afforded the traveling public

throughout the system. Air carrier

accidents, perhaps more than accidents

in any other mode, affect public

confidence in air transportation.

What is the public value or benefit of

air transportation? It would be nearly

impossible to calculate something that

has been so widely accepted in the

American lifestyle. One figure that

represents the very least value the

public places on traveling by air is the

annual amount the public spends on air

transportation, or in other words,

annual air carrier revenues. In 1994, the

FAA estimated that amount to be $88

billion. If public confidence wavers by

only one percent, annual total air carrier

revenues would be reduced by $880

million, which is a minimum dollar

estimate of the cost that would be

experienced by the public in terms of

being denied a fast, safe means of

transportation.

Some studies have been done to

measure the effect of change in public

confidence. In 1987, the FAA studied

the impact of terrorist acts on air travel

on North Atlantic routes. The study

investigated the relationship between

the amount of media attention given to

a specific terrorist act and reductions in

air traffic. The study concluded that

there was a measurable, short-term,

carrier-specific correlation between the

two. Following a well-publicized

incident, ridership on the carrier

experiencing the incident dropped by as

much as 50 percent for a few months.

In another instance, a major air carrier

reported that two catastrophic accidents

in 1994 resulted in a half-year-revenue

loss to that carrier of $150 million.

These examples relate to carriers

operating large airplanes, but they

illustrate how the prevailing level of

public confidence can affect the public

use of air transportation.

It is clear that the American public

demands a high degree of safety in air

travel. This is manifested by the large

amount of media attention given to the

rare accidents that do occur, by the

short term reductions in revenues

carriers have experienced following

accidents or acts of terrorism, and by the

pressure placed on the FAA as the

regulator of air safety to further reduce

accident rates.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65911

The FAA is confident that the final

rule will further reduce air carrier

accidents. The final rule will require

dozens of changes to the way that

smaller air carrier airplanes are built,

maintained, and operated—all aimed at

eliminating or at the very least

minimizing the differences between

small and large airplanes and the way

they operate. Many of these changes

result in small, unmeasurable safety

improvements when examined in

isolation, but taken together result in a

measurable difference. That measurable

difference ultimately is to bring

commuter accident rates down to the

very low level of that of the larger

carriers. That rate is nearing the point of

rare, random events.

What follows is a quantified analysis

of the potential benefits of the final rule

based on the assumption that it will

reduce the number of commuter

airplane accidents and (possibly

mitigate the severity of those casualties

in accidents that will occur). The

analysis finds that measurable potential

benefits substantially exceed the cost of

the final rule, but the FAA believes that

the larger but unquantifiable benefit is

continued public confidence in air

transportation.

Safety Benefits From Preventing

Accidents. The intent of the Commuter

Rule is to close, to the extent

practicable, the accident rate gap

between airplanes with 10 to 30 seats

currently operating under part 135 and

airplanes with 31 to 60 seats operating

under part 121. The smaller ‘‘commutertype’’ part 121 airplanes were used for

comparison because their operations

best resemble those of commuters than

do larger part 121 airplanes. If the

accident rate gap were completely

closed, the FAA estimates that up to 67

accidents involving airplanes with 10 to

30 seats could be prevented from 1996

to 2010. This would generate a benefit

of $588 million, with a present value of

$350 million.

Typically, the FAA estimates aviation

safety benefits based on rates of specific

types of accidents that the rulemaking

would prevent in the future. For this

rulemaking, however, the FAA used a

more broad-based accident rate. This

approach was adopted because the

scope of the various components of the

rule covers such a wide range, and

many of those components are

interrelated.

To estimate the benefits of the rule,

the FAA assembled a database of

applicable part 121 and part 135

accidents between 1985 and 1994 using

National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) accident reports. These

accidents were categorized by the

passenger seating configuration of the

airplanes involved—10 to 19, 20 to 30,

and 31 to 60. The FAA then divided the

annual number of accidents by the

annual number of scheduled departures

for each group to derive the annual

accident rates. After calculating the 10-

year historical average accident rates,

the FAA took the difference in the

accident rates between the part 135

airplanes and the part 121 airplanes.

The difference in rates was then

multiplied by the projected annual

number of scheduled part 135

departures of airplanes with 10 to 19

seats and 20 to 30 seats from 1996 to

2010. Each step of this estimation

procedure is described in detail below.

The Accident Database. The NTSB

defines an accident as an occurrence

associated with the operation of an

airplane which takes place between the

time any person boards the airplane

with the intention of flight and the time

such that persons have disembarked,

and in which any person suffers death

or serious injury or in which the

airplane receives substantial damage.

The FAA looked at only those accidents

for which the final rule could have an

effect. Accidents in which the probable

cause was undetermined, the result of

turbulence, or was related to the ground

crew were not included in the database.

The FAA also excluded midair

collisions, since the current airspace

rules (Mode C, TCAS, positivelycontrolled-airspace areas, etc.) would

not be affected by the final rule. Finally,

the FAA excluded accidents involving

unscheduled and all-cargo operations.

Annual Accident Rate. Based on the

annual number of accidents from the

database and the annual number of

departures, the FAA estimated the

accident rates for 10-to-30-seat airplanes

operating under part 135 and 31-to-60-

seat airplanes operating under part 121.

From 1986 to 1994, the FAA found that

part 135 airplanes with 10 to 19 seats

were involved in accidents at a rate of

.32 accidents per 100,000 departures

and airplanes with 20 to 30 seats

occurred at an average rate of .17

accidents per 100,000. Accidents

involving part 121 airplanes with 31 to

60 seats had an average accident rate of

.13 accidents per 100,000 departures.

The Average Cost of a Part 135

Accident. From the accident database

discussed above, the FAA found that the

average part 135 accident involving 10-

to-19- and 20-to-30-seat airplanes cost

$6.3 million and $24.6 million,

respectively.

Estimating Potential Benefits. To

estimate the benefit of closing the

accident-rate gap between part 135 and

part 121 airplanes, the FAA took the

difference in average accident rates for

10-to-30-seat part 135 airplanes and 31-

to-60-seat part 121 airplanes and

multiplied them by the projected annual

number of departures for 10-to-30-seat

part 135 airplanes. This gives the

projected annual number of accidents

that the final rule could prevent. The

FAA estimates that, from 1996 to 2010,

67 accidents could be prevented.

Multiplying the number of potential

accidents by the average cost of a part

135 accident ($6.3 million for 10-to-19-

seat airplanes or $24.6 million for 20-to30-seat airplanes) results in total

potential benefits of $588.2 million

($350 million, present value).

The extent to which the accident rate

gap closes will determine how much of

the $350 million in potential benefits is

actually achieved. Based on the scope of

the final rule, the FAA anticipates a

significant closing of this gap.

D. Comparison of Costs and Benefits

Over the next 15 years, the Commuter

Rule will impose total costs of $117.80

million, with a present value of $75.19

million. Of the total costs, $80.36

million will be for airplanes with 10 to

19 seats and $37.44 million will be for

airplanes with 20 to 30 seats.

The benefit of the Commuter Rule is

its contribution to closing the accident

rate gap between part 121 and existing

part 135 commuter operators. The FAA

estimates that closing this gap will

prevent 67 accidents over the 15 year

period for a total present value benefit

of $350 million. It is not certain how

much of the accident-rate gap the final

rule will close. In view of this

uncertainty, the FAA contends that the

final rule will be cost-beneficial because

it will have to be only 21 percent

effective for costs to equal benefits.

Given the broad scope of the rule, the

FAA anticipates that, at a minimum, the

rule will be this effective and more.

One additional observation needs to

be made. The FAA considers the

Commuter Rule to be complementary to

the Air Carrier Training Program final

rule and the Flight Crewmember Duty

Period Limitations and Rest

Requirements NPRM. A common goal of

these three rulemaking actions is to

prevent the 67 accidents that represent

the accident-rate gap between part 135

commuters and part 121 operators.

In terms of the accident-rate gap, the

benefits of the Commuter Rule are a part

of this total benefit. However, it is not

possible to allocate that benefit among

the three rulemaking actions because it

is difficult to determine which

rulemaking action would prevent a

given accident. For example, individual

accidents may be prevented by any one
65912 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

or a combination of several factors such

as:

• Preventing the occurrence of a

problem with an airplane in the first

place (Commuter rule);

• Providing more or better crew

training to properly respond to the

problem after it occurs (Air Carrier

Training Program rule);

• Providing a dispatcher to help

identify a problem before it becomes a

potential accident (Commuter rule); and

• Ensuring pilots are not over-worked

and tired (The Rest and Duty NPRM).

The Commuter Rule only addresses a

portion of the necessary requirements to

close the accident-rate gap. If the $75

million present value cost of this rule is

combined with the $51 million in costsavings of the Flight and Duty NPRM,

and the cost of Pilot Training, $34

million, the total cost, $58 million ($34

¥$51+$75), is still less than the

estimated $350 million benefit of

eliminating the accident-rate gap. These

rules combined need only be 17 percent

effective to be cost-beneficial.

E. International Trade Impact

Assessment

Overview. The final rule will have a

minimal effect on international trade.

Although there are a number of acrossthe-border commuter services between

the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, they

represent a small number of routes and

airplanes. The only other concern with

regard to international trade is airplane

sales. There is the potential that

increased equipment requirements and

standards may limit the ability of

commuter airplanes manufactured for

the U.S. market to be resold to buyers

in developing nations. Often, these

countries do not have extensive safety

requirements and may prefer less

sophisticated airplanes.

International Routes. Most of the

nation’s 63 commuter airlines operate

almost exclusively on domestic routes,

with only limited international

operations and no transoceanic routes.

The majority of these international

operations are across-the-border services

between cities in the United States and

locations in Canada and Mexico. There

are relatively few carriers engaging in

this kind of commuter service, with

only a limited number of flights. Most

of these services are between points in

the border states, such as California,

Arizona, Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan,

Washington, and New York, flying to

Mexican and Canadian cities. Although

the final rule may require some foreign

carriers to comply with its

requirements, the primary effect will

still be borne by the domestic air carrier

market with a minimal affect on

international trade.

Airplane Sales. Commuter airplanes

are sold on a worldwide basis, and this

creates the potential for international

trade impacts. The final rule could

affect the competitiveness of airplanes

made for the U.S. market that are resold

internationally. Under the final rule,

commuter airplanes made for the

American market would include new

equipment and upgrades necessary to

meet expanded safety requirements.

These improvements will increase the

cost and maintenance requirements for

the airplane and could negatively affect

their sales potential in foreign markets,

particularly to customers in developing

nations.

Many small air carriers in the

developing world fly under significantly

lower safety requirements than are

required in the United States. Operators

are generally not motivated to purchase

airplanes that exceed their countries’

minimum requirements. Further, these

operators sometimes lack the facilities,

equipment, and expertise that are

necessary to keep sophisticated systems

operational. Therefore, when

purchasing either new or second-hand

airplanes, operators tend to focus on

airplanes that rely on a minimum of

complex systems and equipment and

that meet their basic requirements at the

lowest cost.

Although sales of smaller airplanes to

the developing countries represent an

important component of the market, the

largest market by far is in North

America. In this case, since the

airplanes will have to operate under the

same standards as before their resale,

there would be no impact. According to

recent estimates, the worldwide market

for commuter airplanes is estimated to

be almost $20 billion over the next 15

years, with a projected 59 percent of

those sales occurring in North America.

Sales to Europe account for

approximately 20 percent of the total

sales.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

Summary

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA) was enacted by Congress to

ensure that small entities are not

unnecessarily or disproportionately

burdened by Federal regulations. The

RFA requires a Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis if a final rule will have ‘‘a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.’’

The definitions of small entities and

guidance material for making

determinations required by the

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 are

contained in the Federal Register [47 FR

32825, July 29, 1982]. Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) Order 2100.14A

outlines FAA’s procedures and criteria

for implementing the RFA. With respect

to the final rule, a ‘‘small entity’’ is

defined as a commuter operator (with 10

to 30 seats) that owns, but does not

necessarily operate nine or fewer

airplanes. A ‘‘significant economic

impact on a small entity’’ is defined as

an annualized net compliance cost to a

small scheduled commuter operator that

is equal to or greater than $67,000 (1994

dollars). The entire fleet of a small

scheduled commuter operator has at

least one airplane of seating capacity of

60 or fewer seats. The annualized net

compliance cost to a small operator

whose entire fleet has a seating capacity

of over 60 seats is $119,900 (1994

dollars). A substantial number of small

entities is defined as a number that is 11

or more and that is more than one-third

of small commuter operators subject to

the final rule.

The FAA is requiring certain

commuter operators that now conduct

operations under part 135 to conduct

those operations under part 121. The

commuter operators that will be affected

are those conducting scheduled

passenger-carrying operations in

airplanes that have a passenger-seating

configuration of 10 to 30 seats and those

conducting scheduled passengercarrying operations in turbojets

regardless of seating configuration. The

rule will revise the requirements

concerning operating certificates and

operations specifications. The rule will

also require certain management

officials for all operators under parts

121 and 135. The rule will increase

safety in scheduled passenger-carrying

operations and clarify, update, and

consolidate the certification and

operations requirements for persons

who transport persons or property by air

for compensation or hire.

The total present value cost to small

entities with 10-to-19-seat airplanes is

$16.7 million. The section on operations

represents $10.1 million or 64 percent of

the total. The section on maintenance

represents $4.0 million or 24 percent of

the total. The total present value cost to

small entities with 20-to-30-seat

airplanes is $4.0 million. The section on

operations represents $2.9 million or 73

percent of the total. The section on part

119 represents $416,000 or 10.4 percent

of the total.

This determination shows that for an

operator with only 10-to-19-seat

airplanes, the average annualized cost

will be $61,900 and for an operator with

20-to-30-seat airplanes, the average

annualized cost will be $35,600. Given

the threshold annualized cost of $67,000
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65913

for a small commuter operator (with 60

or fewer seats), the FAA estimates that

this final rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. A complete

copy of the Regulatory Flexibility

Determination is in the public docket.

Federalism Implications

The regulations do not have

substantial direct effects on the states,

on the relationship between the national

government and the states, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among various levels of

government. Thus, in accordance with

Executive Order 12612, it is determined

that such a regulation does not have

federalism implications warranting the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements associated with this rule

have been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget, until

December 1998, in accordance with 44

U.S.C. Chapter 35 under OMB No.

2120–0593, TITLE: Commuter

Operations and General Certification

and Operations Requirements.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth under the

heading ‘‘Regulatory Analysis,’’ the

FAA has determined that this

regulation: (1) Is a significant rule under

Executive Order 12866; and (2) is a

significant rule under Department of

Transportation Regulatory Policies and

Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,

1979). Also, for the reasons stated under

the headings ‘‘Trade Impact Statement’’

and ‘‘Regulatory Flexibility

Determination,’’ the FAA certifies that

the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. A copy of the

full regulatory evaluation is filed in the

docket and may also be obtained by

contacting the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 91

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

14 CFR Part 119

Administrative practice and

procedures, Air carriers, Air taxis,

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Charter flights,

Commuter operations, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 121

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen,

Aviation safety, Charter flights,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

14 CFR Part 125

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

14 CFR Part 127

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen,

Aviation safety, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 135

Aircraft, Airplane, Airworthiness, Air

transportation.

IX. The Amendments

In consideration of the foregoing and

under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 44702,

the Federal Aviation Administration

amends the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR parts 91, 119, 121,

125, 127, and 135) as follows:

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND

FLIGHT RULES

1. The authority citation for part 91 is

changed to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103,

40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44709,

44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722,

46306, 46315, 46316, 46502, 46504, 46506–

46507, 47122, 47508, 47528–47531; Articles

12 and 29 of the Convention on International

Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180). 902; 49 U.S.C.

106(g).

2. Special Federal Aviation

Regulation No. 50–2 is amended by

removing the words ‘‘part 135’’ from

paragraph (c)(2) of section 3 and by

revising section 6 to read as follows:

SFAR No. 50–2—Special Flight Rules in

the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon

National Park, AZ

* * * * *

Sec. 6 Commercial sightseeing flights. (a)

Non-stop sightseeing flights that begin and

end at the same airport, are conducted within

a 25-statute-mile radius of that airport, and

operate in or through the Special Flight Rules

Area during any portion of the flight are

governed by the provisions of SFAR 38–2 of

part 119, part 121, and 135 of this chapter,

as applicable.

(b) No person holding or required to hold

an air carrier certificate or an operating

certificate under SFAR 38–2 or part 119 of

this chapter may operate an aircraft having a

passenger-seat configuration of 30 seats or

fewer, excluding each crewmember seat, and

a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less,

in the Special Flight Rules Area except as

authorized by operations specifications

issued under that part.

* * * * *

3. Special Federal Aviation

Regulation No. 71 is amended by

revising section 1 and the introductory

text of section 7 to read as follows:

SFAR No. 71—Special Operating Rules

for Air Tour Operators in The State of

Hawaii

Section 1. Applicability. This Special

Federal Aviation Regulation prescribes

operating rules for airplane and helicopter

visual flight rules air tour flights conducted

in the State of Hawaii under 14 CFR parts 91,

121, and 135. This rule does not apply to:

(a) Operations conducted under 14 CFR

part 121 in airplanes with a passenger seating

configuration of more than 30 seats or a

payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds.

(b) Flights conducted in gliders or hot air

balloons.

* * * * *

Section 7. Passenger briefing. Before

takeoff, each PIC of an air tour flight of

Hawaii with a flight segment beyond the

ocean shore of any island shall ensure that

each passenger has been briefed on the

following, in addition to requirements set

forth in 14 CFR 91.107, 121.571, or 135.117:

* * * * *

4. The heading of subchapter G is

revised to read as follows:

SUBCHAPTER G—AIR CARRIERS AND

OPERATORS FOR COMPENSATION OR

HIRE: CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS

5. A new part 119 is added to 14 CFR

chapter I, subchapter G, to read as

follows:

PART 119—CERTIFICATION: AIR

CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL

OPERATORS

Subpart A—General

Sec.

119.1 Applicability.

119.2 Compliance with 14 CFR part 119 or

SFAR 38–2 of 14 CFR part 121.

119.3 Definitions.

119.5 Certifications, authorizations, and

prohibitions.

119.7 Operations specifications.

119.9 Use of business names.

Subpart B—Applicability of Operating

Requirements to Different Kinds of

Operations Under Parts 121, 125, and 135 of

This Chapter

119.21 Direct air carriers and commercial

operators engaged in intrastate common

carriage with airplanes.

119.23 Operators engaged in passengercarrying operations, cargo operations, or

both with airplanes when common

carriage is not involved.

119.25 Rotorcraft operations: Direct air

carriers and commercial operators.

Subpart C—Certification, Operations

Specifications, and Certain Other

Requirements for Operations Conducted

Under Part 121 or Part 135 of this Chapter

119.31 Applicability.

119.33 General requirements.

119.35 Certificate application.

119.37 Contents of an Air Carrier Certificate

or Operating Certificate.

119.39 Issuing or denying a certificate.

119.41 Amending a certificate.
65914 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

119.43 Certificate holder’s duty to maintain

operations specifications.

119.45 [Reserved]

119.47 Maintaining a principal base of

operations, main operations base, and

main maintenance base; change of

address.

119.49 Contents of operations

specifications.

119.51 Amending operations specifications.

119.53 Wet leasing of aircraft and other

arrangements for transportation by air.

119.55 Obtaining deviation authority to

perform operations under a U.S. military

contract.

119.57 Obtaining deviation authority to

perform an emergency operation.

119.58 Emergencies requiring immediate

decision and action.

119.59 Conducting tests and inspections.

119.61 Duration and surrender of certificate

and operations specifications.

119.63 Recency of operation.

119.65 Management personnel required for

operations conducted under part 121 of

this chapter.

119.67 Management personnel:

Qualifications for operations conducted

under part 121 of this chapter.

119.69 Management personnel required for

operations conducted under part 135 of

this chapter.

119.71 Management personnel:

Qualifications for operations conducted

under part 135 of this chapter.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101,

40102, 40103, 40113, 44105, 44106, 44111,

44701–44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904,

44906, 44912, 44914, 44936, 44938, 46103,

46105.

Subpart A—General

§ 119.1 Applicability.

(a) This part applies to each person

operating or intending to operate civil

aircraft—

(1) As an air carrier or commercial

operator, or both, in air commerce; or

(2) When common carriage is not

involved, in operations of U.S.-

registered civil airplanes with a seat

configuration of 20 or more passengers,

or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000

pounds or more.

(b) This part prescribes—

(1) The types of air operator

certificates issued by the Federal

Aviation Administration, including air

carrier certificates and operating

certificates;

(2) The certification requirements an

operator must meet in order to obtain

and hold a certificate authorizing

operations under part 121, 125, or 135

of this chapter and operations

specifications for each kind of operation

to be conducted and each class and size

of aircraft to be operated under part 121

or 135 of this chapter;

(3) The requirements an operator must

meet to conduct operations under part

121, 125, or 135 of this chapter and in

operating each class and size of aircraft

authorized in its operations

specifications;

(4) Requirements affecting wet leasing

of aircraft and other arrangements for

transportation by air;

(5) Requirements for obtaining

deviation authority to perform

operations under a military contract and

obtaining deviation authority to perform

an emergency operation; and

(6) Requirements for management

personnel for operations conducted

under part 121 or part 135 of this

chapter.

(c) Persons subject to this part must

comply with the other requirements of

this chapter, except where those

requirements are modified by or where

additional requirements are imposed by

part 119, 121, 125, or 135 of this

chapter.

(d) This part does not govern

operations conducted under part 129,

133, 137, or 139 of this chapter.

(e) Except for operations when

common carriage is not involved

conducted with airplanes having a

passenger-seat configuration of 20 seats

or more, excluding any required

crewmember seat, or a payload capacity

of 6,000 pounds or more, this part does

not apply to—

(1) Student instruction;

(2) Nonstop sightseeing flights

conducted with aircraft having a

passenger seat configuration of 30 or

fewer, excluding each crewmember seat,

and a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds

or less, that begin and end at the same

airport, and are conducted within a 25

statute mile radius of that airport;

however, for nonstop sightseeing flights

for compensation or hire conducted in

the vicinity of the Grand Canyon

National Park, Arizona, the

requirements of SFAR 50–2 of this part

and SFAR 38–2 of 14 CFR part 121 or

14 CFR part 119, as applicable, apply;

(3) Ferry or training flights;

(4) Aerial work operations,

including—

(i) Crop dusting, seeding, spraying,

and bird chasing;

(ii) Banner towing;

(iii) Aerial photography or survey;

(iv) Fire fighting;

(v) Helicopter operations in

construction or repair work (but it does

apply to transportation to and from the

site of operations); and

(vi) Powerline or pipeline patrol;

(5) Sightseeing flights conducted in

hot air balloons;

(6) Nonstop flights conducted within

a 25 statute mile radius of the airport of

takeoff carrying persons for the purpose

of intentional parachute jumps;

(7) Helicopter flights conducted

within a 25 statute mile radius of the

airport of takeoff if—

(i) Not more than two passengers are

carried in the helicopter in addition to

the required flightcrew;

(ii) Each flight is made under day VFR

conditions;

(iii) The helicopter used is certificated

in the standard category and complies

with the 100-hour inspection

requirements of part 91 of this chapter;

(iv) The operator notifies the FAA

Flight Standards District Office

responsible for the geographic area

concerned at least 72 hours before each

flight and furnishes any essential

information that the office requests;

(v) The number of flights does not

exceed a total of six in any calendar

year;

(vi) Each flight has been approved by

the Administrator; and

(vii) Cargo is not carried in or on the

helicopter;

(8) Operations conducted under part

133 of this chapter or 375 of this title;

(9) Emergency mail service conducted

under 49 U.S.C. 41906; or

(10) Operations conducted under the

provisions of § 91.321 of this chapter.

§ 119.2 Compliance with 14 CFR part 119

or SFAR 38–2 of 14 CFR part 121.

(a) Each certificate holder that before

January 19, 1996 was issued an air

carrier certificate or operating certificate

and operations specifications under the

requirements of part 121, part 135, or

SFAR 38–2 of part 121 of this chapter

shall continue to comply with SFAR

38–2 of 14 CFR part 121 until March 20,

1997 or until the date on which the

certificate holder is issued operations

specifications in accordance with part

119, whichever occurs first. If a

certificate holder is issued operation

specifications in accordance with part

119 before March 20, 1997 then,

notwithstanding all provisions in SFAR

38–2 of 14 CFR part 121, such certificate

holder shall comply with the provisions

of part 119.

(b) Each person who on or after

January 19, 1996 applies for or obtains

an initial air carrier certificate or

operating certificate and operations

specifications to conduct operations

under part 121 or 135 of this chapter

shall comply with this part

notwithstanding all provisions of SFAR

38–2 of 14 CFR part 121.

§ 119.3 Definitions.

For the purpose of subchapter G of

this chapter, the term—

All-cargo operation means any

operation for compensation or hire that

is other than a passenger-carrying
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65915

operation or, if passengers are carried,

they are only those specified in

§§ 121.583(a) or 135.85 of this chapter.

Certificate-holding district office

means the Flight Standards District

Office that has responsibility for

administering the certificate and is

charged with the overall inspection of

the certificate holder’s operations.

Commuter operation means any

scheduled operation conducted by any

person operating one of the following

types of aircraft with a frequency of

operations of at least five round trips

per week or at least one route between

two or more points according to the

published flight schedules:

(1) Airplanes, other than turbojet

powered airplanes, having a maximum

passenger-seat configuration of 9 seats

or less, excluding each crewmember

seat, and a maximum payload capacity

of 7,500 pounds or less; or

(2) Rotorcraft.

Direct air carrier means a person who

provides or offers to provide air

transportation and who has control over

the operational functions performed in

providing that transportation.

Domestic operation means any

scheduled operation conducted by any

person operating any airplane described

in paragraph (1) of this definition at

locations described in paragraph (2) of

this definition:

(1) Airplanes:

(i) Turbojet-powered airplanes;

(ii) Airplanes having a passenger-seat

configuration of more than 9 passenger

seats, excluding each crewmember seat;

or

(iii) Airplanes having a payload

capacity of more than 7,500 pounds.

(2) Locations:

(i) Between any points within the 48

contiguous States of the United States or

the District of Columbia; or

(ii) Operations solely within the 48

contiguous States of the United States or

the District of Columbia; or

(iii) Operations entirely within any

State, territory, or possession of the

United States; or

(iv) When specifically authorized by

the Administrator, operations between

any point within the 48 contiguous

States of the United States or the District

of Columbia and any specifically

authorized point located outside the 48

contiguous States of the United States or

the District of Columbia.

Empty weight means the weight of the

airframe, engines, propellers, rotors, and

fixed equipment. Empty weight

excludes the weight of the crew and

payload, but includes the weight of all

fixed ballast, unusable fuel supply,

undrainable oil, total quantity of engine

coolant, and total quantity of hydraulic

fluid.

Flag operation means any scheduled

operation conducted by any person

operating any airplane described in

paragraph (1) of this definition at the

locations described in paragraph (2) of

this definition:

(1) Airplanes:

(i) Turbojet-powered airplanes;

(ii) Airplanes having a passenger-seat

configuration of more than 9 passenger

seats, excluding each crewmember seat;

or

(iii) Airplanes having a payload

capacity of more than 7,500 pounds.

(2) Locations:

(i) Between any point within the State

of Alaska or the State of Hawaii or any

territory or possession of the United

States and any point outside the State of

Alaska or the State of Hawaii or any

territory or possession of the United

States, respectively; or

(ii) Between any point within the 48

contiguous States of the United States or

the District of Columbia and any point

outside the 48 contiguous States of the

United States and the District of

Columbia.

(iii) Between any point outside the

U.S. and another point outside the U.S.

Justifiable aircraft equipment means

any equipment necessary for the

operation of the aircraft. It does not

include equipment or ballast

specifically installed, permanently or

otherwise, for the purpose of altering

the empty weight of an aircraft to meet

the maximum payload capacity.

Kind of operation means one of the

various operations a certificate holder is

authorized to conduct, as specified in its

operations specifications, i.e., domestic,

flag, supplemental, commuter, or ondemand operations.

Maximum payload capacity means:

(1) For an aircraft for which a

maximum zero fuel weight is prescribed

in FAA technical specifications, the

maximum zero fuel weight, less empty

weight, less all justifiable aircraft

equipment, and less the operating load

(consisting of minimum flightcrew,

foods and beverages, and supplies and

equipment related to foods and

beverages, but not including disposable

fuel or oil).

(2) For all other aircraft, the maximum

certificated takeoff weight of an aircraft,

less the empty weight, less all justifiable

aircraft equipment, and less the

operating load (consisting of minimum

fuel load, oil, and flightcrew). The

allowance for the weight of the crew,

oil, and fuel is as follows:

(i) Crew—for each crewmember

required by the Federal Aviation

Regulations—

(A) For male flight crewmembers—

180 pounds.

(B) For female flight crewmembers—

140 pounds.

(C) For male flight attendants—180

pounds.

(D) For female flight attendants—130

pounds.

(E) For flight attendants not identified

by gender—140 pounds.

(ii) Oil—350 pounds or the oil

capacity as specified on the Type

Certificate Data Sheet.

(iii) Fuel—the minimum weight of

fuel required by the applicable Federal

Aviation Regulations for a flight

between domestic points 174 nautical

miles apart under VFR weather

conditions that does not involve

extended overwater operations.

Maximum zero fuel weight means the

maximum permissible weight of an

aircraft with no disposable fuel or oil.

The zero fuel weight figure may be

found in either the aircraft type

certificate data sheet, the approved

Aircraft Flight Manual, or both.

Noncommon carriage means an

aircraft operation for compensation or

hire that does not involve a holding out

to others.

On-demand operation means any

operation for compensation or hire that

is one of the following:

(1) Passenger-carrying operations in

which the departure time, departure

location, and arrival location are

specifically negotiated with the

customer or the customer’s

representative that are any of the

following types of operations:

(i) Common carriage operations

conducted with airplanes, including

turbojet-powered airplanes, having a

passenger-seat configuration of 30 seats

or fewer, excluding each crewmember

seat, and a payload capacity of 7,500

pounds or less, except that operations

using a specific airplane that is also

used in domestic or flag operations and

that is so listed in the operations

specifications as required by

§ 119.49(a)(4) for those operations are

considered supplemental operations;

(ii) Noncommon or private carriage

operations conducted with airplanes

having a passenger-seat configuration of

less than 20 seats, excluding each

crewmember seat, or a payload capacity

of less than 6,000 pounds; or

(iii) Any rotorcraft operation.

(2) Scheduled passenger-carrying

operations conducted with one of the

following types of aircraft with a

frequency of operations of less than five

round trips per week on at least one

route between two or more points

according to the published flight

schedules:

(i) Airplanes, other than turbojet

powered airplanes, having a maximum
65916 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

passenger-seat configuration of 9 seats

or less, excluding each crewmember

seat, and a maximum payload capacity

of 7,500 pounds or less; or

(ii) Rotorcraft.

(3) All-cargo operations conducted

with airplanes having a payload

capacity of 7,500 pounds or less, or with

rotorcraft.

Passenger-carrying operation means

any aircraft operation carrying any

person, unless the only persons on the

aircraft are those identified in

§§ 121.583(a) or 135.85 of this chapter,

as applicable. An aircraft used in a

passenger-carrying operation may also

carry cargo or mail in addition to

passengers.

Principal base of operations means

the primary operating location of a

certificate holder as established by the

certificate holder.

Provisional airport means an airport

approved by the Administrator for use

by a certificate holder for the purpose of

providing service to a community when

the regular airport used by the

certificate holder is not available.

Regular airport means an airport used

by a certificate holder in scheduled

operations and listed in its operations

specifications.

Scheduled operation means any

common carriage passenger-carrying

operation for compensation or hire

conducted by an air carrier or

commercial operator for which the

certificate holder or its representative

offers in advance the departure location,

departure time, and arrival location. It

does not include any operation that is

a charter operation for which the

certificate holder or its representative

offers in advance the departure location,

departure time, and arrival location. It

does not include any operation that is

a charter operation.

Supplemental operation means any

common carriage operation for

compensation or hire conducted with

any airplane described in paragraph (1)

of this definition that is a type of

operation described in paragraph (2) of

this definition:

(1) Airplanes:

(i) Airplanes having a passenger-seat

configuration of more than 30 seats,

excluding each crewmember seat;

(ii) Airplanes having a payload

capacity of more than 7,500 pounds; or

(iii) Each airplane having a passengerseat configuration of more than 9 seats

and less than 31 seats, excluding each

crewmember seat and any turbojet

powered airplane, that is also used in

domestic or flag operations and that is

so listed in the operations specifications

as required by § 119.49(a)(4) for those

operations.

(2) Types of operation:

(i) Operations for which the departure

time, departure location, and arrival

location are specifically negotiated with

the customer or the customer’s

representative; or

(ii) All-cargo operations.

Wet lease means any leasing

arrangement whereby a person agrees to

provide an entire aircraft and at least

one crewmember. A wet lease does not

include a code-sharing arrangement.

When common carriage is not

involved or operations not involving

common carriage means any of the

following:

(1) Noncommon carriage.

(2) Operations in which persons or

cargo are transported without

compensation or hire.

(3) Operations not involving the

transportation of persons or cargo.

(4) Private carriage.

§ 119.5 Certifications, authorizations, and

prohibitions.

(a) A person authorized by the

Administrator to conduct operations as

a direct air carrier will be issued an Air

Carrier Certificate.

(b) A person who is not authorized to

conduct direct air carrier operations, but

who is authorized by the Administrator

to conduct operations as a U.S.

commercial operator, will be issued an

Operating Certificate.

(c) A person who is not authorized to

conduct direct air carrier operations, but

who is authorized by the Administrator

to conduct operations when common

carriage is not involved as an operator

of U.S.-registered civil airplanes with a

seat configuration of 20 or more

passengers, or a maximum payload

capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, will

be issued an Operating Certificate.

(d) A person authorized to engage in

common carriage under part 121 or part

135 of this chapter, or both, shall be

issued only one certificate authorizing

such common carriage, regardless of the

kind of operation or the class or size of

aircraft to be operated.

(e) A person authorized to engage in

noncommon or private carriage under

part 125 or part 135 of this chapter, or

both, shall be issued only one certificate

authorizing such carriage, regardless of

the kind of operation or the class or size

of aircraft to be operated.

(f) A person conducting operations

under more than one paragraph of

§§ 119.21, 119.23, or 119.25 shall

conduct those operations in compliance

with—

(1) The requirements specified in each

paragraph of those sections for the kind

of operation conducted under that

paragraph; and

(2) The appropriate authorizations,

limitations, and procedures specified in

the operations specifications for each

kind of operation.

(g) No person may operate as a direct

air carrier or as a commercial operator

without, or in violation of, an

appropriate certificate and appropriate

operations specifications. No person

may operate as a direct air carrier or as

a commercial operator in violation of

any deviation or exemption authority, if

issued to that person or that person’s

representative.

(h) A person holding an Operating

Certificate authorizing noncommon or

private carriage operations shall not

conduct any operations in common

carriage. A person holding an Air

Carrier Certificate or Operating

Certificate authorizing common carriage

operations shall not conduct any

operations in noncommon carriage.

(i) No person may operate as a direct

air carrier without holding appropriate

economic authority from the

Department of Transportation.

(j) A certificate holder under this part

may not operate aircraft under part 121

or part 135 of this chapter in a

geographical area unless its operations

specifications specifically authorize the

certificate holder to operate in that area.

§ 119.7 Operations specifications.

(a) Each certificate holder’s operations

specifications must contain—

(1) The authorizations, limitations,

and certain procedures under which

each kind of operation, if applicable, is

to be conducted; and

(2) Certain other procedures under

which each class and size of aircraft is

to be operated.

(b) Except for operations

specifications paragraphs identifying

authorized kinds of operations,

operations specifications are not a part

of a certificate.

§ 119.9 Use of business names.

(a) A certificate holder under this part

may not operate an aircraft under part

121 or part 135 of this chapter using a

business name other than a business

name appearing in the certificate

holder’s operations specifications.

(b) Unless otherwise authorized by

the Assistant Administrator for Civil

Aviation Security, no person may

operate an aircraft under part 121 or

part 135 of this chapter unless the name

of the certificate holder who is operating

the aircraft is legibly displayed on the

aircraft and is clearly visible and

readable from the outside of the aircraft

to a person standing on the ground at

any time except during flight time. The

means of displaying the name on the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65917

aircraft and its readability must be

acceptable to the Administrator.

Subpart B—Applicability of Operating

Requirements to Different Kinds of

Operations Under Part 121, 125, and

135 of This Chapter

§ 119.21 Direct air carriers and commercial

operators engaged in intrastate common

carriage with airplanes.

(a) Each person who conducts

operations as a direct air carrier or as a

commercial operator engaged in

intrastate common carriage of persons or

property for compensation or hire in air

commerce, shall comply with the

certification and operations

specifications requirements in subpart C

of this part, and shall conduct its:

(1) Domestic operations in accordance

with the applicable requirements of part

121 of this chapter, and shall be issued

operations specifications for those

operations in accordance with those

requirements. However, based on a

showing of safety in air commerce, the

Administrator may permit persons who

conduct domestic operations between

any point located within Alaska’s

Aleutian Islands chain and any point in

the State of Alaska to comply with the

requirements applicable to flag

operations contained in subpart U of

part 121 of this chapter.

(2) Flag operations in accordance with

the applicable requirements of part 121

of this chapter, and shall be issued

operations specifications for those

operations in accordance with those

requirements.

(3) Supplemental operations in

accordance with the applicable

requirements of part 121 of this chapter,

and shall be issued operations

specifications for those operations in

accordance with those requirements.

However, based on a determination of

safety in air commerce, the

Administrator may authorize or require

the following operations to be

conducted under paragraph (a) (1) or (2)

of this section:

(i) Passenger-carrying operations

which are conducted between points

that are also served by the certificate

holder’s domestic or flag operations.

(ii) All-cargo operations which are

conducted regularly and frequently

between the same two points.

(4) Commuter operations in

accordance with the applicable

requirements of part 135 of this chapter,

and shall be issued operations

specifications for those operations in

accordance with those requirements.

(5) On-demand operations in

accordance with the applicable

requirements of part 135 of this chapter,

and shall be issued operations

specifications for those operations in

accordance with those requirements.

(b) Persons who are subject to the

requirements of paragraph (a)(4) of this

section may conduct those operations in

accordance with the requirements of

paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section,

provided they obtain authorization from

the Administrator.

(c) Persons who are subject to the

requirements of paragraph (a)(5) of this

section may conduct those operations in

accordance with the requirements of

paragraph (a)(3) of this section,

provided they obtain authorization from

the Administrator.

§ 119.23 Operators engaged in passengercarrying operations, cargo operations, or

both with airplanes when common carriage

is not involved.

(a) Each person who conducts

operations when common carriage is not

involved with airplanes having a

passenger-seat configuration of 20 seats

or more, excluding each crewmember

seat, or a payload capacity of 6,000

pounds or more, shall, unless deviation

authority is issued—

(1) Comply with the certification and

operations specifications requirements

of part 125 of this chapter;

(2) Conduct its operations with those

airplanes in accordance with the

requirements of part 125 of this chapter;

and

(3) Be issued operations specifications

in accordance with those requirements.

(b) Each person who conducts

noncommon or private carriage

operations for compensation or hire

with airplanes having a passenger-seat

configuration of less than 20 seats,

excluding each crewmember seat, and a

payload capacity of less than 6,000

pounds shall—

(1) Comply with the certification and

operations specifications requirements

in subpart C of this part;

(2) Conduct those operations in

accordance with the requirements of

part 135 of this chapter, except for those

requirements applicable only to

commuter operations; and

(3) Be issued operations specifications

in accordance with those requirements.

§ 119.25 Rotorcraft operations: Direct air

carriers and commercial operators.

Each person who conducts rotorcraft

operations for compensation or hire

must comply with the certification and

operations specifications requirements

of Subpart C of this part, and shall

conduct its:

(a) Commuter operations in

accordance with the applicable

requirements of part 135 of this chapter,

and shall be issued operations

specifications for those operations in

accordance with those requirements.

(b) On-demand operations in

accordance with the applicable

requirements of part 135 of this chapter,

and shall be issued operations

specifications for those operations in

accordance with those requirements.

Subpart C—Certification, Operations

Specifications, and Certain Other

Requirements for Operations

Conducted Under Part 121 or Part 135

of This Chapter

§ 119.31 Applicability.

This subpart sets out certification

requirements and prescribes the content

of operations specifications and certain

other requirements for operations

conducted under part 121 or part 135 of

this chapter.

§ 119.33 General requirements.

(a) A person may not operate as a

direct air carrier unless that person—

(1) Is a citizen of the United States;

(2) Obtains an Air Carrier Certificate;

and

(3) Obtains operations specifications

that prescribe the authorizations,

limitations, and procedures under

which each kind of operation must be

conducted.

(b) A person other than a direct air

carrier may not conduct any commercial

passenger or cargo aircraft operation for

compensation or hire under part 121 or

part 135 of this chapter unless that

person—

(1) Is a citizen of the United States;

(2) Obtains an Operating Certificate;

and

(3) Obtains operations specifications

that prescribe the authorizations,

limitations, and procedures under

which each kind of operation must be

conducted.

(c) Each applicant for a certificate

under this part shall conduct proving

tests as authorized by the Administrator

during the application process for

authority to conduct operations under

part 121 or part 135 of this chapter. All

proving tests must be conducted in a

manner acceptable to the Administrator.

All proving tests must be conducted

under the appropriate operating and

maintenance requirements of part 121 or

135 of this chapter that would apply if

the applicant were fully certificated.

The Administrator will issue a letter of

authorization to each person stating the

various authorities under which the

proving tests shall be conducted.

§ 119.35 Certificate application.

(a) A person applying to the

Administrator for an Air Carrier
65918 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Certificate or Operating Certificate

under this part (applicant) must submit

an application—

(1) In a form and manner prescribed

by the Administrator; and

(2) Containing any information the

Administrator requires the applicant to

submit.

(b) Each applicant must submit the

application to the Administrator at least

90 days before the date of intended

operation.

(c) Each applicant for the original

issue of an operating certificate for the

purpose of conducting intrastate

common carriage operations under part

121 or part 135 of this chapter must

submit an application in a form and

manner prescribed by the Administrator

to the Flight Standards District Office in

whose area the applicant proposes to

establish or has established his or her

principal operations base of operations.

(d) Each application submitted under

paragraph (c) of this section must

contain a signed statement showing the

following:

(1) For corporate applicants:

(i) The name and address of each

stockholder who owns 5 percent or

more of the total voting stock of the

corporation, and if that stockholder is

not the sole beneficial owner of the

stock, the name and address of each

beneficial owner. An individual is

considered to own the stock owned,

directly or indirectly, by or for his or her

spouse, children, grandchildren, or

parents.

(ii) The name and address of each

director and each officer and each

person employed or who will be

employed in a management position

described in §§ 119.65 and 119.69, as

applicable.

(iii) The name and address of each

person directly or indirectly controlling

or controlled by the applicant and each

person under direct or indirect control

with the applicant.

(2) For non-corporate applicants:

(i) The name and address of each

person having a financial interest

therein the non-corporate applicant and

the nature and extent of that interest.

(ii) The name and address of each

person employed or who will be

employed in a management position

described in §§ 119.65 and 119.69, as

applicable.

(e) In addition, each applicant for the

original issue of an operating certificate

under paragraph (c) of this section must

submit with the application a signed

statement showing—

(1) The financial information listed in

paragraph (h) of this section; and

(2) The nature and scope of its

intended operation, including the name

and address of each person, if any, with

whom the applicant has a contract to

provide services as a commercial

operator and the scope, nature, date,

and duration of each of those contracts.

(f) Each applicant for, or holder of, a

certificate issued under paragraph (c) of

this section this part, shall notify the

Administrator within 10 days after—

(1) A change in any of the persons, or

the names and addresses of any of the

persons, submitted to the Administrator

under paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this

section; or

(2) A change in the financial

information submitted to the

Administrator under paragraph (g) of

this section that occurs while the

application for the issue is pending

before the FAA and that would make

the applicant’s financial situation

substantially less favorable than

originally reported.

(g) Each applicant for the original

issue of an operating certificate under

paragraph (c) of this section must

submit the following financial

information:

(1) A balance sheet that shows assets,

liabilities, and net worth, as of a date

not more than 60 days before the date

of application.

(2) An itemization of liabilities more

than 60 days past due on the balance

sheet date, if any, showing each

creditor’s name and address, a

description of the liability, and the

amount and due date of the liability.

(3) An itemization of claims in

litigation, if any, against the applicant as

of the date of application showing each

claimant’s name and address and a

description and the amount of the

claim.

(4) A detailed projection of the

proposed operation covering 6 complete

months after the month in which the

certificate is expected to be issued

including—

(i) Estimated amount and source of

both operating and nonoperating

revenue, including identification of its

existing and anticipated income

producing contracts and estimated

revenue per mile or hour of operation by

aircraft type;

(ii) Estimated amount of operating

and nonoperating expenses by expense

objective classification; and

(iii) Estimated net profit or loss for the

period.

(5) An estimate of the cash that will

be needed for the proposed operations

during the first 6 months after the

month in which the certificate is

expected to be issued, including—

(i) Acquisition of property and

equipment (explain);

(ii) Retirement of debt (explain);

(iii) Additional working capital

(explain);

(iv) Operating losses other than

depreciation and amortization (explain);

and

(v) Other (explain).

(6) An estimate of the cash that will

be available during the first 6 months

after the month in which the certificate

is expected to be issued, from—

(i) Sale of property or flight

equipment (explain);

(ii) New debt (explain);

(iii) New equity (explain);

(iv) Working capital reduction

(explain);

(v) Operations (profits) (explain);

(vi) Depreciation and amortization

(explain); and

(vii) Other (explain).

(7) A schedule of insurance coverage

in effect on the balance sheet date

showing insurance companies; policy

numbers; types, amounts, and period of

coverage; and special conditions,

exclusions, and limitations.

(8) Any other financial information

that the Administrator requires to

enable him to determine that the

applicant has sufficient financial

resources to conduct his or her

operations with the degree of safety

required in the public interest.

(h) Each financial statement

containing financial information

required by paragraph (g) of this section

must be based on accounts prepared and

maintained on an accrual basis in

accordance with generally accepted

accounting principles applied on a

consistent basis, and must contain the

name and address of the applicant’s

public accounting firm, if any.

Information submitted must be signed

by an officer, owner, or partner of the

applicant or certificate holder.

§ 119.37 Contents of an Air Carrier

Certificate or Operating Certificate.

The Air Carrier Certificate or

Operating Certificate includes—

(a) The certificate holder’s name;

(b) The location of the certificate

holder’s principal base of operations;

(c) The certificate number;

(d) The certificate’s effective date; and

(e) The name or the designator of the

certificate-holding district office.

§ 119.39 Issuing or denying a certificate.

(a) An applicant may be issued an Air

Carrier Certificate or Operating

Certificate if, after investigation, the

Administrator finds that the applicant—

(1) Meets the applicable requirements

of this part;

(2) Holds the economic authority

applicable to the kinds of operations to

be conducted, issued by the Department

of Transportation, if required; and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65919

(3) Is properly and adequately

equipped in accordance with the

requirements of this chapter and is able

to conduct a safe operation under

appropriate provisions of part 121 or

part 135 of this chapter and operations

specifications issued under this part.

(b) An application for a certificate

may be denied if the Administrator

finds that—

(1) The applicant is not properly or

adequately equipped or is not able to

conduct safe operations under this

subchapter;

(2) The applicant previously held an

Air Carrier Certificate or Operating

Certificate which was revoked;

(3) The applicant intends to or fills a

key management position listed in

§ 119.65(a) or § 119.69(a), as applicable,

with an individual who exercised

control over or who held the same or a

similar position with a certificate holder

whose certificate was revoked, or is in

the process of being revoked, and that

individual materially contributed to the

circumstances causing revocation or

causing the revocation process;

(4) An individual who will have

control over or have a substantial

ownership interest in the applicant had

the same or similar control or interest in

a certificate holder whose certificate

was revoked, or is in the process of

being revoked, and that individual

materially contributed to the

circumstances causing revocation or

causing the revocation process; or

(5) In the case of an applicant for an

Operating Certificate for intrastate

common carriage, that for financial

reasons the applicant is not able to

conduct a safe operation.

§ 119.41 Amending a certificate.

(a) The Administrator may amend any

certificate issued under this part if—

(1) The Administrator determines,

under 49 U.S.C. 44709 and part 13 of

this chapter, that safety in air commerce

and the public interest requires the

amendment; or

(2) The certificate holder applies for

the amendment and the certificateholding district office determines that

safety in air commerce and the public

interest allows the amendment.

(b) When the Administrator proposes

to issue an order amending, suspending,

or revoking all or part of any certificate,

the procedure in § 13.19 of this chapter

applies.

(c) When the certificate holder applies

for an amendment of its certificate, the

following procedure applies:

(1) The certificate holder must file an

application to amend its certificate with

the certificate-holding district office at

least 15 days before the date proposed

by the applicant for the amendment to

become effective, unless the

administrator approves filing within a

shorter period; and

(2) The application must be submitted

to the certificate-holding district office

in the form and manner prescribed by

the Administrator.

(d) When a certificate holder seeks

reconsideration of a decision from the

certificate-holding district office

concerning amendments of a certificate,

the following procedure applies:

(1) The petition for reconsideration

must be made within 30 days after the

certificate holder receives the notice of

denial; and

(2) The certificate holder must

petition for reconsideration to the

Director, Flight Standards Service.

§ 119.43 Certificate holder’s duty to

maintain operations specifications.

(a) Each certificate holder shall

maintain a complete and separate set of

its operations specifications at its

principal base of operations.

(b) Each certificate holder shall insert

pertinent excerpts of its operations

specifications, or references thereto, in

its manual and shall—

(1) Clearly identify each such excerpt

as a part of its operations specifications;

and

(2) State that compliance with each

operations specifications requirement is

mandatory.

(c) Each certificate holder shall keep

each of its employees and other persons

used in its operations informed of the

provisions of its operations

specifications that apply to that

employee’s or person’s duties and

responsibilities.

§ 119.45 [Reserved]

§ 119.47 Maintaining a principal base of

operations, main operations base, and main

maintenance base; change of address.

(a) Each certificate holder must

maintain a principal base of operations.

Each certificate holder may also

establish a main operations base and a

main maintenance base which may be

located at either the same location as the

principal base of operations or at

separate locations.

(b) At least 30 days before it proposes

to establish or change the location of its

principal base of operations, its main

operations base, or its main

maintenance base, a certificate holder

must provide written notification to its

certificate-holding district office.

§ 119.49 Contents of operations

specifications.

(a) Each certificate holder conducting

domestic, flag, or commuter operations

must obtain operations specifications

containing all of the following:

(1) The specific location of the

certificate holder’s principal base of

operations and, if different, the address

that shall serve as the primary point of

contact for correspondence between the

FAA and the certificate holder and the

name and mailing address of the

certificate holder’s agent for service.

(2) Other business names under

which the certificate holder may

operate.

(3) Reference to the economic

authority issued by the Department of

Transportation, if required.

(4) Type of aircraft, registration

markings, and serial numbers of each

aircraft authorized for use, each regular

and alternate airport to be used in

scheduled operations, and, except for

commuter operations, each provisional

and refueling airport.

(i) Subject to the approval of the

Administrator with regard to form and

content, the certificate holder may

incorporate by reference the items listed

in paragraph (a)(4) of this section into

the certificate holder’s operations

specifications by maintaining a current

listing of those items and by referring to

the specific list in the applicable

paragraph of the operations

specifications.

(ii) The certificate holder may not

conduct any operation using any aircraft

or airport not listed.

(5) Kinds of operations authorized.

(6) Authorization and limitations for

routes and areas of operations.

(7) Airport limitations.

(8) Time limitations, or standards for

determining time limitations, for

overhauling, inspecting, and checking

airframes, engines, propellers, rotors,

appliances, and emergency equipment.

(9) Authorization for the method of

controlling weight and balance of

aircraft.

(10) Interline equipment interchange

requirements, if relevant.

(11) Aircraft wet lease information

required by § 119.53(c).

(12) Any authorized deviation and

exemption granted from any

requirement of this chapter.

(13) Any other item the Administrator

determines is necessary.

(b) Each certificate holder conducting

supplemental operations must obtain

operations specifications containing all

of the following:

(1) The specific location of the

certificate holder’s principal base of

operations, and, if different, the address

that shall serve as the primary point of

contact for correspondence between the

FAA and the certificate holder and the

name and mailing address of the

certificate holder’s agent for service.
65920 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(2) Other business names under

which the certificate holder may

operate.

(3) Reference to the economic

authority issued by the Department of

Transportation, if required.

(4) Type of aircraft, registration

markings, and serial number of each

aircraft authorized for use.

(i) Subject to the approval of the

Administrator with regard to form and

content, the certificate holder may

incorporate by reference the items listed

in paragraph (b)(4) of this section into

the certificate holder’s operations

specifications by maintaining a current

listing of those items and by referring to

the specific list in the applicable

paragraph of the operations

specifications.

(ii) The certificate holder may not

conduct any operation using any aircraft

not listed.

(5) Kinds of operations authorized.

(6) Authorization and limitations for

routes and areas of operations.

(7) Special airport authorizations and

limitations.

(8) Time limitations, or standards for

determining time limitations, for

overhauling, inspecting, and checking

airframes, engines, propellers,

appliances, and emergency equipment.

(9) Authorization for the method of

controlling weight and balance of

aircraft.

(10) Aircraft wet lease information

required by § 119.53(c).

(11) Any authorization or requirement

to conduct supplemental operations as

provided by § 119.21(a)(3) (i) or (ii).

(12) Any authorized deviation or

exemption from any requirement of this

chapter.

(13) Any other item the Administrator

determines is necessary.

(c) Each certificate holder conducting

on-demand operations must obtain

operations specifications containing all

of the following:

(1) The specific location of the

certificate holder’s principal base of

operations, and if different, the address

that shall serve as the primary point of

contact for correspondence between the

FAA and the name and mailing address

of the certificate holder’s agent for

service.

(2) Other business names under

which the certificate holder may

operate.

(3) Reference to the economic

authority issued by the Department of

Transportation, if required.

(4) Kind and area of operations

authorized.

(5) Category and class of aircraft that

may be used in those operations.

(6) Type of aircraft, registration

markings, and serial number of each

aircraft that is subject to an

airworthiness maintenance program

required by § 135.411(a)(2) of this

chapter.

(i) Subject to the approval of the

Administrator with regard to form and

content, the certificate holder may

incorporate by reference the items listed

in paragraph (c)(6) of this section into

the certificate holder’s operations

specifications by maintaining a current

listing of those items and by referring to

the specific list in the applicable

paragraph of the operations

specifications.

(ii) The certificate holder may not

conduct any operation using any aircraft

not listed.

(7) Registration markings of each

aircraft that is to be inspected under an

approved aircraft inspection program

under § 135.419 of this chapter.

(8) Time limitations or standards for

determining time limitations, for

overhauls, inspections, and checks for

airframes, engines, propellers, rotors,

appliances, and emergency equipment

of aircraft that are subject to an

airworthiness maintenance program

required by § 135.411(a)(2) of this

chapter.

(9) Additional maintenance items

required by the Administrator under

§ 135.421 of this chapter.

(10) Aircraft wet lease information

required by § 119.53(c).

(11) Any authorized deviation or

exemption from any requirement of this

chapter.

(12) Any other item the Administrator

determines is necessary.

§ 119.51 Amending operations

specifications.

(a) The Administrator may amend any

operations specifications issued under

this part if—

(1) The Administrator determines that

safety in air commerce and the public

interest require the amendment; or

(2) The certificate holder applies for

the amendment, and the Administrator

determines that safety in air commerce

and the public interest allows the

amendment.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph

(e) of this section, when the

Administrator initiates an amendment

to a certificate holder’s operations

specifications, the following procedure

applies:

(1) The certificate-holding district

office notifies the certificate holder in

writing of the proposed amendment.

(2) The certificate-holding district

office sets a reasonable period (but not

less than 7 days) within which the

certificate holder may submit written

information, views, and arguments on

the amendment.

(3) After considering all material

presented, the certificate-holding

district office notifies the certificate

holder of—

(i) The adoption of the proposed

amendment;

(ii) The partial adoption of the

proposed amendment; or

(iii) The withdrawal of the proposed

amendment.

(4) If the certificate-holding district

office issues an amendment to the

operations specifications, it becomes

effective not less than 30 days after the

certificate holder receives notice of it

unless—

(i) The certificate-holding district

office finds under paragraph (e) of this

section that there is an emergency

requiring immediate action with respect

to safety in air commerce; or

(ii) The certificate holder petitions for

reconsideration of the amendment

under paragraph (d) of this section.

(c) When the certificate holder applies

for an amendment to its operations

specifications, the following procedure

applies:

(1) The certificate holder must file an

application to amend its operations

specifications—

(i) At least 90 days before the date

proposed by the applicant for the

amendment to become effective, unless

a shorter time is approved, in cases of

mergers; acquisitions of airline

operational assets that require an

additional showing of safety (e.g.,

proving tests); changes in the kind of

operation as defined in § 119.3;

resumption of operations following a

suspension of operations as a result of

bankruptcy actions; or the initial

introduction of aircraft not before

proven for use in air carrier or

commercial operator operations.

(ii) At least 15 days before the date

proposed by the applicant for the

amendment to become effective in all

other cases.

(2) The application must be submitted

to the certificate-holding district office

in a form and manner prescribed by the

Administrator.

(3) After considering all material

presented, the certificate-holding

district office notifies the certificate

holder of—

(i) The adoption of the applied for

amendment;

(ii) The partial adoption of the

applied for amendment; or

(iii) The denial of the applied for

amendment. The certificate holder may

petition for reconsideration of a denial

under paragraph (d) of this section.

(4) If the certificate-holding district

office approves the amendment,

following coordination with the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65921

certificate holder regarding its

implementation, the amendment is

effective on the date the Administrator

approves it.

(d) When a certificate holder seeks

reconsideration of a decision from the

certificate-holding district office

concerning the amendment of

operations specifications, the following

procedure applies:

(1) The certificate holder must

petition for reconsideration of that

decision within 30 days of the date that

the certificate holder receives a notice of

denial of the amendment to its

operations specifications, or of the date

it receives notice of an FAA-initiated

amendment to its operations

specifications, whichever circumstance

applies.

(2) The certificate holder must

address its petition to the Director,

Flight Standards Service.

(3) A petition for reconsideration, if

filed within the 30-day period, suspends

the effectiveness of any amendment

issued by the certificate-holding district

office unless the certificate-holding

district office has found, under

paragraph (e) of this section, that an

emergency exists requiring immediate

action with respect to safety in air

transportation or air commerce.

(4) If a petition for reconsideration is

not filed within 30 days, the procedures

of paragraph (c) of this section apply.

(e) If the certificate-holding district

office finds that an emergency exists

requiring immediate action with respect

to safety in air commerce or air

transportation that makes the

procedures set out in this section

impracticable or contrary to the public

interest:

(1) The certificate-holding district

office amends the operations

specifications and makes the

amendment effective on the day the

certificate holder receives notice of it.

(2) In the notice to the certificate

holder, the certificate-holding district

office articulates the reasons for its

finding that an emergency exists

requiring immediate action with respect

to safety in air transportation or air

commerce or that makes it impracticable

or contrary to the public interest to stay

the effectiveness of the amendment.

§ 119.53 Wet leasing of aircraft and other

arrangements for transportation by air.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the

Administrator, prior to conducting

operations involving a wet lease, each

certificate holder under this part

authorized to conduct common carriage

operations under this subchapter shall

provide the Administrator with a copy

of the wet lease to be executed which

would lease the aircraft to any other

person engaged in common carriage

operations under this subchapter,

including foreign air carriers, or to any

other foreign person engaged in

common carriage wholly outside the

United States.

(b) No certificate holder under this

part may wet lease from a foreign air

carrier or any other foreign person or

any person not authorized to engage in

common carriage.

(c) Upon receiving a copy of a wet

lease, the Administrator determines

which party to the agreement has

operational control of the aircraft and

issues amendments to the operations

specifications of each party to the

agreement, as needed. The lessor must

provide the following information to be

incorporated into the operations

specifications of both parties, as needed.

(1) The names of the parties to the

agreement and the duration thereof.

(2) The nationality and registration

markings of each aircraft involved in the

agreement.

(3) The kind of operation (e.g.,

domestic, flag, supplemental,

commuter, or on-demand).

(4) The airports or areas of operation.

(5) A statement specifying the party

deemed to have operational control and

the times, airports, or areas under which

such operational control is exercised.

(d) In making the determination of

paragraph (c) of this section, the

Administrator will consider the

following:

(1) Crewmembers and training.

(2) Airworthiness and performance of

maintenance.

(3) Dispatch.

(4) Servicing the aircraft.

(5) Scheduling.

(6) Any other factor the Administrator

considers relevant.

(e) Other arrangements for

transportation by air: Except as

provided in paragraph (f) of this section,

a certificate holder under this part

operating under part 121 or 135 of this

chapter may not conduct any operation

for another certificate holder under this

part or a foreign air carrier under part

129 of this chapter or a foreign person

engaged in common carriage wholly

outside the United States unless it holds

applicable Department of

Transportation economic authority, if

required, and is authorized under its

operations specifications to conduct the

same kinds of operations (as defined in

§ 119.3). The certificate holder

conducting the substitute operation

must conduct that operation in

accordance with the same operations

authority held by the certificate holder

arranging for the substitute operation.

These substitute operations must be

conducted between airports for which

the substitute certificate holder holds

authority for scheduled operations or

within areas of operations for which the

substitute certificate holder has

authority for supplemental or ondemand operations.

(f) A certificate holder under this part

may, if authorized by the Department of

Transportation under § 380.3 of this title

and the Administrator in the case of

interstate commuter, interstate

domestic, and flag operations, or the

Administrator in the case of scheduled

intrastate common carriage operations,

conduct one or more flights for

passengers who are stranded because of

the cancellation of their scheduled

flights. These flights must be conducted

under the rules of part 121 or part 135

of this chapter applicable to

supplemental or on-demand operations.

§ 119.55 Obtaining deviation authority to

perform operations under a U.S. military

contract.

(a) The Administrator may authorize

a certificate holder that is authorized to

conduct supplemental or on-demand

operations to deviate from the

applicable requirements of this part,

part 121, or part 135 of this chapter in

order to perform operations under a U.S.

military contract.

(b) A certificate holder that has a

contract with the U.S. Department of

Defense’s Air Mobility Command (AMC)

must submit a request for deviation

authority to AMC. AMC will review the

requests, then forward the carriers’

consolidated requests, along with

AMC’s recommendations, to the FAA

for review and action.

(c) The Administrator may authorize

a deviation to perform operations under

a U.S. military contract under the

following conditions—

(1) The Department of Defense

certifies to the Administrator that the

operation is essential to the national

defense;

(2) The Department of Defense further

certifies that the certificate holder

cannot perform the operation without

deviation authority;

(3) The certificate holder will perform

the operation under a contract or

subcontract for the benefit of a U.S.

armed service; and

(4) The Administrator finds that the

deviation is based on grounds other

than economic advantage either to the

certificate holder or to the United States.

(d) In the case where the

Administrator authorizes a deviation

under this section, the Administrator

will issue an appropriate amendment to
65922 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

the certificate holder’s operations

specifications.

(e) The Administrator may, at any

time, terminate any grant of deviation

authority issued under this section.

§ 119.57 Obtaining deviation authority to

perform an emergency operation.

(a) In emergency conditions, the

Administrator may authorize deviations

if—

(1) Those conditions necessitate the

transportation of persons or supplies for

the protection of life or property; and

(2) The Administrator finds that a

deviation is necessary for the

expeditious conduct of the operations.

(b) When the Administrator

authorizes deviations for operations

under emergency conditions—

(1) The Administrator will issue an

appropriate amendment to the

certificate holder’s operations

specifications; or

(2) If the nature of the emergency does

not permit timely amendment of the

operations specifications—

(i) The Administrator may authorize

the deviation orally; and

(ii) The certificate holder shall

provide documentation describing the

nature of the emergency to the

certificate-holding district office within

24 hours after completing the operation.

§ 119.58 Emergencies requiring immediate

decision and action.

(a) In an emergency situation that

requires immediate decision and action,

the pilot in command may take any

action that he considers necessary under

the circumstances. In such a case, he

may deviate from prescribed operations

procedures and methods, weather

minimums, and this chapter to the

extent required in the interest of safety.

(b) In an emergency situation arising

during flight, that requires immediate

decision and action by an aircraft

dispatcher or appropriate management

personnel, and that is known to him, he

shall advise the pilot in command of the

emergency, shall ascertain the decision

of the pilot in command, and shall have

the decision recorded. If he cannot

communicate with the pilot, he shall

declare an emergency and take any

reasonable action necessary under the

circumstances.

(c) Whenever a pilot in command or

a dispatcher or an appropriate

management person exercises

emergency authority, he shall keep the

appropriate ATC facility, ground radio

station, and, if applicable, dispatch

centers, fully informed of the progress of

the flight. The person declaring the

emergency shall send a written report of

any deviation through the certificate

holder’s management to the

Administrator within 10 days of the

emergency action.

§ 119.59 Conducting tests and

inspections.

(a) At any time or place, the

Administrator may conduct an

inspection or test to determine whether

a certificate holder under this part is

complying with title 49 of the United

States Code, applicable regulations, the

certificate, or the certificate holder’s

operations specifications.

(b) The certificate holder must—

(1) Make available to the

Administrator at the certificate holder’s

principal base of operations—

(i) The certificate holder’s Air Carrier

Certificate or the certificate holder’s

Operating Certificate and the certificate

holder’s operations specifications; and

(ii) A current listing that will include

the location and persons responsible for

each record, document, and report

required to be kept by the certificate

holder under title 49 of the United

States Code applicable to the operation

of the certificate holder.

(2) Allow the Administrator to make

any test or inspection to determine

compliance respecting any matter stated

in paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) Each employee of, or person used

by, the certificate holder who is

responsible for maintaining the

certificate holder’s records must make

those records available to the

Administrator.

(d) The Administrator may determine

a certificate holder’s continued

eligibility to hold its certificate and/or

operations specifications on any

grounds listed in paragraph (a) of this

section, or any other appropriate

grounds.

(e) Failure by any certificate holder to

make available to the Administrator

upon request, the certificate, operations

specifications, or any required record,

document, or report is grounds for

suspension of all or any part of the

certificate holder’s certificate and

operations specifications.

(f) In the case of operators conducting

intrastate common carriage operations,

these inspections and tests include

inspections and tests of financial books

and records.

§ 119.61 Duration and surrender of

certificate and operations specifications.

(a) An Air Carrier Certificate or

Operating Certificate issued under this

part is effective until—

(1) The certificate holder surrenders it

to the Administrator; or

(2) The Administrator suspends,

revokes, or otherwise terminates the

certificate.

(b) Operations specifications issued

under this part, part 121, or part 135 of

this chapter are effective unless—

(1) The Administrator suspends,

revokes, or otherwise terminates the

certificate;

(2) The operations specifications are

amended as provided in § 119.51;

(3) The certificate holder does not

conduct a kind of operation for more

than the time specified in § 119.63 and

fails to follow the procedures of § 119.63

upon resuming that kind of operation;

or

(4) The Administrator suspends or

revokes the operations specifications for

a kind of operation.

(c) Within 30 days after a certificate

holder terminates operations under part

135 of this chapter, the operating

certificate and operations specifications

must be surrendered by the certificate

holder to the certificate-holding district

office.

§ 119.63 Recency of operation.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section, no certificate holder

may conduct a kind of operation for

which it holds authority in its

operations specifications unless the

certificate holder has conducted that

kind of operation within the preceding

number of consecutive calendar days

specified in this paragraph:

(1) For domestic, flag, or commuter

operations—30 days.

(2) For supplemental or on-demand

operations—90 days, except that if the

certificate holder has authority to

conduct domestic, flag, or commuter

operations, and has conducted

domestic, flag or commuter operations

within the previous 30 days, this

paragraph does not apply.

(b) If a certificate holder does not

conduct a kind of operation for which

it is authorized in its operations

specifications within the number of

preceding 30 consecutive calendar days

specified in paragraph (a) of this

section, it shall not conduct such kind

of operation unless—

(1) It advises the Administrator at

least 5 consecutive calendar days before

resumption of that kind of operation;

and

(2) It makes itself available and

accessible during the 5 consecutive

calendar day period in the event that the

FAA decides to conduct a full

inspection reexamination to determine

whether the certificate holder remains

properly and adequately equipped and

able to conduct a safe operation.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65923

§ 119.65 Management personnel required

for operations conducted under part 121 of

this chapter.

(a) Each certificate holder must have

sufficient qualified management and

technical personnel to ensure the

highest degree of safety in its

operations. The certificate holder must

have qualified personnel serving fulltime in the following or equivalent

positions:

(1) Director of Safety.

(2) Director of Operations.

(3) Chief Pilot.

(4) Director of Maintenance.

(5) Chief Inspector.

(b) The Administrator may approve

positions or numbers of positions other

than those listed in paragraph (a) of this

section for a particular operation if the

certificate holder shows that it can

perform the operation with the highest

degree of safety under the direction of

fewer or different categories of

management personnel due to—

(1) The kind of operation involved;

(2) The number and type of airplanes

used; and

(3) The area of operations.

(c) The title of the positions required

under paragraph (a) of this section or

the title and number of equivalent

positions approved under paragraph (b)

of this section shall be set forth in the

certificate holder’s operations

specifications.

(d) The individuals who serve in the

positions required or approved under

paragraph (a) or (b) of this section and

anyone in a position to exercise control

over operations conducted under the

operating certificate must—

(1) Be qualified through training,

experience, and expertise;

(2) To the extent of their

responsibilities, have a full

understanding of the following

materials with respect to the certificate

holder’s operation—

(i) Aviation safety standards and safe

operating practices;

(ii) 14 CFR Chapter I (Federal

Aviation Regulations);

(iii) The certificate holder’s operations

specifications;

(iv) All appropriate maintenance and

airworthiness requirements of this

chapter (e.g., parts 1, 21, 23, 25, 43, 45,

47, 65, 91, and 121 of this chapter); and

(v) The manual required by § 121.133

of this chapter; and

(3) Discharge their duties to meet

applicable legal requirements and to

maintain safe operations.

(e) Each certificate holder must:

(1) State in the general policy

provisions of the manual required by

§ 121.133 of this chapter, the duties,

responsibilities, and authority of

personnel required under paragraph (a)

of this section;

(2) List in the manual the names and

business addresses of the individuals

assigned to those positions; and

(3) Notify the certificate-holding

district office within 10 days of any

change in personnel or any vacancy in

any position listed.

§ 119.67 Management personnel:

Qualifications for operations conducted

under part 121 of this chapter.

(a) To serve as Director of Operations

under § 119.65(a) a person must—

(1) Hold an airline transport pilot

certificate;

(2) Have at least 3 years supervisory

or managerial experience within the last

6 years in a position that exercised

operational control over any operations

conducted with large airplanes under

part 121 or part 135 of this chapter, or

if the certificate holder uses only small

airplanes in its operations, the

experience may be obtained in large or

small airplanes; and

(3) In the case of a person becoming

a Director of Operations—

(i) For the first time ever, have at least

3 years experience, within the past 6

years, as pilot in command of a large

airplane operated under part 121 or part

135 of this chapter, if the certificate

holder operates large airplanes. If the

certificate holder uses only small

airplanes in its operation, the

experience may be obtained in either

large or small airplanes.

(ii) In the case of a person with

previous experience as a Director of

Operations, have at least 3 years

experience as pilot in command of a

large airplane operated under part 121

or part 135 of this chapter, if the

certificate holder operates large

airplanes. If the certificate holder uses

only small airplanes in its operation, the

experience may be obtained in either

large or small airplanes.

(b) To serve as Chief Pilot under

§ 119.65(a) a person must hold an

airline transport pilot certificate with

appropriate ratings for at least one of the

airplanes used in the certificate holder’s

operation and:

(1) In the case of a person becoming

a Chief Pilot for the first time ever, have

at least 3 years experience, within the

past 6 years, as pilot in command of a

large airplane operated under part 121

or part 135 of this chapter, if the

certificate holder operates large

airplanes. If the certificate holder uses

only small airplanes in its operation, the

experience may be obtained in either

large or small airplanes.

(2) In the case of a person with

previous experience as a Chief Pilot,

have at least 3 years experience, as pilot

in command of a large airplane operated

under part 121 or part 135 of this

chapter, if the certificate holder operates

large airplanes. If the certificate holder

uses only small airplanes in its

operation, the experience may be

obtained in either large or small

airplanes.

(c) To serve as Director of

Maintenance under § 119.65(a) a person

must—

(1) Hold a mechanic certificate with

airframe and powerplant ratings;

(2) Have 1 year of experience in a

position responsible for returning

airplanes to service;

(3) Have at least 1 year of experience

in a supervisory capacity under either

paragraph (c)(4)(i) or (c)(4)(ii) of this

section maintaining the same category

and class of airplane as the certificate

holder uses; and

(4) Have 3 years experience within the

past 6 years in one or a combination of

the following—

(i) Maintaining large airplanes with 10

or more passenger seats, including at the

time of appointment as Director of

Maintenance, experience in maintaining

the same category and class of airplane

as the certificate holder uses; or

(ii) Repairing airplanes in a

certificated airframe repair station that

is rated to maintain airplanes in the

same category and class of airplane as

the certificate holder uses.

(d) To serve as Chief Inspector under

§ 119.65(a) a person must—

(1) Hold a mechanic certificate with

both airframe and powerplant ratings,

and have held these ratings for at least

3 years;

(2) Have at least 3 years of

maintenance experience on different

types of large airplanes with 10 or more

passenger seats with an air carrier or

certificated repair station, 1 year of

which must have been as maintenance

inspector; and

(3) Have at least 1 year in a

supervisory capacity maintaining large

aircraft with 10 or more passenger seats.

(e) A certificate holder may request a

deviation to employ a person who does

not meet the appropriate airman,

managerial, or supervisory experience

requirements of this section if the

Manager of the Air Transportation

Division or the Manager of the Aircraft

Maintenance Division of the FAA Flight

Standards Service finds that the person

has comparable experience, and can

effectively perform the functions

associated with the position in

accordance with the Federal Aviation

Regulations and the procedures outlined

in the certificate holder’s manual.

Grants of deviation under this paragraph
65924 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

may be granted after consideration of

the size and scope of the operation and

the qualifications of the intended

personnel. The Administrator may, at

any time, terminate any grant of

deviation authority issued under this

paragraph.

§ 119.69 Management personnel required

for operations conducted under part 135 of

this chapter.

(a) Each certificate holder must have

sufficient qualified management and

technical personnel to ensure the safety

of its operations. Except for a certificate

holder using only one pilot in its

operations, the certificate holder must

have qualified personnel serving in the

following or equivalent positions:

(1) Director of Operations.

(2) Chief Pilot.

(3) Director of Maintenance.

(b) The Administrator may approve

positions or numbers of positions other

than those listed in paragraph (a) of this

section for a particular operation if the

certificate holder shows that it can

perform the operation with the highest

degree of safety under the direction of

fewer or different categories of

management personnel due to—

(1) The kind of operation involved;

(2) The number and type of aircraft

used; and

(3) The area of operations.

(c) The title of the positions required

under paragraph (a) of this section or

the title and number of equivalent

positions approved under paragraph (b)

of this section shall be set forth in the

certificate holder’s operations

specifications.

(d) The individuals who serve in the

positions required or approved under

paragraph (a) or (b) of this section and

anyone in a position to exercise control

over operations conducted under the

operating certificate must—

(1) Be qualified through training,

experience, and expertise;

(2) To the extent of their

responsibilities, have a full

understanding of the following material

with respect to the certificate holder’s

operation—

(i) Aviation safety standards and safe

operating practices;

(ii) 14 CFR Chapter I (Federal

Aviation Regulations);

(iii) The certificate holder’s operations

specifications;

(iv) All appropriate maintenance and

airworthiness requirements of this

chapter (e.g., parts 1, 21, 23, 25, 43, 45,

47, 65, 91, and 135 of this chapter); and

(v) The manual required by § 135.21

of this chapter; and

(3) Discharge their duties to meet

applicable legal requirements and to

maintain safe operations.

(e) Each certificate holder must—

(1) State in the general policy

provisions of the manual required by

§ 135.21 of this chapter, the duties,

responsibilities, and authority of

personnel required or approved under

paragraph (a) or (b), respectively, of this

section;

(2) List in the manual the names and

business addresses of the individuals

assigned to those positions; and

(3) Notify the certificate-holding

district office within 10 days of any

change in personnel or any vacancy in

any position listed.

§ 119.71 Management personnel:

Qualifications for operations conducted

under part 135 of this chapter.

(a) To serve as Director of Operations

under § 119.69(a) for a certificate holder

conducting any operations for which the

pilot in command is required to hold an

airline transport pilot certificate a

person must hold an airline transport

pilot certificate and either:

(1) Have at least 3 years supervisory

or managerial experience within the last

6 years in a position that exercised

operational control over any operations

conducted under part 121 or part 135 of

this chapter; or

(2) In the case of a person becoming

Director of Operations—

(i) For the first time ever, have at least

3 years experience, within the past 6

years, as pilot in command of an aircraft

operated under part 121 or part 135 of

this chapter.

(ii) In the case of a person with

previous experience as a Director of

Operations, have at least 3 years

experience, as pilot in command of an

aircraft operated under part 121 or part

135 of this chapter.

(b) To serve as Director of Operations

under § 119.69(a) for a certificate holder

that only conducts operations for which

the pilot in command is required to

hold a commercial pilot certificate, a

person must hold at least a commercial

pilot certificate with an instrument

rating and either:

(1) Have at least 3 years supervisory

or managerial experience within the last

6 years in a position that exercised

operational control over any operations

conducted under part 121 or part 135 of

this chapter; or

(2) In the case of a person becoming

Director of Operations—

(i) For the first time ever, have at least

3 years experience, within the past 6

years, as pilot in command of an aircraft

operated under part 121 or part 135 of

this chapter.

(ii) In the case of a person with

previous experience as a Director of

Operations, have at least 3 years

experience as pilot in command of an

aircraft operated under part 121 or part

135 of this chapter.

(c) To serve as Chief Pilot under

§ 119.69(a) for a certificate holder

conducting any operation for which the

pilot in command is required to hold an

airline transport pilot certificate a

person must hold an airline transport

pilot certificate with appropriate ratings

and be qualified to serve as pilot in

command in at least one aircraft used in

the certificate holder’s operation and:

(1) In the case of a person becoming

a Chief Pilot for the first time ever, have

at least 3 years experience, within the

past 6 years, as pilot in command of an

aircraft operated under part 121 or part

135 of this chapter.

(2) In the case of a person with

previous experience as a Chief Pilot,

have at least 3 years experience as pilot

in command of an aircraft operated

under part 121 or part 135 of this

chapter.

(d) To serve as Chief Pilot under

§ 119.69(a) for a certificate holder that

only conducts operations for which the

pilot in command is required to hold a

commercial pilot certificate, a person

must hold at least a commercial pilot

certificate with an instrument rating and

be qualified to serve as pilot in

command in at least one aircraft used in

the certificate holder’s operation and:

(1) In the case of a person becoming

a Chief Pilot for the first time ever, have

at least 3 years experience, within the

past 6 years, as pilot in command of an

aircraft operated under part 121 or part

135 of this chapter.

(2) In the case of a person with

previous experience as a Chief Pilot,

have at least 3 years experience as pilot

in command of an aircraft operated

under part 121 or part 135 of this

chapter.

(e) To serve as Director of

Maintenance under § 119.69(a) a person

must hold a mechanic certificate with

airframe and powerplant ratings and

either:

(1) Have 3 years of experience within

the past 3 years maintaining aircraft as

a certificated mechanic, including, at

the time of appointment as Director of

Maintenance, experience in maintaining

the same category and class of aircraft

as the certificate holder uses; or

(2) Have 3 years of experience within

the past 3 years repairing aircraft in a

certificated airframe repair station,

including 1 year in the capacity of

approving aircraft for return to service.

(f) A certificate holder may request a

deviation to employ a person who does

not meet the appropriate airman,

managerial, or supervisory experience

requirements of this section if the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65925

Manager of the Air Transportation

Division or the Manager of the Aircraft

Maintenance Division of the FAA Flight

Standards Service finds that the person

has comparable experience, and can

effectively perform the functions

associated with the position in

accordance with 14 CFR Chapter I and

the procedures outlined in the

certificate holder’s manual. Grants of

deviation under this paragraph may be

granted after consideration of the size

and scope of the operation and the

qualifications of the intended personnel.

The Administrator may, at any time,

terminate any grant of deviation

authority issued under this paragraph.

PART 121—OPERATING

REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG,

AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS

6. The authority citation for part 121

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119,

44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–44711,

44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901, 44903–

44904, 44912, 46105.

7. The heading for part 121 is revised

to read as set forth above.

8. Special Federal Aviation

Regulation 38–2 is amended by revising

the last paragraph to read as follows:

SFAR 38–2—Certification and

Operating Requirements

* * * * *

This Special Federal Aviation Regulation

No. 38–2 terminates March 20, 1997.

9. A note for SFAR 50–2 is added after

the SFAR No. to read as follows:

SFAR No. 50–2

Note: For the text of SFAR No. 50–2, see

part 91 of this chapter.

10. Section 121.1 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 121.1 Applicability.

This part prescribes rules governing—

(a) The domestic, flag, and

supplemental operations of each person

who holds or is required to hold an Air

Carrier Certificate or Operating

Certificate under part 119 of this

chapter.

(b) Each person employed or used by

a certificate holder conducting

operations under this part including

maintenance, preventive maintenance,

and alteration of aircraft.

(c) Each person who applies for

provisional approval of an Advanced

Qualification Program curriculum,

curriculum segment, or portion of a

curriculum segment under SFAR No. 58

of 14 CFR part 121, and each person

employed or used by an air carrier or

commercial operator under this part to

perform training, qualification, or

evaluation functions under an

Advanced Qualification Program under

SFAR No. 58 of 14 CFR part 121.

(d) Nonstop sightseeing flights

conducted with airplanes having a

passenger-seat configuration of 30 seats

or fewer and a maximum payload

capacity of 7,500 pounds or less that

begin and end at the same airport, and

are conducted within a 25 statute mile

radius of that airport; however, except

for operations subject to SFAR 50–2 of

14 CFR part 121, these operations, when

conducted for compensation or hire,

must comply only with §§ 121.455 and

121.457, except that an operator who

does not hold an air carrier certificate or

an operating certificate is permitted to

use a person who is otherwise

authorized to perform aircraft

maintenance or preventive maintenance

duties and who is not subject to FAAapproved anti-drug and alcohol misuse

prevention programs to perform—

(1) Aircraft maintenance or preventive

maintenance on the operator’s aircraft if

the operator would otherwise be

required to transport the aircraft more

than 50 nautical miles further than the

repair point closest to the operator’s

principal base of operations to obtain

these services; or

(2) Emergency repairs on the

operator’s aircraft if the aircraft cannot

be safely operated to a location where

an employee subject to FAA-approved

programs can perform the repairs.

(e) Each person who is on board an

aircraft being operated under this part.

(f) Each person who is an applicant

for an Air Carrier Certificate or an

Operating Certificate under part 119 of

this chapter, when conducting proving

tests.

11. Section 121.2 is added to read as

follows:

§ 121.2 Compliance schedule for operators

that transition to part 121; certain new

entrant operators.

(a) Applicability. This section applies

to the following:

(1) Each certificate holder that was

issued an air carrier or operating

certificate and operations specifications

under the requirements of part 135 of

this chapter or under SFAR No. 38–2 of

14 CFR part 121 before January 19,

1996, and that conducts scheduled

passenger-carrying operations with:

(i) Nontransport category

turbopropeller powered airplanes type

certificated after December 31, 1964,

that have a passenger seat configuration

of 10–19 seats;

(ii) Transport category turbopropeller

powered airplanes that have a passenger

seat configuration of 20–30 seats; or

(iii) Turbojet engine powered

airplanes having a passenger seat

configuration of 1–30 seats.

(2) Each person who, after January 19,

1996, applies for or obtains an initial air

carrier or operating certificate and

operations specifications to conduct

scheduled passenger-carrying

operations in the kinds of airplanes

described in paragraphs (a)(1)(i),

(a)(1)(ii), or paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this

section.

(b) Obtaining operations

specifications. A certificate holder

described in paragraph (a)(1) of this

section may not, after March 20, 1997,

operate an airplane described in

paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), or

(a)(1)(iii) of this section in scheduled

passenger-carrying operations, unless it

obtains operations specifications to

conduct its scheduled operations under

this part on or before March 20, 1997.

(c) Regular or accelerated compliance.

Except as provided in paragraphs (d),

(e), and (i) of this section, each

certificate holder described in

paragraphs (a)(1) of this section shall

comply with each applicable

requirement of this part on and after

March 20, 1997 or on and after the date

on which the certificate holder is issued

operations specifications under this

part, whichever occurs first. Except as

provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of

this section, each person described in

paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall

comply with each applicable

requirement of this part on and after the

date on which that person is issued a

certificate and operations specifications

under this part.

(d) Delayed compliance dates. Unless

paragraph (e) of this section specifies an

earlier compliance date, no certificate

holder that is covered by paragraph (a)

of this section may operate an airplane

in 14 CFR part 121 operations on or

after a date listed in this paragraph (d)

unless that airplane meets the

applicable requirement of this

paragraph (d):

(1) Nontransport category

turbopropeller powered airplanes type

certificated after December 31, 1964,

that have a passenger seating

configuration of 10–19 seats. No

certificate holder may operate under

this part an airplane that is described in

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section on or

after a date listed in paragraph (d)(1) of

this section unless that airplane meets

the applicable requirement listed in this

paragraph (d)(1):

(i) December 22, 1997:

(A) Section 121.289, Landing gear

aural warning.

(B) Section 121.308, Lavatory fire

protection.
65926 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(C) Section 121.310(e), Emergency

exit handle illumination.

(D) Section 121.337(b)(8), Protective

breathing equipment.

(E) Section 121.340, Emergency

flotation means.

(ii) December 20, 1999: Section

121.342, Pitot heat indication system.

(iii) December 20, 2010:

(A) For airplanes described in

§ 121.157(f), the Airplane Performance

Operating Limitations in §§ 121.189

through 121.197.

(B) Section 121.161(b), Ditching

approval.

(C) Section 121.305(j), Third attitude

indicator.

(D) Section 121.312(c), Passenger seat

cushion flammability.

(2) Transport category turbopropeller

powered airplanes that have a

passenger seat configuration of 20–30

seats. No certificate holder may operate

under this part an airplane that is

described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this

section on or after a date listed in

paragraphs (a)(1) (i) and (ii) unless that

airplane meets the applicable

requirement listed in paragraphs (a)(1)

(i) and (ii):

(i) December 22, 1997:

(A) Section 121.308, Lavatory fire

protection.

(B) Section 121.337(b) (8) and (9),

Protective breathing equipment.

(C) Section 121.340, Emergency

flotation means.

(ii) March 20, 1997: Section

121.305(j), Third attitude indicator.

(e) Newly manufactured airplanes. No

certificate holder that is described in

paragraph (a) of this section may operate

under this part an airplane

manufactured on or after a date listed in

this paragraph unless that airplane

meets the applicable requirement listed

in this paragraph (e).

(1) For nontransport category

turbopropeller powered airplanes type

certificated after December 31, 1964,

that have a passenger seat configuration

of 10–19 seats:

(i) Manufactured on or after March 20,

1997:

(A) Section 121.305(j), Third attitude

indicator.

(B) Section 121.311(f), Safety belts

and shoulder harnesses.

(ii) Manufactured on or after

December 22, 1997: Section 121.317(a),

Fasten seat belt light.

(iii) Manufactured on or after

December 20, 1999: Section 121.293,

Takeoff warning system.

(2) For transport category

turbopropeller powered airplanes that

have a passenger seat configuration of

20–30 seats manufactured on or after

March 20, 1997: Section 121.305(j),

Third attitude indicator.

(f) New type certification

requirements. No person may operate an

airplane for which the application for a

type certificate was filed after March 29,

1995, in 14 CFR part 121 operations

unless that airplane is type certificated

under part 25 of this chapter.

(g) Transition plan. Before March 19,

1996 each certificate holder described in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section must

submit to the FAA a transition plan

(containing a calendar of events) for

moving from conducting its scheduled

operations under the commuter

requirements of part 135 of this chapter

to the requirements for domestic or flag

operations under this part. Each

transition plan must contain details on

the following:

(1) Plans for obtaining new operations

specifications authorizing domestic or

flag operations;

(2) Plans for being in compliance with

the applicable requirements of this part

on or before March 20, 1997; and

(3) Plans for complying with the

compliance date schedules contained in

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.

(h) Continuing requirements. Until

each certificate holder that is covered by

paragraph (a) of this section meets the

specific compliance dates listed in

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section,

the certificate holder shall comply with

the applicable airplane and equipment

requirements of part 135 of this chapter.

(i) Delayed pilot age limitation:

(1) Notwithstanding § 121.383(c), and

except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of

this section, a certificate holder covered

by paragraph (a)(1) of this section may

use the services of a person as a pilot

after that person has reached his or her

60th birthday, until December 20, 1999.

Notwithstanding § 121.383(c), and

except as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of

this section, a person may serve as a

pilot for a certificate holder covered by

paragraph (a)(1) of this section after that

person has reached his or her 60th

birthday, until December 20, 1999.

(2) This paragraph (i)(1) applies only

to persons who were employed as pilots

by a certificate holder covered by

paragraph (a)(1) of this section on or

before March 20, 1997.

§§ 121.3, 121.5, 121.7, 121.9, and 121.13

[Removed]

12. Sections 121.3, 121.5, 121.7,

121.9, and 121.13 are removed.

§ 121.4 [Amended]

13. Section 121.4 is amended by

removing ‘‘§ 121.3’’ wherever it appears

and adding in its place ‘‘part 119 of this

chapter’’.

14. Section 121.15 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 121.15 Carriage of narcotic drugs,

marihuana, and depressant or stimulant

drugs or substances.

If a certificate holder operating under

this part permits any aircraft owned or

leased by that holder to be engaged in

any operation that the certificate holder

knows to be in violation of § 91.19(a) of

this chapter, that operation is a basis for

suspending or revoking the certificate.

Subpart B—[Removed and Reserved]

15. Subpart B (§§ 121.21 through

121.29) is removed, and the subpart

heading is reserved.

Subpart C—[Removed and Reserved]

16. Subpart C (§§ 121.41 through

121.61) is removed and the subpart

heading is reserved.

Subpart D—[Removed and Reserved]

17. Subpart D (§§ 121.71 through

121.83) is removed and the subpart

heading is reserved.

18. Section 121.133 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 121.133 Preparation.

(a) Each certificate holder shall

prepare and keep current a manual for

the use and guidance of flight, ground

operations, and management personnel

in conducting its operations.

(b) For the purpose of this subpart, the

certificate holder may prepare that part

of the manual containing maintenance

information and instructions, in whole

or in part, in printed form or other form

acceptable to the Administrator.

19. Section 121.135 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(4); (b)(2); (b)(6);

(b)(7); (b)(8)(i), (ii), and (iii); (b)(23)

introductory text and (c) to read as

follows:

§ 121.135 Contents.

(a) * * *

(4) Not be contrary to any applicable

Federal regulation and, in the case of a

flag or supplemental operation, any

applicable foreign regulation, or the

certificate holder’s operations

specifications or operating certificate.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) Duties and responsibilities of each

crewmember, appropriate members of

the ground organization, and

management personnel.

* * * * *

(6) For domestic or flag operations,

appropriate information from the en

route operations specifications,

including for each approved route the

types of airplanes authorized, the type

of operation such as VFR, IFR, day,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65927

night, etc., and any other pertinent

information.

(7) For supplemental operations,

appropriate information from the

operations specifications, including the

area of operations authorized, the types

of airplanes authorized, the type of

operation such as VFR, IFR, day, night,

etc., and any other pertinent

information.

(8) * * *

(i) Its location (domestic and flag

operations only);

(ii) Its designation (regular, alternate,

provisional, etc.) (domestic and flag

operations only);

(iii) The types of airplanes authorized

(domestic and flag operations only);

* * * * *

(23) Procedures and information to

assist personnel to identify packages

marked or labeled as containing

hazardous materials and, if these

materials are to be carried, stored, or

handled, procedures and instructions

relating to the carriage, storage, or

handling of hazardous materials,

including the following:

* * * * *

(c) Each certificate holder shall

maintain at least one complete copy of

the manual at its principal base of

operations.

20. Section 121.141 is revised

amended by revising the section

heading, paragraph (a), and the

introductory text of paragraph (b) to

read as follows:

§ 121.141 Airplane flight manual.

(a) Each certificate holder shall keep

a current approved airplane flight

manual for each type of airplane that it

operates except for nontransport

category airplanes certificated before

January 1, 1965.

(b) In each airplane required to have

an airplane flight manual in paragraph

(a) of this section, the certificate holder

shall carry either the manual required

by § 121.133, if it contains the

information required for the applicable

flight manual and this information is

clearly identified as flight manual

requirements, or an approved Airplane

Manual. If the certificate holder elects to

carry the manual required by § 121.133,

the certificate holder may revise the

operating procedures sections and

modify the presentation of performance

data from the applicable flight manual

if the revised operating procedures and

modified performance date presentation

are—

(1) Approved by the Administrator;

and

(2) Clearly identified as airplane flight

manual requirements.

* * * * *

21. Section 121.157 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b) and (e) and by

adding new paragraphs (f), (g), and (h)

to read as follows:

§ 121.157 Aircraft certification and

equipment requirements.

* * * * *

(b) Airplanes certificated after June

30, 1942. Except as provided in

paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) of this

section, no certificate holder may

operate an airplane that was type

certificated after June 30, 1942, unless it

is certificated as a transport category

airplane and meets the requirements of

§ 121.173(a), (b), (d), and (e).

* * * * *

(e) Commuter category airplanes.

Except as provided in paragraphs (c)

and (d) of this section, no certificate

holder may operate under this part a

nontransport category airplane type

certificated after December 31, 1964,

and before March 30, 1995, unless it

meets the applicable requirements of

§ 121.173(a), (b), (d), (e), and (f) and was

type certificated in the commuter

category.

(f) Other nontransport category

airplanes. Except as provided in

paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this

section, no certificate holder may

operate under this part a nontransport

category airplane type certificated after

December 31, 1964, unless it meets the

applicable requirements of § 121.173(a),

(b), (d), and (e), was manufactured

before March 20, 1997, and meets one

of the following:

(1) Until December 20, 2010:

(i) The airplane was type certificated

in the normal category before July 1,

1970, and meets special conditions

issued by the Administrator for

airplanes intended for use in operations

under part 135 of this chapter.

(ii) The airplane was type certificated

in the normal category before July 19,

1970, and meets the additional

airworthiness standards in SFAR No.

23, 14 CFR part 23.

(iii) The airplane was type certificated

in the normal category and meets the

additional airworthiness standards in

appendix A of part 135 of this chapter.

(iv) The airplane was type certificated

in the normal category and complies

with either section 1.(a) or 1.(b) of SFAR

No. 41 of 14 CFR part 21.

(2) The airplane was type certificated

in the normal category, meets the

additional requirements described in

paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(iv) of

this section, and meets the performance

requirements in appendix K of this part.

(g) Certain newly manufactured

airplanes. No certificate holder may

operate an airplane under this part that

was type certificated as described in

paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(iv) of

this section and that was manufactured

after March 20, 1997, unless it meets the

performance requirements in appendix

K of this part.

(h) Newly type certificated airplanes.

No person may operate under this part

an airplane for which the application for

a type certificate is submitted after

March 29, 1995, unless the airplane is

type certificated under part 25 of this

chapter.

22. Section 121.159 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 121.159 Single-engine airplanes

prohibited.

No certificate holder may operate a

single-engine airplane under this part.

23. Section 121.161 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) and by adding a

new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 121.161 Airplane limitations: Type of

route.

* * * * *

(b) Except as provided in paragraph

(c) of this section, no certificate holder

may operate a land airplane (other than

a DC–3, C–46, CV–240, CV–340, CV–

440, CV–580, CV–600, CV–640, or

Martin 404) in an extended overwater

operation unless it is certificated or

approved as adequate for ditching under

the ditching provisions of part 25 of this

chapter.

(c) Until December 20, 2010, a

certificate holder may operate, in an

extended overwater operation, a

nontransport category land airplane

type certificated after December 31,

1964, that was not certificated or

approved as adequate for ditching under

the ditching provisions of part 25 of this

chapter.

24. Section 121.163 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) and

the introductory text of paragraph (d) to

read as follows:

§ 121.163 Airplane proving tests.

(a) Initial airplane proving tests. No

person may operate an airplane not

before proven for use in a kind of

operation under this part or part 135 of

this chapter unless an airplane of that

type has had, in addition to the airplane

certification tests, at least 100 hours of

proving tests acceptable to the

Administrator, including a

representative number of flights into en

route airports. The requirement for at

least 100 hours of proving tests may be

reduced by the Administrator if the

Administrator determines that a

satisfactory level of proficiency has been

demonstrated to justify the reduction.

At least 10 hours of proving flights must
65928 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

be flown at night; these tests are

irreducible.

(b) Proving tests for kinds of

operations. Unless otherwise authorized

by the Administrator, for each type of

airplane, a certificate holder must

conduct at least 50 hours of proving

tests acceptable to the Administrator for

each kind of operation it intends to

conduct, including a representative

number of flights into en route airports.

(c) Proving tests for materially altered

airplanes. Unless otherwise authorized

by the Administrator, for each type of

airplane that is materially altered in

design, a certificate holder must

conduct at least 50 hours of proving

tests acceptable to the Administrator for

each kind of operation it intends to

conduct with that airplane, including a

representative number of flights into en

route airports.

(d) Definition of materially altered.

For the purposes of paragraph (c) of this

section, a type of airplane is considered

to be materially altered in design if the

alteration includes—

* * * * *

Subpart I—[Amended]

25. Subpart I is amended by removing

the words ‘‘transport category’’

wherever they appear.

26. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (e) of

§ 121.173 are revised to read as follows:

§ 121.173 General.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(c) of this section, each certificate holder

operating a reciprocating-enginepowered airplane shall comply with

§§ 121.175 through 121.187.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph

(c) of this section, each certificate holder

operating a turbine-engine-powered

airplane shall comply with the

applicable provisions of §§ 121.189

through 121.197, except that when it

operates—

(1) A turbo-propeller-powered

airplane type certificated after August

29, 1959, but previously type

certificated with the same number of

reciprocating engines, the certificate

holder may comply with §§ 121.175

through 121.187; or

(2) Until December 20, 2010, a turbopropeller-powered airplane described in

§ 121.157(f), the certificate holder may

comply with the applicable performance

requirements of appendix K of this part.

(c) Each certificate holder operating a

large nontransport category airplane

type certificated before January 1, 1965,

shall comply with §§ 121.199 through

121.205 and any determination of

compliance must be based only on

approved performance data.

* * * * *

(e) Except as provided in paragraph

(c) of this section, no person may take

off a reciprocating-engine-powered

airplane at a weight that is more than

the allowable weight for the runway

being used (determined under the

runway takeoff limitations of the

transport category operating rules of 14

CFR part 121, subpart I) after taking into

account the temperature operating

correction factors in the applicable

Airplane Flight Manual.

* * * * *

27. Section 121.175 is amended by

revising the section heading and adding

a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 121.175 Airplanes: Reciprocatingengine-powered: Weight limitations.

* * * * *

(f) This section does not apply to large

nontransport category airplanes

operated under § 121.173(c).

28. Section 121.177 is amended by

revising the section heading and adding

a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 121.177 Airplanes: Reciprocatingengine-powered: Takeoff limitations.

* * * * *

(c) This section does not apply to

large nontransport category airplanes

operated under § 121.173(c).

29. Section 121.179 is amended by

revising the section heading and adding

a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 121.179 Airplanes: Reciprocatingengine-powered: En route limitations: all

engines operating.

* * * * *

(c) This section does not apply to

large nontransport category airplanes

operated under § 121.173(c).

30. Section 121.181 is amended by

revising the section heading; by revising

the formulas in paragraphs (a) and (c)(1)

to read ‘‘(0.079–0.106/N) Vso2’’ and

revising ‘‘0.026 Vso2’’ in paragraphs (a)

and (c)(1) to read ‘‘0.026 Vso2’’; and

adding a new paragraph (d) to read as

follows:

§ 121.181 Airplanes: Reciprocatingengine-powered: En route limitations: One

engine inoperative.

* * * * *

(d) This section does not apply to

large nontransport category airplanes

operated under § 121.173(c).

§ 121.183 [Amended]

31. Section 121.183 is amended by

revising ‘‘0.0013 Vso2’’ in paragraphs

(a)(2) and (b)(3) to read ‘‘0.013 Vso2’’.

32. Section 121.185 is amended by

revising the section heading and adding

a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 121.185 Airplanes: Reciprocatingengine-powered: Landing limitations:

Destination airport.

* * * * *

(c) This section does not apply to

large nontransport category airplanes

operated under § 121.173(c).

33. Section 121.187 is amended by

revising the section heading,

designating the existing text as

paragraph (a), and by adding a new

paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 121.187 Airplanes: Reciprocatingengine-powered: Landing limitations:

Alternate airport.

* * * * *

(b) This section does not apply to

large nontransport category airplanes

operated under § 121.173(c).

34. Section 121.211 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 121.211 Applicability.

(a) This subpart prescribes special

airworthiness requirements applicable

to certificate holders as stated in

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this

section.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph

(d) of this section, each airplane type

certificated under Aero Bulletin 7A or

part 04 of the Civil Air Regulations in

effect before November 1, 1946 must

meet the special airworthiness

requirements in §§ 121.215 through

121.283.

(c) Each certificate holder must

comply with the requirements of

§§ 121.285 through 121.291.

(d) If the Administrator determines

that, for a particular model of airplane

used in cargo service, literal compliance

with any requirement under paragraph

(b) of this section would be extremely

difficult and that compliance would not

contribute materially to the objective

sought, he may require compliance only

with those requirements that are

necessary to accomplish the basic

objectives of this part.

(e) No person may operate under this

part a nontransport category airplane

type certificated after December 31,

1964, unless the airplane meets the

special airworthiness requirements in

§ 121.293.

§ 121.213 [Reserved]

35. Section 121.213 is removed and

reserved.

36. Section 121.285 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) and by adding a

new paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 121.285 Carriage of cargo in passenger

cargo compartments.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(b), (c), or (d) or this section, no
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65929

certificate holder may carry cargo in the

passenger compartment of an airplane.

* * * * *

(d) Cargo, including carry-on baggage,

may be carried anywhere in the

passenger compartment of a

nontransport category airplane type

certificated after December 31, 1964, if

it is carried in an approved cargo rack,

bin, or compartment installed in or on

the airplane, if it is secured by an

approved means, or if it is carried in

accordance with each of the following:

(1) For cargo, it is properly secured by

a safety belt or other tie-down having

enough strength to eliminate the

possibility of shifting under all normally

anticipated flight and ground

conditions, or for carry-on baggage, it is

restrained so as to prevent its movement

during air turbulence.

(2) It is packaged or covered to avoid

possible injury to occupants.

(3) It does not impose any load on

seats or in the floor structure that

exceeds the load limitation for those

components.

(4) It is not located in a position that

obstructs the access to, or use of, any

required emergency or regular exit, or

the use of the aisle between the crew

and the passenger compartment, or is

located in a position that obscures any

passenger’s view of the ‘‘seat belt’’ sign,

‘‘no smoking’’ sign or placard, or any

required exit sign, unless an auxiliary

sign or other approved means for proper

notification of the passengers is

provided.

(5) It is not carried directly above

seated occupants.

(6) It is stowed in compliance with

this section for takeoff and landing.

(7) For cargo-only operations,

paragraph (d)(4) of this section does not

apply if the cargo is loaded so that at

least one emergency or regular exit is

available to provide all occupants of the

airplane a means of unobstructed exit

from the airplane if an emergency

occurs.

§ 121.289 [Amended]

37. Section 121.289(a) introductory

text is amended by removing the word

‘‘large.’’

38. Section 121.291 is amended by

revising the introductory text of

paragraph (b) and the introductory text

of paragraph (c); revising paragraph

(c)(2) and (c)(4); and by adding a new

sentence at the end of paragraph (d) to

read as follows:

§ 121.291 Demonstration of emergency

evacuation procedures.

* * * * *

(b) Each certificate holder conducting

operations with airplanes with a seating

capacity of more than 44 passengers

must conduct a partial demonstration of

emergency evacuation procedures in

accordance with paragraph (c) of this

section upon:

* * * * *

(c) In conducting the partial

demonstration required by paragraph (b)

of this section, each certificate holder

must:

* * * * *

(2) Apply for and obtain approval

from the certificate-holding district

office before conducting the

demonstration;

* * * * *

(4) Apply for and obtain approval

from the certificate-holding district

office before commencing operations

with this type and model airplane.

(d) * * * For certificate holders

subject to § 121.2(a)(1), this paragraph

applies only when a new type or model

airplane is introduced into the

certificate holder’s operations after

January 19, 1996.

* * * * *

39. A new § 121.293 is added to read

as follows:

121.293 Special airworthiness

requirements for nontransport category

airplanes type certificated after December

31, 1964.

No certificate holder may operate a

nontransport category airplane

manufactured after December 20, 1999

unless the airplane contains a takeoff

warning system that meets the

requirements of 14 CFR 25.703.

However, the takeoff warning system

does not have to cover any device for

which it has been demonstrated that

takeoff with that device in the most

adverse position would not create a

hazardous condition.

40. Section 121.305 is amended by

revising paragraph (j) and adding a new

paragraph (k) to read as follows:

§ 121.305 Flight and navigational

equipment.

* * * * *

(j) On the airplanes described in this

paragraph, in addition to two gyroscopic

bank-and-pitch indicators (artificial

horizons) for use at the pilot stations, a

third such instrument that complies

with the provisions of paragraph (k) of

this section:

(1) On each turbojet powered

airplane.

(2) On each turbopropeller powered

airplane that is manufactured after

March 20, 1997.

(3) After December 20, 2010, on each

turbopropeller powered airplane having

a passenger seat configuration of 10–30

seats, that was manufactured before

March 20, 1997.

(k) When required by paragraph (j) of

this section, a third gyroscopic bankand-pitch indicator (artificial horizon)

that:

(1) Is powered from a source

independent of the electrical generating

system;

(2) Continues reliable operation for a

minimum of 30 minutes after total

failure of the electrical generating

system;

(3) Operates independently of any

other attitude indicating system;

(4) Is operative without selection after

total failure of the electrical generating

system;

(5) Is located on the instrument panel

in a position acceptable to the

Administrator that will make it plainly

visible to and usable by each pilot at his

or her station; and

(6) Is appropriately lighted during all

phases of operation.

41. Section 121.308 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 121.308 Lavatory fire protection.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs

(c) and (d) of this section, no person

may operate a passenger-carrying

airplane unless each lavatory in the

airplane is equipped with a smoke

detector system or equivalent that

provides a warning light in the cockpit

or provides a warning light or audio

warning in the passenger cabin which

would be readily detected by a flight

attendant, taking into consideration the

positioning of flight attendants

throughout the passenger compartment

during various phases of flight.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph

(c) of this section, no person may

operate a passenger-carrying airplane

unless each lavatory in the airplane is

equipped with a built-in fire

extinguisher for each disposal

receptacle for towels, paper, or waste

located within the lavatory. The built-in

fire extinguisher must be designed to

discharge automatically into each

disposal receptacle upon occurrence of

a fire in the receptacle.

(c) Until December 22, 1997, a

certificate holder described in § 121.2(a)

(1) or (2) may operate an airplane with

a passenger seat configuration of 30 or

fewer seats that does not comply with

the smoke detector system requirements

described in paragraph (a) of this

section and the fire extinguisher

requirements described in paragraph (b)

of this section.

(d) After December 22, 1997, no

person may operate a nontransport

category airplane type certificated after

December 31, 1964, with a passenger
65930 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

seat configuration of 10–19 seats unless

that airplane complies with the smoke

detector system requirements described

in paragraph (a) of this section, except

that the smoke detector system or

equivalent must provide a warning light

in the cockpit or an audio warning that

would be readily detected by the

flightcrew.

42. Section 121.309 is amended by

revising paragraphs (c)(7), (d)(1), and (e)

to read as follows:

§ 121.309 Emergency equipment.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(7) At least two of the required hand

fire extinguisher installed in passengercarrying airplanes must contain Halon

1211 (bromochlorofluoromethane) or

equivalent as the extinguishing agent.

At least one hand fire extinguisher in

the passenger compartment must

contain Halon 1211 or equivalent.

* * * * *

(d) First aid and emergency medical

equipment and protective gloves. (1) For

treatment of injuries or medical

emergencies that might occur during

flight time or in minor accidents each

passenger-carrying airplane must have

the following equipment that meets the

specifications and requirements of

appendix A of this part:

(i) Approved first aid kits; and

(ii) In airplanes for which a flight

attendant is required, an emergency

medical kit.

* * * * *

(e) Crash ax. Except for nontransport

category airplanes type certificated after

December 31, 1964, each airplane must

be equipped with a crash ax.

* * * * *

43. Section 121.310 is amended by

revising paragraphs (d)(1), (2), (3), and

(4) and (l) and revising the introductory

text of paragraphs (c), (f), (h)(1) and (k)

to read as follows:

121.310 Additional emergency equipment.

* * * * *

(c) Lighting for interior emergency exit

markings. Except for nontransport

category airplanes type certificated after

December 31, 1964, each passengercarrying airplane must have an

emergency lighting system, independent

of the main lighting system. However,

sources of general cabin illumination

may be common to both the emergency

and the main lighting systems if the

power supply to the emergency lighting

system is independent of the power

supply to the main lighting system.

The emergency lighting system

must—

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) Each light must—

(i) Be operable manually both from

the flightcrew station and, for airplanes

on which a flight attendant is required,

from a point in the passenger

compartment that is readily accessible

to a normal flight attendant seat;

(ii) Have a means to prevent

inadvertent operation of the manual

controls; and

(iii) When armed or turned on at

either station, remain lighted or become

lighted upon interruption of the

airplane’s normal electric power.

(2) Each light must be armed or

turned on during taxiing, takeoff, and

landing. In showing compliance with

this paragraph a transverse vertical

separation of the fuselage need not be

considered.

(3) Each light must provide the

required level of illumination for at least

10 minutes at the critical ambient

conditions after emergency landing.

(4) Each light must have a cockpit

control device that has an ‘‘on,’’ ‘‘off,’’

and ‘‘armed’’ position.

* * * * *

(f) Emergency exit access. Access to

emergency exits must be provided as

follows for each passenger-carrying

transport category airplane:

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(1) Except for nontransport category

airplanes certificated after December 31,

1964, each passenger-carrying airplane

must be equipped with exterior lighting

that meets the following requirements:

* * * * *

(k) On each large passenger-carrying

turbojet-powered airplane, each ventral

exit and tailcone exit must be—

* * * * *

(l) Portable lights. No person may

operate a passenger-carrying airplane

unless it is equipped with flashlight

stowage provisions accessible from each

flight attendant seat.

* * * * *

44. Section 121.311 is amended by

revising the first sentence of the

introductory text of paragraph (e), by

adding a new paragraph (e)(3), by

revising the introductory text of

paragraph (f), and by revising paragraph

(h) to read as follows:

§ 121.311 Seats, safety belts, and shoulder

harnesses.

* * * * *

(e) Except as provided in paragraphs

(e)(1) through (e)(3) of this section, no

certificate holder may take off or land an

airplane unless each passenger seat back

is in the upright position. * * *

* * * * *

(3) On airplanes with no flight

attendant, the certificate holder may

take off or land as long as the flightcrew

instructs each passenger to place his or

her seat back in the upright position for

takeoff and landing.

(f) No person may operate a transport

category airplane that was type

certificated after January 1, 1958, or a

nontransport category airplane

manufactured after March 20, 1997,

unless it is equipped at each flight deck

station with a combined safety belt and

shoulder harness that meets the

applicable requirements specified in

§ 25.785 of this chapter, effective March

6, 1980, except that—

* * * * *

(h) Each occupant of a seat equipped

with a shoulder harness or with a

combined safety belt and shoulder

harness must have the shoulder harness

or combined safety belt and shoulder

harness properly secured about that

occupant during takeoff and landing,

except that a shoulder harness that is

not combined with a safety belt may be

unfastened if the occupant cannot

perform the required duties with the

shoulder harness fastened.

* * * * *

45. Section 121.312 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 121.312 Materials for compartment

interiors.

(a) All interior materials; transport

category airplanes and nontransport

category airplanes type certificated

before January 1, 1965. Except for the

materials covered by paragraph (b) of

this section, all materials in each

compartment of a transport category

airplane, or a nontransport category

airplane type certificated before January

1, 1965, used by the crewmembers and

passengers, must meet the requirements

of § 25.853 of this chapter in effect as

follows, or later amendment thereto:

(1) Airplane with passenger seating

capacity of 20 or more.

(i) Manufactured after August 19,

1988, but prior to August 20, 1990.

Except as provided in paragraph

(a)(3)(ii) of this section, each airplane

with a passenger capacity of 20 or more

and manufactured after August 19,

1988, but prior to August 20, 1990, must

comply with the heat release rate testing

provisions of § 25.853(d) in effect March

6, 1995 (formerly § 25.853(a–1) in effect

on August 20, 1986) (see App. L of this

part), except that the total heat release

over the first 2 minutes of sample

exposure must not exceed 100 kilowatt

minutes per square meter and the peak

heat release rate must not exceed 100

kilowatts per square meter.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65931

(ii) Manufactured after August 19,

1990. Each airplane with a passenger

capacity of 20 or more and

manufactured after August 19, 1990,

must comply with the heat release rate

and smoke testing provisions of

§ 25.853(d) in effect March 6, 1995

(formerly § 25.853(a–1)(see app. L of

this part) in effect on September 26,

1988).

(2) Substantially complete

replacement of the cabin interior on or

after May 1, 1972.—(i) Airplane for

which the application for type

certificate was filed prior to May 1,

1972. Except as provided in paragraph

(a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of this section, each

airplane for which the application for

type certificate was filed prior to May 1,

1972, must comply with the provisions

of § 25.853 in effect on April 30, 1972,

regardless of passenger capacity, if there

is a substantially complete replacement

of the cabin interior after April 30, 1972.

(ii) Airplane for which the application

for type certificate was filed on or after

May 1, 1972. Except as provided in

paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (a)(3)(ii) of this

section, each airplane for which the

application for type certificate was filed

on or after May 1, 1972, must comply

with the material requirements under

which the airplane was type

certificated, regardless of passenger

capacity, if there is a substantially

complete replacement of the cabin

interior on or after that date.

(3) Airplane type certificated after

January 1, 1958, with passenger

capacity of 20 or more.—(i)

Substantially complete replacement of

the cabin interior on or after March 6,

1995. Except as provided in paragraph

(a)(3)(ii) of this section, each airplane

that was type certificated after January

1, 1958, and has a passenger capacity of

20 or more, must comply with the heat

release rate testing provisions of

§ 25.853(d) in effect March 6, 1995

(formerly § 25.853(a–1) in effect on

August 20, 1986)(see app. L of this part),

if there is a substantially complete

replacement of the cabin interior

components identified in § 25.853(d), on

or after that date, except that the total

heat release over the first 2 minutes of

sample exposure shall not exceed 100

kilowatt-minutes per square meter and

the peak heat release rate must not

exceed 100 kilowatts per square meter.

(ii) Substantially complete

replacement of the cabin interior on or

after August 20, 1990. Each airplane that

was type certificated after January 1,

1958, and has a passenger capacity of 20

or more, must comply with the heat

release rate and smoke testing

provisions of § 25.853(d) in effect March

6, 1995 (formerly § 25.853(a–1) in effect

on September 26, 1988)(see app. L of

this part), if there is a substantially

complete replacement of the cabin

interior components identified in

§ 25.853(d), on or after August 20, 1990.

(4) Contrary provisions of this section

notwithstanding, the Manager of the

Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service, Federal Aviation

Administration, may authorize

deviation from the requirements of

paragraph (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), (a)(3)(i), or

(a)(3)(ii) of this section for specific

components of the cabin interior that do

not meet applicable flammability and

smoke emission requirements, if the

determination is made that special

circumstances exist that make

compliance impractical. Such grants of

deviation will be limited to those

airplanes manufactured within 1 year

after the applicable date specified in

this section and those airplanes in

which the interior is replaced within 1

year of that date. A request for such

grant of deviation must include a

thorough and accurate analysis of each

component subject to § 25.853(a–1), the

steps being taken to achieve

compliance, and, for the few

components for which timely

compliance will not be achieved,

credible reasons for such

noncompliance.

(5) Contrary provisions of this section

notwithstanding, galley carts and galley

standard containers that do not meet the

flammability and smoke emission

requirements of § 25.853(d) in effect

March 6, 1995 (formerly § 25.853(a–1))

(see app. L of this part) may be used in

airplanes that must meet the

requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(i),

(a)(1)(ii), (a)(3)(i), or (a)(3)(ii) of this

section, provided the galley carts or

standard containers were manufactured

prior to March 6, 1995.

(b) Seat cushions. Seat cushions,

except those on flight crewmember

seats, in each compartment occupied by

crew or passengers, must comply with

the requirements pertaining to seat

cushions in § 25.853(c) effective on

November 26, 1984, on each airplane as

follows:

(1) Each transport category airplane

type certificated after January 1, 1958;

and

(2) On or after December 20, 2010,

each nontransport category airplane

type certificated after December 31,

1964.

(c) All interior materials; airplanes

type certificated in accordance with

SFAR No. 41 of 14 CFR part 21. No

person may operate an airplane that

conforms to an amended or

supplemental type certificate issued in

accordance with SFAR No. 41 of 14 CFR

part 21 for a maximum certificated

takeoff weight in excess of 12,500

pounds unless the airplane meets the

compartment interior requirements set

forth in § 25.853(a) in effect March 6,

1995 (formerly § 25.853(a), (b), (b–1), (b–

2), and (b–3) of this chapter in effect on

September 26, 1978)(see app. L of this

part).

(d) All interior materials; other

airplanes. For each material or seat

cushion to which a requirement in

paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of this section

does not apply, the material and seat

cushion in each compartment used by

the crewmembers and passengers must

meet the applicable requirement under

which the airplane was type

certificated.

46. Section 121.313(f) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 121.313 Miscellaneous equipment.

* * * * *

(f) A door between the passenger and

pilot compartments, with a locking

means to prevent passengers from

opening it without the pilot’s

permission, except that nontransport

category airplanes certificated after

December 31, 1964, are not required to

comply with this paragraph.

* * * * *

47. Section 121.317 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (k) and

by adding a new paragraph (l) to read

as follows:

§ 121.317 Passenger information.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (l)

of this section, no person may operate

an airplane unless it is equipped with

passenger information signs that meet

the requirements of § 25.791 of this

chapter. Except as provided in

paragraph (l) of this section, the signs

must be constructed so that the

crewmembers can turn them on and off.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (l)

of this section, the ‘‘Fasten Seat Belt’’

sign shall be turned on during any

movement on the surface, for each

takeoff, for each landing, and at any

other time considered necessary by the

pilot in command.

* * * * *

(k) Each passenger shall comply with

instructions given him or her by a

crewmember regarding compliance with

paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and (l) of this

section.

(l) A certificate holder may operate a

nontransport category airplane type

certificated after December 31, 1964,

that is manufactured before December

22, 1997, if it is equipped with at least

one placard that is legible to each

person seated in the cabin that states

‘‘Fasten Seat Belt,’’ and if, during any
65932 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

movement on the surface, for each

takeoff, for each landing, and at any

other time considered necessary by the

pilot in command, a crewmember orally

instructs the passengers to fasten their

seat belts.

48. Section 121.323(b) and (c) are

revised to read as follows:

§ 121.323 Instruments and equipment for

operations at night.

* * * * *

(b) An anti-collision light.

(c) Two landing lights, except that

only one landing light is required for

nontransport category airplanes type

certificated after December 31, 1964.

* * * * *

49. Section 121.337 is amended by

removing the words ‘‘a transport

category’’ from the introductory text in

paragraph (b) and adding in its place

‘‘an’’, by adding a heading for paragraph

(b)(8), by adding a heading and revising

the introductory text of paragraph (b)(9),

and by removing paragraph (d) to read

as follows:

§ 121.337 Protective breathing equipment.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(8) Smoke and fume protection. * * *

(9) Fire combatting. Except for

nontransport category airplanes type

certificated after December 31, 1964,

protective breathing equipment with a

portable breathing gas supply meeting

the requirements of this section must be

easily accessible and conveniently

located for immediate use by

crewmembers in combatting fires as

follows:

* * * * *

50. Section 121.340 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 121.340 Emergency flotation means.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section, no person may

operate an airplane in any overwater

operation unless it is equipped with life

preservers in accordance with

§ 121.339(a)(1) or with an approved

flotation means for each occupant. This

means must be within easy reach of

each seated occupant and must be

readily removable from the airplane.

* * * * *

51. Section 121.341 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) and by adding

new paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as

follows:

§ 121.341 Equipment for operations in

icing conditions.

(a) Except as permitted in paragraph

(c)(2) of this section, unless an airplane

is type certificated under the transport

category airworthiness requirements

relating to ice protection, or unless an

airplane is a non-transport category

airplane type certificated after December

31, 1964, that has the ice protection

provisions that meet section 34 of

appendix A of part 135 of this chapter,

no person may operate an airplane in

icing conditions unless it is equipped

with means for the prevention or

removal of ice on windshields, wings,

empennage, propellers, and other parts

of the airplane where ice formation will

adversely affect the safety of the

airplane.

* * * * *

(c) Non-transport category airplanes

type certificated after December 31,

1964. Except for an airplane that has ice

protection provisions that meet section

34 of appendix A of part 135 of this

chapter, or those for transport category

airplane type certification, no person

may operate—

(1) Under IFR into known or forecast

light or moderate icing conditions;

(2) Under VFR into known light or

moderate icing conditions; unless the

airplane has functioning deicing antiicing equipment protecting each

propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing

or control surface, and each airspeed,

altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude

instrument system; or

(3) Into known or forecast severe icing

conditions.

(d) If current weather reports and

briefing information relied upon by the

pilot in command indicate that the

forecast icing condition that would

otherwise prohibit the flight will not be

encountered during the flight because of

changed weather conditions since the

forecast, the restrictions in paragraph (c)

of this section based on forecast

conditions do not apply.

52. Section 121.342 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 121.342 Pitot heat indication systems.

No person may operate a transport

category airplane or, after December 20,

1999, a nontransport category airplane

type certificated after December 31,

1964, that is equipped with a flight

instrument pitot heating system unless

the airplane is also equipped with an

operable pitot heat indication system

that complies § 25.1326 of this chapter

in effect on April 12, 1978.

53. Section 121.344 is added to read

as follows:

§ 121.344 Flight recorders: Airplanes with

a passenger seat configuration of 10–30

passenger seats and a payload capacity of

7,500 pounds or less.

No person may operate an airplane

with a passenger seat configuration of

10–30 passenger seats, excluding each

crewmember seat, and a payload

capacity of 7,500 pounds or less unless

it meets the requirements for flight

recorders in § 135.152 of this chapter. A

person operating an airplane with a

passenger seat configuration of more

than 30 passenger seats, or a payload

capacity of more than 7,500 pounds

shall comply with § 121.343.

54. Section 121.349 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (e) to read as

follows:

§ 121.349 Radio equipment for operations

under VFR over routes not navigated by

pilotage or for operations under IFR or

over-the-top.

* * * * *

(e) No person may operate an airplane

having a passenger seat configuration of

10 to 30 seats, excluding each

crewmember seat, and a payload of

7,500 pounds or less under IFR or in

extended overwater operations unless it

has, in addition to any other required

radio communications and navigational

equipment appropriate to the facilities

to be used which are capable of

transmitting to, and receiving from, at

any place on the route to be flown, at

least one ground facility, two

microphones, and two headsets or one

headset and one speaker.

55. Section 121.353 is amended by

revising the heading and the

introductory text to read as follows:

§ 121.353 Emergency equipment for

operations over uninhabited terrain areas:

Flag, supplemental, and certain domestic

operations.

Unless the airplane has the following

equipment, no person may conduct a

flag or supplemental operation or a

domestic operation within the States of

Alaska or Hawaii over an uninhabited

area or any other area that (in its

operations specifications) the

Administrator specifies required

equipment for search and rescue in case

of an emergency:

* * * * *

56. Section 121.356 is amended by

revising the introductory text of

paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 121.356 Traffic Alert and Collision

Avoidance System.

* * * * *

(c) The appropriate manuals required

by § 121.131 shall contain the following

information on the TCAS II System or

TCAS I System, as appropriate, as

required by this section:

* * * * *

57. Section 121.357 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) and introductory

text of paragraph (c) and by removing

the words ‘‘an air carrier or commercial

operator’’ in paragraph (c)(1) and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65933

adding, in their place, the words ‘‘a

certificate holder,’’ to read as follows:

§ 121.357 Airborne weather radar

equipment requirements.

(a) No person may operate any

transport category airplane (except C–46

type airplanes) or a nontransport

category airplane certificated after

December 31, 1964, unless approved

airborne weather radar equipment has

been installed in the airplane.

* * * * *

(c) Each person operating an airplane

required to have approved airborne

weather radar equipment installed shall,

when using it under this part, operate it

in accordance with the following:

* * * * *

58. Section 121.359 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph (b),

by revising the introductory text of

paragraph (c), by redesignating

paragraphs (d) through (f) as paragraphs

(f) through (h), respectively, and adding

new paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as

follows:

§ 121.359 Cockpit voice recorders.

* * * * *

(c) The cockpit voice recorder

required by paragraph (a) of this section

must meet the following application

standards:

* * * * *

(d) No person may operate a

multiengine, turbine-powered airplane

having a passenger seat configuration of

10–19 seats unless it is equipped with

an approved cockpit voice recorder that:

(1) Is installed in compliance with

§ 23.1457(a) (1) and (2), (b), (c), (d), (e),

(f), and (g); § 25.1457(a) (1) and (2), (b),

(c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of this chapter,

as applicable; and

(2) Is operated continuously from the

use of the checklist before the flight to

completion of the final checklist at the

end of the flight.

(e) No person may operate a

multiengine, turbine-powered airplane

having a passenger seat configuration of

20 to 30 seats unless it is equipped with

an approved cockpit voice recorder

that—

(1) Is installed in compliance with

§ 23.1457 or § 25.1457 of this chapter, as

applicable; and

(2) Is operated continuously from the

use of the checklist before the flight to

completion of the final checklist at the

end of the flight.

* * * * *

59. Section 121.360 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 121.360 Ground proximity warning-glide

slope deviation alerting system.

(a) No person may operate a turbinepowered airplane unless it is equipped

with a ground proximity warning

system that meets the performance and

environmental standards of TSO–C92

(available from the FAA, 800

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20591) or incorporates

TSO-approved ground proximity

warning equipment.

(b) For the ground proximity warning

system required by this section, the

Airplane Flight Manual shall contain—

(1) Appropriate procedures for—

(i) The use of the equipment;

(ii) Proper flightcrew action with

respect to the equipment;

(iii) Deactivation for planned

abnormal and emergency conditions;

(iv) Inhibition of Mode 4 warnings

based on flaps being in other than the

landing configuration if the system

incorporates a Mode 4 flap warning

inhibition control; and

(2) An outline of all input sources that

must be operating.

(c) No person may deactivate a ground

proximity warning system required by

this section except in accordance with

the procedures contained in the

Airplane Flight Manual.

(d) Whenever a ground proximity

warning system required by this section

is deactivated, an entry shall be made in

the airplane maintenance record that

includes the date and time of

deactivation.

(e) No person may operate a turbinepowered airplane unless it is equipped

with a ground proximity warning/glide

slope deviation alerting system that

meets the performance and

environmental standards contained in

TSO–C92a or TSO–C92b or incorporates

TSO-approved ground proximity

warning-glide slope deviation alerting

equipment.

(f) No person may operate a turbojet

powered airplane equipped with a

system required by paragraph (e) of this

section, that incorporates equipment

that meets the performance and

environmental standards of TSO–C92b

or is approved under that TSO, using

other than Warning Envelopes 1 or 3 for

Warning Modes 1 and 4.

60. Section 121.380 is amended by

redesignating paragraphs (a)(2)(iii)

through (a)(2)(vi) as paragraphs (a)(2)(iv)

through (a)(2)(vii), respectively; by

redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as

paragraphs (c) and (d), respectively; by

revising paragraphs (a) introductory

text, (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), newly

redesignated paragraphs (a)(2)(vi),

(a)(2)(vii), (c)(1), and (c)(2); and by

adding new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (b)

to read as follows:

§ 121.380 Maintenance recording

requirements.

(a) Each certificate holder shall keep

(using the system specified in the

manual required in § 121.369) the

following records for the periods

specified in paragraph (c) of this

section:

* * * * *

(2) * * *

(i) The total time in service of the

airframe.

(ii) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section, the total time in

service of each engine and propeller.

(iii) The current status of life-limited

parts of each airframe, engine, propeller,

and appliance.

* * * * *

(vi) The current status of applicable

airworthiness directives, including the

date and methods of compliance, and, if

the airworthiness directive involves

recurring action, the time and date

when the next action is required.

(vii) A list of current major alterations

to each airframe, engine, propeller, and

appliance.

(b) A certificate holder need not

record the total time in service of an

engine or propeller on a transport

category airplane that has a passenger

seat configuration of more than 30 seats

or a nontransport category airplane type

certificated before January 1, 1958, until

the following, whichever occurs first:

(1) March 20, 1997; or

(2) The date of the first overhaul of

the engine or propeller, as applicable,

after January 19, 1996.

(c) * * *

(1) Except for the records of the last

complete overhaul of each airframe,

engine, propeller, and appliance, the

records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of

this section shall be retained until the

work is repeated or superseded by other

work or for one year after the work is

performed.

(2) The records of the last complete

overhaul of each airframe, engine,

propeller, and appliance shall be

retained until the work is superseded by

work of equivalent scope and detail.

* * * * *

61. Section 121.391 is amended by

redesignating paragraphs (a)(2) and

(a)(3) as paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4),

respectively; by revising paragraphs (a)

introductory text and (a)(1); by adding a

new paragraph (a)(2); and by removing

paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 121.391 Flight attendants.

(a) Each certificate holder shall

provide at least the following flight
65934 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

attendants on each passenger-carrying

airplane used:

(1) For airplanes having a maximum

payload capacity of more than 7,500

pounds and having a seating capacity of

more than 9 but less than 51

passengers—one flight attendant.

(2) For airplanes having a maximum

payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less

and having a seating capacity of more

than 19 but less than 51 passengers—

one flight attendant.

* * * * *

62. Section 121.393 is added to read

as follows:

§ 121.393 Crewmember requirements at

stops where passengers remain on board.

At stops where passengers remain on

board, the certificate holder must meet

the following requirements:

(a) On each airplane for which a flight

attendant is not required by

§ 121.391(a), the certificate holder must

ensure that a person who is qualified in

the emergency evacuation procedures

for the airplane, as required in

§ 121.417, and who is identified to the

passengers, remains:

(1) On board the airplane; or

(2) Nearby the airplane, in a position

to adequately monitor passenger safety,

and:

(i) The airplane engines are shut

down; and

(ii) At least one floor level exit

remains open to provide for the

deplaning of passengers.

(b) On each airplane for which flight

attendants are required by § 121.391(a),

but the number of flight attendants

remaining on board is fewer than

required by § 121.391(a), the certificate

holder must meet the following

requirements:

(1) The certificate holder shall ensure

that:

(i) The airplane engines are shut

down;

(ii) At least one floor level exit

remains open to provide for the

deplaning of passengers; and

(iii) the number of flight attendants on

board is at least half the number

required by § 121.391(a), rounded down

to the next lower number in the case of

fractions, but never fewer than one.

(2) The certificate holder may

substitute for the required flight

attendants other persons qualified in the

emergency evacuation procedures for

that aircraft as required in § 121.417, if

these persons are identified to the

passengers.

(3) If only one flight attendant or other

qualified person is on board during a

stop, that flight attendant or other

qualified person shall be located in

accordance with the certificate holder’s

FAA-approved operating procedures. If

more than one flight attendant or other

qualified person is on board, the flight

attendants or other qualified persons

shall be spaced throughout the cabin to

provide the most effective assistance for

the evacuation in case of an emergency.

§ 121.435 [Removed]

63. Section 121.435 is removed.

§ 121.455 [Amended]

64. Section 121.455 is amended by

adding the words ‘‘or operator’’ after the

words ‘‘certificate holder,’’ wherever

they appear.

§ 121.457 [Amended]

65. Section 121.457 is amended by

adding the words ‘‘or operator’’ after the

words ‘‘certificate holder,’’ wherever

they appear.

66. Section 121.463 is amended in

paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) by removing

the words ‘‘domestic or flag air carrier’’

and adding, in their place, the words

‘‘certificate holder conducting domestic

or flag operations;’’ in paragraph (d) by

removing the words ‘‘air carrier’’ and

adding, in their place, the words

‘‘certificate holder;’’ and by revising

paragraphs (a)(2) and (c) to read as

follows:

§ 121.463 Aircraft dispatcher

qualifications.

(a) * * *

(2) Operating familiarization

consisting of at least 5 hours observing

operations under this part from the

flight deck or, for airplanes without an

observer seat on the flight deck, from a

forward passenger seat with headset or

speaker. This requirement may be

reduced to a minimum of 21⁄2 hours by

the substitution of one additional

takeoff and landing for an hour of flight.

A person may serve as an aircraft

dispatcher without meeting the

requirement of this paragraph (a) for 90

days after initial introduction of the

airplane into operations under this part.

* * * * *

(c) No certificate holder conducting

domestic or flag operations may use any

person, nor may any person serve, as an

aircraft dispatcher unless within the

preceding 12 calendar months the

aircraft dispatcher has satisfactorily

completed operating familiarization

consisting of at least 5 hours observing

operations under this part, in one of the

types of airplanes in each group to be

dispatched. This observation shall be

made from the flight deck or, for

airplanes without an observer seat on

the flight deck, from a forward

passenger seat with headset or speaker.

The requirement of paragraph (a) of this

section may be reduced to a minimum

of 21⁄2 hours by the substitution of one

additional takeoff and landing for an

hour of flight. The requirement of this

paragraph may be satisfied by

observation of 5 hours of simulator

training for each airplane group in one

of the simulators approved under

§ 121.407 for the group. However, if the

requirement of paragraph (a) is met by

the use of a simulator, no reduction in

hours is permitted.

* * * * *

67. Section 121.470 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 121.470 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes flight time

limitations and rest requirements for

domestic operations, except that:

(a) Certificate holders conducting

operations with airplanes having a

passenger seat configuration of 30 seats

or fewer, excluding each crewmember

seat, and a payload capacity of 7,500

pounds or less, may comply with the

applicable requirements of §§ 135.261

through 135.273 of this chapter.

(b) Certificate holders conducting

scheduled operations entirely within

the States of Alaska or Hawaii with

airplanes having a passenger seat

configuration of more than 30 seats,

excluding each crewmember seat, or a

payload capacity of more than 7,500

pounds, may comply with the

requirements of subpart R of this part

for those operations.

68. Section 121.480 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 121.480 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes flight time

limitations and rest requirements for

flag operations, except that certificate

holders conducting operations with

airplanes having a passenger seat

configuration of 30 seats or fewer,

excluding each crewmember seat, and a

payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or

less, may comply with the applicable

requirements of §§ 135.261 through

135.273 of this chapter.

69. Section 121.500 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 121.500 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes flight time

limitations and rest requirements for

supplemental operations, except that

certificate holders conducting

operations with airplanes having a

passenger seat configuration of 30 seats

or fewer, excluding each crewmember

seat, and a payload capacity of 7,500

pounds or less, may comply with the

applicable requirements of §§ 135.261

through 135.273 of this chapter.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65935

70. Section 121.571 is amended in

paragraph (a)(4) by removing the words

‘‘flight attendant’’ and adding in their

place, the word ‘‘crewmembers;’’ by

adding a new paragraph (a)(1)(v); and by

revising the introductory text of

paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

§ 121.571 Briefing passengers before takeoff.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(v) On operations that do not use a

flight attendant, the following

additional information:

(A) The placement of seat backs in an

upright position before takeoff and

landing.

(B) Location of survival equipment.

(C) If the flight involves operations

above 12,000 MSL, the normal and

emergency use of oxygen.

(D) Location and operation of fire

extinguisher.

* * * * *

(3) Except as provided in paragraph

(a)(4) of this section, before each takeoff

a required crewmember assigned to the

flight shall conduct an individual

briefing of each person who may need

the assistance of another person to move

expeditiously to an exit in the event of

an emergency. In the briefing the

required crewmember shall—

* * * * *

71. Section 121.578(b) introductory

text is revised to read as follows:

§ 121.578 Cabin ozone concentration.

* * * * *

(b) Except as provided in paragraphs

(d) and (e) of this section, no certificate

holder may operate an airplane above

the following flight levels unless it is

successfully demonstrated to the

Administrator that the concentration of

ozone inside the cabin will not exceed—

* * * * *

72. Section 121.581 is amended by

revising the section heading and

paragraph (a) and by adding a new

paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 121.581 Observer’s seat: En route

inspections.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(c) of this section, each certificate holder

shall make available a seat on the flight

deck of each airplane, used by it in air

commerce, for occupancy by the

Administrator while conducting en

route inspections. The location and

equipment of the seat, with respect to its

suitability for use in conducting en

route inspections, is determined by the

Administrator.

* * * * *

(c) For any airplane type certificated

before December 20, 1995 for not more

than 30 passengers that does not have

an observer seat on the flight deck, the

certificate holder must provide a

forward passenger seat with headset or

speaker for occupancy by the

Administrator while conducting en

route inspections. Notwithstanding the

requirements of § 121.587, the cockpit

door, if required, may remain open

during such inspections.

§ 121.583 [Amended]

73. Section 121.583(a) is amended by

removing the reference to ‘‘,121.161,.’’

74. Section 121.587 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) and adding a new

paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:

§ 121.587 Closing and locking of flight

crew compartment door.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section, a pilot in command

of an airplane that has a lockable flight

crew compartment door in accordance

with § 121.313 and that is carrying

passengers shall ensure that the door

separating the flight crew compartment

from the passenger compartment is

closed and locked during flight.

(b) * * *

(3) When a jumpseat is being used by

persons authorized under § 121.547 in

airplanes in which closing and locking

the flight crew compartment door is

impossible while the jumpseat is in use.

§ 121.589 [Amended]

75. Section 121.589 is amended in

paragraphs (b) and (c)(2) by removing

the reference ‘‘§ 121.285(c) of this part’’

and adding in its place ‘‘§ 121.285 (c)

and (d).’’

76. Section 121.590 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 121.590 Use of certificated land airports.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section or unless otherwise

authorized by the Administrator, no air

carrier, and no pilot being used by an

air carrier may, in the conduct of

operations governed by this part,

operate an aircraft into a land airport in

any State of the United States, the

District of Columbia, or any territory or

possession of the United States, unless

that airport is certificated under part

139 of this chapter. However, an air

carrier may designate and use as a

required alternate airport for departure

or destination an airport that is not

certificated under part 139 of this

chapter.

(b) Certificate holders conducting

passenger-carrying operations with

airplanes designed for less than 31

passenger seats may operate those

airplanes into airports not certificated

under part 139 of this chapter if the

following conditions are met:

(1) The airport is adequate for the

proposed operation, considering such

items as size, surface, obstructions, and

lighting.

(2) For an airplane carrying

passengers at night, the pilot may not

take off from, or land at, an airport

unless—

(i) The pilot has determined the wind

direction from an illuminated wind

direction indicator or local ground

communications or, in the case of

takeoff, that pilot’s personal

observations; and

(ii) The limits of the area to be used

for landing or takeoff are clearly shown

by boundary or runway marker lights. If

the area to be used for takeoff or landing

is marked by flare pots or lanterns, their

use must be approved by the

Administrator.

77. Section 121.639 is amended by

revising the section heading and

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 121.639 Fuel supply: All domestic

operations.

* * * * *

(c) Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at

normal cruising fuel consumption or,

for certificate holders who are

authorized to conduct day VFR

operations in their operations

specifications and who are operating

nontransport category airplanes type

certificated after December 31, 1964, to

fly for 30 minutes at normal cruising

fuel consumption for day VFR

operations.

78. Section 121.643 is amended by

revising the section heading and

paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

§ 121.643 Fuel supply: Nonturbine and

turbo-propeller-powered airplanes;

supplemental operations.

(a) * * *

(3) Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at

normal cruising fuel consumption or,

for certificate holders who are

authorized to conduct day VFR

operations in their operations

specifications and who are operating

nontransport category airplanes type

certificated after December 31, 1964, to

fly for 30 minutes at normal cruising

fuel consumption for day VFR

operations.

* * * * *

79. Section 121.703 is amended in

paragraph (d) by removing the words

‘‘FAA Flight Standards District Office

charged with the overall inspection of

the certificate holder’’ and adding, in

their place, the words ‘‘certificateholding district office’’ and by revising

paragraphs (a)(12) and (f) to read as

follows:
65936 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

§ 121.703 Mechanical reliability reports.

(a) * * *

(12) An unwanted landing gear

extension or retraction, or an unwanted

opening or closing of landing gear doors

during flight;

* * * * *

(f) A certificate holder that is also the

holder of a Type Certificate (including

a Supplemental Type Certificate), a

Parts Manufacturer Approval, or a

Technical Standard Order

Authorization, or that is the licensee of

a type certificate holder, need not report

a failure, malfunction, or defect under

this section if the failure, malfunction,

or defect has been reported by it under

§ 21.3 of this chapter or under the

accident reporting provisions of 14 CFR

part 830.

* * * * *

80. Section 121.713 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 121.713 Retention of contracts and

amendments: Commercial operators who

conduct intrastate operations for

compensation or hire.

(a) Each commercial operator who

conducts intrastate operations for

compensation or hire shall keep a copy

of each written contract under which it

provides services as a commercial

operator for a period of at least 1 year

after the date of execution of the

contract. In the case of an oral contract,

it shall keep a memorandum stating its

elements, and of any amendments to it,

for a period of at least one year after the

execution of that contract or change.

(b) Each commercial operator who

conducts intrastate operations for

compensation or hire shall submit a

financial report for the first 6 months of

each fiscal year and another financial

report for each complete fiscal year. If

that person’s operating certificate is

suspended for more than 29 days, that

person shall submit a financial report as

of the last day of the month in which

the suspension is terminated. The report

required to be submitted by this section

shall be submitted within 60 days of the

last day of the period covered by the

report and must include—

(1) A balance sheet that shows assets,

liabilities, and net worth on the last day

of the reporting period;

(2) The information required by

§ 119.35 (g)(2), (g)(7), and (g)(8) of this

chapter;

(3) An itemization of claims in

litigation against the applicant, if any, as

of the last day of the period covered by

the report;

(4) A profit and loss statement with

the separation of items relating to the

applicant’s commercial operator

activities from his other business

activities, if any; and

(5) A list of each contract that gave

rise to operating income on the profit

and loss statement, including the names

and addresses of the contracting parties

and the nature, scope, date, and

duration of each contract.

§ 121.715 [Removed]

81. Section 121.715 is removed.

82. Appendix K is added to part 121

to read as follows:

Appendix K to Part 121—Performance

Requirements for Certain

Turbopropeller Powered Airplanes

1. Applicability. This appendix specifies

requirements for the following turbopropeller

powered airplanes that must comply with the

Airplane Performance Operating Limitations

in §§ 121.189 through 121.197:

a. After December 20, 2010, each airplane

manufactured before March 20, 1997 and

type certificated in the:

i. Normal category before July 1, 1970, and

meets special conditions issued by the

Administrator for airplanes intended for use

in operations under part 135 of this chapter.

ii. Normal category before July 19, 1970,

and meets the additional airworthiness

standards in SFAR No. 23 of 14 CFR part 23.

iii. Normal category, and complies with the

additional airworthiness standards in

appendix A of part 135 of this chapter.

iv. Normal category, and complies with

section 1.(a) or 1.(b) of SFAR No. 41 of 14

CFR part 21.

b. After March 20, 1997, each airplane:

i. Type certificated prior to March 29,

1995, in the commuter category.

ii. Manufactured on or after March 20,

1997, and that was type certificated in the

normal category, and complies with the

requirements described in paragraphs 1.a.i

through iii of this appendix.

2. Background. Sections 121.157 and

121.173(b) require that the airplanes operated

under this part and described in paragraph 1

of this appendix, comply with the Airplane

Performance Operating Limitations in

§§ 121.189 through 121.197. Airplanes

described in § 121.157(f) and paragraph 1.a of

this appendix must comply on and after

December 20, 2010. Airplanes described in

§ 121.157(e) and paragraph 1.b of this

appendix must comply on and after March

20, 1997. (Airplanes type certificated in the

normal category, and in accordance with

SFAR No. 41 of 14 CFR part 21, as described

in paragraph 1.a.iv of this appendix, may not

be produced after October 17, 1991.)

3. References. Unless otherwise specified,

references in this appendix to sections of part

23 of this chapter are to those sections of 14

CFR part 23, as amended by Amendment No.

23–45 (August 6, 1993, 58 FR 42156).

Performance

4. Interim Airplane Performance Operating

Limitations.

a. Until December 20, 2010, airplanes

described in paragraph 1.a of this appendix

may continue to comply with the

requirements in subpart I of part 135 and

§ 135.181(a)(2) of this chapter that apply to

small, nontransport category airplanes.

b. Until March 20, 1997, airplanes

described in paragraph 1.b.i of this appendix

may continue to comply with the

requirements in subpart I of part 135 of this

chapter that apply to commuter category

airplanes.

5. Final Airplane Performance Operating

Limitations.

a. Through an amended type certification

program or a supplemental type certification

program, each airplane described in

paragraph 1.a and 1.b.ii of this appendix

must be shown to comply with the commuter

category performance requirements specified

in this appendix, which are included in part

23 of this chapter. Each new revision to a

current airplane performance operating

limitation for an airplane that is or has been

demonstrated to comply, must also be

approved by the Administrator. An airplane

approved to the requirements of section 1.(b)

of SFAR No. 41 of 14 CFR part 21, as

described in paragraph 1.a.iv of this

appendix, and that has been demonstrated to

comply with the additional requirements of

section 4.(c) of SFAR No. 41 of 14 CFR part

21 and International Civil Aviation

Organization Annex 8 (available from the

FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20591), will be considered

to be in compliance with the commuter

category performance requirements.

b. Each turbopropeller powered airplane

subject to this appendix must be

demonstrated to comply with the airplane

performance operating limitation

requirements of this chapter specified as

follows:

i. Section 23.45 Performance General.

ii. Section 23.51 Takeoff.

iii. Section 23.53 Takeoff speeds.

iv. Section 23.55 Accelerate stop distance.

v. Section 23.57 Takeoff path.

vi. Section 23.59 Takeoff distance and

takeoff run.

vii. Section 23.61 Takeoff flight path.

viii. Section 23.65 Climb: All engines

operating.

ix. Section 23.67 Climb: one engine

inoperative.

x. Section 23.75 Landing.

xi. Section 23.77 Balked landing.

xii. Sections 23.1581 through 23.1589

Airplane flight manual and approved manual

material.

6. Operation. After compliance with the

final airplane performance operating

limitations requirements has been

demonstrated and added to the Airplane

Flight Manual performance data of the

affected airplane, that airplane must be

operated in accordance with the performance

limitations of §§ 121.189 through 121.197.

83. A new appendix L is added to part

121 to read as follows:

Appendix L to Part 121—Type

Certification Regulations Made

Previously Effective

Appendix L lists regulations in this part

that require compliance with standards

contained in superseded type certification

regulations that continue to apply to certain
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65937

transport category airplanes. The tables set

out citations to current CFR section,

applicable aircraft, superseded type

certification regulation and applicable time

periods, and the CFR edition and Federal

Register documents where the regulation

having prior effect is found. Copies of all

superseded regulations may be obtained at

the Federal Aviation Administration Law

Library, Room 924, 800 Independence

Avenue SW., Washington, DC.

Part 121 section Applicable aircraft Provisions: CFR/FR references

§ 121.312(a)(1)(i) ................ Transport category; or nontransport category type certificated before January 1, 1965; passenger capacity

of 20 or more; manufactured prior to August 20, 1990.

Heat release rate testing. 14 CFR 25.853(d) in effect

March 6, 1995: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of

January 1, 1995, and amended by Amdt 25–83, 60

FR 6623, February 2, 1995.

Formerly 14 CFR 25.853(a–1) in effect August 20,

1986: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January 1,

1986.

§ 121.312(a)(1)(ii) ............... Transport category; or nontransport category type certificated before January 1, 1965; passenger capacity

of 20 or more; manufactured after August 19, 1990.

Heat release rate and smoke testing. 14 CFR 25.853(d)

in effect March 6, 1995: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January 1, 1995, and amended by Amdt

25–83, 60 FR 6623, February 2, 1995.

Formerly 14 CFR 25.853(a–1) in effect September 26,

1988: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January 1,

1988, and amended by Amdt 25–66, 53 FR 32584,

August 25, 1988

§ 121.312(a)(2)(i) ................ Transport category; or nontransport category type certificate before January 1, 1965; application for type

certificate filed prior to May 1, 1972; substantially

complete replacement of cabin interior on or after

May 1, 1972.

Provisions of 14 CFR 25.853 in effect on April 30, 1972:

14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January 1, 1972.

§ 121.312(a)(3)(i) ................ Transport category type certificated after January 1,

1958; nontransport category type certificated after

January 1, 1958, but before January 1, 1965; passenger capacity of 20 or more; substantially complete

replacement of the cabin interior on or after March 6,

1995.

Heat release rate testing. 14 CFR 25.853(d) in effect

March 6, 1995: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of

January 1, 1995; and amended by Amdt 25–83, 60

FR 6623, February 2, 1995.

Formerly 14 CFR 25.853(a–1) in effect August 20,

1986: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January 1,

1986.

§ 121.312(a)(3)(ii) ............... Transport category type certificated after January 1,

1958; nontransport category type certificated after

January 1, 1958, but before January 1, 1965; passenger capacity of 20 or more; substantially complete

replacement of the cabin interior on or after August

20, 1990.

Heat release rate and smoke testing. 14 CFR 25.853(d)

in effect March 6, 1995; 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January 1, 1995; and amended by Amdt

25–83, 60 FR 6623, February 2, 1995.

Formerly 14 CFR § 25.853(a–1) in effect September 26,

1988: CFR, Title 14, Parts 1 to 59, Revised as of

January 1, 1988, and amended by Amdt 25–66, 53

FR 32584, August 25, 1988.

§ 121.312(b) (1) and (2) ..... Transport category airplane type certificated after January 1, 1958; Nontransport category airplane type certificated after December 31, 1964.Seat cushions. 14 CFR 25.853(c) effective on November 26, 1984: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of

January 1, 1984, and amended by Amdt 25–59, 49

FR 43188, October 26, 1984.

§ 121.312(c) ........................ Airplane type certificated in accordance with SFAR No.

41; maximum certificated takeoff weight in excess of

12,500 pounds.

Compartment interior requirements. 14 CFR 25.853(a)

in effect March 6, 1995: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59, Revised as of January 1, 1995, and amended by Amdt

25–83, 60 FR 6623, February 2, 1995.

Formerly 14 CFR 25.853(a), (b–1), (b–2), and (b–3) in

effect on September 26, 1978: 14 CFR parts 1 to 59,

Revised as of January 1, 1978.

PART 125—CERTIFICATION AND

OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A

SEATING CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE

PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM

PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 6,000

POUNDS OR MORE

84. The authority citation for part 125

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101,

40105, 40103, 44113, 44701–44705, 44707–

44714, 44716–44717, and 44722.

85. The heading for 14 CFR part 125

is revised as set forth above.

86. Paragraph (b)(4) of § 125.1 is

revised to read as follows:

§ 125.1 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) They are being operated under part

91 by an operator certificated to operate

those airplanes under the rules of parts

121, 135, or 137 of this chapter, they are

being operated under the applicable

rules of part 121 or part 135 of this

chapter by an applicant for a certificate

under part 119 of this chapter or they

are being operated by a foreign air

carrier or a foreign person engaged in

common carriage solely outside the

United States under part 91 of this

chapter; or

* * * * *

PART 127—CERTIFICATION AND

OPERATIONS OF SCHEDULED AIR

CARRIERS WITH HELICOPTERS

[REMOVED]

87. Part 127 is removed.

PART 135—OPERATING

REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND

ON-DEMAND OPERATIONS

88. The authority citation for part 135

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 44113, 44701,

44702, 44705, 44709, 44711–44713, 44715–

44717, 44722.

89. The heading for part 135 is revised

to read as set forth above.
65938 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

90. Section 135.1 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) and by removing

and reserving paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

§ 135.1 Applicability.

(a) This part prescribes rules

governing—

(1) The commuter or on-demand

operations of each person who holds or

is required to hold an Air Carrier

Certificate or Operating Certificate

under part 119 of this chapter.

(2) Each person employed or used by

a certificate holder conducting

operations under this part including the

maintenance, preventative maintenance

and alteration of an aircraft.

(3) The transportation of mail by

aircraft conducted under a postal

service contract awarded under 39

U.S.C. 5402c.

(4) Each person who applies for

provisional approval of an Advanced

Qualification Program curriculum,

curriculum segment, or portion of a

curriculum segment under SFAR No. 58

of 14 CFR part 121 and each person

employed or used by an air carrier or

commercial operator under this part to

perform training, qualification, or

evaluation functions under an

Advanced Qualification Program under

SFAR No. 58 of 14 CFR part 121.

(5) Nonstop sightseeing flights for

compensation or hire that begin and end

at the same airport, and are conducted

within a 25 statute mile radius of that

airport; however, except for operations

subject to SFAR 50–2, these operations,

when conducted for compensation or

hire, must comply only with §§ 135.249,

135.251, 135.253, 135.255, and 135.353.

(6) Each person who is on board an

aircraft being operated under this part.

(7) Each person who is an applicant

for an Air Carrier Certificate or an

Operating Certificate under 119 of this

chapter, when conducting proving tests.

* * * * *

91. Section 135.2 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 135.2 Compliance schedule for operators

that transition to part 121 of this chapter;

certain new entrant operators.

(a) Applicability. This section applies

to the following:

(1) Each certificate holder that was

issued an air carrier or operating

certificate and operations specifications

under the requirements of part 135 of

this chapter or under SFAR No. 38–2 of

14 CFR part 121 before January 19,

1996, and that conducts scheduled

passenger-carrying operations with:

(i) Nontransport category

turbopropeller powered airplanes type

certificated after December 31, 1964,

that have a passenger seat configuration

of 10–19 seats;

(ii) Transport category turbopropeller

powered airplanes that have a passenger

seat configuration of 20–30 seats; or

(iii) Turbojet engine powered

airplanes having a passenger seat

configuration of 1–30 seats.

(2) Each person who, after January 19,

1996, applies for or obtains an initial air

carrier or operating certificate and

operations specifications to conduct

scheduled passenger-carrying

operations in the kinds of airplanes

described in paragraphs (a)(1)(i),

(a)(1)(ii), or paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this

section.

(b) Obtaining operations

specifications. A certificate holder

described in paragraph (a)(1) of this

section may not, after March 20, 1997,

operate an airplane described in

paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), or

(a)(1)(iii) of this section in scheduled

passenger-carrying operations, unless it

obtains operations specifications to

conduct its scheduled operations under

part 121 of this chapter on or before

March 20, 1997.

(c) Regular or accelerated compliance.

Except as provided in paragraphs (d),

(e), and (i) of this section, each

certificate holder described in

paragraphs (a)(1) of this section shall

comply with each applicable

requirement of part 121 of this chapter

on and after March 20, 1997 or on and

after the date on which the certificate

holder is issued operations

specifications under this part,

whichever occurs first. Except as

provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of

this section, each person described in

paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall

comply with each applicable

requirement of part 121 of this chapter

on and after the date on which that

person is issued a certificate and

operations specifications under part 121

of this chapter.

(d) Delayed compliance dates. Unless

paragraph (e) of this section specifies an

earlier compliance date, no certificate

holder that is covered by paragraph (a)

of this section may operate an airplane

in 14 CFR part 121 operations on or

after a date listed in this paragraph

unless that airplane meets the

applicable requirement of this

paragraph:

(1) Nontransport category

turbopropeller powered airplanes type

certificated after December 31, 1964,

that have a passenger seating

configuration of 10–19 seats. No

certificate holder may operate under

this part an airplane that is described in

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section on or

after a date listed in paragraph (d)(1) (i),

(ii), and (iii) of this section unless that

airplane meets the applicable

requirement listed in paragraph (d)(1)

(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section:

(i) December 22, 1997:

(A) Section 121.289, Landing gear

aural warning.

(B) Section 121.308, Lavatory fire

protection.

(C) Section 121.310(e), Emergency

exit handle illumination.

(D) Section 121.337(b)(8), Protective

breathing equipment.

(E) Section 121.340, Emergency

flotation means.

(ii) December 20, 1999: Section

121.342, Pitot heat indication system.

(iii) December 20, 2010:

(A) For airplanes described in

§ 121.157(f), the Airplane Performance

Operating Limitations in §§ 121.189

through 121.197.

(B) Section 121.161(b), Ditching

approval.

(C) Section 121.305(j), Third attitude

indicator.

(D) Section 121.312(c), Passenger seat

cushion flammability.

(2) Transport category turbopropeller

powered airplanes that have a

passenger seat configuration of 20–30

seats. No certificate holder may operate

under this part an airplane that is

described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this

section on or after a date listed in this

paragraph (d) unless that airplane meets

the applicable requirement listed in this

paragraph (d):

(i) December 22, 1997:

(A) Section 121.308, Lavatory fire

protection.

(B) Section 121.337(b) (8) and (9),

Protective breathing equipment.

(C) Section 121.340, Emergency

flotation means.

(ii) December 20, 2010: Section

121.305(j), Third attitude indicator.

(e) Newly manufactured airplanes. No

certificate holder that is described in

paragraph (a) of this section may operate

under part 121 of this chapter an

airplane manufactured on or after a date

listed in this paragraph (e) unless that

airplane meets the applicable

requirement listed in this paragraph (e).

(1) For nontransport category

turbopropeller powered airplanes type

certificated after December 31, 1964,

that have a passenger seat configuration

of 10–19 seats:

(i) Manufactured on or after March 20,

1997:

(A) Section 121.305(j), Third attitude

indicator.

(B) Section 121.311(f), Safety belts

and shoulder harnesses.

(ii) Manufactured on or after

December 22, 1997: Section 121.317(a),

Fasten seat belt light.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65939

(iii) Manufactured on or after

December 20, 1999: Section 121.293,

Takeoff warning system.

(2) For transport category

turbopropeller powered airplanes that

have a passenger seat configuration of

20–30 seats manufactured on or after

March 20, 1997: Section 121.305(j),

Third attitude indicator.

(f) New type certification

requirements. No person may operate an

airplane for which the application for a

type certificate was filed after March 29,

1995, in 14 CFR part 121 operations

unless that airplane is type certificated

under part 25 of this chapter.

(g) Transition plan. Before March 19,

1996 each certificate holder described in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section must

submit to the FAA a transition plan

(containing a calendar of events) for

moving from conducting its scheduled

operations under the commuter

requirements of part 135 of this chapter

to the requirements for domestic or flag

operations under part 121 of this

chapter. Each transition plan must

contain details on the following:

(1) Plans for obtaining new operations

specifications authorizing domestic or

flag operations;

(2) Plans for being in compliance with

the applicable requirements of part 121

of this chapter on or before March 20,

1997; and

(3) Plans for complying with the

compliance date schedules contained in

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.

(h) Continuing requirements. Until

each certificate holder that is covered by

paragraph (a) of this section meets the

specific compliance dates listed in

paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section,

the certificate holder shall comply with

the applicable airplane and equipment

requirements of part 135 of this chapter.

(i) Delayed pilot age limitation. (1)

Notwithstanding § 121.383(c) of this

chapter, and except as provided in

paragraph (i)(2) of this section, a

certificate holder covered by paragraph

(a)(1) of this section may use the

services of a person as a pilot after that

person has reached his or her 60th

birthday, until December 20, 1999.

Notwithstanding § 121.383(c) of this

chapter, and except as provided in

paragraph (i)(2) of this section, a person

may serve as a pilot for a certificate

holder covered by paragraph (a)(1) of

this section after that person has

reached his or her 60th birthday, until

December 20, 1999.

(2) Paragraph (i)(1) applies only to

persons who were employed as pilots by

a certificate holder covered by

paragraph (a)(1) of this section on or

before March 20, 1997.

§§ 135.5, 135.9, 135.10, 135.11, 135.13,

135.15, and 135.17 [Removed]

92. Sections 135.5, 135.9, 135.11,

135.13, 135.15, and 135.17 are removed.

§ 135.7 [Amended]

93. Section 135.7 is amended by

removing ‘‘§ 135.5’’ wherever it appears

and adding in its place ‘‘part 119 of this

chapter’’.

§ 135.21 [Amended]

94. Section 135.21 (b) and (f) are

amended by removing ‘‘principal

operations base’’ and adding in its place

‘‘principal base of operations.’’

§ 135.23 [Amended]

95. Section 135.23(a) is amended by

removing the reference ‘‘§ 135.37(a)’’

and adding in its place ‘‘§ 119.69(a) of

this chapter’’.

§ 135.27, 135.29, 135.31, 135.33, 135.35,

135.37, and 135.39 [Removed]

96. Section 135.27, 135.29, 135.31,

135.33, 135.35, 135.37, and 135.39 are

removed.

97. Section 135.41 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 135.41 Carriage of narcotic drugs,

marihuana, and depressant or stimulant

drugs or substances.

If the holder of a certificate operating

under this part allows any aircraft

owned or leased by that holder to be

engaged in any operation that the

certificate holder knows to be in

violation of § 91.19(a) of this chapter,

that operation is a basis for suspending

or revoking the certificate.

§ 135.43 [Amended]

98. Section 135.43 is amended by:

a. Revising ‘‘FAA Flight Standards

District Office charged with the overall

inspection’’ in paragraph (b) to read

‘‘certificate-holding district office.’’

b. Revising ‘‘Flight Standards District

Office’’ in paragraph (c) to read

‘‘certificate-holding district office.’’

99. Section 135.64 is added to read as

follows:

§ 135.64 Retention of contracts and

amendments: Commercial operators who

conduct intrastate operations for

compensation or hire.

(a) Each commercial operator who

conducts intrastate operations for

compensation or hire shall keep a copy

of each written contract under which it

provides services as a commercial

operator for a period of at least one year

after the date of execution of the

contract. In the case of an oral contract,

it shall keep a memorandum stating its

elements, and of any amendments to it,

for a period of at least one year after the

execution of that contract or change.

(b) Each commercial operator who

conducts intrastate operations for

compensation or hire shall submit a

financial report for the first 6 months of

each fiscal year and another financial

report for each complete fiscal year. If

that person’s operating certificate is

suspended for more than 29 days, that

person shall submit a financial report as

of the last day of the month in which

the suspension is terminated. The report

required to be submitted by this section

shall be submitted within 60 days of the

last day of the period covered by the

report and must include—

(1) A balance sheet that shows assets,

liabilities, and net worth on the last day

of the reporting period;

(2) The information required by

§ 119.35 (h)(2), (h)(7), and (h)(8) of this

chapter;

(3) An itemization of claims in

litigation against the applicant, if any, as

of the last day of the period covered by

the report;

(4) A profit and loss statement with

the separation of items relating to the

applicant’s commercial operator

activities from his other business

activities, if any; and

(5) A list of each contract that gave

rise to operating income on the profit

and loss statement, including the names

and addresses of the contracting parties

and the nature, scope, date, and

duration of each contract.

§ 135.105 [Amended]

100. Section 135.105(a) is amended by

revising the phrase ‘‘by a Commuter Air

Carrier (as defined in § 298.2 of this

title) in passenger-carrying operations’’

to read ‘‘in a commuter operation, as

defined in part 119 of this chapter.’’

§ 135.165 [Amended]

101. Section 135.165(a) is amended by

revising the phrase ‘‘carrying passengers

as a Commuter Air Carrier’’ as defined

in part 298 of this title,’’ to read ‘‘in a

commuter operation, as defined in part

119 of this chapter.’’

102. Section 135.243(a) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 135.243 Pilot in command qualifications.

(a) No certificate holder may use a

person, nor may any person serve, as

pilot in command in passenger-carrying

operations—

(1) Of a turbojet airplane, of an

airplane having a passenger-seat

configuration, excluding each

crewmember seat, of 10 seats or more,

or of a multiengine airplane in a

commuter operation as defined in part

119 of this chapter, unless that person

holds an airline transport pilot

certificate with appropriate category and
65940 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

class ratings and, if required, an

appropriate type rating for that airplane.

(2) Of a helicopter in a scheduled

interstate air transportation operation by

an air carrier within the 48 contiguous

states unless that person holds an

airline transport pilot certificate,

appropriate type ratings, and an

instrument rating.

* * * * *

§ 135.244 [Amended]

103. Section 135.244(a) is amended by

revising the phrase ‘‘by a Commuter Air

Carrier (as defined in § 298.2 of this

title) in passenger-carrying operations’’

to read ‘‘in a commuter operation, as

defined in part 119 of this chapter.’’

Issued in Washington, D.C. on December

12, 1995.

Federico Pen ̃ a,

Secretary of Transportation.

David R. Hinson,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–30545 Filed 12–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 121 and 135

[Docket No. 27993; Amdt No. 121–250, 135–

57]

RIN 2120–AC79

Air Carrier and Commercial Operator

Training Programs

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends the

training and qualification requirements

for certain air carriers and commercial

operators by requiring certain certificate

holders operating under part 135, and

permitting certain others, to comply

with part 121 training, checking, and

qualification requirements, and

mandating Crew Resource Management

(CRM) training requirements for part

121 and 135 operators. The FAA is

amending these rules in order to make

certain part 135 training requirements as

comprehensive as part 121 requirements

and to incorporate recent knowledge

about human performance factors. The

rule also allows certain part 135

certificate holders to take advantage of

sophisticated aircraft simulator training

technologies presently available to part

121 certificate holders. By increasing

the training and qualification

requirements for certain operators, the

rule is intended to reduce the risk of

accidents and incidents. By mandating

CRM training for certificate holders

required to comply with part 121

training requirements, the rule is also

intended to reduce the number of

accidents and incidents that could be

attributed to a lack of crew

communication and coordination.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Larry Youngblut, Project

Development Branch (AFS–240), Air

Transportation Division, Flight

Standards Service, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591;

telephone (202) 267–8096.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of the Rule

Any person may obtain a copy of this

rule by submitting a request to the

Federal Aviation Administration, Office

of Public Affairs, Attention: Public

Inquiry Center (APA–230), 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling

(202) 267–3484. Requests must identify

the amendment number and title of this

rule.

Background

Parts 121 and 135 of Title 14 of the

code of Federal Regulations contain

rules that specify training program

requirements for air carriers and certain

commercial operators. Those rules

specify the qualification requirements of

crewmembers, flight and simulator

instructors, check airmen, aircraft

dispatchers, and other operations

personnel. The most detailed and

rigorous training and qualification

requirements are those contained in

subparts N and O of part 121. Although

subparts N and O have been amended

a number of times in recent years, most

of the amendments concern the use of

simulators, training devices, or specific

training requirements such as security

and the transportation of hazardous

materials. No comprehensive changes

have been made to these subparts since

December 1969.

The FAA’s most immediate concerns

regarding the training and qualification

regulations in part 121 and part 135 are

twofold. First, compared to part 121

training regulations, part 135 training

regulations do not provide a balanced

mix of training and checking. Part 121

training and qualification regulations

require both recurrent training as well

as recurrent flight checks. Although part

135 requires flight training, flight checks

can be repeatedly substituted for

required training. Second, current parts

121 and 135 training regulations do not

incorporate recent knowledge about the

significance of human performance

factors (e.g., communication, decisionmaking, leadership, management),

generally referred to as crew resource

management (CRM), in safe flight

operations.

In December, 1986, in response to a

safety recommendation from the

national Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB), the FAA specifically addressed

the human factors training issue by

initiating an aviation behavioral

technology program. This ongoing

program consists of projects that, among

other things, increase the use of line

operational simulations (LOS) i.e.

simulator training using a typical

operational passenger flight scenario, in

a controlled training environment

designed to improve cockpit/cabin

communication and coordination skills,

and pilot decision-making skills.

In June, 1988, the NTSB issued safety

recommendation A–88–71 concerning

CRM training, as a result of a Northwest

Airlines crash on August 16, 1987, in

which 148 passengers, 6 crewmembers,

and 2 people on the ground were killed.

The NTSB noted that both pilots had

received training only as individuals

and not as an integral part of the cockpit

crew during their last simulator training

and proficiency checks. The last CRM

training they had each received was 3.5

hours of ground school of general CRM

training in 1983. The NTSB implied that

the accident might have been prevented

had the flight crew received adequate

CRM training.

After soliciting ideas from other

government agencies and from the

aviation community, the FAA published

a proposed Special Federal Aviation

Regulation (SFAR) and an

accompanying draft advisory circular

(AC) in the Federal Register (54 FR

7670, February 22, 1989). These

documents proposed a voluntary,

alternative method of complying with

the training requirements in current

regulations. The voluntary alternative

training is called an ‘‘advanced

qualification program’’ (AQP). After

considering comments received, the

FAA issued a final SFAR 58, Advanced

Qualification Program, and an

accompanying Advisory Circular 120–

54 (55 FR 40262, October 2, 1990). This

voluntary program applies to certificate

holders operating under part 121 or part

135 that elect the alternative

requirements of AQP. The alternative

requirement includes CRM training and

evaluation, increased use of LOS, use of

training centers, and the evaluation of

flight training devices and flight

simulators.